$9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn E.Wright law firm

[Katerina]

Matt, saying of confidentiality agreements. Masterfile blamed my husband that one of their emails to him was posted here on the forum, as they consider this confidential "not a good thing for us". The email doesn't have any secret information, private information, trade secrets, etc. There was no any confidentiality agreement written between my husband and Masterfile. Is this merit? This forum is for education purposes, that's why I used it.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

what may seem "confidential" to them, may not seem the same to others, just further proof that they are among us and not liking whats said /shown here..

[Katerina]

yes, it seems like it was the same day when Matt and Oscar got the letter from his attorney. they are reading everything. btw, they revoked their offer to settle down for 1500 because of that
 SLAPP!!!!!

[SoylentGreen]

Unless you've signed a confidentiality agreement, then you are not bound to keep the information confidential.

They just don't want people to know what they're doing and how they're doing as it hurts their business in the long run.

S.G.

[Helpi]

"If you don't understand the colloquialism of "trolling" then go visit EFF's site."

I think I do. But that you are using it so broadly that its meaningless. You seem to use it in any context where you think the amount demanded exceeds the amount you may have paid to license the image if you didn't take it. In other words, for every IP case but seemingly only in the context of a photographers work displayed online. Probably among the economically weakest group of content owners.

"Years back, I found a website that lifted an entire website from me.  The only thing they changed was the company name.  I sent a strongly worded letter letting them know they were infringing on my material and I asked them to take it down.  A few days later, it was gone. Problem solved. I didn't extort any money from them and my problem was solved."

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know but if you were a photographer, for example, you might define the problem differently.  Injunctive relief isn't going to swing it for a lot of people/entities.  Incidentally, as you are more educated now then you were then, I'm sure you know that the way to proceed if all you want is the material taken down is to send a DMCA take-down notice to the ISP. That is a remedy that is available in the US to all content owners.

"But you will never convince me that extorting thousands of dollars per image is the right thing to do."

I'm not trying to convince you.  You are free to decide it's worth $x and another Jury member $y.  Congress has given the Jury all the latitude it needs with a rather broad range between the floor and ceiling. I'm guessing what you actually object to is Congress giving the Jury this latitude. You think you and Oscar are wiser than a Jury, right ? They can't decide a fair award. You and Oscar can.

"You might even be able to get me to agree to some money from infringement as an inconvenience factor, somewhere in the order of $200-$300 which is Oscar and I have found to be a good balance. "

That's very generous of you. Is it only online works that you decide the precise dollar remedy or offline too ? Only photographers works ? Only stock agencies ? What about Disney's IP and the large owners that make the bulk of the money off IP ? Or are you only interested in small content owners ?

But I don't think Oscar is suggesting what you are though he can speak for himself. Again, you lump every case together. Are you suggesting that all cases of infringement should result in an award of $200-$300. If you are I think the Disney IP content will go quickly. Though I wouldn't mind getting my hands on Pixar's work. But of course you're not, right ? I believe Oscar is speaking in the context where "innocent infringement" can be proved. And in that case under existing law the Court can go as low as $200.  So again I'll speculate that what you and Oscar want is to remove the discretion from the Court ? You would still have the expense of litigation, proving "innocent infringement" (I assume that's a typical response when caught) and pressure to settle for more.  So do you anticipate an Oscar/Matt tribunal where you guys determine (in a cheap and efficient manner, good luck with that) whether infringement is "innocent" and then $200 is awarded ? Or does everyone get the presumption of innocence just by claiming it ? So I can take what I want online and then when I'm caught I send a $200 check with a note that it was innocent ? Or do you get one innocent freebie and the next infringement you don't.  How would your scheme actually work.

"But they sucker the dumb and the spineless who actually pay full fare.  The smart ones and the fighters pay very little or nothing at all because they refuse to be victimized by this racket."

This is too vague to respond to.  You can't lump all cases and talk about them sensibly. On the macro level, I don't understand how your $200 scheme works in practice and to what cases you contemplate it applying to. My best guess is you mean that when "innocent infringement" is proved the Court can only award $200. Not sure where you stand on fees (if they aren't awarded then there is no practical remedy. See, e.g., Oscar at $450/hr).  And not sure how, even with a $200 max amount, you avoid the costly litigation process.

