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.


Topics - Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
16
Searching through PACER I came across this lawsuit filed on October 21, 2013 by several sports photographers against the NFL, all of its franchises, Getty Images and others. I do not remember seeing or reading about this lawsuit before so if it has already been covered I apologize.

Read full story here:
http://gettyimagesmustchange.com/site/angry-sports-photographers-sue-entire-nfl-getty-images-and-others/

17
I have finally seen something new from Getty, a settlement demand letter that was handled completely electronically. The settlement demand letter was attached to the email as a PDF. While the demand letter was pretty much standard it did contain an offer to receive a code for 5 free images from thinstock.com once the demand was paid. I had heard of this from other letter recipients before but had not actually seen it yet.

Getty may have been doing this for a while but this is the first instance of it I have seen. I would imagine with the number of these letters that are sent out on a daily basis the money saved in postage would add up very quickly provided the email addresses are readily available.

Thank you to Matthew for forwarding copies of the emails and demand letter to review. I am not posting the letter as apart from the offer for 5 free image that is the standard Getty demand letter.

18
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / A Recent Demand Letter from VKT
« on: February 09, 2014, 10:01:34 PM »
Here is a look at a recent extortion demand letter from VKT.  It seems there have been a rash of these of late and his is back at it in full swing.  This was sent to my by the letter recipient and used with permission.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/205950975/VKT-Letter-Jan-2014

Thoughts and comments welcome.

22
Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Files 3 New Lawsuits over Single Images
« on: January 25, 2014, 09:19:28 PM »
First I want to thank Matthew Chan for bringing this to my attention. Apparently Getty has filed 3 new lawsuits against corporations (Don't know how big these are but I assume they are very small).

What is different about these lawsuits beside the fact that they are over a single image is the way the complaints are worded. Unlike Getty's complaints in the past which were many many pages long and extremely detailed, these complaints are only 6 pages long and appear to be "cookie cutter" or boilerplate complaints, meaning it is almost a form where the individuals information is inserted. One complaint does have two additional pages which is a copy of the registration.

In my opinion this strikes me as Getty testing the waters and going down the same route as Prenda did by filing cookie-cutter complaints and attempting to use the court system as a collection agency.

I only hope that Getty will pick on the wrong person in one of these people will pull Aloha Plastic Surgery on them in countersue so that we can force all of Getty's dirty little secrets out into the open. This will happen sooner or later and I can only hope it will happen sooner.

Here are the links to the 3 cases and dockets.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257287/Getty-v-FHL-Logistics-Inc-Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257283/Getty-v-FHL-Logistics-Inc-Docket

http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257286/Getty-v-X5-Studios-Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257284/Getty-v-X5-Studios-Docket

http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257285/Getty-v-Gestalt-Ventures-Inc-Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257282/Getty-v-Gestalt-Ventures-Inc-Docket

23
Oscar found this audio recording of arguments on the Alaska Stock group registration case .  It is about 41 minutes long but what I could follow of it was very interesting.  I have made some note on some legal terms I will need clarification on. :)

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000007866

Thanks for sharing this with us Oscar!

This recording was from 7/27/2011

24
Getty Images Letter Forum / Possible New Tool Being Used By MasterFile?
« on: November 29, 2013, 05:03:50 PM »
Matthew passed along some information received by a MasterFile letter recipient.  I had not heard of them doing this before so this may be something new they are doing to try to get people to pay.  This person was able to negotiate their fee down and then Masterfile allowed them to make 3 monthly installment payments to pay it off.

Does anyone else have any knowledge of MasterFile offering payment plans before this?

25
In October 2009 Masterfile filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central division against Martin and Laurie Gale for the use of 27 images on their website. The images remained on Mr. and Mrs. Gale's site for five years before they were noticed by Masterfile.

Looking at the initial complaint it appears to me that Masterfile claims that Mr. and Mrs. Gales use of the 27 images was a willful infringement and is seeking the maximum amount allowable in all categories. If you look at line 16 in the initial complaint Masterfile is seeking retroactive licensing fees totaling $73,830. They are asking for the maximum statutory damages under section 504(c) of $30,000 for each image for a total of $810,000, they are also asking for their attorneys fees which at the end of the trial will total $34,003. Looking at line 22 in the initial complaint Masterfile was also asking for the maximum statutory damages under section 1203(c) of $2500 for each image for a total of $67,500 plus attorneys fees.

If I am reading this correctly Masterfile was suing Martin and Laurie Gale for a total of $951,300 plus attorneys fees!

