Messages

316

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: June 02, 2012, 10:42:57 PM »

No apologies necessary Budd.....and WHERE is Mcfilms? I want some Popcorn!

lol....
 

and I'll add obsessed, addicted, and efficient!, I was actually kinda mello 3 yrs ago, the more I see of this garbage the more "peeved" I get (sorry peev),

I'm around Peeved. It just seems that there is already a whole lotta blood in the water and I don't really want to add my chum bucket-full to the mix.

317

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

« on: June 02, 2012, 10:20:26 PM »

Regarding the legality of recording "phone calls", I have no problems recording calls if I need to regardless of what the law books say because it will be for my own use. I know that the law on recording phone conversations vary from state to state but it doesn't bother me because I have a good idea what I will use it for and what I can't. Unless you plan on using it egregiously to be malicious or profit from it, very few prosecutors are going to devote their time on this supposed "crime".

My standard "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimer applies. But my understanding is that you can record a phone conversation as long as you notify the other party you will be recording it.

If you think someone is trying to run a scam on you, you have every right to say, "Gee, this sounds rather complicated, I will be recording this conversation. You understand." And that's it.

If it is a legitimate claim they will continue. If it is a scam, watch how quickly the other party gets off the line.

318

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers

« on: June 02, 2012, 10:14:06 PM »

No apologies necessary Budd.....and WHERE is Mcfilms? I want some Popcorn!

lol....
 

and I'll add obsessed, addicted, and efficient!, I was actually kinda mello 3 yrs ago, the more I see of this garbage the more "peeved" I get (sorry peev),

I'm around Peeved. It just seems that there is already a whole lotta blood in the water already and I don't really want to add my chum bucket-full to the mix.

319

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

« on: June 02, 2012, 04:21:26 PM »

If you start with the fact that the images were used in the same way most things are on the internet, what alternative does Mr. Tylor have?  Should Mr. Tylor abandon his collection and sales because of the unauthorized sharing?  Should businesses now have free reign to use his work for profit with no compensation for the artist because because they did not take the time to learn or care enough about what should and should not go on their websites?  None of these things are acceptable to myself or Mr. Tylor. 

People have asked over and over and over again, what action, if any, has HAN taken to cut off these images at the source? Simply stating that you issue a thousand DMCA complaints doesn't jibe with the fact that these images are so prevalent throughout the internet. There are many, many US-sites that offer images for free. A simple complaint would result in the image removal.

I'm also unclear about the position held by you and Mr. Tylor. Do you consider he is within his rights to share his photos on these wallpaper sites and if someone downloads an image from there and uses it on a site, then it's open season on them?

If Mr. Tylor is so ardent about protecting his intellectual property, why aren't more of the images out there clearly watermarked? Why are so many ultra-high rez (1600 pixels or more) versions available? Do you not see having large, un-watermarked images so prevalent as "bait"? Yes, he is not required to watermark his digital images by copyright law, but it helps make his position clear. And that is why so many people here are suspicious of him and you.

You also seem to be trying to draw a line between "personal use" and "public display." I think your position is that a song downloaded for personal use is "less" of an infringement than broadcasting it from a web site. I suppose this is because Mr. Tylor has made many of his images available as prints for purchase for $10. Good luck with that argument. You are essentially saying that I could buy a print, hang it in the lobby of my office building where it will be seen by scores of people every day. And that has a $10 cost. However if I put that same image on my web site and it has traffic of a few dozen people over the course of a year, the image is now worth a thousand bucks? I don't think that arguement is going to win. To claim the type of "exclusivity" HAN wants for it's "rights managed" images, the rights actually have to be managed.

PS I see SG and Buddhapi replied while I was typing. Okay, they are faster typists than I am. Oh! So is EVNL.

320

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pro photographer + expert witness Sedlik comments on copyright infringements

« on: June 02, 2012, 01:58:52 AM »

That was exactly my thought when I looked at the site. What I WANT to do is look for images that are available or check an image I hold and make sure it is "free" as I have been led to believe. What that site offered me was a chance to pay to become a member and... well.. that was it.

Of course I understand it is in the early stages and perhaps not ready for public consumption. (But then the iTunes store didn't have a public facing site until it WAS ready for public consumption.)

321

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Matthew Chan's First 10 Questions For Glen Carner

« on: May 31, 2012, 08:48:22 PM »

At this stage I pretty much bet it will be a "You drop yours and I'll drop mine, pay your attorney fees and put a little something on top of that. You just have to sign this confidentiality agreement." We very well may never know the outcome.

322

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got my letter today... UPDATE

« on: May 31, 2012, 06:42:18 PM »

'smokes: In my case it was the same amount from GI and McCormack. But all the stock trolls are experimenting with variations to see what are the right buttons to push. If it were me, I wouldn't be too concerned with hurting the feelings of someone who was trying to extort hundreds of dollars from me, but a lot of people are fearful. I understand the feeling of "maybe if I just don't piss them off, they'll go easy on me." It's not gonna happen though.

There is a pattern I that I have noticed emerging. It seems like the loud mouths are the ones that get ignored. You should search out the stories behind Matt, me, Buddahpi, SG, Peeved, Lucinda, I'm sure I'm forgetting many. The people that are vocal seemed to get ignored. Of course since the trolls tend to monitor this site, I guess now they will feel compelled to make an example of someone.

323

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Glen Carner's First 8 Questions for Matthew Chan

« on: May 31, 2012, 06:02:43 PM »

I'll bite on a couple of these:

>> #6 - I have heard you mention $200 for innocent infringement claims as a settlement amount.  If a specific photographer agreed to only ask for this amount in the recovery, would you support that?

