Messages

1996

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Oscar Unleashed

« on: July 31, 2011, 10:27:10 PM »

It looks like Oscar Unleashed Part II. 

On Sunday, July 31, Oscar gave the gift of his time on the weekend and went on a posting rampage and answered and commented on many, many posts. Enjoy.

Matthew

1997

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

« on: July 31, 2011, 01:51:49 AM »

Helpi,

Fortunately, I am not accountable to you.  I get it. We (ELI) get an "F" on your report card.  But I am not trying to save the world here. I do what I can when I can.  That is it.  As shitty, ugly, and ineffective as this website might be, it is probably more impactful than what most people are doing.  It might actually be more than what YOU are doing but I cannot say for sure as you have not ever revealed your true identity.

If you feel you can do more or are doing more, by all means, share what you have done or launch your own site and show us the way.

I don't claim have to have answers or help to every single situation and scenario.  This site has served its initial purpose which was the help defend against my own extortion letter situation. In that regard, that was mission accomplished quite a while ago.

For people who needed insights and information on how to defend themselves pro se, Oscar and I produced numerous videos and wrote many articles and commentary. We get "thank yous" for that frequently.  So mission accomplished.

For people who needed formal legal assistance from a high-powered attorney, I found Oscar and he stepped up and we co-designed the letter program he implements today. He has 500+ clients who are happy he broke legal professional protocol of the $300+/hour charge.  Mission accomplished.

Awareness and education of the stock photo extortion letter issue continues to expand and our online presence as the leading source for stock photo extortion letters appears to be firmly established as long as we "keep the lights on". Mission accomplished.

This is yet another non-responsive post but it makes me feel good that I can toot my own horn where I took a negative event and created something positive from it earning lots of goodwill and friends along the way. As I always tell Oscar in our phone calls, we owe it to Getty Images for our friendship today.

So, you can continue cracking, criticizing, or be confused about ELI, this community, what we do, and what we stand for.  In the meantime, I will continue to muddle forward like Mr. Magoo.

Who knows? When I get tired or bored enough of ELI, I will turn the lights out. I've talked about it both behind the scenes and in public.  When I consistently get more shit than sunshine from the ELI project, the lights will go out. My friends will still be my friends and everyone else can go fend for themselves.  I promise this website will not last forever. It could be next month or it could be years from now, but ELI will end at some point.

Non-responsively,

Matthew

1998

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

« on: July 29, 2011, 11:55:22 PM »

If you need a reminder, the focus of much of this forum is Getty Images, Masterfile, Imageline, and others that engage in big-time extortion letters that present a colored view for the purpose to instill fear so that they can outrageously profit from it.  But at all times, I do remember it is currently legal to do so.

No one is lumping very IP case into the same basket but there are many similar patterns and behavior going on. It is up to each letter recipient to decide how to deal with the minutia of their own case.  They can handle it on their own or they can recruit help from others.

PS, never met Carolyn and have no interest in the case whatsoever. It's not about her or this case (at least to me), it's the mindless lumping of every IP case into the same basket.

1999

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

« on: July 29, 2011, 11:51:00 PM »

Well HELPI,

I am flattered you took the time to break down my post and respond in detail.  I am going to try to keep this brief for the sake of time.  At the risk of duplicating my fellow supporters answers, I am guessing they have followed my posts enough to know in which context I spoke.  SG and Buddhapi hit many of the salient points and seem to understand the context of my comments.

My comments are not directed to every single IP issue that is going on. It is true that my commentary is slowly growing to other areas but the main thrust of this forum and this site is most directed to the shenanigans that Getty Images, Masterfile, Imageline, and the folks that support and condone that action.

So when I made that $200-$300/photo comment, it is a generalized comment. I don't have time or the inclination to write about every single circumstance that can happen.  Most of the letters going out are hitting small-timers that have caused little or no damages.  We are not talking about NBC, ABC, CBS, or some newspaper that lifted a photo by mistake and then mass-benefited from it.  Yes, yes, I know the next argument is what is the benchmark, who decides what is too much.  Well, if I am the defendant, I have a say in that and I have an argument to make.

