Messages

331

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile launches "ArtistDefense Inc." and issuing fresh new demand letters!

« on: August 03, 2017, 04:52:38 PM »

Salsaguy,

ArtistDefense is fairly new and we have not many complaints or submissions about them yet. I still believe that Masterfile "owns" ArtistDefense to pursue both Masterfile and non-Masterfile infringements. It feels similar to Getty using LCS to pursue non-Getty infringements.

By virtue of my belief that ArtistDefense is representing non-Masterfile infringement claims, I generally view them as less "threatening" than a typical Masterfile demand letter. However, it is possible that ArtistDefense works on behalf of its parent company, Masterfile, in their claims.

If ArtistDefense is demanding payment on behalf of any other party besides Masterfile, I think it is less threatening.

Again, this is all based on the sparse information I have so far.

I've read through a couple ELI threads but I'm sure I still have much to learn. My questions is, do I just try to bargain Michael down to $200 and pay? I rechecked the link Matthew Chan posted earlier, ArtistDefense inc still isn't registered in Canada from the looks of it. On top of that their website looks so basic. The whole affair stinks of a scam to me. Is it an actual scam to be ignored or is it legitimate? I've already taken down the image.

332

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile launches "ArtistDefense Inc." and issuing fresh new demand letters!

« on: August 03, 2017, 04:41:58 PM »

The street address ArtistDefense uses matches the street address of Masterfile. See the Bloomberg info below on Masterfile.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6876935

I believe Masterfile "owns" ArtistDefense in much the same way Getty Images "owns" the LCS operation.

I'm not sold that Masterfile owns this entity, or shell company..only because they also send letters on behalf of 500px and others...could it be that well known MF troll Geoffrey Beal has left Masterfile and started his own gig??

333

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How do Copyright trolls find their targets?

« on: August 03, 2017, 04:35:30 PM »

Getty Images bought out a company, Picscout, many years ago. Picscout developed proprietary software to scour, scan, and analyze digital signatures from images throughout the Internet. Those digital signatures are then cross-referenced with a client's existing customer database to find out if a usage by a website is registered to an existing customer. If there is not, they flag these are potential infringements.

I suspect that many of Getty's competitors use Picscout. Picscout was around for years working independently acquiring clients. When Getty bought Picscout, it is highly likely that Getty competitors sudden found themselves being clients of Getty subsidiary, Picscout.

I believe LCS is an offshoot operation of both the Getty and Picscout operations.

I suspect there are other competing software tools to the one Picscout developed. But it has not entered my line of sight yet.

I cannot give definitive information because not much of the specifics is made public. However, the ELI team has over the years attempted to piece together the different pieces of the puzzle together based on reports we receive.

334

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Four (4) Voicemails by Higbee & Associates Being Analyzed

« on: August 03, 2017, 04:07:35 PM »

I have a quick announcement. For months, a number of people have mentioned how Higbee & Associates have been leaving voicemails with messages trying to coerce people into returning calls, responding, and paying up.

I now have in my possession copies of 4 voicemails by Higbee & Associates and they are interesting.

Believe it or not, it never occurred to me to actually ASK for a copy of them so the ELI can team to analyze them and report on them. Of course, we would protect the identity of the person submitting to them.

But the reason why they are leaving voicemails so freely is because they can get away with it. 

I now have in my possession voicemails by Higbee & Associates that was submitted to me for analysis. It sounds like a canned spiel used in many voicemails trying to convince the recipient to respond. There does not appear to be much identifying information.

If anyone has any voicemails by Higbee & Associates, email them to me, and I will do an analysis on them. There is propaganda and misinformation in these recordings. And I would venture to say that the caller is probably speaking out of turn on a few matters.

People need to understand what is accurate and what is NOT accurate. Lies and misinformation are often being communicated in the demand letters they send. And from the 4 voicemails I have from Higbee & Associates, it appears to be no different. They have their own spin.

I am pretty busy this couple of weeks and in the next few weeks but I will see if I can drop some informative nuggets so people can be aware of what is going on.

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR ANY VOICEMAILS LEFT BY HIGBEE & ASSOCIATES.  SEND ME ANY AND ALL VOICEMAILS YOU RECEIVE. Your identity will not be revealed. We are only interested in the spiel they are using to coerce people into responding, not specific case information.