"What the stock photo business is doing is purely a revenue for-profit play that has gone out of control and uses the technicalities of copyright law that were never intended for kind of use that is happening. "

But you weren't objecting in this case to a stock agency going after an alleged innocent infringer. You were complaining about a photographer that hired an attorney to go after someone that took their image off flickr (and stripped their CMI).  Which struck me as really out there. That's what people do when their IP is infringed. They hire attorneys. Would you prefer a street brawl ?  I'm going to make a guess and suggest that you are looking for some compulsory licensing scheme for online usage ? Congress sets the terms and anyone can take what they want so long as the pay the statutory fee ?

The statutory damages scheme was designed to include a punitive element. If the system were you get caught and you pay what you would have paid had you not taken the work then the rampant infringement which you and I seem to think exists would balloon.

"Hence, Oscar and I call it "legalized extortion" because it is nevertheless legal. And the only way to combat this is through knowledge, education, and a spine."

Again, you sort of have me with the following. Someone buys a template in good faith and thinks they have a license. They don't.  But when you pull every case into it, you lose me fast.

"Just like it is legal for this website to exist to combat and defend against those that take the other side. You want to root for Carolyn, fine.  Then maybe you should go join her blog and tell her what a wonderful job she is doing and how you are supportive of it. "

Matt, I understand this is a mission for you. That it is personal and that it is emotional (a good reason to hire a lawyer by the way) but it isn't for some. Interested in IP issues but zero interest in cheerleading. Nor am I pimping for business.

"She will love you for it.  In the meantime, she is now being watched and we are expecting more of her letters to show up over time."

Sounds ominous. Keep in mind certain online loons might misinterpret your words. Do you want to encourage another embarrassing post like the one about the masterfile employee ? I would assume that like most lawyers, she could care less if I cheer her or not.

"Information exchange is one of those items and sniffing out the truth is the other. Education is also a big component."

I would suspect almost all content owners appreciate you informing people that you can't take work simply because it's easy to do despite what someone above suggested about putting it on flickr. And then when the if you put it on flickr I can take it theory bumps up against the reality of a lawsuit they get very angry. If you weren't so attached emotionally you might see some humor in it. And that is yet another reason for readers. It's entertaining.


"As time goes, more and more info is being leaked out. It gets very difficult to keep everything secret when there are so many players at different levels."

Why not just search the federal docket every day and post the thousands of new IP actions. It's all trolling, right ? Why stop with IP though. Search for all plaintiffs in all areas of law.

[SoylentGreen]

I think that the "copyright trolling" that Matt refers to is simply the act/process that Getty, Masterfile, and others employ to get money that they aren't entitled to.
The "trolling" part is when they make it appear that they actually own the rights to the image(s) when they clearly do not in order to demand large amounts of money that they aren't owed.

That's "trolling": simply finding suckers en-masse who aren't informed and will pay up without much fight.  They're "trolling" for suckers... simple as that.
If you pay when you don't have to, then you've been "copyright trolled".

The concept that, "I sell that image, so I have copyright standing" is such a bunch of bullshite.
Here's an analogy that'll help even novices:
Once John McCain used the song, "Pink Houses" by John Mellencamp in his campaign without permission.
So, Mellencamp sued McCain.   Mellencamp could do that because he owned the rights to the song.
But, you didn't see Wal-Mart or iTunes suing John McCain, even though they may also sell that song.
They're just retailers; they don't own the copyright and cannot sue for damages.
The same thing applies to Masterfile, Getty and others when they don't own the copyrights to an image.
Or, when they didn't register the image properly.

Helpi, most of your arguments here on this board amount to "they might have copyright standing, so better pay up without a challenge", and "somebody somewhere when to court and lost an IP fight".
But, those positions don't address the trolling methods that Getty and Masterfile employ.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Well said SG, the "trolling" doesn't apply to everybody or every scenario, in the case mentioned in this post the image is most likely registered properly, and they most likely have all of thier ducks in a row. Carolyn is well respected and I still doubt she would use this tactic without having a strong conviction that she could win in a court of law..is the amount over the top?? perhaps, but who knows what this photographer sells his work for?? I'm sure there is enough built into that number to cover atty fees, aggravation fees and some pocket change too.. We know GI sells most of their images for less than 100.00 per license, yet they demand sometimes more than 10x that amount...hence the troll moniker..I also think this is where Matt came up with the 200-300 figure, as it would be much more reasonable, as opposed to " a grab as much we can" scenario..

On another note I've actually had a run in with the NFL with a company I used to work for, they certainly could have filed suit, but instead did the "right" thing and sent a cease and desist..end of story

[Helpi]

"..is the amount over the top?? perhaps, but who knows what this photographer sells his work for??"

