Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Matthew Chan

Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 154
601
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: SOL finally passed
« on: August 23, 2016, 10:37:50 PM »
Congrats but be vigilant.  One never knows when you get another nasty extortion letter from an unexpected place.

Three years ago I received one of those notorious Getty letters.  I freaked a little, took the (unknowingly) offending pic down fro the website and started doing some online research.  I found this forum and it helped keep my blood pressure and heart rate down as I continued to receive letters from McCormack and Co.  Today marks the 3 year SOL passing.  I wanted to shoot a quick note to thank everyone for their advice and encouragement.  I'm off to throw the Getty file in the trash.

603
Wow, I am so far behind here.  A few comments, one of the reasons why ELI is hated so much by copyright extortionists is that the community is primarily made up of very inquisitive, non-lawyers who are not bound by lawyer protocol.  We can get into different threads of discussion regarding personalities and research and disclose information that many could not.

Certainly, we discuss legalities here but, for example, I can tell you behavior characteristics of many of the players because they reveal themselves in non-public platforms which get forwarded to us. We know how they deal with victims when they think no on is looking.

There have been some really egregious stuff over the years that was forwarded to us and we publish. So, whenever these folks send out a letter or email, they never know who will find ELI and submit that information to us. The egregious stuff has been reigned in over the years once people realized that when they threaten or extort someone, that material could end up here or somewhere else on the Internet. So, I have noticed much more careful wording and even steep discounting in the settlement figures.

Throughout the ELI Forums, we have done some expose' work on the lawyers themselves. There have been a number of lawyers who really have no business calling out someone else.  One California lawyer who presents a Hawaiian photographer comes to mind. I found all kinds of improper organization stuff on them.  Another mohawk-cut female lawyer also from California was just a legal clerk for a couple years but she became a lawyer and we know she is a newbie.

We have an ex-Getty Images lawyer that is now in the (legal) marijuana-growing business. Another one allegedly "retired" this year. An inhouse Getty lawyer contacted me to remove his name since he moved on. Another ex-Getty employee asked one of her contacts within Getty and contacted Oscar for me to expunge her name from this website.

There are just so many personal and anecdotal stories of all these characters we know about amongst the core team. And so Nancy Wolff is just another name from the past we have discussed. Knowing these things and getting the scoop is very important to just "doing the law".

And it appears there are some smart lawyers that are paying attention to some the ELI "gossip". Except that we don't just "gossip". We actually find nuggets or direct evidence to support what we say. That is why no one has ever said we engage in defamation.  We don't make stuff up.  And if we speculate and guess, we say we do. We don't present guesswork and speculation as facts.

We get all kinds of information from different people and different sources and we share it amongst one another. We have team members that are strong in different areas.

604
Yes, Engel Nyst has appeared suddenly out of the blue and have made important contributions to this and several other discussions of late. Many of us have taken notice of his hard work, research, and informative analysis, indeed.

Forgot that I wanted to give a shout out to forum user Engel Nyst who has already spotted one such recipient and notified me. Engel has been on top of the discussion of this case from the beginning.

605
Engel Nyst,

Have we met or spoken before? Your background sounds familiar. Or perhaps I have you confused with another person I have been in contact with.

Either way, I agree with Robert.  Thanks for joining the ELI Forums.  You have most certainly stirred the pot in a very positive way.

I feel a bit awkward being the one trying to keep up and catch up on all these news, updates, and announcements. As the ELI Forums founder, I am generally accustomed to be the one who announces news and updates! But that obviously has changed in recent months because I feel like I am behind. With the people around here like you, Robert, Greg, etc. it feels like I have to run to keep up around here.  It is a great problem to have.

And if it makes you feel better, everything you write and share is Google-indexed and travels much further than you think. Thank you so much for your impressive contributions of late.  Feel free to continue putting me behind the eight-ball!

You are doing an enormous service for many people by getting this information out and thank you for being a "copyright nerd". Many of us have become just that by virtue of our prior circumstances.

Another great gift, and I must say it's freshening to see some new blood jumping into the fray...Engel Nyst.

Thanks for the welcome :D. And don't worry, I'm confident that sooner or later a lot of the patterns of behavior uncovered by these forums will have consequences, as they should. In fact, you know they already had some real consequences in changing some of Getty's behavior, in raising awareness in online press, and in helping people affected.

I have not received a letter. I'm a software developer and a copyright nerd. I've given a couple of years of my life to learn the law, the jurisprudence, and the understandings in different communities on the internet.

I know this site for a long while, I'm sure. But I registered only recently, because I wanted to answer a photographer in another topic. Funnily enough, the time for approval and other stuff derailed me, and I haven't yet posted my intended answer. I will soon.

What happened recently was that I was in touch with some photographers (not on this forum), and from discussions it became again clear to me that they get the wrong impressions from the rhetoric of copyright enforcement agents. It's an easy recipe for copyright enforcers: just claim whatever is not blatantly false, but not complete story either, and convince them to give you some rights to enforce; you will have the backing of authors for your covert actions, even though you will hide the actual text of your enforcement letters, phone and stuff, and you will actually make more money than by legitimate licensing or decent enforcement - probably more than they even know. It's a sad state of affairs, and copyright law is just too powerful on the enforcement/remedies side, such that bullying is possible. There's almost no disincentive, almost no consequence (legal) to bullying. So it's not surprising that it finds a rich terrain.



