ELI Forums > Getty Images Letter Forum
Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)
ohyeahtakethat:
A few weeks ago my fiance and I received a pixsy letter. They're demanding $500+ on the behalf of a photographer. The image is a protein powder scoop, unremarkable to say the least. We found the image using Google's free use tool, but didn't know there were stipulations involved, so we gave no attribution.
The photographer lives in Europe but HAS sued two companies in the US over copyright infringement this year and last year. We are in the US.
The thing is, our blog site hardly makes any money, we are not an LLC or anything like that. Similar protein powder images are all over the internet and are available for free with no license or attribution.
I have offered to settle for $10.00 as a "fair market value" for the picture but Pixsy isn't budging at all on their ridiculous $500+ license fee (FOR A PICTURE OF A SCOOP OF PROTEIN POWDER). They also can't provide me any history of that photo being purchased for that price.
What do you guys think? Should I just start ignoring these letters at this point and risk actually being sued by someone with a history of suing for copyright?
UnfairlyTargeted:
In the off chance he actually sues and in the off chance he actually wins a judgment.... who cares? Just don't pay it. It's very hard to get money from someone who doesn't want to pay anything, even with a judgment.
I wouldn't pay a talentless POS Pixsy "photographer" a single fucking cent. The people that use Pisxy are unsuccessful pieces of human trash that have no other way to sell their crappy photos of protein powder, and they know it. Read up in photography channels how they talk about how to extort the maximum money from people and how they can't sell their photos for more than pennies otherwise. There's one really notorious POS, Tom Schwabel, who has a whole handbook and manifesto online with full instructions on how to carry out this scam.
What I do is expose the POS for who he is, make sure his "customers" (if he has any) are made known that he's a POS.
DavidVGoliath:
--- Quote from: UnfairlyTargeted on August 07, 2018, 01:11:05 PM ---In the off chance he actually sues and in the off chance he actually wins a judgment.... who cares? Just don't pay it. It's very hard to get money from someone who doesn't want to pay anything, even with a judgment.
--- End quote ---
Stellar legal advice there, fella: just ignore a judgement if sued. Way to run the risk of a contempt of court charge - doubly so since copyright claims are tried at Federal level.
--- Quote from: UnfairlyTargeted on August 07, 2018, 01:11:05 PM ---I wouldn't pay a talentless POS Pixsy "photographer" a single fucking cent. The people that use Pisxy are unsuccessful pieces of human trash that have no other way to sell their crappy photos of protein powder, and they know it.
--- End quote ---
You do know Pixsy is a reverse-search service used by photographers of all kinds, right? You can't "sell" pictures using Pixsy... it's just a tool that you can use to track down unlicensed uses of your work.
--- Quote from: UnfairlyTargeted on August 07, 2018, 01:11:05 PM --- Read up in photography channels how they talk about how to extort the maximum money from people and how they can't sell their photos for more than pennies otherwise.
--- End quote ---
This is the second time in a month that you've made this bold, unsubstantiated claim: I asked you before to give me even one example of a photo website/forum where specific (or even implied) discussions of using copyright claims to 'extort' people are prevalent, and you've failed to do so... so, again, I'm calling BS on this hyperbole.
--- Quote from: UnfairlyTargeted on August 07, 2018, 01:11:05 PM ---There's one really notorious POS, Tom Schwabel, who has a whole handbook and manifesto online with full instructions on how to carry out this scam.
--- End quote ---
You first posted about Schwabel almost four years ago. That's a long time to hold such a bitter, vitriolic grudge against someone who contacted you directly without lawyering up, asked you to stop using their work and pay a very reasonable, low figure settlement for your past use of their work.
That level of anger is a hot stone: the longer and tighter you hold on to it, the more you burn only yourself.
Matthew Chan:
Can you point me to a copyright infringement case where there was a judgment on a copyright infringement case where there was a "contempt of court charge"? It is my understanding that, at best, various collection efforts are made or perhaps seeking meaningful assets (if any) to collect unpaid judgments.
I don't see how there is any "contempt of court" issue by virtue of a simple unpaid federal judgment. As far as I have ever seen or heard in the context of small-time cases we discuss, unpaid judgments generally just sit unless the plaintiff feels VERY MOTIVATED and wants to incur the expense and aggravation to take collection types of actions. But even then, that is not "contempt of court".
My understand of "contempt of court" appears to be vastly different from what you are inferring. That is the first I have heard anyone mention of this in the context of the small-time cases we discuss here.
In the 10 years I have discussed with Oscar Michelen possible negative consequences of unpaid copyright infringement judgments, he has never breathed a word about "contempt of court". Other phrases and possible actions were discussed but zippo about "contempt of court".
As a practical matter, I am very skeptical about "contempt of court" as a likely consequence. However, if you know of some actual cases, I am happy to follow-up on my end.
--- Quote from: DavidVGoliath on August 08, 2018, 04:55:56 AM ---Stellar legal advice there, fella: just ignore a judgement if sued. Way to run the risk of a contempt of court charge - doubly so since copyright claims are tried at Federal level.
--- End quote ---
Matthew Chan:
DvG,
As a reminder, ELI and the ELI Forums were born out of anger. It continues to exist as an undertone. The anger of what many of us believe as unreasonable, disproportionate demands over low-value images and how there is this belief that everyone has to pay money for some of these de minimus infringements.
As has been said many times, most major media companies don't even engage in those types of tactics and trying to extract money from the little guy but they are certainly very firm in their take-down demands.
And there is a certain truth that many small-time photographers are using these demand letters as a way to monetize their inherently low-value work. This is not meant to be insulting. It is a simple fact that since the advent of digital photography there is a glut of imagery. Even with higher-value paparazzi photos, I have read many articles in the age of cell phones, paparazzi photos don't have the value as they once did 30 years ago. There are endless examples of why MOST imagery have declining value nowadays. Of course, I speak in general terms. But so much of what we see, I consider "low-value" images.
And if I "asked" you nicely to pay me $1,000 because you have posted opposing opinions from what many of us believe, would you pay? Or if you broke some ELI policy or rule and I "asked" for money, would you pay? Of course not. You would either laugh, get pissed, or do both but not pay. "Asking" for money "nicely" has little to do with it. "Asking" for money without a lawyer has little to do with it. In many cases, many people believe that a takedown demand is more appropriate as a first-response.
While we don't wear our anger on our sleeves, there is a reason why Oscar, I, and many long-timers do what we do on ELI. There is a reason why there are many loyal ELI readers and followers. There is a great deal of "anger" of how the demand letter racket works and we do a small part to counter that through informal education.
There will probably never be consensus on the issue. DvG, you are the minority opinion here and I think you know that. You are paddling upstream here. Certainly, you are free to post as you have been because your posts are generally thought-provoking and informed. But you slant pro-artist just as our posts are pro-layman.
Bottom line, anger will continue to exist as long as people are demanding money from others in situations where people feel they should not have to. This is true here as well as anywhere else where money is involved.
--- Quote from: DavidVGoliath on August 08, 2018, 04:55:56 AM ---You first posted about Schwabel almost four years ago. That's a long time to hold such a bitter, vitriolic grudge against someone who contacted you directly without lawyering up, asked you to stop using their work and pay a very reasonable, low figure settlement for your past use of their work.
That level of anger is a hot stone: the longer and tighter you hold on to it, the more you burn only yourself.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version