Messages

1576

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: UK Newbie: A possible scam to be wary of

« on: March 18, 2012, 03:20:02 AM »

This is absolutely a scam by the Chinese. They know many Americans want to do business in China and this is their way of taking advantage of it.

When I was approached on that, I told them if someone wanted it that badly and assume the risk of name confusion, it was their risk because I owned the "master" domain having the .com version for many years. I also had the dominant position in search engines.

I told them they weren't too smart by going after an established name. I said even if I was doing business in China, I would still use my .com address, not some bullshit domain extension no one cares about.

I never heard from them again when I told them I didn't care about it and it was THEIR risk, not mine.

Matthew

What makes this scam more concerning (And maybe just a coincidence) is I received an email from a so called Chinese domain registrar called Yiguan Group prior to the Getty scam.  They claimed that they received a request from an individual wanting to register about ten variants to our domain name.  They suggested that if we wanted to protect our domain registrations, then we should register the variants with them (Obviously at a nice profit for them).

I’m not saying it is the case, but it could be that a Chinese company registers a similar domain name and put a copyright image on the website.  They notify Getty of this infringement and the victim company gets a letter claim.  Prior to all this, the victim company received an email mentioning an individual wanting to register variants of their domain name.  Do you take up the offer of registering the domains with this company?

1577

Legal Controversies Forum / Hollywood Extortion II: “Bachelor” Producers vs “Reality Steve” Lawsuit Followup

« on: March 14, 2012, 11:11:30 AM »

The original article was first posted here:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/hollywood-extortion-ii-bachelor-producers-vs-reality-steve-lawsuit-follow-up/

====================

It seems that no matter what I write, thoughts will hit me AFTER I finish writing a post. That is the case with my previous post “Bachelor” TV Producers Extortion Lawsuit Against “Reality Steve”. And here I am, writing a follow-up to get it out of my system. As was the case with the last post, I am not a lawyer but I have self-represented myself in a number of legal matters and I know just enough to be dangerous. That is my disclaimer.

It has been stunning to me the superficial coverage given to the “Reality Steve” lawsuit given his huge readership and the amount of coverage by the entertainment/tabloid websites. So much focus has been given to Carbone’s alleged emails and the “juicy” gossip angle of Carbone allegedly offering money in exchange for information in an industry that does this as a matter of course. But almost nothing about the larger and more serious ramifications of this lawsuit.

It is quite apparent with the entertainment/tabloid reporting I see, there is ZERO discussion on what the truly important fundamental issues are.  The issue of freedom of speech, free press, reporters privilege, and his right to engage in free, open speech, and free reporting is at stake here.  The legalities and circumstances of this case is of public interest and there is no question that Carbone is a victim of heavy-handed “Hollywood extortion”.  For years, media companies of all kinds have continued their extortionate, bullying assault and tactics on individuals. (Righthaven lawsuits, P2P/Bittorrent lawsuits,  RIAA lawsuits, etc.) This one is no different.

There are the plaintiff arguments of “continued interference” designed to squelch Carbone into silence by grinding him away on the defense legal fees. But there have been no direct evidence or even claims of direct evidence I can see that Carbone was ever successful in his attempts. The alternative “victory” the “Bachelor” producers are looking for is to force Carbone to give up his confidential sources which is a clear violation of his reporters privilege.

Carbone is very much a Hollywood outsider messing up the Hollywood “natural order” where everyone falls into line within that monolithic industry. Carbone has uprooted the entertainment reporting/tabloid industry by showing everyone that a single individual can make a HUGE difference and he is making up his own rules as he goes.

If I were to accept Carbone’s claims as fact regarding the last few years of receiving spoiler information, it appears that Carbone has accidentally tapped into the power of Internet crowdsourcing. From Wikipedia, “Crowdsourcing is a distributed problem-solving and production process that involves outsourcing tasks to a network of people, also known as the crowd. This process can occur both online and offline. The difference between crowdsourcing and ordinary outsourcing is that a task or problem is outsourced to an undefined public rather than a specific other body.”

In simple terms, Carbone’s huge readership acts as his eyes and ears and does a lot of the footwork for him gathering information, emailing it to him. He organizes, corroborates, and comments on information to the best of his abilities. He knows his reputation is at stake and there is no incentive to get it wrong. To people’s amazement, he has foot-soldier fans that do this “work” happily, freely, voluntarily, and anonymously. They do this because they believe in Carbone’s stated cause and mission: spoiling and making fun of the “Bachelor Series” reality shows.

Hollywood with its dictatorial power structure gets power comes from strict organizational hierarchy by appealing to people’s inherent desires of greed, fame, and fortune with the nice insurance policy of heavy-handed confidentiality agreements. Because of the enormous wealth, fame, and fortune that Hollywood can bestow, no Hollywood attorney is going to beat down Carbone’s door to represent his relatively small, blogging interests. In fact, even if Carbone offered to pay money, it wouldn’t be enough for most Hollywood lawyers because it would be political and financial suicide to undercut the Hollywood entertainment machine.

On the opposite end, Carbone with relatively little help, guidance, and legal representation, despite his sarcastic “Reality Steve” persona, gets his primary power by appealing to and entertaining his readership and tapping into the crowdsourcing phenomenon.  He is the figurehead that people look to fulfill the mission and they are more than willing to help him do it. There is the inner gratification of being a team player in a community for a person they like and respect.  I consider myself a faceless reader that decided to do something more than sit on the sidelines watching him get slowly and silently tortured by the legal process while the lawyers profit from this.

The reason why I can comfortably claim crowdsourcing is that ELI is a beneficiary of this phenomenon. People email me nearly every day about their extortion letter cases. All that collective information gives me an insight most individuals don’t have and allows me to be a strong advocate and figurehead for them.  I take this role seriously and not abuse that privilege. In other “amateur” investigations I previously led, all kinds of people approached me through email and phone calls with their “secret” information. It’s amazing the information you get and what people will tell you if you are a figurehead of a cause and promise and respect confidentiality.

