Messages

346

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI is 9-years old!

« on: July 15, 2017, 08:20:16 PM »

Mulligan!

Where have you been?  Long time no see! Glad to hear from you!

Happy belated birthday to ELI and many thanks to Matthew and Oscar and the rest of the gang who provide information and opinions that have helped thousands of us trudge our way through the various extortion letter schemes that continue to plague the web.

347

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pixsy demand email

« on: July 14, 2017, 08:57:19 AM »

When I first started ELI, I was much more stronger in telling people to fight these letters hard. Over the years, I have soften my stance.

You know why?  Not many people have my sense of conviction, willingness to not only defend but go on the attack, take calculated risks, and being able to muddle through uncertainty.

Most people are like you.  They are conflicted but fearful. I think ELI does a good job of being open and frank about the pros and cons. I think we have a good pulse on how things work and the likely outcomes.

Here is the kicker though.  Most people want "certainty" and "guarantees". They are also brainwashed or legally ignorant in legal matters. And even when provided with "facts", it is insufficient because people want a "1-2-3 step" guaranteed fix.

The "guarantee" is to go try to settle. Otherwise, you are going to hear conflicting opinions of what you should or should not do.

The whole lawsuit threat is constantly talked about. People know so little, they act like it is life-threatening. It isn't.  It is an inconvenience. Oftentimes, it is a sterile threat.

I always tell people if they are going to lose sleep and their stomachs are going to be knotted up over it, go negotiate and settle it. But some people will have to live with the fact they are ultimately pushovers and easily intimidated in life.

In my view, this is an opportunity to self-reflect and see what part of yourself comes out.  For many people, their fears often triumph. Sometimes, the fears are well-founded, other times it is imagined.

It's interesting the way you ask your question about "caving" or "paying"? It really isn't a popularity contest.  Nor is it a black or white decision.  Have you considered using aggressive negotiating tactics to wittle down the settlement to a lower number?  Yes, it does require work and conviction to do that. Do you have it in you to do what it takes?

My advertising agency has advised me to ignore their emails as they believe this is nothing more than harassment and extortion. After a couple of emails chasing me, Pixsy have now threatened that if I don't respond and pay the £360 they will take legal action against me.

I'm not sure what my next move should be so any advice would be appreciated.  Do I continue to ignore them and call their bluff over the threat of legal action? Shall I try contacting the image owner to plead my case? Or do I just cave and pay the money?

Any advice on my next course of action would be greatly appreciated...

348

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI is 9-years old!

« on: July 11, 2017, 02:48:29 PM »

Piracy and infringements continue to be rampant which is certainly a problem in itself.

But the profiteering and disproportionate demands remains a scourge in the copyright enforcement business. The fact that there is so much ignorance on the defense side is why ELI continues to exist to educate people so they don't get unfairly taken advantaged.

People need to know all the different (even unconventional) ways to fight back.

349

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: BWP Media/Pacific Coast News Are Attacking Film Blogs

« on: July 11, 2017, 02:42:04 PM »

Thanks for sharing your story. Keep us updated on how things go. If you have any general questions, feel free to ask.

I am familiar with JustJared.com website as I do read it from time to time. They guard their photos well through watermarks (which I can't blame them).

I also found it interesting that your friend was able to settle for $250. Kudos to him for pushing back. However, I think your friend might have been just fine without paying also. I just don't see anyone wanting to file suit against someone where they can only afford $250. But he got closure which is the upside.  It is a personal choice.

BWP has traditionally been tough because of celebrity/paparazzi photos. It requires a bit more work to fight those according to Oscar Michelen which is why he has to charge more to help defend.

350

Getty Images Letter Forum / ELI is 9-years old!

« on: July 10, 2017, 06:44:01 PM »

It was 9 years ago in July 2008 when Oscar Michelen and I had our first early phone conversations and exchanged emails on working together on ELI. It was Oscar who first coined the term "ELI" for ExtortionLetterInfo. Neither of us ever imagined we would work together for so long and become good friends along the way.

We also never imagined we would have so many like-minded people like Robert, Greg, April, Stinger, Jerry, Eugene, and so many others who would become important allies and friends to the cause. No way ELI could have endured for so long without the passion, tenacity, and contributions of this hearty group of volunteers who stood together with us during some unusual adventures and circumstances. [The Chan v. Ellis appeal case (with the EFF and Eugene Volokh in our corner) in the GA Supreme Court was a big one many of us will never forget. We also have been threatened by different people over the years for what we do here.]

Oscar and I spoke today and it seems quite likely we will see the 10-year anniversary of ELI next year in 2018! Copyright extortion, unfortunately, is still very much alive and well. If copyright extortion had not continued to persist, ELI could not stay relevant.

I have always thought ELI would be a "temporary" project. We would stay around long enough to see copyright extortion come to an end or perhaps a big slowdown. But unfortunately, copyright extortion is still alive and well. Some older players have left the scene but many new players have grown in their place.

Onward to Year 10!

