Thanks for sharing the letters. Did they send any others prior to this? The wording makes it sound like you had a conversation with them or they are just making a lot of assumptions.
1- how can they prove its their own image in the first place....? i tineeyed it and it seems the links to original stock images are being removed so im guessing this scam agency is now buying rights to some images and making everyone who use them a target.
Demand proof of copyright, copyright registration number, transfer history, etc. I can see where the photo was listed on istock and getty, but they probably removed it at some point. If you licensed the image through them or others, I would login and find out if the download is still there and any receipts of purchase, license info, etc. Someone else mentioned they licensed the photo at some point. This leads me to think it's a setup, which is why I now refuse to use stock images.
2- how likely is it for them to file suit in another state?
From my research, I don't think that has much bearing if they actually want to take you to court. I imagine a lot of IP cases take place outside the copyright holder's state. I find it interesting that their current suits are in Massachusetts, yet the defendants were from Texas, South Carolina, etc. Maybe someone can shed light on that, which I would be interested in hearing.
3- they are saying if you dont pay in 10 days we will press charges, should i just ignore it? i have received scam notices before but this seems a little scary to be honest.
All these extortion letters work on fear, so I would try not to let it get to you. The current business model is to cast a wide net, send threatening letters and wait for a payday. That works very well when done in volume. Ad life appears to be running a similar operation, you're definitely not alone. The wording of their letter is textbook extortion letter style. One thing worth noting, it's possible Ad Life took the photo in question. If that's the case, they know the copyright status, have proof of ownership, etc and that makes for a much tidier situation if they do decided to file. Being that they are not as volume oriented as the typical copyright trolls, they might be more aggressive, but that is just speculation.
Here is a couple things worth noting:
1. The $150,000 infringement penalty is only in cases where the image is registered and the defendant was clearly in the wrong (sorry, forgot the proper legal term for this). If accidental or minor infringement, the statute suggests an alternative penalty of $200. That might be one reason to correspond with them, it might look favorable to a judge in the event they do take this case to court.
2. If they didn't register the image, they can only collect actual damages. I am betting the actual damages are a lot less than 8k, but I am also betting the image is registered. In my opinion, the targeted nature of the cases suggests they would have done their due diligence.
3. Taking anyone to court is expensive. They currently have 8 active suits, one with them as a defendant. I don't see how an outfit like this could possible handle this many lawsuits. With yours being most likely a de minimis case, it seems like bad business to pursue you. This is a huge assumption, just an observation based on the size of the company.
4. They have three years from the date of that letter to make a move, unless you can prove they discovered it sooner.
Topic: Adlife Marketing & Communications ASKING $8,000 for an image (Read 26767 times)