Messages

481

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

« on: June 08, 2012, 11:27:43 AM »

For me personally, all of this got much less interesting when the discussions went away from "evidence" and "law", and more towards "let's listen and hear him out", "why would you think that he's a bullshit artist?", and "let's give him the benefit of the doubt".

The latter have nothing to do with whether or not he's owed money.

S.G.

482

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Unplanned ELI Video Update: Linda's Lyrics/Dash Poem Copyright Extortion

« on: June 07, 2012, 08:23:43 PM »

Yes, I presented both sides of the argument... lol.
Ellis has got that "Utah Religious Compound - Children of the Corn" thang down pat.

S.G.

483

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Unplanned ELI Video Update: Linda's Lyrics/Dash Poem Copyright Extortion

« on: June 07, 2012, 08:09:49 PM »

Here's a video about "The Dash" called "The Cash"...
Neat way to fight back...




Linda Ellis fights back:



S.G.

484

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

« on: June 07, 2012, 04:56:13 PM »

I really wish that Oscar had more time to chime in here.  But I understand that he's busy, and he certainly has no obligation.
It's my personal opinion that some clearly do not understand the concept of law, the law itself, or what it actually means to be a lawyer.
I firmly believe that some of the disagreements here stem from the above misunderstandings.
While "free speech" is paramount, so many of the arguments made here don't hold any weight against what the law says.
It's abundantly clear to me that many of the "suggestions", and "positions" presented here are constructs intended to overcome the problem that most claims do not satisfy the test of law.
Additionally, further "suggestions", and "positions" made are clearly intended to protect some lawyers that have taken shocking liberties in their chosen profession.
A profession that's a privilege, not a right.

I'd like to see more people ask themselves, "how does that satisfy the law?" before they post.
Different methods of doing business in terms of PR/Marketing does nothing to increase legal standing.

S.G.

485

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

« on: June 07, 2012, 04:21:56 PM »

I'm with Mulligan here.
Law schools cover all this stuff in quite a bit of detail.

We're sort of assuming that these rogue lawyers are somehow nice people that made mistakes.
Law school teaches ALL this stuff.  Benefit of the doubt doesn't even come into it.

It's like being a doctor.  You can't take out a kidney when somebody has a blown spleen.
There are consequences.

S.G.

486

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

« on: June 07, 2012, 03:44:54 PM »

I'm sure that Matt/Oscar will say that it's not ELI's job to "educate" lawyers.
That's what law school is for, along with all the ethics courses.
In any case, once a lawyer has broken legal/ethics laws, and it lands on ELI's doorstep, the damage is already done.
I see some of the suggestions given on this forum these days, and I really have to just shake my head.

The suggestions of "making nice-sounding phone calls", and "warn lawyers when they cross the line, after the damage is done"?
But, let's just ignore all the laws that are in place?
What planet are these people even on?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0jz3novys1r8ffrs.jpg

S.G.

487

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

« on: June 07, 2012, 02:05:35 PM »

I sincerely hope that he takes Lucia with him.

S.G.

488

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

« on: June 07, 2012, 01:59:46 PM »

Good post by McFilms.  It's good that Lucia has your support (which I think is the due to the "change" concept).
However, I think that you've agreed with my opinions on practically every other point.
i.e. proof of claims, documentation, and that the phone call thing won't work.
In fact, I also agree that change is needed.

I also like the political analogy that you've made.  This is really true.  I think that what works in a political arena would work here also.
Keeping in mind that unpopular politicians get voted out (companies go out of business), and crooked politicians go straight to jail (when they steal from people).
So, you don't get to play "politics" if you're a bad politician or a crook.

I don't think that "change" is going to come easy, or in the way that most people think or hope that it will.
The only stock images that actually sell are inexpensive royalty free products, and rights-managed current-events stuff.
Most businesses use the former, which cuts out rights-managed operations like MF, Getty, and Hawaiian Art Network entirely.
So, eventually, 99 percent of MF, Getty, and Hawaiian Art Network revenue will have to come from infringers/alleged infringers, and not paying customers.
But, nobody will pay unless they're threatened in an extremely aggressive way, which destroys such businesses.

Does anybody actually think that a "Uncle Glen Customer Care Center" that calls people and asks for money out of the blue is going to work?
Or that a nice letter will make people pay?  It can be tried... but Carner might go bankrupt before he finds that it won't work.

In the case of inexpensive royalty-free images, they're not worth litigating over.  So their reputation will remain in good standing.
My conclusion is that only the royalty-free reasonably priced stock image outfits will survive along with Getty's photojournalistic stuff.
In my opinion, it's not really productive to discuss how to make people pay over infringements, because that's a business concept that will fail.
But, you know... have at it.

