The ELI site provides volumes of free information and guidance on copyright, digital image litigation, and other intellectual property issues. While others have casually commented on the scourge of copyright trolling over digital images, clip art and pornography, or even devoted whole sites to copyright trolling, ELI remain s the most vibrant place for the exchange of ides, strategies, and just plain old war stories for folks caught up in this scheme. As to Artist's comment that "Never once does anyone on this site say you shouldn't have intentionally stolen copyrighted work and used it - or you're a professional web designer so why don't you understand that images are copyrighted ect and Google Images does not mean free" is totally wrong. Repeatedly on the site, in some of our videos and in many, many forum comments and posts I and others on ELI have always stated that we do not condone or support copyright infringement. Take down the image in controversy and never use it again. We have two basic issues with the current methods used to enforce copyright in digital images: (1) demanding sums far beyond what the actual award would likely be in the event of a lawsuit; (2)threatening lawsuits and making these exorbitant demands while at the same time refusing to provide any proof of ownership of the image in question. As to me "pimping" my services out - are you kidding me? Do you see what I charge to handle these claims? It basically covers my administrative costs for taking the matter on. Have you ever wondered why I am still the only lawyer in the country willing to do something like this? Because it's not a money-maker - I am doing it on principle not on profit. If it was profitable, many other lawyers would have opened up competing sites - have you ever seen the mesothelioma commercials - lawyers are hungry and ambitious, if this was quick profit center we'd have clones and copycat sites all over the internet. How about the many not for profits and Mom and Pops that I do not charge for my services? How about the baseless Bar complaints filed against me by those working for or on behalf of Getty? Quite a few of them have written letters to my home and my law partner to try and get me to stop representing folks on this issue. I am representing Matt pro bono on this Georgia Court of Appeals issue because I believe the decision needs to be reversed. I am fortunate that after 27 years of practice I am in a position where I can devote some time and energy into leveling the playing field for smaller businesses and trying to have an answer to the trolling mechanisms that are sweeping the Internet. Not everything is about money. As to Rob's comments, I agree that at one point ELI got a little too raucous and delved into sophomoric humor. But it was never a vehicle for stalking or criminal behavior. And yes, ELI likely would not have heard about Linda Ellis had it not been for April Brown. But thankfully April brought it to ELI's attention and we were able to shine a spotlight on Linda's trolling behavior. I also commend April for not hiding behind a pseudonym and putting her name out there. She is a successful business woman and many others in her position would have been worried about potential backlash or bad publicity. But April just puts out the facts - and it disturbs some people when they are confronted with their own hypocrisy. I invite you back onto the ELI forums - all are welcome even ELI's detractors - for an open, honest discussion about all of these issues.
Why not visit the ELI site to get a general feel for what goes on there? While the Linda Ellis forums have been taken down you will see that it is a content-rich site on issues of copyright, digital image litigation, trolling, legal strategies that have worked and failed, humor, parody, etc. All that was painted with the same broad brush as a few posts that Ms Ellis and the court interpreted as threatening. The First Amendment and The CDA are certainly worth defending. As for Ms. Ellis, no one ever disputed her right to enforce er copyright in her poem, but her tactics and overbearing demands seem hypocritical to me and many others. They also seem to seek damages to which she knows she is not entitled in an effort to get folks to pay more than the infringement is worth.
I am the legal adviser to the extortionletterinfo.com site (ELI). Thanks for the many comments. I will try to address some of the questions raised. Matt was overconfident perhaps that the First Amendment and the CDA would protect his right to post public information about Ms. Ellis and that he could not be responsible for the comments of others; he also did not foresee that he would be the first person held in violation of this stalking statute who never met, talked to, emailed, wrote, contacted or followed the alleged victim - so he went Pro Se. He will be filing a Notice of Appeal this week and I will be representing him (pro bono)on the appeal. However, he still needs to retain local Georgia counsel as well as pay an estimated several thousands of dollars for the transcript and about $600 in court costs. He has established a legal defense fund on ELI so any assistance is appreciated by Matt. The judge's decision was very overbroad. ELI had to take down every single post about Ms. Ellis even though she only complained of about 5 out of 1,900. (she never asked Matt to take the posts down prior to filing for the order by the way). Also the Order of Protection is for Matt's lifetime even though he was only personally responsible for two posts. I don't believe the two posts violate the Stalking Law but I won't debate that here - they were rude and somewhat insulting and for that he has apologized as the post mentions. But regardless of what anyone feels about the content, the order went far beyond what was called for and what the law allows. I'll keep my eye on this post if there any new issues folks want to know about or please feel free to contact me at omichelen@cuomollc.com. Thanks again.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by omichelen.
