Messages

1606

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter: Special Report!

« on: March 01, 2012, 05:51:03 AM »

I am happy to announce that I have solidified the outline of what the Special Report will Cover. However, the working outline is still subject to changes.  (It is not too late to submit ideas and suggestions!) It is looking to become a 100-page report including actual court cases and documents.

A beta-version of the special report will be released later in March 2012 at a significant discount. The plan is that a limited number of ELI supporters who commit to the early beta-version will receive continual updates for at least 6-months. A private payment link will be sent on a first-come, first-serve basis. I will make it available in groups of 5-10 buyers a time.  I am simply not equipped to manually keep track of that many beta-version copies or early buyers. Only ELI Forum & ELI website visitors will get a crack at it. There are no plans on posting any of this beta-version information to the ELI Twitter account or Facebook pages.

There will be an agreement each buyer must sign in and fax in order to get a private payment link to buy it. No signed agreement, no beta report. Any unauthorized payments for the beta report will not be accepted.  I will be asking for full contact information such as phone number and email address. One of the stipulations is that no buyer can be a professional photographer or be stock photo industry employee or anyone related to them. Every buyer of this beta-version will be required to identify themselves to me.  All beta-version updates will be personally emailed by me. If those terms are too tough, that is fine.  Don't be a beta-version buyer. Just wait until the final version is released where full price will be charged. And I won't promise when the beta-version will be complete.  It will be out of beta when I feel comfortable enough to turn it loose at full price. (I will provide pricing at a later date.)

I know that the stock photo industry will eventually get a hold of a copy of my special report. For now, I intend to limit the viewers of this work-in-progress until I am fully comfortable of taking it out of beta.

The reason why I am providing the option of a beta-version is that some people may need whatever information I have NOW and simply cannot wait until the beta-version process is complete. For them, quickly getting all this information in one location is important to them.

==================
Table of Contents

Introduction

I Got the Letter, What Do I Do Now?
•   Legal Disclaimers
•   First Steps
•   Image Removal:  Host, Wayback Machine
•   Communicating with website developer, designer, and host
•   ELI Articles, ELI Forums
•   ELI Videos

Setting Expectations
•   Getty Images Standard
•   Everyone Pays a Price
•   Definition of Winning
•   Everyone Must Choose a Course of Action
•   The Big Picture
•   Extortion Letter Scheme is  a Revenue Model
•   You Are Not Special
•   Sense of Fairness

Evaluating Risks
•   Emotional Intelligence
•   Risk Tolerance
•   Coping with Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt
•   Sense of Justice
•   Willingness to Fight
•   Get a Spine
•   Get Rational

Stock Photo Industry
•   The Players
•   Bluffs, Lies, & Deception
•   Picscout
•   Photographers
•   Commoditization of images
•   Wallpaper Entrapment
•   Corporate employees are Cowards

The Extortion Letter Process
•   Legalized Extortion
•   Revenue Model
•   Need for Secrecy
•   Fear of Disclosure
•   Use of Inexperienced, young Lawyers & Hourly employees
•   Persistence
•   Intimidation tactics
•   Artificial Deadlines
•   Settlement Pricing
•   Multi-step communication & letters
•   Escalation to Collection Agency & Collection Lawyer
•   Legal Ignorance & Fear of Legal Process
•   Actual Settlement

Collection Process
•   Dealing with Internal Team
•   Dealing with Collection Agency
•   Dealing with Collection Lawyer
•   Collection Commission Splits & Compensation
•   FDCPA

Copyright Legal Issues
•   Relevant legal issues
•   Statute of Limitations
•   Copyright Registration
•   Market Value
•   Statutory Damages vs. Actual Damages
•   Willful vs. Innocent Infringement
•   Copyright Act
•   Legal precedent
•   Individual vs. Corporate Entity

Response Strategies
•   Go Dark
•   Lay Low
•   Go Crazy
•   Buy Time
•   Lawyer Up
•   Self-Representation
•   Retaliate and Fight back
•   Outlawyer the other side

How to Write Your Own Letter
•   Choosing a Persona: Angry vs calm, crazy vs reasonable, rational vs irrational, difficult vs easy-going, aggressive vs passive, set the rules vs. follow the rules.
•   Creating Gravitas
•   Method of Communication: Fax, Phone, Email, Snail Mail
•   Sample Letters
•   Template Letter
•   Response Letter Formula
•   Buy Time
•   Letter Template
•   Apology
•   Explanation
•   Talking Points
•   Statement of Intent
•   Settlement Offer
•   Follow-up strategies

