ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on May 24, 2012, 01:26:37 AM
-
Phototake, a stock photo agency we have not come across before, has hired one of the lawyers from Photo Attorney, Carolyn E. Wright's law firm. California newbie attorney Leslie Burns has put her signature to the previously reported Photo Attorney Extortion Letters.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94632704/Photo-Attorney-Leslie-Burns-Settlement-Demand-Letter
(http://burnstheattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/meinhat-300x232.jpg)
State Bar Information
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/276687
Leslie Burns was admitted to the California State Bar in June 2011. Definitely a newbie lawyer if I ever saw one.
These Photo Attorney letters are starting to annoy me and I am starting to see them way too frequently. Similar to the McCormack's extortion letters, there are many issues in the letters that are grounds and deserving of State Bar and Attorney General Complaints. The sad part of this is that nearly all of the Photo Attorneys are relatively young and it will be quite upsetting for them to get such complaints so early in their careers.
There are a great many presumptions and accusations that overstep boundaries. They are not the freaking judge and their judge and jury stance is what is going to get them in trouble.
I don't have time to get into a detailed "extortion letter dissection" of the problem areas but I foresee some serious State Bar hits on the Photo Attorneys who are dumb enough to sign their names to these letters. Someone remind me and when I have some free time, I will do an in-depth extortion letter dissection on the Photo Attorney letters.
Remember, one of the strongest ways to get them to back off is to hit back very hard where it counts using the "SB-AG SCAR (Strategic Complaint / Attorney Retaliation) attack".
-
I think that hiring young lawyers is a part of their plan. I looked at the website of the European attorneys who do the work for GI. I came across the Swiss lawyer: They hired young lawyers too:
Look at the photo of the team and who works for the copyright regarding the internet:
http://www.mplaw.ch/eng_team.html
What a coincidence ;)
Kahn
-
Are these lawyers essentially inexperienced, out of work people who decided to take anything that came along?
I realize that some lawyers have a broken moral compass, but I wonder if the economy has something to do with it?
Or, a bit of both?
I'd like to see where these "lawyers" are in a few years.
I recall that Brandon Sand wrote up a real turd and sent it to some other country.
Look where it got him. I guess that a rap career was his calling after all.
It seems that anyone who has a "law degree", an IQ of 80, and a copy of MS Word can cut-and-paste their way into the "American Dream"
Good luck with that.
S.G.
-
Here is a little more on the newest copyright troll from the stable of PhotoAttorney Carolyn Wright.
Leslie Burns aka Leslie Burns-Dell'Acqua, jokingly refers to herself as an over-educated former Jeopardy! contestant.
In case the law thing doesn't work out to well for her, she can always fall back on her line of work: "Burns Auto Parts" http://www.burnsautoparts.com/BAPsite/Index.html
"Big NEWS" - "It is with a great sense of pride and excitement that I announce my new position with the law firm of Carolyn E. Wright, LLC… better known to most of you as photoattorney.com. Starting April 1 (yes, April Fools’ Day) I will be working full-time with Carolyn (and Evan)."
( April Fools Day?? That was really mean and nasty of Carolyn Wright to throw Leslie under the bus like this! )
Linkedin Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/burnsautoparts
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BurnsAutoParts
Blog: http://burnstheattorney.com/
Look she's an author too!: http://www.amazon.com/Business-Basics-Successful-Commercial-Photographer/dp/0557565316/
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/burnsautoparts
jeopardy game archive: http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?g
game_id=106
Pot meet kettle:http://burnstheattorney.com/2011/07/what-not-to-do/
Notable quotes:
"Sometimes it’s tough to stand up. Sometimes, people try to cut off your voice or ignore you or embarrass you into silence. But if you look around, sometimes you’ll find that others are standing up too." ( Look over this way Leslie Burns, ESQ, you'll see a bunch of us standing up against the ever present copyright trolls.)
------------------------------------
"In the very recent past I’ve had more than a couple of photographers contact me about possible infringement situations. That’s great… it’s what I do. My first question, as always, is “Is the image’s copyright registered?” For almost every one of those photographers, the answer has been “no.”
"At the most basic level, your demand letter (assuming you start there) isn’t going to have as much punch if there is no registration."
"Also, the power of citing the registration number is a factor in your opening position for negotiations. Without it, you have a very weak negotiation starting point which, combined with the unlikeliness of a good size settlement, isn’t going to help you. Frankly, it’s not likely you’re going to find an attorney willing to bother with your case unless you are willing to pay the lawyer’s time." - ( unless your a troll like Leslie Burns that is!)
"No registration means the door to the courthouse is essentially locked for you."
"Also, as others much wiser than I have noted, once you go to trial, all bets are off. You just can’t predict what a jury (especially, but judges too) will do. Remember, Casey Anthony was found not guilty when the world thought she was." ( such as awarding 4,400.00 for an image that is actually" worth" next to nothing. )
and Look at this one!
"When you find your work has been infringed, there are many things you can do. Many of those things, however, are not good ideas to do. For example, sending an invoice for three times the amount of the license fee is something you hear about from many sources, but there is no legal reason for that amount (or form) of a demand. Calling and threatening the infringer is another bad idea. Rolling over and ignoring it is also not a good plan."
(yeah 3 times the amount is just not enough, might as well try 10 times or even 100 times!)
