ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on December 09, 2012, 07:44:25 AM
-
Received this via the ELI Facebook page, I'm hoping t get the actual letter along with more details..
It's worth noting that the linked thread has none other than copyright troll attorney Carolyn Wright ( photoattorney.com) commenting on arguing "innocent infringement"....Has photo attorney Carolyn Wright switched sides, os she just plain money hungry and a complete hypocrite??? You be the judge..loooks to e she will play both sides as lng as money come in the door..so much for principals and or morals...
"You can also add Artist Joseph Tomelleri and Steven Mustoe Lawyer to your list... Got letter from them and many others have also..here is a link from a forum talking about them I tried to join your forum 3 weeks ago with no success..used email xxxxxxx.com and also tried [email protected] in case you did not take yahoo emails....
https://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=225296
-
Apparently someone does not like "Fish Artist" Joseph Tomelleri, to bad they are not using this to the fullest potential..
http://josephtomelleri.com/
-
That was an interesting read and it does seem Carolyn E. Wright is willing to play both sides as long as it pays. As for the second post, that is too funny and someone certainly does not like Joseph Tomelleri.
-
... Carolyn E. Wright is willing to play both sides as long as it pays...
Unfortunately, as usual, it's all about the money. That's especially true with lawyers, in my experience. Many lawyers are as bad, if not worse, as politicians. Oh wait, most U.S. politicians are lawyers, too, aren't they?
-
ahem...present company excluded Oscar. ;)
-
Glad to be part of the forums .... Typical extortion letter ,,wanted $1500 for 3 images....Sent letter using advice found on here and he then offered $1000. Offered $200 and then threatened that it would cost me around $100,000 plus attorney fees..That site is hilarious..Glad to know I am definately not the only one. If it goes to trial case would have to be at my nearest Federal district court ..Is that correct? Use was %110 unwillful .
-
Glad to be part of the forums .... Typical extortion letter ,,wanted $1500 for 3 images....Sent letter using advice found on here and he then offered $1000. Offered $200 and then threatened that it would cost me around $100,000 plus attorney fees..That site is hilarious..Glad to know I am definately not the only one. If it goes to trial case would have to be at my nearest Federal district court ..Is that correct? Use was %110 unwillful .
Welcome to the forums!
Yes you are correct, IF a suit was filed they would need to come to you. Were the images even registered? I would look into this first and foremost.. Please do consider sharing your letter with us, as this is a new troll who apparently is looking for a little extra attention! ;) ;) ;)
-
Found many holes in their case on my own ,but going to a Local lawyer for a consult this week. Do not want to give out too many of the things I have found out,but many were thanks to this forum. He must have really made someone mad , there are 2 very funny webpages setup about him..
-
Will do Robert..Will get scanner going by Wednesday...One appeared to be registered..The others may be part of a bulk registration (or collection)..
-
Yes mdc2727, welcome to the forums and Robert is spot on and what he told you. Looking forward to reading your letters and please do keep us posted as to your progress.
-
What about the photos being copyrighted in bulk or a collection...
-
What about the photos being copyrighted in bulk or a collection...
That could be a bit more complicated, it would depend on exactly how they registered it..refer to the chaga case, to see how NOT to register images..
-
Copy of letter..scanner of the fritz..will try and get better copy soon
(http://www.techforlessreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/16063_4411921210410_687894295_n.jpg)
-
My response to the letter
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for your letter dated November 13, 2012 notifying me that my website &&&&&&& may be in violation of an image copyright allegedly represented by Joe Tomelleri.This site was a less than year old blog that was created to showcase my friends videos and his love of fish. He is very similiar to Mr. Tomelleri in his love of fish. Matter of fact it would be great to have him as a guest in TN to help identify some fish or go noodling with us.
I assure you that if the alleged copyright infringement did take place, that it was entirely innocent and unwilling. As a good-faith gesture, and until this matter is definitively resolved, I have removed The Image entirely from &&&&&&&&&& and I am currently rebuilding the site, while admitting no guilt or wrongdoing but to close this matter,I am prepared to make a reasonable compensation offer based upon well established stock photo market conditions.
The fair market price for an largemouth bass photo is between $2.99 to $25.
