Messages

901

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Ars Technica: American Bar Association Urges Against File Sharing Lawsuits

« on: July 16, 2014, 01:09:12 AM »

These are important excerpts from the White Paper on pg. 30-31, 59,
=====

3. Remedies Directed Against Consumers

Finally, while it is technically possible for trademark and copyright owners to proceed with civil litigation against the consuming public who affirmatively seek out counterfeited products or pirated content or engage in illegal file sharing, campaigns like this have been expensive, do not yield significant financial returns, and can cause a public relations problem for the plaintiff in addressing its consuming public.

For instance, the Recording Industry of America (“RIAA”) initiated a campaign several years ago against consumers who engaged in illegal file sharing of copyrighted music. During that time, Civil Remedies the RIAA initiated lawsuits against over 18,000 individual users, most of whom paid a few hundred dollars in settlements to avoid the potential for statutory damages of $150,000 per infringing
use. More recently, the RIAA has abandoned its former policy of directly bringing cases against consumers in favor of expanding its focus on educating the consuming public about avoiding piracy.

The Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) followed in the RIAA’s footsteps with its own set of lawsuits directed against consumers who engaged in the illegal file sharing of copyrighted films and other video, though on a vastly smaller scale. It, too, later abandoned this approach.

Based on the information currently available, the IPL Section does not believe that legislative action directly targeting consumers would prove effective in reducing piracy or counterfeiting at this time. Alternatively, a well-constructed and continuous public outreach campaign to educate the public about piracy and counterfeiting, the negative impacts these activities have on the U.S. economy and ways consumers can be proactive in trying to stop such conduct may have a longer lasting positive impact.

D. Public Reaction

Reception to COICA, PIPA and SOPA followed a similar pattern: initially receiving support from copyright and trademark industry leaders and coalitions; appearing on the fast-track to becoming law; then dogged by criticisms from civil libertarians and Internet industry interests; and ultimately abandoned. Often times, critics showed support for the bills’ intentions, but opposed their passage because of what many perceived as threats to free speech and due process.

902

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Tape Recording Conversations

« on: July 16, 2014, 12:26:32 AM »

I guess this guy is going to get indicted now by a grand jury or prosecuted by a D.A. for recording a rude phone conversation by Comcast and going public with it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/comcast-embarrassed-employees-treatment-customer-718641

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/media/comcast-customer-service/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I can see the D.A.'s office, FBI, local police, the sheriff's office, and a grand jury convene on this very important matter.  The nerve of this guy recording a phone call without authorization. He is clearly a first-class criminal. I am sure Timmy Mack will be reaching out to the Hollywood Reporter, CNN, and help authorities indict this guy for committing a crime against Comcast (a company so many people love and exemplifies the epitomy of customer service throughout the U.S.)

I think the Hollywood Reporter and CNN is inciting illegal behavior by publicizing this story. We should also indict the management of Hollywood Reporter for their reporter's egregious behavior. Or maybe go after SoundCloud for hosting the "illegal" phone recording.

After all reporting and discussing "taboo" topics such as recording phone conversations is the same as inciting illegal behavior, right?  What about all the phone recording apps on Google Play?  No. I think not.

903

Getty Images Letter Forum / Ars Technica: American Bar Association Urges Against File Sharing Lawsuits

« on: July 15, 2014, 03:51:57 PM »

Although not directly related to stock photo extortion letters, I have repeatedly brought up how ongoing negative publicity and attention (our First Amendment right) as an effective AND ENTIRELY LEGAL tactic and strategy to fight back against reckless copyright troll/extortionist lawsuits against innocent, non-willful infringers ESPECIALLY when they involve small number of low-resolution images.

Ars Technica writes this article which essentially says that the American Bar Association believes that suing consumers causes a "public relations problem".  Really, big shock there.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/american-bar-association-urges-against-file-sharing-lawsuits/

Further, Getty and its alway genius, insightful management continue to create thousands of new enemies each year through its extortion letters (thereby furthering empowering ELI and others that publicly speak out, complain, and fight back).  This, of course, does not count the scores of photographers that now hate Getty and what they stand for.