During the course of the trial was shown that Martin and Laurie Gale purchased a template for their website for $450 which contained the 27 images. The Gale's used the template as purchased and believed they had purchased rights to use the images by purchasing the template. Also during the trial Masterfile conceded that the Gale's use of the images was not willful and was in fact innocent as they had no reason to believe the images belong to Masterfile since they contained no copyright markings or information and the images were included with the template the Gale's had purchased.

Masterfile then reduced its demand amount from $951,300 to a retroactive licensing fee of $57,200 plus attorneys fees of $34,003 for a total of $91,202.

Since Masterfile conceded the infringement on the part of the Gale's was innocent in the court's final ruling they granted Masterfile $200 per image or a total of $5400. It is interesting to note that this is the low end of the $200-$30,000 scale.

So when all is said and done Martin and Laurie Gale must pay Masterfile $5400 for the innocent infringement of 27 images. It is my understanding that they incurred no legal costs as they knew a lawyer who represented them pro bono. Masterfile incurred $34,000 in legal fees to win $5400.

All of the documents I have in this case may be found at the link below.

http://www.scribd.com/collections/4394234/Masterfile-Corporation-v-Martin-Gale

<-------------Edit------------->

I forgot to mention when I first wrote this, credit on the information goes to Matthew who forwarded me some of the court documents and breakdown.  Great find Matthew!

26
For Immediate Release:

NEW YORK ATTORNEY FIGHTS ALARMING GEORGIA CENSORSHIP CASE "PRO BONO"

Oscar Michelen, prominent litigation and intellectual property attorney of Manhattan-based Cuomo LLC, is prosecuting an appeal on behalf of anti-troll website founder, Matthew Chan. Michelen, working with Georgia firm, McKenney & Froehlich, was admitted into Georgia for this case on August 27, 2013 and is the lead counsel for Chan. Michelen is working “pro bono” to help Chan challenge and overturn a Permanent Protective Order issued against him earlier this year by Judge Frank Jordan of Muskogee County Superior Court.

Michelen filed Chan’s Appellate Brief with the Georgia Court of Appeals on September 30, 2013; he also simultaneously filed a motion to transfer the appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court because of the Constitutional issues raised in the brief.  The brief is now available online: http://goo.gl/MoTTPY

In February 2013, Chan and his anti-troll website, ExtortionLetterInfo.com (“ELI”), became embroiled in a legal battle against Linda Ellis, poet and author of “The Dash.” In her initial complaint charging Chan with stalking, Ellis claimed that Chan posted her home address, photos of her house, family information, and made death threats. All of the activity allegedly occurred on ELI.  Many of the posts Ellis complained about were made by other forum participants on ELI, not Chan himself. Ellis had never written or contacted Chan to take down the allegedly offensive posts.

There were also no allegations that Chan ever actually contacted Ellis directly or in person; Ellis discovered the offending posts when she voluntarily visited and read the ELI website. After a three-hour hearing where Chan represented himself (“pro se”) against Ellis’ attorney, Elizabeth McBride, Ellis was awarded a sweeping Permanent Protective Order against Chan requiring that he remove every single post on the ELI website referencing Ellis.

First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
At the Forefront of Legal Arguments

Michelen contends that the Order violates Chan’s First Amendment rights and ignores Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity to website owners for other people’s content.

“I thoroughly reviewed and studied Chan’s case and the permanent protective order issued against him. The local court was excessive and ruled beyond what is legally allowed by ordering Chan to remove all 1,900 posts regarding Ellis. This protective order effectively restricts and forbids Chan and ELI readers from discussing Ellis and her business practices forever.”

In March 2013, Chan quietly removed himself as Editor-in-Chief of ELI and placed himself in self-imposed exile in protest of the overreaching protective order.  He no longer contributes, writes, or manages the website which discusses and reports on copyright trolling and other intellectual property issues. Volunteer community members have taken over the day-to-day responsibilities and the moderation of the website.

Why Michelen Is Working This Case “Pro Bono”

This Order is so unusual and sweeping in its scope and its potential negative impact so wide, Michelen volunteered to work on Chan’s case on a “pro bono” basis.

Michelen states, “ELI is an active forum very popular among its readership. The protective order has chilled and suppressed Matthew’s and his many readers’ First Amendment right to report, comment, discuss and share information with one another. If this Order remains unchanged, similar actions may be taken against other website owners and forum moderators across the Internet.”

The current Order has created unintended consequences. Michelen explains, “Matthew and the ELI readership have paid a high price for the local court’s suppression of open reporting and the exchange of information on ELI this past year. While ELI continues to operate in his absence, his readership has been deprived of his unique and distinctive style of reporting, commentary, and passionate advocacy of extortion letter victims. To have Matthew, in addition, suffer the financial burden of paying legal fees to reinstate his First Amendment rights and to reinforce the validity of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was very wrong to me. I felt I had to do something to help correct this injustice.”