Examples:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/largemouth-bass-royalty-free-illustration/75491542
$25
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11410970-largemouth-bass.php
$12
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-7891478/stock-photo-fingerling-largemouth-bass
$2.99
http://images.google.com/imgres?q=largemouth+bass&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1024&bih=649&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&tbnid=dVRyTgH8yjDN1M:&imgrefurl=http://www.public-domain-image.com/fauna-animals-public-domain-images-pictures/fishes-public-domain-images-pictures/bass-fishes-pictures/largemouth-bass-fish-art-work-micropterus-salmoides.jpg.html&docid=OXXXX-gEInElXM&imgurl=http://www.public-domain-image.com/cache/fauna-animals-public-domain-images-pictures/fishes-public-domain-images-pictures/bass-fishes-pictures/largemouth-bass-fish-art-work-micropterus-salmoides_w725_h470.jpg&w=725&h=470&ei=cUqwUKBrhPjzBMyhgZAO&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=377&vpy=192&dur=4639&hovh=181&hovw=279&tx=190&ty=135&sig=112780277147546246853&page=1&tbnh=135&tbnw=219&start=0&ndsp=11&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:167
Free
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Largemouth-bass.jpg
Free
For the Sunfish between $2.99 to $6.00
Examples:
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-33137153/stock-photo-sunfish
$2.99
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13292621-sunfish.php?st=9d32f02
$6.00
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bluespotted_Sunfish.jpeg
free
http://images.google.com/imgres?q=sunfish&num=10&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1024&bih=649&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&tbnid=gRA4rA2_frrLuM:&imgrefurl=http://www.public-domain-image.com/fauna-animals-public-domain-images-pictures/fishes-public-domain-images-pictures/longear-sunfish-lepomis-megalotis.jpg.html&docid=Gt4mjfGw5x8r_M&itg=1&imgurl=http://www.public-domain-image.com/cache/fauna-animals-public-domain-images-pictures/fishes-public-domain-images-pictures/longear-sunfish-lepomis-megalotis_w725_h440.jpg&w=725&h=440&ei=WkuwUN_RMYf29gSj8IGACQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=12&vpy=197&dur=355&hovh=143&hovw=223&tx=112&ty=92&sig=112780277147546246853&sqi=2&page=2&tbnh=137&tbnw=212&start=15&ndsp=7&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0,i:203
Free
Based upon hundreds of easy to identify comparables, I calculate the fair market price for a small image to be no more than $25 for a largemouth bass and $6.00 for the sunfish. Even prior to determining if the alleged infringement actually occurred, I am willing to offer $100.00, or almost 4-times the fair market price of the images, just to amicably and expeditiously close this matter for myself and Mr.Tomelleri.I would also like to offer to develop a page on the site to promote Mr.Tomelleri and his art if he would like.
Needless to say, your $1500 settlement demand amount for the alleged infringement -- which is over 150-times the fair market price -- is ridiculously exorbitant based upon overwhelming market conditions.
If you chose to reject the above offer, I ask that you provide the following information to establish more details of the images and to further support your settlement demand amount:
Please clearly establish the market value of The Image in your estimation. Please provide sales data of the images at that price point and at the small size for placement on a secondary page, below-the-fold.I see no reference to that in the site you refered me too..http://www.americanfishes.com. There are some very rare original photos that sell for $500.00 each.
Please detail your calculation of this case’s share of the “costs incurred related to the pursuit of the alleged unlicensed use”.
If you chose to reject my reasonable offer of settlement, I will expect and require the above information before proceeding further. As well, upon your rejection and if warranted, I will gladly retain legal counsel experienced in US copyright law to help us resolve this matter fairly.
Thank you again for notifying me of this alleged infringement. Personally, I am a long-time outdoorsman and admire the work Mr.Tomelleri has put in. As a content creator, I respect and appreciate the importance of the fair and reasonable application of US copyright law.
I hope you find my settlement offer adequate to close this matter prior to both parties investing more time during the holidays and resources to determine if the alleged innocent infringement did indeed happen.
Sincerely,
-
His email response..will post other responses later..
US Copyright law permits damages of $750-30,000 per image; more if willful. The court will also likely award attorneys fees. So the possible claim here exceeds $100,000.00. You can argue the facts if you want, but the only fact that matters is the unauthorized use of a copyrighted image. But I talked to Mr. Tomelleri and he will reduce your invoice to $1,000 if received before December 7, 2012.
