Messages

301

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Questions about my upcoming battle

« on: June 12, 2012, 12:36:08 PM »

SG's right about Getty exposing themselves to a liability through their actions. Getty is making the assumption that by placing the image on your wife's site your owe them and they are trying to collect. By contacting your employer they
are in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

http://www.nationallegalsystems.com/fdcpa_enforcement.htm

No one can tell you what to do, but if it were me, I would write them a letter demanding all the standard proof of registration and contract with photographer type stuff. I would tell them that you have removed the image in the meantime. I would then point out their transgression. I would be sure to focus on the effect it may have with your employment with the company and that Congress specifically passed a bill like this to prevent these things from happening. It's hard to place a price tag on what they have cost you.

But the good news is, you could be convinced to set the whole business aside. You will require a letter stating that your removal of the image from the site has cleared up the matter and no further action on that image will be taken. If they decide not to do this, you will be left with no choice but to lodge a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and pursue further action.

Anyway, thats probably what I would do.

302

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 08, 2012, 06:34:06 PM »

Not to diminish the words of pastor Martin Niemöller, but:

First they came for the trolls,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a troll.

Then they came for the lawyers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a lawyer.

Then they came for the troll supporters,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a troll supporter.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

303

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 07, 2012, 05:05:05 PM »

I trust Jerry will chime in soon now that he has spoken with me.

I did. Just prior to your post. (Just wanted to make sure you saw it.)

304

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 07, 2012, 04:40:22 PM »

First, I wanted to let everyone know that Matt and I just had a delightful conversation. I always enjoy talking to him, even thought we might not always be 100% sympatico. I'm going to let him update everyone about the "free ride" issue. Let me just say that ELI is a private venture and Matthew is the person responsible for the web site, hosting, maintenance and building it up over the years. It truly is "his house" and he has every right to create the rules on this forum. I'll just say that I'll keep posting on here as long as everybody else is free to do so (or until I'm told to stop   ).

Regarding Glen's recent suggestion, doesn't it seem like just the sort of thing you'd want to put out there if you were defending a Extortion Letter counter suit? You'd be able to say, "Look, your honor, I am out trying to find solutions to this. I put forth the idea that these ELI people notify an esteemed attorney before they complain about them. Those savages." Seriously?

As has already been pointed out, how about YOU warn the attorney, or better yet, why not calculate a reasonable claim in the first place? And why exactly is posting the information in these demand letters and who is behind them such a big secret that it is capable of ruining reputations?

305

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest

« on: June 07, 2012, 02:43:53 PM »

I believe you're naive to believe for a moment that the serious trolls have any intention of changing to a C&D first for what are obviously non-egregious and in most cases innocent infringements and then escalation if a C&D doesn't occur (which to my thinking is the sole reasonable, moral, and ethical approach in the digital age for dealing with copyright laws that are out-dated and inappropriate for the Internet -- and thus highly abused by the trolls).

By the way I enjoy and agree with most of your posts too.

I didn't say that I believed they were going to switch to C&D letters first. I said that is a pathway they could take to win my business back and perhaps stem the tide of negative opinion. For true rights managed images with the paperwork in order, I actually think a reasonable fee would make sense. Buddhapi has said as much too. Your opinion is that this isn't reasonable, moral, or ethical.

Okay, so what's the end game? We chase off Glen, continue to try and help people that find this site, and bitch about how horrible the trolls are? I 'm not interested in that game. If people want to try and effect real change, count me in. If it's just pitchforks and torches, this villager will sit home and have popcorn.

306

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What Will Glen Carner's ELI Contribution Be? No more free rides.

« on: June 07, 2012, 02:17:50 PM »

Matthew,

The only thing I feel more passionately about than extortion is free speech. I've always said, your forum, your rules. But if you decide anyone is required to pay money to participate on these forums, I will have to resign as a ELI team member. I was the one that initially emailed and asked Glen to join these forums. We were all quite surprised when he showed up. Now, suddenly he is a huge burden? Frankly I don't get it, but I suspect my goals and those of this forum have somehow diverged.

