A friend of ELI

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

nice to know we have allies in the copyright trolling fight!

http://www.naturalnews.com/040800_copyright_trolls_lawsuits_intellectual_property.html

[stinger]

Nice!  We need more sites in different industries that chase different interests to help popularize the fight.

The more people who know this is going on, the sooner we can get it stopped.

[Peeved]

Nice post. Love the highlights...

"Soon there were several inquires seeking legal help. Attorney Michelan and Chan both respect the spirit of copyright laws to protect the originator's income.

But the normal approach for an apparent or suspected copyright infringement is to send the alleged violator a cease and desist letter."


I found it interesting that McCormack found this article worthy of tweeting....
http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2013/05/30/key-west-association-wins-federal-copyright-case


Note the highlights:

“Rob Allen was not a member of the association and has never had a license to copy or display the content of the Association MLS database,” said KWAR General Counsel Wayne LaRue Smith in a statement released Wednesday. “The Association attempted to get Mr. Allen to cease and desist from his infringing activities in 2010, but he ignored the requests. At that point the association was determined to hold Mr. Allen accountable.”

Something McCormack law does not seem to "grasp" is the "cease and desist" part.

[DavidVGoliath]

Something McCormack law does not seem to "grasp" is the "cease and desist" part.

There's absolutely no requirement to send a Cease & Desist notice before initiating any actions for copyright infringements - though some entities choose to do so, as the "warning shot across the bow" can often serve as notice that you're taking the situation seriously but would prefer not to actually engage in anything formal.

Also, there are instances where a C&D might not be fitting; imagine if your work had been pilfered by a major corporation who actively protected and enforced their own copyrights. (I can think of a few) - I doubt anyone would fault you if your first actions were to file suit against them.

I've been in the position described above on a few occasions - though I haven't ever instructed anyone to file suit before at least informing the infringer of their actions and giving them a chance to do the right thing.... though if I ever found my work being used by Big Media without license, you can bet I'd shoot first and ask questions later.

[Peeved]

Something McCormack law does not seem to "grasp" is the "cease and desist" part.

There's absolutely no requirement to send a Cease & Desist notice before initiating any actions for copyright infringements -

I'm quite aware that there is no "requirement" to send a Cease & Desist notice prior to the "possibility" of an actual copyright infringement. My point was and is that even this "company" was given the "courtesy" of a "Cease & Desist" notice PRIOR to filing suit.

There is an old saying, "Let the punishment fit the crime".

Personally speaking, it is my opinion that anyone who is given an opportunity to "cease & desist" and made aware of an actual issue who then refuses to do so, deserves to get hit with a lawsuit for "willful" infringement! This of course is not the name of the game here as we are all very much aware as well.

Ya, I'll continue to "do the right thing"... GMAFB!

[Moe Hacken]

Peeved makes a good point. While the C&D is not required by law, it probably should be. Failure to respond to a C&D, in the case of a legitimate copyright infringement complaint, would appear to be bad faith and could be argued to be intentional infringement.

Another thing Timmy doesn't get is that it's wrong to lie to people to scare them into paying much more than what "fits the crime", or to attempt to force an overly onerous settlement by using "strategic litigation", a.k.a. "extortion".

[ruinedmyday]

So that blogger had to decide whether to hire a costly attorney, pay an upfront settlement fee to the attorney's office of $9,000, or ignore the letter and be trapped into paying a court enforced default penalty, which is then subject to collection harassment.

Court enforced default penalty? What is that all about?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

So that blogger had to decide whether to hire a costly attorney, pay an upfront settlement fee to the attorney's office of $9,000, or ignore the letter and be trapped into paying a court enforced default penalty, which is then subject to collection harassment.

Court enforced default penalty? What is that all about?

I interpret that to mean if the letter recipient elects to ignore it altogether, they would be hit with a default judgement...The only way this would happen is IF they filed suit first, and the then defendant still opted to ignore it after being served..then they may get a default judgement...but in reality a suit would not be filed, therefore negating this statement altogether.

[SoylentGreen]

I thought that DvG was gone after being exposed for a filthy troll.

He is right that a "cease desist" isn't required, though.
But, it's kind of a moot point, as it's ALWAYS included in the first communication, whether it's a lawsuit or not.
Content creators want their stuff taken down when an infringement happens.