Self-Representation Weapons
•   What is “Pro Se” Representation
•   Going Up Against Lawyers
•   Lawyers Code of Conduct
•   Important of Lawyers License
•   Lawyer Weaknesses
•   State Bar Complaints Against Lawyers
•   AVVO & Lawyer Site Complaints
•   David vs. Goliath Fights
•   EFF
•   ELI Forums & ELI Document Library
•   Knowing Legal precedent
•   Judges Go Out of Their Way for “Pro Se”
•   Corporate Entity Issues
•   Power of Publicity
•   Discovery Process

Overview of Lawsuits & Legal Process
•   Process of Service
•   Costs of Filing
•   Costs of Lawyers & Legal Fees
•   Public Docket & Public Record
•   “Pro se” Self-Representation
•   Hiring a Lawyer to Represent You
•   Young, Inexperienced Lawyers
•   Discovery
•   Default Judgment
•   Settlement process
•   Collectability
•   Corporate Entities
•   Fairness of Judges
•   Winning a Lawsuit is an Uphill Expensive Process
•   Even when they win, they can lose

Legal Case Precedent & Analysis
•   Getty Images Record
•   Masterfile Record
•   Hawaiian Art Network Record
•   Other Stock Photo Agency Record
•   Lawsuits Gone Wrong
•   Getty Images vs. Advernet
•   Masterfile vs. Country Cycling
•   Pattern of Masterfile lawsuits
•   RIAA Lawsuits
•   Righthaven Lawsuits
•   BitTorrent Lawsuits
•   Predisposition of Judges & Courts on Copyright Infringement Cases
•   Copyright infringement favor the Underdog
•   Even when they win, they still lose

Selecting a Course of Action
•   Self-Representation
•   Hiring Your Own Lawyer
•   Hiring Oscar Michelen
•   Going Public
•   ELI Website & ELI Forum Submissions
•   Search Engine Dominance
•   Using Social Media
•   Get Revenge & Payback
•   Financial Contributions

Scenarios
•   For Website Developers Only
•   Template Monster
•   Dealing with Website Developers
•   Training Your Own Lawyer

Prevention
•   Getting Another Extortion Letter
•   Removal from Wayback Machine
•   Blocking Picscout
•   Microstock
•   Use Graphics
•   Use Your Own Photos
•   Ongoing Survival of ELI

BONUS SECTION:  Fight & Combat Principles
•   Change the Rules of the Fight
•   Be Authentic, Be Open
•   Embrace Imperfection
•   Get a Spine
•   Ask for Help
•   Look for Kindred Spirits
•   Make Deals People Cannot Refuse
•   Take Calculated Risks
•   Acceptance of Loss
•   Violence is not an option
•   Veiled threats vs. Direct Threats
•   Don’t Bluff or Make Threats You Can’t Carry Through
•   Don’t Invite Lawsuits
•   An Eye for Eye, Two for One Specials
•   Power of Embarrassment
•   Power of Disclosure
•   Power of Publicity
•   Power of Search Engines
•   Personalize the Fight
•   Targeting the Right Person(s)
•   Dirt-digging with Social Media & People Search Services
•   Create Paper Drama
•   Write Open Letters

Appendix
•   FDCPA
•   Copyright Act
•   Getty Images vs. Advernet
•   Masterfile vs. Country Cycling
•   Righthaven Lawsuit Orders

Links to Articles & Reference Websites

1607

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn E. Wright's Photo-Attorney Extortion Letter Taken Down by Scribd

« on: February 29, 2012, 08:00:09 PM »

My customized DMCA Counter-Notification Letter Against Carolyn E. Wright has been submitted and posted:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83262483/Scribd-DMCA-Counter-Notification-Letter-Against-Photo-Attorney-Carolyn-E-Wright

The text is below:


February 29, 2011

Scribd, Inc.
Attn: Jason Bentley, Copyright Agent
539 Bryant St, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94107
FAX: 415.896.9896 (Attn: Scribd DMCA copyright infringement notification)

Dear Mr. Bentley:

We regret that a DMCA complaint was made to our account and that you and Scribd have to take time to deal with this matter. While we are not perfect, I can assure you we strive to be good and compliant online citizens with Scribd and every online service we utilize.

