271
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: What is Glen Carner's Official Position on Vincent K. Tylor?
« on: June 18, 2012, 06:40:32 PM »
McFilms, he must be busy hanging wallpaper on a federal courthouse. 
| Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program | |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
272
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Extortion Letter with Sales Tax
« on: June 18, 2012, 06:39:02 PM »
Good point, Stinger!
It could be even messier than "Getty" and "class action suit". The state of Texas would be in the unfavorable position of having to explain why they received sales tax monies for a settlement if it turns out to be illegal. Their rules are fairly specific and that cuts both ways. Some states have actually had their sales tax regulation shaped by class actions in the past.
Getty would be in hot water even if it's legal to collect sales tax in Texas for a settlement if it can be proven that they did so inconsistently. They were either obligated to collect sales tax for every settlement or obligated NOT to collect sales tax at all. They can't have it both ways. We've seen them make other mistakes, so it wouldn't be entirely out of the question that they're screwing this up.
Oscar and Buddhapi make a good point when they suggest that we could try to keep track of how consistent they have been with this practice.
It could be even messier than "Getty" and "class action suit". The state of Texas would be in the unfavorable position of having to explain why they received sales tax monies for a settlement if it turns out to be illegal. Their rules are fairly specific and that cuts both ways. Some states have actually had their sales tax regulation shaped by class actions in the past.
Getty would be in hot water even if it's legal to collect sales tax in Texas for a settlement if it can be proven that they did so inconsistently. They were either obligated to collect sales tax for every settlement or obligated NOT to collect sales tax at all. They can't have it both ways. We've seen them make other mistakes, so it wouldn't be entirely out of the question that they're screwing this up.
Oscar and Buddhapi make a good point when they suggest that we could try to keep track of how consistent they have been with this practice.
273
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Copyright Services International / HAN Case
« on: June 18, 2012, 06:29:17 PM »
Activated, I'm quite curious ... which of VKT's seedy wallpapers does Glen Carner think they should be paid for in your case? Did they send you a number for the copyright registration? I'd love to add that to my cheesy photo faves.
274
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Extortion Letter with Sales Tax
« on: June 16, 2012, 04:02:53 PM »
Buddhapi, your link won't work because their search results expire after a given amount of time. I looked up "Getty Images" in their database and 3 different listings show up. Only one shows an active account. Here's the skinny on the active account:
Taxpayer Name: GETTY IMAGES (US), INC.
Mailing Address: 605 5TH AVE S STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104
Taxpayer Number: 11328088197
Permit Status: ACTIVE
PERMIT STATUS
Active - The taxpayer has an active sales tax permit and is eligible to issue a resale certificate to their suppliers to purchase qualifying items tax-free for resale.
*If you sell a taxable item to a customer, you must collect sales tax unless you accept a properly completed resale certificate. A customer's sales tax permit number or a copy of the customer's permit is not a substitute for a resale certificate and does not relieve the seller of the responsibility for collecting sales tax.
For more information on resale certificates, see our frequently asked questions and Rule 3.285, Resale Certificate; Sales for Resale.
An out of state retailer may issue a Texas resale certificate using the taxpayer number issued by their home state and is not required to register for a Texas sales tax permit.
So they do have to collect sales tax, file and pay with the state of Texas. They are also allowed to issue a resale certificate. If they buy something for resale, they don't have to pay sales tax on that transaction. When they sell the item to an end-user who does NOT provide them with a resale certificate, they are obligated to collect sales tax from that buyer. It's similar in California.
There's still the question of whether they are actually collecting, filing and paying the sales tax to the state of Texas, and if so, it would be interesting to find out how much they collect for "retroactive licenses", or as we like to refer to them, extortionate fees.
Taxpayer Name: GETTY IMAGES (US), INC.
Mailing Address: 605 5TH AVE S STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104
Taxpayer Number: 11328088197
Permit Status: ACTIVE
PERMIT STATUS
Active - The taxpayer has an active sales tax permit and is eligible to issue a resale certificate to their suppliers to purchase qualifying items tax-free for resale.
*If you sell a taxable item to a customer, you must collect sales tax unless you accept a properly completed resale certificate. A customer's sales tax permit number or a copy of the customer's permit is not a substitute for a resale certificate and does not relieve the seller of the responsibility for collecting sales tax.