307

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest

« on: June 07, 2012, 01:54:02 PM »

"Rights Managed" the way much of the industry is using it here will end up going away. You can't make the claim that an image is exceptional given there are hundreds of very similar images available for much less.You also won't be able to enforce it as "rights managed" if you have failed to protect it and it is now all over the Internet.

However, I would point out that there are those "one-in-a-million" shots that probably warrant a "rights managed" treatment. Whether it's a knockout punch from Muhammad Ali, or Marilyn Monroe over an air vent, certain images are clearly iconic and exceptional. There are also magazine-quality images that are so outstanding and remarkable that they may be "rights managed." Fine. But that being the case, MANAGE the rights -- register the copyright individually, don't post them without some sort of watermark, and by all means issue a takedown notice the moment it gets on a "Free Wallpaper" site.

Why is that so hard for GI, HAN, MF et al to understand?

308

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Man of Principal and Not Interest

« on: June 07, 2012, 01:09:13 PM »

I'm pretty sure this will be my least popular post.

Although the stated goal of ELI is "defend letter recipients, report on the extortion industry, and fighting back," MY stated goal is to do what I can to change the way the stock industry does business. I won't be happy until they start providing proof of their claim and reasonable assessments. That means copyright registration if available, the "confidential" agreement in which the photographer supposedly granted them exclusive rights, and legitimate sales data. Having a person around from the other side, with an opposing point of view, is immensely useful to me in this regard. That's why I'm disappointed when ELI members choose not to take the "high road."

I understand the anger and frustration people on here have regarding the demand letters. Believe me I have it too. And it's human nature to want to unload all that at someone who clearly represents your adversary. It would be so easy to badger this person until they don't want to come here. But how is that going to help anyone?

I enjoy all of your posts, but I would have to side with Lucia. GOING FORWARD, if you have any interest in actually being a part of the solution and changing the stock industry's practices, then you have to at least listen with an open mind. Even in politics, there comes a time to set aside the petty B.S. and sniping and try and find something that works.

Is Glen doing a little "cover your ass" routine? Probably. Should the counter-suit against his company go forward, he can claim that he engaged the community on the largest site dedicated to this issue. That might minimize some of the damages. But is he also sincerely trying to find out how he can restructure to make his company better? This is probably true too.

I know everyone is anxious to get a little payback. If I'm being honest, I am too. I'm looking forward to the outcome of that counter suit. But I think the long-term, politically smart play IS to have some "understanding", and give them the "benefit of the doubt." I really don't understand the hand-wringing about giving out "free" advice. To me, if you want to change how the stock industry does business, you need to be vocal about HOW you want it to change. I don't believe the stock photo industry ship is sinking. But I do believe it is changing, and the extortion letters are a symptom of this change. It's possible to help shape this change if you are open to hearing ideas from the other side. Solutions are hard to come by, pitchforks and torches are easy.

Back to the question at hand. I think the phone call is a horrible idea. I think a letter with all the documentation, proof and information tied up into a neat little package with a reasonable (REASONABLE!) claim would be acceptable to me. I know other people on here are of the opinion that a takedown notice should be issued first. If the stock industry were to take that extraordinary step, they might win be back as a customer.

But a phone call out of the blue is going to be perceived as a scam. And when an outrageous price tag is thrown out, the call recipient will KNOW it's a scam. The first step the stock photo industry can take toward healing itself would be to get much more transparent and honest.

309

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copyright Services International / Hawaiian Art Network

« on: June 07, 2012, 12:01:08 PM »

Personally, in fact, I'm still buying stock images.  I'm just not buying from the trolls.
I'm more than happy to pay a fair price, and I'm glad that I can support ethical photographers and ethical stock image houses.
S.G.

Me too SG. There seems to be plenty of companies that offer reasonably-priced, quality, stock photography companies that don't include suing  customers in their business plan.

310

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: People Who Don't Quite Get It & Ungrateful to Boot (A rant)

« on: June 05, 2012, 10:53:47 PM »

Hey dieselfish, thanks for the update. Locating that earlier image from another source was a great find on your part and something that most people wouldn't have pursued. Thanks for sharing that, it might help others. It also points to how shady some of these claims are no matter where they are coming from.