Hence, it’s irrational to think that with such an open, on-location, continent-jumping production as the “Bachelor” shows that bystanders and fans would not get wind of which show participants are left standing and tell Carbone about it. Ben Flajnik’s season was clear evidence of this. Let’s face it, people will innocently gossip that will make its way outwards.  It is also irrational to think that Carbone doesn’t have access to thousands of foot-soldier fans volunteering to be his eyes and ears.  Someone should go check out his incredible Alexa ratings. Don’t take my word for it regarding the Reality Steve traffic.

Quite simply, what “The Bachelor” producers are doing is trying to destroy this Internet crowdsourcing effort that Carbone harnessed whose simple mission is to find out what happens next on the “Bachelor Series” reality shows.

As a fan of superhero and science-fiction movies where secrecy is the norm and paramount (no pun intended), NONE of the movie production companies seem to sue bloggers even those that spoil the movies. Witness the recent photo leaks of Star Trek 2. The producers led by JJ Abrams are upset but they don’t seem to be on a rampage to go suing someone. You know why?  It isn’t smart, they aren’t that insecure, and know that it is based on LOVE and PASSION of the movie, not hatred.  In fact, owners of the Star Trek franchise have gone out of their way to embrace bloggers who talk about them and intentionally “leak” information to them. There is a peaceful co-existence. Contrast that to how Carbone is being vilified and attacked. How insecure, childish, and short-sighted the producers are.

It is also plain bad PR to sue one of your largest readership and fans just because you don’t like the way they express their opinions.  A casual visit to RealitySteve.com shows that even his harshest critics read and visit his site.  That says something when even haters feel compelled to tune in and comment to Carbone’s online musings. Just like Carbone says in his blog, the Bachelor shows may get trashed all the time but, guess what? They get the viewership anyway.  Yes, even Carbone’s viewership when he does his reviews.  In many ways, Carbone is probably the singular most powerful blog marketing machine for the “Bachelor” reality shows but the producers but are too dumb and short-sighted to see this. They cannot see “Reality Steve” for what it is: another entertainment reporting/tabloid outlet with a very loyal and niched following.  Most people and businesses would kill to tap into that readership but the not the producers.  Because they are so wonderfully smart and insightful.  They are even smarter than the producers of the movie franchises.

I was talking to a lawyer friend about the worst-case scenario for Carbone. From what little I know of Carbone (I have never met or spoken to the man only what he shares on his entertainment site), Carbone doesn’t strike me as a wealthy guy.  He is middle-class guy with maybe some savings in a retirement account and maybe a few bucks for a rainy day.  Assuming Carbone did lose, what does that truly mean?  If “Bachelor” producers score a court win, how does that translate into reality? (no pun intended). I took the time to revisit the original legal complaint and played a “what if” game if Carbone lost on ALL counts.

Certainly, it would send a chilling message and legal precedent to others who want to be in the spoiling (behind-the-scenes entertainment reporting) business.  But then, the “Bachelor” producers would also kill off one of their best and largest “Bachelor” blog marketing machines on the Internet.  Do they truly care about legal precedent or keep the “Bachelor” franchise going?  My guess is that franchise is more important.  The aftermath would certainly send ripples of negative publicity of their “winning victory” over one-man show and clear underdog Carbone.

Every season of the “Bachelor Series” shows, going forward, would inevitably be tainted by gossip of how the “Bachelor” producers killed off and squashed Reality Steve with their extortion and bullying tactics.  And I guarantee you, all the tabloids would pick up the story.  This would probably be a case study discussed for years to come in journalism and law classrooms.  It would be a marketing and PR case example of what NOT to do with the biggest blogger of your fan base. The blogging community would be up in arms about one of their own being brought to financial ruin and silenced by “Hollywood extortionists” who had so poor organizational management skills to contain their own show production.

Although I have never met or spoken with Carbone, I very much consider Carbone a kindred spirit as a blogger. Certainly, his online reach and stature is far greater than mine, but we are fellow bloggers and entrepreneurs who use the power of the Internet to serve others. I inform and educate. Carbone in the entertainment business.

Let’s say “Bachelor” producers won a monetary judgment of anywhere between $1 to $40,000, Carbone could probably pay this off and retain his ability to freely speak out (which is very important).  $40,000 is the price of a luxury car. He could pay this off within a few years assuming he even bothered to cooperate. A monetary judgment would ding his credit but he can join the other millions of people who had their credit dinged living through the recession. If Carbone doesn’t have real estate, that judgment just sits out there without an asset to stick to. Retirement accounts can’t be touched, only accounts in his personal name and Reality Steve LLC could be.

If Carbone does have real estate, the judgment might stick to his property but it would only be an issue if he ever decided to sell the property. If there was equity in the home, he could use that to payoff some or all of the judgment. If there was none, then we have another upside down house on the market to walk away from.

If the monetary judgment including punitive damages and legal fees were $50,000 and higher, it would be a tough call for Carbone whether he would consider bankruptcy.  If it were me, I would seriously consider filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy and clear the financial deck including his credit cards and any other outstanding debts he might have.  As an entrepreneur, you have to be prepared to win some and lose some.  It is all a matter of degree. There is little shame nowadays in bankruptcy given the circumstances and he would simply be another statistic in this massive recession. He could turn a bad situation into one that actually benefited him by disposing any consumer debts.

The injunction the plaintiffs desperately want is probably going to be the easiest part. Carbone doesn’t have to lose the lawsuit to comply. There is no incentive for him to have anything to do with the “Bachelor” shows and he can freely talk about his “loss”. Having a court mandate an injunction is a non-issue.

A win by the plaintiff would probably put Carbone out of business and Reality Steve LLC would become a shell company devoid of any assets.  Most small, closely-held corporate entities don’t hold much assets in them. They are mostly a business front and tax-saving mechanism, not an asset-holding entity.  Certainly, not the visible ones anyway.