For more information on resale certificates, see our frequently asked questions and Rule 3.285, Resale Certificate; Sales for Resale.
An out of state retailer may issue a Texas resale certificate using the taxpayer number issued by their home state and is not required to register for a Texas sales tax permit.
So they do have to collect sales tax, file and pay with the state of Texas. They are also allowed to issue a resale certificate. If they buy something for resale, they don't have to pay sales tax on that transaction. When they sell the item to an end-user who does NOT provide them with a resale certificate, they are obligated to collect sales tax from that buyer. It's similar in California.
There's still the question of whether they are actually collecting, filing and paying the sales tax to the state of Texas, and if so, it would be interesting to find out how much they collect for "retroactive licenses", or as we like to refer to them, extortionate fees.
275
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How can you tell if you have Getty Images on your site?
« on: June 15, 2012, 11:22:21 AM »
I understand Lucia. If you post a screenshot, "fair use" would only work as a defense. It's really not worth that much trouble to make your point, and I believe you anyway.
The way I see it, PicScout is similar to a digital gill net. Someone has to go through and make sure anything they pick up is worth going after. We've discussed the considerations that appear to take place in the troll meeting rooms. For example, going after people or businesses that fall into a fiscal "sweet spot" — not too small so they can pay, not too big so they won't be inclined to fight back. Surely the results they get from PicScout are carefully vetted and "risk-analyzed" to get maximum returns for minimum effort on their part.
My problem with PicScout is the same problem I have with Google's StreetView spying. It's an intrusion and an invasion of privacy. I understand that at this time the law does not prohibit either practice. What I'm saying is that the law needs to change to protect us from this kind of aggressive, intrusive and in the case of PicScout, even damaging surveillance.
The "blame-the-victim" argument doesn't work for me. Of course it's dumb to have an open wireless network running out of your house. It's also dumb to leave your car on the curb with the keys in the ignition and to offer giant "comp images" without as much as a watermark, but the law still protects your property in either of those cases.
How much effort should the property owner be responsible for when it comes to protecting their property and not relying on the power of the state to do so after the infringement has occurred? You're having to spend lots of time figuring out how to block these attacks and we all know you're hardly a newbie at this game.
The way I see it, PicScout is similar to a digital gill net. Someone has to go through and make sure anything they pick up is worth going after. We've discussed the considerations that appear to take place in the troll meeting rooms. For example, going after people or businesses that fall into a fiscal "sweet spot" — not too small so they can pay, not too big so they won't be inclined to fight back. Surely the results they get from PicScout are carefully vetted and "risk-analyzed" to get maximum returns for minimum effort on their part.
My problem with PicScout is the same problem I have with Google's StreetView spying. It's an intrusion and an invasion of privacy. I understand that at this time the law does not prohibit either practice. What I'm saying is that the law needs to change to protect us from this kind of aggressive, intrusive and in the case of PicScout, even damaging surveillance.
The "blame-the-victim" argument doesn't work for me. Of course it's dumb to have an open wireless network running out of your house. It's also dumb to leave your car on the curb with the keys in the ignition and to offer giant "comp images" without as much as a watermark, but the law still protects your property in either of those cases.
How much effort should the property owner be responsible for when it comes to protecting their property and not relying on the power of the state to do so after the infringement has occurred? You're having to spend lots of time figuring out how to block these attacks and we all know you're hardly a newbie at this game.
276
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: NASA? Or Masterfile?
« on: June 14, 2012, 08:23:50 PM »
Am I missing something here? Four different sites are selling licenses for the same image? Can all four send an extortion letter for an infringement or is there supposed to be only one entity that can enforce the copyright?
Another example is Google maps. Maybe they own a satellite, or maybe they pay the many private satellite companies for the data, or all of the above, but they do put detailed copyright slugs on the bottom of each and every satellite map image you look up on their "Maps" page which include several copyrights and credits. For example:
http://goo.gl/maps/EgQt
That happens to be HAN's address in Honolulu, in case anyone's in the neighborhood and wants to say hi to Glen Carnen for us. Haven't heard from him for a while.