If what she wrote holds up, the floor on what a Jury can return in that case is $750 on the infringement plus $2500 on removing CMI. Her legal fees will dwarf that amount if it ever got that far and legal fees are routinely awarded to prevailing plaintiffs. Also, Matt doesn't like it but it's the law that the Jury has a very broad range on what they can return on damages and they are certainly not tied to what the photographer sells his work for. There is a punitive element to statutory damages. It is intended to deter infringers. Of course, it won't get to a trial. It almost never does. By the time motion practice is over and/or discovery ended there is pressure on both sides to settle.

If you are interested in what Juries are instructed to consider before awarding damages you can check out the 7th Circuits model jury instructions in copyright actions:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/Pattern_Jury_Instr/7th_civ_instruc_2009.pdf&embedded=true&chrome=true&pli=1

Note the last one "deterrence of future infringement" which is unrelated to what was saved or what the image may have been licensed for.

PS, never met Carolyn and have no interest in the case whatsoever. It's not about her or this case (at least to me), it's the mindless lumping of every IP case into the same basket.

[Helpi]

"they don't own the copyright and cannot sue for damages.
The same thing applies to Masterfile, Getty and others when they don't own the copyrights to an image."

You are correct that it is black letter law that only beneficial and legal owners of the copyright can sue. However, I suspect your idea of what "own the copyrights to an image" means is not consistent with how the copyright act works.  Because it is not intuitive that a licensee would be considered an owner.

The bottom line is a transfer of copyright ownership includes not only a straight out transfer of the rights but also an exclusive license.  Getty gets exclusive licenses. Righthaven does not.

[SoylentGreen]

Getty gets exclusive licenses?  
Only sometimes.  Unless you can prove that all their contracts are exclusive.
Can you prove it, other than some 'boilerplate form' that you found on the back '40 of the 'web?

So, you're saying that people should just pay whatever Getty wants like a sap?
Nice one Helpi.

Getty is just like Righthaven in that it attempts to manufacture standing for content that it doesn't own and cannot successfully litigate over.

While you're at it, tell us more about those new scary "Internet Laws" that are going to get us all.
Don't make me laugh.

Getty should fire your ass, because you aren't getting them much revenue by posting here.
But, nice try copyright troll.

S.G.

p.s.  here's your official "Copyright Troll Trophy"; enjoy.

[Matthew Chan]

Well HELPI,

I am flattered you took the time to break down my post and respond in detail.  I am going to try to keep this brief for the sake of time.  At the risk of duplicating my fellow supporters answers, I am guessing they have followed my posts enough to know in which context I spoke.  SG and Buddhapi hit many of the salient points and seem to understand the context of my comments.

My comments are not directed to every single IP issue that is going on. It is true that my commentary is slowly growing to other areas but the main thrust of this forum and this site is most directed to the shenanigans that Getty Images, Masterfile, Imageline, and the folks that support and condone that action.

So when I made that $200-$300/photo comment, it is a generalized comment. I don't have time or the inclination to write about every single circumstance that can happen.  Most of the letters going out are hitting small-timers that have caused little or no damages.  We are not talking about NBC, ABC, CBS, or some newspaper that lifted a photo by mistake and then mass-benefited from it.  Yes, yes, I know the next argument is what is the benchmark, who decides what is too much.  Well, if I am the defendant, I have a say in that and I have an argument to make.

I think everyone knows I am not condoning being a thug beating up someone in the back alley, so please let's not insult anyone's intelligence to even bring that up.  However, make no mistake, there is an attack and defense.

You don't seem to approve of my emotionality. Well, I can tell you there are times being calm, collected, and rational doesn't work.  I'd like to think if people read what I write, they can actually discern or integrate my arguments as a combination of emotion and reasoning.  Oscar is more trained and articulate than I am legally.  He is certainly classier in writing.  I have adopted some "street" attributes intentionally because they are impactful.   I am here to deliver a message, not bore someone to tears that they don't listen.  You can call it creative languaging or whatever.

I am going to share a story that I think Oscar will be ok with me sharing.  He initially did not like my calling this site Extortion Letter Info because the word "extortion" is an emotional trigger word plus we were initially focused on Getty Images.  Well, languaging matters if you are trying to make a case and spread the message.  Also, my instincts told me that if Getty Images was doing this, there were others out there.  So, I stand by my emotionality in the context of extortion letters as practiced by most of the stock photo industry.

But please don't bring in Disney, Pixar, etc.  I have never mentioned them nor those situations because, for now, they are outside of the scope of this website.  If you are here for purely intellectual discussion of IP issues, you probably need to an academic site. They discuss theory all day long.

