$9,000 for 1 image! Photo Attorney Extortion Letter by Carolyn E.Wright law firm

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

@Helpi

Can you just answer one question for me directly? Do you have any relationship with the stock footage companies mentioned here?

[Helpi]

"Do you have any relationship with the stock footage companies mentioned here?"

I've said this before. I have absolutely no relationship with any of the stock footage companies mentioned here. I have no economic interest in any of the matters discussed here. It would be dishonest to not disclose it if I did. I find the issues somewhat interesting. The post about Wright and that case did annoy me because I thought Matt's post was moronic on several levels. And it made me wonder what in the world he actually wants. Does he really think every case of infringement should be settled for $200. No, he can't mean that. He seems to want to limit any damages to the amount it would have cost to license otherwise he thinks it's "extortion". OK. Then say that. At least I'll have a clue what this campaign is about other than banging out $195 letters (not a bad little business). Of course, if he does mean that it's somewhat inconsistent with his statement that he's against infringement. Clearly if the only penalty to willful infringement is to pay what it would have cost you had you obtained a license, we are going to be encouraging a lot of infringement.

I think because the issue is very emotional for some people (understandably) and they need to or want to define everyone as on their side or not. And if they think not they ascribe some ulterior motive (like I represent the interests of a stock agency and want people to pay them, which I don't and I'm indifferent) and they discount what the person says on that basis alone.

Anything I post can be checked by your own sources. And you can make up your own mind. I sometimes have linked to cases, which you can read yourself. I encourage you if you are the recipient of a letter that you are concerned about that you see a lawyer. I don't like people getting bullied without having all the facts and their own lawyer anymore than Matt. I'm not unsympathetic to innocent infringers and if I found myself on a Jury and I thought someone was an innocent infringer I'd have no problem awarding the minimum (the cases almost never go to trial).  I'm not backing any particular case and certain cases me be more or less weak. I never once suggested anyone send dime one to anybody because they got some settlement demand in the mail. I find Righthaven's actions in deceiving the court appalling and hope the Judge comes down hard.

[Oscar Michelen]

I think SG posted : "We may recall that Riddick of Imageline sent phony correspondence with an attorney's name on it.
The attorney in question didn't even know who Riddick was when inquiries were made."

That attorney was none other than Carolyn Wright! But let me add this.  I have had a number of matters with Ms. Wright who is very well-versed in these claims and is an excellent attorney as well as being a professional photographer. She is also a reasonable person who I have resolved claims with.

Helpi seems bent on making me continually post copyright law here, but removing Content Management Information (CMI) is a separate claim from copyright infringement and exposes the infringer to additional damages, though it may be hard to prove who removed the CMI. Having your name imprinted across the image (like a signature) is CMI. A watermark is of course another form of CMI. Cropping a photo so as to use only that part of the photo that does not contain the CMI is removing CMI as well.

I do suspect however that Carolyn would not make that demand unless it was a registered image. Now if it was registered as part of a compilation then the registration may not be valid to enforce rights for individual images. Thats why asking to see the registrations is important.     

[Helpi]

I'm bent on making your "information site" provide people with accurate information.  So that's a compliment then.

[Oscar Michelen]

OK

[SoylentGreen]

mcfilms,

Thanks for your post.

Let me ask you...
...do you believe that "Helpi" is who he's made himself out to be?

S.G.

[Helpi]

Nice S.G. Very charming.

[MikeD]

http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=ryan+mcginnis&court=ohsdce

It looks like Ryan McGinnis, photographer from Nebraska likes to sue, do we know anything about this case?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/gettyimagesonflickr/discuss/72157612849664574/

Ryan has some funny comments in the above thread, he is a class act.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

SG -- I'm willing to take Helpi at his word until facts prove otherwise. I actually find it useful to hear the counter position to what is obviously the more popular opinion.

It is interesting he is chiding Matt about thinking the "low" figure of $200 to $300 an image is fair on a thread where the discussion is about a photographer-lawyer copyright troll seeking NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a single image.

The bottom line is, if the stock footage companies were serious about wanting to change public perception and prevent abuse, they would be proactive about watermarking images, providing proof of registration and presenting a reasonable settlement offer. Since they are not doing that and they are pursuing few of these cases in court, it is what it appears to be, a cash grab. And I believe judges will see it as such.

All I can say is I was closing in on spending $1000 a year on stock footage from Getty and iStockPhoto. That money is now spent on freelance photographers and on Pond5, which I understand has no relationship with the trolling companies.

[Helpi]

"a photographer-lawyer copyright troll seeking NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a single image."

I won't repeat my earlier points about this. Usually settlements are not made public. Recently Jay Maisel (who's a famous photographer) settled for $32,500 for use of one image. Google it.

