#2 - Hawaiian Art Network llc sells and licenses fine art and stock photography for Hawaii based artists. The company was founded for the purpose of supporting and representing local artists which we have done since 2004. Copyright Services International llc performs copyright related services on behalf of photographers, authors, and agencies including copyright registrations, content tracking (we use both automated and human powered systems), data gathering, internal account collections, and DMCA Takedowns.
When exactly did the lightbulb come on, and you realized you can "work" the law to your advantage to fill your pockets with other peoples money.. After all Hawaiian Art Network does make 50% of it money thru copyright trolling, as you have been quoted.
So it'safe to assume that Glen Carner makes money of both artwork and extorting money out of unsuspecting victims? Double dipping as it were.
<Automated = Picscout & Human powered - to verify the alledged infringement>
< internal account collections = the nasty-gram extortion letters>
DMCA Takedowns...How's that working out for you, as we see there are multiple sites which still host VK Tylors' images, many of which are hosted in the states I don't suppose you'd care to share these notices would you?#3 - Hawaiian Art Network is just that, a network. Our residential fine art sales are fullfilled by the artists themselves exept for commercial projects. Each artist plays a roll in service towards the customer. We also have a bookkeeper, a call / order center, and like you had mentioned previously are "virtual" in nature. Copyright Services International has a dedicated registration specialist, account director, two researchers, and two tracking specialists.
Try as you might to make Copyright Services International look good in the public eye, but it is still a trolling operation no matter how sanitized you attempt to make it appear.
What do your other artist's think about what you are doing? We can't help but notice every letter we have seen is in regards to Vincent K Tylor. I would imagine some of them must have some morals, and not be to thrilled to be associated with Hawaiin Art Network at this point.#4 - There are many reasons to be on the ELI forums at this time:
First and formost, I want CSI to develop new solutions for collecting revenue retroactvily that dosent require copyright law. Is the threat of copyright penalties and accusations of "stealing" the only way to deal with these matters? I hope not. The USCO is also trying to address this issue
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat032906.html. I don't know of anyone in the stock photo industry including myself who entered into this business looking foward to the day when pursuing copyright infringements would become standard practice. Its uncomfortable, inefficient, and contentious work.
The issues are not black and white and the majority of users on ELI speak with one voice. Either that or those of us listening in have "one ear."
I hope to dispell the myths about my companies which have been created at ELI.
I can give accurate information and have no entrenched position on copyright law or the industry.
I know the answers to questions like "Why are the ceast and desist letter amounts this much?" "Who dictates what's in those letters anyway?" "How can this be stealing?" and "I found this image on Google so it must be 'fair use' right?" I make no judgment on any of these things but will provide the facts as I understand them.
First and foremost it looks to me as if you are attempting to do some damage control, CSI ( Copyright Services International ) is looking to "collect revenue" by any means possible.
I will agree with you on the fact that you and other copyright trolls did not enter the business to take advantage of people, but when you realized you could, you quickly jumped on the bandwagon, after all you are in a slowly withering industry and this apparently seemed like a way to keep a sinking ship afloat.
There are plenty of other options available to you, but once again if those options don't fill your pockets, they don't appear to be valid options for copyright trolls
I disagree with the statement that we at ELI speak with one voice, in over 3 years of being active here I have yet to see one person whom did not respect copyright, we plainly and clearly do, once again it is your methods and "price structure"..$678.00 for one image even after the so called "discount" is simply absurd. Most of os on ELI would agree that after a C & D was ignored and the image remained, it becomes more of a "willful" infringent, and those that choose to go this route deserve what ever comes their way. So yes you're listening with one ear.
ELI has created no myths about you Glen Carner, Vincent K Tylor, Hawaiian Art Network, or Copyright Services International, we call it as we see it. Is trying to extort $10,000.00 for one lousy image and having your attorney Brandon Sand threaten jail time a myth? Is the fact that YOUR name is plainly visable on the brothersoft site, there are FREE V.K. Tylor images to download a myth? We did not create the letters that sit in our document library, we did not share VK Tylor images on hundreds of wallpaper sites, we did not upload his images to webshots who subsequently released a cd of said images.
You state: "I make no judgment on any of these things but will provide the facts as I understand them." I'll go out on a limb here and make my own judgment.. Hawaiian Art Network, Copyright Services Internatiuonal, Vincent K. Tylor and Glen Carner, along with a host of other copyright trolls appear to be taking advantage of the system, to line your pockets plain and simple. #5 - I dident know Getty was being more "cautious." Are you sure this is the case? I dont assume to know what Getty thinks but these decisions (like any case) are based on it being worthwhile to the company and the principals of the matter. I dont know if HAN filing on cases "works" or what "works" means but we have every intention of following up with companies that are using our photographer's images for profit. Each company was offered the opportunity to resolve the matter prior to any court filing. What should our response be when we try and resolve a matter in a way which the law outlines and our effort gets ignored or thrown back at us? At HAN, we take our attorney's advice which may mean filing a complaint.