So, in my view, even if the “Bachelor” producers win, they could still lose in so many ways. How do I know this? I have won a number of judgments over the years and they didn’t weren’t worth much more than the paper they were printed on because you cannot squeeze blood or collect from a rock.  Or if that rock decides to stubbornly burrow underground out of sight, it becomes an unpleasant exercise to collect. Garnishments can be very difficult against self-employed entrepreneurs especially when they work for themselves and have the freedom and ability to move money at a moments notice.

Quite frankly, the “Bachelor” producers aren’t in this lawsuit for the money at all.  That is only a big sledgehammer to hold over Carbone’s head. They want to squeeze him so that he will relinquish his reporters privileges and reveal his sources. They would like for Carbone to give up his Fifth Amendment rights and say something (squeal) that will damage and incriminate himself. They want to subvert his reporting at nearly all costs even if it tramples his First Amendment rights.  Obviously, I am not an attorney of any kind but that sounds very similar to what a SLAPP lawsuit is all about.

There is no question that there are Reality Steve critics and naysayers. But I would venture to say that, by and large, most of his readership are moderate people such as myself who simply enjoy the entertainment provided by Carbone through the “Reality Steve” persona. And most of them really dislike the Goliath vs. David fight. It is disgusting and distasteful to watch. That is the reason why the court docket bears watching and monitoring and the complaint bears reading. Unlike most reporters who don’t know how to interpret the docket, I am following that docket closely.

I know there is little money and little excitement to actually look at the legalities of this very important and potentially precedent-setting case but I think it’s important for people to know there are wider implications. If they can do this to Carbone, who else can they do this to?

The freedom for an individual blogger to exercise his right to free speech and become a member of the free press, if he chooses to, is at stake. Somehow, the plaintiffs are painting themselves as these helpless victims who cannot control their own show participants and Carbone is being vilified as a person who allegedly influenced and paid money for information.  The show participants could have easily said no and delete any alleged emails and messages from Carbone. Where is the personal responsibility in all this? Why is all the blame being laid at Carbone’s feet? His biggest crime is simply being too good at his job.

This post has gotten long and I think I am done with the legal arguments/analysis for now.

But I want to do an outtake post “What I Would Do If I was Steve Carbone”. I think he and other bully victims need to pay attention.

1578

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation: Court Declares Newspaper Excerpt on Online Forum

« on: March 11, 2012, 09:23:21 PM »

What a crushing article on Righthaven. We get to thank Righthaven for helping set precedents so that other copyright trolls don't pull the same crap.

1579

Legal Controversies Forum / “Bachelor” Producers Extortion Lawsuit Against “Reality Steve”

« on: March 11, 2012, 05:49:04 PM »

The original article with live links is here.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/abc-bachelor-producers-extortion-against-reality-steve/

In a case of “Hollywood Extortion”, the producers and distributors of the hit ABC TV reality shows “The Bachelor”, “The Bachelorette”, and “Bachelor Pad” filed a heavy-handed, extortionate lawsuit against Reality Steve blogger, Stephen Carbone of Texas on December 6, 2011. That lawsuit is named: NZK Productions et al vs. Stephen Carbone et al. I refer to it as the “Bachelor” producers vs. Reality Steve lawsuit.

As our regular readers know, ELI primarily focuses on defending against stock photo extortion letters. Because of my own personal interest in nearly all things media, ELI began following other forms of extortion by media-related companies such as Righthaven (newspaper industry). In the normal course of online discussions, past extortion tactics such as the RIAA lawsuits and P2P lawsuits also entered the conversation.

This case of Hollywood extortion came to my attention by virtue of Stephen Carbone’s repeated references to his lawsuit on his blog and website, RealitySteve.com. Like millions of other viewers, I am an occasional viewer of “The Bachelor Series” of reality shows including “The Bachelor”, “The Bachelorette”, and “Bachelor Pad”. (Don’t give me grief over this, please.)

My curiosity finally got better of me and I decided to dig further into this with PACER along with the RECAP Firefox add-in tool. Steve was helpful with his blog reference “check the public records of the Western Division of California Federal Court from Dec. 7th“. I did exactly that and found his lawsuit using Justia.com except the filing date is listed as December 6, 2011. (Small detail, I easily found it. He was off by 1 day.)

RECAP is a helpful tool to determine if someone else has previous downloaded a particular document in PACER using the RECAP tool. The only thing I saw that was downloaded that was recorded by RECAP was the docket. Interestingly, the Complaint was unrecorded by RECAP. So, I spent the $1.12 to see the complaint myself. (You can thank me for that little contribution to RECAP.)

The lawsuit lists NZK Productions Inc. (formed in CA 8/12/2009) and Horizon Alternative Television Inc. (registered in CA 7/11/2006 , formed in DE 6/19/2006) as plaintiffs. The Hollywood Reporter article from December 7, 2011 initially reported that the plaintiffs of the Reality Steve lawsuit are the producers of the reality shows, “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette”. However, the lawsuit further reveals that the plaintiffs are producers and distributors of all three “Bachelor Series” reality shows: “The Bachelor”, “The Bachelorette”, and “Bachelor Pad” airing on the ABC Network.

The lawsuit lists Stephen Carbone (individually), Reality Steve LLC, and Does (1 through 10) as the defendants. The February 24, 2012 docket entry reveals the members of Reality Steve LLC to be Stephen Carbone and Yea! Networks LLC (a single-member LLC whose sole member’s names is yet unknown).  The plaintiffs allow for Does (1 through 10) in the event there are more unknown parties related to this case.

The lawsuit claims that there is “diversity of citizenship” which means that the parties reside in multiple states which would require escalation of the matter to Federal court and remove it from State court. The plaintiff claims in the lawsuit that the matter exceeds $75,000 not including interest, costs, and attorney fees.

On Carbone’s popular blog and website, RealitySteve.com, Carbone has long claimed that show participants and show production employees are required to sign confidentiality agreements preventing them from publicly sharing information of the internal workings and production of the show as well as event outcomes. For the last few years, Carbone regularly posts spoilers (allegedly provided by his private sources), news, editorials, and commentary on the “Bachelor Series” reality shows.

