Another recipient of letter from Ms. Wright & Mr. Andersen

[justaperson]

I've received one of these letters, and even after reading this site extensively, I'm not sure what to do.  I've seen Ms. Wright described here alternately as a "troll of Epic proportions" as well as "well respected" (in fact both comments by the same poster!), so I'm not sure what to think.

The letter I received looks a lot like the one Matthew posted on Scribd, but has some twists. First, they claim I took the photo from another business's website, which I did not. The photo was from another source where it was not marked as copyrighted nor did it contain any watermark as claimed. I used this photo on a page which was under construction as a placeholder until I could take my own photo. The page was not accessible by visitors to the site. Anyway, I have since taken my own photo and removed the alleged infringed photo.

So here's the kind of odd thing. The site from whence they allege I took the photo apparently did register it, but they are not bringing the claim. That site owner recently signed their rights over to a newly-formed LLC, which is the entity that's making the claim against me through Ms. Wright's firm. It's like they created a brand-new LLC just for the sole purpose of sending extortion letters. Anyway, they are asking for $15k to settle.

So, what to do?  Many on this site say to ignore it, as it's just a scare tactic and not worth their time/money to actually bring suit.  Others say to "take it seriously," whatever that means.  It's hard to take serious a demand for $15k for a photo that would cost 5 bucks on iStockPhoto, was not marked as copyrighted, was used on a page that was never visible to the public, and is had already been removed!

Thoughts?

[Matthew Chan]

What is the name of this LLC?

[justaperson]

I'd rather not say, as I wonder if my new "friends" watch this forum, but it's something like [cityname] Photography, LLC.  It's a newly formed entity in Delaware, which is not the state I'm in.  I could PM you if it would help.

[Matthew Chan]

You can email me directly the information you have to matt30060 at gmail. However, if you are being secretive because of possible retaliation then you are already an easy victim right at the start and you have just hurt chances by showing your weakness and fear.

Ultimately, we will find out about it anyway at some point if you prefer not to disclose. You really need to get educated, get coached, get a support call, or hire Oscar Michelen.

Your question is way too open to get into here.

[aimiyo]

I've received one of these letters, and even after reading this site extensively, I'm not sure what to do.  I've seen Ms. Wright described here alternately as a "troll of Epic proportions" as well as "well respected" (in fact both comments by the same poster!), so I'm not sure what to think.

The letter I received looks a lot like the one Matthew posted on Scribd, but has some twists. First, they claim I took the photo from another business's website, which I did not. The photo was from another source where it was not marked as copyrighted nor did it contain any watermark as claimed. I used this photo on a page which was under construction as a placeholder until I could take my own photo. The page was not accessible by visitors to the site. Anyway, I have since taken my own photo and removed the alleged infringed photo.

So here's the kind of odd thing. The site from whence they allege I took the photo apparently did register it, but they are not bringing the claim. That site owner recently signed their rights over to a newly-formed LLC, which is the entity that's making the claim against me through Ms. Wright's firm. It's like they created a brand-new LLC just for the sole purpose of sending extortion letters. Anyway, they are asking for $15k to settle.

So, what to do?  Many on this site say to ignore it, as it's just a scare tactic and not worth their time/money to actually bring suit.  Others say to "take it seriously," whatever that means.  It's hard to take serious a demand for $15k for a photo that would cost 5 bucks on iStockPhoto, was not marked as copyrighted, was used on a page that was never visible to the public, and is had already been removed!

Thoughts?

I think this is interesting in that the site appears not to be published and they found this picture.
I wonder what is the name of the company Mrs Wright represents and who is the photographer?
Pattern sounds very familiar to me.

[justaperson]

It's not so much "weakness and fear" as it is determining the best strategy. I don't plan on sending them a dime. I've spoken to two attorneys already, and both have suggested that ignoring them is an option. It's probably not worth Ms Wright/Mr. Andersen's time and money to litigate, and the letter is simply a scare tactic. However, the same attorneys have also suggested that I could have them pen a response, which shows that I have representation, which further signals that litigation would not be an easy path for them to pursue. I'm inclined to do the former. The site in question is a side business, and I'd just assume shut it down versus paying these ambulance chasers. 

aimiyo, I suppose it depends on the definition of "published."  If one knew the URL, one could access the page.  However, nobody could get to that page via the navigation on my site. This was intentional because the page was under construction and I did not want anyone to see it. They even had the URL / path to instances of the image on the server, which I have no idea how they obtained, since a user would be unable to find this. I sent the name of the LLC to Matthew. No photographer name was mentioned in the letter. You say the pattern sounds familiar...you've seen photo rights transferred to a newly-formed LLC for the purpose of sending extortion letters in that entity's name?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Let me clarify my statements.  I stated that photo attorney Carolyn Wright was well respected in the photography world, this isn't to say that she is not a troll of epic proportions, IMO she is. It's kind of like stating that Getty images is the worldwide leader of licensing images,, whilst at the same time they are also known as the largest copyright trolling business in existence.