Even though the image in the doc is blocked out I 'm pretty sure the image is question is this one, which is available on the photographers site as well as the Phototake site:
http://denniskunkel.com/index.php?module=media&pId=102&id=9880
There are some registrations with the copyright office, But I could not locate this particular one... Did Attorney Leslie Burns misspeak and state that this image was registered when in fact it is not?
copyright search: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Dennis+Kunkel+Microscopy%2C+Inc.&Search_Code=TALL&PID=yQBRWeUTpvkeBBQ9Tboxw7Xmc_g&SEQ=20120519071958&CNT=25&HIST=1
-
Nice quotes!
So basically, an attorney (who plays both sides of the fence) endorses most of the strategy found here on ELI for combating trolling.
What a great endorsement of this site!
-
Time to take screen captures of all her quotes before she removes them.
I look forward to beating her over the head with her own words.
S.G.
-
If Buddhapi is correct about the image (and I'm pretty sure he is), that pic is also available in black and white as a print for $12.99 from http://visualsunlimited.photoshelter.com/image/I0000vRSHryhDjGg.
Hey, I'll scan it and colorize it for the letter recipient for free. So we have now established the cost: $12.99. I hope Leslie Burns doesn't do anything ridiculous like invoice for three times that amount. Because I hear there is no legal reason for that amount (or form) of a demand.
-
way ahead of you SG I got screen captures as soon as I saw these "quotes"
Time to take screen captures of all her quotes before she removes them.
I look forward to beating her over the head with her own words.
S.G.
-
Great postings and research links.
I take it that the photo in question is registered as part of a larger compilation of photos.
Additionally, it's registered to the original photographer, and not the stock image company?
There's no mention of a signed, dated "exclusive" agreement between the photographer and Phototake.
The whole thing sounds a bit weak...
S.G.
-
OMG! Another thread to PEEV me!
Just to disect the demand letter for starters some things that really stand out for me...
First the registration number. Yes it looks like as mentioned that this is another "bulk" registration. I also only see the "artist" name on the registration and NOT "Phototake Inc." name on the registration....
Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VAu000751372 / 2007-06-22
Title: Dennis Kunkel Microscopy, Inc. LM/EM image collection : no. 1.
Description: Photos.
Copyright Claimant: Dennis Kunkel Microscopy, Inc.
Date of Creation: 2007
Authorship on Application: Dennis Kunkel, 1950-.
Copyright Note: Cataloged from appl. only.
Names on the resgistration:
Names: Kunkel, Dennis, 1950-
Dennis Kunkel Microscopy, Inc.
From the letter:
"Our client's review of prior licenses does not include your use of the Photograph. Therefore, your use of the Photograph without authorization of our client or the law constitutes copyright infringement. The infringement is clear; the only question is the extent of damages to be paid."
Again....JUDGE & JURY!
Next....Biggest PEEV....
"Evidence that the infringed works bore prominent copyright notices supports a finding of willfulness. See Castle Rock Entm't v. Carol Publ'g Group, Inc., 955 F.Supp. 260, 267 (S.D.N.Y.1997). Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason Inc., et al., 271 F.Supp.2d 737 (D. Md., July 10, 2003). Since our client posted copyright notices with the Photographs, your infringement is presumed to be willful. Our client therefore is entitled to enhanced statutory damages for your willful copyright infringement. Our client also is entitled to receive any legal fees and costs from the infringer. See 17 USC §505.""
Again....MORE BULL CRAP of JUDGE & JURY and ACCUSATORY STATEMENTS! Pointing the finger at the DEFENDANT for removal of copyright information really ticks me off! Oh and since we "presume your infringement to be willful" you therefore owe us for "enhanced statutory damages"!
More.....
"In addition, our client posted copyright management information with the Photographs. You removed the copyright management information in violation of 17 USC §1202(b)
Also what's up with the accusations of the recipient posting his/her own copyright information adjacent to the photos? This was also mentioned in the last demand letter for the 35K!
ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Lastly......the "insurance" thing......
"If you carry business insurance, now may be an appropriate time to contact your carrier to determine whether our client's claims are covered under your policy.
Hey now....don't worry, you MAY be covered by your INSURANCE COMPANY and they will PAY so go relax and have a smoothie!
>:( >:( >:(
-
Holy Mackerel! I am always amazed at the speed in which this forum receives news then dissects it and then jumps all over it to find stuff to call people out on! Finding that quote from her website where she says what not to do was GOLDEN, SG!
-
It's quickly becoming my signature area of expertise!.. I can see the head trolls adding a "damage control" factor into the interviewing process...
Holy Mackerel! I am always amazed at the speed in which this forum receives news then dissects it and then jumps all over it to find stuff to call people out on! Finding that quote from her website where she says what not to do was GOLDEN, SG!
-
Buddhapi did all of the research and posted the info!!
I can't take any credit here.
Thanks tho!!
S.G.
-
Another stellar job exposing the newest photo attorney Leslie J. Burns also of photoattorney.com Carolyn Wrights Office as well as burnsautoparts.com.
http://www.palmbeachdns.com/leslie_google_SS.jpg
-
Well done buddhapi! Didn't meant to give your props to SG!
-
I got this same EXACT letter received from a different (presumably young) troll working for Carolyn Wright. Same photographer, different image. Image also sold on his website, as well as Visuals Unlimited and Corbis.
Except they've increased their settlement price to $6,000 for a single image from $4,400 in the Leslie Burns letter.
Go to the phototake USA homepage and scroll to the bottom for the copyright boilerplate. It says "All rights reversed." I almost died laughing.
-
lol. your right. maybe you should write them and tell them they officially reversed their rights under copyright law thus giving you an implied license. :)
too funny!!
-
Ridiculous