Based on Carbone’s blog comments, RealitySteve.com has long been a thorn in the ABC Networks and “Bachelor” producers’ sides because of the relentless, ongoing and especially accurate nature of his spoilers reporting. Further beyond the spoilers themselves, Carbone regularly uncovers and reports many aspects of the secret inner workings of the show to the delight and entertainment of his fans and readership.

In my reading of the lawsuit allegations against Carbone and Reality Steve, it would appear that Carbone contacted various contestants via email and Facebook and offered monetary compensation for information he could not freely attain. The allegations contend that Carbone was issued written warnings on August 12, 2011 and November 22, 2011 before the lawsuit was ultimately filed on December 6, 2011.

What the plaintiffs are seeking through this lawsuit, is an amount greater than $75,000, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs, and an injunction (essentially a cease-and-desist order) on Carbone and Reality Steve from “interfering with Plaintiffs contracts with participants and employees of the Bachelor series…by soliciting non-public information from participants and employees regarding events that transpire…prior to their broadcast and by offering monetary inducements to participants and employees to disclose such information.”

In reading this lawsuit, there is no question in my mind that the “Bachelor” producers have gone out of their way to put a stomping on their hated mosquito, Carbone. They are indirectly trying to stop and silence the ongoing insider and spoiler reporting and commentary Carbone regularly provides on RealitySteve by claiming “continuing interference”.

In reading a few of Carbone’s comments about the “Bachelor” lawsuit against him, Carbone is not supposed to openly comment on the specifics of his case presumably not to make matters worse for himself by directly or indirectly admitting that he made efforts to contact participants and employees.

But the fact of the matter is even if everything the plaintiffs claim of Carbone is true, so what?  What Carbone does with RealitySteve.com is in the same entertainment reporting/tabloid genre as TMZ, PerezHilton, US Magazine, People, National Enquirer, Star Magazine, x17Online, and Eonline.. They all dig for dirt, inside information, and yes (gasp!) they pay for it when they can’t get the juicy information for free.

Why aren’t they being sued? One reason is that Carbone is actually too good at what he does. If most of his spoilers and inside information were inaccurate, the “Bachelor” producers would simply laugh Carbone off as another kooky blogger. But the fact that they filed a lawsuit against him is very telling. Carbone is very good at what he does.

The other reason why they are suing Carbone is that he is an easy target. Carbone is a one-man entertainment tabloid reporter who accidentally found a very successful (and perhaps profitable) niche in entertainment reporting focusing on the “Bachelor” reality shows. Because he is largely a one-man operation and not a traditional news reporting organization, that makes him financially vulnerable to ongoing legal fees.

Carbone’s lawyer needs to step up his game here.  This is a Goliath vs. David fight where the “Bachelor” producers are clearly the big bullies and Carbone is essentially the little, lone David. Someone needs to get the word out here. If I were Carbone, I would be rallying his supporters for the possibility of a legal fight where he might need reader donations for legal funds. Don’t be too proud to ask for help against a much larger, deep-pocketed foe. Get the court of public opinion on your side. This is where his huge readership can come in to help. There might be some smart lawyers amongst them. Ask them if they are willing to help.

I would also contact the folks at EFF. This is the type of high-profile case they would be interested in where a big, bad TV production company tries to stomp on, put a squashing, and otherwise step on the reporting rights of an individual blogger. This case is just ripe for publicity of a yet another large media operation bullying and stepping on the rights of Internet freedom for individuals.

No one in Hollywood will stand up for Carbone because he is clearly outside of the Hollywood system. For someone to stand up for Carbone, would probably mean being blacklisted in Hollywood. The “Bachelor” participants who reported these emails seemed to be pandering to the “Bachelor” producers. I find it difficult to believe they couldn’t block Carbone’s email address or Facebook account if his messages were truly unwelcome.

The lawsuit included some sample messages Carbone allegedly sent. The messages and monetary offers Carbone allegedly sent were often light-hearted, humorous, and certainly non-threatening. Quite frankly, those messages are entirely congruent with his online persona. There is nothing remotely illegal about what Carbone allegedly did in his communications.

I find it interesting that these super-powered, Hollywood lawyers who wrote these supposedly iron-clad contracts and confidentiality agreements would be so afraid and threatened by a lone Texas blogger that gives additional visibility and publicity to that show.

I find the plaintiff allegations laughable to say that what Carbone allegedly did is “unfair and illegal conduct” with his “continuing interference”. How is it “unfair”?  That makes it sound like Carbone has more power and influence over the “Bachelor” participants and employees than its producers and that the producers are at Carbone’s mercy. Give me a freaking break.

Since when did it ever become illegal to send someone a personal email or Facebook message? Carbone might have done it more than once to different participants but it didn’t sound like he ran a spamming campaign and no one is accusing him of harassment. He might be offering bribes for inside information but he is not any more guilty than any other entertainment/tabloid reporting publication.

And what about this “continuing interference” nonsense? How is he “interfering” with show operations? From what I can tell, Carbone does most of his Reality Steve work from the comfort of his home in Texas using an ordinary computer to write his blogs and electronically communicate with his information sources and readership community. It isn’t like Carbone is anywhere near Los Angeles (or any other locale) that the show films stalking “Bachelor” participants or employees and offering bribes.

And even if Carbone is offering money in exchange for inside information, isn’t that one of the reasons why the “Bachelor” producers make their participants and employees sign heavy-handed contracts with precise, well-worded confidentiality clauses in their agreements? I am absolutely certain these contracts and agreements cover the consequences of breaking a confidentiality agreement. It falls upon the show participants and employees to uphold their end of the agreement, not Carbone. And what Carbone allegedly did comes nowhere close to entrapping anyone. How hard is it to say no and decline an email or Facebook message offer? It is only one delete-button or delete-click away.

The entertainment reporting/tabloid industry as a matter of course persistently and aggressively looks for news to entertain and feed its readership. And if they have to pay to entice potential informants and information sources to share their information, they will do it. It is perfectly legal and well-accepted in the entertainment reporting/tabloid industry that Carbone and RealitySteve.com clearly works in.