335

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copytrack extortion letter

« on: July 28, 2017, 12:48:22 AM »

Thank you for your submission and allowing me to view my very first Copytrack Demand Letter. I will certainly read, study, and translate it. And I will share it with our team so they are also up to speed.

I have also responded to you via email privately.

Hello again Mr. Chan, I just sent you the email I received (in Spanish) with the translation to English. I also signed up to the ELI Phone Support Call 

Hop to hear from you soon and also from others who have received this type of letters from Copytrack.

336

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copytrack extortion letter

« on: July 28, 2017, 12:47:08 AM »

Hello Svsanchez,

We are primarily an American community but we have a fair amount of Canadian, Australian, and UK readership since all the countries are English-speaking.

We do our best to assist non-U.S. folks but the vast majority of our expertise is clearly based on U.S. practices. But there are many commonalities in the tactics and strategies used outside the U.S.

Any necessary translation I do would be done through Google Translate but that gives spotty imprecise results from my experience.

The one thing that many people notice about us vs. other websites is that we cultivate "out of the box" and unconventional thinking. We also embrace an "edgy", rebellious, -fight-back attitude.  Not sure where that attitude comes from....  ;-)

Wow, what a nice forum with helpful people. Thank you Stinger and Matthew for your replies. I will send you the letter to the email you provided. It's in Spanish, do you need it translated? I'm surprised there wasn't anyone in this huge forum who received letters from Copytrack. I did find a French and a Spanish forum with some people asking about them from late 2016 to-date.

337

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copytrack extortion letter

« on: July 27, 2017, 07:13:59 PM »

I would be interested in seeing this Copytrack demand letter. Feel free to email to matt30060 / gmail.

If someone is willing to spend the money and have the determination, almost anything is possible. But the way you explained the situation, a plaintiff (perhaps German or somewhere else, you didn't say) would have to hire a Central American lawyer to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against your company. It doesn't really matter who hosts it.  The theory is the copyright owner (Photographer or image agency) would have to spend the money to sue the infringing party, not the host.

Copytrack would not be the plaintiff but they might help provide referral or resources to the copyright owner. They are similar to other copyright collections firms. They are in it for their 30%-50% commission. See the following link.

https://www.copytrack.com/prices/

Somehow, I just don't see a lawsuit happening here based on the information you have published. Copytrack publishes their process but I am skeptical as to how frequently they will actually file a lawsuit.

https://www.copytrack.com/our-process/

Has anybody heard of Copytrack? Can they really sue when they are based in Germany, my site is hosted in the USA, and my company is in Central America?

338

Getty Images Letter Forum / EFF paper: Which Internet registries offer best protection for domain owners?

« on: July 27, 2017, 07:01:17 PM »

The EFF released a very important white-paper for domain and website owners:

"Which Internet registries offer the best protection for domain owners?"

https://www.eff.org/files/2017/07/26/domain_registry_whitepaper.pdf

Here are their short answer recommendations.

Against Trademark Bullies

For better protection against trademark bullies, you should generally avoid registering your domain in any of the new gTLDs, and be aware that it may be more difficult to successfully register in a Donuts domain. Trademark policies vary between the country code TLDs, which we review below in more detail. As before, the ultimate protection against domain takedowns is provided by the use of a .onion domain, but at the cost of accessibility for the majority of Internet users

Against Copyright Bullies

For protection against copyright bullies, you should consider choosing a domain name operated by a registry that doesn’t have, and isn’t considering adopting, a streamlined policy to takedown domain names alleged to be associated with copyright infringement. This means avoiding the domains operated by Donuts and Radix. You could also look at the country-code domains for which we provide details below, and if it isn’t necessary for your domain name to be easily accessible to a broad general public, you might also consider using a .onion domain name.

Against Overseas Speech Regulators

For protection against overseas speech regulators, you should consider whether the country code domain registry based in your own country offers good protection for speech. Details of some of these are given in the table below. You should also look carefully at the policies of the gTLD registries, and consider avoiding those that allow an overseas “trusted notifier” other than a court to initiate a domain takedown process. Once again, an .onion domain offers the best protection, but also the least usability for the average Internet user.

Against Identity Theft and Marketing

To protect your privacy as a domain registrant, we recommend registering in a country code domain that doesn’t provide public access to domain registrant data, or registering a domain through a registrar that provides free privacy proxy services. Failing that, you should consider paying for a privacy proxy service, or using a .onion domain, if you are able
to operate your website over the less universally-available Tor network.


