Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)  (Read 11866 times)

Ethan Seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2018, 03:03:10 AM »
Your argument is flawed, again.  Getty owns istock, but Istock is not Getty.    istock is a discount line of royalty free images.  Getty focuses on rights managed images that cost much more.  So, Schwabel is probably getting paid much more than you think.

Go on to Getty’s site and you will see images that get licensed  for hundreds and thousands of dollars.  There are higher end agencies that sell images for even more money. 
Even if I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer.  Copyright matters can have serious consequences.  If you have assets worth protecting, consult a lawyer who is familiar with copyright law and who can review the facts of your case. If you cannot afford one, call your state or county bar association.

DavidVGoliath

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2018, 06:56:47 AM »
Your argument is flawed, again. Getty owns iStock, but Istock is not Getty. iStock is a discount line of royalty free images.  Getty focuses on rights managed images that cost much more.  So, Schwabel is probably getting paid much more than you think.

I just popped on to iStock moments ago; a search for "Tom Schwabel" or "Thomas Schwabel" returned no images. Conversely, he has 168 images listed on Getty.

So: Schwabel will most likely be receiving a royalty rate of 35% which means that, outside of volume licensing clients (who tend to license news/sports shots) he'll be earning semi-decent royalties from his works there.

I do have a question for UnfairlyTargeted, though: did Schwabel file suit against you or not? If he filed, and won,

UnfairlyTargeted

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2018, 09:18:17 PM »
No, Schwabel hasn't sued me because his case is full of shit.  I would have relished the idea of him suing me just to see how much of his time and money he'd waste.  It's very hard to squeeze money out of someone even with a judgment.  Assets can be hidden and sheltered offshore.  Credit destruction isn't an issue for some people if they never use it.  It's just a big waste of time on his end.  What's better is how I would have brought in a tough litigator friend of mine to grill him on the stand over his manifesto and manual on extortion.  It would have messed up all of his luxurious excessive travel plans for months with court dates and depositions.  And the evidence I have on his seeding and collusion with law firms as part of his racket would have been very damaging and embarrassing.  Then when he lost his case, I would press criminal charges for extortion.  Given his background including prison time for identity theft, it would end very badly for him. You know, as a felon, it's very hard to escape your past and get a clean start.

Ethan Seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2018, 02:08:04 AM »
I have to hand it to you Unfairly Targeted, your steadfast commitment to delusion and anger is something special. 
Even if I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer.  Copyright matters can have serious consequences.  If you have assets worth protecting, consult a lawyer who is familiar with copyright law and who can review the facts of your case. If you cannot afford one, call your state or county bar association.

UnfairlyTargeted

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2018, 04:00:03 PM »
Still waiting for someone to show me a pic that's worth hundreds or thousands and is somehow better than something available free or on istock for some cents

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2018, 04:45:33 PM »
UT must eat from the dollar menu daily, cause why would anyone pay 8 bucks for a burger?!...
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

DavidVGoliath

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2018, 06:51:47 PM »
Still waiting for someone to show me a pic that's worth hundreds or thousands and is somehow better than something available free or on istock for some cents

https://petapixel.com/2017/12/21/20-expensive-photos-sold-auction-2017

UnfairlyTargeted

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2018, 07:34:21 PM »
I meant pic on the internet that's been sold for that much.  Not some antique photo.

btw, dollar menu is tasty.

DavidVGoliath

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2018, 11:14:14 AM »
I meant pic on the internet that's been sold for that much.  Not some antique photo

You're asking something to be proven that would likely be private information between the seller and buyer - you know, client confidentiality?

Getty, iStock and most all other agencies which have public-facing sales portals are almost always about volume licensing; they have clients who have a large demand for new images every day or week, and they pay a prearranged fee to these agencies in return for a fixed number of images per day/week/month.

The high-end licenses usually happen between buyers and photographers directly, or via the photographer's agents.  Here's a good example of how having an agent - even temporarily - can yield a four-figure fee for just three images.

https://wonderfulmachine.com/member-blog/pricing-negotiating-stock-licensing

On a personal note only, I routinely license my works for high-three to mid-four-figure sums. My largest single invoice was for two photographs that were used by a secondary ticketing company, and that was just under €8,950 at the time (about $10,300). Granted, this was a long-term nonexclusive license for use across all eight of their European websites, so that played a part in the fee being so high. I don't have an agent (yet) so I handle all licensing queries myself, but I can see a point not far off in the future where it may be beneficial to have an agent representing me.

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

DavidVGoliath

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2018, 12:11:53 PM »
same tree, different photographer, different angle, different settings, different pricing, different quality...

You're not kidding. I got a bit of a headache looking at the iStock shot, being that the framing/composition felt very cramped an overly busy. It also (on my screen) looked like the iStock preview image was very low quality compared to the Getty RM image preview.

