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 - SoylentGreen

Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 84
856
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers
« on: January 11, 2012, 04:05:58 PM »
Lucia had inquired about whether or not I'm an attorney.  I’m not an attorney.
I had thought at length about how to answer her query as to what my opinion was regarding "where or not it's worth a shot", or "what the probability is of winning a dismissal".  Each individual must decide for himself/herself whether or not it's "worth a shot".  But, we can do research and make a reasonable determination.  Now, if something was to go to court, it's often difficult to predict "probability", as a human "the judge" will make a decision based on aguments/evidence.  The following is my thought process.  It's a bit long, but perhaps, there's some food for thought in there.

I’m speaking in terms of US laws/ existing precedents.
Historically speaking, most of the people who paid Getty, Riddick and Righthaven didn’t have to.
Corbis had a good case but gained mixed results, and rumor has it that Masterfile is much better organized than Getty when it comes to contracts/registrations.  I’m a bit unclear on the Masterfile thing.  They may only be filing lawsuits wherein the paperwork is in place; this may give the false impression that everything that they have is registered/under proper contracts.  Most of their wins are on “default” wherein the defendant didn’t show for court.
So, the odds are good that there’s some problem with most infringement claims that should be explored and could possibly be exploited.
---

Your priority in fighting such claims might be as follows from most desirable to least:
1) Make an informal response, and show evidence that causes them to simply go away
2) Make an informal response, and show evidence that causes them to accept a very low settlement.  One so low that the time you saved is more valuable than that of the settlement.
3) In the event of a lawsuit, file a formal defense that causes the plaintiff to give up and withdraw
4) In the event of a strong defense, fight it in court, win, and collect legal fees and other damages
5) In a case wherein you cannot reasonably prevail, pay a the lowest settlement possible in lieu of a larger court loss and legal fees.
---

Fighting these claims is a process.  Collect evidence and find out if there’s a fatal problem with the claim such as:
1) The content was never registered
2) Faulty registration (dates missing, signatures missing, incorrect names)
3) The content was registered by the “original artist”, but there is no “exclusive agreement” in place between the artist and company (agent).  Or this agreement is faulty.
4) The registration was made in “bulk”, that is, many items registered together as a collection
5) Registration not made within lawful time limits

The above examples will kill a case in the US.  That doesn’t stop ignorant people from filing lawsuits in some cases.  File for “summary dismissal” and site precedents.  If it does go to court, at least you’ll win and collect your legal fees if applicable.  Except in “scorched earth” near-criminal situations such as Righthaven.  Note that court precedents currently exist for the above list.
---

Other fatal problems.  These are situations involving mistakes or even fraud which make even the possibility of a claim invalid:
1) Outright fraudulent claims (the image didn’t even appear on your site, or the image only similar and not the same).
2) Companies or individuals impersonating artists/ agencies/ companies/ lawyers and sending forged correspondence/fraudulent claims.
3) Misrepresentations of law, for example situations wherein Getty makes accusations of infringement over linked images not actually residing on the server/domain of the accused person/company.
---

Things that might kill or at least give leverage in negotiations or reduce awards in court
1) The images are widely available as “free” (the more the better for the defendant)
2) The images are widely available as low-cost “clip-art” (non rights-managed)
3) The infringement had low exposure (hit count), low resolution, small image size, was on tertiary web pages.
4) The same images sold on multiple sites by unrelated companies
5) Only some rights assigned (but not others) in an “exclusive contract” between an artist and agent.
6) It was “fair use” under the law for registered educational/non-profit organizations.
7) The web site was not commercial, or didn’t make much money.
8 The defendant was unemployed or unemployable, and the web site didn’t make much revenue
---

Things that people do to avoid payment/court in a worst-case scenario:
1)  In the case of a corporation, ensure that the company has little assets left by the time collection efforts are made.
2) Personal bankruptcy
3) “Disappear” in order to avoid service of court papers (somebody did that in a Corbis case).
---

Where to begin?  Here’s what you do:
1) Assess your risk tolerance.
2) Assess your budget
3) Go through the lists above and highlight any points that might apply to your situation
4) Collect all evidence that you can to support what you’ve highlighted
5) Determine if the evidence strongly supports your defence(s)
6) You must now decide if your defence and corresponding evidence support your desired outcome from the very first list.

If your accuser will not provide evidence of their claim, do realize that they’re holding out because they do not have enough evidence to support their claim. Be patient.   The accuser must present their evidence before the commencement of any court case.  So any evidence will have to be presented eventually.  Next, reassess your strategy as you receive any new information.
If new evidence becomes known that isn’t favorable to your defence, keep in mind that you may make a settlement at any time if that’s in your best interest.

S.G.

857
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Name for Members of the ELI Defense Team
« on: January 11, 2012, 01:30:50 PM »
Perhaps, "ELI Advisory Committee".

S.G.


858
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Masterfile Demand Letter Story
« on: January 11, 2012, 12:26:56 PM »
The "without prejudice" thing probably came about when somebody used something an MF employee said as a defense.
The problem is that only a judge can can deem his/her decision "without prejudice".
Such a term has no meaning outside of a court decision.