606
I am a little late with this but people should read Oscar Michelen's take on the Carol Highsmith vs. Getty Images, LCS, etc. case.

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2016/07/1-billion-lawsuit-against-getty-images-shows-effects-of-trolling/

Oscar asks for the community and readership help in finding any victim who has received extortion letters regarding any Carol Highsmith images to contact him at [email protected].

607
Building on what Robert said, Nancy Wolff's name is familiar to us just like some of the propaganda she was trying to peddle to the unknowing.

Nancy Wolff's PAID job is to be the stock image industry's legal spokesperson. We recognized that early on. We also recognize how these small "industry organizations" work. They live off the financial donations & "contributions" of its members.  So DMLA's Nancy Wolff is being paid to sell legal propaganda that supports their industry's efforts.

Fortunately, we have in our corner Oscar Michelen and the scrappy ELI team who help be the eyes and ears of what people like Nancy try to sell and we find weaknesses and flaws in opposing arguments.

For example, Nancy mentions the Carol Highsmith case and the claim the images were in public domain. Nancy then tries to tiredly explain what public domain images are and how innocent what Getty Images was doing and the expense of archiving, scanning, and managing images. Except Getty Images is not a non-profit organization nor did they archive those images as a public service. Getty Images is very much a for-profit business.  LCS is also. They send extortion letters out because they are implicitly saying the party they represent own the images and have a right to profit from them. And if you don't pay, they might take legal action against you.  That is the context in which they operate, not altruistic actions of trying to preserve and service abandoned public domain images.  GMAFB.

Profiting from public domain images does not mean you lie to the public by saying you or your client owns them and then demand payment... or else. 

Nancy Wolff is trying to sell more propaganda and we aren't buying it. We know her and DMLA/PACA's history. Getty Images and LCS were caught red-handed trying to extortion money from the very person who made the contribution to public domain!

In fact, Oscar and I haven't made an official announcement yet but Oscar called me last week and we had a discussion.  He wants to hear from any victims who received an extortion letter for a Carol Highsmith image!

Oscar has no love for how Getty Images, LCS, and their ilk operate. You can read it for yourself in his recent commentary.
http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2016/07/1-billion-lawsuit-against-getty-images-shows-effects-of-trolling/

Nancy Wolff can peddle her propaganda all she wants but this is only the start of things to come.

608
It is not a surprise the case settled. As I said, the Sheila Addison case is an unfortunate one because she was caught in a temporary vacuum and odd set of circumstances.


609
It has been a while since I have announced a new player in the extortion letter arena. I have seen a number of smaller one-off claims but rarely a recurrence of newer players. Generally, it is the same players I see such as "Masterfail", Getty Images, LCS, BWP Media, Sanders, etc.

A couple months ago, someone commented to me during an ELI Support Call they did not see much written about Higbee & Associates run by lawyer Mathew Higbee (whose first name is the same as mine but is strangely and intentionally misspelled with one "t").

Over a year ago, I thought Higbee & Associates were going to be another extortion letter entity that would come and go. However, they have entered my radar much more frequently now. In fact, I have checked into their operation and Higbee has gotten quite serious about the business.

Higbee & Associates appear to be overrun with estrogen-based lawyers: http://www.higbeeassociates.com/about/attorneys/. For Higbee, there seem to be a lot of female "associate attorneys" in subservient positions to "big dog" Mathew.

In any case, there are many clues I have gleaned.  First, Higbee refers to themselves as a "national law firm" despite the fact they are based in Santa Ana, California. There is a Google map with many digital thumbtacks throughout the U.S. but nothing else I could find that backs up those Google thumbtacks being shown.

Second, there is an internship program: http://www.higbeeassociates.com/interns/.  It would not surprise me that they place one of these wannabe-lawyers in the clerical end of the copyright extortion business as Getty, Masterfile, LCS, and other larger operations do.

Third, Higbee is investing in a lot of technology in their servicing:  https://client.higbeeassociates.com/login. My guess is that their clients can monitor the status of their cases which would include any copyright money collection efforts.

Fourth, there is a hidden, unpublicized Infringements link just for their targets to use:  http://www.higbeeassociates.com/infringements

This is what is very significant. Through a victim's link that was submitted to me for review, I've had the opportunity to look over the Highbee copyright collection system from a target's perspective.  Higbee's system is professional and sophisticated. It reminds me a lot of the system LCS and Getty Images uses. It is possible Higbee has licensed the system Getty & LCS uses. This is NOT a casual, cheap web application being used for onesies or twosies. It is a serious, full-blown technology-based copyright money collection operation.

Although I get a somewhat steady stream of news and information nuggets over the course of time, it was only about a month ago that I was able to make the connection that Higbee & Associates is a new, serious player in relation to the other operations we report on.