351

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty extortion letter ruined my memorial day

« on: June 28, 2017, 07:30:08 PM »

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. There is no rule I have ever heard (business or otherwise) that you have to list any kind of physical address on your website. There are many people who legally and anonymously operate their websites. There are governmental reporting requirements but they do not include what you list on your websites.

Advertising your physical address unnecessarily is unwise unless you are a store-front type of business. But even then, I can think of many situations where a storefront business might not want to list their physical address.

And honestly, most corporate employees have no clue what is like to be a "street entrepreneur." Most would be dead in the water if they didn't have some employer to hire them and put them on salary.

When I first built my site, I was told by an acquaintance who worked for Microsoft that websites had to have a physical address on them somewhere.   That rule may only apply to businesses, but I'm not really sure.  But if you aren't a business, it might be a good idea to remove your physical address.  It would certainly make it harder for this sort of situation to occur!   Maybe someone else on here knows the "legal" requirements regarding having addresses on webpages?

352

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty extortion letter ruined my memorial day

« on: June 28, 2017, 05:13:00 PM »

Personally, if there are any mitigating issues or circumstance that will help your situation, I think it is a person's best interest to inform the other party. It doesn't have to be an elaborate communication. In the case of the Vistaprint issue, there is no doubt I would have recommended informing them of that situation so you have it on the record.

People don't quite get that lawsuits from big companies can potentially boomerang.  The lower level clerks may not know any better and try to push to get payment from people but I promise you the higher level people are much smarter about these things.  The higher-ups at Getty are no dummies, nor are their lawyers. They are not likely to file dumb lawsuits especially if they were informed in writing that the image came from Vistaprint.

The peons can rattle their cage all they want but they are not the ones who have to take responsibility for any lawsuit action.  And trivial lawsuits have a way of hitting them write back in the face given Getty's very high profile.

Stop trying to convince the peons.  You have done your part. Let it rest. If they are determined to file a foolish lawsuit, there is nothing you can do anyway.

353

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image in Public Domain Copyrighted?

« on: June 28, 2017, 05:06:22 PM »

This is the problem. Just because a website says that an image is "public domain" doesn't make it so. Just because someone claims they own an image and to go share it, doesn't mean they are the original owner or that they have any right to tell people to share it.

People are falling into these traps by being sloppy without verifying these claims.

You claim the image is "public domain" but how do you know for sure? And just because it was found on multiple websites doesn't mean much either. It could simply rampant piracy.

There are lots of sleazy websites that are untrustworthy. And people use them at their own risk.

354

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: What if Getty cannot find your real name or address?

« on: June 22, 2017, 09:53:07 PM »

Domain "privacy" only exists at the first level. People who are determined to find out a website owner will have several means at their disposal.

If you are covering movies, entertainment, and the like, a lot of care and discretion has to be used in image use. Generally speaking, most movie studios and the like want websites to cover them but people get into trouble when they don't make careful distinction what is "approved" and what is not.

There are general rules to "safely" use such images but way too much to get into here. People get into trouble using images that stray into paparazzi photos, not movie posters and the like.

If you don't have the confidence or have the inclination to learn to defend such uses, it is probably best to just let the website go. It

355

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Alternative Source of Images to Getty, etc.: Photoshelter

« on: June 16, 2017, 09:29:18 AM »

DVG,

I am not opposed to the concept of buying directly from the photographer and bypass the middleman as much as possible. 

However, many people here are getting hit because of using a photo on a blog post on a relatively low-trafficked website. For most people, using an image on a blog post means they want some economy and simplicity.

I just visited your recommended site and decided to look up something very mundane like a school bus or a stop sign.  The best deal I could find for a web use image for a school bus was $25. And a few stop sign images had "rights-managed" and you have to fill in some forms to get a price. I am not going to pay $25 for any image on a single blog post. I don't think most people will either. Most people aren't going to go through the trouble of getting a quote for a few dollar image when you can go to Pond5 and CanStockPhoto and buy them cheap and fast. It is too easy to just go there and make a quick purchase and be done with it.

But the website you recommended made me work too hard for a photo of a stop sign.  That is way too much work for something so mundane. I will just have to go outside and go to the street corner to get my own photo of a stop sign, a traffic light, or a school bus, for example.  How much is someone going to pay for a picture of the sky and clouds, right? Or some ordinary car? I want them for blog posts, not high quality printed matter.

It has to be economical and easy without onerous usage terms. And thus far, CanStockPhoto and Pond5 have met those terms. I suspect the majority of people will agree with my sentiments.

And for example, I like JCPenney for business shots. They make it easy for you to reproduce the photos to use in print or web.  They have a generous licensing agreement.  But some private photogs are some onerous policies of headshot use.

But I remain open to other photog-based options if they are reasonable.

356

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Beware of Photographer Nicholas (Nick) Youngson of NYPhotographic.com

« on: June 15, 2017, 03:04:28 PM »

I would like to remind everyone that Nick Youngson situation is fraught with a "honeypot" smell and people should remember that.

And Nick Youngson is in the UK and someone would likely have to invest the money to fly from the UK to testify in any theoretical lawsuit.  And Nick would get some nice publicity along the way.

