ExtortionLetterInfo.com Forums

Re: He strikes again...

SoylentGreen — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:03:25 -0400

Riddick's probably using "Image Rights" because his reputation is in shambles. He needs to hire another company as a front-end for his copyright trolling. A lot of letters from his phony "attorney" are going into the shredder these days, to be sure.

In addition, he may be using their services to find alleged "infringements". It also looks like he's back to going after end-users once again; I guess that's safer than harrassing larger companies and getting sued for it.

S.

Re: He strikes again...

stevep — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:47:51 -0400

Wow, I wasn't aware Riddick was using Image Rights. Good reason to stay away from that company! I was just thinking of letting them look for my images on the web too.

Settlement Demand Letter arrived in Sweden

wallace — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:38:00 -0400

The Famous letter has arrived here in Sweden, not to my door, but to a family member.
Since the family member isn't too hot with the English- I have decided to try and help him out.
GettyImages are demanding $3,000 for 3 Images, which they are stating are on the web site concerned, and they are right !
I saw the Images in question and I have removed them.
I then phoned up gettyimages and I tried to explain to the rude girl on the phone, who answered in German- but changed to Engish when she heard me speaking.
I said that the web site,was created around 6 years ago by a 3rd party designer and the images used, was certainly not known by my family member to be copy righted in any way- he was just happy to get a web site up and showing on the internet.
Within 3 mins of the telephone conversation, I was being offered a special discount ! I rejected this right away and told the girl, that there is no money available and I no longer wanted to continue this conversation and I would be writing a letter to her head office.
I have read so many comments over here on this board, some saying not to write to them, but I am so mad at these people.
I have been involved with the internet for over 12 years, running blogs and forums and not once have I ever come across a situation like this one.
I have so many friends in the digital art world, who have had thier work published in so many books and they are doing work for movie companies- and on many occasions, if we find any one using thier work on thier web site- we usually write them a e.mail and explain to them- not only have they stolen some one elses work, they are breaking the copright law !
And on most cases, these people take down the Images involved- and some times they simply close down thier site- and the matter is closed !
But Gettyimages are using another simple method !- "Pay Up" and boy ! doesn't their letter look so proffesional.
Its a 8 page letter and no wonder my family member was shaking in his boots when he came to my house, with this demand for this kind of money- which is a months wage for this person with 3 children.
I await on a reply from Gettyimages, and I will not give in without a fight !!!!

He strikes again...

anotherone — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:39:09 -0400

I too fell victim to Mr. Riddick last December when I received an email informing of a copyright infringement for one image I had on a website that I paid to have created in 1999.

When I emailed back asking which image was claimed I got the response that the 'identified image will be sent to you tomorrow' . I did receive what image it was which I had not even recalled being on the website as it is very small and was only for decorative purposes. That same day it was removed from anywhere located on my website.

I also received the demand for settlement verbiage that others have mentioned here but did look up the name and saw that it was a scam. I think I even found this website at that time and so forgot all about it until yesterday.

I got a certified letter from Image rights claiming I did not respond to a letter from an attorney's office from last year and demanding money once again. I did not get any such letter last year but this was enough to be upsetting. Once again I found this site and have solicited the aide of Oscar Michelen to help with this matter.

Thank you Mr. Michelen for putting me at ease and stopping my panic attack!

Looking forward to getting this resolved!

Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

riddickvictim2 — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:11:02 -0400

Can't wait to see the latest court transcripts.

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

SoylentGreen — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:50:59 -0400

YetAnotherRiddickVictim,
Thanks a lot for the links; that's great research. I know that others appreciate them as well!!
It's interesting to compare what monies he sometimes seeks versus that of other civil cases.
Often, more monies than civil cases involving murder.

riddickvictim2,
Yeah, unsettling..! I've seen some other business ideas that he's just kind of "thrown out there", but not pursued to any extent that I can see.
I sometimes wonder if he's waiting for someone else to use his "ideas", and seek damages in court for that.

S.

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

riddickvictim2 — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:27:27 -0400

Every one of those domains has an expiration as part of it's name! (imanidiot08.com) And look at the prices that he just made up!

An unsettling look into the absurd.

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

YetAnotherRiddickVictim — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:20:31 -0400

Soylent,

Here's a press release regarding a $2.6 million judgment that Riddick got against IMSI in 2000.