The RIAA and MPAA has experienced first-hand experience in the consequences of legally attacking consumers.  Righthaven got put out of business by making the mistake of going after bloggers who (under fair use) quoted newspaper articles. It didn't hurt that federal court judges got wise to Righthaven and Steve Gibson.

Prenda Law got put into the ground by federal court judges when they got wise to Steele and his cohorts sleazy tactics. Those lawyers face all kinds of sanctions now for the unethical deeds. It's kind of fun watching federal judges go beat up on and call out the dirtbag lawyers within Prenda.

Getty counsel (both inside and outside) stupidly thinks because they don't file many lawsuits, they can continue to get away with using extortion letters asking for crazy amounts of money from innocent infringers without ever having to prove they own the images. I predict that Getty's extortion letter campaign will eventually hit a tipping point of no return and ELI intends to be there to witness this.

Getty is in a dying industry and business where its main clientele (big media) are diminishing in power and influence each year. Getty cannot stay big without big media support. Legacy book and magazine publishers are shrinking, consolidating, and collapsing. Getty cannot sustain their overhead from sales of microstock and royalty-free images alone. They need lucrative rights-managed suckers customers to support all those expensive salaries by Jonathon Klein, his managers, and their faceless inside counsel (whom hide behind outside suckers counsel, Timmy "Mack" McCormack and Scott "Towels" Wilsdon)

PACA, the organization which most stock photography businesses are a member, is trying to desperately encourage and teach its membership to stem the tsunami of customers running away from expensive, rights-managed images to microstock and royalty-free images.  They want to reverse the so-called "brainwashing" that the stock photo industry themselves inflicted years earlier by pricing lower-resolution web-use photos for a lesser price.

Simultaneously, Getty's portfolio of so-called assets (collections of millions of images) are a DEPRECIATING asset as more supply is being CREATED and DUMPED OUT by the general public with their easy and affordable access to superior cameras and other photography equipment.

Back to the Ars Technica article which the American Bar Association is discouraging its members from contributing to their clients public relations problem. (Scott Towels and Timmy Mack should pay very close attention to what the ABA is saying.)

For those of you interested in reading about what the ABA is discussing, here is the link to their White Paper.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/intellectual_property_law/advocacy/ABASectionWhitePaperACallForActionCompositetosize.authcheckdam.pdf

904

Getty Images Letter Forum / Look at what PACA is discussing about the stock photography business

« on: July 15, 2014, 04:45:04 AM »

There are some interesting statements and observations made by PACA of which Getty, Masterfile, and most of the big stock photography firms are a member of.

From what I can see, the industry is seeing a crisis and they are doing everything they can to save an industry that has assets that are devaluing each year.

http://blog.pacaoffice.org/?p=2027

"Abundance of options, imagery the same on lots of sites.  Cross-pollination at multiple agencies"

Customers have been brainwashed that web usage should be lower priced, but since it is now the most frequently used method of advertising, we need to rethink pricing for this medium and re-educate our buyers.  We need to think about the internet as being the delivery method rather than the usage.  Website is the usage.  There is a difference between a site that is turning over images rapidly and one that is using images for branding or for publishing.

They are trying to change the rules of the game now that they have realized that legacy publishing is dying out.  All of a sudden, what was considered a secondary, lesser-valued market (Internet media) is now become the prime market.

If they think can shift the glut of inventory and suddenly make the more valuable, they must think their business customers are suckers.  And some of them are!

As far as I am concerned, I would just say no to all Rights-Managed photos and stick to Microstock royalty-free photos.  You avoid the biggest legal headaches.

Because of the abundance of supply, as a buyer, you can name your terms. If you don't like it, just go elsewhere.

905

Getty Images Letter Forum / Fair Market Value of Images vs. Licensing Fees set by copyright holders

« on: July 15, 2014, 03:43:25 AM »

An important case that supports ELI's position that copyright extortionists try to get away with using overly-inflated licensing fees that no ordinary person or small business would pay for an image is the copyright infringement case of "Davis v. The Gap".

