A Man of Principal and Not Interest

[SoylentGreen]

Just a couple of points that I'd like to add to the discussion here.

Everyone must take personal responsibility for their actions.
I know for a fact that ELI was never created to "blow up anyone's careers".
I do not think that it's a reasonable argument to say anything to the effect that "if only 'ELI' had just kept quiet, Brandon Sand and his ilk would still be free breaking the laws set forth by the governing bodies".
Send a demand letter from the 'states to Canada?  Threatening jail time over a civil matter?
Wow.  Why not just turn your law career into a 9mm Glock, shove that cold metal into your mouth as far as it'll go, and pull the trigger as hard as you can?
Furthermore, let's not delude ourselves that our system of law is designed to be hidden behind shuttered windows and closed doors.
Most information is publicly available, and (surprise!) none of it is protected by "copyright".

Lucia has added a lot to the discussions here.  I see her being the most tolerant or sympathetic of the regular posters.
Now, I understand that even those that send demand letters can make logical arguments and may indeed be wronged in some cases.
However, the vast, vast majority of those sending demand letters never, ever submit any proof of their claims and accusations.
This fact has an overall effect of nullifying any other arguments that may otherwise seem logical.
What difference does it make whether or not Carner/H.A.N. actually targets businesses instead of bloggers if he's a bullshit artist?
Where's his proof of anything that he's saying?  This is what I see as the real crux of the problem.  You can't be in the "right" if you cannot prove any wrongdoing.
What's the point of any of these arguments, legal or otherwise if no factual, concrete evidence is available?


Let me say this only once. This is not a goddamn game.
One day, somebody's going to go too far, and it's going to hit the papers.

S.G.

[lucia]

Soylent Green

Code: [Select]

What difference does it make whether or not Carner/H.A.N. actually targets businesses instead of bloggers if he's a bullshit artist?You seem to want to change every possible discussion into one about whether Carner and H.A.N. are evil incarnate (or a bullshit artist). I prefer to focus on whether certain actions or behaviors would be fairer or more respectful. In this way, the issue of whether he is a bullshit artist become relatively unimportant to my answer.  The subject Glen brought up and  I was addressing was whether calling people on the phone was necessarily a worse practice than sending letters.  In this regard, I do think that whether one is calling an established business clearly linked to a web site and making "fishing" type phone calls to private individuals who may or may not be affiliated with a site is a valid difference that affects how I would view the practice.  Other factors would matter too.

Code: [Select]

However, the vast, vast majority of those sending demand letters never, ever submit any proof of their claims and accusations.
This fact has an overall effect of nullifying any other arguments that may otherwise seem logical.I don't disagree with you on the contents of demand letters nor on the reluctance of many to provide proof. But that is a separate issue from the one Glen raised and I engaged which was the question of making phone calls.

As long as we are on the issue of providing proof: I agree with you that it needs to be provided.  To be fair to Glen-- on other threads, he has asked what they should do differently.  That question was open ended. One of the things I told him was that the people trying to collect should proactively supply proof of ownership during initial contacts.  That is: not only do I think they need to provide it when asked, if they are sending letters, this stuff should be sent along with the letter or failing that, a link to a page that provides the proof should be provided. (I'd actually prefer the latter but others might prefer getting printed matter.)

Of course I cannot actually gauge whether Glen is sincerely trying to find out how he can restructure to make his company fairer or whether all your suspicions that he is just a bullshit artist doing .. what? But in my opinion, it is fair for his agency to contact people who are violating copyright and try to negotiate something. And that something can include his photographers being paid. The open questions are: Given what is going one, what sorts of practices on his part are fair or unfair. 

We can of course all point to behaviors that were unfair: The behavior of H.A.N. affiliated people toward ENVL was clearly unfair.

Fortunately for her, because she disciplined herself, did research, and found Oscar-- and because Matt and Oscar run a site that makes that possible, she ended up being able to defend herself-- which is a good thing.   Whatever his motives, on a thread somewhere Glen apologized to ENVL, and he seems to want to change his business methods to avoid what happened in the ENVL case.  Even viewed in the most negative possible light for Glen, that is a step forward for the ELI community. 