-
I have a question..and several statements..regarding attorney Steven Mustoe and his bullshit comments...
Are there more pages to this letter he sent or is it just 1 single page as shown??
This asshat Steven Mustoe is sadly mistaken that the "only fact that matters is the unauthorized use of a copyrighted image"....actually the the fact that matters most is he has not even proven an infringement even occurred..
Look at this nice little sunfish by copyright troll Joseph Tomelleri
(http://fishgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/fishingplanner/images/FishID/Pumpkinseed.jpg)
I ask Steven Mustoe, would this be an infringement, because i have this picture here??
Attorney Steven Mustoe is such a good IP attorney, that he has to supplement his business by also offering
Business & Corporate Law
Civil Practice
Contract Law
Criminal Law
Intellectual Property
Personal Injury Law
Real Estate Law
Jackoff of all trades...master of none...
http://www.mustoelawfirm.com/~mustlaw/steven-h-mustoe
(http://www.mustoelawfirm.com/~mustlaw/files/SHM-MLF-photo.jpg)
oops I just infringed again, by posting his image!! I wonder if ELI will get another bogus takedown notice...
more to come, as attorney Steven Mustoe from Prairie Village Kansas has managed to get under my skin...
-
second page had invoice for settlement..Robert you are da man!!
My response to email and other responses....
Dear Mr. Mustoe:
Upon reviewing the photos in question I have came to the following conclusion in regards to the alleged copyright infringement:
· There is no possible way that any damages could have been done towards Mr. Tomerellis works over the alleged photos. I see this month that you settled with an individual who was reselling his works and also printing them on goods. I understand your case for a a fairly large sum on this case. Our site made only around $12 in its full existence. Zero dollars came from the alleged photos in question.
· I could not verify 2 of the alleged copyrights to said to have been registered via the link you sent me for research.
· Once again if any of these alleged photos were used it was %100 innocent and with no mal intent whatsoever.
· I also found these same works with no copyrights stated at the following sites that you may want to investigate. These are government sites with no statement of copyright on any page for the images.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fishing/forests/fishresources/mtbsno_warmwater.html
http://fishgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/fishingplanner/htm/Bluegill-Pumpkinseed-Sunfish.htm
http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Fishing/Fish-ID-Gallery/GREEN-SUNFISH
http://www.fishesoftexas.org/taxon/lepomis-megalotis (creative commons)
As stated before your value for the alleged images is nowhere close to market and I see no evidence of web images sold by Mr. Tomerelli for any amounts, only prints. I feel like my previous offer was very reasonable, but I am willing to offer double that ($200.00) to settle this matter. The money can be sent today if you wish via PayPal.
Kind Regards,
His response..
The United States Congress disagrees with you. 17 USC Section 504 creates a minimum damage of $750 per image and a maximum of $30,000 plus attorneys fees. So the recoverable damages in this case are probably 50 times the settlement offer. You can take the risk of trial if you want. But you also have until tomorrow to get the $1,000 to us if you want to resolve this for an amount far under the statutory fine amount. Depositing the check into the mail by tomorrow meets the terms of the offer.
My final emails ...
Dear Mr. Mustoe,
I have been advised to no longer correspond with you via email. Any correspondance you have for me please mail in letter form. All emails from your address will not be responded too.
Response
Your choice; as it is Mr. Tomelleri's choice to sue. If the advice is from counsel, please provide the name of counsel.
-
I wish a letter recipient would serve a troll like Mistletoe with a fat declaratory judgment. I bet that would take some of the steam out of his bullshit, as well as some money out of the pocket he's trying to so easily line.
Given what I've learned this past year and a half, I decided months ago that I was going to go the declaratory judgment route if copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack or his paralegal Ashanti A. Taylor contacted me again.
I'd like nothing better in life than to see McCormack and his ilk get their nasty game slammed right smack back in their greedy, dishonorable, immoral, dishonest, and always smug ugly mugs.
Edit: Out of curiosity, I did a bit of searching at law.justia.com and couldn't find a single copyright related case in federal court ever handled by a lawyer with the name of Steven Mustoe nor could I find a case with the name Joseph Tomerelli.