I think everyone knows I am not condoning being a thug beating up someone in the back alley, so please let's not insult anyone's intelligence to even bring that up.  However, make no mistake, there is an attack and defense.

You don't seem to approve of my emotionality. Well, I can tell you there are times being calm, collected, and rational doesn't work.  I'd like to think if people read what I write, they can actually discern or integrate my arguments as a combination of emotion and reasoning.  Oscar is more trained and articulate than I am legally.  He is certainly classier in writing.  I have adopted some "street" attributes intentionally because they are impactful.   I am here to deliver a message, not bore someone to tears that they don't listen.  You can call it creative languaging or whatever.

I am going to share a story that I think Oscar will be ok with me sharing.  He initially did not like my calling this site Extortion Letter Info because the word "extortion" is an emotional trigger word plus we were initially focused on Getty Images.  Well, languaging matters if you are trying to make a case and spread the message.  Also, my instincts told me that if Getty Images was doing this, there were others out there.  So, I stand by my emotionality in the context of extortion letters as practiced by most of the stock photo industry.

But please don't bring in Disney, Pixar, etc.  I have never mentioned them nor those situations because, for now, they are outside of the scope of this website.  If you are here for purely intellectual discussion of IP issues, you probably need to an academic site. They discuss theory all day long.

ELI is a very practical and focused website.  Its purpose is to help victims defend against the extortion letters. Yes, there is going to be some fire in the discussions because no one is trying to be an academic here.  People feel they are innocent and they don't deserve to be bullied and here they are.

We don't discriminate at the higher level. Visitors self-select how they want to participate.  Many are silent readers.  Some contribute money out of gratitude. Some email thanks.  Some hire Oscar. Some simply pay because it is not worth the time, stress, and grief of it all. Some employees of the "enemy" come in to watch how the other side think and react.  And in one case, John MacDougall, got bent out of shape by what was written about him by one person, he had an attorney send us a letter.  The list goes on.

HELPI, I find you a very interesting participant.  You make statements which compel me to state things I probably wouldn't state.  Not because I have anything to hide per se but more on the lines does it have to be said because it is sort of assumed knowledge.  I am flattered that SG and buddhapi would jump in and try to clarify my position.  And when I read their posts, they get much of it correct. I respect that they don't speak for me but they do qualify their statements as what they believe I think.

It seems that you are trying to take statements I make in one context and you try to generalize it for something broader than I intended.

Overall, I do find your posts to be respectful although somewhat disagreeable to what ELI stands for and what Oscar and I do in "our spare time". But I must confess you do help generate some good on these forums because of your post, we have more good content being created and written by knowledgeable forum participants for other people to read.

SG listed a number of great examples of high-profile instances where they issued a warning which was very effective. Buddhapi added that "trolling" doesn't pertain to every situation or everyone.

I need a rest now after this rebuttal. :-)

Matthew

2000

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Solved Both Of My Getty Images Cases Myself

« on: July 29, 2011, 02:26:14 AM »

Wela,

You are right about not dealing with the line employees.  It didn't take me long after I got my letter to figure that they had very little power to do much except sing the corporate song. I later found out they hired wanna-be law students for this hourly job.

I took the time time to research the person I was dealing with and when I saw her credentials, I knew I was dealing with a light-weight who had little real-life experience. In fact, I even came across a goofy-looking photo of her at a football game holding up some banner like a fan-freak. I only bring that up because it definitely took away from her credibility.

Sort of like reading "attorney" Brandon Sand's sad-looking LinkedIn resume.

Skipping the chain of command is definitely the way to go to get some better and smarter results.  However, with Getty, it is getting more difficult to deal with anyone except the lower levels directly because there are layers of protection for them. In fact, outside law firms have taken on more responsibilities for collections and negotiations.

Good job Wela and thanks for your story.  That is what happens when you have some education, knowledge, and a spine on your side.  Spines are in relatively short supply.

