Messages

2011

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

« on: July 26, 2011, 12:19:26 PM »

I should point out that Freedom of Speech does not really apply on these forums.  It is not owned or operated publicly or by any entity related to the government. The forums are privately owned and privately managed.

This forum does not have to exist. Nor does it have to permit anyone to post at all.

There are "house rules". We encourage open discussion but we insist on following "house rules".  Again, it is to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high and not become a disreputable free-for-all like so many other places on the Internet.

We do not operate or participate in a "free-for-all" here on ELI.

Thanks for understanding.

Matthew

2012

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

« on: July 26, 2011, 12:10:17 PM »

Your account has NOT been disabled.  I simply edited out a few phrases from some of your posts. The majority of your posts were ok.

As far as I am concerned, you are free to communicate your unhappiness with Masterfile or John but you should watch the language you use.  If you read my posts, I have a lot to say but we don't need to use inflammatory words to do so.

People are astute and can read between the lines.  Please note your post was NOT edited this time around because I read the words you used and you communicated strong feelings without name-calling.

In the letter, you will note that they might ask for your IP address and your identity. However, even I don't have access to your identity.  People can set up accounts however they want. As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to try to track you down even if I cooperated.

But you should realize my "cooperation" has to do with the preservation of keeping the signal-to-noise ratio high on these forums.  They didn't technically threaten me or Oscar (yet), they were threatening to find you.

It is a moot point because while I disagree with their defamation accusation, I do agree that we need to have a standard of decorum.

This is NOT about giving up.  This is just watching your mouth as if you were going into any public place. 

Matthew

2013

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

« on: July 26, 2011, 02:03:09 AM »

SG,

It is sort of strange to me. This one little thread was really no more significant than any other thread. But now, this thread becomes much more important and significant one because one of Masterfile's legal representatives has engaged this forum albeit through a backdoor approach.

They call it "defamation".  I like your term as "schoolyard name".  Admittedly, it is a bit juvenile for any of us to engage in schoolyard names but it slips out in the heat of passion.  And in the world of the Internet, it is semi-permanent unless you take action.

But I think you have to pick and choose those times.  John, through Steven, chose this time to take action.  They got results most certainly but seriously, am I going to stay quiet about this?  To me, I tell people I am a publisher. I blog, I write commentary, I lead an active discussion forum.  Of course, I will have something to say and comment about it (while maintaining civility and decorum).

I know people don't expect that I will share incoming emails or standard correspondence.  But I have tried to live transparently.  And thankfully, people like you and others help be my eyes and ears.  Not only that, Oscar and I greatly appreciate the vocal support and you guys uphold your conduct very well.  It makes us proud and gives us the little motivation to try harder and work for peanuts.

ELI used to be about the Getty Images stock photo demand letters only but over time as Oscar and I have taken notice of the legal landscape as it pertains to intellectual property, we have (through our community members help) discussed a whole range of questionable activities now labeled and named by EFF as "copyright trolling".

Essentially, ELI has evolved to covering and discussion copyright trolling and all its players.  And I have always said the companies and businesses don't act by themselves.  There are actual people who make decisions and choose to partake in this whole copyright trolling business. (Don't get lawsuit-happy people, I didn't make up the term.  EFF did.)

Clearly, Oscar, myself, ELI, and this community are one side.  And you got Getty Images, Masterfile, Righthaven, Imageline, etc. on the other side.

As you said, if you become a person of any influence, you will get talked about both good and bad. John has the "protection" of Masterfile as long as he works for them.  But then he has to think about what happens when he leaves MF.  He signed all those letters.  He may say it is his job but some people are not going to take too kindly to his job.  I will outright say that doesn't give us the right to take him into a back alley and beat him up or make up stories about him.  (But poking a little fun at him? hmm...)

But I believe that it is legitimate conversation on what he is doing and how he is doing it.  Oscar has defended John's conduct between them and John is probably professional with most people.  I have no reason to question Oscar's assessment of his professionalism.  But if John expects that just because one guy goes off the rails in a few posts and he will yell "defamation" each time, give me a break.

Oscar and my name are plastered on the Internet so it is pretty easy to find us, call us, or email us.  But most of the complaints and name-calling going on elsewhere on the Internet is not so easy to track.  Readership is pretty high about it and I just know someone will be humored by this whole incident. Well that is not our problem. Our only concern is safe-guarding our little corner of the Internet we know as ELI.

AS I re-read the entire post, I noticed everyone else was pretty civil.