-
mdc: Be aware that he can only get the statutory fees he describes and legal fees if the images were properly registered with the Copyright Office at the time of the infringement and that even then a court can reduce penalties to $200 per infringement for innocent infringement cases.
-
Thank you for that Oscar..I think only one may possibly be registered, the other 2 look to be registered in a collection or book.
-
The fact that is available on so many state government sites is interesting.
I wonder if you reached out to the webmaster of these sites if they would share with you how they obtained them. If they just got them from an image search, it may be nice to warn them that a troll is a'comin'. But wouldn't it be ironic if they got them from some sort of compilation CD-ROM for 50 bucks.
-
The link at the beginning of this post is from a forum and that webmaster actually got them from a cd, but still settled...
-
This letter has now been added to our scribd library:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/116954544/Copyright-Demand-letter-from-Attorney-Steven-H-Mustoe-on-behalf-of-artist-Joseph-R-Tomelleri
-
Thanks Robert..I am now using pacer also..Does it show suits that are newly filed. Even if plaintiff has not been served..
-
Thanks Robert..I am now using pacer also..Does it show suits that are newly filed. Even if plaintiff has not been served..
Yes it does, but be warned, if you are not careful or diligent, it WILL get expensive!
-
And very quickly too :)
Thanks Robert..I am now using pacer also..Does it show suits that are newly filed. Even if plaintiff has not been served..
Yes it does, but be warned, if you are not careful or diligent, it WILL get expensive!
-
The fact that is available on so many state government sites is interesting.
I wonder if you reached out to the webmaster of these sites if they would share with you how they obtained them. If they just got them from an image search, it may be nice to warn them that a troll is a'comin'. But wouldn't it be ironic if they got them from some sort of compilation CD-ROM for 50 bucks.
If the image in question is on government sites, whether it be municipal, county, state or federal, the image would be considered in the public domain and can not be in in copyright violation. Capture screenshots of the image on the government website(s) and inform them of the fact the image is in the public domain the next time they try contacting you. If they keep trying to press the matter, they will lose.
-
The fact that is available on so many state government sites is interesting.
I wonder if you reached out to the webmaster of these sites if they would share with you how they obtained them. If they just got them from an image search, it may be nice to warn them that a troll is a'comin'. But wouldn't it be ironic if they got them from some sort of compilation CD-ROM for 50 bucks.
If the image in question is on government sites, whether it be municipal, county, state or federal, the image would be considered in the public domain and can not be in in copyright violation. Capture screenshots of the image on the government website(s) and inform them of the fact the image is in the public domain the next time they try contacting you. If they keep trying to press the matter, they will lose.
I'm not sure this is 100% accurate.. this site http://www.fishesoftexas.org/taxon/lepomis-megalotis credits the artist. I think if the image is created by the government entity, it is public domain, thats not to say that government site can't or don't use other images.. I would be weary of grabbing just anything from a government site.. refer to this thread for some PD image resources:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/
-
Agreed, it could be that the artist has given permission for the images to be used on the government sites or they have purchased licenses for the use. Be as sure as you can of your facts before you respond.
The fact that is available on so many state government sites is interesting.
I wonder if you reached out to the webmaster of these sites if they would share with you how they obtained them. If they just got them from an image search, it may be nice to warn them that a troll is a'comin'. But wouldn't it be ironic if they got them from some sort of compilation CD-ROM for 50 bucks.
If the image in question is on government sites, whether it be municipal, county, state or federal, the image would be considered in the public domain and can not be in in copyright violation. Capture screenshots of the image on the government website(s) and inform them of the fact the image is in the public domain the next time they try contacting you. If they keep trying to press the matter, they will lose.
I'm not sure this is 100% accurate.. this site http://www.fishesoftexas.org/taxon/lepomis-megalotis credits the artist. I think if the image is created by the government entity, it is public domain, thats not to say that government site can't or don't use other images.. I would be weary of grabbing just anything from a government site.. refer to this thread for some PD image resources:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/
-
Agreed, it could be that the artist has given permission for the images to be used on the government sites or they have purchased licenses for the use. Be as sure as you can of your facts before you respond.
The fact that is available on so many state government sites is interesting.
I wonder if you reached out to the webmaster of these sites if they would share with you how they obtained them. If they just got them from an image search, it may be nice to warn them that a troll is a'comin'. But wouldn't it be ironic if they got them from some sort of compilation CD-ROM for 50 bucks.