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10111059883446478989

It is very lengthy reading. However, the crux of this appeal is the Court's discussion on determining value of an infringement. An infringement does not automatically mean that an alleged infringer has to pay exorbitant licensing fees as set by companies such as Getty.  There are way too many low-priced stock photos which can be purchased for $50 or less.  Getty owns many of these low-priced websites themselves. By doing so, they actually help devalue their own holdings of their supposed high-valued images on the main Getty site.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit states in its ruling:

The question is not what the owner would have charged, but rather what is the fair market value. In order to make out his claim that he has suffered actual damage because of the infringer's failure to pay the fee, the owner must show that the thing taken had a fair market value. But if the plaintiff owner has done so, and the defendant is thus protected against an unrealistically exaggerated claim, we can see little reason not to consider the market value of the uncollected license fee as an element of "actual damages" under § 504(b).[5]

We recognize also that finding the fair market value of a reasonable license fee may involve some uncertainty. But that is not sufficient reason to refuse to consider this as an eligible measure of actual damages. Many of the accepted methods of calculating copyright damages require the court to make uncertain estimates in the realm of contrary to fact.


On the issue of "punitive damages":

As a general rule, punitive damages are not awarded in a statutory copyright infringement action. The purpose of punitive damages — to punish and prevent malicious conduct — is generally achieved under the Copyright Act through the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), which allow increases to an award of statutory damages in cases of willful infringement.


On "de minimis" infringements:

The de minimis doctrine essentially provides that where unauthorized copying is sufficiently trivial, "the law will not impose legal consequences."

The de minimis doctrine is rarely discussed in copyright opinions because suits are rarely brought over trivial instances of copying. Nonetheless, it is an important aspect of the law of copyright. Trivial copying is a significant part of modern life. Most honest citizens in the modern world frequently engage, without hesitation, in trivial copying that, but for the de minimis doctrine, would technically constitute a violation of law. We do not hesitate to make a photocopy of a letter from a friend to show to another friend, or of a favorite cartoon to post on the refrigerator. Parents in Central Park photograph their children perched on José de Creeft's Alice in Wonderland sculpture. We record television programs aired while we are out, so as to watch them at a more convenient hour. Waiters at a restaurant sing "Happy Birthday" at a patron's table. When we do such things, it is not that we are breaking the law but unlikely to be sued given the high cost of litigation. Because of the de minimis doctrine, in trivial instances of copying, we are in fact not breaking the law. If a copyright owner were to sue the makers of trivial copies, judgment would be for the defendants.

906

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Info on Woolf, Gafni and Fowler LLP

« on: July 10, 2014, 08:52:39 PM »

Minus Jason Cirlin's bio/photo/profile....

The About page has this listed:

Contact the WGCLLP Los Angeles Office:
10850 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510
Los Angeles, California 90024
Tel: (310) 867-2729
Fax: (310) 919-3037

There is definitely some identity confusion.  Just where is WGC going to be registered at? They are operating out of California and (I believe) required to register as a foreign corporation.

The old site seems to be restored. It says wolf-gafni-fowler.

907

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Images Goofy Mile-Long Email Signature

« on: July 09, 2014, 05:26:40 PM »

Take a look at a recent email signature from one of Getty Images' collection clerks. They have conveniently listed URLs for email recipients to read.

Google Street View shows the listed street address as this building. Getty appears to share the building with ADP and Cobalt.

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.59727,-122.329035,3a,90y,96.33h,115.08t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZDdfNuqMQXKGaPyoyaQqag!2e0

And as if anyone is going to be dumb enough to pay attention to the email footer to NOT "disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail or any attachments".  Can we call Barbra Streisand?

If the Getty extortion crew doesn't want people sharing their emails, then DON'T SEND THEM!  There is no such thing as a one-way contract. Do they honestly think anyone reads and pays attention to that goobledy-gook.

As far as I am concerned, people are not sharing the emails from Getty and their ilk enough.  I am a sponge and I accept all kinds of information and gossip about copyright extortionists.

