It's really very simple why Glen Carner only chooses to engage in certain topics IMHO. He is only striving to make his newly renamed company Copyright Services International, Hawaiian Art Network, and his own name look good, all three have been taking a beating here on ELI and he is trying to save face and keep sinking ships afloat.. It's completely coming from a PR perspective (which I might ad is not working out to well...again my opinion).
At the risk of being accused of being a FOG (Friend of Glen), I can see why he doesn't want to engage the topic Moe introduced. It's not about copyright, collections/extortion or anything else.
Anyway, on the topic itself: I don't see anything wrong with Glen writing a letter to the editor to support a particular political initiative in Hawaii.
Copyright Services International was created to provide copyright related services. The only CSI service that relates to collections is the account director position who was trained partially with the postings of ELI members. It takes reading "between the anger" but I see far more benefit to what ELI provides vs. fight, resist, and "they are bad, you are good" thinking. You have seen our account director's communications and can tell her approach is far different then anything that has been tried before. That’s why I was surprised you guys shot it down so quickly because it moves away from some of the concerns spoken about here so frequently and towards a model where a person can pay for an image plain and simple without the rigmarole or hardness that comes with formal legal action. I do support an attorney’s follow up if what appears to be a reasonable and appropriate first step is ignored but we are certainly moving in the right direction (IMO) with that first step. I’m quite proud of the way CSI collections are done which is respectful, hospitable, understanding, and appropriate.
Yes BuddhaPi, that may be saving face or sanitizing but that it the way CSI works and you and others have condemned it to be this bad thing because "Glen Carner" created it. For that matter, doesn't it make it easier to dismiss my actions (positive or negative) because you label and call me names? Don’t you see how this distances you from ever seeing positive (even favorable) movement or change and hardens you from the position as others might see it? I have worked to understand you and others on ELI and thought about compromises between the photographers and business using the images without license since I first read these forums. Please try to see that this is not a greed driven industry run by green monsters living under bridges. We all have our opinions including some who see the unlicensed use of images being committed by “thieving pirates." I don’t subscribe to that view because if I do, I can’t hear them and when did name calling ever lead to solutions and understanding.
That brings me to fair elections. Just because I believe that artists should be paid for their work and that attorneys MAY have a role in that does not mean that all I do is green, boiled in a cauldron, and inherently evil. I know it’s important for ELI to stop stock photo companies (including HAN) from trying to collect money after an image has been used without license but that doesn't mean that I and others are not working to try and find a better (less hostile certainly) way to deal with these issues.
Fair Elections have always been something I have felt strongly about. There are many positions and things I have done (and continue to do) in my life that have nothing to do with copyright issues and are very much in support of making the world a better place. I’m not an industry insider which is why I always want to make changes to improve our systems which does not mean higher fees, more penalties, and jail time.
Better often means the middle way "Buddha." Many photographers feel this way as well which is why the attorneys may collect higher amounts in recoveries, but our photographers often prefer the lower "license fee only" amounts that CSI attempts to collect. This is less profitable, but speaks to a more reasonable and amicable solution. When ELI puts down CSI's informal call and email system, you are putting the photographers and agencies that use it in a position of feeling like they have to use the attorneys exclusively because any action needs to carry more teeth. Yes, I know you don’t approve of either action but isn't the business to business model as a starting point at least a better compromise then attorneys letter? No need to respond as this is rhetorical; we know it’s a better way.
While the collection of money for unlicensed stock photos is certainly not among them (at least it gives me no joy or fulfillment) I can assure you that you might find that I am far more balanced in my positions then the extremes encountered in copyright discussions. Treat me as such or keep watching over time and you will see the changes we make at CSI are moving towards more palatable solutions for all parties. For that matter, if I give you or ELI feedback, please know that it is not coming from someone who has any intention of hurting or belittling you because I respect your position on the matter. I don’t respect ELIs methods of attempting to harm a new attorney’s career because they felt that their C&D letter was harsh or extreme but I have a excellent solution forthcoming that you may appreciate. Only from hearing each other can any improvements be made.
Why is it a risk to be called "my friend?" Do you think if you met me or one of the attorneys on the street that you would inherently feel that we are awful people? Probably not. Just because I don't approve or agree with another persons actions on one issue doesn't mean that action encompass the sum of who they are.
Show Posts