One thing I will give credit to Getty Images to is that they have been surprisingly silent all these years despite all the things said about them.  Riddick of Imageline acted like crazy so we HAD to talk about him and his antics. 

Up until the letter emailed to me by Steven, I had not even looked at John's LinkedIn profile until tonight.

I guess it is a good thing that Masterfile or its employees feel we are significant enough to react to by sending one of their legal representatives to contact us.

Sometimes, you just can't make this stuff up. Reporting on real life adventures is sometimes better than conspiracies we create in our own mind.

Matthew

2014

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

« on: July 25, 2011, 09:42:17 PM »

SG,

If you re-read the letter, Steven Weinberg wasn't actually threatening me or Oscar.  It was a formal notification that if we didn't make the adjustments for what they considered defamatory remarks on the offending posts, they would get a court order to trace the original poster of the comment and possibly file suit on them.

My thinking is even if they found the guy, then what? Spend how much money to sue some guy who mocked John?  

I told Steven that I felt that there would actually have be some belief in the public statements being made and actual damages proven. I also told Steven that I felt that courts had some degree of "common sense" over this kind of stuff.

For example, if someone on this forum or some other place says that "Matthew Chan is a putz" or "Matthew Chan is a dick" or "Matthew Chan is an idiot" that is not really defamatory, just some name-calling.  I may get upset but I would not say that is defamation.  Yes, it is definitely name-calling and insulting but not defamatory to me.  You just have to look at the context.  Now if someone said "Matthew Chan is a thief" or "Matthew Chan is a crook" or "Matthew Chan is a rapist".  That would definitely be defamatory and I would be jumping up and down over it to get that removed.

If you want to see a scathing review of me and some insults of me and one of my books, look here:

http://bookmakingblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/this-book-is-inaccurate-inadequate-and.html

There are some personal insults about me although the guy never met me. I didn't much like the book review, of course.  But I wasn't shouting defamation of character.  Yes, he insulted me but nothing that qualified as defamation.  And I did take the time to write 3 rebuttals on my TurnKey Publishing blog to his scathing review. I even posted one rebuttal on his blog and he accepted it.

Anyhow....

Quite frankly, the letter from Steven was mostly a time-waster and drama-creator as is evident now that I have to write about this and share the story.  I took the time to *DELETE* the offending comments.  I am fairly confident that the original poster will not be mad at me for making the changes vs. potentially exposing him against some so-called defamation case which amounted to about 3 posts I believe.

From what I could tell, there wasn't this huge campaign to trash John's name, it sounded more like venting to me than anything else.

Anyhow, it isn't a fight worth fighting. But heck, we have yet another story to talk about.  ELI never gets boring even when I really want it to.  Just when it gets quiet, something comes up.  Getty Images contacted us once very nicely about removing an ex-employee's name.  It was one of the frontline Getty Images License Compliance team member and both Oscar and I decided to do it just to be nice since that employee had already left the company.

Of course, it didn't hurt that Getty Images didn't stoke the fire on my case in which case it could have gone very differently.

Everyone knows that Oscar is the calm, thoughtful respectable one out of the two of us.  Without him, I probably would have little credibility.  :-) I am the insane, irrational, stubborn and rebellious one with few credentials.  Quite honestly, I sometimes think he is a bit crazy associating his name with mine.  Has anyone googled Oscar's name?  It screams high credibility and the man cares about his professional reputation.

I am actually dumb enough to be skeptical and not listen or believe everything an attorney tells me especially the opposing side.  I am dumb and crazy enough to represent myself against a seasoned lawyer in front of a judge to tell my side and appeal to his good, common sense armed with a tiny bit of knowledge and experience IF I feel strongly about my position.

Matthew

I'd like to reiterate once again what a great site this is.
I know that it's much work.  But, a valuable work it is.

I'm sure that everyone here appreciates mr w's letter.
It's so much "win" and "shite was so cash" as the "infringers" sometimes say.
But, I don't see how these kind of litigious threats make any money for MF.

Not to worry.
The best course of action may be to copyright the names and photographs of key MF employees.
Then, copyright the word "deleted".  Don't copyright in bulk, though.  That's weak.
Make sure that the rights are also purchased from the original photographer and your momma who named you.

These efforts will protect you from those who disagree with you, and will surely keep you out of that place called G*tty.
MF can send their threatening mails to: "Copyright Trolls, C/O Who Gives a Crap, P.O. Box Your Momma, LOL4LOL"

Thank you for your time.