Given the recent ruling on TheDirty.com, ELI might expand its coverage to include insider gossip.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0125p-06.pdf

===============
xxxxx
Copyright Compliance Specialist
Getty Images License Compliance
[email protected]
lcinfo.gettyimages.com
www.stockphotorights.com
Copyright 101
________________________________________

Getty Images Headquarters
605 5th Avenue South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104 USA
Phone: 206.925.xxx (direct)
Toll Free: 1-800-972-4170 ext. xxx
Fax: 206.925.xxx
________________________________________

(c)2014 Getty Images, Inc.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
This message may contain privileged or confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail or any attachments hereto. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system without copying or disclosing the contents. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Getty Images, 605 5th Ave South, Suite 400, USA, www.gettyimages.com. PLEASE NOTE that all incoming e-mails will be automatically scanned by us and by an external service provider to eliminate unsolicited promotional e-mails ("spam"). This could result in deletion of a legitimate e-mail before it is read by its intended recipient at our firm. Please tell us if you have concerns about this automatic filtering

908

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Info on Woolf, Gafni and Fowler LLP

« on: July 08, 2014, 03:45:17 AM »

That didn't take long.  How much you want to bet they will take less "artistic license" on their list of attorneys?  We cannot wait to see the new website.  Let us see how they position the creation date of this website. 

It doesn't change the fact that they ran for an entire year misrepresenting the entire California legal community, Federal Court System, their clients, and adversaries with all the bogus documents they filed with the court system using the non-existent LLP. Any disgruntled client of WGF will have a legitimate reason to file bar complaints against those lawyers. They were solo lawyers PRETENDING to be a law firm!

I guess the new firm will be WGC now, not WGF.  According to the Google cache, it looks like it is Jason Cirlin who will be the new partner. However, he was listed as "of counsel" on the old website.

Jason N. Cirlin is Of Counsel at WGF.  Mr. Cirlin represents clients in a wide variety of general civil litigation matters.  Specifically, Mr. Cirlin practices in the areas of, among others, professional liability, products liability, construction defect, personal injury, intellectual property infringement, investor fraud, commercial and general civil litigation.  He works both with companies that are self-insured and with companies and their carriers.  Mr. Cirlin has saved his clients millions of dollars through favorable outcomes.

Mr. Cirlin graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1999 and received his Juris Doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center in 2003.  He is admitted to practice law in state and Federal courts in both California and Nevada.

Additionally, Mr. Cirlin is conversant in Spanish and Hebrew.

Matthew, I noticed that WGF has changed their name and taken down their website.  It's looks like they're now Woolf, Gafni and Cirlin. http://www.wgfllp.com

Maybe you should send them a bill for all that research you did.  Clearly they took action on it.

909

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Info on Woolf, Gafni and Fowler LLP

« on: July 03, 2014, 11:38:19 AM »

As I have been saying for years, the technology revolution is decimating many in the various fields of the media industry.  Anyone in the content business, including myself, are not immune.

Those that don't "get it" and start changing the way they do business (and I don't mean threatening and suing everyone you can), are going to be put out of business, plain and simple.

Getty Images attempted to the stem of tide years ago by trying to buy up all the smaller stock photo businesses to prop up and control the stock photography business until they realized they couldn't buy fast enough and what they were buying were highly devaluing assets.

Getty has portfolios of photos that are probably worth less than 1/2 than what they bought them for 5 years ago.  So, they have resorted to consigning photos by squeezing the dog-shit out of blind photographers that are looking for a savior and desperate for anyone to sell their photos.

All but the best and business savvy photographers will survive, the rest of the photobugs will become simply become hobbyists claiming IRS write-offs.

There is just a glut of imagery today.  No one in their right minds would consider rights-managed photos.  Too much supply where a million-dollar business can legitimately buy and use a hundred royalty-free photos without any hassles and headaches.

After all, who wants the brain damage that goes along with the risk of getting extortion letters?

Kevin Sutherland has been a great example of how these guys talk a huge game, use extreme scare tactics, and even try to "reason" with people.  I hope people find the thread here and there as a future reference and learn not to be scared of all the hot air these types blow around.  He has absolutely nothing to say now that Peggy has reported the case dropped.

910

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Info on Woolf, Gafni and Fowler LLP

« on: July 03, 2014, 11:14:53 AM »

Dismissed without prejudice. So VKT can file again and Vermont Woods knows this.