Another example is Google maps. Maybe they own a satellite, or maybe they pay the many private satellite companies for the data, or all of the above, but they do put detailed copyright slugs on the bottom of each and every satellite map image you look up on their "Maps" page which include several copyrights and credits. For example:
http://goo.gl/maps/EgQt
That happens to be HAN's address in Honolulu, in case anyone's in the neighborhood and wants to say hi to Glen Carnen for us. Haven't heard from him for a while.
277
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How can you tell if you have Getty Images on your site?
« on: June 14, 2012, 08:06:52 PM »
False positives could be amusing unless they generate real extortion letters that cause heart attacks and suicidal episodes.
False positives could be a very strong form of defense. If I were taken to court based on PicScout's "evidence", I would subpoena their little fannies for every benchmark they have regarding the accuracy of their hackbots. Why does everyone accept PicScout's "evidence" as fact without any challenge? All kinds of technological trapping devices have been challenged. Radar guns and stoplight cameras come to mind from what I've seen in the state of California.
Not to mention the very real civil rights question about illegal search and seizure of the evidence without probable cause.
This has been discussed before and I'm frankly frustrated that PicScout continues to get a free pass even in this community.
False positives could be a very strong form of defense. If I were taken to court based on PicScout's "evidence", I would subpoena their little fannies for every benchmark they have regarding the accuracy of their hackbots. Why does everyone accept PicScout's "evidence" as fact without any challenge? All kinds of technological trapping devices have been challenged. Radar guns and stoplight cameras come to mind from what I've seen in the state of California.
Not to mention the very real civil rights question about illegal search and seizure of the evidence without probable cause.
This has been discussed before and I'm frankly frustrated that PicScout continues to get a free pass even in this community.
278
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Extortion Letter with Sales Tax
« on: June 14, 2012, 07:57:45 PM »
Stinger is absolutely correct. Collecting sales tax and failing to file and pay it to the state would be fraudulent and the state of Texas probably would vigorously disapprove.
As for the logic behind collecting the sales tax as part of the the claim, one would have to look at the specific law in that state since sales tax mechanisms vary widely from state to state. Some states have no sales tax at all, some have brutal sales tax rules. Here's what Texas has to say about their system:
1. Who is required to hold a Texas sales and use tax permit?
You must obtain a Texas sales and use tax permit if you are engaged in business in Texas and you:
• sell tangible personal property in Texas;
• lease tangible personal property in Texas; or
• sell taxable services in Texas.
Please see Rule 3.286 and publication 96-259 Taxable Services (PDF, 1.2MB) for more information.
The requirement to obtain a Texas sales and use tax permit applies to individuals as well as corporations, firms, partnerships, and all other legal entities.
2. What is tangible personal property?
The statutory definition for "tangible personal property" is "personal property that can be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched or that is perceptible to the senses." See Sec. 151.009.
3. What is engaged in business?
A person or a retailer is engaged in business in Texas if any of the following criteria are met:
(A) maintains, occupies, or uses an office, place of distribution, sales or sample room, warehouse or storage place, or other place of business;
(B) has any representative, agent, salesperson, canvasser, or solicitor who operates in this state under the authority of the seller to sell, deliver, or take orders for any taxable items;
(C) promotes a flea market, trade day, or other event that involves sales of taxable items;
(D) uses independent salespersons in direct sales of taxable items;
(E) derives receipts from a rental or lease of tangible personal property that is located in this state;
(F) allows a franchisee or licensee to operate under its trade name if the franchisee or licensee is required to collect Texas sales or use tax; or
(G) conducts business in this state through employees, agents, or independent contractors.
See Rule 3.286.
Source: http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/sales/faq_permit.html
So this is my take on the logic of collecting sales tax for an extortionate claim: Since Getty's claim involves the purchase of a retroactive license, it qualifies as a sale of tangible property. The license for a photograph is tangible property because a photograph qualifies as "personal property that can be seen..." Getty may not directly have operations in the State of Texas, but they are engaged in business because the company "conducts business in this state through employees, agents or independent contractors," meaning their copyright trolls.