This letter is a formal response to a claim of copyright infringement against one of the documents (id: 61479994) by Carolyn E. Wright (http://photoattorney.com  and http://cewrightlaw.com ) that we uploaded and published on Scribd.com. I believe the claims of copyright infringement are inaccurate and should be rejected because:

The complainant has provided no copyright registration information or other tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact copyrighted, and I have a good faith belief that it is not. The allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at present unsupported.

Because of the nature of the material being reported, I have strong belief that the original complainant (who is a copyright lawyer herself) did not simply make an honest error but has knowingly and willfully filed a false DMCA complaint. Unfortunately for her, she has now potentially exposed herself to liability as described in 17 USC 512(f).  That liability (as a result of her own actions) could damage her ability to practice law in states she current has a law license in including: California, Georgia, and Nevada.

As the original complainant knows and can easily verify, the disputed document we shared on Scribd was sent/delivered by one of her law associates, Attorney Evan Andersen as a legitimate and legal business communication to the original, intended recipient.  That recipient was within their full rights as the intended recipient to provide their copy to us or anyone else for the purpose of open reporting and commentary of the letter’s contents, its structure, appearance, and messages within that letter.

To our knowledge, Carolyn E. Wright has not registered that business communication letter with any legitimate copyright registration service. And even if by some slim chance she did, she should know that the provision of “fair use” appropriately applies in matters of open reporting and commentary which our Scribd account and our website is clearly dedicated to. As a copyright lawyer herself, she should realize she could be held to a higher standard of knowledge and conduct.

Further, this counter-notification letter will be openly shared and posted to inform her and others that we will not tolerate persistently abusive and illegitimate DMCA complaints against our online accounts (and consequently damage our online reputation) with Scribd or any other online service.

This communication to you is a DMCA counter notification letter as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3):

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law. I also understand that you will provide a copy of counter-notification letter to the original complainant.

Further, according to 17 USC 512(f), any person who knowingly misrepresents that material is infringing shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by me and other related parties as a result of removing or disabling access to hosting services or other materials claimed to be infringing or in replacing the removed material.

As further warning, any future inappropriate and frivolous filings against our Scribd (or any other online account) could result in a written complaint submitted to the State Bar of which she practices.

I ask that Scribd, upon receipt of this counter-notification, restore the material in dispute, unless the complainant files suit against me within ten (10) days, pursuant to 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B).

My name, address, and telephone number are:

Matthew Chan
1639 Bradley Park Dr.
Suite 500, PMB 110
Columbus, GA 31904
Phone: (762) 359-0425

I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which I reside. I agree to accept service of process from the complainant.

Having received this counter notification, you are now obligated under 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to advise the original complainant of this notice, and restore the material in dispute.

Respectfully,
 
Matthew Chan

1608

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn E. Wright's Photo-Attorney Extortion Letter Taken Down by Scribd

« on: February 29, 2012, 06:37:42 PM »

Scribd just provided me a copy of the original complaint and it has been included as part of my original opening post. Enjoy.

I see a DMCA counter-notification letter in the near future.

1609

Getty Images Letter Forum / Changes Coming to Oscar Michelen's Defense Letter Program

« on: February 29, 2012, 06:30:07 PM »

For nearly 4 years, Oscar Michelen's Defense Letter Program has been the sole standard and torch-bearer of affordable legal representation for hundreds of people receiving extortion letters. The only major change that occurred was in 2011, when the cost of the letter program increased from $150 to $195.

The good news is there will NOT be a price increase.  He is holding the line.  However, there will be MAJOR changes to streamline the operational and communication process with Oscar's office. In the past, I have largely stayed quiet in operational matters relating to Oscar's office.

However, I have recently been made aware that the ongoing cost and support of the Letter Program has grown tremendously threatening the very existence of the Letter Program. Some it relates to administrative costs such as merchant fees, postage, other supplies.  But the BIGGEST growing cost has been with Oscar's time by PEOPLE INSINUATE THEIR WAY IN TO GET FREE CONSULTATION TIME by email or by phone!  It hurts the overall servicing of the legitimate paying clients.

It has been said repeatedly that Oscar gives plenty.  The ELI videos, articles, forum posts, legal opinions, and legal research is evidence of that.  Because of the high-volume of help requests, people who want "free" have to be happy with what we designate as free.  Otherwise, you will be turned away.  It is the only way to keep the Letter Program affordable.  There cannot be personal time or personal email communication with anyone who does not pay the nominal fee.

