| Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program | |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I believe saying people are smart enough to know something is the opposite of condescending.
You are probably right that I underestimate the impact that social media has on some people’s mindset when they infringe. nevertheless, I still suspect that is a very small percentage who do not know the difference between sharing photos on social media and deploying them on a commercial website.
I believe that the overwhelming number of people who infringe do it based on assumptions that include, it feels like a victimless crime, it is easy to do, the chances of getting caught are small, they think if they get caught they will just get a warning, there are no major consequences if they do get caught, it is cheaper to infringe and deal with the rare consequences that it is to buy and track licenses. Many of those assumptions are probably true, but none are based on ignorance that it is a violation of copyright.
Regardless of their mental state, I am glad to offer my commentary.
You are probably right. I am sure there are some unsophisticated people running unsophisticated businesses that get themselves in trouble.
It just seems to me that the overwhelming people who are smart enough to do everything else it takes to start a business and deploy a website should be smart enough to know Google is not a source of free images.
The problem with those case is that they depend on the existence of a contract or a license. Both RM Media’s website terms and the language in the Creative Commons Contract state that no license is granted until attribution is given. They are conditions precedent to the granting of a license or formation of a contract. So, I do not think the provisions are relevant.
If the defendant were to provide the attribution and then remove the attribution, those provisions may govern, as a license would have been granted. However, I think the terms of the Creative Commons license RM Media uses states that the license is automatically revoked if attribution is removed. How enforceable that automatic revocation is, I don’t know.
I think minimum copyright damages for innocent infringement are $200+ something so something close to that might be worth it. Higbee got greedy in his ask of me and added an extra 0, so he’s going to have to earn it from me.
Notice how Chan does not answer the question about what states Oscar Michelin is licensed to practice in?
He cannot answer because Oscar Michelin and his law firm Cuomo LLC Law Firm are only licensed to practice law in New York. See for yourself at http://cuomollc.com. Oscar Michelin has been engaging in unauthorized practice of law when he undertakes representation of people when the claim has no connection to New York. He and Chan are scam artists.
How long before someone reports Oscar Michelin and Cuomo LLC for unauthorized practice of law??? Why isn’t Oscar Michelin's name and Cuomo LLC’s name all over Ripoffreport.com yet?
How many minutes before Mr. First Amendment Matthew Chan or one of his mouth-breathing admins delete this post and my account?
...A bar overseer reading his blustery letters without a disclaimer that you may want to consult an attorney since I'm threatening the end of the world on you could see an issue.
His letters also have him playing good cop/bad cop at the same time and that can create the impression to the recipient that he is giving them advice when he is their adversary. That confusion can be a perceived conflict of interest and another avenue of violation that an overseer would want him to clarify with the 'speak to an attorney' line...
Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. That is what three decades of being in the legal practice will do to you. I do have free time on my hands if Higbee is hiring in south Florida. Though, I may be a little too defendant friendly and old for their crew.
Can you file a defense for a default judgement? Most judges have common sense and most lawyers can show evidence of the predatory practice of these websites in one or two pages. If so, would that ruling of a default judgement be filed for others to use as precedence? Could be risky, but could also help put something on the books and potentially force this practice to stop. Another question is could someone just bring in a letter of defense from an attorney asking for personal damages in case the judge rules it's predatory and damaging to the people caught up in it. We have a forum of people here under duress only, because of the practice of this deception and there does not appear to be any stop or change to the paragraph on the webpage?? It appears that the practice is profitable for the company. I don't think any judge wants their name attached to a ruling that allows this unethical deception, but I know nothing.
Now, if the defendant has multiple images and does not take them down, I can see willful infringement and damages. Also somehow Google labels the images free to use commercially as well which means even Google does not understand the terms. Everyone I talk to about this cannot understand how this is legal. I guess it is legal, but it is downright disgusting extortion. It has just never gone to trial. It's cheap enough to pay to go away. Also, I notice lawyers making money on both sides of this, so why would anyone in copyright law want this practice to go away? I am going to meet with the copyright atty., because my friend and him claim that there are blogs and designed predatory advice from this media co. Hard to trust anyone, but those you know on this issue.
I would warn everyone not to just believe lawyers in here or elsewhere on the net regarding this issue. Talk to someone you know and who practices copyright law for a living. It will not be easy for them to get these cases to court especially if more than one with minimal statutory damages as so many were fooled by the language on the website that has never changed while who knows how much money has been extorted from these victims? I can see why it is case by case and everyone has to have their own plan for their own tolerance and wealth situation.
I'm having a hard time drumming up any sympathy for this defendant, contacted multiple times, yet didn't remove the images in question?
Official ELI Help Options |
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program |
| Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters. |
