New Settlement Demand Letter by Attorney Peter T. Holt of Roseville, CA

[Matthew Chan]

WE have a brand new settlement demand letter on behalf of Hawaiian Art Network.

Attorney Peter T. Holt of Roseville, CA has an ultra-sophisticated website: http://peterholtlaw.com/

It seems to match his equally sophisticated form letter:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/71069382/Attorney-Peter-T-Holt-Settlement-Demand-Letter

Once again, special thanks to yet another ELI community member for their contribution.

[Biopharm]

To add to this, the photo in question is 170x150 pixels (thumbnail) on a deep seeded page on a website that has been live for about 4 months.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Here's my theory on this situation...Keep in mind i'm not an attorney, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night!

Being that the image in question here is listed on literally dozens of "free" wallpaper sites for "free" download and the fact that a good amount of these images also have a snippet of code, to put the image on your site, is probably leading many to believe, if there is a download button, and a link that clearly states, the code can be used to put the image on your site, that the images is indeed free to use...

As many of us know by using the code and linking the image on your page, would not constitute an infringement.

I think this is a form of entrapment, and the photog is seeding all of these wallpaper sites, then using picscout or Tineye to look for the image on the web that are not using the embed code..and sending the letter, revenue from this would clearly be much more than what getty would offer.

Simply put this is being used as a business model!.

One other thing to note is that many of these "free" wallpaper sites do have the info clearly available for a DMCA Takedown, so they are pretty much protected. I also notice most of these sites have no information regarding the download and usage of the images. Would a judge if presented with a list of these sites, containing the "free" downloads and code snippets see it the same way? My guess would be yes he would, and this lawfirm/photog would have no standing..

thoughts? input??

[SoylentGreen]

There was a woman who posted here a little ways back describing a similar situation.
She stated that the photographer admitted that he was purposely seeding his images onto wallpaper sites and then extorting money.
She also said that he stated that he made a good living at it.

S.G.

[Biopharm]

This is great information.
I also can not find this photo for sale anywhere online. I've looked everywhere and just can't seem to find it for sale on any website nor even the artist's website himself.
dennis flaherty twilight-color-at-emerald-bay-lake-tahoe

[SoylentGreen]

Further to the discussion about "wallpaper" sites, here's the posting that I spoke of:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,1631.msg1631/topicseen.html#msg1631

Interesting reading...

S.G.

[Canada Bob]

There was a woman who posted here a little ways back describing a similar situation.
She stated that the photographer admitted that he was purposely seeding his images onto wallpaper sites and then extorting money.
She also said that he stated that he made a good living at it.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was indeed a significant part of the business model for many of the Getty & co clones after reading the PicScout pamphlet someone posted awhile back which stated that companies like Hawaii now derive 50% of their revenue from 'recovered revenue'.  Sure, what they are doing may ultimately be legal but morally I think it's pathetic especially since I would think most alleged infringers do not do it knowingly.

I've heard the argument that essentially says, for example, if a car door (eg. GI) was unlocked it doesn't mean you have the right to go inside and take something or steal the car.  True, but if that really did happen you (GI) would have a hard time making a claim with the insurance companies around here as they would deem you partially responsible and not give you (GI) a $0.01.

They (GI) also need to take responsibility and protect their assets.  The more I hear about others being extorted just peeves me off even more about how these companies do 'business'.  That is not a 'business', I run a business and know how to make a positive impact in society, what they are doing is indeed a scam / extortion.  Gives me even more resolve to continue fighting them.  Sorry for the rant!

[Oscar Michelen]

I have dealt with Hawaiian art on one or two cases and I think they are looking to expand this as a business model.  Certainly if you can show that hey did not protect their "work" by allowing it to proliferate on various free wallpaper sites etc. or even better if you can prove that they purposely allowed these images to appear on their to promote their website or whatever reason then a judge will de-value the damages that they would be entitled to or maybe even deem that they are not allowed to complain about the infringement.

[Matthew Chan]

Just so everyone is updated, Attorney Peter T. Holt has contacted ELI apparently objecting to his letter being shared and accusing us of calling him an "extortionist". That is ridiculous as we have not called anyone that. We openly refer to Settlement Demand Letters colloquially as "extortion letters". And that is the extent of it.

It sounds very similar to Blackline Lawyer Julie Stewart's complaints from Sunday, November 13.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.msg3687.html#msg3687


Oscar received his letter.  I have not seen it yet but I did get a failed FAX cover page that states 8 pages were to follow...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72739507/Peter-T-Holt-Failed-Fax-Cover-Page?in_collection=3340796

Matthew

[SoylentGreen]

These drama queens Stewart and Holt are really afraid of something.

I find it quite interesting that images which Hawaiian Art Network claims to own are also offered for sale elsewhere, as pointed out by Buddhapi:
http://www.webshots.com/pro/category/artist-vincent-khoury-tylor/nature-oceans

Such images can't be exclusively held by Hawaiian Art Network if the artist has also given permission for them to be sold on other commercial sites such as Webshots/American Greetings.
The "Turquoise Lagoon" photograph appears on both the Webshots site and the Hawaiian Art Network site, for example.  Yes, I checked.
That would mean that Hawaiian Art Network likely couldn't claim copyright infringement on those particular images.
Unless the artist has broken the contract.  Which is also a win for the alleged infringer.

Yes, the FREE images are interesting, too.  Even considering that there's probably "fine print" hidden somewhere, the free images dilute claims of large financial damages.
This could make the prospect of court impractical.

S.G.

[Biopharm]

I have dealt with Hawaiian art on one or two cases and I think they are looking to expand this as a business model.  Certainly if you can show that hey did not protect their "work" by allowing it to proliferate on various free wallpaper sites etc. or even better if you can prove that they purposely allowed these images to appear on their to promote their website or whatever reason then a judge will de-value the damages that they would be entitled to or maybe even deem that they are not allowed to complain about the infringement.

This definitely fits the profile regarding our infringement letter. Considering the single image in question is on over 50 websites for free download and also have free 'snippet of code' that you can use to place the image on your website. It was as if they were encouraging us to use the photo in question no doubt.

[Matthew Chan]

Everyone who is following this thread needs to go read the most current thread regarding Peter T. Holt contacting Oscar Michelen, the ELI website, and our rebuttals.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2357.0.html

Matthew