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: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law  (Read 4829 times)

fed up

  • Guest
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2018, 12:18:57 PM »
Could someone beat them to the punch and go after them in small claims court to gain a ruling on the predatory nature and what potential damages would be if others did not want to settle? Taking away their ability to gain attorney fees due to the deceptive tactic that they know about and have done nothing about could destroy their game.

This is pure and simple sabotage. Someone has to go to court to prove it. I read something here on how those who have settled have no case for damages, but if they settled due to this sabotage tactic and many come forward about their settlement agreement, there could be a class action suit imo. They open the door for everyone to share and use those images and then extort them for interpreting the license that they describe exactly how the verbage on the website defines it which permits free use. It does not say so long as you do this and this. Now, if one is an atty in this field or through their normal course of business understand publishing law, it's hard to prove you did not know.

For the average person, the paragraph defines that specific license as one that is able to be used freely for commercial reasons and it can be changed. It is vague and deceptive at the very least and compliance with demands as they target hundreds to thousands shows it is a practice designed for profits.  Someone needs to take this to court and get a ruling at the very least soon.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 02:18:02 PM by fed up »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2018, 02:15:03 PM »
"Also somehow Google labels the images free to use commercially as well which means even Google does not understand the terms. "

Google doesn't "label" anything, the search results snippets come directly from the "description meta-tag" and title meta-tag of the originating site, google also does not need ti understand or even read the "terms", they are simply linking to existing content.. Not to mention all indexing is done by robots/spiders anyway, very little if any human intervention.
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..

clist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • On your side
    • View Profile
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2018, 05:12:45 PM »
Can you file a defense for a default judgement? Most judges have common sense and most lawyers can show  evidence of the predatory practice of these websites in one or two pages. If so, would that ruling of a default judgement be filed for others to use as precedence? Could be risky, but could also help put something on the books and potentially force this practice to stop. Another question is could someone just bring in a letter of defense from an attorney asking for personal damages in case the judge rules it's predatory and damaging to the people caught up in it. We have a forum of people here under duress only, because of the practice of this deception and there does not appear to be any stop or change to the paragraph on the webpage?? It appears that the practice is profitable for the company. I don't think any judge wants their name attached to a ruling that allows this unethical deception, but I know nothing.

Now, if the defendant has multiple images and does not take them down, I can see willful infringement and damages. Also somehow Google labels the images free to use commercially as well which means even Google does not understand the terms. Everyone I talk to about this cannot understand how this is legal. I guess it is legal, but it is downright disgusting extortion. It has just never gone to trial. It's cheap enough to pay to go away. Also, I notice lawyers making money on both sides of this, so why would anyone in copyright law want this practice to go away? I am going to meet with the copyright atty., because my friend and him claim that there are blogs and designed predatory advice from this media co. Hard to trust anyone, but those you know on this issue.

I would warn everyone not to just believe lawyers in here or elsewhere on the net regarding this issue. Talk to someone you know and who practices copyright law for a living. It will not be easy for them to get these cases to court especially if more than one with minimal statutory damages as so many were fooled by the language on the website that has never changed while who knows how much money has been extorted from these victims? I can see why it is case by case and everyone has to have their own plan for their own tolerance and wealth situation.

I believe someone with a strong case and the right demeanor (as well a s the financial resources) could take this all the way but I think most just want to "make it go away" and eventually settle because going against the guns typically leads to people catching bullets.. on both sides. With the only real winners here being the Lawyers.

With that said, since I've been active on this site I've seen quite a few people come on strong and then just disappear which tells me either one of two things has happened:

1. They have settled and signed some form of NDA or 2. have just decided to "go dark".

At any rate, you are right about 1 thing. With both sides making money there is no real incentive to change this. So until that day where the laws catch up with this or (a lawyer taking this on for personal reasons) or people learn about assigning a DMCA agent (before getting an Extortion letter) unfortunately this scam will continue to live on...

« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 02:34:48 PM by clist »
Knowledge isn't free - you have to pay attention.

Ethan Seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2018, 05:15:29 PM »
“Can you file a defense for a default judgement? Most judges have common sense and most lawyers can show  evidence of the predatory practice of these websites in one or two pages. If so, would that ruling of a default judgement be filed for others to use as precedence?“

—-
I think you mean summary judgment.  You could move for summary judgment, but that would be after you file an answer, make initial disclosures and start discovery.   If you are paying a decent lawyer, you will be at least $7,500 into the case.

The outcome you desire would be possible if Judge Judy had jurisdiction, but sadly copyright matters are handled in federal courts by federal judges who follow the federal rules of civil procedure. 

Simply put, a class action is a fantasy that will never come to fruition for more reasons than I can explain in an afternoon.

You need to ignore them or negotiate a settlement in hopes of not getting sued.  If you get sued, you have three options,  1 settle quick, 2 prepare for a long expensive fight or 3 not fight and live with a default judgment.
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.

fed up

  • Guest
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2018, 06:30:45 PM »
Thank you everyone for your time and answers. Ethan Seven - let's just say that the website I used the image on brought in no money what so ever and I have loads of money to fight. I kind of fit this scenario. Maybe I have been searching for something good to fight for. Funny thing is that I purposefully find safe to use images all the time and mostly use our own original content, period. I don't like how so many steal other people's property. I specifically search for images that are labelled free to use commercially if we need them.

Now, this website pursues to deceive and profit off of these sabotage tactics, period and that is evident by so many on here proving that they thought these images were free to use along with Google. You can say whatever you want about further permission, what have you, but the center paragraph specifically describe the images having a license WHICH MAKES THE IMAGES FREE TO USE COMMERCIALLY AND MODIFY, PERIOD! This is sabotage. It can be proven by the amount of people caught up in the web. It just takes someone to do this as so many profit from both sides of these tactics. People and lawyers on here profit off of those caught up in the web, so many instill fear on those who don't know the legalities.

The people I have talked to who deal with copyright infringement daily have said that this is a total scam and there is an agenda to mislead and fool the flys caught in the web. Yes, some are caught deeper in the web than others and to be honest, what I am most offended by is most of us here are specifically searching and trying not to infringe on other people's property. These crooks give a bad name to photographers and other sites that merely want others to pay for their images and respect their copyright. These honorable photographers do not sabotage and extort from the sheep.

Hard to believe someone has not stepped up to the plate, but of course, leading back to my original thought... many people discussing the legalities profit from these cases and know the laws. Sorry, mostly everyone caught up in this web never heard of or knew what that license is or was and understood and believed it to mean and define that license as free to use. No way are these victims purposefully infringing as they are searching for free to use commercially images.

It just takes someone to take it to court to show the judges and courts what these crooks are doing and it is an orchestrated raquet. Understand that these crooks have a plan, a legal team, and an orchestrated process to sabotage and extort. This is all provable merely by reading posts in this forum. It is a raquet! I would hope in this great country that we have a judicial system that gets infuriated by this scheme and rewards large sums of money to the victim that takes the risk to expose these crooks!

Ethan Seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2018, 07:17:00 PM »
If the facts support a defense based on copyright abuse, you can fight it and possibly win an award of attorneys fees. I am not saying you should not fight it. I am just trying to make perfectly clear that it will not be an inexpensive fight that will resolve in a couple of hours.  You should plan to spend $25,000 or more.  You do not want to start a fight you cannot afford to finish, otherwise you will be forced to fold before you get to a verdict, which would be a total waste.   I wish you the best of luck.  What you describe sounds like a lousy situation.  I will try to read more about it.
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.

fed up

  • Guest
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2018, 07:22:30 PM »
O.k., but would it not be a lousy situation for these crooks too? Getting sued for sabotage is lousy, period. Is that maybe why no court has allowed a case except for the one where the defense did not take down the image??? Thousands of settlements and extortion tactics, but only one has been allowed to go to court??? I don't know, but I understand why so many say just ignore and don't pay a dime.