S.G.

2015

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

« on: July 25, 2011, 08:59:31 PM »

It is very clear they do not consider it humorous. Up until recently, I was neutral on their behavior because I had no personal experience. Now, I got a small taste.

But to have them pay attorney Steven Weinberg draft that letter over one guy's over-the-top post gives me the impression he that "someone" is thin-skinned.  And no, I do not believe that sharing my "opinion" that someone is a bit sensitive is defamatory at all.  

This reminds me of my run-in at the Napoleon Hill Foundation many years ago.  They couldn't be bothered to contact me directly. They acted like cowards going through an attorney to deliver an expensive package. They would have the company pay unnecessary legal fees to handle something that could a simple email or phone call could have remedied quickly.  Ultimately, NHF went away.  I complied quietly the first time and replied to them privately and made the adjustment.  Then a year later, they send me another letter.  That time really ticked me off and I decided to just let everyone see our dialog.  I am not bound by any confidentiality agreement so if someone is going to mess with me, then I will let everyone see that, just like they will see my rebuttals.

At least, Steven was experienced enough to send a short letter via email, not an outlandish package.  All things considered, I think Steven handled it appropriately given the situation but John on the other hand, how hard would it have been to send an email to Oscar or me for Pete's sake?

Our written forum policy is no outrageous name-calling, personal insults, inflammatory language, etc. A quick mention of our own policy would have taken cared of it. It goes to show the mindset of the stock photo industry and why I recommend boycotting them to spend money on a good camera or a good graphic artist and stay away from stock photos altogether.

http://matthewchan.com/2011/01/20/how-to-stop-using-stock-photos-boycott-the-stock-photo-industry/

Matthew

Knowing how these people look like really helps. Little bit of humour helps everyone relieve this stressful experience. If Mr. MacDougall has a sense of humour, he will be ok with this as well.

2016

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

« on: July 25, 2011, 05:56:32 PM »

Oscar and I have been contacted by attorney Steven Weinberg with a short email letter regarding personal attacks and inflammatory remarks regarding John MacDougall of Masterfile.  John is clearly unhappy about it and had Steven Weinberg send us a letter.  According to their letter, they feel it is unlawful and defamatory.  Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with him and if it were really brought up in a court of law, I think it would be a very weak case.  Personally, I think John has a bit of a thin skin about it.  It is actually pretty tame compared to much of what I have seen written about others on other websites.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77683647/Attorney-Steven-Weinberg-Letter-to-ELI-Regarding-John-MacDougall-of-Masterfile

I do want to publicly say about Steven Weinberg that we appreciate him not using a "hammer" with the Certified Mail or Overnight Letter bit.  I considered it a professional courtesy he gently emailed me the letter stating his position without drama and I can respect it. I become much more offended and angered when the FIRST course of action is some Certified Letter or Overnight Delivery that lands on my doorstep.

Nevertheless, the reason why this forum is so reputable and credible is that we do have rules of forum behavior.  I have always stated, personal attacks, insults, and inflammatory statements does not help the mission.  And Oscar, has consistently reinforced this.

As such, I have deleted those sections of posts that I believe to be "over the line".  It is good for everyone. For the record, I have never met or encountered John, not even seen his photo, so I don't have any opinion on him one way or another.

Going forward, I will have to insist that people choose their words more carefully.  You can express your anger and frustration without name-calling and offensive, inflammatory statements. If you cannot, you should not post here because it hurts the website's mission.

Last thing, attorney Steven Weinberg wants me to make it clear the following: "..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."

Is everyone clear where John and Steven stands now?  I hope so.

Matthew Chan

2017

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

« on: July 25, 2011, 05:29:08 PM »

Oscar and I have been contacted by attorney Steven Weinberg with a short email letter regarding personal attacks and inflammatory remarks regarding John MacDougall of Masterfile.  John is clearly unhappy about it and had Steven Weinberg send us a letter.  According to their letter, they feel it is unlawful and defamatory.  Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with him and if it were really brought up in a court of law, I think it would be a very weak case.  Personally, I think John has a bit of a thin skin about it.  It is actually pretty tame compared to much of what I have seen written about others on other websites.

http://extortionletterinfo.com/masterfilecase/weinberg-letter-to-eli.pdf

I do want to publicly say about Steven Weinberg that we appreciate him not using a "hammer" with the Certified Mail or Overnight Letter bit.  I considered it a professional courtesy he gently emailed me the letter stating his position without drama and I can respect it. I become much more offended and angered when the FIRST course of action is some Certified Letter or Overnight Delivery that lands on my doorstep.