Anyone can set up a PACER account to get access to case documents but since I already had it, I posted in on Scribd.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/232464471/Vincent-K-Tylor-vs-Vermont-Woods-Notice-of-Voluntary-Dismissal-Without-Prejudice

The document says it was VKT that initiated it. However, I am willing to bet that behind-the-scenes, the WGF lawyers had "influence" in this sudden about-face.

My guess is trying to collect their 40% was going to be too much work, hassle, and grind.  Vermont Woods put up too much of a fight for that go-around.

So I just got a notice that the VKT lawsuit filed against me by Adam Gafni of Woolf, Gafni and Fowler has been dismissed.

Pertinent questions: was this a voluntary dismissal (done by the plaintiff's counsel) or involuntary (done by the judge), and was it dismissed without prejudice (can be filed again) or dismissed with prejudice (over and done with for good)?

911

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Info on Woolf, Gafni and Fowler LLP

« on: July 02, 2014, 03:05:09 AM »

I guess Gafni's attempts to shut you up has failed for the moment. He chose to quietly slither away. 

One day, someone really needs to follow-up on some of the business gossip I been getting regarding VKT.

So I just got a notice that the VKT lawsuit filed against me by Adam Gafni of Woolf, Gafni and Fowler has been dismissed.  I don't think it's a coincidence.

912

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Info on Woolf, Gafni and Fowler LLP

« on: July 02, 2014, 02:57:59 AM »

Yes, but whodathunk that anyone would run into lawyers that do not have registered corporate names for their alleged law firms. I think it is rare to run into them but they gave themselves away by their suspicious self-description.

Also, Attorney Adam Gafni is a bit of an anomaly.  He represented VKT who is big on the Internet but Gafni has barely any Internet presence himself!  LOL! 

I think WGF didn't register because it has something to do with the crazy California franchise fees to do business there.  I like California but no way I want to set up shop there.  But if you choose to be a California law firm, you have to pay to play, if I am not mistaken.

It is great news. It would be wonderful if this is a written document and we could post relevant documents on scribbed. That would help future people see that a suit was filed and.... dismissed!

913

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Info on Woolf, Gafni and Fowler LLP

« on: July 01, 2014, 01:21:12 PM »

I would like to add that while lawyers Woolf and Gafni may technically and individually be able to practice law and represent clients in California, there is a strong possibility that ALL or the majority of the WGF lawyers are engaged in FALSE ATTORNEY ADVERTISING and false representation.

I believe that in most State Bar Associations this is generally a mild offense. However, when you have so many lawyers trying to say and claim they belong to a firm but said firm doesn't appear to legitimately exist or registered anywhere?  I think that is a serious issue.

Any legal document they file into any court system using the WGF name is possibly called into question.  It doesn't mean that the filings are not valid but claiming you are part of a law firm that isn't registered anywhere (that I could find) is risky business.

Between all the WGF lawyers, I wonder how many cases, suits, and documents they have filed in since 2013 when Fowler left.  Conservatively, there have to be dozens if not hundreds of documents POSSIBLY using the WGF name inappropriately.

The lawyers who have so conveniently attached their names to WGF might want to do some homework very fast.

And even if they get WGF legitimately filed, all one has to do is look at WHEN their registration dates and when these articles were researched, written, and published.

And as for any ex-WGF clients who might be dissatisfied or felt taken by them for whatever reason, those clients will not take kindly to the fact that WGF might not have been a legitimately registered business entity.

914

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Vincent K. Tylor Public Statement on Desktop Wallpaper/Screensaver websites

« on: June 25, 2014, 01:15:06 AM »

One of the things that Oscar and I have prided ourselves on is trying to get the most accurate information even those that would go against our positions or beliefs.

For the last 2 years, I believed that Vincent K. Tylor made no public statement to refute the alleged "seeding" of his images on desktop wallpaper / screensaver websites and that he has uploaded his images to promotional websites to promote them.