Please don't mistake "passion" for "anger".  If I wanted "payback", I'd get it believe me.
Also, while I don't want to see anyone leave, the people that sulk away into the shadows are the ones that called on stuff and can't win their arguments.

S.G.

489

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

« on: June 07, 2012, 12:35:37 PM »

Thanks for the support, Mulligan.  I'm waiting for Matt to get a little more annoyed, though.

Regarding the "apology" to EVNL, it's my understanding that Mr Carner made a weak apology for what Brandon Sand did.
It's "weak", because Mr Carner takes NO responsibility for what Brandon Sand did on his behalf.  Can anyone quote the actual posting?
Am I to believe that Carner/H.A.N. didn't sign off on the very first demand letter that they sent out?
If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd fly to Hawaii with a pack of colts and a short length of hose.

S.G.

490

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

« on: June 07, 2012, 11:29:03 AM »

Personally, I think that you're giving H.A.N./Tylor/Carner/CSI way too much credit.
The onus isn't on us to be "understanding", and give them the "benefit of the doubt".
I don't think that the regulars here agree with you that H.A.N/CSI et al have earned that.
I'd like to see others chime in and give their opinions, but some don't like disagreements among the regulars.

Your point about improving their marketing/PR is surely helpful to them, and it's nice that you're doing that.
As such, I understand your point about phone calls being an alternative to sending letters.
But, looking at the bigger, more complete picture, what's the point of phone calls OR letters if the alleged copyright holder can't or won't reveal what's in a collective registration?
I'm simply saying that even with the best, kindest, most respectful representatives in the entire world (phone or by mail), organizations and people such as H.A.N/Tylor/Carner/CSI still have an enormous stumbling block to overcome.
I think that our difference in opinion stems from my thought process that with out proof, anything else is irrelevant, and your opinion that better PR/marketing (being respectful, being fair, not having a paper trail) will help solve the problem.

To be fair, I never said that these people were "evil".  I just think that they lie and are greedy.  The proof is on ELI.
Furthermore, I never said that copyright holders have no right to collect on copyright infringements.  It's in the law.

You certainly have a right to your opinions, however I'm quite sure that your reputation here has fallen several notches.
I'm sure that you'll be a great and loyal CSI employee.

S.G.

491

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

« on: June 06, 2012, 11:56:43 PM »

Just a couple of points that I'd like to add to the discussion here.

Everyone must take personal responsibility for their actions.
I know for a fact that ELI was never created to "blow up anyone's careers".
I do not think that it's a reasonable argument to say anything to the effect that "if only 'ELI' had just kept quiet, Brandon Sand and his ilk would still be free breaking the laws set forth by the governing bodies".
Send a demand letter from the 'states to Canada?  Threatening jail time over a civil matter?
Wow.  Why not just turn your law career into a 9mm Glock, shove that cold metal into your mouth as far as it'll go, and pull the trigger as hard as you can?
Furthermore, let's not delude ourselves that our system of law is designed to be hidden behind shuttered windows and closed doors.
Most information is publicly available, and (surprise!) none of it is protected by "copyright".

Lucia has added a lot to the discussions here.  I see her being the most tolerant or sympathetic of the regular posters.
Now, I understand that even those that send demand letters can make logical arguments and may indeed be wronged in some cases.
However, the vast, vast majority of those sending demand letters never, ever submit any proof of their claims and accusations.
This fact has an overall effect of nullifying any other arguments that may otherwise seem logical.
What difference does it make whether or not Carner/H.A.N. actually targets businesses instead of bloggers if he's a bullshit artist?
Where's his proof of anything that he's saying?  This is what I see as the real crux of the problem.  You can't be in the "right" if you cannot prove any wrongdoing.
What's the point of any of these arguments, legal or otherwise if no factual, concrete evidence is available?


Let me say this only once. This is not a goddamn game.
One day, somebody's going to go too far, and it's going to hit the papers.

S.G.

492

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

« on: June 06, 2012, 08:02:44 PM »

Support Canadian Talent!!
Luv hot buttered popcorn and passive-agressive posts by Uncle Glen!!

http://i.imgur.com/I3V8z.gif

"Ruining the industry" one kernel at a time.

S.G.

493

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

« on: June 06, 2012, 07:32:58 PM »

So, you're saying that they're public domain?
Or, that you reserve the right to sue for infringing uses in the future?

S.G.

494

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

« on: June 06, 2012, 07:30:48 PM »

"ruin these stock photo companies and the people who work with them at all costs."?
What? By reporting what's been happening?  Don't make me laugh.

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.

495

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

« on: June 06, 2012, 07:17:16 PM »

Keep up the good work "Uncle Glen".



S.G.