Carolyn and Evan Photoattorney

[cspears2838]

ok - I just received my demand letter from Evan and Carolyn.  They have a screenshot of a photo that was in an area of my site where users can upload photos.  The (c) was not readable as it was a white (c) on a white background.  As soon as I got the letter I took down the whole area of the site that has user uploaded photos.  As of right now I can't determine whether or not the photo existed on the site, for how long or who posted it or when.

They also sent me a copyright VAT number they say the photo is registered under.

They want $12k.  I told them I could track down the user who posted it if they gave me the date the photo was on my site or the photo URL. 

I recently registered a Copyright notification agent for our site - I also have a DMCA take down notice form on there.

What do you think I should do? 

Thanks,
Chris

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Did you register for the notification agent, prior to the infringement?, when was the screen capture dated? I don't know if there is any sort of window, to be covered by DMCA in a situation such as this. I'm assuming you are referring to Carolyn Wright? if so the image is most likely registered, she's very well respected in the photo world, and I doubt she would play games, and take on a case that did not have merit. Can I ask who the photographer was?

[cspears2838]

yes - carolyn wright.

I registered after they sent me the notice.  The photographer is Scott Sharick... the alleged photo was from his flikr page.   The date of the photo is greater than 3 months after the date of the registration.

The date of the screenshot is not dated.

Chris

[SoylentGreen]

I heard that Ms Wright sends out demand letters on a contingency basis.
Can anyone verify this?

If so, can we safely assume that a plaintiff would have to pay her for her time if he/she wanted to litigate?

i.e. it's dirt cheap to threaten, but it's another matter to make it a court case?

S.G.

[cspears2838]

This is what she has on her website

Photo Attorney offers services by the hour or by the package.

5. Copyright Infringement Claim Package – 1/3 of damages awarded/collected plus expenses before a lawsuit is filed; 45% after a lawsuit is filed plus expenses (subject to evaluation of claim)

[SoylentGreen]

Sounds like a one-stop shop for copyright trolling.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Wow, this is crazy. I'm not saying this IS what happened, but this could have happened:

Scott Sharick is a little tight on cash. He goes to the public library, creates an account on your forum, and posts one of his images. He contacts Carolyn. She sends you a letter and they try and roll you for 12 grand.

The perfect crime.

[MikeD]

It's good to see that Carolyn is raising her prices, the last one we heard about was $10k, this one was $12k.  Inflation is rampant at the Wright law office.

http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=2830

Nice little poll Carolyn has going on!

Also, her list of clients has more than doubled since I checked her site a few weeks ago.  I have a feeling that Photo Attorney is going to be a major player in the copyright trolling business.  I bet Evan's parents are so proud of him!

[MikeD]

http://www.collegefootballfansite.com

I'm guessing this is your website?  If so you're playing a bit loose with copyright infringement regardless, you have a lot of photos from the AP on your front page.  I'm also not sure what the rules are when you copy a few sentences of an article and then link to the actual story, like what you are doing.

Just be careful.

[SoylentGreen]

I like what mcfilms said.
We can all see how many unwitting people could be scammed.

S.G.

[SoylentGreen]

If a visitor to the site uploaded the photo in question, it seems to me that "cspears2838" would have a defense under the DMCA.
He's already registered a DMCA agent for the site.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

SG how familiar are you with DMCA and registered agents? I have some thought rolling around in my head, and could use some good feedback, once I unscramble the mess in my head.. I plan on creating a new post in regards to this at some point..

[SoylentGreen]

I'm familiar with it largely from my work on the Internet as a business person and a hobbyist.
But, you know how it is.  One would be considered an "expert" if he/she is a lawmaker, or a lawyer with trial experience in this regard.
Anything else might be considered "cursory" knowledge.

But, the DMCA is fairly mature, and has been tested.
So, there's lots of information about the law, and also actual court precedents too.
That way, with some research we can say things with some confidence if we can back up our statements with some useful evidence.

Readers should note that the DMCA is a US law.
In some cases, other countries make some analogies to this law, but the details are substantially different and are often untested.
Something that's unclear to me is whether or not one must register an agent with the copyright office to enjoy the benefits of the DMCA.

I found this Wikipedia article to be quite good.  Not everyone's a fan of wiki, but this is well-written I think.
The Youtube example can be understood by the layman:

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

Here's another article about registering an agent for DMCA purposes:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/04/04/designating-your-own-dmca-agent/

S.G.