For me, victims would do well to remember this.

357

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Beware of Photographer Nicholas (Nick) Youngson of NYPhotographic.com

« on: June 15, 2017, 02:57:59 PM »

Well, it sounds like your employer will have to decide where to make a stand. It comes down to his risk tolerance. If you guys really want to settle, no way they will take less than $500.  But that doesn't mean to offer $501 either if you want to dispose of this.  Offer $750 statutory damages if you want to make a "legit Offer" and then stand by it.  Not a half-ass $750 and then waffle on it. It is part of real-world negotiation to know where your line in the sand is.

People try to make all these legal arguments when it almost always comes down to a test of wills. I spoke to a guy recently who was so immersed in the legal arguments, he lost sight of the end goal was. He denied it but he wanted so badly to convince his accuser of his legal argument. I told him, then go spend $300-500 per hour and hire a lawyer to dig out legal research for you.

Higbee knows what he got himself into when he signed onboard. Cry me a river on his $500 "time".  He knows that many people pay ZIPPO.

It sounds to me you guys are in a "soft" position here. If the back and forth is too much and the risk prospects is too unpleasant, make a "real offer".  $750 statutory damages and that is it.

At this point I do know a bit more about these matters than my employer, and I don't feel he's hiding behind me. I feel in our situation, thus far, it's been appropriate for me to handle the communication. But maybe that's changing. We discussed the matter and decided to "not take the call."

We've never spoken to anyone from Higbee on the phone and I have asked them to communicate via email but I've never direct said "do not call us."

Also – my employer is pretty strict about business / personal separation. Thanks again for the insight.

358

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Beware of Photographer Nicholas (Nick) Youngson of NYPhotographic.com

« on: June 15, 2017, 02:33:55 PM »

Courts are not just going to sweep away the "corporate veil" based on Higbee's say so.  If your employer keeps business records, a separate checking account, uses the corporate name, and files and taxes properly, that is generally a strong basis of maintaining corporate protection. A late filing happens which is why they have late fees. Late filing happen to many businesses.  That is not a big deal.

However, there are many sloppy business people who regularly co-mingle personal funds and business funds. That is a no-no. The occasional stray personal transaction that shows up on a business account won't destroy corporate protections.  However, if your employer is using the business account like a personal checking account paying his mortgage, groceries, utilities, etc. that is an area of concern.

However, even then, that isn't public record and Higbee would have to expend time and effort on that front. He would probably have to demonstrate good cause as well.

Things are just not as simple as it seems. Hence, all the begging and cajoling for your employer's money.

Thanks for the insight, Matthew, it's much appreciated.

I believe the financial "standing" thing mentioned was from over 10 years ago and it only happened once and resulted in a fine of less than $50 or something like that.

359

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Beware of Photographer Nicholas (Nick) Youngson of NYPhotographic.com

« on: June 15, 2017, 02:28:45 PM »

If the owner is the one being threatened, why is your owner hiding beyond you? You cannot make a decision for the owner.  What kind of an owner is he?  Does he think you are more knowledgeable and experienced than him? Is he expecting you to negotiate away the matter?

The owner is going to have to get some stones and make a stand somewhere. He is going to have to choose to take the call or not. (I wouldn't. Keep all communications in writing to cover yourself. People have a tendency to say too much.)

People who don't issue a cease-and-desist request on the phone call matter are being foolish. That is why they keep calling. No one has issued a cease-and-desist request to keep communications in writing.  There are some exceptions but generally most victims are terrible on the phone.

Hi Matthew – thanks so much for the reply.

But I should have been more clear – I work for a small magazine that Highbee is trying to scare. After months and months of back and forth (including me offering fair amounts of money in compensation) Highbee is calling our owner now. Our owner is the first person they contacted and then I took over communications.

This is not a case of Highbee calling an employer unrelated to the case.

360

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Beware of Photographer Nicholas (Nick) Youngson of NYPhotographic.com

« on: June 15, 2017, 02:22:07 PM »

I want to add something here.  The issue of financial standing and position is important, in my view.  For people where money is an issue, there was no income, and you cannot afford a lawyer, the best you can hope for is state your position. And the offer of settlement can't be ridiculously low.

No one should be settling anything if it means they can't pay rent, groceries, a car payment, utilities, etc. This is NOT a debt, it is a claim. And too many people are trying to "outlawyer" and "outspeak" the claims. Most people will never succeed. It is a waste of time and energy.

He criticizes that you are a small LLC who let things lapse.  Well, that also implies that you are not well financed either.

People who have the least amount of money should be the ones that fear the least because there is nothing to collect. It will be an entirely waste of real money to get a paper judgment and I am quite confident Higbee knows that.

Right now, it is a game of chicken. He has little to lose to make a "final offer". There is no negative consequence for making that because it isn't binding. 

Again, I am not telling you to NOT settle but it is pretty clear Higbee is trying to manipulate you to cough up some money. He claims it is his client but THEY stand to get their 33% commission. Never forget that.