If that is not good enough, then you are on your own. But we cannot have this "I only want a couple of minutes" or "I want to see if you can help me" thing.

I have been actively in contact with the Oscar and his office manager the past week working out the details.  All future emails will soon be rerouted to a paralegal for screening, the ability to directly message Oscar on the ELI Forums will be deactivated, Oscar's email address will be removed, and incoming phone calls will be directed to voicemail.

Unfortunately, this heavy-handed approach is now required because there are many who have ignored what we have said.  They think they are the only people receiving letters and somehow entitled to personal attention.  While we want to help and serve, neither Oscar and I are working or operating within a charitable, non-profit organization. We have real financial responsibilities to the businesses we work in.  We have had to creatively find ways to to help and serve the masses without financially hurting ourselves.

The people who have snuck and begged their way in have been subsidize by those who legitimately paid a nomimal fee for personal service.

We will have MORE information and details for those who are interested in the Defense Letter Program. We will expand the program.  But to those who have abused Oscar's graciousness and goodwill of time, it must stop and this is what it has come to. We have now have to impose "gatekeepers" so Oscar can focus on the important high level issues of negotiating with the stock photo companies, do ongoing legal research, follow current cases, make more videos, post more frequently on the forums, and, yes, speak with me.  Even I have to compete for time and that upsets me because I work closely with Oscar.

The scores of people who have successfully pecked and taken Oscar's time (which is being tracked in NY) to such a large and measurable degree has taken a financial toll.  It has begun to have a detrimental impact on the entire viability of the Letter Program.  This is why no other law firms have jumped in to launch their own Letter Program.  That is unacceptable to me and those of you that know me, I don't believe in sitting on the sidelines. If I see a problem, I jump in to try to help solve it, not wait until it is too late.  This is why I helped brainstorm the idea in 2008 of the Letter Program to help and serve many people in an affordable way.  This is why now in 2012 I am inserting myself to help reinvent and restructure the program.

The reason why I am so involved with this new process is that having a legal resource such as Oscar has been vitally important. We will be using the resources of the ELI website & ELI forums to help disseminate information to many people but also integrate it into the process. For the short-term, I will be in close contact with Oscar's office manager as we make this transition.

In the days and weeks to come, you will see ELI website and ELI Forum changes with new instructions on the updated Defense Letter Program.

Thanks for your understanding.

Matthew Chan
Founder of ELI

1610

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My recent DMCA Takedown Experience ( RANT)

« on: February 29, 2012, 03:40:16 PM »

This is a riot!  I love this! I am going to share this little image with our Facebook audience!

Sorry Budd!

Just for FUN, you could send the team after them...

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/elidefenders.jpg

 

1611

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn E. Wright's Photo-Attorney Extortion Letter Taken Down by Scribd

« on: February 29, 2012, 03:32:28 PM »

We are almost always "gentle" with people and cases we don't hear from again.  Those posts and discussions simply fall away and die off until they get revived again.  And the folks at Photo Attorney did a tremendous job on reviving their whole $9K for 1 image incident as well as draw attention to (what I currently believe until proven otherwise) a frivolous use of the DMCA complaint process.

These takedown notices are a real time-waster for me and they are simply frivolous and unfounded and the people know this! I consider this a direct attack on ELI.

They may be lawyers but they don't know the first thing about PR and acknowledging the very letters they send out. Instead, they try to suppress and hide the very letters they issued out of sheer embarrassment. 

Let us also take note that Evan Andersen is the newbie lawyer who signed off on the Photo Attorney Extortion Letter.

Copyright trolls should take heed that ELI will continue to aggressively hit back HARD any party that attacks ELI's ability to continue open report on this matter.

...hmmm...
I thought that we were rather gentle when it came to Carolyn Wright on the forum.  So this is an interesting turn.
But, yeah.  The copyright trolling business has a bad name, and you can see that nobody wants to be associated with it.
Even if they make a full-time living at it.

Unless she's doing this for "free PR".

Anyone else notice the similarity between Carolyn Wright's logo, the "Aperture Labs" logo and the "Picasa logo"?
Probably not enough to cause legal problems, but I thought that she'd be more "original", being such a "crusader" and all.

S.G.

1612

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oops Look what happened!