But that still leaves us with the question: Suppose tomorrow H.A.N. finds different web site that at least superficially appears to be a business decorated with one of their artists photos. They at least think they have a right to compensation.  What sorts of behaviors on their part are fair and acceptable?  In my view, the answer can't be "H.A.N., CSI and Glen Carner are evil and have no right to collect anything from anyone ever, ever, ever  even unto the 7th generation of their offspring. Because we don't like how they handled things in the past. Oh. And we don't like what some other companies did in the past either!"

Going forward, there must be some actions stock-photo companies -- including those affiliated with Glen Carner-- can undertake   that could hypothetically permit them to make some sort of contact and attempt to negotiate a settlement in instances where an honest to goodness money making businesses is using a photo that is properly licensed.  I think it's fair for Glen to ask us.  For my part, I'm going to try to give nuanced answers because I think the question of what is or is not a fair way to approach someone who may or may  not be committing a copyright violation requires a nuanced answer.

How Glen uses the information in the answers will affect my opinion of him and his companies going forward. 

[SoylentGreen]

Personally, I think that you're giving H.A.N./Tylor/Carner/CSI way too much credit.
The onus isn't on us to be "understanding", and give them the "benefit of the doubt".
I don't think that the regulars here agree with you that H.A.N/CSI et al have earned that.
I'd like to see others chime in and give their opinions, but some don't like disagreements among the regulars.

Your point about improving their marketing/PR is surely helpful to them, and it's nice that you're doing that.
As such, I understand your point about phone calls being an alternative to sending letters.
But, looking at the bigger, more complete picture, what's the point of phone calls OR letters if the alleged copyright holder can't or won't reveal what's in a collective registration?
I'm simply saying that even with the best, kindest, most respectful representatives in the entire world (phone or by mail), organizations and people such as H.A.N/Tylor/Carner/CSI still have an enormous stumbling block to overcome.
I think that our difference in opinion stems from my thought process that with out proof, anything else is irrelevant, and your opinion that better PR/marketing (being respectful, being fair, not having a paper trail) will help solve the problem.

To be fair, I never said that these people were "evil".  I just think that they lie and are greedy.  The proof is on ELI.
Furthermore, I never said that copyright holders have no right to collect on copyright infringements.  It's in the law.

You certainly have a right to your opinions, however I'm quite sure that your reputation here has fallen several notches.
I'm sure that you'll be a great and loyal CSI employee.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

My comments inline.

Whatever his motives, on a thread somewhere Glen apologized to ENVL, and he seems to want to change his business methods to avoid what happened in the ENVL case.  Even viewed in the most negative possible light for Glen, that is a step forward for the ELI community. 

Actually, not so much what happened to EVNL.  More like the whippings his attorneys, HAN, and his name have been getting. I don't think her incident ranks that high in his coming out. It is simply one of many incidents that motivated him coming out.

But that still leaves us with the question: Suppose tomorrow H.A.N. finds different web site that at least superficially appears to be a business decorated with one of their artists photos. They at least think they have a right to compensation.  What sorts of behaviors on their part are fair and acceptable?  In my view, the answer can't be "H.A.N., CSI and Glen Carner are evil and have no right to collect anything from anyone ever, ever, ever  even unto the 7th generation of their offspring. Because we don't like how they handled things in the past. Oh. And we don't like what some other companies did in the past either!"

Not really our problem if you ask me.  ELI is doing what it was designed to do (defend letter recipients, report on the extortion industry, and fighting back), not solving the problems of the stock photo industry. To me, it is a sinking ship like the Titanic. Very few will get to the lifeboats. Glen might be one of the lucky ones. Who knows?

There appears to be some hope of Glen recovering a tiny bit of the positive karma immensely lost. We will see.

So Glen, are you ever going to come out of the shadows from being a faceless account on the Internet?  A smart thing to do is to humanize yourself by putting out a photo of yourself and maybe a bio.  (Business 101 lesson, reveal yourself and stop hiding behind an online account.)  Every member of the core ELI Defense Team is "out" in the public.  We all have bios, businesses, photos, and on video. You want some respect?  Get out of the shadows.  You seem to care about what we think. Get out of the shadows unless you are so afraid someone will identify you in the streets.