Getty has apparently created a form of extortion that is subject to sales tax under Texas state law by insisting on the purchase of the retroactive license, which is a sale of tangible personal property. This may be an unintended consequence of their current copyright trolling business model. To play it safe and give the extortionate demand an air of legitimacy, their legal henchmen have probably decided that it's best to collect the sales tax, file the paperwork with the state, and pay whatever amount they collect.
Whether or not they're actually filing and paying is an entirely different question, and I think it's one worth the price of a call. I'm with Buddhapi on that. Give them your best Southern hospitality drawl, Buddhapi. They'll be glad to help.
If they're actually filing, this would be one way of finding out how much money they're raising in the state Texas. The state would have all the records on the total amounts for the filings and how much tax was collected. I'm not sure the state of Texas shares that information freely for any given account holder, but it wouldn't hurt to ask.
As for the logic behind collecting the sales tax as part of the the claim, one would have to look at the specific law in that state since sales tax mechanisms vary widely from state to state. Some states have no sales tax at all, some have brutal sales tax rules. Here's what Texas has to say about their system:
1. Who is required to hold a Texas sales and use tax permit?
You must obtain a Texas sales and use tax permit if you are engaged in business in Texas and you:
• sell tangible personal property in Texas;
• lease tangible personal property in Texas; or
• sell taxable services in Texas.
Please see Rule 3.286 and publication 96-259 Taxable Services (PDF, 1.2MB) for more information.
The requirement to obtain a Texas sales and use tax permit applies to individuals as well as corporations, firms, partnerships, and all other legal entities.
2. What is tangible personal property?
The statutory definition for "tangible personal property" is "personal property that can be seen, weighed, measured, felt, or touched or that is perceptible to the senses." See Sec. 151.009.
3. What is engaged in business?
A person or a retailer is engaged in business in Texas if any of the following criteria are met:
(A) maintains, occupies, or uses an office, place of distribution, sales or sample room, warehouse or storage place, or other place of business;
(B) has any representative, agent, salesperson, canvasser, or solicitor who operates in this state under the authority of the seller to sell, deliver, or take orders for any taxable items;
(C) promotes a flea market, trade day, or other event that involves sales of taxable items;
(D) uses independent salespersons in direct sales of taxable items;
(E) derives receipts from a rental or lease of tangible personal property that is located in this state;
(F) allows a franchisee or licensee to operate under its trade name if the franchisee or licensee is required to collect Texas sales or use tax; or
(G) conducts business in this state through employees, agents, or independent contractors.
See Rule 3.286.
Source: http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/sales/faq_permit.html
So this is my take on the logic of collecting sales tax for an extortionate claim: Since Getty's claim involves the purchase of a retroactive license, it qualifies as a sale of tangible property. The license for a photograph is tangible property because a photograph qualifies as "personal property that can be seen..." Getty may not directly have operations in the State of Texas, but they are engaged in business because the company "conducts business in this state through employees, agents or independent contractors," meaning their copyright trolls.
Getty has apparently created a form of extortion that is subject to sales tax under Texas state law by insisting on the purchase of the retroactive license, which is a sale of tangible personal property. This may be an unintended consequence of their current copyright trolling business model. To play it safe and give the extortionate demand an air of legitimacy, their legal henchmen have probably decided that it's best to collect the sales tax, file the paperwork with the state, and pay whatever amount they collect.
Whether or not they're actually filing and paying is an entirely different question, and I think it's one worth the price of a call. I'm with Buddhapi on that. Give them your best Southern hospitality drawl, Buddhapi. They'll be glad to help.
If they're actually filing, this would be one way of finding out how much money they're raising in the state Texas. The state would have all the records on the total amounts for the filings and how much tax was collected. I'm not sure the state of Texas shares that information freely for any given account holder, but it wouldn't hurt to ask.
279
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Special ELI Video Updates with Oscar Michelen
« on: June 13, 2012, 10:15:35 PM »
Thanks, Matt and Oscar. Great video and good information to think about.
Everyone has different styles, I don't think anyone's gone over the top here. The humor is good, in my opinion. Some of it has led to creative problem-solving, a little bit like brainstorming.
Most everyone here has contributed at one level or another to what ELI has become — a force to reckon with. If you're going to get into the copyright troll business, expect to get your earful from this community.
