I'm a Newbie who just received a Peter T. Holt Demand Letter...

[cececam]

Hello,

I just received a "website copyright infringement" letter from a Holt Law Firm, signed by attorney Peter T. Holt, demanding payment over $1500, on behalf of a photographer. The letter includes a copyright registration number...allegedly for the image in question. The letter also came with a copy of a screenshot image of my Twitter post, in which the image in question is displayed.

The image in question had once appeared on my small business' Twitter feed back in April, in a very innocuous post to welcome springtime, accompanied by a remark as to the breathtaking colors of wildflowers in front of a mountain and lake view. It did not get any retweets, likes or any other response. It just sat there unnoticed until now.

It's important to note that I had obtained this image from one of the free download websites, but cannot recall at the moment which one it was. Normally I purchase all my RF licenses for all the images I want to use commercially, but for everyday "hello" and "happy Spring" posts that are non-promotional, I have occasionally relied on the free photo-sharing sites or free-download sites or public domain pics.  Needless to say, I immediately removed the image and related tweet. but at no time did I ever have reason to believe that this photo's status was in question.

I've been spending the last few days reading all the ELI forums and posts, trying to determine what my course of action would be. In addition to your site, I did some investigative work to ascertain some facts. Here is what I learned so far:

1.  The image in question as I first discovered it, is a heavily photoshopped image of two separate scenes with a heavy dose of visual effects and enhancements thrown in. Numerous sites have called out this image for being a fake and for being widely disseminated throughout the internet via many free download sites and posters-for-sale sites, as a "real-life" image of an actual locale. If it's real, it's only so, in very small part. Fine art photography, it ain't.

2.  The image is not located within the collection of the photographer who claims it is his. He has a website but among the hundreds of photographs on his site's gallery, this specific image is not among them, neither in whole or in part.

3.   I searched for the copyright registration number the attorney's letter provided, and although that registration number is listed in the Copyright records under this photographer's name, the image connected to that registration number is not visible on the copyright record. I have no way of knowing what that registration number pertains to. Even the description of the copyrighted item is blank, although in other images registered by this man, there are descriptions. All I know is that there is an image registered. I cannot positively identify all or part of the image under that registration number.

4.  Then, I searched the court records to see if this photographer has been suing anyone or if there are any cases pending, and indeed there was one lawsuit last year, against a small business in NYC for copyright infringement. The case appears to have been "voluntarily dismissed", but I don't know the details behind that. I hope to connect with the defendant and find out what happened. Prior to this "voluntary dismissal", the records appear to indicate that the judge awarded the plaintiff large sums of money for copyright infringement against this defendant.

5.  Apparently, the first attorney who helped this photographer establish this case late last year against the NYC small business person is a name that I saw mentioned several times on ELI: John DeBoer.  The last attorney on the case summary is listed as Joshua Ron Bressler based in NYC, although I don't know how these two attorneys were related in that case.

6.  The name of the photographer's NEWEST attorney is Peter Holt , who sent me the demand letter. I noticed that he has also appeared in numerous forums herein, all of a notorious nature.

7.  The photographer seems to be working with people who have been involved in this extortion letter racket.

I am aware that this group has dealt with the individuals in question and I am trying to determine my next course of action. Any thoughts or feedback are greatly appreciated. Thank you!


Signed,
"I'm so pissed at myself for posting such a cheesy-ass fake photo that can't possibly be worth more than a couple of dollars but that now I am being shaken down for thousands".
 

[Matthew Chan]

Peter Holt is a name familiar to us. From what I have been able to gather, he is an older California lawyer schlepping around in this business.

If appears you have done your homework on your situation. Good job. Lots of people don't do what you have done.  The copyright registration system is extremely flawed and badly needs to be updated. Absolutely no one can tell what any copyright registration is used for any given image.  It is a huge flaw. However, there are some clues but not much. You have a choice to either accept what they present you is truth or not.

Regarding lawsuit dismissals, I would venture to say that 95% of all dismissals is probably due to quiet settlement. But there is the rare dismissal when the defendant presents enough information to dissuade the plaintiff from going forward.

As you know, there is a ton of info that is here on the ELI Forums. But hopefully, you have gathered that ELI is not just being legalistic and developing an intellectual resolution to the matter. And MANY, MANY people want that but the fact of the matter is that is exactly why most people remain victims.

There is a certain pushback attitude and conviction that has to be adopted. Being pissed helps but ultimately there is a hugely diverse attitude on how much you should stand your ground over de minimus infringements.

I think you will find that "ELI loyalists" have one thing in common: they adopt a "don't fuck with me" attitude and it helps govern their actions even if they pursue settlement options.

You also have to determine if you are willing to be "uncollectable" or "unservable" in considering lawsuit possibilities.

What you do next is what every person who gets a letter faces.  The simplest one is to ignore it. The other is to respond but don't get fooled that you will write something so magical that you will "stun them into silence". Or you play ping pong with them, the idea being that you are not ignoring it but you will not roll over either by being low hanging fruit.  The point of responding is to show you are not ignoring the situation, explain and acknowledge the situation and concern, and your proposed resolution.

So many people have copied my publicized response letters over the years almost verbatim but don't get the results I get. The reason why my letters "worked" for me is that I meant what I said and it was no bluff. It also had the virtue of being original at the time. It also had the virtue of "force" behind the letter because it was in concert with what I publicly posted on this website. I was willing to adopt a scorched-earth philosophy if necessary which means "if I get burned, I take you with me" attitude against specific employees. And so, they "went away" never to be heard again.

Having said that, I can be an extremist in that fight-back attitude and not everyone can (or should) do that. I only share that with you because, for me, it works. Stinger (ELI friend/loyalist) has shared his story many times when he was faced with multiple images accusations.

No one here is going to tell you to pay "sticker price" but no one is also going to tell you to NOT settle either. It is very personal choice.

I think most people agree that if you must settle, negotiate hard to get that number down. There are actually MANY ways to proceed but it does require some negotiation/posturing tactics. These are "soft skills" and very hard to teach.

More and more, we are hearing stories of people who successfully file countersuits in response to any copyright lawsuit and it changes the whole dynamic.  It is no longer them coming after you. They come after you but you also have the right to go after them and ensnare them.

You should read this case of one such individual who did it himself! http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/the-interesting-case-of-getty-images-v-jj-cleaning-co-(rhon-johnson)/

[cececam]

Matthew, has anyone ever tried reaching out to a photographer directly? I was half-tempted to do so.

[Matthew Chan]

Most photographers tend to shy away from the matter and push the issue to their "enforcers". Also, most photographers have signed agreements authorizing their agency to pursue such matters. However, there is no harm in trying to contact the photographer. There is very little to lose.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

We had one user a while back do this, only to discover that the photographer was no longer doing business ith Getty ( I thinkit was Getty)..so we had a pissed user how got  a letter and a pissed photographer, who was not making anything from Getty, while Getty continued to chase alleged infringements and sell his work..So yeah nothing to lose, but I would be very careful in what you state to them, as to not incriminate yourself.