It begs the question...

[annalise]

If I am a troll and I send you a demand letter stating that you owe me money because I own the copyright to a photo you used- If I indeed own said copyright, I would be confident in my claims.

Why in the world would a troller ask to see copyright info/registration a trollee claims to have from another source (allegedly another stock photo company) if the troll has stated they already own the copyright.

If I read the law correctly, it states the troller must prove 2 things-that they have copyright and that the infringement took place.    Are they expressing doubt that they indeed own copyright by asking to see other copyright information? Why would it even matter to them?

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Okay, I'll play along.

If it were me and I did own the copyright, I would CLEARLY want to see who else is claiming to own it and why. That's a pretty big infringement and you would be derelict to NOT try and find out who is doing this.

Come on now.

[jjonesphd]

Just to make sure that I understand you correctly, if I send you a letter that I own the copyright to a picture and in that letter I demand that you pay me an absorbent amount of money.  By absorbent, I mean I am demanding that you pay $1,500.00 for an image that can be purchased on several other sites for $10.00 or under.  Would you not require me to send you proof that I hold the copyright on the image?

Makes no difference that you only had use of the image for five days, makes no difference that you purchased the image with a web site, makes no difference that you have taken the image down from your web site, I still want the $1,500.00.  Now after you have paid me the $1,500.00 and you want to continue use the picture that will be another $1,500.00.

This is like a scam a couple of guys I went to school with did for a number of years until they got caught.  They would send out bogus invoices to businesses that used florescent lights in large quantities, like a large storage company.  The invoice would normally be for less than $100.00, you would be surprised how many companies would pay the invoice.

This is much the same, why should these companies try to sell photos, there are large numbers of company's doing that, instead send out bogus invoices to people that unaware of the law, intimidated by the letter and are afraid of the amount of money they will have to spend in legal fees fighting the company.

Better yet, how much better would this scam be if we could get say 8 or 10 other companies that sell images under one umbrella and use all that power to scare anyone that we decide to go after.

If you still do not understand, would you be kind enough to send me your address? 

[lucia]

Why in the world would a troller ask to see copyright info/registration a trollee claims to have from another source (allegedly another stock photo company) if the troll has stated they already own the copyright.

In addition to what mcfilms suggested, the troller would want to see the copyright info registration information the trollee claims for the exact same reason the trollee wants to see the copyright information the troller claims to have.  Both the trollee and troller want to know how things might pann out if the issue whent to court.

For what it's worth, the troller and trollee have equal rights to  not-disclose their evidence.  Assuming you are the trollee, you can ask them to show your their copyright. If they refuse while simultaneously requesting you show you what you have, tell them you aren't going to do so.  You are content to let them pay their staff to do their own research.

If I read the law correctly, it states the troller must prove 2 things-that they have copyright and that the infringement took place.    Are they expressing doubt that they indeed own copyright by asking to see other copyright information? Why would it even matter to them?

I don't think they are 'expressing doubt'. That said: if you do indeed have strong, verifiable irrefutable evidence  to indicate someone else owns the copyright, that will be useful to you in court.  You can sit tight confident that if they take you to court, you will prevail. 

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

jjones,

I'm not sure if you are replying to me. I understand what you said. My reply was to annalise's question:

Why in the world would a troller ask to see copyright info/registration a trollee claims to have from another source?

I'm not "taking their side." I'm just saying if you look at it from their point of view and  they believe their claim was legit, you would follow up on this other claim. Sometimes the answers to questions become self-evident if you look at it from the point of view of your adversary.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

For what it's worth, the troller and trollee have equal rights to  not-disclose their evidence. 

Although this is true, I believe it would have more of a negative effect for the plaintiff to not disclose the registration than the defendant. If the plaintiff withheld it the judge is going to wonder why they forced it to go to court. If the defendant withholds it, I believe it will be seen more as part of the defense strategy and its existence helps the defendant's case in a major way.

[lucia]

mcfilms--
I don't know many judges. But I know how I would see it if I were a third party. And I agree with you. If the plaintiff (i.e. troller) who instigated by first asking for money and then suuing won't provide proof of copyright ownership and valid registration that the plaintiff looks very bad. They will look bad even if it turns out they have proof of ownership and valid registration.

I think every understands that "Why should I pay you if you won't show evidence I owe you anything?" is a reasonable position for the plaintiff (i.e. trollee).

In contrast, the defendant (i.e. trollee) who did not instigate the action and wants nothing more than for the plaintiff to either a) show why they owe money or b) go away,

turns out to have proof the registration belongs to a third party but did not provide this evidence to the plaintiff the defendant doesn't look so bad.  They merely look like someone who doesn't want to be ripped off. 

The defendant really doesn't look bad at all especially if the plaintiff wouldn't show the materials they think constitutes their proof!

[SoylentGreen]

My understanding is that there's normally a "meeting" or at least a "conference call" before any actual court proceeding.
This is intended to facilitate an out-of-court resolution.  Court is truly a "last resort".
Therefore, any "evidence" that the plaintiff has must come out prior to this conference.
In addition, both parties have an opportunity to go over any evidence at hand before any proceedings.