[www.allbusiness.com]

Apparently a schedule was set out for payment over a few years. Based on later court papers, he became desperate for cash in 2002 and started trying to strong-arm them into paying him faster. It's mentioned in this 2002 financial report where they accuse him of harrassing and extorting them, trying to change the terms of the payment schedule set out in the 2000 judgement.

[sec.edgar-online.com]

That, according to the following press release, was settled in 2003...

[www10.aeccafe.com]

His desperation for money may have been to fund his appeal of a declaratory relief judgement granted to Xoom (cited in the Bernina case - the original complaint is exhibit D in this document Matthew posted... [www.scribd.com] ).

I have not seen the trial court's ruling, but Riddick did appeal it and it went to the 4th Circuit. The 4th Circuit's ruling on Riddick's appeal can be found here.

[caselaw.findlaw.com]

He tried to appeal it to the Supreme Court, but they refused to hear his appeal and let the 4th Circuit's judgement stand.

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

SoylentGreen — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:00:12 -0400

Mr. Michelen,
Thanks for the info; I had a little chuckle over that. His mom was likely up in age when he borrowed money from her. I guess that she figured that it was either him or Enron.

YetAnotherRiddickVictim,
Did IMSI settle "out of court"?

riddickvictim2,
That's pretty odd stuff. So, Riddick buys some domain names and squats on them. His business plan is to sell those domains to people at a price that he decides, and then provide a "domain squatting service" with the intent to receive 50% of the profits when the domain is later sold to someone else? The numbers or dates as part of the domain names would make them practically worthless.

Here's one of my favorites from the list "war on terror": hangthebastard08.com
[www.islandview2.com]

S.

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

riddickvictim2 — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:12:53 -0400

Mr. Michelen:
Your recent post explains allot. Running on borrowed money could explain Mr. Riddick's irrational desperation.

He appears to be getting incredibly bad (understatement) business advice from someone, or perhaps he comes up with this stuff on his own. You really have to dig to find it, but the stuff this guy comes up with is so over the top that it defies reason.

Here is an example of one of his money making ideas. How anyone of sound mind could believe even for a second that this would work!? And he purchased hundreds and hundreds of useless domains and most with a DATE reference as part of the name. Dugh!
(copy and paste this link)
www.islandview2.com/Elections08/pages/partners.htm

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

YetAnotherRiddickVictim — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 02:01:54 -0400

So he burned through all that IMSI money already? >:D<

Oscar Michelen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It looks that way. The documents I've seen show
> that he took money from his mother and another
> person to fund this infringement program.

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

Oscar Michelen — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:11:12 -0400

It looks that way. The documents I've seen show that he took money from his mother and another person to fund this infringement program.

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

SoylentGreen — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:29:26 -0400

Yeah, it's all quite compelling. A question, though. Is Mr. Riddick presently selling any of his graphic wares? A check of his site(s) doesn't indicate an effort to sell anything. I mean, is he just pursuing "license/copyright infringements" as his primary business activity at this point?

S.

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

riddickvictim2 — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:19:46 -0400

Same here, Mr. Michelen. Riddick's amateur antics are not flying very well with this judge. Absolutely can not wait to see the next post!

Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images

SoylentGreen — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:49:58 -0400

Hi Oscar,

Thanks for the clarification; it's an important point.

S.

Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images

Oscar Michelen — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:46:20 -0400

Hey SG:

Just want to clear up a point you address in your latest post. Copyright is owned by the author of the material. With photographs, the original author would be the photographer unless the photo was a "Work for hire" then the author would be whoever hired the photographer. However, the author has the right to assign r o transfer that right to any third party. Most of the photographer's agreements that Getty uses contain a complete assignment of rights including an assignment of the right to enforce the copyright the author's own. So, Getty can bring an action if they have such an assignment

Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images

SoylentGreen — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:15:05 -0400

Hi All,

The second letter is intentionally misleading.

While copyright exists at the moment of creation, this is not normally enough to collect damages in court. In any case, this form of "copyright" would exist only for the creator of the image, and not Getty.

Getty must own the copyright to the image in order to sue for damages; it cannot sue for damages on behalf of a third party.

Watermarking an image does not copyright it in any manner.

It's interesting that Getty is unwilling to actually explain the cost breakdown. The number seems to be purely arbitrary.

S.

Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images

Oscar Michelen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:40:00 -0400

Slamberth:

The federal rules say that settlement discussions are not admissible in court and normally settlement agreements in copyright matters are kept confidential. That is standard practice. However, you have not settled with them so you have no obligation to keep anything confidential unless you have already agreed to do so. If you would like my help in representing you against Getty on this case, you can email me at omichelen@sbmlegal.com

Re: My Comments on the George Riddick/Imageline Controversy (by MatthewC)

Oscar Michelen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:35:18 -0400

Next court date is 9-3-10 Can't wait to see what happens

Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

Oscar Michelen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:34:11 -0400

Love it Matt

Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

SoylentGreen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:13:52 -0400

Matthew,

This is pretty amazing.
What a great way to present documents; thanks for this!!

S.

Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court

admin — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:09:51 -0400

SG,

I have not made an official announcement but take a look at this link.

[scribd.com]

Google likes this site and will index this content.

ExtortionLetterInfo on the Internet

admin — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:00:44 -0400

ExtortionLetterInfo.com has grown beyond this core website and the discussion forum. We now have an extended Internet presence on these websites:

YouTube
Vimeo
Twitter
Scribd

Enjoy. Stay Informed.

ExtortionLetterInfo Presence on the Internet

admin — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:58:03 -0400

ExtortionLetterInfo.com has grown beyond this core website and the discussion forum. We now have an extended Internet presence on these websites:

YouTube
Vimeo
Twitter
Scribd

Enjoy. Stay Informed.

Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images

slamberth — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:28:00 -0400

Although I claim full responsibility for the image and refuse to pay, Getty Images is threatening to go around me and pursue my client because the image was on their site. What to do?

Re: knee-jerk reaction and responded to Getty Images

slamberth — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:09:56 -0400

And here is their reply:

Dear Shane,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your follow up in this matter. I would like to address your comments and concerns.

Please note that you have commented that you are completely responsible for the image being used. We are willing to work with you as a courtesy, should you be willing to settle this matter on behalf of Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers. As the end user of the unlicensed imagery, however, Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers are ultimately liable for this infringement. Should you be unable or unwilling to settle this matter on behalf of the end user of the unlicensed imagery, we will continue to pursue Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers in this matter.

Copyright exists upon the moment of creation. Getty Images represents the photographer who owns the copyright in this image. Rights Managed images, such as the one at issue, are exclusive to Getty Images and available for license only through our website. Please find enclosed a watermarked copy of the imagery as evidence of our rights in the same. Therefore, when copyright infringement occurs, Getty Images is entitled to legal redress.

As exclusive licensor of the images in question, Getty Images is seeking compensation for the unauthorized usage of our represented photographers work. The settlement offer presented to Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers is based on several factors that include the cost of licensing, and administrative costs related to policing these matters.

Absent the appropriate license surrounding the specific use of the imagery in question, the settlement amount of $875.00, as presented, represents what Getty Images would expect to receive in a matter such as this.

Payment of this amount will serve as full and final settlement of this matter. The terms of this settlement shall be kept confidential, except as may be required by law. Getty Images expressly reserves all rights and remedies available under copyright law. Settlement of the unauthorized use claim does not constitute permission for future use of the imagery.

Please let me know if you wish to settle this matter on behalf of Pav & Broome Diamond Jewelers so that we may proceed accordingly.

Thank you for your continued time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

xxxxx

License Compliance Specialist

Why are they saying this is all confidential?

Re: Masterfile and Template Monster

Oscar Michelen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:31:28 -0400

TM also settled with Getty in some states. For example, I think the Idaho Attorney General got on Getty's case for continuing to send out demand letters on cases TM had accepted as their responsibility. Will follow up with more info.

Re: Masterfile and Template Monster

SoylentGreen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:28:00 -0400

TM had some very serious troubles in the recent past in regard to unlicensed images - 2006 -2007. They (and allegedly related sites/companies) had a huge run-in with Corbis. The whole thing seemed rather shady. I won't repeat it here, but interested parties can Google it. Hopefully, things have changed and TM will support these people above. Given past history, and these recent incidents, TM might be something to avoid.

S.

ExtortionLetterInfo presence expanded

admin — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:00:13 -0400

ExtortionLetterInfo.com has grown beyond this core website and the discussion forum. We now have an extended Internet presence on these websites:

YouTube
Vimeo
Twitter
Scribd

Enjoy. Stay Informed.

ExtortionLetterInfo Presence on the Internet

admin — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:58:12 -0400

ExtortionLetterInfo.com has grown beyond this core website and the discussion forum. We now have an extended Internet presence on these websites:

YouTube
Vimeo
Twitter
Scribd

Enjoy. Stay Informed.