I'm not so sure I would have used the word "cautious" perhaps "smarter" would have worked better, Getty realizes most if not all of their cases are weak, they also realize that any judge in their right mind would not award such high amounts for an "innocent infringement" where the site was developed by a third party or was just a small mom & pop operation with little to no traffic or revenue. I guess we'll be seeing how "worthwhile" it is now that you have someone fighting back.#6 - Im not sure how ELI feels about willful infringement but the law as stated in Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason Inc., et al., 271 F.Supp.2d 737 (D. Md., July 10, 2003): “[W]illfulness” means that the infringer either had actual knowledge that it was infringing the owner's copyrights or acted in reckless disregard of those rights." Readers should also know that under the law "willfulness" as a concept appears to lean more towards "you should have known better and ignorance is not bliss" then one might commonly assume as it pertains to copyright.
I won't speak for the entire ELI community about willful infringement, but I will give you my thoughts on the matter. I respect copyright and artists have a right to protect their IP, if someone gets a notice of possible infringement, chooses to ignore it, leaves the image up, they certainly deserve to learn a lesson. What I think you missing here is that in most if not all of these cases, they have not been willful infringements, when people see images with a "download" now button, some even with a creative commons license or no terms whatsoever, naturally people will feel they can use them.. It would be like me walking down the street in Hawaii and I come across a box of cocnuts, with a sign that say "Free Coconuts" I take one and promptly get arrested for theft, because I did not read the fine print stating they were only free if I made a donation.. What you or I think is fair is not necessarily what the law states or how it operates. Concepts like "deserve" and "I think" don't enter into it when dealing with IP attorneys because they operate in a totally different framework. Take C & D letters for example and why they are written the way they are. The attorneys are not manufacturing those points and amounts, they are following the template of the law. This is why you see "new" lawyers indicating higher amounts and damages. They are trained to do what the law stipulates and what is best for their client. That appears to be to pull and fight as hard as they can, with the expectation that the other side will do the same, best we die bloody and battered in the middle of the courtroom where the truth be found along with the adulation our clients. Really? That's the only way human beings have come up with to deal with the unlicensed use of a stock photograph? As long as the use of images without license is seen as a civil or criminal issue, it will be handled in a way that is consistent with the law. Ironically, it's the more seasoned attorneys who drift away from the "letter" of the law.
Do I agree with the law? There must be some responsibility on the part of a business who uses other peoples work especially when the use is for profit. Where that line is drawn is a matter for the courts to determine (as long as the only solution remains a legal one).
You state: "Ironically, it's the more seasoned attorneys who drift away from the "letter" of the law." Sorry this is complete BS, Oscar Michelen is a very well seasoned attorney in the area of IP, I have yet to see him drift away from the letter of the law, but he shows morals and ethics, whereas Attorney Brandon Sand your very own "new lawyer" actually threatened jail time over a civil matter, and you were okay with this? Or did you the client not recieve a copy of this communication??#7 - Market value of our rights-managed images is provided by FotoQuote software (which nationally samples prices), the photographers themselves, and an evaluation of other agencies.
How can V.K. Tylors images be "Rights Managed" when they appear on hundreds of sites, again why is there a brothersoft account with your name on it offering these "Rights managed" images?? Glen you know full well that these prices are crazy and no one would be willing to pay what your demanding to license one of these images, again I think you're attempting to keep a sinking ship afloat.#8/9 - Unfortunately I cant comment on this. Sorry.
To refresh your memeory in case you forgot:"Hawaiian Art Network has experienced strong revenue recovery. Recovered revenue now accounts for about 50% of Hawaiian Art Network's income" This is not a myth nor did I make it up..#10 - See #4. I was disheartened to see that CSI's attempts at trying internal collections that moved away from formal notices, legal citations, penalty fees, and attorney involvement with the potential of follow-up action were met with suspicion on ELI. Our account director has been specifically trained to try and avoid words like "copyright" "infringer" "stealing" theft" or other accusatory language because it is so hostile and unproductive. Nothing would please me more then for CSI to be successful with our new approach at least at first contact. ELI be proud, it was previous comments you made about acceptable practice that inspired this.
Really? "disheartened" because you decided to change tactics while hoping for the same outcome?? We are proud, but again I think you're missing the point, our world does not revolve around money as yours appaarently does IMHO, our world revolves about doing what's right regardless of what the law states..HAN like ELI is made up of people too. As are the attorneys we hire, the people using the images, the photographers, etc. Each of us is trying to do the best we can to feed our families and keep the world from falling apart around us. We follow the law which in the case of copyright is very inflammatory. So inflammatory that even companies that CSI contacts with an attempt at a business to business resolution with zero penalties, no mention of attorneys, accusations of theft, and discounted license fees sometimes respond through law firms because they are so distressed when discussing copyright. Both sides continue to do this and I don't see anyone saying "here is another way that is supported by both the industry and people using the images" to resolve this quickly, reasonably, and efficiently. It may not even feel fair to both parties but for smaller claims especially, any alternative should be considered and tried. That's why I am here.
So I guess because others in the "indusrty" are doing it makes it okay? I'd much rather be a leader than a lowly follower, my business is doing rather well and I don't subscribe to following the industry standards, thats what sets me apart from the rest. Hope you continue to read thru the posts and reply, just maybe you'll have another lightbulb moment.. Until then you can feel free to continue on your PR campaign, and ELI will continue to do what we do.
Show Posts