[justaperson]

Let me clarify my statements.  I stated that photo attorney Carolyn Wright was well respected in the photography world, this isn't to say that she is not a troll of epic proportions, IMO she is.

Yeah, she could be both, but I'm just trying to determine if she really intends to spend time/money to go to court.  You once stated,

"Carolyn is well respected and I still doubt she would use this tactic without having a strong conviction that she could win in a court of law"

. (This was in regards to demanding $9k for one pic.  Now she's demanding $15k.)  Others have suggested she just makes a living off of threat letters and rarely goes to court. Hard to know what to believe.

[Moe Hacken]

It's not so much "weakness and fear" as it is determining the best strategy. I don't plan on sending them a dime. I've spoken to two attorneys already, and both have suggested that ignoring them is an option. It's probably not worth Ms Wright/Mr. Andersen's time and money to litigate, and the letter is simply a scare tactic. However, the same attorneys have also suggested that I could have them pen a response, which shows that I have representation, which further signals that litigation would not be an easy path for them to pursue. I'm inclined to do the former. The site in question is a side business, and I'd just assume shut it down versus paying these ambulance chasers. 

aimiyo, I suppose it depends on the definition of "published."  If one knew the URL, one could access the page.  However, nobody could get to that page via the navigation on my site. This was intentional because the page was under construction and I did not want anyone to see it. They even had the URL / path to instances of the image on the server, which I have no idea how they obtained, since a user would be unable to find this. I sent the name of the LLC to Matthew. No photographer name was mentioned in the letter. You say the pattern sounds familiar...you've seen photo rights transferred to a newly-formed LLC for the purpose of sending extortion letters in that entity's name?

Justaperson, they got into your server using a very rude crawler bot from a company named PicScout. If you use the search bar at the top of this forum page and search for PicScout, you'll get lots of good information and debate about the "merits" of this "copyright complaince technology" which is basically a crude search for evidence to be used against you in an extortion claim. They have lots of clients in the stock photography industry and brag about how many people they hose with their blunt weapon of espionage.

In case I haven't obviated it by now, I have my crosshairs on PicScout in a big way. The whole mess began when their electronic gill netting became very cost-efficient as a form of intrusive surveillance on unsuspecting webmasters.

PicScout may be legal at this time, but in my vain and proud opinion that law needs to be reformed as well so it is NOT. This is America, dammit, we have civil rights and I'm not done using mine yet.

[Matthew Chan]

Thanks for the submission.  We are going to be digging into the new information.

Your attorneys are giving bad advice to totally ignore it unless you plan on running and hiding underground for the next 3 years. If on the small chance, they decide to file suit against you, it makes you look bad. It is only partially true that it is a "scare tactic". The other part is they could up the ante by paying the court costs to file suit to try to shake you down further.

Generally, we recommend some kind of response letter and "reasonable" offer like $100-$200 based on actual market value to cover your self. If they decline your offer, then they can never say you didn't try to work something out.

Oscar Michelen has a good Defense Letter Program against the major stock photo companies and collection that is probably more reasonable than most. He has prepared hundreds of these letters over the years and EVERYONE in the extortion business knows Oscar is well-versed on the subject matter.

But we are going to find out a bit more about this new LLC they have setup. This is a new twist.  And so is the $15K for 1 stinking image.  Outrageous.

It's not so much "weakness and fear" as it is determining the best strategy. I don't plan on sending them a dime. I've spoken to two attorneys already, and both have suggested that ignoring them is an option. It's probably not worth Ms Wright/Mr. Andersen's time and money to litigate, and the letter is simply a scare tactic. However, the same attorneys have also suggested that I could have them pen a response, which shows that I have representation, which further signals that litigation would not be an easy path for them to pursue. I'm inclined to do the former. The site in question is a side business, and I'd just assume shut it down versus paying these ambulance chasers. 

[SoylentGreen]

Just a quick thought.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.

"Company A" owns the image, and you've allegedly infringed upon that copyrighted image.
Next, "Company B" assumes copyright ownership of the image, and now they're coming after you?

Could it be that the alleged infringement was with "Company A", and "Company B" wasn't damaged by the infringement, and cannot collect damages?

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Good Point SG, we'll have more on this later today, I'm already doing some rooting around...

Just a quick thought.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.

"Company A" owns the image, and you've allegedly infringed upon that copyrighted image.
Next, "Company B" assumes copyright ownership of the image, and now they're coming after you?

Could it be that the alleged infringement was with "Company A", and "Company B" wasn't damaged by the infringement, and cannot collect damages?

S.G.

[SoylentGreen]

The point should also be made that unless you pay them enough to "go away", you're still in for three years worth of threatening letters.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

This case is a bit more "controversial" than most. It seems the "photographer" has been a bad girl and a bad real estate agent who has gotten her hands severely slapped int the past.

The mystery of the copyright transfer to this LLC is being untangled. We have also uncovered new changes in the Photo Attorney operation. They have done a better job going underground.

This story looks to be way bigger than a copyright extortion case.  Way bigger. Trust me.

Robert and I are comparing notes. Stay tuned.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I look foarward to seeing what you both have and to the post.