It appears that I am mistaken on one point. It appears that VKT HAS made a public statement of sorts on his website regarding what I call the "VKT desktop wallpaper honeypot".  He has also made several statements expressing his views and opinions. It is worth reading ESPECIALLY if you are a VKT extortion letter victim.

http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/VincentTylorcopyright.htm

Whether he knows it or not or whether it is intentional or not, the VKT desktop wallpaper / screensaver honeypot exists. It is happening now. There are too many people complaining about encountering his Hawaiian imagery, ignorantly downloading the imagery and then later getting popped by one of his outrageous extortion letters.

IF we are to believe VKT, he states he has NEVER authorized any images to be uploaded to any desktop wallpaper or screensaver websites at any time. At this time, I do not have a strong opinion of whether he is telling the truth or not.  Assuming he is partially telling the truth (of which I am willing to concede), a central issue of upset is that he is TAKING ADVANTAGE of the honeypot situation.  On one hand, he is obviously a victim if what he says is true that sleazy offshore companies are co-opting and pirating his images to generate traffic for their own gain.  I have no doubt there are many such companies that lie OUTSIDE the U.S. that do such things.  His claim has a ring of truth to them and I am willing to give VKT some benefit of the doubt on this.

However, the rage he appears to be projecting on others is being wrongfully and recklessly redirected to innocent infringers within the U.S.  The problem with VKT's extortion letters are that the amounts he is trying to extract from innocent infringers is too damned high, outrageous, and cannot be easily justified (except within his own vindictive and entitled mind).  He is trying to "correct" wrongs done by others and outsiders by making innocent infringers pay for outsider infringements and piracies.

He wants to crack the copyright law whip on innocent infringers. Well, that whip can be cracked back.  There are provisions for innocent infringers and they are not these 4 or 5-figure dollar amounts his team espouses.  Most victims who come to ELI for help do not even question whether they should take down the image. They take them down immediately upon notification. Most are willing to make some kind of financial compensation for the infringement. However, the willingness to pay does not mean people have lost their minds either and get financially raped.

I have not been on the VKT case continuously. However, the recent Vermont Woods lawsuit was compelling enough for me to look more deeply into the machinations of the VKT extortion money machine. That is the reason why I took the time to visit his website. And when I saw he has made some public statements about some of the topics we discuss here, I would be remiss and out of integrity to NOT acknowledge and discuss it.

Please note, I didn't make this announcement in some obscure corner of ELI.  I am prominently acknowledging his statement on his position AND correcting some possible misinformation that have been discussed on ELI.

I am not saying to blindingly believe everything he is claiming but his statement should be considered because I believe it has some rings of truth to them.

Even if everything he says is true, an innocent infringer should NOT have to bear the entire recompense or the entire responsibility for piracy and co-opting of his imagery by willful infringers outside (or even inside) the U.S.

And since we are discussing his public statement, he wants to believe any diminished income he is experiencing is entirely due to piracy.  He, like many desperate artists and software developers, want to ASSUME that every person that infringed on his photo would have paid his fee to use them.  That is a flawed argument.  Some people would never have bought them at all.  Hence, there would not have been any compensation anyway. I am not using that argument as a justification to piracy.  However, from an economic calculation perspective, the calculation of losses are inflated and extremely flawed.

Unsurprisingly, VKT like most photographers, are always bragging/spouting off about how much money they spend and invest in their businesses.

First of all, it was HIS choice to do so.  Going into business for yourself is often risky business. It is part of the process. It has always been the case. Business owners and investors are at risk financially all the time every day.  If VKT doesn't want the risk associated with the photography business, then maybe he should get OUT of being in business for himself and go to work for some employer.

If you want to talk about risking real money, trying signing your name to commercial real estate and engage in a storefront business such as retail store, hotels, motels, restaurants, dry cleaners, bars, etc.  Or franchise owners of brand name businesses such as McDonald's, Burger Kings, other chain restaurants, and chain businesses where the entry fee is $100,000 or even higher.  Or how about the landlording business as I am in.  Don't talk to me about financial risk and capital investments. Most business owners would laugh at VKT's remarks because it sounds so pitiful and weak in comparison to other businesses.

Many business owners would laugh at VKT's and other photographers so-called business and capital expenses and investment in time.  People who own and work in bars, restaurants, bed and breakfasts, car shops, etc. work ALL THE time dealing with the demanding public.

