Click Official ELI Links
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.

Author Topic: Sanders Law is now Representing RM Media Ltd. (UK Photographer Nick Youngson)  (Read 6010 times)

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
I received a submission today from a reader who thought I might be interested to know that he received an extortion letter from Sanders Law representing RM Media Ltd.  And that reader was right on the money. I am interested in receiving in information of shifts and changes in the industry.

For clarification, Sanders Law is best known around here for their legal representation of BWP Media (who deals with celebrity photos). For clarification, RM Media Ltd. is the corporate entity formed by UK photographer Nick Youngson.

Previously, Nick Youngson through Mathew Higbee & Associates gained some notoriety by lambasting numerous people with $5,000 extortion letters for Nick's $10 or "free creative commons" images (free with fine-print attribution). I railed on the fact that his websites looked like honeypots and snagged his careless victims with  "free creative commons" images.  Those website seemed misleading and gave little indication it was Nick's website.  I was really shocked at the number of people last year who came out of the woodwork in such a short period of time over the Nick Youngson images. Even I was schnookered in missing certain details of what Nick's websites were all about because I wasn't paying close enough attention. A reader who was doing his own investigation brought certain details to light that I did not catch previously.

For a while there, there was a huge run on the team of Higbee & Associates/Nick Youngson complaints but then it got all quiet.  Well, based on early appearances, it would seem Sanders Law is Nick's new legal partner in crime.  Whether Nick is actually using two different lawyers/law firm simultaneously remains to be seen.

My feeling is that Nick moved his business to Sanders Law. This time around, coming out the gates, the email letter I have clearly states RM Media Ltd as the photographer/copyright owner. No trace of Nick's name on the letter itself.

But my information is incomplete. I was not able to see the online account (looks disabled now) which shows the actual amount they are asking for. I was told that Sanders Law on behalf of RM Media was asking $1,800, not the $5K bullshit we saw before.  Sanders' $1,800 is much lower than Higbee's $5K demands but still obnoxiously high when we are talking about Nick's self-priced $10 images / free with attribution images.

Because of the incomplete information I have, I still welcome additional information regarding this new working relationship between Sanders Law and RM Media Ltd. I really want to see some of the support attachments (settlement agreement, representation agreement, something with a dollar amount, etc.) if someone is willing to email them to me.

IN the meantime, I will continue to keep my ears to the ground. I still maintain my general opinion that copyright owners in the UK will be challenged to file any lawsuit in the US. It is tough and expensive enough for any U.S. copyright holder to file suit. My guess it is a bit tougher for people outside the U.S. to do so. I am not a lawyer but it strikes to me that the copyright owner would need to fly to the US to testify in any lawsuit situation. So victims should take that into consideration in how they approach the settlement matter.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 09:18:47 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

clist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • On your side
    • View Profile
Even I was schnookered in missing certain details of what Nick's websites were all about because I wasn't paying close enough attention. A reader who was doing his own investigation brought certain details to light that I did not catch previously...

Just out of curiosity, what details?
Knowledge isn't free - you have to pay attention.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
It's too much to repeat here.  But there was a whole bunch of things I noticed after this discussion thread broke out:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/nicholas-youngson-photographer-(rep-by-higbee-associates)-copyright-abuse/

The guy initiated the thread and did a lot of research which led me to look Nick's honeypot websites more closely. I initially thought his websites were owned by 3rd-parties but then learned they were likely owned and operated by Nick himself with almost no disclosures or identifying information.

Many of our readers are very observant and online detectives themselves. I have been impressed by how sharp and sharp-eyed some of our readers are.  They come in cold but then get themselves up to speed and starting picking up or reporting details that I miss. 

I give a tremendous amount of credit to ELI team of supporters and readers to the nuggets they uncover and share over the years.

People know that I am a clearinghouse of information.  When I get good information, I pass it along to the ELI team and pass it forward to the readership. I encourage a "pass it along" and "pass it forward" mindset around here.

As you can see, there is a mish-mash of discussions that come out. And people randomly jump in and out of discussions also. As such, unexpected ideas and information comes out.

Even I was schnookered in missing certain details of what Nick's websites were all about because I wasn't paying close enough attention. A reader who was doing his own investigation brought certain details to light that I did not catch previously...

Just out of curiosity, what details?
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

clist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • On your side
    • View Profile
Ahh, i see.

In regards to this Sanders law situation, what do you speculate the motive is here?

To separate the individual from the business entity just in case of backlash?

?
Knowledge isn't free - you have to pay attention.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Clist,

I think you are on the right track in your thinking. It is consistent with my thinking.

When ELI started, most of the extortion letters came from the stock image agencies and worked through their employed clerical staff. As such, the company took the heat for the letters, not the employees. Once in a while certain employees would get called out by name but most of the time, the company name took the heat.