Michelen wants website owners to learn from this case and understand why the outcome of this appeal is significant. Michelen states, “First, we cannot have website owners being held responsible for the posts of others. Second, we cannot have local courts apply local laws in disregard of the First Amendment and federal laws governing free and protected speech. To let this pass unchallenged is something I could not in good conscious allow. Finally, as legal advisor to ELI, I stand by Matthew and want to do my part to restore ELI to the way it was, a vibrant forum for discussions.”

Contact: Oscar Michelen
Email: omichelen@cuomollc.com
Phone: 212-448-9933

Downloadable Version:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/173125835/Press-Release-10-3-13-Chan-v-Ellis-Appellate-Brief-Pro-Bono

27
Getty Images Letter Forum / An Interview With Jonathan Klein
« on: September 29, 2013, 10:55:19 AM »
I just found this interview of Getty Images CEO Jonathan Klein that was in yesterdays New York Times.

It made for an interesting read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/business/jonathan-klein-of-getty-images-on-useful-critiques.html?_r=0

When speaking of his father talking about managing people,
Quote
.....he had thousands of workers in apartheid South Africa. We were brought up in a very liberal household, so he felt very strongly about what his obligations were toward his people.


Another quote from Mr. Klein's father...
Quote
The main ones were around your word and reputation. He would always say you could spend a lifetime creating a good reputation, and you could lose it with just one bad judgment.....

His father sounded like a wise man, it is a shame Mr. Klein did not listen better,I point to this thread as an example:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/jonathan-klein-and-getty-images-a-history-of-questionable-business-practices/


As for this next quote I would like to hear what Mr. Klein's reasons are as to why his current business model of demanding amounts that courts would not award on images not registered properly while threatening legal action without providing any proof of claim. An still continuing to tell people willing to reach an amicable settlement proof of claim will only be provided when we sue you.
Quote
I learned very quickly that titles, especially mine, do not matter, and that you have to find ways to get people to do things because they think it’s the right thing to do, and so you need to explain the reasons behind your decisions.

When speaking about the reasons employees don't work out....
Quote
....They don’t spend enough time trying to understand the business, the people and the culture, and they reach conclusions too quickly. And then the company turns against them because they were disrespectful to what we’ve achieved, or think we’ve achieved.

I wonder how many of these people who "don't work out" are from the copyright compliance department and it is a case of "we're doing what to people?"

It is an interesting article and a good read.

28
This was just posted over on the The Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter is EXTORTION! Facebook page by Luke McConville.  Getty is being sued by a model who lives in New York, Getty sold her image to by used as the New York poster child for HIV rights.....she is not HIV positive.

Getty continues to amaze me with the crap that they continually pull.

 
http://petapixel.com/2013/09/22/model-sues-getty-seeing-hiv-positive-advertisement/

29
Here is a great article that Matthew found and sent to me today and I wanted to share it with everyone else.  Thanks Matthew this is a great article.

This is an article from a copyright attorney who sums up what Getty is doing pretty well.

http://technologyandjustice.com/2013/09/09/forget-about-patent-trolls-copyright-trolls-can-be-even-scarier/

Quote
The letter is not signed by an attorney, but uses the term “License Compliance Team” as the signatory.  Attempting to intentionally mislead you into thinking that Getty Images has retained legal counsel, in their Reference line they use the term “Case Number:” which is followed by a fictitious court docket number.  Nowhere in the letter, will you find an actual Copyright Registration Number issued by the U.S. Copyright Office.

Quote
We need laws in place to reward those who took risks, put in the money and time investment to create and own property (digital or tangible). However, there is a threshold that is crossed by intellectual property owners when their primary business is trolling.

Quote
The question then is when does proactively protecting one’s IP cross the line into trolling? My response would be when the IP owner receives more revenue from going after IP violations than from the legitimate licensed use of the owner’s IP.

Quote
When policing and enforcement becomes a main revenue driver for a copyright or patent holder, there is an issue.  While I am all for protecting one’s IP rights, there is a breaking point when enforcement has gone too far into money making of its own.