Matthew

2001

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

« on: July 29, 2011, 02:12:38 AM »

HELPI,

If you don't understand the colloquialism of "trolling" then go visit EFF's site.  They cover it in depth. Online infringement is probably rampant. I find it hard to disagree with that.

But you will never convince me that extorting thousands of dollars per image is the right thing to do. Years back, I found a website that lifted an entire website from me.  The only thing they changed was the company name.  I sent a strongly worded letter letting them know they were infringing on my material and I asked them to take it down.  A few days later, it was gone. Problem solved. I didn't extort any money from them and my problem was solved.

You might even be able to get me to agree to some money from infringement as an inconvenience factor, somewhere in the order of $200-$300 which is Oscar and I have found to be a good balance.  But they sucker the dumb and the spineless who actually pay full fare.  The smart ones and the fighters pay very little or nothing at all because they refuse to be victimized by this racket.

What the stock photo business is doing is purely a revenue for-profit play that has gone out of control and uses the technicalities of copyright law that were never intended for kind of use that is happening.  Hence, Oscar and I call it "legalized extortion" because it is nevertheless legal. And the only way to combat this is through knowledge, education, and a spine.

Just like it is legal for this website to exist to combat and defend against those that take the other side. You want to root for Carolyn, fine.  Then maybe you should go join her blog and tell her what a wonderful job she is doing and how you are supportive of it. She will love you for it.  In the meantime, she is now being watched and we are expecting more of her letters to show up over time.

This community doesn't just exist so we can just piss and moan about it.  There is actually something being built up here. Information exchange is one of those items and sniffing out the truth is the other.  Education is also a big component. And make no mistake, there are LOTS of confidentiality agreements employees are made to sign on the "other side" to protect their racket which Oscar and I and my follow ELI cohorts are determine to uncover.

As time goes, more and more info is being leaked out. It gets very difficult to keep everything secret when there are so many players at different levels.

Matthew

Matt, you think every case is "trolling" whatever that means. The more I read this board the more I realize online infringement is rampant. Go Carolyn !

2002

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Steven Weinberg contacts ELI on behalf of John MacDougall of Masterfile

« on: July 28, 2011, 10:04:59 PM »

SG,

I have never seen the article before with these precise statistics on Masterfile or anyone.  So, this is a very good post. In the past, Oscar and I have tried to do an estimation on the Getty Images letter front (over 100,000 letters since they began years ago).

If 15 MF employees are working this and assuming each make an average of $50,000/year salary, that would mean the extortion letter operation would have to exceed $750,000 in net profits to justify its own existence.  This number would have to clear any Picscout fees, legal fees, and commissions paid to photographers.  Because we do not know the payment structure, we can only surmise that the letter operation is a multi-million dollar operation! Hence, their operation probably does make more than traditional sales.

You could be correct on Shahadyda Babb, I don't remember the name but I do remember looking up some professional women's blog and the info was not there anymore.

And it isn't just MF that is milking this thing, it is stock photo industry.  It has gone so far now that individual photographers are making deals with attorneys directly to set up copyright trolling operations.

Last thing totally off-topic, is it just me or when I see or type "MF", I instinctively think of a phrase besides Masterfile?  ;-)

Matthew

2003

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Steven Weinberg contacts ELI on behalf of John MacDougall of Masterfile

« on: July 28, 2011, 06:23:56 PM »

How and where did you get the statistics on how many extortion letters go out?  Do you have a source?

I was also told by someone reputable that Masterfile makes more money from the extortion letter program than from legitimate paying customers buying photos from their website.  I would like to see someone or hard-core evidence that corroborate this.  I was also told that one time this information was shared in a speech and it was posted on a website but subsequently taken down at the request of the Masterfile employee for fear of reprisal.

If that is the case, I would not be surprised if Masterfile employees have to sign confidentiality agreements so they cannot publicly reveal Masterfile's true profit centers.  Most involved in the stock photo industry, including so-called professional photographers, now knows that without a copyright trolling strategy, many in the stock photo industry would most certainly be put out of business.