I thank all of you for your contributions, they truly add up to much more than the sum of the parts.
Everyone has different styles, I don't think anyone's gone over the top here. The humor is good, in my opinion. Some of it has led to creative problem-solving, a little bit like brainstorming.
Most everyone here has contributed at one level or another to what ELI has become — a force to reckon with. If you're going to get into the copyright troll business, expect to get your earful from this community.
I thank all of you for your contributions, they truly add up to much more than the sum of the parts.
280
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
« on: June 13, 2012, 08:44:18 PM »
Way to fight fire with fire, Ian. I'm sure it took a whole lot of time and careful planning on your part to put together this plan of counterattack. My hat's off to you for the dedication and precision with which you assembled the parts for the class action.
It will be interesting to hear which party was paying PicScout for Marot's trolling services on behalf of Getty, or if Marot was using another source for the "evidence" used in their extortion letters and lawsuits, and how they split the spoils they extracted from their victims. The sordid details are going to be brought to light for everyone to see.
Getty will also have to explain their deceptive terms of use and their lack of diligence in protecting their clients' intellectual property. I've noticed many micro stock photography companies are making an earnest effort to put very obvious watermarks on their comp images. Some of them, ironically, are even owned by Getty!
Here's an example from iStockphoto:
http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/16127471/2/stock-photo-16127471-manele-bay-hawaii.jpg
Here's a comp image from Getty:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/bird-of-paradise-flower-kauai-hawaii-usa-royalty-free-image/139264605
Notice the disingenuous attempt to protect the image with a huge watermark on the right side. On the top left the comp image reads "Want an image with no watermark? Please sign in or register." The registration form is a joke. Anyone can lie to them on it and get a perfectly unprotected image. In a busy workflow situation, it would be easy to forget that the image is not licensed, or even where it came from and end up infringing innocently. I'm not defending people who would intentionally infringe, but Getty is virtually inviting the infringement by offering an unprotected version. That's how you get images on free wallpaper sites.
How come their micro stock company can do a better job of protecting their photographers' work? iStockphoto doesn't offer any options for comp images without watermarks. If you want to comp without a watermark, you have to pay, plain and simple.
Getty even offers unwatermarked comp images for rights-managed images! You would think an intellectual property they value so highly should be guarded much more jealously than a $10 iStockphoto image, but no. It's not different.
After reading the part about having to license an image for a country or region, I got curious and went on their little pricing form to see what it was like. It was ridiculous. It was far more complex than the form proposed by the Useplus people and it seems intended to confuse and deceive people into buying licenses that would later prove "inadequate" to Getty's "compliance team."
Look at this quote I got by filling out the form for a rights-managed image:
Image: 137409069
License Details
Use Web - Corporate and promotional site
Size Medium resolution - Up to 300 x 250 pixels
Placement Home page
Start date Jun 13, 2012
End date Jun 13, 2013
Territory United States
Industry Travel / Tourism
Exclusivity No Exclusivity
Contact us for exclusivity
Image: Collection: Title:
137409069 Photographer's Choice Rainbow Kauai
Price: $ 475.00 USD
So it's $475 to use in the United States for 1 year (and you better not forget to take it down after exactly one year!), for a little 300x250 pixel image. I guess you have to make sure you block every IP outside the U.S. to "comply" with this ridiculous license.
Thanks for taking them to task and forcing them to explain themselves to the world. I'm rooting for you and your team all the way.
It will be interesting to hear which party was paying PicScout for Marot's trolling services on behalf of Getty, or if Marot was using another source for the "evidence" used in their extortion letters and lawsuits, and how they split the spoils they extracted from their victims. The sordid details are going to be brought to light for everyone to see.
Getty will also have to explain their deceptive terms of use and their lack of diligence in protecting their clients' intellectual property. I've noticed many micro stock photography companies are making an earnest effort to put very obvious watermarks on their comp images. Some of them, ironically, are even owned by Getty!