One cannot simply "sue", and show up in court with "surprise evidence" on the day of court.
So, I hope that people aren't being fooled into thinking that the plaintiff doesn't have to show any "proof" of their claims.
Because that's a lie.  Don't fall for it.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

The issues with intellectual property and copyright enforcement are abstract and esoteric in nature.  Contrary to what anyone says, there is no such thing as a 100% absolute clear-cut case in any argument short of the opposing side giving in and outright admitting it.

Just like SG said, big picture, the court is the last resort not the first.  And if you make courts the 1st resort as in the Righthaven & RIAA lawsuits, you will get spanked by the judge for having wasted the court's time for not trying to resolve this BEFORE coming to court.  Getting your facts straight is important. One can be certain of their position but have it quickly upset with unknown and unexpected information.

Having said all that, neither side has to give helpful or missing info to the other. That leaves the situation in a quandary. As a letter recipient, that is what you want to have.  A quandary for the other side so that they will let the matter go.

Why in the world would a troller ask to see copyright info/registration a trollee claims to have from another source (allegedly another stock photo company) if the troll has stated they already own the copyright.

If I read the law correctly, it states the troller must prove 2 things-that they have copyright and that the infringement took place.    Are they expressing doubt that they indeed own copyright by asking to see other copyright information? Why would it even matter to them?

[annalise]

This is exactly the point I have been trying to reach>  Creating a quandary for the plaintiff by stating to them in a letter response that 1. A 3rd party (another stock photo company from long ago) also asserts rights to said photo 2. Mentioning that the image is freely downloadable online with no watermarks and with watermarks stating another copyright owner (agent of the troller)

But also following the doctrine of "No Freebies (don't give them any more information than needed)" and not providing any details of these statements.

I would expect the troller response to these statements to be who what where - tell me more.  Puts them on the defensive of - hmmm, maybe this trollee has some solid stuff going and we better not pursue legal action because we will lose.
 

[SoylentGreen]

Thanks for your response, Matt.

Yes, neither side is obligated to give info to the other.

However, I must reiterate that both sides have an opportunity to examine evidence before a court foray begins.
Either side may also formally request documention/evidence prior to a court trial (for example copyright registrations).
If the other party party cannot produce said evidence when requested, they can't then reveal it court without warning.
You can't have "surprise" evidence arrive on court day that was withheld from the other party.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I don't know why, and frankly I'm not totally "with it" today from a mental standpoint, but this thread reminded me of the Getty v Avepoint case..so naturally I just went and hit up the pacer account again.. Apparently the case was settled, but not before avepoint fired back at Getty..

I found this interesting:

8. In response, AvePoint requested that Getty provide proof that these images are the subject of a valid copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office and that Getty has been assigned the exclusive right to enforce copyright infringement of these images.
9. To date, despite numerous requests from AvePoint, Getty has failed to provide this requested proof to AvePoint.
10. Despite its inability or unwillingness to provide this requested proof to AvePoint, Getty continues to wrongfully accuse AvePoint of copyright infringement, demand that AvePoint pay Getty for the use of these two images, and threaten litigation against AvePoint.

Here is the link to the entire document: http://www.palmbeachdns.com/avepoint.pdf

and I also mentioned this case awhile back, I wonder if we can find any other info..
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/avepoint-inc-v-getty-images/msg3460/#msg3460

[Matthew Chan]

I uploaded a copy to ELI Document Library on Scribd. Thanks for that.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80516127/Avepoint-vs-Getty-Images-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Relief

The best way to find more information is to contact the folks at Avepoint and have an informal conversation.

It appears Getty Images annoyed the heck out of Avepoint and they were not going to stand for taking accusations and being harassed anymore without Getty Images providing any kind of proof whatsoever. By filing this, it puts their complaint and position on the map legitimizing what Avepoint had to say.

Oscar's comments on this was helpful. The problem with this approach is that it is expensive to cough up the $350 filing fee to do this.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/avepoint-inc-v-getty-images/msg3602/#msg3602

but this thread reminded me of the Getty v Avepoint case..so naturally I just went and hit up the pacer account again.. Apparently the case was settled, but not before avepoint fired back at Getty..

I found this interesting:

8. In response, AvePoint requested that Getty provide proof that these images are the subject of a valid copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office and that Getty has been assigned the exclusive right to enforce copyright infringement of these images.
9. To date, despite numerous requests from AvePoint, Getty has failed to provide this requested proof to AvePoint.
10. Despite its inability or unwillingness to provide this requested proof to AvePoint, Getty continues to wrongfully accuse AvePoint of copyright infringement, demand that AvePoint pay Getty for the use of these two images, and threaten litigation against AvePoint.

Here is the link to the entire document: http://www.palmbeachdns.com/avepoint.pdf

and I also mentioned this case awhile back, I wonder if we can find any other info..
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/avepoint-inc-v-getty-images/msg3460/#msg3460