In other words, without the extortion letter program, Masterfile would be far smaller and less significant than it can earn legitimately.  This reminds me of stories that ask for "protection money" from the people they extort since the mob cannot as much money legitimately.

Matthew

2004

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

« on: July 28, 2011, 11:58:21 AM »

The link to the redacted letter is on the very first post.

I doubt Wright took the case unless the image was registered. The Court can go up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement. Do you know the facts alleged ?

Anyone have access to the letter mind posting it ?

2005

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile people responsible for your miseries

« on: July 27, 2011, 10:01:18 PM »

In the interest of not duplicating my reply to DGI's latest post, people can read my response to his long post here where he posted the same message.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2138.0.html

Matthew

2006

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Steven Weinberg contacts ELI on behalf of John MacDougall of Masterfile

« on: July 27, 2011, 09:58:14 PM »

SG,

Your welcome on the sharing. I thought it might be of public interest. I wanted to post the exchange earlier but I had not yet spoken with Oscar and wanted to make sure he was ok with it, which is obviously is otherwise I wouldn't have done it. We like to tag-team how we handle certain things.

I really do try to be respectful when I can but I do have my limits.  When people push beyond my limits on what is rational or makes sense to me, then I get a bit snarky and sarcastic. (*gasp, really?*)

Quite frankly, this whole thing is both a little petty but amusing at the same time.

Oh, and have you noticed the readership count on the thread have spiked dramatically?  It is change from a typical post where someone new receives a letter.

Matthew

Matt,

Thanks for posting the correspondence between you, Oscar and Mr Weinberg.

Basically all of this is just posturing and bullying.
I like how respectful you are in your conversations with Mr Weinberg.
However, he sounds like he needs a little less starch in his collar.

Go ahead and get laughed at.  It's funny as hell right now.
This is the funniest thing I have seen in many, many months.

S.G.

2007

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Steven Weinberg contacts ELI on behalf of John MacDougall of Masterfile

« on: July 27, 2011, 09:44:45 PM »

DontGiveIn (DGI),

Let me be clear, I did not think what you said came close to defamation and I said this once or twice already. Nevertheless, Oscar did say to you (which I support) that your tone and words was a bit stronger than we would encourage on these forums.

You are NOT being made the scapegoat.  But the the truth of the matter is, your posts were the one that upset John which triggered the letter by Steven to us. You are smart enough to know that you really have nothing to be concerned about even if we had left the original post up as is.  Steven didn't like it when I said that I felt John has a thin-skin.  He tried to tell me (or insinuate) that it was still defamatory and unlawful if people got the impression that John initiated the letter because he was overly sensitive and had a thin-skin.  That was the point where I thought to myself GMAFB and I told Steven to not make this situation any more than it had to be.

John may be respectful and professional in his dealings but the fact he decided to have Steven write both Oscar and I a letter makes my eyes roll over in my head.

DGI, you are a smart guy and you write well. I like this side of you. And what John has inadvertently done is raised your profile and credibility because you are capable of communicating and writing well.  DGI, don't be upset.  As SG said, this whole incident has evolved to a humorous discussion.

Oscar and I discussed this on the phone.  I told Oscar that even if the ISP and I cooperated to "find you true identity" through the IP address, it would still be a big job in itself.  Then having to prove that you were the one that posted.  Then to prove that your post was truly defamatory in nature and caused damage.  There is the "common sense" factor that happen in courtrooms that most lawyers don't even want to admit. Lawyers want to cite all these laws, statutes, etc. but at the end of the day are they willing to spend the money to prove it?  And  if they are willing to spend can they prove it?  And if they can prove it, how much would they win?  And if they did win, how much would they win?  Also, how much could they actually collect?  Would the judgment even mean anything in practical terms?  I could go and on but you already know most of this.

Having said that, you have to pick and choose your battles.  If the word "monster" or "henchman" is too offensive and too personal, fine.  We will not allow forum posters call John a "monster" or "Henchman" on the off-chance that someone would actually believe he is an off-world alien or wears an executioner's uniform.  "Whatever" is my attitude about it.