Going forward, there must be some actions stock-photo companies -- including those affiliated with Glen Carner-- can undertake   that could hypothetically permit them to make some sort of contact and attempt to negotiate a settlement in instances where an honest to goodness money making businesses is using a photo that is properly licensed.  I think it's fair for Glen to ask us.  For my part, I'm going to try to give nuanced answers because I think the question of what is or is not a fair way to approach someone who may or may  not be committing a copyright violation requires a nuanced answer.

Glen can ask. What he gets is a different thing. Everyone gets to respond (or not) in their own way. As I said, it isn't a priority for me and I want to get paid a lot for putting my brain on that.  Oscar already gave a freebie and I don't think he is going to devote a lot of time to answering him. I don't think BuddhaPi is extremely motivated beyond a basic answer. Everyone else, I can't say much about.

How Glen uses the information in the answers will affect my opinion of him and his companies going forward.

You and everyone else will be watching.

[Mulligan]

Personally, I think that you're giving H.A.N./Tylor/Carner/CSI way too much credit. The onus isn't on us to be "understanding", and give them the "benefit of the doubt". I don't think that the regulars here agree with you that H.A.N/CSI et al have earned that. I'd like to see others chime in and give their opinions, but some don't like disagreements among the regulars.
S.G.

+1 to what S.G. wrote.

It's all about money, and that's all it's ever been about for the copyright trolls.

Carner's self-serving BS and phony apologies to EVNL turn my stomach.

Giving this guy the benefit of the doubt is comparable to serving up fat tuna to slick sharks.

As far as I'm concerned, individuals who pervert copyright law to try to demand big payments from others are lower than Mafia hoods, who at least have the balls to try to extract your money one-on-one.

I wish Carner would crawl back in his hole because his self-serving BS would gag a maggot. It's certainly making my stomach churn every time I read the latest bit from him.

And, Carner, if you feel beat up reading this kind of post, sit down and look in the mirror and think about your treatment of EVNL (and God only knows how many others you and your BS lawyers have treated over the years in the same way).

[Matthew Chan]

And yet, here you are! LOL!    Don't worry, you are not alone in the rubber-necking. It's irresistible. Glen spices up the forums every time he chimes in.

I wish Carner would crawl back in his hole because his self-serving BS would gag a maggot. It's certainly making my stomach churn every time I read the latest bit from him.

[SoylentGreen]

Thanks for the support, Mulligan.  I'm waiting for Matt to get a little more annoyed, though.

Regarding the "apology" to EVNL, it's my understanding that Mr Carner made a weak apology for what Brandon Sand did.
It's "weak", because Mr Carner takes NO responsibility for what Brandon Sand did on his behalf.  Can anyone quote the actual posting?
Am I to believe that Carner/H.A.N. didn't sign off on the very first demand letter that they sent out?
If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd fly to Hawaii with a pack of colts and a short length of hose.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

Call me dense. I get annoyed about a lot of things. But what am I supposed to be annoyed about here?  Sorry, it went over my head.

Thanks for the support, Mulligan.  I'm waiting for Matt to get a little more annoyed, though.

[lucia]

Matt-
I have no objection to your not spending time replying. I don't think my choices dictate yours.  On the other hand: This is your forum so if you told me to go away, I would.

However, for now, if  people ask my opinion, I plan to give my opinions. That will include giving informative answers to Glen's questions and also will include giving informative answers to letter recipient victims when I can.  In my opinion, both types of conversation can benefit those on the receiving end of letters.

I realize that my choices seem to bother SG-- I've explained my reasons to him.  I don't want my explanations to SG to give anyone the impression that my decision to spend my time engaging Glen in anyway suggests that I think you or anyone else has any obligation to volunteer your time.  You have no such obligation either ethically, morally, socially or in any other way.

It is certainly true that Glen's business enterprise and his choices are his and absolutely no one is required to donate their time or expertise to assist hm.  But by the same token, I hope that doesn't mean that people are not permitted to answer-- and sometimes if he asks questions, I will be answering. (Well, unless you decide to forbid it. But I have not developed the sense that it is forbidden.)

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I'm pretty sure this will be my least popular post.

Although the stated goal of ELI is "defend letter recipients, report on the extortion industry, and fighting back," MY stated goal is to do what I can to change the way the stock industry does business. I won't be happy until they start providing proof of their claim and reasonable assessments. That means copyright registration if available, the "confidential" agreement in which the photographer supposedly granted them exclusive rights, and legitimate sales data. Having a person around from the other side, with an opposing point of view, is immensely useful to me in this regard. That's why I'm disappointed when ELI members choose not to take the "high road."