I know some might scream entrapment. The only thing Carbone allegedly offers is payment for information. How many times have we heard of sting operations where female police officers wear provocative, sexy clothing to lure unsuspecting victims to solicit prostitution to bust them? What Carbone does is far more tamer and less intrusive than the above scenario.

If the show participants and employees were bothered by it, they can simply block or delete Carbone’s messages. It isn’t difficult in Facebook or most email programs. There is no indication or allegation that Carbone harassed anyone.  From what I can see, the “Bachelor” producers have it in for Carbone and this is their excuse to make a legal move on him.

The lawsuit alleges “injury to Plaintiffs reputation and goodwill…with ABC and other television show distributors who must rely on Plaintiffs to ensure that their shows’ contents are not “spoiled” by pre-broadcast disclosure.” What this tells me is that the “Bachelor” producers is filing this lawsuit, in part, to make themselves look good in front of ABC and the other TV show distributors. The fact that the “Bachelor” operations cannot keep secrets season after season is an internal organizational matter. It comes down to poor management. They are embarrassed that other TV productions of much larger shows can keep secrets but they keep failing miserably season after season all because of one lone entertainment reporter/blogger. This is a CYA effort in a huge way.

If they don’t like the “Bachelor” secrets getting out, then they better have better security or start filming the show in closed sets. How about getting better management, do a better job, increase security, and run a tighter ship?  To make Carbone their scapegoat is simply pathetic and embarrassing.

What Carbone needs to seriously consider is to file a countersuit against the “Bachelor” producers. They started the fight and he has been put in a defensive position. Well, he should take a page out of the Righthaven lawsuits and countersue for punitive damages, costs, and attorney fees also. And for gosh sake, contact EFF immediately and get their feedback!  This will send a strong message to Hollywood and other abusive media companies from engaging in extortionistic tactics against small individuals to get their way.

This is clearly a frivolous SLAPP lawsuit designed to bully and extort Carbone into silence and submission. RealitySteve.com is part of the free press and he has the rights of free and open reporting and freedom of expression on his side. And everyone needs to know about this. If this can happen to him as a blogger, it can happen to anyone of us.

The best way the ordinary person can help Carbone is to create publicity and awareness of his plight. Right now, this story has been relegated to Hollywood circles. They don’t care about him and they won’t help him.  But the blogging community should care. For far too long, big media has tried to control what we watch, hear, and know. Big media has consistently attempted to keep the power away from individuals. Stephen Carbone is one of us bloggers. Please spread the word and link to this blog post, the lawsuit, and give Steve a word of encouragement. If you are a lawyer with a blog that wants to help an underdog, please comment and provide legal insights on this case. I will make sure your blog gets attention. Let’s help equalize the fight by giving Steve some legal ammunition and guidance to work with.

Last thing, for the conspiracy theorists, I don’t know Steve Carbone and have never met him. I have never communicated with him and he has no knowledge of this blog post. I wrote this blog post simply because as a fellow blogger, I am incensed. I know something about fighting back and one of those ways is getting the word out online which is what I know how to do.

1580

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Website Traffic Statistics Trivia

« on: March 09, 2012, 05:54:44 AM »

* The highest recorded unique visitors was in February 2012 with 11,900+ unique visitors. A new record. This is especially impressive given that February only had 29 days. It looks like will crack 12,000 unique visitors later in 2012.

* Our single highest daily unique visitor count was February 15, 2012 with 1,075 unique visitors. A new record.

* In February 2012, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday were the most popular days with over 29,000 hits each of those days by ELI visitors

* In February 2012, 70% of ELI visitors do so from direct connections. (We have a large base of repeat visitors.) The other 30% find us through search engines, mostly through Google.

* An estimated 1,300+ letter recipients worldwide have listened or watched our informational audios and videos since we launched in 2008.

1581

Getty Images Letter Forum / 2012 Update/Expansion to Attorney Oscar Michelen's Defense Letter Program

« on: March 09, 2012, 03:07:18 AM »

This is a follow-up to the announcement of recent changes being made to Attorney Oscar Michelen's Defense Letter Program for stock photo extortion letter recipients.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/changes-coming-to-oscar-michelen%27s-defense-letter-program/

I am happy to announce the 2012 Update & Expansion of Attorney Oscar Michelen's Defense Letter Program. The has taken two weeks of back and forth of coordinated discussions between myself, Oscar, and his office manager, Susan to ensure the various pieces came together correctly.

Oscar and Susan have streamlined their law office operations to better accommodate and more efficiently process a larger volume of extortion letters, but more importantly, frees Oscar's time to address higher priority issues and tasks.  We have implemented a special new email address to Oscar's office: [email protected].  That special email address will be monitored by Oscar, Susan, and staff members: Jonathon and Jeffrey. Even if Oscar is away for court, vacation,  illness, or simply out of the office for any reason, you can expect Susan, Jonathon, and Jeffrey to provide prompt service, response, and attention to clients of the Defense Letter Program.

Oscar will continue to personally represent each client, oversee the service operation, and monitor messages and submissions to that email address. However, Oscar will no longer be distracted and burdened by "tire-kickers", and other people who take his time away from servicing actual clients in the Defense Letter Program. His staff members will handle enrollment and answer questions about the Defense Letter Program.

As has always been the case, Oscar will continue to freely support the larger community through the sharing of his legal opinions and commentary on the ELI Forums, ELI update videos, and ELI Blog Articles. The Defense Letter Program is Oscar's flagship program for those who want or need legal representation against extortion letters. With a track record of several hundred Defense Letter clients since 2008, there is no lawyer in the U.S. who has seen more stock photo extortion letters and represented more stock photo extortion clients than he has. Period.

ELI will continue to be an integral component in providing an ongoing platform and communication channel for Oscar's Defense Letter Program. I, as founder, editor, and lead member of ELI , continue to endorse Oscar Michelen's Defense Letter Program.  Because I have been part of the ongoing dialog with Oscar and office manager, Susan where I have a direct line of communication to both of them, I can enthusiastically endorse and advocate the Defense Letter Program for people who need or want legal representation in extortion letter matters.