Matthew's Easy Answer

As far as I am concerned, the easy rule of thumb is the traditional .com, .net, and .org are still the safest domains to use to combat trademark and copyright bullies. And because they are handled by U.S.-based registry, you will have the best free speech / 1st Amendment protections.

And in terms of domain registrars, I recommend Google Domains. At $12, domain privacy is included, not an extra add-on cost.  Stay away from GoDaddy and other rip-off domain registries that charge too much (over $15 per domain) or use hanky-panky sales tactics.  Not the cheapest but Google general protects their users and they have good support.

339

Getty Images Letter Forum / What is up with Attorney Adam Gafni of Gafni & Levin LLP?

« on: July 22, 2017, 10:17:35 PM »

Attorney Adam Gafni first came to ELI's attention in 2014 when he represented photographer Vincent K. Tylor, a Hawaii photographer.

When a new lawyer's name enters ELI's radar, one of us will typically look up the lawyer's name and confirm their standing in the state bar where they are registered. Generally, it all checks out. Most lawyers who claim to be lawyers are, in fact, lawyers. So far, so good.

However, California attorney Adam Gafni (a lawyer currently in "good" standing) has consistently used firm names we cannot find registered in California where he does business.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/hawaiian-letters-lawsuits-forum/info-on-woolf-gafni-and-fowler-llp/

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/hawaiian-letters-lawsuits-forum/where-is-woolf-gafni-and-cirlin-llp-registered/

IN the last four years, Adam has supposedly been with the firms of (Woolf, Gafni, and Fowler), (Woolf, Gafni, and Cirlin), (Law Offices of Adam Gafni), and now (Gafni and Levin LLP).  Those are the ones I know of based on letters submitted to me.  However, here is the kicker. Adam Gafni has been in California for a number of years and I have not ONCE been able to find where any of his "firms" have ever been registered in the state of California. In the three years Adam Gafni has been on ELI's radar, he has been associated with four supposed "law firms" but not one I can find registered in California.

https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?SearchType=CORP&SearchCriteria=gafni&SearchSubType=Keyword

How is this even possible? If someone is informed and wants to let me otherwise, I am more than happy to make the proper correction.

But right now, I am stumped. I am operating on the assumption that he is a California lawyer (properly registered) associating himself with non-existent (or non-registered) law firms. However, his letters claim to have "trust accounts" in the names of prior law firms.

If anyone in the ELI community would like to assist me in finding where any of Adam Gafni's law firms are legitimately registered, it would be appreciated.

If the guy is demanding thousands of dollars from alleged infringers, I think letter recipients should be informed of where that money is going and whether it is being paid to a legitimate law firm. He is supposedly a license lawyer in good standing. One would expect that his business conduct and attention to business details be higher than less-educated, less-informed, non-lawyers.

340

Getty Images Letter Forum / Updated comments about Pixsy demand letters

« on: July 22, 2017, 09:48:05 PM »

A few new comments about Pixsy demand letters...

I've come across more Pixsy letters in recent months. My general feeling about Pixsy demand letters is that they don't seem to be an overly hostile copyright collections firm.

As with nearly all the copyright collections firms, they send out form letters with a dollar amount. But I have found Pixsy demand letters to be on the lower side of those amounts.  I am much more accustomed to see demand letters in the $1,000 to $5,000 range.

The Pixsy letters I have seen are under $500. To be clear, in my world, $300-$500 is still a lot of money but it is all relative to what you are comparing to.  If you believe you will be sued or you will have to hire a lawyer, then settling out is the most efficient way of disposing of the claim. I still have a real problem paying $500 for image infringement of a stock photo but then again, I am one who is able and willing to put in the time to do research and fight any claim. I have enough background and knowledge in legal matters to not simply rollover without doing extensive homework.

However, comparatively speaking, Pixsy demand letters are much better than getting Masterfile, Getty, Higbee, etc. demand letters for a variety of reasons.

Pixsy seems less litigious and their settlement offers are more "reasonable" (less expensive) than almost anyone except perhaps LCS (a division of Getty Images). As it stands, if I ever had to receive an extortion letter, I would prefer to get one from Pixsy or LCS.  They are lower and tamer than most. But it is also possible they don't have the requisite copyright registration either to pursue anything more than sending letters in the hopes uninformed people will pay.

