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

[sumtime]

So, I just got my letter from Photo Attorney/Carolyn Wright with their $12,000 request for 4 photo's that were NOT taken from their site nor were they cropped as the letter claims, they were found that way.  The staff member who copied them found the pictures on general Google picture searches and none were marked as copyrighted.  I know that doesn't excuse it. 

I've reviewed a lot of information on this site today and would like to know if anyone has any idea of Photo Attorney's actual lawsuits filed?  Any information would be nice, thanks.

[MikeD]

Who is the photographer they are representing? 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

If it's Mcginnins you could be in for a battle.. 

[SoylentGreen]

Anyone here know any details about Ryan McGinnis?
Is there anything novel in his approach?
Or, is he just another "Getty Clone"? 

Thanks,

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

He's a professional photographer, known for registering all of his images, and apparently has jumped on the bandwagon, by retaining well known IP attorney C. Wright. I wouldn't be surprised if he's using pic scout, as it seems in just the last few days his presence is brought to the surface with at least 1 suit filed and 1 letter sent from his attorney. I did some quick research and see that he has well over 1500 registered images and also a slew of collections registered. While I agree that photogs need to protect their work, I can't help but think this is way over the top and just another case of someone adopting GI business model.

[MikeD]

Ryan McGinnis is a photographer from Nebraska.  He does a lot of forum posting under the name chakalakasp.

Google "chakalakasp + copyright" and you'll get a ton of post by Ryan McGinnis.

Here is his method.

Bing Image search and Google Image search. Search for keywords that might contain your images. (This tends to work best with images of very specific things, of course.)

Google / Bing (non image) search: Search for your name. Search for any aliases you post under, such as your Flickr alias (many times, people will credit your photo, thinking that that's good enough.)

Look through your Flickr stats (if you are a Flickr Pro member). See where people are coming from. Go to those sites and look to see if your picture is there. Look at what keywords people are using to find your images in Google; then go to Google Image search and plug those keywords in.

Try Tineye. I haven't had much success with it, but Tineye does occasionally find infringements for me

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=773253

You get the impression that the guy puts his photos out on Flickr, his blog and on forums, then waits for people to use his images so that he can go after them.

Perhaps he makes more money going after people than by actually being a productive member of society.  His advice is almost comical, it's like he could set up his own photo franchising business teaching photographers how to toss their images all over the net and then how to track people down who use the images and threaten them for $12k!

[MikeD]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/970/1071/1600/_MG_2291WEB.jpg

http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/lincoln-nebraska-by-night.html

In that pdf that Matthew posted , Ryan McGinnis claims that his image was watermarked and shows the watermarked image on his Flickr catalog.

Check that link out, that is his personal blog with the image in question that he is threatening the  one guy for $9k and Rentech Solutions.  

As you can see there is no watermark on his own image.  That's not going to help his case.

[SoylentGreen]

Nice work by MikeD.  Well done indeed!

This is why everyone who receives a demand letter should check all the facts carefully.

Even if you receive a demand letter from a well-known and respected attorney, do your research.
I'm not implying that attorney Wright was aware of the online existence of the unwatermarked photo, mind you.

But, people make mistakes, people won't tell you everything, and a demand letter is just a "letter".
It's not a court document wherein testimony is "sworn".

I also find it interesting how forum participant "sumtime" mentioned (above) that he/she didn't crop the photos in their case either.

I know that Mr McGinnis has some copyrighted photos.
Now, it's time to really find out if this photo is legitimately copyrighted.

S.G.

[MikeD]

http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1425

Even on the Photo Attorney website Carolyn Wright states that you should register your photos within three months of the first publication of the picture.

I like how she also states that actual damages usually don't amount to much so that attorneys will not take your infringement case on a contingency basis and I'm guessing they took Ryan McGinnis' case on a contingency case.

[sumtime]

I also find it interesting how forum participant "sumtime" mentioned (above) that he/she didn't crop the photos in their case either.

I know that Mr McGinnis has some copyrighted photos.

The photos that we used were not McGinnis' photos.  They are another client the Photo Attorney.

I am still in the research stage and some of you seem like you really understand the research side more.  Can anyone advise where to check the copyright without calling the attorney involved?

[MikeD]

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

You can try this search, but odds are they registered their photos in bulk so you'll have no idea if the photos in questions are in that bulk registration.

[sumtime]

MikeD

Searched that and couldn't find any copyrights under the Photographer name, nor under the company name...any ideas?  Broke the search down into very minimal key words and then sorted through them without luck.

[SoylentGreen]

With regard to finding images on the copyright database, the system seems to be hit-and-miss.
Sometimes, it's easy to find things, other times, it's difficult to find documents unless one knows exactly what to search for.
Sometimes, documents are "pending", and aren't listed as yet.

Oscar mentioned in one of his postings that those sending the demands don't have an obligation to forward the copyright information.  That's true of course.
I'd like to add that there is an expectation that the parties involved will make all reasonable attempts to settle their issues before going to court.
That would include the exchange factual information that would facilitate a fair settlement.

So, you should ask for actual proof of the copyright information if that will help you deal with the issues at hand.
Should they withhold such information, it could very well hurt their chances in court, if they choose to go that route.
So, they do have an interest in proving their case.  It's not just about the demand letter recipient proving his/her innocence.
No counsel for the plaintiff wants to hear that the issue could have been settled amicably outside of court if only they had cooperated with the defendant.

I only mention "court" here, as demand letters always make the threat of "court", whether or not it's practical.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Furthermore, I have viewed collections of images registered in bulk on the database.  Each image had a separate document and number, within the collection itself.
But, I'm wondering if this is always the case?  Are collections sometimes registered in bulk, but without documents or descriptors for each of the individual images in the collection?

Thanks in advance.

S.G.

[Oscar Michelen]

Great dialogue on this issue folks! SG:  it was this lack of identification of authorship of each image that cost Corbis to lose the Muensch case (among other reasons). If I take all the images and I register them in bulk I may not need to identify them all separately.  But that does not change that all I have done is register the entire compilation.  The copyright Act is clear to me that this form of bulk registration does not give individual registration to the individual images. 
On the issue of when he registered them, all that matters is that they are registered at the time of the infringement not the time of first publication.

[SoylentGreen]

Thanks again for taking time out of your busy day to respond, Oscar.
This "bulk registration" issue is pretty interesting.
If the stock image companies (and others) abandon this method of registration, it'll be tough to fight them.

S.G.