Here's an example from iStockphoto:
http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/16127471/2/stock-photo-16127471-manele-bay-hawaii.jpg
Here's a comp image from Getty:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/bird-of-paradise-flower-kauai-hawaii-usa-royalty-free-image/139264605
Notice the disingenuous attempt to protect the image with a huge watermark on the right side. On the top left the comp image reads "Want an image with no watermark? Please sign in or register." The registration form is a joke. Anyone can lie to them on it and get a perfectly unprotected image. In a busy workflow situation, it would be easy to forget that the image is not licensed, or even where it came from and end up infringing innocently. I'm not defending people who would intentionally infringe, but Getty is virtually inviting the infringement by offering an unprotected version. That's how you get images on free wallpaper sites.
How come their micro stock company can do a better job of protecting their photographers' work? iStockphoto doesn't offer any options for comp images without watermarks. If you want to comp without a watermark, you have to pay, plain and simple.
Getty even offers unwatermarked comp images for rights-managed images! You would think an intellectual property they value so highly should be guarded much more jealously than a $10 iStockphoto image, but no. It's not different.
After reading the part about having to license an image for a country or region, I got curious and went on their little pricing form to see what it was like. It was ridiculous. It was far more complex than the form proposed by the Useplus people and it seems intended to confuse and deceive people into buying licenses that would later prove "inadequate" to Getty's "compliance team."
Look at this quote I got by filling out the form for a rights-managed image:
Image: 137409069
License Details
Use Web - Corporate and promotional site
Size Medium resolution - Up to 300 x 250 pixels
Placement Home page
Start date Jun 13, 2012
End date Jun 13, 2013
Territory United States
Industry Travel / Tourism
Exclusivity No Exclusivity
Contact us for exclusivity
Image: Collection: Title:
137409069 Photographer's Choice Rainbow Kauai
Price: $ 475.00 USD
So it's $475 to use in the United States for 1 year (and you better not forget to take it down after exactly one year!), for a little 300x250 pixel image. I guess you have to make sure you block every IP outside the U.S. to "comply" with this ridiculous license.
Thanks for taking them to task and forcing them to explain themselves to the world. I'm rooting for you and your team all the way.
281
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Oscar Michelen Hits Back Against Conrad-Scherer Extortion Letter (HAN Lawyer)
« on: June 09, 2012, 12:37:48 AM »
I particularly LOVE this part:
"Demand is hereby made that your clients or your firm on their behalf affirmately state that the image involved in this case was not intentionally seeded onto "free wallpaper" or "free image" websites as part of the scam described in the counterclaim in Aloha Plastic Surgery.
In other words, let's see you chug that Kool Aid pitcher if you really mean what you say.
This letter is poetry in (legal) motion.
"Demand is hereby made that your clients or your firm on their behalf affirmately state that the image involved in this case was not intentionally seeded onto "free wallpaper" or "free image" websites as part of the scam described in the counterclaim in Aloha Plastic Surgery.
In other words, let's see you chug that Kool Aid pitcher if you really mean what you say.
This letter is poetry in (legal) motion.
282
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest
« on: June 08, 2012, 11:21:37 PM »
Carner wants us to let cooler heads prevail and move forward with CSI and HAN. He want us to accept a kinder, gentler form of framing extortionate collection messaging, whether written or spoken. He wants us to put the past (and present) behind us and give him our views on how he could build a business model we can all live with.
However, I strongly believe actions have consequences and the past actions of CSI, HAN and VKT are no exception. There are NO exceptions to that rule in my book.
I would also like to address the courage issue. As I said, I don't believe what Carner is doing takes any courage, just lots of chutzpah (or "unmitigated audacity" as Frank Zappa would define it). Many people in this forum have shown REAL courage, and the list is so long I won't even start for fear of leaving anyone out.
Most of all, though, I'd like to say that there is one person who has been the MOST courageous because his courage involves not just talking about the abuse of process and educating people, but taking REAL action and truly standing for what's right even if he stands alone. He says what he means and he means what he says.
That would be Michael of Aloha Plastic Surgery. My hat will always be off to him for what he's doing regardless of the outcome.
Having said that, I do have some positive feedback for Glen Carner. In my opinion, what he could do to improve CSI's business model in the future are the following items, in order of urgency:
1) Drop the civil action against APS and take your $200 fee for innocent infringement. Offer to pay for APS's legal fees to date.
2) Use all your persuasion skills to convince APS to drop the countersuit. I think APS would be more than glad to drop the case and move on. No harm, no foul.