I understand the anger and frustration people on here have regarding the demand letters. Believe me I have it too. And it's human nature to want to unload all that at someone who clearly represents your adversary. It would be so easy to badger this person until they don't want to come here. But how is that going to help anyone?

I enjoy all of your posts, but I would have to side with Lucia. GOING FORWARD, if you have any interest in actually being a part of the solution and changing the stock industry's practices, then you have to at least listen with an open mind. Even in politics, there comes a time to set aside the petty B.S. and sniping and try and find something that works.

Is Glen doing a little "cover your ass" routine? Probably. Should the counter-suit against his company go forward, he can claim that he engaged the community on the largest site dedicated to this issue. That might minimize some of the damages. But is he also sincerely trying to find out how he can restructure to make his company better? This is probably true too.

I know everyone is anxious to get a little payback. If I'm being honest, I am too. I'm looking forward to the outcome of that counter suit. But I think the long-term, politically smart play IS to have some "understanding", and give them the "benefit of the doubt." I really don't understand the hand-wringing about giving out "free" advice. To me, if you want to change how the stock industry does business, you need to be vocal about HOW you want it to change. I don't believe the stock photo industry ship is sinking. But I do believe it is changing, and the extortion letters are a symptom of this change. It's possible to help shape this change if you are open to hearing ideas from the other side. Solutions are hard to come by, pitchforks and torches are easy.

Back to the question at hand. I think the phone call is a horrible idea. I think a letter with all the documentation, proof and information tied up into a neat little package with a reasonable (REASONABLE!) claim would be acceptable to me. I know other people on here are of the opinion that a takedown notice should be issued first. If the stock industry were to take that extraordinary step, they might win be back as a customer.

But a phone call out of the blue is going to be perceived as a scam. And when an outrageous price tag is thrown out, the call recipient will KNOW it's a scam. The first step the stock photo industry can take toward healing itself would be to get much more transparent and honest.

[lucia]

Code: [Select]

I won't be happy until they start providing proof of their claim and reasonable assessments. That means copyright registration if available, the "confidential" agreement in which the photographer supposedly granted them exclusive rights, and legitimate sales data.
I told Glen the same thing when he asked what companies can do differently.  I think this information should be provided up front, and anyone asked to enter into negotiations ought to have  access to this information before entering any negotiations about what to do about any alleged (or real) infraction.  Moreover, no matter what the method of communication (phone, letter, email, instant message chat what have you) the photographer and agents should permit people time to review this information before any negotiations of a mutually agreeable resolution begin. 

Code: [Select]

Is Glen doing a little "cover your ass" routine? Probably.I sure don't disagree with this!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

To Quote MCFilms:
"Back to the question at hand. I think the phone call is a horrible idea. I think a letter with all the documentation, proof and information tied up into a neat little package with a reasonable (REASONABLE!) claim would be acceptable to me. I know other people on here are of the opinion that a takedown notice should be issued first. If the stock industry were to take that extraordinary step, they might win be back as a customer."

I agree 100% with the above statement..It's really very simple, but the stock agencies cannot see the forest thru the trees..
It's the un-reasonable amounts they demand they get me going, hell if getty had approached me and asked for an amount that was inline to what the image was worth, I may have very well paid them ( even though I had a license for the imagebut i'll forego that part for now) Don't be sending me leeter threatening a lawsuit and demanding 1200.00 for an image that is clearly available for 47.00.. I too want to see a change and trust me i'm trying to be open minded, but it's difficult when Glen comes along with his song and dance, talking out the side of his mouth.. I change my business as times change, I don't feel as if I need to figure out and advise stock image companies, how they need to change their business, they should be able to figure this out on their own. It's been well stated here on ELI what needs to be changed, they just keep stumbling over the money portion.. Rights Managed Images are DEAD for all intents and purposes, people ARE NOT going to buy/license these images, given the choice of micro-stock and royalty free options.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

"Rights Managed" the way much of the industry is using it here will end up going away. You can't make the claim that an image is exceptional given there are hundreds of very similar images available for much less.You also won't be able to enforce it as "rights managed" if you have failed to protect it and it is now all over the Internet.