Ultimately, my general feeling is that if you are a business owner who values their time, it may be more PRACTICAL to just pay Pixsy, move on, and consider it a cost of doing business. In PRINCIPLE, I believe you should do your homework and make sure you don't just pay because it is convenient.

But I can honestly say, over the years, I have spoken to a diverse group of people, from entrepreneurs who work from home to larger businesses with many employees. I find myself telling people with the larger businesses or those people whose time is valuable, that it might just be easier to settle for the lowest amount you can negotiate and move on. (NEVER PAY THE STATED AMOUNT! ALWAYS NEGOTIATE FOR A LOWER AMOUNT!)

There is no one answer fits all because people's risk tolerance, people's financial standing, and legal experiences vary tremendously.

People who will lose sleep and get ulcers almost have no choice but to settle if they won't take on the task of getting educated. But I have found that for some people, no matter how much education and information, their fears and emotions overtake them. Not much anyone can do for them.

Insofar as Pixsy goes, they lean on the nicer, tamer, less greedy, and less extortionate side of the copyright collections world.

341

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Nicholas Youngson Photographer (Rep. by Higbee Associates) Copyright Abuse

« on: July 19, 2017, 02:21:29 PM »

Correct. Very concise and accurate answer. One solution does not fit all. Too many personality types with different risk tolerances and individual situations.

The consensus has been to read the forums, get educated and then decide the best plan of action for your particular situation.

342

Getty Images Letter Forum / "Free and Public Domain Photo & Image Providers" by Jerry Witt of Motion City

« on: July 18, 2017, 12:28:54 PM »

I wanted to share a very good blog post by Jerry Witt of Motion City, a long-time, valued ELI Community member and friend.

http://motioncity.com/news/free-and-public-domain-photo-and-image-providers

Jerry has been known for years at ELI as a "voice of reason". Jerry is well-informed and well-versed in subject matters he choose to write about.

Because I have chosen to largely stay away from 3rd-party imagery, I am not as informed as Jerry who has done the work and research to find legitimate sources of free imagery. 

The one plug I want to make that Jerry does not list in his post is CanStockPhoto.com.  I did my homework on them and while I have not yet purchased imagery from them, I am satisfied with my Q&A with them on my issues of concern. The most important being that they do not appear to be in the extortion letter business and they have a liberal policy and license of use.

Since Jerry supports Pond5, I think he will like CanStockPhoto as well.  I interviewed Pond5 and I found them agreeable to do business with.

343

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Facts About Creative Commons Websites and Copyright Infringment

« on: July 18, 2017, 12:19:45 PM »

Jerry is a long time ELI community member and very well informed. Even if there is disagreement, no one can say that Jerry's arguments are not grounded or well reasoned.

Let me say this. Everyone has to make their own choices. I am clearly biased but I do err on the side of caution to the point where my websites are often devoid of 3rd-party imagery.

As Jerry says, the few I do use, I try to consider carefully but I prefer images that come from myself, my friends, or entities I know.

For example, movie studios are not litigious towards people posting movie stills, posters, etc. They want their movies to be promoted. And in the few cases they feel that people are misusing their images, they generally send an email warning or notice.  None of this bullshit "no warning, pay or else I sue" stuff.

In many ways, it is safer to use images from larger companies like movie studios than smaller ones who seem so quick to demand money.

344

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Facts About Creative Commons Websites and Copyright Infringment

« on: July 15, 2017, 08:39:53 PM »

I am clearly biased but I would never touch Creative Commons from anyone or any site. It is a non-starter for me.  I think most people who have been ELI any amount of time would agree with me.  Creative Commons is entirely based on the honor system.  Too much uncertainty for me.  Lots of dishonorable people posting and uploading images that are not be theirs.

Not worth the uncertainty or the risk. There are a number of low-cost sites like Canstockphoto or Pond5 to get images to fool around with Creative Commons.

345

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pixsy demand email

« on: July 15, 2017, 08:34:41 PM »

Generally speaking, many people have had success "ignoring" letters if they chose to. But that is not "advice". It is a choice that many people successfully make.

There all kinds of "advice" on this forum which I won't repeat. In my view, there is nothing special about Pixsy that is different with almost anything that has been covered many times prior with other companies.