If the image in question is on government sites, whether it be municipal, county, state or federal, the image would be considered in the public domain and can not be in in copyright violation. Capture screenshots of the image on the government website(s) and inform them of the fact the image is in the public domain the next time they try contacting you. If they keep trying to press the matter, they will lose.
I'm not sure this is 100% accurate.. this site http://www.fishesoftexas.org/taxon/lepomis-megalotis credits the artist. I think if the image is created by the government entity, it is public domain, thats not to say that government site can't or don't use other images.. I would be weary of grabbing just anything from a government site.. refer to this thread for some PD image resources:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/
I stand corrected. I was under the impression that any images on a government web site were in the public domain from what I had read earlier and upon further examination, I have found out this is not true. I suppose the only true way to be sure of using an image on a website that will not violate anyone's copyright is to only use photographs that were taken by yourself. :(
Think I am going to stick to posts about security settings and computer networks as that is where my expertise is. Still learning all of this copyright law stuff and the more I learn, the more I feel I don't know.
-
Jot, even if you take the images yourself, some of these copyright trolling goons and their invasive software bots will flag your images as being copyrighted by someone else, especially if the images are of clouds or ocean waves.
I have a vague recollection of someone who received a settlement demand letter over an image he/she had photographed because it was similar to a supposedly copyrighted image.
-
That is an easy thing to do. Any image that is taken by the government is public domain such as a military photographer taking a picture of a jet in flight would be, where as a photo of a tank taken by an embedded reported would not be as the reported would hold the rights to the photo once cleared for release by the military. At least this is the way I understand it.
If you get pictures from government archives, NASA and the like they are generally safe.
Agreed, it could be that the artist has given permission for the images to be used on the government sites or they have purchased licenses for the use. Be as sure as you can of your facts before you respond.
The fact that is available on so many state government sites is interesting.
I wonder if you reached out to the webmaster of these sites if they would share with you how they obtained them. If they just got them from an image search, it may be nice to warn them that a troll is a'comin'. But wouldn't it be ironic if they got them from some sort of compilation CD-ROM for 50 bucks.
If the image in question is on government sites, whether it be municipal, county, state or federal, the image would be considered in the public domain and can not be in in copyright violation. Capture screenshots of the image on the government website(s) and inform them of the fact the image is in the public domain the next time they try contacting you. If they keep trying to press the matter, they will lose.
I'm not sure this is 100% accurate.. this site http://www.fishesoftexas.org/taxon/lepomis-megalotis credits the artist. I think if the image is created by the government entity, it is public domain, thats not to say that government site can't or don't use other images.. I would be weary of grabbing just anything from a government site.. refer to this thread for some PD image resources:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/list-of-public-domain-stock-footage-companies/
I stand corrected. I was under the impression that any images on a government web site were in the public domain from what I had read earlier and upon further examination, I have found out this is not true. I suppose the only true way to be sure of using an image on a website that will not violate anyone's copyright is to only use photographs that were taken by yourself. :(
Think I am going to stick to posts about security settings and computer networks as that is where my expertise is. Still learning all of this copyright law stuff and the more I learn, the more I feel I don't know.
-
I thought we had a thread on here about companies, like Getty, taking NASA photos and making them available on their site for a charge.
I don't remember if they tried to troll users of those photos. Does anyone else recall?
When Greg says these photos are safe, I think he means you shouldn't lose a lawsuit over a NASA image. That doesn't mean some troll won't say you stole their photo and demand $1200 for it. They can choose to hassle anyone. It is just a lot easier to tell them to go pound sand when you know the photo was taken by the government and not a photographer.
-
There are several instances where this has happened. I think this is the tread you are referring to:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/don't-pay-getty-thank-you-eli/
There is also a letter in the Attorney General's complaint letters that Robert obtained for us where Getty tried going after a guy who had a picture of an F-16 taken by a military photographer on his site. He told Getty this as well as it was included in a template he got. Getty didn't care and told him to pay, he complained to the AGs office as well as to Intuit who supplied the template. Intuit replied back that they would handle it and low and behold when a large company gets involved with a large legal staff things happen at Getty. Getty sent a letter to the AGs office stating that you don't need to worry about this complaint as they were happy to announce they were no longer pursuing the case. Image that :o
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104557917/Getty-Images-Attorney-General-Complaint-19
-
So the moral of the story is ... you gotta be careful using public domain or government photos unless you have a big company behind you.
