Hi,
I got a 15K$ extortion mail from Higbee similar to the one that 'target' member complained about (photographer claim). Here are facts about my situation:
1. The page that is mentioned in a claim contained a thumbnail image (preview) of a YouTube video + title of this video + link to the page where this YouTube video can be viewed. It means that my server didn't host an image. Title of the video is hiding about 20% of image's bottom in a shade.
2. As this image is a THUMBNAIL, it has very small size (less than 15 kilobytes, about 400x300 pixels) and blurred / low quality.
3. I've check Google Analytics, this page was viewed less than 5 times during a short period of existence.
4. Content was removed same day the notice was received.
5. The video that was used by YouTube to generate a thread thumbnail (that inlined by my page) still exists at YouTube (and there are dozens or may be even more). I've made a search by image and found hundreds of websites that use this thumbnail and their pages appear in google search with this thumbnail.
I would appreciate your advice (give response or ignore). My investigation has shown that in most of the cases thumbnails were recognized by courts as a fair use (Google Image service etc.):
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/#artwork_visual_arts_and_audiovisual_cases
Fair use. A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important factors: The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to help the public access the images by indexing them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003).)
Fair use. A Google search engine did not infringe a subscription-only website (featuring nude models) by reproducing thumbnails. Important factors: The court of appeals aligned this case with Kelly v. Arriba-Soft (above), which also permitted thumbnails under fair use principles. (Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).)
I got a 15K$ extortion mail from Higbee similar to the one that 'target' member complained about (photographer claim). Here are facts about my situation:
1. The page that is mentioned in a claim contained a thumbnail image (preview) of a YouTube video + title of this video + link to the page where this YouTube video can be viewed. It means that my server didn't host an image. Title of the video is hiding about 20% of image's bottom in a shade.
2. As this image is a THUMBNAIL, it has very small size (less than 15 kilobytes, about 400x300 pixels) and blurred / low quality.
3. I've check Google Analytics, this page was viewed less than 5 times during a short period of existence.
4. Content was removed same day the notice was received.
5. The video that was used by YouTube to generate a thread thumbnail (that inlined by my page) still exists at YouTube (and there are dozens or may be even more). I've made a search by image and found hundreds of websites that use this thumbnail and their pages appear in google search with this thumbnail.
I would appreciate your advice (give response or ignore). My investigation has shown that in most of the cases thumbnails were recognized by courts as a fair use (Google Image service etc.):
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/#artwork_visual_arts_and_audiovisual_cases
Fair use. A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important factors: The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to help the public access the images by indexing them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003).)
Fair use. A Google search engine did not infringe a subscription-only website (featuring nude models) by reproducing thumbnails. Important factors: The court of appeals aligned this case with Kelly v. Arriba-Soft (above), which also permitted thumbnails under fair use principles. (Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).)