One of the ongoing goals of the Defense Letter Program is to efficiently serve many people as cost-effectively as possible. Because of Oscar's extensive experience gained from the last 4 years of representing stock photo extortion letter clients, I am happy to announce, on Oscar's behalf, the Expansion of the Defense Letter Program to include legal representation against the following extortion letters:

* Getty Images Settlement Demand Letters
* Masterfile Settlement Demand Letters
* Superstock Settlement Demand Letters
* Corbis Settlement Demand Letters
* Hawaiian Art Network Settlement Demand Letters

Because of Oscar's efficiency and extensive experience in providing legal representation against extortion letters, he can bypass traditional lawyer hourly fees. This is especially significant value here because Oscar typically bills his New York clients $450 per hour!

The pricing for the ever-popular Getty Images Defense Letter Program remains the same at $195.00 U.S. Dollars. Below is the pricing for the various Defense Letter Programs.

* Getty Images Defense Letter Program: $195.00 USD
* Corbis Defense Letter Program: $225.00 USD
* Hawaiian Art Network Defense Letter Program: $225.00 USD
* Masterfile Defense Letter Program: $250.00 USD
* Superstock Defense Letter Program: $250.00 USD
* Other Stock Photo Defense Letters:  $250.00-$295.00 USD (Depends on time & complexity)

As always, we never do the hard sell. The quality of service and overall value speaks volumes for itself.  The program is here for anyone that wants to take advantage of it.

1582

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 08, 2012, 10:42:24 PM »

From my limited experience, it isn't hard to get criticized on the FSB forums (UK forum).  Heck, I frequently get criticized for one reason or another in some aspect of my various business activities.  It is what it is when you push the envelope like I do.

Nick is being given "safe haven" so I can find out more. I don't expect that Nick's involvement will change much of anything we already have in place.  If anything, he would add a component and dimension we don't already have. Essentially, filling in a vacuum.

It's no secret I am the "marketing guy" for Oscar when it comes to people needing legal help for extortion letters. I voluntarily did that from very early on. But it's not like he took out an ad for the yellow pages here. I like Oscar and trust him. We work well together and make a good team. It's easy for me to "market" Oscar for so many reasons. The fact that he trusts me with his name and online reputation is flattering.  Let's face it, ELI got to where it's at today by my adopting some marketing principles. So, it's no crime to market for someone else.  The true issue is WHY?

I predict the answers and more are forthcoming when the time is right.

I found a posting wherein Nick said that he worked on Liz Ward's website.
I'm not sure if he volunteered, traded, or bartered, though.

"This time when I scoured the web I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk and contacted them as a solicitor was involved. I then went to meet them and got involved with the fight by working on their website and we have now produced a short video by the solicitor Liz Ward who is a specialist in the field."
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm

Sounds to me as if he's been criticized on the UK forum previously.
But, Matt's offering him some "safe haven" here so to speak... so we'll see how all this affects ELI going forward.

At this point, I'm convinced that Nick is Liz Ward's "marketing guy".
Paid, or unpaid, it doesn't really matter.

1583

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Canadian Advice

« on: March 08, 2012, 10:25:20 PM »

I encourage people to post even if they are outside the U.S.  You never know who might step up to answer questions or provide direction and guidance for your case.

I am also in Canada. I guess I was lucky because I received a letter from Getty U.S.A. and not Getty Canada. Oscar was able to help me out, and saved me a great deal of heartache.
Sorry, I am of no help. When I was searching for information, there really wasn't anything out there for canadians.
Good luck on your quest. If you find something, don't forget to post it on these forums so future canadians might benefit from your research.

bernice

1584

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 08, 2012, 12:55:52 PM »

Both Nick and I recognize that there are many visitors from outside the U.S. not sufficiently helped.  The UK audience is one of those large audiences. I am especially concerned about the letter recipients in Canada and the U.K. not being served in any meaningful way. Because the leadership of ELI and most of the expertise we have are nearly all U.S. based.

I am going out of my way to communicate with Nick so we can compare notes and I can have a better understanding of his intentions and his plans. 

For the record, according to Nick, the copyrightinfringement.org.uk website is not even owned by him and he is entirely a volunteer who (like me) years ago just contributes his time when he can referring people to his solicitor. Incidentally, he is also a extortion letter victim like the rest of us which makes him extra motivated as the rest of us are to keep discussing the issue.

I know he really dislikes the forum behavior on the UK forums when people discuss the Getty matter. I have seen some of the ugliness he is concerned about especially on the FSB forums a few years back. By and large, we don't have that nonsense here on ELI (although there are times when some of us including myself have been guilty of taking a stronger and passionate tone than necessary).

I don't want to get ahead of myself or reveal my hand just yet. But if I had my way and my gut read on Nick and his motivations are positively confirmed, we could see and hear more from Nick on ELI to help fill the UK void.

Bottom line, there is a lot to gain for the UK audience if Nick and I can have a meeting of the minds and better understand each other. Debating on the forums has been good so far.  However, now that I have heard all sides, I am interested in going beyond the debate to doing something bigger and meaningful.

Stay tuned. I hope to have more updates sometime next week.

As I am UK based I've been following this thread with interest. I've looked at www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk and I did feel that the website was trying to guide me towards one outcome ("SEEK OUT A SPECIALIST solicitor. This is a complex area of law and not something many lawyers are familiar with. We recommend Liz Ward"). A solictor's letter may well be the best option for some people and it's one that I seriously considered. But as I did more research I found that I felt a lot more confident about dealing with things personally. As for www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk, I think offerering a solictors letter as an option rather than a recommendation would go down better. I would suggest recommending doing some research into the topic before doing anything else. Maybe add a link back to ELI and any other useful sources.

I don't have any issues with Nick's posts here. I've found them helpful. In particular I like the suggestion of offering a sum in settlement on the condition that Getty supply proof of copyright etc. I was going to offer a sum regardless but I think I prefer this option.