ELI is a very practical and focused website.  Its purpose is to help victims defend against the extortion letters. Yes, there is going to be some fire in the discussions because no one is trying to be an academic here.  People feel they are innocent and they don't deserve to be bullied and here they are.

We don't discriminate at the higher level. Visitors self-select how they want to participate.  Many are silent readers.  Some contribute money out of gratitude. Some email thanks.  Some hire Oscar. Some simply pay because it is not worth the time, stress, and grief of it all. Some employees of the "enemy" come in to watch how the other side think and react.  And in one case, John MacDougall, got bent out of shape by what was written about him by one person, he had an attorney send us a letter.  The list goes on.

HELPI, I find you a very interesting participant.  You make statements which compel me to state things I probably wouldn't state.  Not because I have anything to hide per se but more on the lines does it have to be said because it is sort of assumed knowledge.  I am flattered that SG and buddhapi would jump in and try to clarify my position.  And when I read their posts, they get much of it correct. I respect that they don't speak for me but they do qualify their statements as what they believe I think.

It seems that you are trying to take statements I make in one context and you try to generalize it for something broader than I intended.

Overall, I do find your posts to be respectful although somewhat disagreeable to what ELI stands for and what Oscar and I do in "our spare time". But I must confess you do help generate some good on these forums because of your post, we have more good content being created and written by knowledgeable forum participants for other people to read.

SG listed a number of great examples of high-profile instances where they issued a warning which was very effective. Buddhapi added that "trolling" doesn't pertain to every situation or everyone.

I need a rest now after this rebuttal. :-)

Matthew

[Matthew Chan]

If you need a reminder, the focus of much of this forum is Getty Images, Masterfile, Imageline, and others that engage in big-time extortion letters that present a colored view for the purpose to instill fear so that they can outrageously profit from it.  But at all times, I do remember it is currently legal to do so.

No one is lumping very IP case into the same basket but there are many similar patterns and behavior going on. It is up to each letter recipient to decide how to deal with the minutia of their own case.  They can handle it on their own or they can recruit help from others.

PS, never met Carolyn and have no interest in the case whatsoever. It's not about her or this case (at least to me), it's the mindless lumping of every IP case into the same basket.

[Helpi]

Matt, that was completely non-responsive. One day if you figure out what you actually want and how it would work, you know, practicality, post it.

[Matthew Chan]

Helpi,

Fortunately, I am not accountable to you.  I get it. We (ELI) get an "F" on your report card.  But I am not trying to save the world here. I do what I can when I can.  That is it.  As shitty, ugly, and ineffective as this website might be, it is probably more impactful than what most people are doing.  It might actually be more than what YOU are doing but I cannot say for sure as you have not ever revealed your true identity.

If you feel you can do more or are doing more, by all means, share what you have done or launch your own site and show us the way.

I don't claim have to have answers or help to every single situation and scenario.  This site has served its initial purpose which was the help defend against my own extortion letter situation. In that regard, that was mission accomplished quite a while ago.

For people who needed insights and information on how to defend themselves pro se, Oscar and I produced numerous videos and wrote many articles and commentary. We get "thank yous" for that frequently.  So mission accomplished.

For people who needed formal legal assistance from a high-powered attorney, I found Oscar and he stepped up and we co-designed the letter program he implements today. He has 500+ clients who are happy he broke legal professional protocol of the $300+/hour charge.  Mission accomplished.

Awareness and education of the stock photo extortion letter issue continues to expand and our online presence as the leading source for stock photo extortion letters appears to be firmly established as long as we "keep the lights on". Mission accomplished.

This is yet another non-responsive post but it makes me feel good that I can toot my own horn where I took a negative event and created something positive from it earning lots of goodwill and friends along the way. As I always tell Oscar in our phone calls, we owe it to Getty Images for our friendship today.

So, you can continue cracking, criticizing, or be confused about ELI, this community, what we do, and what we stand for.  In the meantime, I will continue to muddle forward like Mr. Magoo.

Who knows? When I get tired or bored enough of ELI, I will turn the lights out. I've talked about it both behind the scenes and in public.  When I consistently get more shit than sunshine from the ELI project, the lights will go out. My friends will still be my friends and everyone else can go fend for themselves.  I promise this website will not last forever. It could be next month or it could be years from now, but ELI will end at some point.

Non-responsively,

Matthew

[Helpi]

When I get bored I'll leave too. Until then I'll respond to some of the more outlandish posts, including yours (I refer to the Wright post).