In some cases, this concept might not help anyway.
For example, if an MF employee admitted that MF didn't register an image in the US, the defendant might not be able use the actual written statement from the MF employee.
But, that wouldn't change the material fact that the image isn't registed, which would be revealed during the discovery phase.

S.G.


859
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Name for Members of the ELI Defense Team
« on: January 10, 2012, 11:24:21 PM »
Oscar's idea is quite interesting.  Also like the robot idea.
But, the character simply must have a machine gun.  (just kidding).
Too bad the "Angry Birds" have already been invented.

I also like the style of "The Incredibles":
http://pds.egloos.com/pds/1/200412/27/96/b0048496_3161680.jpg
(this link does not infringe, by the way).

Too bad the acronym "CSI" is already taken...
How about the "ELI Defense Protocol"?  lol.

S.G.



860
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Name for Members of the ELI Defense Team
« on: January 10, 2012, 10:07:08 PM »
I can help with any graphics, Matt.

S.G.


861
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers
« on: January 10, 2012, 06:08:08 PM »
Pick any 12 of the more popular "Tylor" photos.
Use Google reverse-image search on each photo.
Find nearly 1000 unique impressions of the photos combined on "free wallpaper" sites worldwide.
Take screen shots. Print-out screen shots single-sided.
Pile is 2-and-a-half inches thick.
File for summary dismissal and submit pile of papers documenting the scam
Profit?

S.G.


862
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers
« on: January 10, 2012, 04:12:21 PM »
A good discussion, and many good points made.

I'd like to add that there is a discovery process.
The impression given by the trolls is that "we'll take you to court, but we don't have to reveal anything" is a falsehood.
There IS a discovery process.  Even if it's delayed until the mediation conference that's normally a last resort before a trial.
Both sides can also make requests for documentation of claims made, etc.

"I don't know" and "I can't do anything about it" simply means that the author has in effect lost "control" of copyrighted material.
Regardless of the country, the author should be able to show that he/she has at least sent cease and desist letters.
Even Russia and China have a legal system.  If the images are very valuable, the author should be able to show some efforts to stem the tide of infringements.
Going up against HAN, I'd have evidence of the dissemination of the content for free, all over the world.
If Tylor makes the claim, "I didn't know about it", score one for me... he looks negligent, or worse still compliant.
That's an extremely weak position to be in.

There needn't be a copyright infringement case decided or pending against one of the free wallpaper sites in order to use those facts against Tylor.
The fact they they exist is sufficient to make him look bad.

Actual court cases in last ten years show that the ones that have even minor weaknesses get dismissed.
The cases have to be pretty rock-solid in order for the plaintiff to prevail in a meaningful way.

I'm not angry with HAN or Getty, and have had no dealings with them, BTW.
My posts here are only to encourage people to fight.

I'm one of those people who can fight (and win) with one or two solid arguments.  That's all you really need.
I'm not normally dissuaded by not having every piece of the puzzle, or by being thrown off by an adversary's "plausible denial".
That's because the plaintiff has to reveal those pieces before using them in court, and a plausible denial just "proves" lack of knowledge or lack of evidence and those are worthless.
For example, Country Cycling could have won based on the fact that the contract with the photographer was never dated.
Copyright standing, the length of use, price and anything else probably wouldn't have made a difference.

I think that these sorts of things are normally decided by a judge who has some experience in the area.
I don't think that there's a jury of peers.  But, maybe Oscar can chime in if I'm mistaken.

S.G.

863
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Free Baitpapers
« on: January 10, 2012, 01:05:24 PM »
Whether or not Tylor deliberately seeded his photos is unknown.
I think that PicScout would have picked up on Tylor's images on the wallpaper sites by now.
So, it's reasonable to assume that he's aware that his photos are been offered as "free".

The story of how they got on the free wallpaper sites might be interesting.
But the fact that they're offered for free on those sites, and remain there as "free" is the most important aspect of the story.

If I was taken to task for infringing on Tylor/H.A.N. photos, I'd demand to see paperwork to prove that they're making meaningful efforts to curtail these images being marketed as free.
I'd want this as part of the discovery process to assess the actual market value of these images.

If it's distributed as "free" anywhere, then it's surely not "premium rights managed content".
No rights are managed if the images are a free download.

How many sites do these photos have to be on before we say, "this is deliberate", or "he's doing nothing about it because it entices people to infringe intentionally"?

S.G.


864
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Alternative names for Extortion Letters
« on: January 10, 2012, 12:49:44 PM »
Thus far, the vast majority of copyright infringement demands made by those in the content business have a very weak legal basis.
It's abundantly clear that most of the money that copyright trolling captures comes from those who simply pay out of fear.

