Messages

511

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

« on: June 02, 2012, 03:53:52 PM »

Look, nobody's going to pay some huge fee even if the letter comes from "kindly Uncle Glen" for what amounts to an image that's offered for free.
Then the gloves are off again, and everybody's back to square one.

S.G.

512

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

« on: June 02, 2012, 03:47:27 PM »

Mr Carner,

Have you in the past or are you presently making concerted efforts to have Mr Tylor's images removed from the hundreds of sites that presently offer them as free of cost?

If so, can you present any letters from your lawyers or DMCA takedown requests?

Please be mindful that obvious evidence of seeding images for free will always trump the simple denials that you have made.
We would like to see what Mr Tylor and you are doing about it.

S.G.

513

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

« on: June 02, 2012, 12:33:33 PM »

I think that there will never be much common ground between infringers (alleged or willful) and trolls that wish to collect on infringements.
It's like the two of them being across an impassable gulf of water, with no boat.

On the one hand, we have the content owners (who are perceived to be sketchy).
They want to be paid sums that amount to thousands of times what the content is actually worth.
I think that their perception is that anyone that is "caught" infringing has to make up (pay) for all other infringements that might exist, whether real or imagined.
Of, course there's also the "greed" factor.

On the other hand, there are the alleged infringers. These people know that these photos are worth a couple of bucks at most.
If an alleged infringer is the brunt of over the top threats, or the accuser can't provide any proof, then the reputation of the retailer and/or artist is damaged.
Demanding less money from the alleged infringer won't improve results either.  Unless a couple of dollars is demanded, the settlement demand will be seen to be unfair.
A "fair" settlement is probably two dollars in most cases.  But, people couldn't be bothered putting a 2-dollar check in the mail.

There's a solution to the whole problem.  But some people aren't going to like it.
Stock image businesses will have to sell images at a price that people will pay.
Furthermore, a bit of savvy marketing is needed to let people know that a plethora of affordable images exist in a convenient, friendly place to do business.

Now, I can already hear the hollering all the way up here in the woods.
I'm hearing, "I can't make six-figures doing that!!" and "I can't feed my family".
Get over the sense of entitlement.  Tell your wife/husband to get a job.  Maybe photography isn't for you.  Maybe you need a better and different business model that makes money.

DO NOT expect copyright laws to be "loosened" to the point that registration isn't required, or that non-exclusive agents (retailers) can collect statutory damages.
It's not going to happen.



S.G.

514

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

« on: June 01, 2012, 11:15:41 PM »

Interestingly, H.A.N. would have an excellent legal case against those websites.
That's where the real money is... unless there's some reason why they won't pursue this...

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/7619/glencarnercrymeariver.jpg

S.G.

515

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

« on: May 31, 2012, 08:31:25 PM »

I'm thinking perhaps, "you drop yours, and I'll drop mine".
Lawsuits, I mean.

S.G.

516

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

« on: May 31, 2012, 08:13:00 PM »

I do think that Carner has a reason for posting here.  It's definitely PR and marketing.

His lawsuits are likely to fail, simply because the images in question are distributed so widely on the web so as to be almost "public domain".
It doesn't really matter who put them there; the damage is already done.  What H.A.N./Tylor are surely guilty of at least is negligence in allowing this to happen.
Furthermore, quite a compelling argument can be made that a decision in favor of H.A.N./Tylor would open the door to wide-scale seeding/trolling.  A judge will know this.

The whole concept of seeding/copyright litigation reminds me of mob stories wherein a Lieutenant comes into a shop and beats the crap out of the shopkeep.
The next day, another Lieutenant from the same mob visits the guy in the hospital.  He's your new buddy, and he wants to help.
Just pay him, and he'll ensure that you're left alone.  The same people causing the problem will go away if they you pay them... sound familiar?

If the court finds against H.A.N./Tylor, then Tylor's copyrights are worthless.
No more H.A.N.-related images could be seeded and litigated over, because H.A.N. can't say they weren't aware of the problem.