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2018, 01:56:56 PM »
hence, "you get what you pay for" persoinally i don't have an issue with a photographer charging x amount, it's their work, their prices...heck I'm a business owner and have my own prices, if one doesn't want to pay what i charge there are other options out there.. What gets me is when a stock agency like getty tries to collect 1k on an image that is RF on their site for 5 bucks..or even worse ( and wev're seen this) when a getty RF image suddenly gets shifted over to RM when  a letter gets sent..I've always had an issue in which these companies elect handle the situatioin..
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

kingkendall

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2018, 11:37:30 AM »
I think this is the biggest reason why a lawsuit for single image has not gone all the way through a jury tirial and verdict or extremely rare.  Asking for thousands of dollars for a photo with a market value of $10 would be thrown out as a colossal waste of tome.  But, it's not about that.  It's about the copyright troll scary ignorant people to cough up the cash right away and that's where they make 99% of their money.   
« Last Edit: August 22, 2018, 11:39:59 AM by kingkendall »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2018, 01:27:00 PM »
I think this is the biggest reason why a lawsuit for single image has not gone all the way through a jury tirial and verdict or extremely rare.  Asking for thousands of dollars for a photo with a market value of $10 would be thrown out as a colossal waste of tome.  But, it's not about that.  It's about the copyright troll scary ignorant people to cough up the cash right away and that's where they make 99% of their money.

exactly correct....hell even with schwabels tree image, it would not be a winning proposition for him to file suit over hius image he sells for 499.00 on Getty images, unless he can surely prove damages...it would cost him that just to file the papers..without a lawyer..

Getty used to send letters threatening lawsuits, if they got no reply, they would have off the case to their "lawyer" Timothy McCormack, would then send letters threatening a lawsuit and upping the demand amount..layer #2 of the fear factor...how many times did Timothy McCormack appear on court on behalf of getty images?? ZERO....hell he may have only been in court one time in his career when he made the mistake of going up against Matthew Chan in the Georgia Supreme Court, where he made himself and his client look like fools..as a side note our old buddy Timmy now grows pot for a living.
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

DavidVGoliath

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2018, 05:26:14 AM »
I think this is the biggest reason why a lawsuit for single image has not gone all the way through a jury tirial and verdict or extremely rare.  Asking for thousands of dollars for a photo with a market value of $10 would be thrown out as a colossal waste of tome.

I think the reason that you haven't seen single-image lawsuits go all the way to a jury trial is that defendants will want to minimise their risk of being slapped with a hefty judgement against them. In the event that a plaintiff can prove wilful infringement, damages can be as high as $150,000, and that's before any provable DMCA violations are factored for.

If a case against an infringer is fairly airtight and there's a good chance to argue/prove that DMCA was violated (e.g. a watermark/copyright notice being cropped out of a published use - which also proves wilfulness) then you're looking at combined damages of at least $3,250... plus the prospect of paying part or all of the plaintiff's legal fees, as well as your own legal fees to defend the suit. That could quickly become a five-figure sum that you're on the hook for. Conversely, settling the matter at the pretrial stage is less costly to all parties.

So, that image that may have cost you just $10 to license, but you took it anyway? A court may not look favourably on that action and, if the plaintiff has their ducks in a row regarding timely registration, they might well render a verdict that is as much punitive in nature as compensatory, because judgements tend to also factor for deterring others from engaging in similar acts.

Put it this way: if the sole penalty for stealing something valued at $10 was that you would be made to pay the $10, then there are a great many people who would happily roll the dice in the hopes of never being caught.

Also, here's a thing to consider: the damages ranges for infringements per 17 USC 504 were written into law back in 1946 and statutory damages back then were of ranged between $250 - $10,000. If those numbers had kept pace with inflation, the 2018 damages range would be $3,230 to $129,330. Wilful infringements had a damages range of $10,000 to $50,000 ($129.330 to $646,170, adjusted) and even "innocent" infringement was pegged at $100 ($1,293, adjusted)

The current figures for damages in 17 USC 504 were laid down in 1999 so it's fair to say that we may see them being revised in the near future so as to factor for inflation and other variables. Let's see how that would pan out using numbers adjusted to 2018.

"Innocent" infringement minimum damages of $200 would become $300
Statutory damages range of $750 - 30,000 would become $1,135 to $45,300
Willful damages cap of $150,000 would become $226,900

Prior to the 1999 adjustments, the damages scale was last modified in 1988... so I'd say it's likely going to be revised again any day now, and wouldn't be surprised if revisions are announced and put into effect before 2020. I can easily see the statutory damages range becoming $1,500 to $50,000 and willful infringement becoming capped at $250,000.

I'd also bet that the 'innocent' infringement minimum will move closer to $500 than the inflation-adjusted $300. Before Napster burst onto the scene in June of 1999, discussions about copyright and infringement were really not part of the public consciousness, so the ability to argue innocence in an alleged infringing act was (in my opinion) much higher than it is today, and laws are always written with deterrence in mind.

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.