Thanks for helping track that down, Greg.
-
I just received the same letter. Images were used from a CD that was purchased online. Had no idea they involved copyright. My patent/copyright attorney will be contacting this Mustoe character next week....stay tuned!
-
Appreciate this sight as I'm sure many do. I will contribute funds in support of this sight in the near future. Gives us peace of mind and much valued info.
-
Keep us posted and good to see you fighting back.
-
second page had invoice for settlement..Robert you are da man!!
My response to email and other responses....
Dear Mr. Mustoe:
Upon reviewing the photos in question I have came to the following conclusion in regards to the alleged copyright infringement:
· There is no possible way that any damages could have been done towards Mr. Tomerellis works over the alleged photos. I see this month that you settled with an individual who was reselling his works and also printing them on goods. I understand your case for a a fairly large sum on this case. Our site made only around $12 in its full existence. Zero dollars came from the alleged photos in question.
· I could not verify 2 of the alleged copyrights to said to have been registered via the link you sent me for research.
· Once again if any of these alleged photos were used it was %100 innocent and with no mal intent whatsoever.
· I also found these same works with no copyrights stated at the following sites that you may want to investigate. These are government sites with no statement of copyright on any page for the images.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fishing/forests/fishresources/mtbsno_warmwater.html
http://fishgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/fishingplanner/htm/Bluegill-Pumpkinseed-Sunfish.htm
http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Fishing/Fish-ID-Gallery/GREEN-SUNFISH
http://www.fishesoftexas.org/taxon/lepomis-megalotis (creative commons)
As stated before your value for the alleged images is nowhere close to market and I see no evidence of web images sold by Mr. Tomerelli for any amounts, only prints. I feel like my previous offer was very reasonable, but I am willing to offer double that ($200.00) to settle this matter. The money can be sent today if you wish via PayPal.
Kind Regards,
His response..
The United States Congress disagrees with you. 17 USC Section 504 creates a minimum damage of $750 per image and a maximum of $30,000 plus attorneys fees. So the recoverable damages in this case are probably 50 times the settlement offer. You can take the risk of trial if you want. But you also have until tomorrow to get the $1,000 to us if you want to resolve this for an amount far under the statutory fine amount. Depositing the check into the mail by tomorrow meets the terms of the offer.
My final emails ...
Dear Mr. Mustoe,
I have been advised to no longer correspond with you via email. Any correspondance you have for me please mail in letter form. All emails from your address will not be responded too.
Response
Your choice; as it is Mr. Tomelleri's choice to sue. If the advice is from counsel, please provide the name of counsel.
I just joined this forum after reading your thread on Mustoe and Mr. Tomelleri because I too am trying to deal with a demand letter and huge invoice from Mustoe.
I had on my two websites 7 of Mr. Tomelleri's fish, all very poor quality, some flipped. The first notice I received was when my websites were suddenly taken down by a DCMA notice to my hosting back in May. Last week I received a settlement invoice for one of my websites; I am sure another letter is forthcoming for the other website.
I used fish pictures from state and federal government websites with the assumption they were copyright free. I have no idea where the ones I had came from because a year and a half ago I was new to website design and didn't diligently source my images-I do now! All I know is I never intentionally took his images. And to make matters worse, I could never find where I got them because he has ordered so many to remove his images. I talked to someone in his office back in May that said not to worry, the images are all over the internet and on a lot of government websites.
Anyway, I am freaking out. I have no money to pay them, no money for a lawyer, and no desire to pay this extortionist. I have not made squat from my websites, they are purely educational and the little that comes in goes back out to Google for advertising or hosting. And I'm unemployed so they are going after someone with no income or assets.
I thought all of you would be interested in the tid-bit I just found on Mr. Tomelleri from 1998 where he granted a company permission to use his images then he later sued them for $1,000,000. So Mr. Tomelleri has a history of suing people for his images. http://www.sdbar.org/Federal/1998/1998dsd033.htm
If anyone fighting this company can keep us all up to date on dealing with these trolls, please do. I can't afford a lawyer so you're my only resource. Thanks all.