3) Change your model so that the first contact is a professionally drafted C&D with very specific information about the ownership of the image(s) in question, and how far you're willing to go to protect your clients' intellectual property. Maybe hire Oscar to write you a proper and ethical C&D letter to ask for the $200 innocent infringement fee. This will be enough to cover a form letter sent by your staff to innocent infringers. If the other party refuses to comply and/or pay the innocent infringement fee, THEN you can send a specific account of the legal actions you will take and how much money you're going to expect, or even take them to court if they're totally defiant. That would not be extortion at all. That's pure and legitimate copyright enforcement.
4) Blatant, serial infringers you can treat with the present model, and I'm sure the ELI community would even support that. For example, the THOUSANDS of wallpaper sites. I don't think anyone from ELI would have any sympathy for the infringers. In fact, no reasonable person would hold that against anyone else. I can give you a list of 12 websites hosted by ISPs controlled by Softlayer.com. That's $120,000 if you get $10,000 per infringement. I can show your staff how to find hundreds more, right here in the USA, some of them so close to where I live I could drive over and put them in a headlock for you.
5) After items 1-4 are completed, come back into the fold with ELI and show us that you really want to protect your clients' IP and not profit grotesquely from innocent infringements. I will personally put you on my IP protection White List, and I think the ELI community would too. I have proposed to the ELI community to create a White List for intellectual property protection vendors as well as stock photo companies. Heck, any of us could actually need help with a blatant infringement of OUR intellectual property.
If the litigation with APS does not go the way you may be envisioning, you could end up receiving a very serious financial setback and a serious blow to your companies' reputation and even your reputation as an individual. If any of the serious charges you are being accused of can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, you could end up in real prison and that won't work for CSI or HAN unless you have a very efficient and loyal staff that is willing to keep your doors open for a few years while you wear orange jumpsuits and print license plates. Like S.G. said, this isn't a game. It's for real and the stakes are very high.
I know this is a radical departure from what you're doing now, but you can do this. It's really your choice.
If you can bring yourself to make these moves, we won't call you a troll anymore. In fact we'll sing the praises of a company that is willing to revise their methods to be fair and balanced. We'll practically hump your leg for reconsidering your methods and becoming a shining example of how copyright enforcement can be handled with fairness and propriety.
If you can bring yourself to do these things, I will be the first to say you're a VERY courageous person, Carner. It takes a really courageous person to admit that one is wrong and to do something to make things right. I think the ELI community will reward you for doing the right thing and doing it the right way.
I assure you, Mr. Carner, that I am being very serious and sincere about this, and about Fair Elections too.
However, I strongly believe actions have consequences and the past actions of CSI, HAN and VKT are no exception. There are NO exceptions to that rule in my book.
I would also like to address the courage issue. As I said, I don't believe what Carner is doing takes any courage, just lots of chutzpah (or "unmitigated audacity" as Frank Zappa would define it). Many people in this forum have shown REAL courage, and the list is so long I won't even start for fear of leaving anyone out.
Most of all, though, I'd like to say that there is one person who has been the MOST courageous because his courage involves not just talking about the abuse of process and educating people, but taking REAL action and truly standing for what's right even if he stands alone. He says what he means and he means what he says.
That would be Michael of Aloha Plastic Surgery. My hat will always be off to him for what he's doing regardless of the outcome.
Having said that, I do have some positive feedback for Glen Carner. In my opinion, what he could do to improve CSI's business model in the future are the following items, in order of urgency:
1) Drop the civil action against APS and take your $200 fee for innocent infringement. Offer to pay for APS's legal fees to date.
2) Use all your persuasion skills to convince APS to drop the countersuit. I think APS would be more than glad to drop the case and move on. No harm, no foul.
3) Change your model so that the first contact is a professionally drafted C&D with very specific information about the ownership of the image(s) in question, and how far you're willing to go to protect your clients' intellectual property. Maybe hire Oscar to write you a proper and ethical C&D letter to ask for the $200 innocent infringement fee. This will be enough to cover a form letter sent by your staff to innocent infringers. If the other party refuses to comply and/or pay the innocent infringement fee, THEN you can send a specific account of the legal actions you will take and how much money you're going to expect, or even take them to court if they're totally defiant. That would not be extortion at all. That's pure and legitimate copyright enforcement.