I have made an appointment with my Member of Parliament to discuss the Getty scheme. May not do any good but can't do any harm. I'll also be sending copies of all documentation to "Watchdog" (a consumer advice program in the UK) as well as the Trading Standards office if they continue to harass me.

1585

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 08, 2012, 06:28:59 AM »

I know you didn't mean Oscar and I, so no offense was taken.  But your comment reminded me of the criticisms of us from other people and I thought I would share that little story.

Regarding Nick, I am in communication with him through private email and I ask everyone to ease up on Nick right now and not make quick judgments.  I will be scheduling a phone conversation with him in the near future so we can get to know each other better.

Disagreements are ok. Nick might be new to the ELI community but he is the only one from the UK that has stepped up in any kind of capacity. And he appears to have kept up with what is going on in the UK side for the last few years. I am slowly learning about about the program they put together.

Matt, I wasn't referring to you and Oscar.  I should have been more clear.  I'm referring to the UK guy (Nick).

You've given a lot of your time for free, and so has Oscar for a very long time now.
Therefore, I feel that charging for "value added" services is fine (especially when such a service doesn't cost much more than a consultation with a lawyer).
Additionally, there's nothing wrong with fundraising to support the ELI effort.  Furthermore, I feel that your approach has been balanced.

1586

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 07, 2012, 08:44:59 PM »

Well, Oscar and I have been accused in the past of being too cavalier and not taking the extortion letters seriously enough when we tell people that the likelihood of someone getting sued over a few images is very slim.

But yes, I probably will sell more reports and get more ELI Contributions while Oscar will have more people enroll in his Letter Program if we changed our positions and started telling people that the likelihood of lawsuits being filed were going up.

What is a guy supposed to do to get some respect around here.....  :-)  We get pounded on either way.

Unless somebody has something to gain financially by scaring people.

1587

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 07, 2012, 02:33:07 PM »

This is the reason why I don't dare start talking too much about UK matters. I may have opinions but I freely admit that my opinions outside my stated areas of expertise are UNINFORMED opinions.

Not being tied in or living in the UK, it is very difficult to get a pulse on what is going on there.  The Patents County Court sounds conceptually similar to the idea of a small claims copyright court I have heard kicked around here in the U.S. That can be both good and bad.

I, for one, intend on being a sponge and plan on doing a lot of listening and not make any rash assumptions that the UK system will operate or evolve similarly to U.S. developments.

So keep the insights and reports coming is what I say....

Feel free to start another UK thread, if necessary, to accommodate new UK-related discussions.

Since I last logged there has been a new development in the UK. A new court division called  the Patents County Court has seeming been agreed. Starting from October 2012 this will streamline the the cases involving copyright infringement and prove a lot less costly for Getty and the others to take people to court. Incidentally, I am not telling you anything that Getty do not know. Some of their UK solicitors are already threatening to use this.

I understand that many of you do not agree with me about the whole admission of images thing but I think that in some ways it is a question of semantics i.e. They usually have evidence of the images on your site but as we know they have to prove they have the rights etc. The inadvertent use of copyright images is the key in a UK court. In my view and from my experience it is wise not to deny the obvious!

Before someone jumps in to say Getty will still be frightened of losing and setting precedent my understanding is that due to the low cost nature of the process and the numbers of people who are ignoring the letters this could still be a problem.

In the Uk courts they will still look at the facts of each individual case and a total lack of action will hurt the defence.

1588

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 06, 2012, 06:34:12 PM »

Excuse me, I did not say to "admit guilt". Please do not misquote me. Affirmative defense does not mean "admitting guilt". If that is how people take it after everything I wrote, then it will take a much better man than me to explain the finer distinctions. Might I suggest people do some Google research on the phrase "affirmative defense".

Might I also suggest everyone on this forum read the defendant's answer to the Getty Images vs. Advernet complaint written by none other than our own Oscar Michelen who clearly listed SIX affirmative defenses.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81920716/Getty-Images-vs-Advernet-Answer

They were so succinct and well-written, I can reprint those here.

1. While the allegation of unauthorized use is denied, any unauthorized use was inadvertent and innocent and did not constitute willful infringement.

2. Some of the plaintiff's claims are barred from the applicable statute of limitation.

3. While the allegation of unauthorized use is denied, any unauthorized use was de minimus and should not result in a damages award.

4. While the allegation of unauthorized use is denied, any unauthorized use occurred prior to any registration of the images so that plaintiff many only seek damages.

5. The images may have been available through means other than plaintiff's website.

6. The plaintiff's claims for relief was barred under the doctrine of laches.

Essentially, the defendant did not deny use of the 35 images on the website in question. What was denied that the use was "unauthorized". I know Oscar is only one lawyer amongst thousands. Some of you might say that Oscar should NOT have even admitted to use at all!  I am very certain that Oscar thought of this but felt that it was NOT the correct course of action. He advised (and the defendant agreed) to admit to use of the images but simultaneously making affirmative defense challenges.

I would like to point out that on page 37 in the Memorandum and Order, even absent the presence of the  defendant and defendant's attorney, the court, in particular cited affirmative defense #2, was "potentially meritorious". It is a specific and positive acknowledgment of one of the affirmative defenses.

So, people can feel free to disagree. I not only draw my own conclusions from this specific case but in my own real-life court experiences that you can still very much "win" with affirmative defenses. I still contend that in many (not all) circumstances and situations NOT using an affirmative defense and simply DENYING everything can ultimately hurt you, your case, and your credibility.

I disagree with Matthew about admitting guilt if a screenshot is provided by picscout. The date of the infringement is also important. In the Advernet case, all 35 images were lacking the date of infringement, and picscout did not provide that. In the past, Picscout was also SLOPPY about it. (I am sure they will fix this now)

1589

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Canadian Advice

« on: March 05, 2012, 11:52:21 PM »

Hello Chris,

Thanks for doing some homework before asking questions. It makes it easier for the rest of us.

Regarding my reluctance to giving advice to Canadians, quite simply the legal system, copyright laws, and the culture of Canada (while similar in some respects) is different from the U.S. 

