Messages

1621

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Reporter to do story about HAN / Vincent K Tylor (link to emails from Vincent)

« on: February 25, 2012, 05:12:17 AM »

Oscar Michelen and I am more than willing to be a quoted sources on this subject.

I would focus on the following points:

Vincent K. Tylor does not work alone. He is in cahoots with Glen Carner of Hawaiian Art Network (HAN) and collection lawyers that work on a 50/50 or 60/40 split.

HAN and other stock photo companies brag about how their extortion letter program (they don't call it that of course) has helped their business tremendously.  What they don't tell you is they don't simply recover and collect actual damages like most businesses do.  They intentionally inflate it as high as their victims will bear up to $10,000 per image. We have proof of this in our HAN letter collection.

Also, why is it that Vincent Tylor's name keeps popping up repeatedly?  Is it because his Hawaiian photos are so superior to everyone else? Or is it because he has allowed them to be disseminated to all these free wallpaper sites and discovered how profitable it is for people to take the images and then hit them later on a technicality.

Why is it that if this was such a crisis to Vincent Tylor, why has he not issued any public statement about it?  How convenient of him to be silent about it.

Regarding his network of copyright lawyers, I venture to say that most are collection lawyers who happen to enjoy copyright infringement cases where they can enjoy a 50/50 or 60/40 split. This is why settlements have to go into the thousands of dollars to justify the payment splits.

These outrageous settlements are considered revenue and sales and it has been referred to as such by the various stock photo companies, not recovered costs. It is a profit center, not an entry to offset actual losses.

The stock photo companies are NOT thriving. Articles have discussed the troubles of the stock photo companies. Demand have dropped over the years and market values of images have dropped because it has become commoditized. There is simply a huge abundance of images available fighting for an audience resistant to paying a high cost for them. The photography industry is no longer as lucrative as it once was but almost no one wants to admit to this. They keep blaming piracy which is only one part of this.  All the media companies are suffering because of the Internet: newspaper, radio, tv, cable, music, stock photos, images, etc.

There is extreme avoidance of discussions of innocent infringement because no one wants to acknowledge the $200/infringement provision.  They keep wanting to publicize how if it goes to court, there could be award of $30,000/infringement and if willful $150,000/infringement.  The reality is there are nearly no copyright infringement final judgments that support this. The couple that are out there by RIAA have been drastically reduced although it is still being fought.

The extortion letter scheme works because it takes advantage of people's inherent ignorance of the legal process and fear of the court system. There are ongoing lies, bluffs, and deception being told to lead victims to believe that lawsuits will occur when the fact is, it almost NEVER occurs.  It is based on ambiguity and implied threats.

Also, the reporter should know ELI was under attack and threats by multiple HAN lawyers to have content removed from the ELI website. Nearly all of them coincidentally were dealing with VKT's images.

VKT claims he isn't involved.  Well, he got involved when he signed his name to the recent lawsuits against 3 Hawaiian defendants.

There really are many talking points. The stock photo companies are not as honorable as they seem. And there are most certainly some dirty hands in the game.  This is why ELI continues to fight so hard to report despite the HAN lawyers attempts to suppress and hide it.

1622

Getty Images Letter Forum / MOVED: Righthaven in financial trouble!!

« on: February 24, 2012, 01:15:11 AM »

This topic has been moved to Righthaven Lawsuits Forum.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php?topic=2324.0

1623

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

« on: February 20, 2012, 01:48:21 PM »

As many of you know, I am still in the process of writing my special report titled "Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter". And although I am about 35% complete and NO ONE has seen it yet, I received a negative and critical comment to that announcement.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/pre-announcement-beat-the-getty-images-extortion-letter-special-report/

I have just read your letter responses to Getty (as per the link on your home page) and can’t believe how bad they are – they serve as excellent examples of how NOT to write a letter when confronted by a legal situation. If you don’t know how to write such a letter you should get a lawyer to do it for you. if you did consult your lawyer before sending these letters – sack him!

Based on how poorly you have handled your own case, you really shouldn’t be offering advice to anyone else and certainly shouldn’t be looking to charge for such a ‘service’.

I did not delete that comment. It simply gave me the opportunity to acknowledge those that would criticize the project, the price, or my efforts.

==========

There is no question that the letter I wrote in 2008 had a lot of rough spots in it. In fact, if I were to do it again, I would have written a different letter. But it was what I knew at the time and I muddled my way through. Nevertheless, that is what I wrote with all its ugliness and imperfections. Even when my Special Report comes out, my ugly, imperfect letters will still be available for all to read. They can copy or emulate it (or from your comment) they should use it as an example of what NOT to write and what NOT to do.

