ImageRights International Inc. (ImageRights.com)

[Matthew Chan]

I thought everyone would like to see a company that discloses their fees for collection on infringement cases.

https://www.imagerights.com/pricing

=======
ImageRights Premier
Our Premier service is appropriate for Small Agencies and Pro Photographers with larger collections who routinely find infringements of their work. Protect up to 250,000 images

ImageRights Recovery
Keep 60% of net recovery
No service fee on Recovery cases
No Win / No Fee Recovery policy

5 free USCO Copyright Registration filings

$1,295 per year
=====

ImageRights Pro
Our Pro service is appropriate for Pro Photographers who routinely find infringements of their work. Protect up to 100,000 images

ImageRights Recovery
Keep 55% of net recovery
No service fee on Recovery cases
No Win / No Fee Recovery policy

3 free USCO Copyright Registration filings

$495 per year

=======
ImageRights Basic
Our Basic service is appropriate for Pro Photographers who find the occasional infringement of their work. Protect up to 1,000 images

ImageRights Recovery
Keep 50% of net recovery
$50 service fee on Recovery cases

$69 or $89 per USCO Copyright Registration filing

======

According to the Massachusetts Corporations Division, ImageRights is a foreign corporation (Delaware) that was formed in 2009 and Joe Grant Naylor and Ted Vancleave are two principals there.

http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?FEIN=010936869&SEARCH_TYPE=1

[stinger]

Timmy deserves the 60% of nothing that his firm got from me.

They worked hard for it and had to defend themselves to the Washington State Bar Association.  If more people raised the cost of doing business for these trolls, they would quickly find themselves in a new line of work - perhaps catering to Washington's need for more marijuana.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Hmmm, I wonder if what they are using to find the images. It says on the BBB there is only 1 employee.  It seems like it would be hard for one person, even using a pic-scout type program to filter through all the data it you have multiple clients. I may have to look into this company a little more and see what I can dig up.

http://www.bbb.org/boston/business-reviews/copyright-service/imagerights-international-inc-in-boston-ma-119473
 

[Matthew Chan]

I have learned the name of one of ImageRights' young pup staff lawyers.  Aws Shemmeri is Director of Dispute Resolution. He has been a lawyer for 4 years. He got his license in 2012.

Aws Shemmeri
ImageRights International, Inc.   
617-871-0969   
51 Melcher Street, First Fl.   
Boston MA 02210
Admitted to the bar   on 11/30/12
Board of Bar Overseers number: 684374
Current status is Active

I think that is similar to the inexperienced, Leslie Burns of "Burns the Attorney."  All these newbie lawyers seem to end up with these shit jobs.

[kgnast]

Hello,

I am a new member here.  Today, I received just such a letter from Mr. Aws Shemmeri, for 4 pics from used in a random rotator on my, get this, my law firm website.  I am an avid programmer from my days in tech and I had built the site myself.  Many years ago, on occassion, I refresh some the imagery on the site.  The pics I used had NO copyright notification, no reasonable way to discern the images were protected by a copyright.  Regardless, ImageRightsInternational's Mr. Shemmeri has contacted me by letter threatening for removal of the pics AND payment of $9,600  fee for a limited license.

"The unauthorized use of the Images has caused severe damage including, without limitation, diversion of trade, loss of profits, dilution of the value of rights, erosion of the market value of the Images, and injury to goodwill and reputation."..."Mr. (photographer's name) may pursue litigation, in which he can seek remedies including his losses and your profits attributable to the usage, or at his sole option, up to $150,000 in statutory damages, in addition to his attorney's fees.

As I mentioned before, I am an attorney myself. And I have worked with many photographers in the past.  The honorable and professional thing I have always done is reached out, made mention, and requested removal of images/photos in question.  The images have always been removed, and there has never been a need to go to court.  If images were being used somewhere, my client(s) would receive truly fair value for continued usage. 