Filing a lawsuit expectedly is extremely rare, as it's always more profitable to coerce the alleged infringer into paying without getting lawyers involved.
After all, you will often owe half of what you get to lawyers such as Wright.
Although, I guess that some people might get some satisfaction of the thought of a UFC-style legal sucker-punch.

S.G.

[Mulligan]

SG, I believe DvG's still around because he feels a moral obligation to educate everyone here on ELI about "doing the right thing" or, in his case, making sure he gets a settlement payment for any kind of "infringement" (be it innocent, de minimus, or egregious) of one of his bulk registered images.

I, for one, certainly appreciate having a settlement demand and collection agent professional like DvG around to help me better understand copyright issues from a photographer's point of view in the digital age!

Indeed, DvG's contributions on ELI speak for themselves, especially when he still hasn't provided specific answers to questions about how much time he spends on helping infringers do the right thing by threatening them with lawsuits if they don't cough up a "fair" license fee.

I don't know about you, SG, but I'd also still like to learn what percentage of his income results from his demand letters educational emails and letters to those who have allegedly infringed on one of his copyrights in comparison to the kind of money he's earning -- if I remember correctly -- for one of his exclusive shoots for Getty where he's "been the sole person with 'inside' access on the red carpet, at parties, closed door functions and so on."

[SoylentGreen]

I personally would also like to add that every photographer that has posted on this forum has really pounded people over the head with the usual scaremongering tactics.
But, that sort of thing just breeds distrust for photographers and their industry.  DvG has been caught in a bunch of lies already.
Are people really going to be more inclined pay people like him?  When he sounds like a scam-artist?

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Note "every photographer"....just sayin. 

[rpolsky]

 My understanding that a lawsuit against alleged copyright violation is  unusual,  does anyone know how frequently the law firm of photoattorney.com, Caroline Wright, has initiated legal action against violation for an innocent infringement of a single image? Currently, I am getting a lot of heat from  an attorney in this law firm, horrible harassment, phone calls in the middle of the night, and she's threatened me with a lawsuit unless I fork up the money. Any advice would be most appreciated

[DavidVGoliath]

Indeed, DvG's contributions on ELI speak for themselves, especially when he still hasn't provided specific answers to questions about how much time he spends on helping infringers do the right thing by threatening them with lawsuits if they don't cough up a "fair" license fee.

I'm not going to go into specifics because a) I don't want to and b) the terms of settlements with those whom I've brought suit against are confidential

But, if you'd like broad brush strokes, here's what's happened in the last three months

1. A settlement for almost $9,000 where a sports establishment in California used six of my photographs without permission. They were given the opportunity, after a lengthy phone call directly to them, to settle for less than 50% of what the images would have been legitimately licensed for, yet they thought I was a "scam artist"... until I filed suit. The case was settled just shy of going to trial during by a court-appointed mediator.

2. A settlement for $25,000 by a corporation in Canada who has used at least 25 of my photographs over a period of time (I think it was actually 36 uses, but of just 25 images). They initially refused to pay any license for my photographs at all, then finally made a direct offer of $300 "for whatever images our writers took off Google". This settlement offer came one week before the case was due to be heard in court.

3. Several settlements of lost license fees alone from direct contact with infringers, which is a win-win scenario. The per image fees were in the $100 ~ 200 range. Whilst this requires way more effort than folk just asking for a license in the first place, it sometimes results in new clients - so it's the result that I prefer the most.

4. Seven cases referred to my attorneys (six in the US, one in Canada) for people who have either not responded to my messages or have told me to 'get lost' (or some variation thereof)

5. Two cases where suit is on the brink of being filed if the infringers and/or their attorneys don't respond by month end... especially as one is a repeat infringer (seems you can't fix stupid)

Oh and yeah: I perform checks of whom has infringed on my works a few times per week. Mostly I don't find anything but, on some days, the results are in the dozens... and there's a ton of due diligence that I do before even making first contact.

You call it "trolling", I call it protecting my business interests and the value of my work. Everyone has a right to an opinion 

[SoylentGreen]

DvG, I don't think that people here have a problem with your efforts to protect your property and to get paid.
I think that the problem that people here have with you is that you are "experienced" in this area.
BUT, you've posted a great deal of misleading information intended to scare people into paying.
Ergo, you're lying to make money.  That's why you're defined as a troll.

S.G.