« on: February 29, 2012, 03:22:34 PM »

You are getting very good at these "Public Service Videos" which work wonders in the Google search engine.

1613

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Public Service Videos

« on: February 29, 2012, 03:20:37 PM »

Buddhapi produced another public service video.  This time for Photo Attorney Carolyn E. Wright.

1614

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn Wright's law firm

« on: February 28, 2012, 10:45:54 PM »

It appears Carolyn E. Wright of Photo Attorney is back after a long quiet period. This time someone is attacking ELI's Document Library on Scribd trying to remove, suppress, and hide her $9,000 extortion letter on behalf of photographer, Ryan McGinnis.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/carolyn-e-wright%27s-photo-attorney-extortion-letter-taken-down-by-scribd/msg5639/#msg5639

1615

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carolyn E. Wright's Photo-Attorney Extortion Letter Taken Down by Scribd

« on: February 28, 2012, 10:32:16 PM »

The ELI Defense Team has gone to work to digging into Photo-Attorney Carolyn E. Wright's records. This is what we have found so far (thanks to Buddhapi) on her besides the $9,000 extortion on behalf of Ryan McGinnis for 1 image.

The Georgia Bar reveals the following:

Ms. Carolyn Esther Wright
Company: Law Office of Carolyn E. Wright, LLC
Address: P.O. Box 430
Glenbrook, NV 89413
Work Phone: (775) 588-5147
Email: [email protected]
Admit Date: 6/16/1992
Law School: Emory University
Status: Active Member in Good Standing
Public Disciplinary History: None on Record

The Nevada Bar reveals the following:
http://www.nvbar.org/lawyer-detail/1493

The Washington State Bar reveals the following:
http://www.mywsba.org/default.aspx?tabid=178&RedirectTabId=177&Usr_ID=36076

The California State Bar reveals the following:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/263960

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

Georgia's Certificate of Organization for "The Law Offices of Carolyn E. Wright "
http://corp.sos.state.ga.us/imaging/12952320.pdf

Nevada's listing of her law office is:
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=KXyx3ak26QipqDyPc1OEEw%253d%253d&nt7=0

============
According to the Georgia State Bar, Carolyn Wright's partner Evan Andersen looks to be a young, newbie lawyer.

Mr. Evan Andrew Andersen
Company: Law Office of Carolyn E Wright LLC
Address:P.O. Box 250208
Atlanta, GA 30325
Work Phone: (404) 496-6606
Fax: (775) 588-5961
Email: [email protected]
Admit Date: 11/14/2008
Law School: Wake Forest University
Status: Active Member in Good Standing
Public Disciplinary History: None on Record

1616

Getty Images Letter Forum / Carolyn E. Wright's Photo-Attorney Extortion Letter Taken Down by Scribd

« on: February 28, 2012, 10:00:02 PM »

Earlier today, I received a notification from Scribd indicating that "someone" has claimed that ELI inappropriately posted "Carolyn E. Wright's Photo-Attorney Settlement Demand Letter."

As with all our other letter postings, we do so in the interest of open reporting and providing commentary on the extortion letters.  Further, the copies of these letters are actual business correspondence that letter recipients legitimately receive and freely submit to us with full authorization for open sharing. These business correspondence are not registered with the copyright office as far as we know. Additionally, even if they were, we post them for the purpose of public commentary which is allowed under "fair use".

I do not yet know who submitted the DMCA takedown notice to Scribd but I have asked for a copy of the original complaint.  I suspect that someone doesn't want the public to know or read the contents of that letter.

Carolyn E. Wright of Photo-Attorney has fallen off our radar for a while now since the $9,000 extortion for 1 image.

With the precedent set by a female Canadian Lawyer, we will once again reinstate and engage with "2-for-1 specials".  This goes beyond "an eye for an eye". Each time an attempt is made to attack, suppress, and hide ELI's open reporting efforts of extortion letters, there will be TWICE the coverage of the content being removed and the person who committed this time-wasting, offending, and harassing act.

Currently, it looks like Carolyn E. Wright of Photo-Attorney is the star of the moment.

I fully expect to be filing a counter-notification letter soon.
=========================

Hello, extortionletterinfo --

We have removed your document, "Carolyn Wright's Photo-Attorney Settlement Demand Letter" (id: 61479994) in response to a third-party notification or other indicia that this document was uploaded to Scribd.com without the authorization of the copyright owner. If you believe the removal of this document is the result of a mistake or misidentification, please visit our Scribd Support Desk to access the instructions for providing a counter-notification.