Response to Rob & Artist
The ELI site provides volumes of free information and guidance on copyright, digital image litigation, and other intellectual property issues. While others have casually commented on the scourge of copyright trolling over digital images, clip art and pornography, or even devoted whole sites to copyright trolling, ELI remain s the most vibrant place for the exchange of ides, strategies, and just plain old war stories for folks caught up in this scheme. As to Artist's comment that "Never once does anyone on this site say you shouldn't have intentionally stolen copyrighted work and used it - or you're a professional web designer so why don't you understand that images are copyrighted ect and Google Images does not mean free" is totally wrong. Repeatedly on the site, in some of our videos and in many, many forum comments and posts I and others on ELI have always stated that we do not condone or support copyright infringement. Take down the image in controversy and never use it again. We have two basic issues with the current methods used to enforce copyright in digital images: (1) demanding sums far beyond what the actual award would likely be in the event of a lawsuit; (2)threatening lawsuits and making these exorbitant demands while at the same time refusing to provide any proof of ownership of the image in question. As to me "pimping" my services out - are you kidding me? Do you see what I charge to handle these claims? It basically covers my administrative costs for taking the matter on. Have you ever wondered why I am still the only lawyer in the country willing to do something like this? Because it's not a money-maker - I am doing it on principle not on profit. If it was profitable, many other lawyers would have opened up competing sites - have you ever seen the mesothelioma commercials - lawyers are hungry and ambitious, if this was quick profit center we'd have clones and copycat sites all over the internet. How about the many not for profits and Mom and Pops that I do not charge for my services? How about the baseless Bar complaints filed against me by those working for or on behalf of Getty? Quite a few of them have written letters to my home and my law partner to try and get me to stop representing folks on this issue. I am representing Matt pro bono on this Georgia Court of Appeals issue because I believe the decision needs to be reversed. I am fortunate that after 27 years of practice I am in a position where I can devote some time and energy into leveling the playing field for smaller businesses and trying to have an answer to the trolling mechanisms that are sweeping the Internet. Not everything is about money. As to Rob's comments, I agree that at one point ELI got a little too raucous and delved into sophomoric humor. But it was never a vehicle for stalking or criminal behavior. And yes, ELI likely would not have heard about Linda Ellis had it not been for April Brown. But thankfully April brought it to ELI's attention and we were able to shine a spotlight on Linda's trolling behavior. I also commend April for not hiding behind a pseudonym and putting her name out there. She is a successful business woman and many others in her position would have been worried about potential backlash or bad publicity. But April just puts out the facts - and it disturbs some people when they are confronted with their own hypocrisy. I invite you back onto the ELI forums - all are welcome even ELI's detractors - for an open, honest discussion about all of these issues.
tomxp411's comments
Why not visit the ELI site to get a general feel for what goes on there? While the Linda Ellis forums have been taken down you will see that it is a content-rich site on issues of copyright, digital image litigation, trolling, legal strategies that have worked and failed, humor, parody, etc. All that was painted with the same broad brush as a few posts that Ms Ellis and the court interpreted as threatening. The First Amendment and The CDA are certainly worth defending. As for Ms. Ellis, no one ever disputed her right to enforce er copyright in her poem, but her tactics and overbearing demands seem hypocritical to me and many others. They also seem to seek damages to which she knows she is not entitled in an effort to get folks to pay more than the infringement is worth.
Legal comment on all of the above
I am the legal adviser to the extortionletterinfo.com site (ELI). Thanks for the many comments. I will try to address some of the questions raised. Matt was overconfident perhaps that the First Amendment and the CDA would protect his right to post public information about Ms. Ellis and that he could not be responsible for the comments of others; he also did not foresee that he would be the first person held in violation of this stalking statute who never met, talked to, emailed, wrote, contacted or followed the alleged victim - so he went Pro Se. He will be filing a Notice of Appeal this week and I will be representing him (pro bono)on the appeal. However, he still needs to retain local Georgia counsel as well as pay an estimated several thousands of dollars for the transcript and about $600 in court costs. He has established a legal defense fund on ELI so any assistance is appreciated by Matt. The judge's decision was very overbroad. ELI had to take down every single post about Ms. Ellis even though she only complained of about 5 out of 1,900. (she never asked Matt to take the posts down prior to filing for the order by the way). Also the Order of Protection is for Matt's lifetime even though he was only personally responsible for two posts. I don't believe the two posts violate the Stalking Law but I won't debate that here - they were rude and somewhat insulting and for that he has apologized as the post mentions. But regardless of what anyone feels about the content, the order went far beyond what was called for and what the law allows. I'll keep my eye on this post if there any new issues folks want to know about or please feel free to contact me at omichelen@cuomollc.com. Thanks again.