An admittedly edited and selective series of Artbeats written statements on this issue made by Phil Bates.
When caught distributing the footage via download beyond the explicit restriction imposed by the term CD-ROM ONLY:
We believe that offering digital downloads is consistent with the spirit of the agreement for special custom orders. For example, the file (QuickTIme) is exactly the same as on a custom CD-ROM: the format exactly the same; the License Agreement exactly the same; the price exactly the same. The only thing changed is the delivery medium - February 3, 2009.
How nice that he judged what the spirit of the Agreement was without checking with me first. But sorry Phil: CD-ROM ONLY means CD-ROM ONLY. You are not, and were not, empowered to fabricate a new "belief" about that very explicit and clear term on your own. Any delivery method other than CD-ROM ONLY required my explicit written permission. Anything else was a breach of the Agreement.
A personal favorite, his integrity claim:
Let me first say that if Artbeats was not run on standards of integrity,
caring for the concerns of both our customers and producers, we would not be in a position of success today. We have excellent reputations of integrity when dealing with both customers and producers. We are not perfect, but we handle mistakes when brought to our attention - February 5, 2009.
When pinned with the clear difference between CD-ROM and downloads and how the market demands downloads, which Artbeats was offering without any right to offer that access:
So Artbeats adapts and changes our delivery media to match industry
evolution to be relevant to the customers needs and to stay competitive in
the industry. The result is that you continue to have sales and receive
royalties for years. How is that a bad thing? Aren't we being good
stewards of our resources and helping keep our producers receiving
royalties? If we didn't adapt, I would consider us responsible, not getting
you the sales due you. Again, how is this a bad thing, I don't understand? - February 5, 2009.
The only problem with his statement is that, of course, he failed to obtain the rights to "adapt," he just went ahead and did it. Oh, and contrary to his claim, I was not paid a penny on thousands of dollars in download sales.
And then he goes litigation:
Since we are at a standstill on this issue, we can only say that we are
willing to defend our position in court, should you want to exercise that
option.
Also, in order to remove any argument for further "breach", we will
immediately stop our website from offering downloads of the PD material - February 6, 2009.
Notice how despite his statements that he is right and I'm completely wrong, he covers himself by shutting down the download sales?
And slamming the door on compromise while failing to ever make any offer of settlement whatsoever:
Since I don't accept the premise or reason for the award, I will move forward with cease and desist.
Enough talk - February 6, 2009.
Odd that he self-imposed, as you see above, a "cease and desist" since I allegedly had no legal leg to stand on. It is helpful to repeat at this point his statements about his and Artbeats' integrity: "We have excellent reputations of integrity when dealing with both customers and producers. We are not perfect, but we handle mistakes when brought to our attention." Yes, this matter was handled in a way that clearly defines their integrity. Not a single penny was ever offered in settlement.
Furthermore, on February 6, 2009, as you can see above, he stated the footage would immediately be removed from download. On February 19, 2009, I pointed out to him it was still online and available for sale via download. His reply came days later:
I would have rather gotten this done quicker, but regardless, this task has now been completed - February 23, 2009.
Later in the year he was sent an Attorney's opinion letter outlining the legal basis for my claim:
To have been damaged as you claim for so long, yet saying nothing, raises serious doubts about the validity of your claim according to legal --and my personal-- opinion - July 21, 2009.
First it is important to note that the breach was only discovered, contrary to his misstatement, very recently, and when it was, it was promptly brought to his attention.
But more important for the reader to note is the assertion here of legal loopholes for escaping liability now that an educated legal opinion on the "breach" had been offered to Artbeats in writing, along with an outline of possible damages.
Would not integrity dictate offering fair compensation to the injured rather than a claim that, in so many words, is, I did it but I can get away with it?
More to come. Stay tuned.
17 November 2009
Artbeats Agreement Limiting Terms
This image shows the exact language limiting Artbeats to CD-ROM product distribution only. Despite this written condition, they sold the footage via download for years but refuse to pay for the additional rights and income they earned.
13 November 2009
Artbeats Torrents
As I wrote the first post it made me ponder about the extent of the free downloads one could find on the net if one was searching for artbeats torrents as keywords. Karma sucks I suspect. They do have a bit of a problem.
A simple Google search for artbeats torrents returns some 150,000 results. Doubtless they spend much time and energy stopping this unlawful activity. Yet when they use footage in ways beyond their written agreements, I say they refuse to pay up. Stinks.
A simple Google search for artbeats torrents returns some 150,000 results. Doubtless they spend much time and energy stopping this unlawful activity. Yet when they use footage in ways beyond their written agreements, I say they refuse to pay up. Stinks.
Me Vs. Artbeats Software, Inc.
A little history. I'm the owner of a small production company. A number of years ago Phil Bates from Artbeats Software, Inc., approached me about buying stock footage in my collection. Terms were agreed and put in writing. The sale was completed.
Those terms included a written limitation on how the footage could be sold by Artbeats. The language limited them, and they agreed to, CD-ROM ONLY. I'll reproduce the document in a future post.
Early in 2009 I discovered that limitation while reviewing the document for other reasons. I brought this to the attention of Artbeats as they had been distributing the footage for years via any and every method available, including online sales and downloads, clearly way beyond CD-ROM only, a restriction similar to a single seat license in their very own terms and conditions. If they wanted more means to distribute, they could negotiate and pay for them, just like an end user can add "seats" to their license.
Though they claim they were entitled to do what they did and that no payment is due me, oddly enough they took the footage down from online sales. If they believed they were in the right all along, there would be no reason to do that in my opinion.
I've tried to get them to engage in good faith negotiations but I've simply been stonewalled.
The thought then occurred to me: If they have done this to me, perhaps they have done this to others. Maybe there are merits to a class action lawsuit against Artbeats?
So I decided to use the internet to reach out to other producers that may have had similar experiences, if there are any. If you are a cinematographer, video camera person, producer or other vendor who has been short payed, mistreated or had the terms of their sales agreement to Artbeats violated, please contact me via comment left on this blog. Make sure you leave some way to contact you.
If you wish your identity and comment to be unpublished say so in the comment as well.
This whole experience has been disappointing, frustrating, wasteful of time, and rich with hypocrisy. Artbeats holds itself up as a highly ethical business and it is a firm with executives that told me they spend a great deal of time chasing down torrent pirate copies of their products. Caught red handed by me distributing clearly beyond their rights, instead of making an offer to settle, they force me to engage in adversarial legal proceedings to recoup my damages.
Stay tuned, more to come, including relevant documents, e-mails, etc.
For the record, no litigation has commenced as of the date of this post but counsel is being sought at this time.
Those terms included a written limitation on how the footage could be sold by Artbeats. The language limited them, and they agreed to, CD-ROM ONLY. I'll reproduce the document in a future post.
Early in 2009 I discovered that limitation while reviewing the document for other reasons. I brought this to the attention of Artbeats as they had been distributing the footage for years via any and every method available, including online sales and downloads, clearly way beyond CD-ROM only, a restriction similar to a single seat license in their very own terms and conditions. If they wanted more means to distribute, they could negotiate and pay for them, just like an end user can add "seats" to their license.
Though they claim they were entitled to do what they did and that no payment is due me, oddly enough they took the footage down from online sales. If they believed they were in the right all along, there would be no reason to do that in my opinion.
I've tried to get them to engage in good faith negotiations but I've simply been stonewalled.
The thought then occurred to me: If they have done this to me, perhaps they have done this to others. Maybe there are merits to a class action lawsuit against Artbeats?
So I decided to use the internet to reach out to other producers that may have had similar experiences, if there are any. If you are a cinematographer, video camera person, producer or other vendor who has been short payed, mistreated or had the terms of their sales agreement to Artbeats violated, please contact me via comment left on this blog. Make sure you leave some way to contact you.
If you wish your identity and comment to be unpublished say so in the comment as well.
This whole experience has been disappointing, frustrating, wasteful of time, and rich with hypocrisy. Artbeats holds itself up as a highly ethical business and it is a firm with executives that told me they spend a great deal of time chasing down torrent pirate copies of their products. Caught red handed by me distributing clearly beyond their rights, instead of making an offer to settle, they force me to engage in adversarial legal proceedings to recoup my damages.
Stay tuned, more to come, including relevant documents, e-mails, etc.
For the record, no litigation has commenced as of the date of this post but counsel is being sought at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)