DGI, you sound angry but all I was trying to do is paint a picture that it was only one guy that got carried away with name-calling (my opinion).  I say to you, take it easy.

Out of this incident, I think John comes of as looking the most embarrassing. As I said elsewhere, boo hoo, we promise not to do it again, ok? Jeez.

Regarding Getty Images or Masterfile, there is really nothing you can do to hide this open forum and I wouldn't even try.  People need to get educated in the fact that you are allowed to speak freely with little repercussions.  We don't force anyone to use their real names. Oscar and I do, it is our choice.

I agree with you, this has gotten control.  All this copyright and patent trolling is causing a lot of unnecessary damage. I have personally boycotted the stock photo industry and really don't want to deal with any professional photographers, period.  I am not saying that all photographers are bad but I have dealt with enough of them to know they get freakish about certain things.  That is why I own a nice camera and take my own shots.  And if I need someone to take shots, I will get almost anyone besides a so-called professional photographer to hold a camera.  That is just my thing nowadays.  The only exception that I have done in past years is I paid for their time and made it clear to them that I own the images they take of me. And that works out well if you find the right person with a not-so-tight attitude.

Matthew

2008

Getty Images Letter Forum / $9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn E.Wright law firm

« on: July 26, 2011, 10:41:13 PM »

Oscar brought this brand-new "player " to my attention.  It appears attorney Carolyn Wright has started her own law firm and joined "Team Copyright Troll" representing photographer Ryan McGinnis.

This sort of reminds me of how young attorney Brandon Sand from San Diego, made his debut here on ELI with his 5-figure settlement figure.

PhotoAttorney.com's Carolyn Wright has hung herself a new shingle representing photographers trolling the web. I have to admit, she produces a good-looking extortion letter.

http://extortionletterinfo.com/photo-attorney-extortion-letter.pdf

Getty Images seems like a great deal when you compare to Carolyn Wright's generous offer to settle for $9,000.

2009

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Steven Weinberg contacts ELI on behalf of John MacDougall of Masterfile

« on: July 26, 2011, 10:11:18 PM »

Oscar and I mutually agreed to share our email replies to Attorney Steven Weinberg regarding John MacDougall's so-called unlawful defamation of his character.  As you can see, there is disagreement but entirely cordial. The dialog is presented in reverse order.

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

Dear Steven:
 
Matt has removed all of the indelicate comments about John on the post and I know that he and I will continue to try and advise our posters to maintain civility when posting.  I don't want to drag out this issue but the comments would not qualify as defamatory statements; they were certainly  immature, sophomoric and rude but not defamatory. While I cannot speak for your client, I think it would not be worth Masterfile's time and effort to commence litigation to try and have Matt turn over the IP address of the poster.  First of all, as I am sure you know, that is not automatically or readily granted, especially here in NY. Second of all, even if the court would grant that relief,  Masterfile would only be likely to find out that it was someone who was judgment proof.  Please ask Masterfile to leave this issue where it now stands and to take no further action as all sides should get back to their regular business. Thanks          
 
Oscar Michelen

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

Steven,

I respectfully disagree with you.  There actually has to be harm and damages by what is being said in defamation.  People would actually have to believe the statements as well.  Calling someone a name is in itself not a defamation. I have been on the Internet for years and seen all kinds of writings about people.  What was said about John is really tame and no one would take it literally.  Let’s get real here. I have been to court enough that there is some “common sense” about these matters.

There is no conspiracy against John, just one guy who got overly fired up.  I edit it out and now it is done.  Your letter is a warning to others.  Let’s not twist this thing out of proportion here.

At this point, I believe your specific situation is remedied.  If you would like to follow-up on what I posted as a reply, I have no problems with you or John setting the record straight. Let’s not make this any complicated than this has to be.

Matthew

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

From: Steven M. Weinberg
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 5:35 PM
To: * Matthew Chan* ; omichelen
Cc: Steven M. Weinberg
Subject: RE: Urgent

Matthew:

I appreciate your quick reply and your positive response.

FYI, John is not “thin-skinned” nor are any of us who are involved in the enforcement of the rights of IP owners.  We all know there are a lot of opinions on these issues, and Masterfile, like my other clients, which include some of the major rights owners in the worlds of copyright and brands, accept that there will always be the name callers who hide behind pseudonyms.  Defamation, in contrast to first amendment protected expression, however, is a very different issue, which is why my letter and Masterfile’s comments are limited to that unlawful activity.  Thus, in posting my letter, it would be an injustice and frankly defamatory to John to do so under the rubric that his feelings need to be protected – if you are going to post my letter, the truthful comment would be that Masterfile supports discussion protected by the first amendment, but will not tolerate unprotected, unlawful defamatory statements.

Regards,

Steven M. Weinberg
Holmes Weinberg, PC

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

From: * Matthew Chan*
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:09 PM
To: Steven M. Weinberg; omichelen
Subject: RE: Urgent

Hello Steven,

I have not conferred with Oscar Michelen but I have read the post you listed and its replies in question.  Aside from a couple of mocking statements, I don’t see anything that is truly defamatory and unlawful so I respectfully disagree with your assessment.  May I suggest that John MacDougall has sensitive skin?  Having said that, I do publicly state that we should not get into personal insults and name-calling as it takes away from the credibility of our website’s mission.

Subject to my discussion with Oscar, within 48-hours, I will edit out or delete those statements that appear to be inflammatory or overtly personal and untrue and trust that will be sufficient.  But you should suitably inform John MacDougall that in his line of work will naturally bring out hostility in people that will inevitably cause bad behavior.  If he has such thin skin over those remarks, then you will continue to enjoy collecting more legal fees to dispatch more letters to other website owners.  I certainly do not condone it and it is specified in writing on our forum rules.

I will also do John MacDougall a favor and post a copy of your letter as to send a strong message as to not to hurt your clients feelings anymore with personal insults and inflammatory statements. I am quite confident that it will end the matter once and for all on our forums to John’s satisfaction.

On a related note, you and John should know I have a big problem with the rampant anonymity that goes on the Internet.  I feel people should back up what they say with their true identity.  If we were required to do that, there would be far more civil behavior and less outrageous and inflammatory statements.  Please note that Oscar and I continue to be among the very few in the world involved in this issue that (perhaps stupidly) sign our names to what we write.  We do not hide behind anonymous pseudonyms because we stand by what we say.

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention and I trust the course of action we will take will resolve the matter.

Matthew Chan

2010

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney Steven Weinberg contacts ELI on behalf of John MacDougall of Masterfile

« on: July 26, 2011, 04:44:46 PM »

DontGiveIn,

Thank you for understanding what our intentions are and respecting our request in using good forum decorum.

Obviously, you have not been banned and your account was not disabled.  You haven't even been edited. :-)

So feel free to express yourself.  One thing I will definitely agree on is that the legal loopholes are being abused.  I am a big believer in spreading the word.  The more people that get educated, the more options they have.

At this point, I don't have an axe to grind with Steven Weinberg.  He was pretty civil, diplomatic, and professional about the whole thing from beginning to end.  He sent an easy email to me and I replied to him quickly which he seemed to appreciate. You also have to remember that it was John or Masterfile that instigated Steven to write the letter. Boo hoo, John got called a couple of streetyard names (thanks SG!), and felt it was "DEFAMATION" and "UNLAWFUL".  Right....... GMAFB.  (Anyone knows what that stands for? *wink*)

Incidentally, I spoke to Oscar today and he is A-OK with what has transpired and how everything has been resolved. I don't know for sure but I think Oscar finds this all a bit amusing. Regardless, he is ok with us taking the high road.

You see, by taking high road in watching our language, we are free to talk infinitum about our OPINIONS which there is no shortage of by the core community.

In my opinion, Masterfile and John just got more publicity by having Steven send us the letter than if he just left it well enough alone.  It was a nice looking letter wasn't it?  I went and visited Steven Weinberg's law firm website.

Matthew