H.A.N. is going to ditch that lawsuit.  So, now H.A.N. must rely on the "goodwill" of people to pay up.  Hence, the PR campaign.
I posted this tidbit in another thread, but I'll repost it here, because I think that it's quite revealing:
Carner said, "First and formost (sic), I want CSI to develop new solutions for collecting revenue retroactvily (sic) that dosent (sic) require copyright law."
What a novel idea. Not requiring "copyright law", when one doesn't have much of a legal case.
That gets around the whole problem of faulty registrations, seeding, and having to pay attorneys to write letters.
So, I suppose that it would be to his advantage to say, "Let's just set the law aside.  You've infringed, and Uncle Glen wants to help you with your problem.  Kindly make your check out to Hawaiian Art Network".

S.G.

517

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

« on: May 31, 2012, 02:52:42 PM »

Personally, I think that the trolls "know" that it'll be over eventually.  They're milking it for the short-term gain.
Things will only actually change when trolling isn't economically viable anymore.
For the most part, people only make efforts when there's something in it for them.  When that's gone, it'll fade.

I think that the law is intended to be "fair".  But, it's not perfect.
Additionally, experts use their knowledge to sway people who aren't aware of the laws or how the laws apply to their situation.
It's my opinion that lawsuits filed by the trolls haven't panned out in court for the most part.
However, the prospect of "court" (even if it's a remote possibility) scares most people.
Also, the sociopaths in this business are clearly the loudest, most threatening voices.

I won't lie.  I'm glad that Carner is here.  I read his posts with great interest.
Like I said, people do things when there's some "reward" in it for them; that's not necessarily a bad thing.
However, I'm sure that he's not posting here just because he has nothing better to do than be challenged.
I'm trying to figure out where he's going with this, as his postings confuse me a bit.

I did find something that Carner wrote to be quite chilling.
He said, "First and formost (sic), I want CSI to develop new solutions for collecting revenue retroactvily (sic) that dosent (sic) require copyright law."
I suspect that Carner knows that the law isn't really on his side here.  There are some big hurdles to overcome in his lawsuits.
So, I suppose that it would be to his advantage to say, "Let's just set the law aside.  You've infringed, and Uncle Glen wants to help you with your problem.
Kindly make your check out to Hawaiian Art Network".

Recent history has taught us that the law has actually protected alleged infringers from paying the trolls.
Getty's one of the biggest trolls with the most resources, but the law keeps them from collecting on phony infringements.
Righthaven was created to enforce copyrights and it sank faster than the titanic.

Yes... "change or die"... it's really true.  BUT, some companies may have already missed the chance to change.  It may be too late for some.

S.G.

518

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

« on: May 31, 2012, 01:10:40 PM »

Yes, it's difficult to form a "consensus".  I'd like to see "fair dealing", however.  Maybe that's the closest that we'll ever come?

1) People (artists and photographers) should be not expected to work for free.
2) The criminal types need to stop lying and entrapping people in order to make money.
3) The sneaky types need to forward proof of their claims when it's requested.
4) Lawyers involved in this need to be ethical and only work within the framework of legality and law.
5) Settlement demands should be within the range of "actual market value" for similar works used in a similar manner plus a "fair penalty".

I know that #5 is a real sticking point.  Part of the problem is that the sales by "premium" stock art houses are way down.
That's because images of similar quality are available for pennies on the dollar from royalty-free microstock.
It isn't right that the premium stock houses are attempting to make up for their sales shortfall by making completely unreasonable settlement demands.
While an actual infringer is in the "wrong" and should compensate the actual copyright owner, it's not his/her duty to make up for market conditions that now favor inexpensive royalty-free stock art.
I mention a "fair penalty", otherwise people may simply use copyrighted works for free, and the only penalty would be to pay the retail price.  Some people would take that chance.