For more information, read about our Copyright Management System or contact us through [email protected].

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that content was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability. Please also be advised that we enforce our policy that provides for the termination of users who are identified as repeat infringers.

Thanks for your cooperation.
-Scribd Customer Care

P.S. You can always fine-tune which notifications you receive or opt-out completely.

Scribd Inc., 539 Bryant St., Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA

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

Updated: February 29, 2012

*** BEGIN ORIGINAL DMCA NOTIFICATION ***

February 27, 2012

Scribd, Inc.
Attn: Scribd DMCA copyright infringement notification
539 Bryant St.
Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94107

Via email to [email protected]

Re: Scribd DMCA copyright infringement notification

To Scribd, Inc:

Infringement of my letter/writing has been found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61479994/Carolyn-Wright-s-Photo-Attorney-Settlement-Demand-Letter

The letter has been posted without permission.

This email is official notification to you under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) to effect removal of the reported infringements. I request that you immediately issue a cancellation message as specified in RFC 1036 for the specified posting and prevent the infringer from posting the infringing items to your servers in the future. Please be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to “expeditiously remove or disable access to” the infringing photographs upon receiving this notice. Noncompliance may result in a loss of immunity for liability under the DMCA.

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted material described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Please send me at the address noted below a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter. Thank you.

Sincerely,

/s/ Carolyn E. Wright
Carolyn E. Wright
PO Box 430
Glenbrook, NV 89413
[email protected]
775.588.5147 ph
775.588.5961 fax

*** END ORIGINAL DMCA NOTIFICATION ***

1617

Getty Images Letter Forum / SoylentGreen's Defense Strategy Summary Guide

« on: February 28, 2012, 08:17:35 AM »

Regular ELI contributor Soylentgreen wrote his "strategy summary" on January 11, 2012 as his response to another discussion thread. It was so good, I feel the need to spotlight it once again.  I did not want to move or extract that post from its original location.  The original post is here in its proper context.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/free-baitpapers/msg4574/#msg4574

Despite my best efforts, I could not find that post and it took fellow ELI Defense Team member, BuddhaPi, to find it for me.  Thank you, BuddhaPi! 

I do not want to lose that particular post and have it get buried again.  I have copied and pasted SG's original post in its entirety here in an all-new thread. Keep in mind this is SoylentGreen's view and perspective. While there is no single strategy that will fit everyone's situation, it is well worth reading and considering.

Thank you, SG! I hope you don't mind us revisiting your well-written post as a subject of discussion.

===========

Lucia had inquired about whether or not I'm an attorney.  I’m not an attorney.
I had thought at length about how to answer her query as to what my opinion was regarding "where or not it's worth a shot", or "what the probability is of winning a dismissal".  Each individual must decide for himself/herself whether or not it's "worth a shot".  But, we can do research and make a reasonable determination.  Now, if something was to go to court, it's often difficult to predict "probability", as a human "the judge" will make a decision based on aguments/evidence.  The following is my thought process.  It's a bit long, but perhaps, there's some food for thought in there.

I’m speaking in terms of US laws/ existing precedents.
Historically speaking, most of the people who paid Getty, Riddick and Righthaven didn’t have to.
Corbis had a good case but gained mixed results, and rumor has it that Masterfile is much better organized than Getty when it comes to contracts/registrations.  I’m a bit unclear on the Masterfile thing.  They may only be filing lawsuits wherein the paperwork is in place; this may give the false impression that everything that they have is registered/under proper contracts.  Most of their wins are on “default” wherein the defendant didn’t show for court.
So, the odds are good that there’s some problem with most infringement claims that should be explored and could possibly be exploited.
---

Your priority in fighting such claims might be as follows from most desirable to least:
1) Make an informal response, and show evidence that causes them to simply go away
2) Make an informal response, and show evidence that causes them to accept a very low settlement.  One so low that the time you saved is more valuable than that of the settlement.
3) In the event of a lawsuit, file a formal defense that causes the plaintiff to give up and withdraw
4) In the event of a strong defense, fight it in court, win, and collect legal fees and other damages
5) In a case wherein you cannot reasonably prevail, pay a the lowest settlement possible in lieu of a larger court loss and legal fees.
---