Nevertheless, the reason why this forum is so reputable and credible is that we do have rules of forum behavior.  I have always stated, personal attacks, insults, and inflammatory statements does not help the mission.  And Oscar, has consistently reinforced this.

As such, I have deleted those sections of posts that I believe to be "over the line".  It is good for everyone. For the record, I have never met or encountered John, not even seen his photo, so I don't have any opinion on him one way or another.

Going forward, I will have to insist that people choose their words more carefully.  You can express your anger and frustration without name-calling and offensive, inflammatory statements. If you cannot, you should not post here because it hurts the website's mission.

Last thing, attorney Steven Weinberg wants me to make it clear the following: "..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."

Is everyone clear where John and Steven stands now?  I hope so.

Matthew Chan

2018

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can we start a "Success Mission Accomplished" Thread for success stories?

« on: July 21, 2011, 04:25:54 AM »

As always, Oscar, you are so eloquent and yet so on the money.

Matthew

The success of this site has been in educating people about the issue and giving people away to respond to Getty's never ending chain of communication. The prior poster is right that those case that have settled usually settle with a confidentiality clause prohibiting an end zone dance when it is over. But our site has been here for three years and has helped thousands of people.  While there are no "Mission Accomplished" stories there are countless posts from forum users thanking Matt and I for the site and the work done on it and through it.   

2019

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Can we start a "Success Mission Accomplished" Thread for success stories?

« on: July 21, 2011, 04:24:39 AM »

Mcfilms,

You are very insightful and quite right on all counts. I occasionally get an email asking what ultimately happened with my case. I respond that I have not heard from Getty Images for a long time since 2008. I can speculate why they have not come after me but that is all it would be speculation. I don't talk about it much and I am not going out of my way to be a lightning rod. Having said that, I have made no secret to anyone, that if Getty Images decides to fire a serious bullet my way, there would be a lot of collateral damage to multiple parties even if I lost. They have seen evidence of what actions I might take against any individual I identify as a combatant/enemy back in 2008 and I think it sent a strong message of how far I would go to defend myself. I think they believe I am not an easy target and they would be correct. By virtue of this website, I am certainly a visible target but not an easy one.

Bottom line, what I last posted on the My Story section is what has last transpired to me directly. Everything else has been related to other letter recipients or my role as special consultant/advisor to Oscar.

Copyright trolling has gotten so rampant (going beyond stock photos), I would never gloat that I could not get hit by another copyright troll again despite my best efforts to be vigilant. I think it would be stupid for anyone to gloat anymore with so many copyright trolls running around.

Matthew

Look at Matthew Chan's story. It has been 3 years since they mailed the extortion letter I mean claim and, as far as i can tell, no further action has been taken. There is no way they are going to go after him. He's got his ducks in a row and a very big support network that would gladly kick in to see him win. So Getty won't pursue him. I also doubt that they will pursue the people Oscar represents. It's much easier to find new, easy targets and there seems to be a lot of them.

I doubt Mr. Chan has gotten so much as a postcard from them in the last year or two. But on the other hand, I don't think he is celebrating "Success Mission Accomplished." yet either.

2020

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions

« on: July 02, 2011, 04:32:54 PM »

They almost don't have a choice to continue justifying their position otherwise Righthaven knows they will become irrelevant and have less power than a paper tiger.

They are trying to make a questionable business model legally acceptable.  Obviously, judges are NOT making it easy for them.

Matthew

2021

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: July 02, 2011, 04:30:00 PM »

I think this is one of the situations where Imageline did more damage to the stock photo industry through setting a new precedent than help.

This sends a clear message to would-be-plaintiffs that they better have their paperwork in order before they make these claims.  Both Righthaven and Imageline has shown that judges will not be fooled or tolerate bogus copyright transfers simply for the purpose of filing lawsuits. Also, they expose themselves to countersuits, repayment of defendant legal fees, and other potentially punitive measures.

Matthew

2022

Getty Images Letter Forum / Oscar Unleashed

« on: June 29, 2011, 01:00:49 PM »

Folks,

In case you guys haven't noticed, after being away from the forums for awhile, Oscar went on a posting spree this morning. I knew he was going to post a few replies but even I was caught off-guard by how many replies he made to so many messages. In fact, every post on the first page looked like the last reply had his name.