311

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Video Updates (June 2012) with Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

« on: June 05, 2012, 09:23:35 PM »

Nice work fellas. I listened to both parts while I worked and it was almost like hanging out with you.

312

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Looking for more info on actual and expected results from defense letter program

« on: June 05, 2012, 09:17:30 PM »

Dude, that is an awesome letter. Good job Oscar! I especially like the part where you seek to pin down the whole claim of seeding.

"Demand is hereby made that your client or that your firm on their behalf affirmatively state that the image involved in this case was not intentionally seeded onto "free wallpaper" or "free image" web sites as part of the scam described in the counterclaim..."

Classic!

No more dancing around. Directly: Did you or the photographer ever seed or provide these images to free wallpaper sites?

Dancing days are over.

313

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Looking for more info on actual and expected results from defense letter program

« on: June 05, 2012, 11:43:02 AM »

Also worth noting that in the couple of years I have been here, I have never, ever heard anyone complain about what they got for there $195. As Matt mentions there was some clerical hold ups early on and some people didn't get immediate returned telephone calls or emails. (Hello, it's a defense LETTER, not a bottomless pit of free consultation.) But I've never heard a peep from someone disappointed with the outcome of the defense letter.

There was one person on here 6 or 8 months back that was certain that Matt and Oscar were "in on it" and were lining their own pockets at the expense of others. The interesting thing about this character is that I don't think they even hired, or even contacted Oscar. It was weird, almost like they were here to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. And then they just stopped posting.

Oscar and Matt point time and time to the information on this site. Everyone has it within their power to craft a letter based on what is on here. That's what I did. But you assume the risks and you have to consider what happens if you say the wrong thing. Also, by now I think all the parties involved in the extortion racket demand letter program are familiar with Oscar's name. I'd hazard a guess that once they get a letter from his office, a fair percentage slink back into the shadows.

314

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Recording Copyright Extortion Collection Telephone Calls

« on: June 03, 2012, 03:16:40 PM »

I didn't miss your point either. My point is that I don't feel particularly good about breaking the law or encouraging others to do so in order to fight a wrong.

It's the same reason I'm against torturing suspected terrorists. Whatever we gain from breaking the law is not worth what we loose. I prefer to hold the moral high ground.

But like I have always said, it's your site and your rules. I thought about just sitting out this thread, but it bothered me a little last night and so I decided to at least post my point of view. Who knows, maybe I'll change your mind.
 
Obviously you couched it more in terms of what YOU would do. But I read a "call to action" in there. I'm a little concerned about the same people that didn't know grabbing an image from Google would be an issue also getting burned for invasion of privacy.

Having this content would obviously make for juicy content for the site. But there is a solution that doesn't involve breaking the law. I would propose that someone, maybe you, within the context of "citizen journalist" could contact the lawyers, the photographers, the stock company owners, or any other interested party and let them know that you are reporting on this issue and would like to conduct a recorded interview.

As long as they are made aware that the conversation is being recorded, there is no invasion of privacy issue and I think you will be surprised at the results.

315

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: What is Glen Carner's Official Position on Vincent K. Tylor?

« on: June 03, 2012, 02:50:20 PM »

Lucia, a lot of these images are in screen saver programs that are compiled into PC executable files. So us Mac people can't see them.

I think claiming that someone thought an image they pulled off some screensaver software and put on their website was "free" is a bit of a stretch. I also don't think that's where they are coming from. I think a lot of the HAN claims stem from fairly large images that have no watermarks and are on sites that advertise them for free download. I know when I looked 6 months ago there were a LOT of these sites. Maybe HAN has taken some steps to stem the tide, I don't know and I'll leave it to them to report on that.

But I do know one thing. If I saw (or imagined) that I was loosing money due to images being available on these sites or in software, I would take steps to clean this up long before I started suing people for using them. After all, to claim that your images are "rights managed" you have to actually manage the rights. And that doesn't mean just suing the small businesses that have these images.