-
Welcome to the forums Cranky Fish. I suggest that you start by reading the forums as they contain a wealth of information you can use to defend yourself from these copyright trolls. I have found that a complaint letter writing campaign worked well for me and has made Getty Images back off and leave me alone. I have detailed what I have done along with all correspondence between Getty and myself as well as all complaint letters and responses and made them available in this thread.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/
I would start reading and ask questions if there is anything you don’t understand or specific information you are looking for but have not been able to find.
You may also wish to consider a support phone call with Matthew as he can bring you up to speed quickly.
-
Actually crankyfish,you are really not in that bad of a position, being broke with no money can really be an asset in these situations..can't get blood from a stone...use it to your advantage!
-
Be calm cranky fish.. And really read the forums and educate yourself. I shared my letter on here and would be curious if yours is similar to mine.. Consider sharing it on here so everyone can help you out..Robert once again makes a great point...
-
Good to meet you Cranky Fish.....I too...Like you and "mdc" got the same letter. This started back in the spring of 2012. I have a fishing site and posted a "species" tertiary web page (educational content only) on my site. Mustoe is now bugging both me and my associate guide concerning 14 images that I got off a CD and a few government sites. The copywritten images that were posted were unintentional but that means nothing in this game. I have not responded to Mustoe! We all should ban together on this...this is extortion at it's ugliest. I have a family member who is one of Apple's top patent attorneys and I will seek his council this week. I'm going to fight this....please join me!
-
Right there with you WhiteOak..Let me know of his advice. I have shared most of my advice on here..consider adding your letter to the forum as I have done.
-
mdc, My letter is an exact duplicate of yours....Mustoe probably sends hundreds of them out with invoices attached. The "scared sheep" and misinformed are the ones that open their check books, filling extortion troll Mustoes pockets. It's a real shame and total outrage!
-
Got this letter and subsequent invoice after removing a few fish thumbnails that were taken from government web sites. They were low quality and for educational purposes of fishes we stock. We made no money as a result of his photos. They only served to support a description of the species. This was not an intentional theft or misrepresentation of authorship for financial gain. It was simply a mistake that was remedied when we were notified of our error.
-
Got a new letter from Mustoe yesterday..Same old stuff..More threats and now giving me the option to pay $500 in January and $500 in February..will try and share on here soon..
-
Please do share the letter with us, I'd love nothing more than to have a nice little collection from this ass hat..
-
Here's a post I made in my Experiement Against Getty thread using cranky fish's Court Opinion he posted, you all may want to include this bit in any repiels to Mustoe.
While reading the posts in another thread I came across something I thought was very interesting. A post by cranky fish where he cited a Federal District Court opinion on a case contain something I thought was interesting. While citing the history and the facts of the case the court made a reference to the "Extortion Letter" that was initially sent out and made this comment about it.
This Court must be very careful to treat all attorneys with courtesy and not launch missiles. The Court, however, finds a portion of the letter from the Kansas attorney to be frankly disturbing. No person, especially an attorney, should be even mentioning a possible criminal prosecution in an attempt to collect money in a civil dispute. Extortion is theft by threat if a person obtains property of another by threatening to accuse anyone of a criminal offense. This is not only the common law but is a statute in South Dakota. See SDCL 22-30A-4(2). It is also a specific grounds for disbarment in South Dakota.
I would like to thank cranky fish for posting this district court's opinion as I am going to modify all of my complaint letters I have ready and waiting should I receive a letter from Mr. McCormack and also the complaint letters I have ready to go against Getty images and Lisa Wilmer to include this Federal District Court opinion.
For those of you who are writing complaint letters I would recommend including this in your letter in some fashion and here is the link to the entire opinion provided by cranky fish.
http://www.sdbar.org/Federal/1998/1998dsd033.htm
-
Here is an interesting excerpt from the Dakotah, Inc. v. Tomelleri, 1998 DSD Shows fish artist Tomelleri was doing this 15 years ago and continues it today:
"Tomelleri not only threatened litigation in the District of Kansas, but implied that Dakotah and others, including retailers of Dakotah products and perhaps George White (then president of Dakotah) personally were subject to criminal prosecutions if they did not comply with Tomelleri's demands."
"CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS"....WHAT AN A$$HOLE
http://www.sdbar.org/Federal/1998/1998dsd033.htm
-
Here is an interesting excerpt from the Dakotah, Inc. v. Tomelleri, 1998 DSD Shows fish artist Tomelleri was doing this 15 years ago and continues it today:
"Tomelleri not only threatened litigation in the District of Kansas, but implied that Dakotah and others, including retailers of Dakotah products and perhaps George White (then president of Dakotah) personally were subject to criminal prosecutions if they did not comply with Tomelleri's demands."
"CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS"....WHAT AN A$$HOLE
http://www.sdbar.org/Federal/1998/1998dsd033.htm
I'm generally not a spelling or grammar nazi, however I do enjoy good search engine results..with that being said I feel compelled ( as it is my duty to make a few cringe every once in awhile) to make a slight modification /correction..
"CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS"....copyright troll Joseph Tomelleri what an asshole!
-
:D :D :D :D :D Nice one!! Will scan letter and send it soon..
-
BuddhaPi,
I just love your perspectives and rants on ELI. You give us all hope and help make dealing with these Extortionistic "Asshats" somewhat bearable. The world needs more BuddhaPi's!
-
Latest letter:
(http://car2web.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/mustoe2a2.jpg)
-
"Mr Tomerelli is done making offers to you so this is your last opportunity to resolve this short of filing suit."
......Very professional and a good grasp of the English language. ::)
-
"Mr Tomerelli is done making offers to you so this is your last opportunity to resolve this short of filing suit."
......Very professional and a good grasp of the English language. ::)
@Whiteoak, it's hard to be professional and use proper English with one's head buried in ones ass...just sayin...Steven Mustoe also has a way with treating people with respect..
-
Oscar, is it normal for intellectual property attorneys to be poorly schooled in formal grammar and traditional syntax associated with the English language?
I thought at first it was just copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his office full of illiterates who sent out error-filled settlement demand letters, but at this point in my law education from the University of ELI, I'm now starting to think that most lawyers playing the copyright extortion game either can't write English or else have so little respect for the intelligence of the people they're sending their letters to that they don't bother to even try to write as if they had at least finished high school.
What's really absurd is that most of the letters I've seen are boilerplate form letters, anyway. You'd think college educated extortionists pulling down 40% or more of a settlement fee for sending out a form letter would at least have enough pride to send out a professional one.
I know, I know. As my blushing bride of close to half a century always says, "Dear, you expect too much from lawyers. Stop being so old school. Stop expecting professional correspondence from an honest lawyer who's representing an honest client who in good faith wants to resolve a legitimate issue. In other words, get your head out of your ass, Mulligan, and go wash the dishes before you get all worked up into an ELI frenzy and end up shitting your pants again!"
-
I have a crush on Mrs Mulligan!
-
I think that there is a good case here for extortion, since Mustoe say that they WILL sue if the money is not paid by Feb 15th. When it turns out he's bluffing I would call them on it and use the district court statement as a hammer and file complaints with the AG's office and with the Bar Association(s) he is a member of for using extortionist tactics to try and get money from you.
And should they sue I would file a counter suit for the same thing based on this opinion and push for sanctions or disbarment.
This Court must be very careful to treat all attorneys with courtesy and not launch missiles. The Court, however, finds a portion of the letter from the Kansas attorney to be frankly disturbing. No person, especially an attorney, should be even mentioning a possible criminal prosecution in an attempt to collect money in a civil dispute. Extortion is theft by threat if a person obtains property of another by threatening to accuse anyone of a criminal offense. This is not only the common law but is a statute in South Dakota. See SDCL 22-30A-4(2). It is also a specific grounds for disbarment in South Dakota.
-
Mulligan - I taught the first year writing program at New York Law School for about 7 years and my first year law students would have been able to construct a better letter than this one. If you are going to send boilerplate letters, then all the more reason that they should be grammatically correct. You are only writing them once - take the time to proofread them, make sure they are accurate and properly written and then you never have to worry about it again.
-
Oscar, I wish I was young and starting out again because I'd love to attend your courses and maybe pick up a law degree specializing in intellectual property law. I suspect it's going to be one of the most important, active, and no doubt controversial areas for years and years to come. Thanks for replying to my question.