When I write, I aim to be effective and get my objective accomplished. I am not trying to win literary awards or impress English majors. Either someone gets my intentions and what I am about or they don’t. Either it gets the desired result or it doesn’t. As you have alluded to, my letters don’t necessarily paint me in a positive light and they don’t make for elegant reading. But when I am in fighting mode, I am not trying to look good or impress people, I am looking to win the fight and get what I want at nearly all costs. I can be nasty, get personal, and vindictive and I want my opponents to know that.

Regarding lawyers, I value their knowledge and advice but I also don’t blindly follow their advice. I have learned from experience that just become someone is a lawyer doesn’t mean they have wisdom or can get the job done. I also happen to know that many lawyers come from a very narrow perspective and don’t always see the big picture.

There is no end of people who come through the ELI website and ELI Forums trying to find this magical pill or learn how to write a dazzling, legalistic letter to stun Getty Images (or other stock photo company) into submission. That almost never happens. For nearly 4 years now, I have tried to tell them there was no such animal. There are many other factors and forces at play. I have written and provided free posts, articles, and videos over the years to mostly a grateful audience. However, for some, that has not been enough. People continue to email and call me even when I have intentionally left out my personal email address and phone number.

You notice I have left your negative comment up. I do so because I stand by what I say and do. I don’t claim to be perfect but I know what I know and I experienced what I experienced. I have no special claim to be smarter or more qualified than anyone else on the subject except that I have lived this subject for nearly 4 years with literally over 100+ people who have communicated with me through the forum posts, emails, phone calls, and submissions. Further, I work with a team of ELI volunteers that have supported the ELI cause with their insights, research, and commentary. For better or for worse, I have gathered all this commentary, research, and information from the myriad of sources and incorporated them into the Special Report.

Let me go on record and say that 75%-80% of the information is freely available on the ELI Website and ELI Forums. However, that information is scattered across thousands of posts and many hours of videos. This Special Report is “essential information presented on a silver platter” plus extra goodies and the glue to connect it all together. Further, the Special Report is a way to encourage our readership to financially support the ELI cause. Make no mistake, my time and resources are valuable. If there were zero dollars that came in month after month, ELI would have to come to a stop. There would be no new articles, new website updates, and no ongoing forum. I would freeze and lock the whole thing down because I already donated hundreds of hours during many late nights since this thing began.

I never planned nor wanted to get into phone consultations or publish this Special Report. But the need appears to be there. It is for those who are interested in what I have to say, not for people like you who are not. I don’t ever do a hard sell, only soft sells. I make a resource available and let people decide for themselves. I am even telling people that the majority of what I write is already freely available IF you want to take the time to sort and find the information. I am charitable but there is a limit to how far I will go. If people want free, they need to go dig out the information themselves and NOT consult me. However, for those who want to save a ton of time and do want to hear what I have to say, that resource is there also.

Regarding you specifically, my information says your IP address is from the U.K. specifically London. This report is for primarily U.S. letter recipients, not anyone else outside the U.S. although I feel that some of my insights and my approach will be applicable to many outside the U.S. The reason I can say this is that I don’t fight exclusively on the legal front. Most people think this is entirely a legal fight when it is not.

And while I appreciate your comment and contribution to the discussion, you will have to forgive me if I don’t take your negative advice. As an independent publisher & blogger, I write and publish what I want. I decide what I will make available for free and what I won’t. I decide what business I will get into and what business I won’t. I decide which people I want to help and acknowledge and those I don’t. You or anyone else don’t get to tell me what I should or should not do. I get to decide for myself. The ELI readers and community members get to decide for themselves. I stand by my reputation, credibility, experiences, and accomplishments. Anyone who isn’t interested in contributing to the ELI cause or otherwise see no value in this Special Report are welcome to ignore it and move along. I am not twisting anyone’s arm to buy it or contribute to it.

My responses and rebuttals to Getty Images was not my first or last rodeo. I have been in business for 20+ years (both in corporate America and as a self-sustaining entrepreneur). I have dealt with all kinds of issues and scenarios both legal and not legal. I have successfully represented myself “pro se” on many occasions mostly as a plaintiff but also as a defendant. I have written several hundreds of letters, memos, and other written communications in that time to persuade or influence people, so I know something about how to get favorable results.

