RM Media LTD Creative Commons Copyright Statement

[Ethan Seven]

I just saw this on RM Media’s website.  It predates the filing of the NY case.  But may have been posted in anticipation of it.

http://rmmedia.ltd.uk/why-rm-media-ltd-uses-creative-commons-licenses/

Why RM Media Ltd Uses Creative Commons Licenses

Every month tens of thousands of people use our images to add meaning, interest and value to their website or other marketing material.  There are nearly 2,000,000 of our images in use on the internet.

Our image library consist of more than 30,000 images.   A portion of these images can be licensed by either paying a modest price or complying with a Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. 

We are proud to make some of our images available via a CC BY-SA 3.0 license.   The link required as a condition to use our images provides us significant value because backlinks to our websites help our websites perform well in search engines.    The required attribution also helps build our brand and increases the use of our images.

Of course, it also makes us feel good to share.   The CC BY-SA 3.0 license makes our images available to those who cannot or would rather not pay money to use them.   The CC BY-SA 3.0 license also allows users to improve or modify our images to meet their individual needs.

The CC BY-SA 3.0 license is a simple industry standard license that is clearly summarised in 56 words (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).   Our labelling of our images as CC BY-SA 3.0 is clear with each page containing six or more references to the license and attribution requirements. As a result, our images have been properly licensed millions of times.   

Making intellectual property available via a Creative Commons license is something that government and courts encourage.  Every country and court that has addressed the issue has confirmed that offering a Creative Commons license does not diminish the copyright owner’s right to protect their property. 

Despite the clarity and simplicity of the licensing requirements, a small percentage of users choose to not comply with our licensing requirements. Just like any other copyright holder or business, we must take steps to protect our business and intellectual property.

Accordingly, we do enforce our copyrights against some users who do not properly license our images.  Historically, we have only initiated enforcement against those businesses who do not license the image and then use our images to make a profit.  While we have been forced to file lawsuits, we only do so after making several attempts to resolve the matter outside of court. We have never knowingly pursued claims against those who have used our images for personal, non-commercial projects. 

We are very proud and grateful for all those who properly licensed our images.   The proper licensing allows us to continue to create new and highly useful images.  We look forward to continuing to make many of our wildly popular images available via a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, and, hopefully, providing inspiration for more creators to do the same.

[Matthew Chan]

Youngson/RM Media has made several website "tweaks" over the last couple years based on "feedback" they have been getting.

Given how cheap his images are, people who get demand letters should just go pay the $10 for the image, obtain the license, and get the receipt even if it is after the fact.

AS far as I am concerned, he is full of shit.  He has bastardized the intent of Creative Commons and flipped it on its head. I couldn't figure out the website, the bogus banner ads, who owned the website, whose image it was, etc.  I was fooled by his websites for a while when this all began coming out. He has become more "transparent" only because he has been loudly called out for fooling and misleading people.

And he comfortably stays out of the reach of most people by doing this from the UK.  People should be very, very pissed. RM Media is Nick Younson, period, end of story. If he is smart, he won't target UK people because they would be very close to him. Right now, he can and does tag American victims all day long with Higbee's help.

Higbee has many clients and I see the claims but this one, by far, is the most offensive and disgusting as far as I am concerned.  He sells his images for $10 all day long and conspires with Higbee to collect thousands of dollars. And they actually think they deserve it simply because people missed the Creative Commons fine print over attribution. It is very clearly a "gotcha" trap to collect thousands of dollars over $10 images.

Victims should contact the folks at Creative Commons and inform them of how Youngson bastardizes and brings negative publicity to the entire Creative Commons name and their system. I certainly tell people to avoid the CC system altogether because Youngson has proven that it can be used and abused as a legal trap. Creative Commons is clearly a flawed system and Youngson is riding their coattails to profit from the bastardization of the system.

https://creativecommons.org/about/contact/

https://creativecommons.org/about/team/

As far as I am concerned, he has hijacked the Creative Commons name by incorporating it into one of his URLs. Not sure if Creative Commons has been trademarked or not. But it would be interesting to know what the non-profit company thinks about how Youngson is using and profiting from unintended infringements. But victims need to bring it to their attention.

[Ethan Seven]

It looks like they have raised some of their prices too.  Some images are $249. 

RM Media has filed several lawsuits in US Federal Courts and is selling products in the US (I assume), so they are not out of reach from a legal, personal jurisdiction standpoint, but they are probably an expensive hassle to serve.

Being abroad with US counsel is a big advantage in these types of situations.   For those on the defense, it makes the normal temptation to simply negotiate down the price and to settle much more tempting.

[icepick]

I don't know about that, if any defendant has some balls and goes to trial RM Media will need to produce someone to testify in court, their attorney obviously can't testify for them. Travelling across the ocean, getting a hotel, spending 1-? days in court can add up fast for a $250 license judgment and while they may get attorney fees I don't think they will get their travel expenses back, win or lose.

[DavidVGoliath]

It takes a long time for a case to actually reach that juncture.

I'm an EU resident and have filed a few claims in courts outside my country of residence, and I have yet to be compelled to attend in person, being that all of my court cases to date wound up settling during the court-mandated mediation/arbitration phase; the court representatives have always been happy for me to video conference with them, so long as my lawyer is physically present.

With that said, I always know that mediation might fail and, because of that possibility, I ensure that I have monies set aside for attending in person during trial proceedings before I even file suit. All civil litigation has attendant risks, and you have to be prepared to absorb those risks.

I'm not sure if Youngson can stomach those risks - it certainly looks like he favours fast results over principled litigation.