"they would be proactive about watermarking images, providing proof of registration and presenting a reasonable settlement offer."

No obligation to watermark. It makes the images ugly and it hasn't been legally required for copyright protection in the US since the US went along with the rest of the world when it signed the Berne Convention. (There are still good reasons to put a copyright notice on your work but its a choice to be made by the copyright owner not the infringer). They are under no obligation to lay out their case in a settlement letter (if they don't provide proof of registration after they file suit you can have the claim dismissed. They can refile when and if they register.) Reasonable settlement offers are in the mind of the beholder.

Good morning.

[MikeD]

From a negotiations POV, I think threatening someone with such a ridiculous amount of money ($9k) is a poor move.  Maybe a rookie move by Evan Anderson who is fresh out of law school.

I can't think of too many individuals with 9 large in their bank accounts, thus you put the defendant in the position that they can't settle or they would simply rather take their chances in court.  At least with Getty and Master File the amount might be attainable, sure they might have to sell their car to do so, but it's attainable.

It is sad that that blogger caused Ryan McGinnis $9,000 in damages though!

[MikeD]

http://threatenedbyryanmcginnis.blogspot.com/2011/05/have-you-been-threatened-by-ryan.html#comment-form

Ryan McGinnis is becoming a house hold name, quite the photo hound.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

@Helpi: "Recently Jay Maisel (who's a famous photographer) settled for $32,500 for use of one image. Google it."

Let's break that down. The original photographer was very famous. The subject was Miles Davis AND the case never went to court. Frankly, the content that Getty claims to exclusively represent has no where near that value.

For those not familiar with that situation:

Baio produced a chiptune tribute to Miles Davis’ classic album Kind of Blue. He licensed all of the tracks and assigned all profits directly to the five musicians on the album. The one thing he didn't do was check about the cover art, a pixelated rendering of the photo on the original album cover. Jay Maisel, the photographer who shot the photo in question, sued Baio for $150,000 per download plus $25,000 for DMCA violations. Baio settled for $32,500, not because he wasn’t convinced he was in the right (this almost certainly qualifies as fair use), but because it was “the least expensive option available”.

In regards to watermarking images, I agree that they are not under any OBLIGATION to do so. However just including a copyright notice on the edge of the image would stop the vast majority of unlicensed use. So although they are not required to do so, there is a solution at hand.

Again, ironically, the photographer in the subject of this thread DID affix a copyright notice to the picture and apparently it was removed and used to promote a marathon. He also registered the pic with the copyright office. Even then, I doubt he would be awarded $9000.00 for this image. However a verdict might be rendered in his favor and the defendant would be liable for all court costs. I can almost guarantee that this will settle out of court.

[Helpi]

"Let's break that down. The original photographer was very famous. The subject was Miles Davis AND the case never went to court. Frankly, the content that Getty claims to exclusively represent has no where near that value."

I agree that every case is different. Different facts, values, etc...  But I don't know what inference you draw from the fact that it never went to court (I assume you mean to trial). Almost no cases go to trial. One could infer strong pressure to settle with statutory damages and possible recovery of atty fees hanging over your head and, at best, an uncertain defense.

"For those not familiar with that situation:"

Thanks for the detail. I'm only casually aware of it, viewed the image and thought derivative work. We don't need to debate fair use especially because I haven't heard it raised in the context of most of the situations discussed here and because it often involves a one-off and you can't draw any grand conclusion.  There are better sites for that analysis anyway. I do note the thugs that apparently messed up his building. Disgusting. That's supposed to garner popular support ? What's next, maybe fly a plane into his building. Anyway, his lawyers obviously were not pleased with the risk/reward calculation and advised a settlement. It's sort of a common song the "I could have won on fair use but it's too expensive to try." I suppose if Congress wanted to paint bright lines on what is fair use they could but instead they have always punted to the courts.

"Again, ironically, the photographer in the subject of this thread DID affix a copyright notice to the picture and apparently it was removed and used to promote a marathon."

There are advantages to using the notice. I think photos display better without it. And it is about looks when we're talking about photos.

"I doubt he would be awarded $9000.00 for this image. However a verdict might be rendered in his favor and the defendant would be liable for all court costs. I can almost guarantee that this will settle out of court."

It isn't the court costs that will kill you it's the attorney fees. Yes, one would expect it to settle.

[MikeD]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B731czgvHvn9N2Y3ZDgyMzQtYTVjYy00YzY2LThlMjktZTlkMjNiMDkwYjFj&hl=en_US

Looks like Ryan McGinnis and Photo Attorney are filling suit for a single photo against Rentech.  Oddly enough it's a photo of Lincoln, NE.

Of course in this instance they are going after a company and in the $9k example they are going after a blogger.

Be interesting to see how this one plays out.