Bottom line, your opinion is your opinion. I allow others to form their own. And if they don’t like what I offer, I say go offer something better.

1624

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

« on: February 17, 2012, 05:19:33 AM »

Just a quick update, I finally have a working (but still incomplete) list of topics I will be writing about.

So far, I am up to a dozen text pages. I expected this report would ultimately have 40-50 pages of text plus an additional 10 pages of illustrations, samples, and appendix text. However, if this report eventually become 100 pages, then so be it. 

Some of the text has come easy, some if it has been more difficult. I've had to stop on occasion to do some research and verify some facts.

I am writing rather haphazardly in that I am writing on topics as they enter my mind.  Sometimes, I flow from one topic to another. Other times, I simply jump tracks to another line of thought. I will eventually make my way back to the ELI Forums to see if I missed anything in my report that needs to be included and acknowledged.

Ultimately, I will take the mass of text and attempt to organize it in a logical order and connect the various sections.

I am still very much trying to shoot for a Spring 2012 release. I can safely say that when I put the first version up for sale, there will be a period of time (3-6 months) where the early buyers will receive free updates.

Because nothing like this has ever been attempted before, I am permitting myself several revisions before the report "settles down" later in the year. Of course, I don't want my early buyers to be unfairly penalized for being an early buyer.  So, I will personally take care of them by emailing free updates to them.

When I am further along, I will put out some teasers for everyone to read.

When that time comes, I will only accept orders and payments through Paypal.

1625

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Resolution of Getty v. Advernet (A blow to Getty & Stock photo companies)

« on: February 17, 2012, 03:53:27 AM »

In doing additional research for my upcoming "Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter" report, I revisited the Getty vs. Advernet case.  I re-read the decision.

I also went to PACER and downloaded the initial complaint, the docket, and Oscar's answer on behalf of his client to the complaint. I was especially interested in viewing Oscar's affirmative defenses.

I have uploaded the new documents into the new Getty Images vs. Advernet Lawsuits Collection on Scribd.

http://www.scribd.com/collections/3494705/Getty-Images-vs-Advernet-Lawsuit

1626

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Images Copyright Compliance Specialist Position

« on: February 16, 2012, 05:56:30 PM »

This is a new job listing for Getty Images.

http://uk.linkedin.com/jobs/jobs-Copyright-Compliance-Specialist-2425964

Notice some of the insightful verbiage in the job description:

* Facilitate the settlement of unauthorised use (copyright infringement) matters through inbound and outbound phone and email communications primarily
* Negotiating settlements. To settle and clarify with image users about copyright law and image licensing
* Assisting with legal documents,  revenue reporting, calculating fees and billings of unauthorized use
* In-depth research of image licensing and use as well as customer research to obtain company information
* Review search results and determine the appropriate courses of action
* Transactional tracking and reporting for internal and external use in our database and other manual systems
* Interaction with the Sales Team and Legal Department on billing and resolution of unauthorised use issues as well as policing the adherence to company policy and procedures relating to revenue recognition and unauthorised use transactions
* Billing, calculation and analysis of fees, financial adjustments and payables

The points that stood out for me is that they prefer to engage through phone and emails, the person needs to be able to find out who the alleged infringer might be, "revenue reporting" sounds like collection/extortion fees, and "interaction with the sales team and legal department on billing" which sounds like a coordinated effort to ensure sales prices and extortion prices are in line.

You are also committed to enhance productivity to drive increases in revenue.

So, the copyright compliance specialist has responsibilities to "drive increases in revenue?" Better make the extortion amounts higher and more aggressive.

Enjoy the listing.

1627

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: They don't know who I am?

« on: February 16, 2012, 02:50:42 AM »

On a whole different note, I get tired of receiving bogus domain renewal notices hoping that I might trip up.

There are all kinds of reasons to go "private" nowadays very similar to having an unlisted number.  Too many crooked types out there.

We're going to see many people (especially bloggers) going "underground" just to avoid any future extortion letters, and scams from Russia, etc.
People are using proxies more and more for everyday Internet tasks.
"Domain privacy" will be the norm.

S.G.

1628

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Typo in URL

« on: February 16, 2012, 02:47:53 AM »

Sometimes the best solution is the simple one.  If you don't own the domain, you don't own it. That is it.

Having said that, they might go back and check to see if they made an error. If they made a typo and discover it, then you will be right were you started. However, I am all for NOT making it easy.

Probably the less said at this juncture the better. "I do not own the domain you referenced."

Done.