This extortion method is violative of my sense of what is right and what is wrong.  I came here to join this forum, because I am offended at this business behavior and methodology.  To the ELI group, I am happy to assist other members in anyway I can and I eagerly join you in your war to combat these predatory practices.

Regards,

Kiat Oboler, Esq.
Attorney At Law
NY, USA
[email protected]

[stinger]

Welcome to the group, Kiat.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Looks like it's time to brush upon copyright law, might I suggest as a non-lawyer, that you don't go with the "no copyright notice" or no "cease and desist" as your defense, that is not going to work very well.

LOL...honorable and professional, don't forget you're dealing with some of the biggest a-holes on the planet!

[Peeved]

Looks like it's time to brush upon copyright law, might I suggest as a non-lawyer, that you don't go with the "no copyright notice" or no "cease and desist" as your defense, that is not going to work very well.

LOL...honorable and professional, don't forget you're dealing with some of the biggest a-holes on the planet!

The above made me laugh. I have to admit that this was actually my very first thought when I read:
"The pics I used had NO copyright notification, no reasonable way to discern the images were protected by a copyright."
This coming from an "attorney" in particular.

Not to throw new guy/gal under the bus because they seem nice enough with good intentions but ya...
there is nothing "honorable" or "professional" about copyright douchebag trolls.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This just proves how many people are non educated on basic copyright, lawyer or not, people just don't know...One of the funniest things I always here is: "If I change an image 30% it's not infringing", heard it just yesterday..That's like saying I can use an image of Mickey Mouse, put some different clothes on him, and Disney wouldn't mind or try to protect their IP....

[Peeved]

This just proves how many people are non educated on basic copyright, lawyer or not, people just don't know...One of the funniest things I always here is: "If I change an image 30% it's not infringing", heard it just yesterday..That's like saying I can use an image of Mickey Mouse, put some different clothes on him, and Disney wouldn't mind or try to protect their IP....

Really? You mean I can't change an image 30%...how bout 80%?
(sarcasm)

You know admitedly, I was extremely naive myself before finding
this site. So much was learned on so many levels.

Signed,
Forever grateful
: )

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

well yes, technically you can, and it would likely be considered a derivative, but nowhere in the actual statute does it state any certain percentage...that's folklore that has been around for years and years...

[Peeved]

Really? You mean I can't change an image 30%...how bout 80%?
(sarcasm)

well yes, technically you can, and it would likely be considered a derivative, but nowhere in the actual statute does it state any certain percentage...that's folklore that has been around for years and years...

Sarcasm aside...understandably, "derivatives" are frowned upon and are likely judged
based upon the measuring of "sensitivity to change" which would not necessarily be
a "specific percentage". I "get" that.

[Matthew Chan]

Yes, Kiat needs to get up to speed pretty quickly. Him being a lawyer actually makes him a bigger target. He will be held to a higher standard than the rest of us non-lawyers.  And his initial defense doesn't speak well to his knowledge or defense capabilities at this point. I am not sure if he has helped himself by exposing his name and reply here.  His heart and intention is in the right place but he needs to help himself first before anyone else.

Looks like it's time to brush upon copyright law, might I suggest as a non-lawyer, that you don't go with the "no copyright notice" or no "cease and desist" as your defense, that is not going to work very well.

[Matthew Chan]

You know what that means?  At this rate, ELI is going to be around for a LONG TIME. I used to think extortion letters was a temporary thing but we will soon be heading into our 9th year and there is no sign of extortion letters going away.  There are new players coming in just as old-timers like Getty Images tweak and adjust their operation. Some people disappear but new ones come in their place.

More notifications are being delivered via email vs. standard mail in years past.

And even with all the free information available, new people are constantly being ensnared.  People don't believe it can happen to them until they get an extortion letter themselves and then they sing a different tune.

This just proves how many people are non educated on basic copyright, lawyer or not, people just don't know...One of the funniest things I always here is: "If I change an image 30% it's not infringing", heard it just yesterday..That's like saying I can use an image of Mickey Mouse, put some different clothes on him, and Disney wouldn't mind or try to protect their IP....