I hate to say this, but if "premium stock house A" wants a 10,000 dollar settlement over a photo of a sprinkler head, but there are similar photos available everywhere else for 2 dollars, then the settlement should be the lower 2 dollars, all other things being equal.
Add in a 100 percent penalty for a total of 4 dollars.  Some lawyer-types might say, "But that's not worth suing over."
My answer is "That's right.  However, that's market value plus a 100 percent penalty".
An infringement should NOT be an excuse to rip people off.

I think that the premium stock art houses are resisting change and taking the path of least resistance.
However, this isn't sustainable in the long term.  They must change or die.

S.G.

519

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

« on: May 30, 2012, 08:00:06 PM »

Keepfighting is correct.  People should be careful of phone calls.

I think that phone calls are employed to blindside people, or to put them "on the spot".
Conversely, one may assume that the person on the other end is "weak", or "ignorant", but they may be a professional that knows more than you do.
An attorney may be calling you.

Take some good advice; cool it with the phone call stuff.
A letter might be ok in certain situations. But, the only letters that you might care to write are those asking for proof of the claim.

S.G.

520

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

« on: May 30, 2012, 03:35:35 PM »

Buddha makes a good point.  I believe that people have done that successfully.

The only type of contract that would keep an artist from the "End-around-Getty game" as Moe puts it would an exclusive contact.
Getty doesn't have those with most of it's artists, as it's pretty expensive.

Now, getting back to Getty's watermarking.  The only place that one would see a Getty image with a big watermark on it would be on Getty's website where the images are sold.
If you're seeing a watermarked image, you're probably already on Getty's website and the artist name is listed there already.
Is this new watermarking scheme intended to give the false impression that Getty has an exclusive agreement with the artist in question?

S.G.

521

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Pinterest locked in stalemate with image owners ( Getty Images)

« on: May 30, 2012, 02:52:50 PM »

Great post.

If Pinterest employs Getty's Picscout, that means that many Pinterest users will get a demand letter of 1000 dollars or more for each Getty image, along with a threat of legal action.
If that happens, Pinterest is DEAD.

Also, I laughed my ass off over the statement that Pinterest is worth over 1 BILLION dollars.  Laughed my ass off.
Facebook too.  Get ready for next dot-com thud.

S.G.

522

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

« on: May 30, 2012, 02:44:23 PM »

This is really quite curious.
The article states "This made the image viewable, but largely useless for anyone who was trying to take the image for some other use, online or off."
Wow.  What use would that be?  "Let's use an image with a watermark all over it for our stuff!!  Yayyy!".

The people at Getty don't understand branding.  That's all that I'll say on that point.

The most interesting aspect is that they're putting the artist's name on the watermark.
There must be some legal strategy at work here.

S.G.

523

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

« on: May 30, 2012, 02:34:10 PM »

EVNL, thanks for lending your voice to an issue that affects good people on a daily basis.
We talk about the laws on the forum a lot, but there's definitely a human aspect to this.
I can't imagine how many people have suffered in fear because of what in my opinion is greed.

S.G.

524

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: How is this different from PicScout?

« on: May 30, 2012, 11:31:39 AM »

Save your time and worry.
Just don't use any products from Getty, Masterfile, or anyone else that uses Picscout.
Saved everyone some time... you're welcome!!

S.G.

525

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

« on: May 29, 2012, 08:05:30 PM »

Neat.  The discussions here must have touched a nerve for him to join up, and attempt a post.

I would be interested in what he has to say.
It's just a big hurdle to get over the fact that they're going after "end users" and not the free "distribution channels".
Which I think will be a pivotal discussion in court (if they have the guts to show up).

Even if the free distribution channels weren't their doing, it's almost like the concept of an abandoned trademark.
"Our stuff is offered everywhere for free, but we can't do anything about it.  But, lets sue end-users and make money on it anyway".
How unfortunate.  If it's "free", and it's practically public domain now, then what are the damages?

S.G.