Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law

[djl]

I too received a letter from Lynn Burke. Need help verifying copyright. Registration # VAu 1-244-944 application date 11/30/2015, registration date 11/30/2015. I cannot confirm this is valid. Can anyone take a look please?

[fed up]

Hi djl,

Here is a little help. I was deceived into one image from Google advanced image search and I dug up a little info. that I think I can use in my lawsuit depending on where it goes. picserver.org has many, many website search snippets with free to use for commercial and to modify. No terms or obligations on the snippet. This website search snippet is where Google picks up the images for placement on their advanced image search. Now, this scam artist company is optimizing their images free to use for commercial and to modify without obligation to gain top presence in Google Advanced Image Search. I cannot believe that Google has allowed this for so long. I am starting to put the pieces together now.

Maybe someone can help here, but has Google been warned about this sabotage and incorrect labeling and filtering that so many are being abused and hit with duress and extortion from?? Has Go Daddy been warned? I'm starting to write my letters and assumed people were before. This whole thing is shocking to me. I am going to call a few class action attorneys soon too. Not saying they can or will take the case, but I can prove that picserver.org is filling their website search snippets and meta descriptions to place high on pages filtered and labeled for free use for commercial purposes and able to be modified.

Now, here is where it gets sticky for Mr. Youngson. He has had a law suit and an enormous amount of settlement letters and threats that have gone out where he had to have been warned about the sabotage and deception of his optimization and free to use commercially verbage that was used to put his images on the front page in image searches due to these false advertising website search snippets. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how in the heck is this legal? There has to be some law against false advertising to be followed up by pure extortion and duress, large settlements, and financial gain???

The proof is in all the website search snippets aimed to optimize and advertise for free use without obligation. That is how they get in Google Advanced Image Search and the bigger infraction he should be responsible for is KNOWING IT and continuing the practice. One might say it has become a business for him.

So many legal questions: When did Google know about this? Hell, do they know about this? How in the world do these attorneys extorting money from poor fools like me not know about these snippets and their intent?

I have a lot of letters to write and so should everyone else on here. There could be relief imo. Google, Godaddy, The FCC, class action attorneys. I will do my part to halt this sabotage. I hope everyone else will too!

Hey djl, here is my free to use car. Go drive it and have fun....... Officer, that man (djl) stole my car. All you need is a video camera or in this case a picture of those website search snippets and those images on google advanced image search nicely placed for all the fools to use only to be abused and extorted from at a later date.

I don't know the legal terms yet, but sounds a lot like false advertising, lying and extortion, fraud, blackmail, etc. They are planning the deception and then extorting money through duress and fear. Just be sure and give him back his car and don't lose your evidence. Damn crooks!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Good luck with the class action, let us know how that works out, might want to read up on thatto learn how they work first...just sayin...

"False advertising"?? I think this would apply to something you purchase that does not perform or work in the way advertised...these are FREE images we're talking about here, as of now other than your time, you haven't spent a nickel on any of this...I think you need to take a step back, and refocus your energy's what to do to remedy the immmediate situation..just my opinion.

[fed up]

Oh really, the images are free? If they were really free, many of us would not have this problem. His images and work are commercial, so his work is for the purpose of making money. He is advertising/promoting/optimizing. He is falsely advertising many images on snippets that are incorrectly filtered and labeled through Google as free however you wish with no obligations. He knows this and he continues to do this. His intent is to optimize the images in Google advanced image search under free to use however you wish and he is not illustrating any obligations in the snippets for the letters of directory of images. Planned sabotage if I have ever seen it!

[UnfairlyTargeted]

Class action is an awesome idea.  There must be hundreds of victims of this scam who paid out money to a troll.

Someone could gather up a list of the most prolific photographer trolls in these forums and name them all as defendants.  Don't go after the law firms.  You won't win there.  Go after the ones seeding the internet with their images and then calling up the law firms.  Show them that sending any sort of demand is very dangerous.  Also, they'll be much more likely to settle easily than the law firms after their names are dragged through the mud and their plundered treasure threatened.

Further I'd venture anyone who has ever received a demand letter from a named troll could receive part of the settlement.  I once got a settlement check in the mail for someone spam calling me.  The class doesn't need to have spent money to qualify for a payout from the trolls.

[Ethan Seven]

Class action is fantasy land talk.  I can see no basis for it in law... not even on a bad TV show.

Think about just this part:

Your class would profess to be a group of people who did not comply with a license and then were harmed because they thought it was a good idea to settle a claim that they believed had no merit. 

The problem should be obvious.