Aside from my being fluent in English, there is very little in my background that would make my opinion any better or informed than anyone else discussing the Canadian environment. That doesn't mean that one day I couldn't spend time in Canada, study the Canadian legal system, study Canadian cases, and get a better feel of the Canadian culture as it relates to fighting the extortion letters. But that is a long very time down the road, if ever.

Quite frankly, I have my hands full just getting a grip on all the copyright troll activities here in the U.S. law. I never imagined that I would do so much reading on published court cases, copyright laws, court procedures, self-representation, current events, etc. I feel like I am doing all the work a new lawyer might do to become an expert in a particular field of law without the credit for it.  It is sort of crazy that, as a non-lawyer, I have the audacity to write the upcoming BGIEL report.

There are no shortage of cases to follow-up or study here in the U.S. I do a lot of studying and research on any subject I decide to sink my teeth into.  In fact, I am so far behind in doing my analysis of U.S. Masterfile cases because I have been writing the Beating the Getty Images Extortion Letter (BGIEL) report. It has been a lot of work cross-referencing wading through the various legal cases, legal opinions, extortion letters, forum posts, articles, and the various sources I am using to put my report together.

I am flattered you would ask me to elaborate on why I wouldn't tackle Canada. It is the same reason why I won't tackle the U.K. issues.  There is already too much for me to take on being knowledgeable (much less becoming an expert) in U.S. environment. I never sought out to become an "expert" in these matters. But since I decided to write and publish the BGIEL report, I decided I would do all the things necessary to "earn" the expert title.  That means being focused, niched, lots of research, reading, and analysis. As time permits, I then run my findings by Oscar so he can double-check some of my conclusions. 

If I had to do the same thing for Canada or U.K, I would simply have to plead insanity and have a nervous breakdown. Maybe one day, someone in Canada will step up and lead the effort on that front.  But it cannot be me. I simply won't do it.

First of all, thank-you for all the information you have made available on the website/forum.  After a friend of mine received her letter from Getty last week (more than 1 image, less than 4), I have spent the last few days pouring over the forum trying to get up to speed.

In the following thread Matthew mentions he would not be comfortable giving advice to Canadians:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-in-the-uk/30/

Matthew, are you able to elaborate on this?

1590

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 05, 2012, 07:26:47 PM »

Khan,

The major sentiment I wanted to directly acknowledge is the extreme idea of "making them work all the way" and "denying everything".  However, that doesn't mean you lay down and sign an open confession revealing everything you have either. That is plain crazy.

I used a very basic example on the screen shoot they provide. That is the first issue to deal with, outside of all the other talking points like proof of good copyright registration. For me, if the screen shot image is pretty clear of my web page (as most are that I have seen), I have the choice to "give" that to the opposing side or not. I know some people think that admitting to it could be a "smoking gun". I don't.  I would only fight that front if the images looked crappy, altered, or believe there was some hanky-panky involved.

Remember, with all this talk of fighting back, how many are truly going to self-represent?  How many would hire a lawyer?  How many would take a default judgment?  I think the majority of people would NOT self-represent.  I think there are more people than you might realize take a default judgment for the reasons they cannot afford a lawyer to see this thing through or they don't feel confident enough to self-represent.

I know many want to restrict this conversation to the legal arguments but there is simply more to it than that.  In court, judges can have bad days. They have different personalities.  There are all kinds of things that can unexpectedly happen in court. Some can work in your favor, some can work against you.  I am very mindful of the human element.

I used to be a big believer in arguing ONLY on the facts and the legal argument. Not so much anymore when I realized that courts and judges are not immune to human feelings, personal bias, and failings.  If you don't believe that exists, go look to the Righthaven lawsuits.  If people think the Righthaven lawsuits were won solely on sheer merits of the objective legal arguments, then it show they are not seeing a bigger picture.  All the hatred, animosity, and the blatant extortion tactics, cause people to FIND the legal arguments to justify it.

All I am saying is that taking an Affirmative Defense position is a valid position. It can be as simple as saying, "Yes, that is my screen shot BUT...."(The"yes" part is the "affirmative" part.  the "BUT: is the defense part.  Hence, it is called "affirmative defense". Nothing more, nothing less.

From a legal fee point of view, it will save a TON of money in legal fees by including a couple of "YES" along the way. But if money and time is no object, then by all means fight every step of the way. For me, there is a delicate balance and strategy of winning.

For some, "winning" means pay zippo.  For others, it means paying only a reasonable amount, not the extortionate amount.  For some, it means absolution through a court ruling.  I am a practical guy. There are varying degrees of winning for me.

What I just said probably doesn't directly answer your question because I am trying to explain the concept and merits of Affirmative Defense.

I don't know everyone's individual cases so I am not going to make a sweeping statement what EVERYONE should do in ALL situations.  I only have guidelines. But certainly, there are guidelines of what to ask for which has been listed and discussed many times and then some.  The discovery stage of a lawsuit is where you can ask for anything you feel you need to defend your case.

In reading what you wrote as a response that you admit to nothing and only asked for information, I can understand that approach.  I am fine with it. It is more congruent and effective if it reflects your true personality. You don't have to copy any one approach to be effective.  Everyone knows their situation the best.  For me in my situation, I simply offered up an apology for the accidental infringement and why it happened. I simply didn't see it as a smoking gun simply because I claimed innocent infringement and felt like I had a lot to back that up.  As it happens to be the case, I would have gladly settled if a reasonable amount ($200 ball-parkish) was offered but it wasn't. The $500 was their offer and I found that unacceptable.

I do believe there is room for variations of approaches to successfully fight back.

Dear Matthew
Just to understand you correctly: Do you suggest that if you can get the pictures elsewhere (and you have the proof) to go for the affirmative defense. I think then they have no case even if you got the picture from the internet.
In my case I have the proof that I can buy the photo directly from the photographer (and I bought it afterwards just because to proof I can buy it somewhere else). Why not asking Getty to show their exclusive contract?
In my response I did not say anything about an infringement and did not admit to anything. I just asked for proof since I have got other evidence.
Sorry to insist. Thank you very much for your help
Khan

P.S.