1629

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I guess I screwed up

« on: February 14, 2012, 04:10:12 PM »

I would be inclined to believe this line of thinking.  The hot-linking issue has been around a long time in the context of bandwidth-theft. I know I try to prevent others from hot-linking to any images I might have posted.  Not so much for copyright issues as much as I don't want anyone riding my bandwidth allocation however small it might be.

It is entirely reasonable that you are "guilty until proven innocent" or you create enough hassles for them to back off.  Let us make no mistake, the revenue generation is very important to them. They will go as far as they can without creating a big legal problem for themselves.  And I am forced to admit, they have done a good job thus far.

Too bad so many letter recipients are too dumb, lazy, or spineless to do anything meaningful about it and keep caving in.

The "Hotlinking" issue long predates Lucia's demand letter.
Getty has been sending letters alleging infringement over hotlinked comtent including ad banners for ages.
Also, Getty has been made aware of the issue long ago; it's not that they don't check the HTML.  They just don't care, and they want your money.
They threaten people over a long period of time so they they'll get worn down and pay regardless.

Everybody needs to understand that the main issue with Getty is that they aggressively demand money over cases that they know aren't really infringements.
We ARE talking about a company that IS technically savvy and has legal counsel at hand.  They know about this stuff.

S.G.

1630

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Glen Carner's Screen Saver / Wallpaper Entrapment Links

« on: February 08, 2012, 02:49:19 PM »

Hey, I think I understand the expanded formula. LOL.

How about this one?

PS + VKT + HAN (GC) + 'Shakedown Letter' + ELI = BFE! (Big Fat Explosion, what were YOU thinking it meant? LOL.)

PS + VKT + HAN (GC) + 'Shakedown Letter' = $$$$ ÷ /4 

1631

Getty Images Letter Forum / Retaliation and payback against copyright trolls through small claims court

« on: February 08, 2012, 11:51:52 AM »

Having my roots in I.T. and interests in media of all kinds (software, books, movies, music, etc.)  I am a big believer of cross-pollination of ideas. I take a concept that seems creative/innovative to me and then twist and adapt it into somewhere different.

In that spirit, I was inspired with an idea for retaliatory action against copyright trolls (or any other large company for that matter) if things got bad enough and someone was angry enough to do something about it. 

In the recent Liuxia Wong vs. Hard Drive Productions case, Wong was not going to stand for the ongoing harassment and pressure to settle by Prenda Law that is representing HDP.  Prenda Law was trying to use the embarrassment factor to try to pressure Wong into settlement.  This older woman was not going to have any of that and she went public.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80436912/Liuxia-Wong-vs-Hard-Drive-Productions-Complaint-Exhibits-A-B-C-D

And very creatively, she (with her lawyer Steven Yuen) filed a creative lawsuit against THEM in HER jurisdiction. Suddenly, the copyright troll now has to spend money to answer and defend this case.  Originally, it was probably a contingency case where Prenda Law got a percentage slice of any successful collection effort. However, with this lawsuit, Prenda Law now has to charge billable hours to Hard Drive Production and suddenly both the lawyers and the client are under a worldwide microscope watching intently where a ton of people are wishing for bad things to happen to both the opposing lawyer and the copyright troll client.  Karma gets nasty that way.

So the Wong case shows that a claim can be creatively flipped the other way especially when the other party keeps harassing you for a settlement. Something to think about.

On a different front, the other interesting twist in legally fighting a party that is much larger than you is the recent case in small claims court by a California woman, Heather Peters, against Honda for making false mileage claims about a Honda Civic.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10342080-honda-civic-mileage-verdict-has-industry-sweating

She very astutely realized that any legal fight against Honda would be a tough one if she followed the traditional road with traditional legal advice. Instead of trying to get EVERYTHING she might be entitled to and fighting an incredibly difficult and expensive uphill battle, she decided to file her case in small claims court!

The 46-year-old Peters, herself a former corporate attorney, chose to take her dispute to a small claims court in suburban Los Angeles. While Peters says she recognized she wouldn’t be able to collect all the money she insists she lost on added fuel costs and a lower trade-in value, she felt she’d have a better chance of getting a reasonable judgment in small claims.

Such courts are typically used for minor disputes – and they normally bar the use of attorneys, meaning an individual can sue a large corporation without facing a bank of legal experts – or running up bills that would far exceed the maximum claim, which ranges from $2,500 to $15,000 depending on the state.  In California, the cap is $10,000, and Peters was awarded $9,867 this month by Superior Court Commissioner Douglas Carnahan.