[UnfairlyTargeted]

The point fed up and I are making is there are many trolls who are actually putting their copyrighted work online and intentionally labeling it as free to use.  In the case of Schwabel, he's put it onto completely free sites without any terms whatsoever.  Youngson seems to be a little different because of the attribution requirement.  But in both cases and I'm sure hundreds of others the trolls are seeding their work to ENCOURAGE infringement and then extorting a disproportionate amount of money from hundreds of victims.

The fact that they've made a business model from extorting settlements should be obvious.

[UnfairlyTargeted]

Oh, and the class would also include people who had been harassed for years and perhaps even had to pay for legal consultation before realizing the whole thing was a giant racket and scam.  The class isn't just people who actually caved and paid.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Class action is fantasy land talk.  I can see no basis for it in law... not even on a bad TV show.

Think about just this part:

Your class would profess to be a group of people who did not comply with a license and then were harmed because they thought it was a good idea to settle a claim that they believed had no merit. 

The problem should be obvious.

THIS

[A Lawyer]

If there was something to sue for, wouldn't somebody have figured it out by now?

Think about it this way. Guys like Higbee, Getty, etc. probably send out thousands and thousands of letters and probably file hundreds of lawsuits. I know not everyone hires a lawyer, but a lot probably do, and of those who get sued, I would bet that most do. Some of those letters and lawsuits are probably going to big companies with lots of resources and who probably have full-time salaried lawyers, so it would not cost them much money to litigate. Even if a fraction of those who receive letters hire a lawyer, that's still probably hundreds of different lawyers who have dealt with these cases. So despite the fact that hundreds and hundreds of smart sophisticated lawyers have gone up against these people, some of whom represent large companies with enough cash to fight hard if they wanted to, not one has ever sued or even so much as alleged a counterclaim after being sued as far as I can tell.

One more thing to think about. Youngson and RM Media are in England right? In order to sue, the court you sue in has to have jurisdiction over the person or entity you are suing. You would run the risk of them challenging jurisdiction and getting the lawsuit immediately dismissed. That's not to say that no court has jurisdiction, but you can't just run down to the local courthouse and file a lawsuit and expect it to automatically stick. Additionally, if you sued them you would have to serve them with the complaint and summons. I have never had to serve someone in England, but I have dealt with service in other foreign countries, and it can be complicated, to say the least.

On a final note, it costs $400 to file a lawsuit in Federal court. I suppose you could always go self-represented if no lawyer wants to take your case. I would caution against it mostly because class actions are very complicated procedurally, and lots of judges hate self-represented litigants because they generally don't follow the court rules and don't know what they are doing.

I know it all seems unfair, but the law allows it to be that way. Even if you were to fight and win, as we have seen on these boards, some new player will inevitably enter the fray and take their place. In my opinion, you would be better served writing your congressman about changing the law than you would by filing an expensive time-consuming lawsuit that you have little chance of winning.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

If there was something to sue for, wouldn't somebody have figured it out by now?

I've been actively posting and a member of this forum for over 9 years, the subject comes up on a regular basis, bottom line is it's not going to happen.

[Zeke]

I really think it's not in anyone's best interest to use the "Google said it was free" defense. Even for images that have been labeled for reuse and modification, Google specifically says "Images may be subject to copyright". When you use an image it is on you to make sure you follow the source of the image and understand the license being offered for that image.

[Matthew Chan]

Totally agree here. Blaming Google is not going to make anyone sympathetic to anyone's case. Certainly not from me.

I really think it's not in anyone's best interest to use the "Google said it was free" defense. Even for images that have been labeled for reuse and modification, Google specifically says "Images may be subject to copyright". When you use an image it is on you to make sure you follow the source of the image and understand the license being offered for that image.

[Matthew Chan]

No one is going to hear me oppose the notion that some of these characters (especially those who have unknown, low-value works) hope for and encourage infringement and jump on the extortion letter bandwagon. I do believe SOME (not all) parties engage in seeding the Internet to entice people to using images thereby creating "infringements" that would not otherwise exist.

I personally think Nick Youngson/RM Media found himself a nice little income niche here riding on people's ignorance of the Creative Commons system.  How many $10 images do you have to sell to equate to a $2,500 settlement, right?  Hell, despite all these infringements going on, he wants to acquire more images!  That means more opportunities for people to "slip and fall" in Creative Commons system and more potential for his income!

The point fed up and I are making is there are many trolls who are actually putting their copyrighted work online and intentionally labeling it as free to use.  In the case of Schwabel, he's put it onto completely free sites without any terms whatsoever.  Youngson seems to be a little different because of the attribution requirement.  But in both cases and I'm sure hundreds of others the trolls are seeding their work to ENCOURAGE infringement and then extorting a disproportionate amount of money from hundreds of victims.

The fact that they've made a business model from extorting settlements should be obvious.