Pixsy demand email

[Mike000]

Hi All,
  Thank you for this thread. We are right now going through this same exact thing with these folks. So Zeke: did you say you recently registered your DMCA? We had one from years ago, but after being contacted by these... folks... I went in and noticed it had old info and updated it with new dbas and our updated address, and for some reason it does not show as being in affect until a couple of weeks ago as their rep pointed out, thus claiming it was not in effect at the time of the violation, and thus not legit. Apparently this was not an issue in your case? Any additional info on that landmark case mentioned by someone else a few posts earlier?
  In our situation, we host something similar to a blog/magazine with regular weekly/monthly columnists who submit periodic stories using our standard templates with their own photos and text. Much of it, including all the photos are provided directly by their news sources (government reps/departments, multi-million$ corps, Press releases, etc.).
 These Pix folks came up with one photo among thousands on our domain, taken by a small-time photographer, currently with a website (haven't checked how long it was up), that was submitted to our writer by one of the major corporations about 2 years ago. Perhaps they paid for the rights to it - perhaps their PR person stole it - we don't know for sure other than that it was provided by this major company.  Unfortunately the company was recently sold out to a competitor, so no one who would have had a clue is still there. It included a typical photographer embedded copyright logo/notice (which the Pix-folks claimed is a watermark), as do all photos we allow including those taken by the authors themselves, indicating the photographer, so no one thought twice about it.
  I told Pix this, and to go after these other folks. They responded that WE were responsible for pursuing any monetary assistance from them. I refrained from responding what I wanted to, but I have ignored their latest threats to refer it to their attorneys and tack on attorney fees, etc. 
  The Pix-folks claimed that the one on our domain was a copy of the one on the photographer's website, but the one on ours is actually a wider view and different dimensions and of much better quality, suggesting that it WAS in fact obtained elsewhere.
  Where would I find the previously mentioned info about the photographer needing to register the copyright within a certain time limit after the photo was taken?
  I'm hoping this will be the extent of their contact, but any other feedback on what HAS worked, and/or suggestions for future procedure or something I may be missing either for against us, would be helpful for us and many others. This is a great thread and I think it should be maintained and archived for future use.

  Thanks again.
  Mike

[Zeke]

Hi All,
  Thank you for this thread. We are right now going through this same exact thing with these folks. So Zeke: did you say you recently registered your DMCA? We had one from years ago, but after being contacted by these... folks... I went in and noticed it had old info and updated it with new dbas and our updated address, and for some reason it does not show as being in affect until a couple of weeks ago as their rep pointed out, thus claiming it was not in effect at the time of the violation, and thus not legit. Apparently this was not an issue in your case? Any additional info on that landmark case mentioned by someone else a few posts earlier?
  In our situation, we host something similar to a blog/magazine with regular weekly/monthly columnists who submit periodic stories using our standard templates with their own photos and text. Much of it, including all the photos are provided directly by their news sources (government reps/departments, multi-million$ corps, Press releases, etc.).
 These Pix folks came up with one photo among thousands on our domain, taken by a small-time photographer, currently with a website (haven't checked how long it was up), that was submitted to our writer by one of the major corporations about 2 years ago. Perhaps they paid for the rights to it - perhaps their PR person stole it - we don't know for sure other than that it was provided by this major company.  Unfortunately the company was recently sold out to a competitor, so no one who would have had a clue is still there. It included a typical photographer embedded copyright logo/notice (which the Pix-folks claimed is a watermark), as do all photos we allow including those taken by the authors themselves, indicating the photographer, so no one thought twice about it.
  I told Pix this, and to go after these other folks. They responded that WE were responsible for pursuing any monetary assistance from them. I refrained from responding what I wanted to, but I have ignored their latest threats to refer it to their attorneys and tack on attorney fees, etc. 
  The Pix-folks claimed that the one on our domain was a copy of the one on the photographer's website, but the one on ours is actually a wider view and different dimensions and of much better quality, suggesting that it WAS in fact obtained elsewhere.
  Where would I find the previously mentioned info about the photographer needing to register the copyright within a certain time limit after the photo was taken?
  I'm hoping this will be the extent of their contact, but any other feedback on what HAS worked, and/or suggestions for future procedure or something I may be missing either for against us, would be helpful for us and many others. This is a great thread and I think it should be maintained and archived for future use.

  Thanks again.
  Mike

Mike,

As I said before I basically just followed what was suggested here: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/protecting-yourself-against-copyright-claims-based-user-content .  I basically responded with nothing more than a "thank you" for the notification and I notified them of my actions (removed image, account holder has been notified of the claim). Although you had the best intentions, it sounds like you may have responded with a lot more info than required for a take-down notification.

Regarding the DMCA registration, it never came up and I never acknowledged that I was following the procedure of a DMCA take down. They recognized my actions were following DMCA procedures though as they were the ones that first acknowledged the DMCA as the reason for dropping the case. I wouldn't get too hung up on needing to update your DMCA designated agent information. The fact that Pixsy was able to contact you to make a claim shows that that any discrepancies in the record was not a barrier for the copyright holder to contact you.

[Zeke]

Thanks for all that you do Matthew!

Congratulations on having your case resolved.  My comments inline.

It's quite possible that Pixsy is playing some sort of "long game" here and will come back at me with this claim again or even a new claim. However, I'm hopeful this is the end.

That is paranoid thinking. There is no advantage for them to lie to you in this manner. If it is dropped and they told you, be happy and move on. It is almost as if you are asking for the to revive whatever case they had against you.

 My case would be an example that shows you're better off responding to the claim and acting in good faith. No matter who you are dealing with, don't let the threats of a bad actor control the actions you need to take when a claim of copyright infringement is made against you.

I generally tell people to respond and make strong arguments if there are facts that help your position. People who want to stay silent generally let the other side assume the worst. I have found that most victims have a very difficult time understanding this basic concept. They can't understand the concept of discussion, debate, and standing by your position to defuse the situation  vs. trying to beg and "convince" the other side to drop the case. Most of the time, people don't announce they will drop the case. They just quietly go away.  Nearly everyone wants the matter to be black and white which is almost never the case and leads to people foolishly settling when sometimes they don't need to.

The only actions I took were those required by law when a DMCA takedown notice is given. I wrote no more than a total of 10 sentences stretched across three emails. I made no mention in my emails of the claims I knew were false nor of the "solutions" Pixsy was offering because it's all irrelevant in a formal takedown process. My replies were a reflection that I "educated myself", knew the copyright holder's responsibilities, and knew my responsibilities. I think the rep from Pixsy knew (because I knew) the right thing to do legally and for their client was to move on and be satisfied that I promptly removed the image the user had uploaded to the website.

I would agree with your statement. Getting smart and giving informed responses go a long way to defusing any potential claims. They may never publicly admit it.  But having a good informed, educated, and firm response often goes a long way to "lessening" any claim and impetus to pursue certain parties.

I have seen so many people do absolutely dumb things like copy template letters from the Internet and send them in.  It does nothing except show the sender of that letter how lazy and uninformed they are. They think the recipients of the letter will sudden by stopped in their tracks by a widespread template latter.