30
For Immediate Release

Contact: Oscar Michelen                                                                   
Email: omichelen@cuomollc.com                                                       
Phone: (212) 448-9933

 
Anti-Troll Website Founder Files Appeal Against Georgia Censorship Order

Anti-troll website founder, Matthew Chan, filed a Notice of Appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals to overturn the Permanent Protective Order issued against him earlier this year.  The Georgia Court of Appeals docketed the case on August 19, 2013 and designated the case: Matthew Chan vs. Linda Ellis, Docket No. A14A0014. http://www.gaappeals.us/docket/results_one_record.php?docr_case_num=A14A0014

In February 2013, Chan and his anti-troll website, ExtortionLetterInfo.com (“ELI”), became embroiled in a legal battle against Linda Ellis, poet and author of “The Dash.” In her initial complaint charging Chan with stalking, Ellis claimed that Chan posted her home address, photos of her house, family information, and made death threats. All of the activity allegedly occurred on the ELI website and many of the posts Ellis complained about were made by other forum participants on ELI, not Chan himself.

There were no allegations that Chan ever actually contacted Ellis directly or in person; Ellis discovered the offending posts when she voluntarily visited and read the ELI website. After a three-hour hearing in Muscogee County Superior Court, where Chan represented himself (“pro se”) against Ellis’ attorney, Elizabeth McBride, Ellis was awarded a sweeping Permanent Protective Order against Chan requiring among other things, that he remove every single post on the ELI website referencing Ellis.


Anti-Troll Website Founder in Self-Imposed Exile in Protest of Overreaching Protective Order

Reacting to the permanent protective order, Chan stated, “I was stunned by the Court’s decision to place a lifetime protective order against me given that I have no criminal record or any record of ever having stalked or threatened anyone prior. I feel it is grossly disproportionate and unjust. I also could not believe that the Court effectively ordered a total shutdown of any prior or future posts and references to the Plaintiff and her business activities, including the great majority of posts that were never part of the complaint! The Plaintiff has become a forbidden topic of discussion or reporting by anyone on any of my websites.”

In March 2013, Chan quietly removed himself as Editor-in-Chief of ELI and placed himself in self-imposed exile in protest of the overreaching protective order.  He no longer contributes, writes, or manages the website which discusses and reports on copyright trolling and other intellectual property issues. Volunteer community members have taken over the day-to-day responsibilities and the moderation of the website. ELI currently refers to Chan as “Founder-in-Silence.”


Legal Experts Agree: Georgia Order is Overbroad & Violates First Amendment Rights

Oscar Michelen, of Manhattan-based Cuomo LLC, is Chan’s lead attorney and the legal advisor to ELI. Michelen has teamed up with Georgia law firm, McKenney & Froehlich, to represent Chan in his bid to overturn the lower court’s decision. Michelen says, “The protective order and the cloud that Matthew Chan currently lives under is excessive and goes way beyond what the law allows. It has chilled and suppressed Matthew’s First Amendment right to report, comment, or otherwise provide information to his readers. The ELI site gets approximately 12,000 visitors per month; it is an active vibrant forum very popular among its readership. So while on the surface this may seem to be a small case involving two Georgia residents, this case could have far-reaching impact on the Internet.”

Michelen explains, “First of all, we cannot have website owners being held responsible for the posts of others. Secondly, we cannot have local courts apply local laws in disregard of federal laws governing free and protected speech, essentially ignoring laws protecting website hosts and moderators. To let this pass would have a chilling effect on all online discussion forum hosts and moderators on the Internet. Finally, even on the local and State level, we cannot have someone being found guilty of stalking someone they never met, never spoke with, or never even emailed.”

In a March 26, 2013, article published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Senior EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl wrote, “The Court used this as a basis to order Chan “to remove all posts relating to Ms. Ellis.” All posts, not just posts that might threaten Ellis, or even just those written by Chan.  This woefully overboard restraint on speech not only threatens freedom of expression, it also ignores Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the legal cornerstone upon which all user-generated content websites are built.”

Opsahl further wrote, “Under the First Amendment, courts limit injunctions in restraint of speech to the rare circumstances when (1) the activity to be restrained poses either a clear and present danger or a serious and imminent threat to a protected competing interest, (2) the order is narrowly drawn and (3) less restrictive alternatives are not available. Removing “all posts relating to Ms. Ellis” is neither narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means of addressing any true threats.”
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/georgia-court-order-threatens-message-boards-everywhere

In a March 27, 2013 article published by Ars Technica, Ars Technica Reporter Timothy B. Lee sought First Amendment lawyer, Paul Alan Levy for his opinion. According to Lee, “Levy described JudgeJordan’s restraining order as “entirely overbroad.” The restraining order requires the removal of all content about Ellis, whether or not it’s threatening or otherwise illegal. Levy said that wasn’t kosher under the First Amendment. He also criticized JudgeJordan for failing to heed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides website operators with broad immunity for content posted by third parties.”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/i-made-some-stupid-posts-anti-troll-site-gagged-after-threats-against-poet/

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
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.