Even I don't know what he will say oftentimes so now I have to go through all the messages to get HIS perspective on things.   

Thank you Oscar! You were missed!

Matthew

2023

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

« on: June 29, 2011, 02:58:29 AM »

SG,

The news media hasn't picked up on it because they tend to focus on something more "tangible" as a lawsuit.  Threatening to file a lawsuit is not the same as threatening to beat up someone although psychologically may have the same impact.  I also think that the news media hasn't yet picked up on it because it has not yet critical mass and it has to hit the "right person".

It is sort of like Righthaven hitting Brian Hill who is mildly autistic, hobby blogger on disability.  The media loves to report stories when a big corporate bully tries to disproportionately and overwhelmingly attack or beat down a weaker and much less sophisticated opponent. It is a rallying cry and call to arms.

Getty Images has been careful so far to not go there. Riddick himself really is a low-capitalized, under-funded small-timer trying to talk a big game.

Regarding you being like me on fighting back?  LOL. I guess I will take that as a compliment. I really don't like conflict but I learned many years ago that not everyone plays by the same rules. Hence, learning the art of the defensive fighting is an important skill. I agree with you. Even if I lost the fight against Getty (had that come to be), they would have worked very hard for it and there would be scars and fallout of all kinds.

Last thing, you say we are popular.  It is not hard to be popular when you are the only organized game in town with real names and faces attached to it.  :-)

Matthew

I'm surprised that some of the news media hasn't picked up on the "extortion letter" schemes yet.  I'm tempted to approach a few news-magazine style shows, and I'd love to see some cameras and a reporter stop by the offices of Getty, Masterfile, or whatever dank swamp Riddick lives in.

I'm a lot like you, I think.  I can tell you that when a situation like yours arose, I fought them every step of the way like an immovable object.  Of course, there's always a possibly that they could have won, but they would have had to go through every single step of a very annoying and torturous route, and I made that clear.  I'd never just "give" them anything just because I got few letters and calls.  They should "prove their case", and if they can't actually go to court, then they can't be very confident in their position.

You and Oscar have definitely set up a great resource!!  There's nobody else to turn to; nobody else took the time to do it.  How many people have stopped having so many sleepless nights after coming to the site - we may never really know.  But, it's probably a significant number of people. No wonder the site's so popular.  Thank you!!

S.

2024

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Brandon Sand Settlement Demand Letter

« on: June 29, 2011, 02:17:10 AM »

Today, I was informed by Oscar that San Diego Attorney/Lawyer Brandon Sand does not like the fact that his information is being posted on this website and wanted the information removed. Oscar told him if there were any inaccurate information about him or his case, we would happily remove it.

However, I should point out that all the information we posted on Brandon Sand and his extortion letter actually comes from him!  It was his paperwork that we scanned and shared.  It was his LinkedIn profile information that he posted that we are sharing.

He was informed that if he decided to get into this business of threatening to sue people to pay $10,000, people receiving his letters are likely to get upset and angry and ask for help and share this information. He also needs to back up what he puts out there.

From what I was told, Brandon Sand is a relatively young attorney.  His own lack of professional experience comes shining through on his online resume.

Brandon Sand, attorney from San Diego, is now being watched and monitored by Oscar, myself, and this entire forum community. He may want to reconsider sending out extortion letters in the future and be more measured in the future.  Another thing he MIGHT want to know that getting into the "copyright trolling" business is going to be a highly-visible contentious business.  If he isn't prepared for the heat, it is going to get very uncomfortable.  Oscar and I are allying ourselves and supportive of the efforts of EFF.org.

If Brandon Sand or any of his clients decide to pull the trigger to file a lawsuit, he can be sure it will be reported loudly for all to see and hear.

Matthew

2025

Getty Images Letter Forum / Beware of new stock photo entrapment and extortion scam

« on: June 27, 2011, 12:38:47 AM »

I was sent this email below by someone who wishes to be anonymous at this time. She informs me she is in the middle of a case and does not want to reveal her identity. While I have not yet been able to substantiate this stock photo extortion scam exists, it seems entirely plausible and worth protecting yourself against. For the record, I do not think Getty Images themselves would intentionally engage in this due to their high visibility and high profile but I would not put it past unethical photographers to entrap website designers and website owners.

I posted this new article in my publishing blog:  

http://turnkeypublisher.com/2011/06/27/beware-of-stock-photo-entrapment-extortion-scam/

Matthew