However, I would point out that there are those "one-in-a-million" shots that probably warrant a "rights managed" treatment. Whether it's a knockout punch from Muhammad Ali, or Marilyn Monroe over an air vent, certain images are clearly iconic and exceptional. There are also magazine-quality images that are so outstanding and remarkable that they may be "rights managed." Fine. But that being the case, MANAGE the rights -- register the copyright individually, don't post them without some sort of watermark, and by all means issue a takedown notice the moment it gets on a "Free Wallpaper" site.

Why is that so hard for GI, HAN, MF et al to understand?

[Peeved]

As per "Glen"....

"While we wont ever get to a point where our photographers are having their work used for profit and then the business is expected to only remove them, there is no reason not to try and modify the recovery process in a way that is more palatable for the end user (and a new attorney for that matter)."

Strike One...
 
As per "Glen".....

"Until copyright law changes, the agencies will continue to function as they do, recoveries using attorneys will continue, and ELI will be there to shame them in the process.  There is no reason not to continue examining the process and improving it in any way possible which is why our account staff was trained specifically on a "no legal language" approach when asking for the license fee only with no mention of copyright, penalties, or any legal position what so ever.  We will continue to do this and I again appreciate your positions and feedback."

Strike two....

As per "Glen"....

"Some attorneys we work with have never have shown up on ELI and I think that has to do with many of the points mentioned.  Most were experienced and choose the cases they accepted carefully.  I want to go through this thread again when I have more time and will likely be steering anyone we work with in the future here."

"The idea of using attorneys less is still my goal but I think we can (and will) play a more active role in what they send out on our behalf based on these points.  When HAN hires an attorney using current tracking systems, they are provided with a retail price based on the use and told to do the best they can.  We don't have access to what is a more appropriate letter and what is extreme under the law.  There seems to be very little standard in recovering revenue for photographers which one would think would have been standardized to some degree."


Strike three.....You're OUT!

It is my "opinion" that he is here to "learn" WHY exactly that he is in the "crapper" if you will so oblige me. The only "change" I can see is the kind of change that will keep his "company name" and his "company demand letters" OFF of ELI!

It is my "opinion" that ANY demand letter/PHONE CALL requesting to "remit payment" no questions asked, is "judge, jury, and executioner"!

You want "change"? STOP THE MADDNESS!
 

[SoylentGreen]

Good post by McFilms.  It's good that Lucia has your support (which I think is the due to the "change" concept).
However, I think that you've agreed with my opinions on practically every other point.
i.e. proof of claims, documentation, and that the phone call thing won't work.
In fact, I also agree that change is needed.

I also like the political analogy that you've made.  This is really true.  I think that what works in a political arena would work here also.
Keeping in mind that unpopular politicians get voted out (companies go out of business), and crooked politicians go straight to jail (when they steal from people).
So, you don't get to play "politics" if you're a bad politician or a crook.

I don't think that "change" is going to come easy, or in the way that most people think or hope that it will.
The only stock images that actually sell are inexpensive royalty free products, and rights-managed current-events stuff.
Most businesses use the former, which cuts out rights-managed operations like MF, Getty, and Hawaiian Art Network entirely.
So, eventually, 99 percent of MF, Getty, and Hawaiian Art Network revenue will have to come from infringers/alleged infringers, and not paying customers.
But, nobody will pay unless they're threatened in an extremely aggressive way, which destroys such businesses.

Does anybody actually think that a "Uncle Glen Customer Care Center" that calls people and asks for money out of the blue is going to work?
Or that a nice letter will make people pay?  It can be tried... but Carner might go bankrupt before he finds that it won't work.

In the case of inexpensive royalty-free images, they're not worth litigating over.  So their reputation will remain in good standing.
My conclusion is that only the royalty-free reasonably priced stock image outfits will survive along with Getty's photojournalistic stuff.
In my opinion, it's not really productive to discuss how to make people pay over infringements, because that's a business concept that will fail.
But, you know... have at it.

Please don't mistake "passion" for "anger".  If I wanted "payback", I'd get it believe me.
Also, while I don't want to see anyone leave, the people that sulk away into the shadows are the ones that called on stuff and can't win their arguments.

S.G.