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2018, 08:12:32 PM »
huh?? what??? you state "Is that maybe why no court has allowed a case except for the one where the defense did not take down the image???"...what do you mean the court has not allowed?? as it's been said many times, most cases that are actually filed end up settled quickly, thats not the courts doing, thats generally the defendants folding.. can you clarify what the court is not allowing?
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..

fed up

  • Guest
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2018, 09:54:09 PM »
I read on here that only one was on it's way to trial? Correct me if I'm wrong, but regarding Mr. youngson, picserver, RM Media, etc., have the courts allowed a case to be heard other than the one that settled in which the defendants did not take the images down after the cease and desist letter? Some settle and some merely don't respond and do not go to court at all? Do we know how many cases were heading to trial that settled?

By the way, I just read on wikipedia regarding statutory damages: Defendants who can show that they were "not aware and had no reason to believe" they were infringing copyright may have the damages reduced to $200 per work.

So, if a defendant is unable to convince the court that these sabotage tactics are predatory, malicious, and planned, it would not be difficult to convince the court that their using of the images were based on the labeling as free use for commercial purposes. If one searches online for free use for commercial purposes, that is in and of itself someone intending to NOT INFRINGE ON SOMEONE'S COPYRIGHT, PERIOD! Again, the body of that picserver website specifically defines that permit as one which permits the free use for commercial reasons. Anyone without experience in copyright law would not understand the sabotage and terms until the cease and desist letter. Instant removal of the images is then intent to not infringe, again!

So, minus other actions, this whole process from all of these attorneys who represent Youngson appear to be a total deceptive scam. How many courts have allowed these cases to be filed based only on one image that was taken down to be heard in any courts is my question? One email with pictures can prove exactly what I'm referring to here.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 10:29:38 PM by fed up »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2018, 11:42:24 AM »
ughhhh.....so it's not a question of "the courts allowing", only 1 case has been filed and that case settled, well before going the distance..which has nothing to do with the allowing anything, once both parties agree to settled, the court does just that..it's over... Now onto part 2, yes you could probably convince a judge to lower the amount to 200.00, but i guarantee the plaintiff will argue, that the judge needs to read the license agreement in full, and when that happens, you're 200.00 argument is dead in the water. the agreement clearly states "with attribution", it's on the defendant to read and understand this.. furgther that by the fact that you'll be spending much more than 200.00 to even get to that point.. So yes it may very well be an "innocent infringment" but the terms are pretty clear cut...Youngson is very well aware that most people don't read the fine print, but that would likely not have any bearing on a judges decision..
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..

fed up

  • Guest
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2018, 11:59:54 AM »
Looks like you and I agree on the uggggh portion Buddha. I have read much of this forum and there is a common method of ignoring and not settling at all. Apparently, none of these people who followed this path have faced a trial???????

The license on that picserver site permits the use of those images for commercial purposes. It is deceptive at the very least. The copyright atty. I talked to said this is a total scam and no courts would want to hear this. He also said these crooks take advantage of people who show fear, so let me ask you in a more simple way.

Do you know if these attorneys have tried to file suits against anyone that ignored their extortion tactics?? There has been one trial and many people who have waited it out and ignored the extortion, so how do we know if the courts would hear these cases and/or if it worth while for them to pursue them? Sure, my attorney friend is not risking his money, but my other friend who has copyright attorneys on retainer said he would pay for my case if it went to court. Do I trust him to do that? I don't know yet. That's why I'm feeling this forum out. Does not look like anyone wants to go to court including these extortionists. Noone wins in this crap storm!

kingkendall

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2018, 12:31:54 PM »
Quote
Do you know if these attorneys have tried to file suits against anyone that ignored their extortion tactics??