4) Blatant, serial infringers you can treat with the present model, and I'm sure the ELI community would even support that. For example, the THOUSANDS of wallpaper sites. I don't think anyone from ELI would have any sympathy for the infringers. In fact, no reasonable person would hold that against anyone else. I can give you a list of 12 websites hosted by ISPs controlled by Softlayer.com. That's $120,000 if you get $10,000 per infringement. I can show your staff how to find hundreds more, right here in the USA, some of them so close to where I live I could drive over and put them in a headlock for you.
5) After items 1-4 are completed, come back into the fold with ELI and show us that you really want to protect your clients' IP and not profit grotesquely from innocent infringements. I will personally put you on my IP protection White List, and I think the ELI community would too. I have proposed to the ELI community to create a White List for intellectual property protection vendors as well as stock photo companies. Heck, any of us could actually need help with a blatant infringement of OUR intellectual property.
If the litigation with APS does not go the way you may be envisioning, you could end up receiving a very serious financial setback and a serious blow to your companies' reputation and even your reputation as an individual. If any of the serious charges you are being accused of can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, you could end up in real prison and that won't work for CSI or HAN unless you have a very efficient and loyal staff that is willing to keep your doors open for a few years while you wear orange jumpsuits and print license plates. Like S.G. said, this isn't a game. It's for real and the stakes are very high.
I know this is a radical departure from what you're doing now, but you can do this. It's really your choice.
If you can bring yourself to make these moves, we won't call you a troll anymore. In fact we'll sing the praises of a company that is willing to revise their methods to be fair and balanced. We'll practically hump your leg for reconsidering your methods and becoming a shining example of how copyright enforcement can be handled with fairness and propriety.
If you can bring yourself to do these things, I will be the first to say you're a VERY courageous person, Carner. It takes a really courageous person to admit that one is wrong and to do something to make things right. I think the ELI community will reward you for doing the right thing and doing it the right way.
I assure you, Mr. Carner, that I am being very serious and sincere about this, and about Fair Elections too.
283
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Video Updates (June 2012) with Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)
« on: June 05, 2012, 11:35:59 PM »
Awesome. Syndicate this, guys. I'm serious.
Great work!
Great work!
284
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest
« on: June 05, 2012, 01:05:29 PM »
Yes, it's a little off-topic.
If you have an opportunity, consider supporting public funding of elections like Mr. Carner and I have. It's the one reform that makes all other reforms possible.
If you have an opportunity, consider supporting public funding of elections like Mr. Carner and I have. It's the one reform that makes all other reforms possible.
285
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest
« on: June 04, 2012, 03:33:21 PM »I'm not here to get beat up. Ill pass on this one.
Beat up? Mr. Carner, I am being perfectly sincere when I tell you that I actually ADMIRE your activism for public funding.
I spent two years of my life organizing, collecting signatures, creating pro bono websites and even speaking in public (not easy for me) in hostile environments to try to get people to understand how our democracy is being ruined by the undue influence of "dirty money". It was very frustrating. People are more interested in "reality shows" than in the real horror show of "pay-for-play" politics.
After the Citizens United abomination from our highest court (and they must have REALLY high when they ruled this), the money floodgates are open and now they won't even want to tell us who's giving the money and how much. In this election year, have you seen the amount of money being spent by unknown parties to sling mud indiscriminately? It has to stop before we become a total corporate plutocracy, if we're not one already.
Why do you feel beat up? Don't you see the irony of your passionate statements about a "level-playing field" and the way your little legal henchmen are treating mom-and-pop outfits, and even real mom-and-pops whose kid put up a rights-managed image? Is that a level playing field for the intellectual property industry? I say your model is grossly asymmetrical.
Mr. Carner, I don't have any problem telling you your actions are unethical, and I find it VERY ironic that you want your POLITICIANS to be ethical! At least they have a medical excuse because of their profession.
As far as Matthew's and other people's view of your "courage", I respectfully disagree. What you're doing requires no courage, just amazing amounts of chutzpah.
Official ELI Help Options |
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |