Messages

1636

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Certified Letter

« on: February 07, 2012, 08:03:45 PM »

No offense taken in this discussion, so we are all good.

But I am going to hop on my soapbox.  (Yes, sigh, again....)

It is very true that many things have changed since I started in 2008. I don't hold my letter responses as being "definitive". I muddled my way through based on my resources and research at the time. But what wasn't muddied was my commitment to the fight.

It was great of Oscar to agree to be part of ELI shortly before my 2nd response letter went out. No question about that. He did help clarify some issues and help with some talking points.

But regarding the sentence you BOLDED about my consulting an informed attorney, I stated that for their benefit because I got tired of them beating that drum on me like I was a GD idiot and I threw it back into their faces.

I understand how different people could interpret the outcome of my case in different ways.  I won't claim I am absolutely right but no one in this group except Oscar was there in 2008.  Even then, he had no direct interactions with Getty on my behalf. 

All of you are trying to imagine the environment in 2008. Let me tell you there was a lot of bitching, ranting, raving, and complaining by anonymous people. There was a dry desert of credible information to work with then compared to today.  Maybe I did get lucky in a way as I did muddle my way through.  But I also didn't sit on my tail waiting for a solution to fall on me. I actively built ELI and went out to find a "legal partner". If it wasn't Oscar, I was confident I would have eventually found another lawyer. I just happen to hit the right pitch to him at the right time.

At end of the day, I was the guy on the phone and slaved over for hours writing the letters that takes 5 minutes to copy and read.  I was the guy in the middle of the night digging out the dirt on them on Google.  I dove in the search engines more than anyone else I know AT THAT TIME.  (Today, Buddhapi puts me down cold in digging.)

Let us not forget that they could have also thought that if I had consulted an attorney, why then wasn't he representing me? Why would I continue to write my own letters? It might have been a contributing factor but I don't think it was the singular show-stopper.

No one has to believe or accept my interpretation of the events. But it is what I have come up with.

Ok, I am off my soapbox now...

With all due respect to Matt, A lot has changed since Matt's "final response" to Getty in 2008. They now RESPOND to those questions asked regarding "proof" of registration and ownership. Granted, it is B.S. responses such as "those things will be disclosed during the discovery process". So for the "new comers", it appears that they have no intention of backing down with regard to these questions. I also strongly feel that a statement made by Matt in his first paragraph of his final letter made a HUGE impact...
"I have already taken it upon myself to consult with a well-established attorney that is more than familiar with copyright and intellectual property.". BAM.....end of story IMO.

1637

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Certified Letter

« on: February 07, 2012, 07:44:32 PM »

I agree with you to not make it easy. I agree with many points you make when you put your points out that way.

The reality is that the chances of being served is very low by virtue of very few lawsuits are filed. And the low-hanging fruit will always be the highest priority.

Regarding whether "coming out" is ultimately good or not is debatable. I had the same question early on.  I thought that my coming out might make me more of a target to "make an example out of me".  But keeping low also meant I would have to fight alone with very little leverage or opportunity to get help from anyone.

In that regard, it seemed like a "wash" to me. I gained some benefits and lost some.

Having said all that, in the interest of disclosure, I did have many things going my way in terms of my combat and defensive abilities that most people didn't.
 
Unlike many people, fighting the Getty letter controversy wasn't my first rodeo.  I had experience with the Napoleon Hill Foundation vs. MasterMind Forums fiasco from 2000-2002. I led the fight on the CobraCollectionScam.com in my local city in 2007-2008.  I did reporting on the sleazy "Incredible Discoveries" infomercial operations from 2007-2009. I did these using my identity.  I leveraged my credibility and track record as a business person, publisher, author, and real estate investor into the projects. I did so because I believed it gave gravitas to my message. Building gravitas is important because it makes life easier.

Over the years, I would fight and often win (at least lower the charges/costs) against traffic tickets I would get. I been into court many times as a a plaintiff over landlord or small claims cases. I dealt with many lawyers over the years and so forth.

By the time I got around to dealing with the Getty letter, I had some idea of how to combat this using the Internet, publicity, joint ventures, partnering, etc.

What I am getting at is, there are many merits to what you are saying. You have good sound opinions. I guess in the end, it comes down to personality and style.

So, you're saying that the Original Poster in the thread should call up Getty of MF and give them their contact info?
I strongly disagree if that's what you're saying.

In addition, I think that some of the arguments here assume that the trolls will go to the ends of the earth to find you.
That usually isn't the case.  It's usually not worth it.

If you're quite difficult to find, it'll go away probably 50 percent of the time.  I like those odds.
But, if people feel that they'll get off easier by calling up the trolls and saying "here I am", then that's an option, I guess.
If somebody does that, I hope that they'll report back and tell us what a "good deal" they got. lol.

If you're "laying low", then they "find you", it wouldn't change the material facts of your case.
Now, if you're actually "served" and you "disappear", there could be consequences.

Keep in mind that putting your name "out there" and exposing your communications with the trolls (while amusing) can get you into more heat than "laying low".
I wouldn't bait them too much.  If they serve you (even out of spite), you're going to lay out a lot of cash to defend yourself.
If you get sued, you have to file a defence.
But, it's not my money, I guess...

Just my opinions.

S.G.

1638

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: First Certified Letter

« on: February 07, 2012, 01:42:33 PM »

Ok, I will play along on "laying low" a bit. However, I will paint a picture.

Let's say you are an employee that works for some company. If you are in the lower ranks, you can attempt to sanitize the web and expunge all traces of your existence. However, I have personal experience in finding blue-collar, deadbeat tenants, getting them served, winning, and then garnishing them.  I don't get all of them but I get quite a few of them.

Yes, they try to dodge service and they succeed for a long while but then one day, they slip up and bam they get found and served. The issue is, for me, it is effortless to ping my people with a phone call or email once every 2 months.  But the other side is constantly looking over their shoulders trying to lay low.  It is very difficult to be vigilant 24-hours a day, 7-days a week looking over your shoulder.

The above scenario assumes you can stay low.  If you are a higher-level managerial type or have a business, it is much more challenging to lay low because they can send things to the workplace or employer.  (I've done this too).

Don't fool yourself, process servers work inexpensively around $50-$60 per serve (maybe a bit more depending on where you live). So, the serve itself is not expensive, only the lawsuit filing fee and the lawyer fee is.

What concerns me the most about the avoidance strategy is that it can spur your case on more. I tell people "your case isn't that special" but if you persistently avoid it, you might become "more special".  People who avoid me sometimes succeed but I make a point to nail them with EVERYTHING than if they had made it easy for me.

Having said all that, Getty is run by a bunch of hourly collection clerks that have an incentive program. They probably will go after low-hanging fruit. However, misdirected and forwarding addresses aren't difficult to find.

I am not opposed to buying time to help run the clock out or to get educated. But 3 years is a long period of time to try to run out.  Certainly, I wouldn't go out of my way to correct the issue but at some point you have to decide if the hidden costs of living underground is worth it.

Believe it or not, I don't like fights or conflict. I do my best to stay out of them. But if dragged into it, I am a big believe of "shock and awe" and using "overwhelming force" otherwise it becomes like Chinese water torture and gets dragged out infinitum.

I most whole-heartedly agree with what you said regarding "winning". So many don't seem to get it.  Some want to keep trying to outdebate the other side and force them into submission or acknowledgment. They hate the uncertainty and it eats them up alive. And they end up showing their weakness because they are practically begging the other side for a settlement.

And regarding the "head on" approach, I don't necessarily say "screw you, come and get me" (at least to anyone's face).  If you read my responses, I never took that approach.  Mine was much more subtle.  I certainly didn't invite or challenge anyone to come after me.  But I do think some people really do literally say "screw you, if you want me then come get me".  That is simply stupid and baiting someone.

I will confess that one rule probably doesn't fit all situations and circumstances. Gosh knows I have heard all kinds of stories and scenarios since 2008.

For me, I guess I don't think I could ever get away with running because I am too easy to find and would eventually get caught. I don't think I could be that vigilant always looking over my shoulders in that way. So, I just tell myself "I will have to face the music".  Hence, I feel the need to take things head on.

The original poster probably needs to stay vigilant.  His address will eventually get found. I do agree that without that signed first contact, he is in good shape. It should be easy to NOT sign a package or letter without checking to see who it is from first. It is a bit more difficult coordinating that effort if he has family members though that can sign for it.  They would have to stay vigilant as well.

I know that "laying low" isn't a very popular concept on the forum.
But, it`s the first step that everyone should take if possible.

We need to keep in mind what "winning" really means.  It means not paying the copyright trolls.
"Facing it head on" as some have previously stated might mean that you get sued (thanks for your honesty!).
Then, you'll end up paying 100 dollars to talk to a lawyer for 30 minutes, paying a retainer of thousands, and 300 dollars hourly (or more for a "good" lawyer) afterwards.

So, now is the time to very careful what you sign for, watch out for "weird" phone calls, and get your workplace info off of LinkedIn.

Others feel that getting their name and story out there has value.
But that only has value if you`re a crusader like Matt, or a figure that the public will have sympathy for.
Besides, we`ve know for years what the trolls have been doing.

S.G.

1639

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

« on: February 07, 2012, 02:52:46 AM »

Ok, these links bother me. (Search "glen carner wallpaper") It is bad enough we have Vincent Tylor a photographer littering the Internet with his "free wallpapers" where he entraps people. But now, Glen Carner, a guy who I have been trying to give benefit of the doubt to and also the sole member (and owner) of Hawaiian Art Network LLC is doing the same crap.

http://www.brothersoft.com/hawaii-pictures-screen-saver-13.html

http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Shell_and_Desktop/Places_Screen_Savers/Hawaii_Pictures_Screen_Saver.html

http://soft.udm4.com/Places-Screen-Savers/Hawaii_Pictures_Screen_Saver.html

http://www.paolosoftware.com/software/Hawaii-Pictures-Screen-Saver_r50579.htm

http://www.downv.com/Windows/download-Hawaii-Pictures-Screen-Saver-10290609.htm

http://www.sharewareplaza.com/hawaii-pictures-screen-saver-download_1062.html

I think this thread needs to display all the different links and screenshots from these unscrupulous people.  I know the links have been scattered throughout other posts but I think we should start assembling links and screenshots here so that people know what the wallpaper / screen saver entrapment scheme looks like.

From what I have been told, Hawaii is a very small community. Glen Carner and Vincent Tylor are going to make themselves very unwanted in the Pacific if they persist in nailing people who fall for the free wallpaper entrapment scheme.

1640

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Hawaiian Art Network Settlement Demand Letter Collection

« on: February 07, 2012, 02:42:57 AM »

I guess I need to make a correction in my opinion piece. He is also part of the baiting process. This link actually reveals a bit more how the baiting is accomplished.  Yet another bullshit wallpaper.

http://www.brothersoft.com/hawaii-pictures-screen-saver-13.html

(That is right, I spelled BS out.  Tired of seeing this screen saver entrapment scheme.  Need to write another small piece on this.)

I'm not so sure Glen Carner doesn't have his little hand in the pot...

http://publisher.brothersoft.com/glen-carner.html

Just say'in

1641

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image on Getty is no longer available

« on: February 06, 2012, 06:31:40 PM »

That is mighty convenient. It appears they have gotten wise that letter recipients go back to the many Getty site to verify the image terms and pricing and comparing it to the amount being extorted.

I would most certainly make note of this interesting coincidence.

I recently received a letter accusing us of Unlawful Use of a Getty Image.  I tried to search for the image on Getty but got the following message:

We're sorry. Item 200144575-003 is no longer available.

Does this mean anything important? I wanted to look at the image they were accusing us of infringing but it seems they no longer have a relationship with them.

1642

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response

« on: February 06, 2012, 06:26:03 PM »

Oscar is correct and I am correct in each of our statements. I certainly did pick his brain in our conversations. It was partially self-serving when I invited Oscar to ELI and Oscar knew that. The best relationships are those when BOTH parties get something out of it.  Oscar probably would not have given me so much phone time to pick his brain if I didn't have another pretext to have a conversation. That pretext, of course, was to work together on ELI. Was that sneaky of me or what?

I wrote my own letters but on my 2nd response letter, I did incorporate some of his suggestions and legal talking points.  And as all of you know, I have long since passed it forward by openly sharing my letter responses to everyone else. I freely allow people to use my letter as an example and to borrow whatever elements they want into their letter.

However, what I have not yet revealed that I was actually baiting them and MY extortion letters are forthcoming this year....This last sentence was a joke for the humor-impaired.

"Let me explain what I have been doing and why. I am a seasoned litigator in NYC and was brought into this issue by Matthew Chan, the founder of this website, who was an independent publisher that received a Getty Images Demand Letter. He had been handling his case on his own publicizing his efforts through this website until he sought legal counsel and advice. He had surmised that many others must be in the same position and created this website to address some of the issues. After receiving thousands of hits almost immediately, and hearing people's similar complaints about Getty, I decided to offer something to help out those who are caught in this current dilemma."

1643

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response

« on: February 06, 2012, 05:17:42 PM »

You better believe that I will be tapping into the ELI Forums for my Special Report.  I have written so many responses, I need to go back and revisit and resurrect some of it. And yes, there are many variations in the stories but there are certain patterns and themes that recur.

Lucia, I can honestly say yours is a different twist.

I think when you get together with your book, you'll have a number of anecdotes. I'm sure you'll have a section on hotlinking.

1644

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response

« on: February 06, 2012, 05:11:17 PM »

To set the record straight, I NEVER hired Oscar and he has NEVER represented me legally because that was not the nature of my initial contact with him. I contacted Oscar because he was smart enough to publicly make a defense against Getty Images. I reached out to invite him to be part of ELI as a "subject matter expert" and a forum leader. I had no plans on fighting Getty on their terms.  The ELI website was hugely important to me for payback and leverage reasons. 

Oscar came onboard ELI shortly before I sent my 2nd response letter out. It was clear by my letter I was representing myself and I had every intention of continuing to do so.  (Of course, if it had escalated I would certainly have called around for legal advice to get me through some of the legal procedures.)  The one thing I had no intentions of doing was dropping out of the fight because of financial considerations, not because I didn't believe in Oscar's abilities.

It is possible that Oscar's newfound relationship with me back in 2008 might have had some bearing on them backing off but that was predicated upon the fact ELI was up and running to give that impression, I planned on "going big". But I had done my research and saw that Getty didn't have a track record of filing lawsuits, certainly not one over 1 tiny image and I was prepared to take a strong stand.

I am proud to say that Oscar and I are business associates and friends now. Back then, it was just an experiment for both of us. We both respected each other's business reputations enough to agree to a "short-term experiment" that has continued on to this day.

We have a great working relationship. We like that we can be very straight and direct with each other.  He regards me as a consultant and advisor in extortion letter issues.  It doesn't mean I won't ever become a client of Oscar's but his time is limited and it isn't free even for me.

I hope that clarifies my particular situation. I don't want to take FULL credit for getting myself out but I will take the MAJORITY of it. LOL.

To date, I have never been Oscar's client.

As for Matthew's case, it is my understanding that Getty stopped the demand letters after Matt's second response however, it is also my understanding that Matt hired Oscar as well which I am not clear as to whether or not the lack of response from Getty was due to Matt's response or the fact that he hired Oscar?

1645

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Gettys short email response. Plus interesting picscout url

« on: February 06, 2012, 04:44:17 PM »

Very interesting.

Do we know of any hackers that can get us inside to take a peek?  LOL.

https://stock.picscout.com/monitoring/getty/login.aspx

1646

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Public Service Videos

« on: February 06, 2012, 04:25:42 PM »

Buddhapi has produced another video. This time he spotlights Glen Carner, CEO/Owner of Hawaiian Art Network.

1647

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response

« on: February 06, 2012, 04:22:56 PM »

Glad to hear it. I would say it is highly likely they will go away in your case.

Thanks for recognizing that the ELI Forums gives every letter recipient a ton of additional leverage. ELI was very tiny and ugly by comparison when I started it in 2008. But it was still good leverage for me even back then.

Today, any letter recipient willing to post has an instant community and support system. And their story gets out to thousands of people well embedded in the search engines. We happily provide a huge platform for anyone that cares to use it.

Matt-
I'm not under the illusion that I will have a constructive argument! I suspect Getty will never write 'sorry, you're right. We are wrong. We've decided not to pursue this." Instead, at some point, Getty will just go silent just as they did in your case. 

I'm very glad to have your forum where I can report communications as we exchange them.  I plan to live forever, but one never knows. I know that by reporting as the case progresses, future trollees can have access to information describing Getty's current M.O.

1648

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response

« on: February 06, 2012, 04:18:17 PM »

I agree with you to not cave in for no good reason. I agree with you that their case is very flimsy and you will likely come out on to on that merit alone.

You regard this as an experiment except that the experiment is flawed and already stacked in your favor to begin with by virtue of the hot-linking issue. Most letter recipients, including myself, did not have a hot-linking issue.  My issue was a very small bird image was embedded into a much a larger web header that was custom-designed.  Others, simply made the mistake of going into Google Images and using those saved images within their website. In these cases, I am absolutely sure Getty would not back off so quickly. I know this because this has been reported ad nauseum. That is one reason why Oscar gets so many clients (although he is very good at what he does). The sheer aggravation and annoyance factor has driven people into Oscar's service.

Also, you have (intentionally or not) benefited from the leverage of "coming out" and being so active on ELI. (Thank you for that and good for you.) Copyright trolls don't generally like the publicity, light, and exposure. It is unforgiving and any mistakes they might make is magnified greatly. That also works to your favor.

In retrospect, I would say you have the leisure of running your experiment because you have a lot going for you.  But for most others who don't have such an argument or case as you did and deathly afraid of coming out or speaking out, they will continue to be harassed unless they change their posturing which is why we encourage people to speak out.

If ELI were to be permanently shutdown for whatever reason in the future, I feel very certain that the most of the stock photo companies would revert back into a far more aggressive approach (including yours). The ELI Team and this website is well-read by all the stock photo companies.

You may want to take these other factors into consideration in evaluating your experiment.

So, I want them to see that I am not going to cave in for no good reason.  I think the best way to do this is not caving in when their case is absolutely flimsy.   If several emails are exchanged, that's ok with me. I'll post the contents here and we'll learn what Getty writes.

Moving to a more general matter, as an empirical matter,I don't think we actually know if sending email or snail mail is "better".  I think we haven't whether in the end Getty is more aggressive with those who communicate by email or snail-mail because we don't have cases comparing Getty's response in both situations.  So it interests me to do the experimet.   I'll be using email and  I'll let you know how many emails it takes. 

1649

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response

« on: February 06, 2012, 03:58:10 PM »

I heard that. Sometimes it comes to that when being rational doesn't work.

Or, don't pay, stop talking with them, have a couple of brewski's and enjoy life.
Hell, spring's coming.  F'-em.
lol.

S.G.

1650

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Invalidate response

« on: February 06, 2012, 03:56:33 PM »

I would say that in Lucia's case, she has the "good fortune" in the hot-linking issue vs most other people's mistakes.  That is most definitely NOT clear cut.  Making that one argument and slapping that down should ultimately take care of it, email or otherwise. But how many email exchanges remains to be seen.

However, let us not forget that Sam Brown is now getting public exposure on these forums that he has not before. He has to be careful what he says and his team knows that.

Lucia, you have a good chance of making this go away by virtue of your particular hot-linking issue and the fact that Sam Brown knows that your case has "gone public" with every single Getty response being scrutinized. They don't like that much scrutiny or publicity because most employee-types are cowards outside of the workplace.

You may believe in having a constructive argument but tell that to the other hundreds of letter recipients who went down that road and see how effective that got them. Having said that, most did not have hot-linking issues.

Ultimately, there is a school of thought of ending this quickly and moving on with life and another school of thought to try to debate and discuss your way out.