For me, this could work with a couple caveats. I would expect a pointer to the page where the image was being sold for $100 or so. I would also like to see proof the photographer had registered the images individually prior, that they assigned the right to collect to the agency and proof of registration was provided. In the vast majority of these cases, this can not be done and that is one of the reasons this is such a contentious issue.

#7 - If you could change one small thing that about how agencies collect money retroactively for commercial use, what would it be?

Documentation. Seriously, if you expect people to pay money based on a claim, that claim needs to be well documented. Again, the industry doesn't seem willing to do this.

324

Getty Images Letter Forum / Wacky Copyright Holders Shoot Themselves in the Foot

« on: May 31, 2012, 01:10:24 PM »

I came across an interesting article today.

http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-holders-punish-themselves-with-crazy-dmca-takedowns-120525/

It seems the zeal used by some companies to issue DMCA take down notices actually trumps their own marketing efforts. These are mostly film studios and record companies where the left hand didn't seem to know what the right hand was doing.

But this led me to Googles Transparency Report at http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/. You can see there is an upward trend in take down notices. I looked around and couldn't find a search function. I was trying to see where the extortionletterinfo.com site or the Scribd account ranked.

325

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Matthew Chan's First 10 Questions For Glen Carner

« on: May 31, 2012, 12:42:09 PM »

Wow buddahapi, that was a carefully reasoned summery of the issues ELI has with the business practices used by HAN. Nice work.

I'd like to see Glen stick around. But in the face of the 100% accurate facts you have stacked up and hard questions you have asked, I will be surprised if he continues to post.

326

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: HAN / Copyright Services International Settlement Notification Phone Call

« on: May 31, 2012, 12:23:42 PM »

I would like to know how you justify asking for outrages amounts after it is shown that the person has either innocently or un-willfully infringed an image.  How can companies like HAN/VKT seem to turn a blind eye to anyone who can show they have used one of your images innocently? Why not a simple cease and desist letter or if you/HAN feel there must be damages paid not the 200.00 minimum fine that is routinely used for innocent/ non-willful infringers.   I know what the law says, you are guilty regardless of how the image was obtained but wouldn’t it serve your company, its reputation, and the artist you represent much better to show a little compassion and understanding rather than demanding outrages sums and threatening jail time?

For the answer to this, look at Matt's questions No. 8 and No. 9 in another topic:

8. What are the actual split percentages of a typical settlement?  ELI has estimated a 60/40 split whereby 60% goes to the stock photo agency and 40% to the collection lawyer.  Out of "your" portion, how much goes to HAN, the photographer, PicScout, and any other parties you distribute proceeds to?

9. What percentage of your revenues come from straight sales and licensing vs. infringement settlements?

Glen Carner's answer to Matt's questions No. 8 and No. 9:

#8/9 - Unfortunately I cant comment on this.  Sorry.

Translation of "Unfortunately I cant [sic] comment on this. Sorry.":

It's all about the money, so screw individual circumstances, individual explanations, and anything else that affects the size of the payment we can extract with whatever bullying tactics we and others using extrajudicial settlement demand schemes can come up with.

Geesh.

In all fairness, if someone asked me to reveal the income of my business and publish what percentage I pay out to freelancers (or affiliates), I'd take a pass on this question too. These are answers that competitors could use to an advantage and frankly none of your damn business. 

Regardless of how we feel about HAN, GI, MF or whoever; they are businesses. This means they are a profit-seeking enterprise. I am in no way excusing what happened to Extortion-Victim-No Longer. I find the manner in which her case was handled particularly abhorrent. A good business would try and find a path to make amends. I am sure HAN and the lawyer representing this situation have had their image tarnished. And that's as it should be.

I also don't see a huge ulterior motive here I prefer to take Glen at his word. Mistakes and missteps have occurred on both sides of this issue. Maybe there is a way to build a consensus of how alleged infringement should be handled. At the moment it seems that we are worlds apart. But if we explore this with an open mind, with honesty and integrity intact, maybe a reasonable solution can be found.

327

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got my letter today... UPDATE

« on: May 30, 2012, 07:21:12 PM »

>>Has anyone received a letter from Getty, then a follow up by McCormack a few months later when you don't budge?

Yes, I have

>> Are they trying to instill fear by stating they've been retained as legal counsel, as if to say, we're ready to sue if you don't pay with this last chance?

Yes I assume so.

>> I'm getting ready to reply, stating I am still waiting for Getty to provide the information I have been waiting on (proof of registration, etc), but curious to hear of similar "escalation" type letters.

This is what I would do, along with following Buddhapi's advice above.

328

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images/Memorial Day Welcome Home surprise...

« on: May 30, 2012, 05:12:14 PM »

Right on loserboy. And remember that petulant tone when you spring the, "This isn't getting us anywhere. Let me speak to your superior."

A lot of people on here are not fond of getting on the phone. But I think it can be a quick way to get to the owner of a company. You start nagging the CEO (or his secretary) about an issue that may seem trivial to them, and suddenly the collection department may very well reverse course. If he has to spend half an hour answering your questions, it will likely be looked at as a money-loosing scenario.

329

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images/Memorial Day Welcome Home surprise...

« on: May 30, 2012, 04:16:53 PM »

Okay as long as I get to be the one to yell back at the judge, "No YOU'RE out of order."

Oh wait, the next shot after that is usually from a jail cell. Bad idea.

330

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Changes Watermark, Tries to Change Image

« on: May 30, 2012, 04:03:54 PM »

My (slightly cynical) belief is that they are trying to make it easier for inexperienced designers to crop out the water mark and use the middle and upper left portion of the image.