As of right now, I cannot identify any copyright lawsuit that Higbee has filed against anyone on behalf of their clients. It doesn't mean they haven't, it just means no one has reported it to me yet. As far as I can tell, the client's Higbee represents are not overly litigious yet.  But as Higbee expands and matures, we might see more of that.  It all depends on how much of a stomach and public exposure any of Higbee's clients want by filing on smaller parties.

Higbee & Associates is too new for me to determine how litigious they will be. I think they will be selective if they do pursue it because it makes little financial sense in many situations because many would be uncollectible as Masterfile likely learned several years ago.

Because the statute of limitations for copyright infringement matters is 3-years and most of the cases I have seen are within the last year, we may not know until 2017 & 2018 when many of their cases reaches the end of statute of limitations.

The ELI team will definitely be keeping a watchful eye on Mathew Higbee's Higbee & Associates operation in the months to come. If you are a Higbee target, the ELI Forums is the best place for updates and news.

612
IN the Ars Technica article, Sarah Lochting (supposed Getty Images VP of Communications) tries to bullshit the reporter by saying:

Quote
Lochting also underscored that LCS and Getty Images are "separate entities and have no operational relationship."

In all of LCS correspondence we have seen, they outright use the same physical address as Getty Images. ELI has long reported through its own independent research that LCS and Getty Images are closely intertwined sharing a common physical address, technology, and organizational structure.

The Ars Technica article states:
Quote
However, DNS records show that LCS' listed address is 605 5th Avenue South, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington, which is Getty Images' corporate address, a fact that she would not explain to Ars.

"It’s a no comment in response to your follow up questions," Lochting e-mailed.

It's "no comment" because the Getty scrawny bimbo, Sarah Lochting,(see Google Images) doesn't realize many people aren't that stupid and ELI already knew about the connection for nearly a year now before anyone cared about looking into how LCS came into existence.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/license-compliance-services-inc-corporate-naming-hanky-panky/



614
It was brought to my attention last week that Leslie Burns (whom we know as being a newbie lawyer part of Carolyn Wright's Photo Attorney operation) claims in her website that Carolyn dissolved her firm and retired.

http://burnstheattorney.com/about/
Quote
Carolyn Wright (photoattorney.com) hired me right after graduation and I have worked with her, doing primarily copyright law, until she dissolved her firm (she’s retired). It was a great experience and she will always be my mentor. But, as all things end, now I’ve hung my own shingle, and, boom, here we are.

Our own Robert K. wrote about his thoughts on the matter last week: http://copyright-trolls.com/site/well-known-attorney-and-copyright-troll-carolyn-wright-retires/

Masterfile (or Masterfail as we call them), in recent years, turned towards Carolyn Wright's Photo Attorney operation for escalated cases. Masterfile would occasionally file a lawsuit but the years of rampant lawsuits by Masterfile have long passed.

As of this posting, the Photo Attorney website is alive and well with very recent posts. She still lists the following lawyers as being part of The Law Office of Carolyn E. Wright LLC.

http://www.photoattorney.com/attorneys/

* Carolyn E. Wright
* Evan A. Andersen
* Leslie Burns
* Earl Richardson
* Christopher J. Rooney
* Tyra Hughley Smith
* Robert A. Keller, Of Counsel

Her LinkedIn page still lists her as being active: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolynewright

I have checked the corporation database of both Nevada and Georgia and the law firm still shows as being active.

http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=KXyx3ak26QipqDyPc1OEEw%253d%253d&nt7=0

https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch/BusinessInformation?businessId=417789&businessType=Domestic%20Limited%20Liability%20Company

I suppose it is possible that Carolyn got tired of the extortion letter business especially since ELI has put so much light and attention to all the various entities that engage in such activity but Leslie is not entirely accurate about Carolyn dissolving the firm.

If Carolyn Wright has, in fact, quit the business, then perhaps newbie California lawyer, "Mohawk" Leslie Burns has taken over Carolyn's old extortion business and try to collect her 30% commissions from unknowing victims.

The easiest way to innoculate any of Leslie's extortion letters is to make sure ELI's Oscar Michelen is in your corner. "Newbie Mohawk Leslie" is no match for "Litigation Sage Oscar".


615
I think people will want to learn more about the recent lawsuit filed by a photographer against Getty Images  & License Compliance Services (LCS): Carol Highsmith vs. Getty Images, Picscout, License Compliance Services, Alamy, etc.

The photographer received an extortion letter for a photo she owns and posted on her own website!

On top of this, she says that she gave the public the right to reproduce and display her photos for free!

And yet, the notoriously sloppy Getty Images & LCS gets caught in an embarrassing situation.  I suspect Getty Images & LCS will be settling this case quickly but the cat is out of the bag now.

It is further evidence to what we at ELI have been saying for years.  Getty is very sloppy about their extortion letters. Only the uninformed will blindly pay the extortion letters.

For more information & detail of what is in the lawsuit, go this thread which is where it all started.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/photographer-sues-getty-for-extortion-letters-over-her-work/



Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 154
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.