Most photographers have an entitlement mentality.  They don't want to acknowledge the technology upheaval devastating their industry.  Apparently, they can't see the glut of ever-improving smartphones and digital cameras being produced and sold each year to amateurs.  Those amateurs have dumped out millions of additional images for far lower price points than the old-timers.  Plus the fact, customers don't value imagery as much because there is so much to choose from. The supply of imagery far exceeds demand regardless of the piracy and infringement factor.  They want to blame it all on piracy and innocent infringers who stupidly downloaded a few photographs and put it up on their website.

They feel because they invested so much time and money and years in the photography business, they should be immune to technological upheavals such as those in the movie and publishing industries.  Almost anyone can get a very nice camera today and photo editing software to produce their own. And in fact, with such a low cost and ease of entry, I have seen a number of people do exactly that undercutting the "established photographers".

Travel agents used to be needed to travel and now they are nearly extinct.  Don't let the photographers argument of how much time and money they spent in their business blind you to the fact there are many groups of business owners and entrepreneurs who invest and have invested so much more and they don't have such an entitlement mentality.  As I said, restaurant, bar, hotel, landlord, franchise, and other owners/proprietors ROUTINELY invest lots of personal time, sweat, and money in their businesses and support employees to boot.  They live and die by the decisions they make daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly.

Most photography businesses don't compare to those industries in sheer labor, financial risk, or capital expense. So, boo fucking hoo.  VKT and other photographers don't have a monopoly in having risk in their businesses.  I suspect compared to laborers and farm workers and so many other physical workers, few are going to feel sympathy for an outdated, obsoleted photographer living and working in Hawaii playing with his tech toys and coloring up his photos on his computer.

I think most of us can agree the entitlement mentality is not limited to the lower-income strata.  I predict one day there will be some photographer who will encounter VKT and his business reputation and then capitalize on all the badwill and vindictiveness by emulating his style but engage in an innovative, open model of revenue generation.

VKT claims he is committed to enforcing his copyrights.  Well, Oscar, myself, and the ELI community are equally committed to copyright infringement defense against unjustifiable and outrageous claims against entitled photographers and stock photo agencies.

As always, we believe victims need to not only get educated but to make a stand for themselves by allying yourself with those that understand your position.

915

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Info on Woolf, Gafni and Fowler LLP

« on: June 24, 2014, 07:52:22 PM »

It appears that WGF was originally based in Texas.

http://www.bizapedia.com/tx/WOOLF-GAFNI-AND-FOWLER-LLP.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/231198510/Woolf-Gafni-Fowler-June-2014-Texas-Corporation-Listing

If that is correct, that would make WGF a foreign corporation in California.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/be/faqs.htm

However, I can find no evidence the WGF has made any proper corporate filings in California although most of the lawyers listed on the WGF website are based and actively operate in California.  From what I can tell, the firm is inappropriately operating in California. Even if WGF was a foreign corporation, it should show up in the California corporation database as a foreign corporate.

Take a look at what a legitimate foreign corporation listing should look like, search "Wells Fargo", "Macy's", or any other chain business that exists in multiple states.  There is a field "jurisdiction" which lists which state the corporate entity is homed.

As of June 24, 2014, Texas Secretary of State corporation database lists WGF as being "expired" and "inactive".  WGF has no registered agent or officers listed in Texas. So WGF cannot be homed in Texas.  WGF is not homed in California. So, exactly where is WGF homed?

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/231198510/Woolf-Gafni-Fowler-June-2014-Texas-Corporation-Listing

And regardless of where WGF is homed, why is WGF not listed in the California Corporation database?  Supposedly, there are all these smart, expert lawyers with WGF.  And yet, their appears to be no corporate registration that can be found for them? I have not searched all 50 states so there is a possibility WGF might show up in one of the other 48 states corporation database but somehow I doubt it.

I cannot say definitely but WGF may not legally exist at all.  WGF may, in fact, be a non-existent entity.  If that is the case, many of the lawyers associated with WGF could be in trouble.

It appears someone needs to contact the California Bar or the California Secretary of State to see if they can find additional information on WGF.