Robert has a photographic memory. I have no recollection of the name Tom Schwabel. But I saw how Robert provided a link and I had to re-read to jog my memory. I cannot believe how much I wrote in that thread!
I have to give you credit for your participation because it is probably the first time in ELI history where I was compelled to the opposing position and DEFEND Carolyn Wright of Photo Attorney.
You take an extremist position that most of us at ELI cannot support. It is true we are very AGGRESSIVE attackers and defenders of many in the stock photo industry. However, we do so because they are often sloppy, indiscriminate, take unfair advantage, unreasonable, make bullshit arguments, and ask for too much money in their letters.
Every content owner has a right to defend and assert their ownership and copyright. They even have a right to legally threaten someone. But there is a right way and a wrong way.
You certainly used your ability to post and call out Tom Schwabel and his views but in many ways, your position actually only helped his position by making us here at ELI argue the opposing side. If the majority of people who visit ELI took your views, ELI would probably shut down as few of us could support your views.
95% of people we deal with feel bad/guilty about their infringements, are very apologetic, have no qualms about removing the images, willing to pay some minimal amount to dismiss the claim, and "learned their lesson" going forward.
But it is positions such as yours that hurt the other 95% because it forces the other side to paint with a heavy-handed broad brush.
Robert has not minced words where your position is concerned. I am being a bit more diplomatic because your participation has given ELI the opportunity to really shine and discard the false notion we are against copyright enforcement or we are anti-copyright.
We have never had to be so explicit in stating our positions against another ELI reader/participant before.
We are naming and shaming people for those that go too far and have a reputation for doing so. Not simply because they are asserting ownership, copyright, and support copyright enforcement.
Regarding my thoughts on Tom Schwabel's "manifesto", believe it or not, I agree with a significant portion of it although it is heavy-handed in certain sections. I like that he seems pragmatic especially when it comes to watermarking and registering copyrights. It is perfectly acceptable to recommend that. I like that he discusses the pros and cons and the low-key approaches.
I don't believe Tom is "scamming" anyone. At worst, he might be heavy-handed in his enforcement. You, on the other hand, appear to have no ownership or culpability.
Honestly, you are helping Tom's position, not hurting it but you might not be able to see it from where you are sitting.
I think now is a great time to re-shame the once very vocal troll Tom Schwabel. A small timer trying to act like big bad Getty. After my shaming of him last year he disappeared for a bit, not appearing in any forums to spew his garbage on how to sue, i mean steal from, people and not posting any more photos (mostly knocked off or possibly stolen photos) on his website, but he's back at it again.
I love this site, all of his potential "customers" and extortion targets find this site as his #2 hit. I suspect that's why he went underground for a while. He couldn't get anyone to respond to his stolen picture scams.
Show Posts