Fighting these claims is a process.  Collect evidence and find out if there’s a fatal problem with the claim such as:
1) The content was never registered
2) Faulty registration (dates missing, signatures missing, incorrect names)
3) The content was registered by the “original artist”, but there is no “exclusive agreement” in place between the artist and company (agent).  Or this agreement is faulty.
4) The registration was made in “bulk”, that is, many items registered together as a collection
5) Registration not made within lawful time limits

The above examples will kill a case in the US.  That doesn’t stop ignorant people from filing lawsuits in some cases.  File for “summary dismissal” and site precedents.  If it does go to court, at least you’ll win and collect your legal fees if applicable.  Except in “scorched earth” near-criminal situations such as Righthaven.  Note that court precedents currently exist for the above list.
---

Other fatal problems.  These are situations involving mistakes or even fraud which make even the possibility of a claim invalid:
1) Outright fraudulent claims (the image didn’t even appear on your site, or the image only similar and not the same).
2) Companies or individuals impersonating artists/ agencies/ companies/ lawyers and sending forged correspondence/fraudulent claims.
3) Misrepresentations of law, for example situations wherein Getty makes accusations of infringement over linked images not actually residing on the server/domain of the accused person/company.
---

Things that might kill or at least give leverage in negotiations or reduce awards in court
1) The images are widely available as “free” (the more the better for the defendant)
2) The images are widely available as low-cost “clip-art” (non rights-managed)
3) The infringement had low exposure (hit count), low resolution, small image size, was on tertiary web pages.
4) The same images sold on multiple sites by unrelated companies
5) Only some rights assigned (but not others) in an “exclusive contract” between an artist and agent.
6) It was “fair use” under the law for registered educational/non-profit organizations.
7) The web site was not commercial, or didn’t make much money.
8 The defendant was unemployed or unemployable, and the web site didn’t make much revenue
---

Things that people do to avoid payment/court in a worst-case scenario:
1)  In the case of a corporation, ensure that the company has little assets left by the time collection efforts are made.
2) Personal bankruptcy
3) “Disappear” in order to avoid service of court papers (somebody did that in a Corbis case).
---

Where to begin?  Here’s what you do:
1) Assess your risk tolerance.
2) Assess your budget
3) Go through the lists above and highlight any points that might apply to your situation
4) Collect all evidence that you can to support what you’ve highlighted
5) Determine if the evidence strongly supports your defence(s)
6) You must now decide if your defence and corresponding evidence support your desired outcome from the very first list.

If your accuser will not provide evidence of their claim, do realize that they’re holding out because they do not have enough evidence to support their claim. Be patient.   The accuser must present their evidence before the commencement of any court case.  So any evidence will have to be presented eventually.  Next, reassess your strategy as you receive any new information.
If new evidence becomes known that isn’t favorable to your defence, keep in mind that you may make a settlement at any time if that’s in your best interest.

S.G.

1618

Getty Images Letter Forum / Google Custom Search for ELI Forums

« on: February 28, 2012, 07:18:28 AM »

One thing I love about this community is the brainpower of its members.

Because the ELI Forums has around 5,000 posts nowadays, it can be unwieldy for a newcomer to find and research information.  The discussion forum's default search function has limited capabilities.

Active contributor SG offered a very simple suggestion of using Google to conduct local site searches which is brilliant. I agree that Google's search features are better the the discussion forum's default search function.

In that spirit, I have added Google Custom Search that is specifically configured for tight searches of the ELI Forums.  That search bar is located immediately above the Paypal Contribution text. The discussion forum's search function is still available as another option in the upper right corner in the web banner area.

Use whichever search tool works best for you. Use one or both.  They are free.

Thanks SG for the simple but great idea.  It is yet another incremental improvement to what we have so far.

1619

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Criticism to Pre-Announcement of "Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter" Report

« on: February 27, 2012, 06:53:15 PM »

Thanks for the kind words. I continue to learn, grow, and evolve and I am happy to pass any positive influence I can forward.

Dear Matthew,
I think your responses are very well written and thought through. You not only gave me additional strength to stand up for myself regarding the Getty issue but also additional strength in life as we have to fight our battles on daily basis. It's hard to find people with good ethic like you and your team out in the real world.

1620

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Am I doing this right?

« on: February 27, 2012, 06:51:34 PM »

Hmm.... you might be on to something here.  Maybe we should be using or incorporating Google to do local searches.

Anyone else find that google works better than than the search thingy?

S.G.