Creating "fear" in order to make people scared enough pay is a messy business.
So, I understand that those involved in the copyright trolling business wish to "sanitize" the entire issue.
Both for the business aspect, and so as not to cast one's own professional reputation in a negative light.
While copyright trolling types may not like the term "extortion letter" and might prefer "demand letter", "extortion" and "demand" are in fact synonyms:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/extortion
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/468/extortionsynonym.jpg

It’s important to realize that the trolls want ALL criticism to go away.
Today, it’s the word “extortion”. Next week, it’s going to be “troll”.  The week after that, maybe we can’t mention any names?
Indeed, Canadian lawyer Julie Stewart wants no mention of her name on the site.  But, this is the business that she’s in.
A more productive response to the evidence, opinions and expert commentary presented on ELI would be for lawyers such as Ms Stewart to blog their point of view.
But, she couldn’t “blog” what’s in the extortion letters without damaging her reputation.  That also explains why you don’t see lawyers for the trolls posting here.
You can’t openly post what’s claimed in the letters without looking like a scammer.
So, the only option left is to suppress what they’ve written and signed their name to.
The only exception appears to be lawyer Carolyn Wright, whom I believe has some articles of value.

Righthaven has illustrated how bad it can get.
Also, I don’t believe for a moment that Tylor (affiliated with Hawaiian Art Network) doesn’t know that his photos are offered for free all over the web.
Riddick’s claims were garbage from day one, and I feel sorry for anyone who gave in and paid him.

I believe that anyone who demands monetary damages relating to property that they do not legally own is pulling a scam.
I don’t think “scam” is too harsh a word.  In such cases, the money simply isn’t owed.

I don’t speak for ELI, but it’s my opinion that those who expect it to be ELI’s job to market the actions of copy trolls in the best light possible are out of touch with reality.
If most people received a gas bill of ten-thousand dollars, they’d ask to see the meter reading.  If the gas company said, “we don’t reveal meter readings unless we go to court”, they be screwed in short order.
The same is true for the copyright trolls; what is the actual evidence of the claim?

I hope that the approach on this forum doesn’t go too “soft”.  Listen to Rammstein or Metallica while you post if you have to.

S.G.

865
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Alternative names for Extortion Letters
« on: January 10, 2012, 01:21:49 AM »
Matt,

What's the rationale in searching for synonyms?

S.G.


866
Righthaven complains about ‘scorched-earth’ efforts

Righthaven officers told Randazza the company no longer has any cash Hoehn can seize but that Randazza can seize about 10 computers and a server — minus their hard drives.

“There might be a desk and a chair or two that can be sold as well,” Mangano said.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/jan/09/righthaven-complains-about-scorched-earth-efforts-/

S.G.

867
Trying to stop publication of these extortion letters and related issues are a waste of time on the part of the copyright trolls.
They have no power to suppress anything outside of a confidentiality agreement.
I am enjoying every bit of the butthurt though.

I found a photo of Geoffrey Beal "cooking up" some of the usual diarrhea spewed by the corporate septic tank that is "Masterfile".

S.G.


868
I'd like to offer an expression of support to the team.

The letter from Ms Stewart's attorney follows the same mold of emotional warfare that the extortion/demand letters do.
Often, the claims don't have much basis in legal terms, but are carefully crafted to intimidate the reader.
It's "you do as we say, then you'll feel better and can sleep at night".  That's why the term "extortion letter" was coined.
I know that this approach is what blindsides many letter recipients; in most cases not much damage has actually been done, but the pressure put on the recipient is tremendous.

Matt has written a great response, and I can't think of much to add.
I must say that the attention the ELI is receiving must be in some ways flattering.  ELI is working, that's for sure.

We should all be concerned when attempts are made to sweep legal matters under the rug, so to speak.
It's quite clear that some wish to operate in secrecy, and this is quite telling.

One thing is for sure, the more experienced and seasoned the legal team, the less they comment publicly or try to suppress their actions from public view.
I would imagine that most law practices have a policy of public relations that doesn't vilify the reporting media.
In fact, the smart firms know how to work with the media in order to foster a better understanding of their issues.

I didn't realize that Ms Stewart was so upset about all this.
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9508/reactionupset.jpg

S.G.


869
Great to see Jerry (aka McFilms) in his first interview.
He's truly open minded, and one of the nicest guys on here.

An informative video as always, and I like Jerry's reassuring tone.

Thanks for the mention as well... heehee.
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7373/guyfawkes2.jpg

S.G.

870
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A Masterfile Demand Letter Story
« on: January 08, 2012, 11:18:50 PM »
Just a few quick comments here.

The "deadlines" are mainly intended to give a sense of urgency, so that people will make knee-jerk decisions, and pay more money sooner.

Last time I checked, MF hadn't sued since Aug, 2011 when it started negotiations with Arius for a buyout.
So, that should delay lawsuits further in the short-term.
Additionally, that also means that there's surely a backlog of infringements much more egregious than what were discussing here.
In any case, the time between when "negotiations fail" and a lawsuit filing is usually several months.

The "cut and paste" responses that the alleged infringer has been receiving probably indicates that his/her file is of very low priority.

If you decide to settle, shoot fairly low at first.  Then, see what they say.
Of course, I'd prefer if you didn't settle...

S.G.


Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 84
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.