The overwhelming majority of demand letters sent do not end in a law suit.  A very small number are filed against big money plaintiffs.  Trolls make their money on scared people who cough up the cash right away.  Which one do you want to be?

fed up

  • Guest
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2018, 01:54:23 PM »
Thank you King! It appears like the only suit filed was one where the defendant used mutiple images and did not take them down. They opened the doors for a hearing. Not so sure a Federal Court wants to hear 100's or 1000's of cases regarding a deceptive sabotage tactic used to extort money from people who don't know copyright laws and read in proper english who may be guilty of being fooled into infringement and took the images down when they finally did get clarity??

 I am starting to wonder how many trolls here are part of these tactics with Higbee and co. or others? I do not see it as clear in any way that there are obligations to use those free images, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. I am human though and can clearly tell that this is sabotage complete with extortion tactics and potential abuse of copyright law for profits.

UnfairlyTargeted

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2018, 02:05:19 PM »
There are TONS of these trolls.  Most are amateur photographers who bullshit themselves into thinking they are pro.  They couldn't sell a photo to a turd even if they paid the turd.  They spread their images around on photo sharing and viral sites and then call up the copyright enforcement services.

Solution is to write terrible reviews of them on RipOffReport, Yelp, and other sites, report them to the various authorities such as taxing authorities and the state AG offices, and NOT pay them a dime.

Just check out Tom Schwabel.  He seeds his crappy images everywhere.  Images which aren't even copyrightable since they are copycat images from famous photographers.  Then he sends you demands for 100's of dollars for your blog page with 3 views and rips it down with fake DMCA notices when you don't pay.

fed up

  • Guest
Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2018, 11:36:11 AM »
Thank you to everyone for their help here. Talked to the attorney to get in person info. Basically, it costs them a small fortune to maybe get $750 in Federal court (my case specifically) plus or minus legal fees of course (scary part), but we may be able to expose the racket and prove a process aimed at deceiving the internet audience into unrealized infringement where I, we, and many others on here were sabotaged into using their images. He agreed that the first and best thing to do is take down the images asap. I'm thinking a court would slap everyone with $200 like I read on wikipedia for being fooled into not abiding by their license obligations as most had no idea that they were not just free to use without condition.

There are search engine snippets declaring free for commercial purposes and modification allowance that prove their optimization is designed to deceive and amplify the sharing and exposure of these images described and optimized as free to use commercially without showing obligation or terms. They are optimizing to Google one way, yet extorting and scamming their audience another way with hard to find disclaimers and deceptive verbage. So curious about whatever happened to the ny guy on here taking names of all of us who were bamboozled. Total disgusting scam, but yes, it has not been exposed to a court of law, yet and it is very expensive for me and others to do so, but many of us may have no choice but to defend ourselves in court.

He sees it as absolutely crazy for them to take anyone with my situation to court, but he said they may have an owner on a mission. He thinks highly unlikely though. He thinks they are sabotaging to get big fish with multiple infringements and eventually willful infringement. Much of this already said here, but he advised me to not retain him yet.

I said well they appear to be on a mission as they don't settle for fair settlements. They must be on a mission and he basically said that the courts will not like their way of fighting this mission and they would probably stop once faced against a real attorney. It is what it is I guess. I'm just filing everything and waiting to get sued. Does anyone have the date that they added the extra disclaimer on top of the picserver.org page? I know this was relatively recently and I got those images a year or two ago.

I'm starting to see why people go dark. This eats up so much time and is so frustrating. I think their unraveling will be in time. They cannot argue they did not know or that the sabotage was not coordinated from website development and optimization to attorneys in ny and ca to cover the us and who knows globally? They have made no real effort to change much in this coordinated effort and are still targeting and extorting people and corporations fooled by their deceptive efforts. This forum is filled with expert experience in the victimhood and extortion under duress and fear from these swine. It's almost like they have made a business out of the extortion???Hmmmmmmm....what do their attorneys know of their process? Could they be aiding the deceptive tactics?? I don't know...I'm asking as it looks like the attorneys are finding work from it!?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 12:53:55 PM by fed up »

 

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.