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

[Matthew Chan]

Oscar brought this brand-new "player " to my attention.  It appears attorney Carolyn Wright has started her own law firm and joined "Team Copyright Troll" representing photographer Ryan McGinnis.

This sort of reminds me of how young attorney Brandon Sand from San Diego, made his debut here on ELI with his 5-figure settlement figure.

PhotoAttorney.com's Carolyn Wright has hung herself a new shingle representing photographers trolling the web. I have to admit, she produces a good-looking extortion letter.

http://extortionletterinfo.com/photo-attorney-extortion-letter.pdf

Getty Images seems like a great deal when you compare to Carolyn Wright's generous offer to settle for $9,000.

[SoylentGreen]

I guess that it shouldn't surprise anyone that the copyright troll phenomenon is expanding.

That law firm should copyright the letter that you posted.  That way they can charge royalties if Brandon Sand uses it.
I don't think that any professional should post their work on Flickr, as it's like an invitation for people to just grab photos as clip-art.
Although we all all know that's not a defense.

The photo looks like shite, and it's hardly worth $9000.  Love that 'historic concrete' with it's lovely grey patina.

The one thing in common with most other demand letters, it doesn't list anything (that I could see) about copyright registration.
So, it's basically a joke.

S.G.

[Katerina]

Nice joke for $9000!!!! They are insane!
The more I read things like this, the more I believe that the copyright law MUST be revised! If it will be left in the way as it is now, more and more emand letters will be produced! The government should limit the activity of these firms by requiring sending cease and desist letters first!
Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Helpi]

At least I've heard of King & Spalding. I would not underrate her.

[Helpi]

"Nice joke for $9000!!!! They are insane!"

I doubt Wright took the case unless the image was registered. The Court can go up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement. Do you know the facts alleged ?

Anyone have access to the letter mind posting it ?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

She is indeed very well known with Professional Photographers, I would not take her lightly either, I also believe the image in question is registered with the US Copyright Office, or they wouldn't be asking for so much. My thinking is the price goes up on any registered images, cause they have much more leeway.

[theisgroup]

At least I've heard of King & Spalding. I would not underrate her.

funny that is the firm that represents me

[SoylentGreen]

Hi All,

I respectfully diagree with the statement that, "I also believe the image in question is registered with the US Copyright Office, or they wouldn't be asking for so much. My thinking is the price goes up on any registered images, cause they have much more leeway."

People ask for as much money as they can, regardless of copyright standing.  I's dangerous to equate greed with standing, as every copyright troll would raise their demands in order to look "legitimate".

I always get a laugh when I see the strongly-worded legal demands that quote broad sections of the Copyright Act.  All the legal standing that CTRL-C and CTRL-P can muster.  After all the threatening legal boilerplate?  Nothing.  No proof of copyright.

No proof means that you don't pay.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Greetings S.G,
You certainly make some valid points, and my thinking could certainly be flawed! ( and probably is) My assumption that the image in question is most likely registered stems from the fact that it is stated in the letter, and yes you are correct that this really means nothing and is certainly not proof, I also took the time to search the US copyright site for the artist in question and he has loads of registered images, furthering my belief that this one would be included, why would he go thru the hassle of registering over 1500 images, but not this one??.. I do agree with you 100% that the trolls will seek as much money $ as possible, regardless of the facts or burden of proof..

Hi All,

I respectfully diagree with the statement that, "I also believe the image in question is registered with the US Copyright Office, or they wouldn't be asking for so much. My thinking is the price goes up on any registered images, cause they have much more leeway."

People ask for as much money as they can, regardless of copyright standing.  I's dangerous to equate greed with standing, as every copyright troll would raise their demands in order to look "legitimate".

I always get a laugh when I see the strongly-worded legal demands that quote broad sections of the Copyright Act.  All the legal standing that CTRL-C and CTRL-P can muster.  After all the threatening legal boilerplate?  Nothing.  No proof of copyright.

No proof means that you don't pay.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

The link to the redacted letter is on the very first post.

I doubt Wright took the case unless the image was registered. The Court can go up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement. Do you know the facts alleged ?

Anyone have access to the letter mind posting it ?

[SoylentGreen]

Good discussion here.

It may well be that the "$9000 image" is correctly registered.
However, it's prudent to take a few minutes and make a call/email the attorney involved in order to simply get the copyright registration number of the image.
If they cannot provide the info, then you've got your answer... it's a scam.

When one receives a letter from an attorney, it doesn't necessarily mean that the complaint has any merit, even if the attorney has a good reputation.
Attorneys are skilled in their respected areas of litigation, but they are simply paid to represent their client's point of view and interests.
I could pick out any image on the internet, call an attorney and have them send a demand letter to somebody.
I could be making the whole thing up; who knows?  Maybe some sucker will get scared into paying?
Now, it's not my intention to make light of the skills or ethics that attorneys must possess, which are indeed higher than that of many other professions.  But, it's a 'job'.

We may recall that Riddick of Imageline sent phony correspondence with an attorney's name on it.
The attorney in question didn't even know who Riddick was when inquiries were made.

Now, everything may be perfectly legitimate here.  I don't know.
If it's legit, then there's a good chance that a fair out-of-court settlement is the best response.

But, there's a whole industry built around the copyright settlement demand letter scheme and a significant percentage of them have no legal basis.
People need to protect themselves by doing research before making a settlement, or paying large legal fees.
Don't be so naive as to think that there aren't scammers who'll do anything to take your money.
My main concern with this entire situation is that the more that people pay when they do not need to, the more the dark side of this industry grows.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Good discussion here.

My main concern with this entire situation is that the more that people pay when they do not need to, the more the dark side of this industry grows.

S.G.

you hit the nail on the head here! Nothing frazzles me more than hearing of people that cave in, and open their wallets..without first getting educated and learning what options are available. the more people pay the more paper and toner they can buy to print their demands!

[Helpi]

"The link to the redacted letter is on the very first post."

Yes, thank you. 

The 1202 claim by the way is independent of the infringement claim. And it requires no registration of the image.

Oscar you might want to educate people on pitfalls of stripping CMI.

[Helpi]

Matt, you think every case is "trolling" whatever that means. The more I read this board the more I realize online infringement is rampant. Go Carolyn !

[Matthew Chan]

HELPI,

If you don't understand the colloquialism of "trolling" then go visit EFF's site.  They cover it in depth. Online infringement is probably rampant. I find it hard to disagree with that.

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

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.  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.

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.  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.

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. 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.

This community doesn't just exist so we can just piss and moan about it.  There is actually something being built up here. Information exchange is one of those items and sniffing out the truth is the other.  Education is also a big component. And make no mistake, there are LOTS of confidentiality agreements employees are made to sign on the "other side" to protect their racket which Oscar and I and my follow ELI cohorts are determine to uncover.

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.

Matthew

Matt, you think every case is "trolling" whatever that means. The more I read this board the more I realize online infringement is rampant. Go Carolyn !