ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on September 13, 2012, 03:25:21 PM
-
Well we now have a letter from each and every attorney associated with Carolyn Wrights' office ( photoattorney.com), this letter signed by Earl Richardson, is demanding 3250.00 for 1 image on behalf of Corbis Corporation. This letter also accuses the recipient of removing copyright management information, and also of claiming copyright because of the standard copyright notice you see on most sites.
Once again they ask the recipient to provide an accounting of all uses of the photograph.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105839160
Look for most posts regarding Attorney Earl Richardson, as it looks as if it's his turn for some FREE PR
-
It always burns me in these letters how they accuse you of manipulating the images to remove copyright information, watermarks or other identifying marks. While in almost every single case a simple search for the image will reveal it on free sites in multiple places. Hopefully people will start filing bar complaints for the language and tone of these letters much as they did to good old Timmy that made him change his ways and produce his new kinder gentler letter.
-
Copyright Troll Earl Richardson from the office of photoattorney.com Carolyn Wright
(http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Earl-Richardson-272x300.jpg)
also owns: Earl Richardson Photography - http://www.earlrichardson.com/ ( too bad he's a Canon user...)
"More than 25 years as a photojournalist and commercial photographer. I've also been an attorney for the last 2 years. <---- a seasoned veteran!
Specialties
People photography on location, and location lighting. I work fast, do good work, and do it in a timely fashion and within your budget." <---- no mention of anything law related...speaks volumes!!
member of : DOUGLAS COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
-
It always burns me in these letters how they accuse you of manipulating the images to remove copyright information, watermarks or other identifying marks. While in almost every single case a simple search for the image will reveal it on free sites in multiple places. Hopefully people will start filing bar complaints for the language and tone of these letters much as they did to good old Timmy that made him change his ways and produce his new kinder gentler letter.
Greg, you're absolutely right. This is the most annoying part of the rote bluff because THEY CAN'T PROVE IT. They must know this unless they're totally deluded. They just throw that in because it sounds really scary that you could be nailed for a Federal crime, fined huge amounts of money, and thrown in jail.
Of course they fail to mention that the onus is on them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the infringement was intentional. Proving intent in court is difficult and expensive and probably requires a more experienced IP lawyer than E.R.
-
The people that receive these letters need to file complaints with the bar assn if they are from a lawyer for the way this is worded, that and pressure from ELI is what finally got Timmy to cool his jets with his letters.
It always burns me in these letters how they accuse you of manipulating the images to remove copyright information, watermarks or other identifying marks. While in almost every single case a simple search for the image will reveal it on free sites in multiple places. Hopefully people will start filing bar complaints for the language and tone of these letters much as they did to good old Timmy that made him change his ways and produce his new kinder gentler letter.
Greg, you're absolutely right. This is the most annoying part of the rote bluff because THEY CAN'T PROVE IT. They must know this unless they're totally deluded. They just throw that in because it sounds really scary that you could be nailed for a Federal crime, fined huge amounts of money, and thrown in jail.
Of course they fail to mention that the onus is on them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the infringement was intentional. Proving intent in court is difficult and expensive and probably requires a more experienced IP lawyer than E.R.