If the letters were sent by the lawyers, then the lawyers and their law firm would often take the heat hiding the fact that the end client ultimately had final say in what gets settled or not, or whether a lawsuit gets filed or not. We had many lawyers once they were written about publicly engaging in this business, they high-tailed out of it. One female Canadian lawyer, I was told, start going bat-shit crazy crying on the phone with Oscar's law firm at the time. She was so desperate, she even got a NY lawyer to send me a letter to take down the posts about her. The thing was, we never would have known her name if a letter recipient hadn't gotten upset and asked for our help.  It was pretty sad, she even tried to be nice to the person she sent the extortion letter to and tried to sweet talk him to convince us to take down the posts about her. Ultimately, she changed her professional name and her law business name and I left it alone. She quit the business and nothing is to be gained further by naming her. She left us alone, we left her alone.

In any case, photographers are coming out of the woodwork and getting into the extortion letter game.  Many photographers are getting unwanted "recognition" for the extortion letter racket so some of them are setting up corporate entities to hide their names.

For example, one photographer I had an online clash/debate with, the photographer (who got real paranoid about one of my posts thinking I was "targeting" him), it made me pay very close attention to how he operates. I did a cursory research on his corporation and listed his website and he got paranoid and thought we launched a supposedly "new program" and supposedly went out of our way to piggyback his website name. He was referring to Oscar Michelen's Defense Letter Program established back in 2008.   The fact of the matter I only added his website name because we already had a number of people gripe and send me copies of his multi-thousand dollar "invoices".  [This paragraph has been modified to remove incorrect information that I initially thought was true but does not appear to be.]

The point being is that I am noticing all kinds of interesting cover tactics being used by photographers to hide/obfuscate their copyright collections tactics.  They want to demand outrageous amounts of money based on their say-so, scare tactics, and legal threats but they don't want people to know who they are. 

Nick Youngson through Higbee & Associates sprayed a lot of people with their outrageous $5K letters. It might be that there is now too much association and written about the Nick and Higbee association that the shift to Sanders Law using RM Media Ltd. and asking for lower amounts is a rebooted program.

Again, none of us have any way of knowing.  But as long as people ask, demand, and threaten these bullshit amounts of money, people will always report and "out" them. Since 2008, we almost never new solicit information. It just comes to us.

Sometimes it lands right here on the ELI Forums unexpectedly, sometimes it gets emailed to me privately, sometimes Robert of Copyright-Trolls.com gets it, sometimes Greg of CabaLaw.org gets it, or some other place. On the Internet, people have a habit of reporting and sharing information when they are upset, angry, and need help.

Ahh, i see.

In regards to this Sanders law situation, what do you speculate the motive is here?

To separate the individual from the business entity just in case of backlash?

?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 05:43:56 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

clist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • On your side
    • View Profile
How does this change affect previous letter recipients?

Knowledge isn't free - you have to pay attention.

GWB1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
I'm curious.  The $5000 extortion letter I got from Higbee is for his client who happens to be from the UK.  He's a legitimate photographer from what I gather on his website.  His name has not come up anywhere related to Higbee or making extortion attempts on people when I google it, just his website comes up.

Anyway, if I'm unable to negotiate a reasonable settlement with Higbee, and he decides to go to court, does that mean his client from the UK will have to come to my state to fight this?  If so, seems like an awful lot of time and money to spend for a picture that he offers for only $250. 

I'm still debating about how to handle this.  As of now I'm thinking of calling Higbee and offer him $250 for the picture and leave it at that.  I know he'll likely reject it but I can't imagine they'd come after a small ministry that doesn't have that kind of money.  We're so small that I don't even get a salary from it. 

kingkendall

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
@GWB1

Like another poster has said, you're judgement proof.  But, you're goona have to decide what's best for you. 

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
My comments inline...

I'm curious.  The $5000 extortion letter I got from Higbee is for his client who happens to be from the UK.  He's a legitimate photographer from what I gather on his website.  His name has not come up anywhere related to Higbee or making extortion attempts on people when I google it, just his website comes up.

There is plenty of information and reporting on this site about the Higbee and Youngson connection. Where do you think the reporting comes from?  The info we get comes directly from victims and their submissions.  Not sure what more you are looking for. No one else cares about this kind of minutia except this website. It's what we do.

Anyway, if I'm unable to negotiate a reasonable settlement with Higbee, and he decides to go to court, does that mean his client from the UK will have to come to my state to fight this?  If so, seems like an awful lot of time and money to spend for a picture that he offers for only $250. 

I am not going to get into a long discussion here. But "decided to go to court" has many pieces to it. You don't "just decide to go to court" because you want to.  There is an entire process and it costs time and money.

I'm still debating about how to handle this.  As of now I'm thinking of calling Higbee and offer him $250 for the picture and leave it at that.  I know he'll likely reject it but I can't imagine they'd come after a small ministry that doesn't have that kind of money.  We're so small that I don't even get a salary from it.

Why call and open yourself up to unnecessary exposure? If you want to make the offer, send them a letter or email. If you are small and don't have much money, that doesn't sound like an attractive lawsuit to me. Further, supposedly there is nothing to get, right?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2017, 05:07:40 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Good question. Not sure yet. I am keeping my ear to the ground.

How does this change affect previous letter recipients?
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

 

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.