By going to small claims court, Honda couldn't hire an army of lawyers to overwhelm the plaintiff. In small claims court, is quite customary for plaintiffs to prosecute or defend themselves. Further, small claims judges are accustomed to this and give every benefit of the doubt to non-lawyers.

Ultimately, Peters won her case. However, Honda is appealing the decision and they are sweating bullets over this.  Because if they lose the appeal, there will be a TON of small claims suits against Honda.

The bottom line is this is a very interesting concept to consider. Small claims cases don't cost very much to file. But it can be expensive to defend for a large company with headquarters hundreds or thousands of miles away.

I recently helped a friend file a small claims lawsuit against a woman that just would not pay pay him what she owed for nearly a year and she simply ignored him.  But the lawsuit woke her up a few weeks ago and suddenly she is asking for a way to settle.

I know the potential power of small claims court. It can be a legal power equalizer.

1632

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Is Riddick Dead?

« on: February 07, 2012, 08:57:49 PM »

If it means anything to you, even lawyers think twice about us especially put the glaring light on them.

There is just something they don't like about their names being associated with a website name "extortionletterinfo". I been told that the word "extortion" upsets their sensibilities.

Ironically, I have grown comfortable with my name being associated it. LOL.

Agreed Matthew.

There's been so much good information exchanged here, and so much support, we're all very fortunate and grateful to you & Oscar for keeping up the vigilance.

When I was growing up, I had an early growth spurt, and I was usually "a hand" taller than most kids.  I also had a pretty strong sense of right & wrong (thanks, Mom & Dad) from an early age. So I often found myself in the position of protecting kids from bullies.  Even now, the best way to light a fire under me is to violate my sense of fairness.

I hope Riddick slithers back under rock he came from, forked tongue, soft white underbelly and all.  If he wants to strike anyone here, I hope he understands that he's taking us all on.

1633

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Glen Carner's Screen Saver / Wallpaper Entrapment Links

« on: February 07, 2012, 08:40:28 PM »

Too funny.  We have a new language system thanks to EVNL.

I pity the newcomer who has to figure out:  HAN (GC) + VKT  >>> $$$

Looks like an algebraic formula. LOL.

They are in it & all over it..HAN (GC) + VKT!!! There is no doubt...& GC doesn't care about honest mistakes, the only care is for the $$$

1634

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Certified Letter

« on: February 07, 2012, 08:23:55 PM »

SG,

I take exception to that statement. That is not true, that is your assumption. It is true there are some philosophical similarities with the 4 of us but there are a fair amount of differences too. But no one is being asked to give up their personal opinions or positions by "joining". Oscar and I disagree on things. And I have never asked or even pressured mcfilms or buddhapi to preach a certain philosophy. The subtle differences is what makes us stronger and cover different angles.

If mcfilms or buddhapi want to recommend ignoring the letters, they can do that. I won't respect them any less. Oscar and I simply think a bit differently. And I have conceded that you made some good points in your argument in different situations.

If you want to stay independent as you have been, I have no problems with that.  We love to continue seeing and hearing from you But please don't state things that are NOT there.

If I really had a problem with dissenting opinions on these forums, the "delete" link is very easy to click on which I don't do except for very specific and rare reasons.

I know that "official folks" here can't really say "ignore it", and that's part of the reason that I didn't formally "join".

1635

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Certified Letter

« on: February 07, 2012, 08:13:06 PM »

I don't like to ping-pong for a long time. I eventually make a firm statement to back off or else be prepared for the consequences. Very much like our favorite female Canadian lawyer.  She kept on with the threats until I said enough. Then I went on the offense.

If you read my 2nd letter closely, you will see there was a subtle message of what might happen to the individual employees if they continued on specifically regarding Chloe.  I personally didn't feel the need to lawyer up because I was going to go on the attack on a different front.  It is true it would not necessarily stop a lawsuit from coming my way but I have learned a long time ago to not fight with your opponent's rules.  You make up the fighting rules you can win at.

Well if it has "always" been Getty's response to make the "empty threats" of "showing proof during the discovery process", then I feel even more strongly that you should "lawyer up" in order to make the letters stop entirely.

So again, you can lawyer up, or if your case is very strong you can go back and forth like Mcfilms & Lucia until you actually hear the words that they are "no longer pursuing the case" or, you can ignor all further correspondence after their "empty threats" which could be like Matt described as "Chinese water torture"........NO PROBLEM!