ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

ELI Forums => Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum => Topic started by: needingdirection on January 19, 2018, 05:19:04 PM

Title: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: needingdirection on January 19, 2018, 05:19:04 PM
I am an independent contractor with a brokerage in California. We received an email from Lynn Burke of Sanders Law, to our general company email regarding a picture I used in a blog post back in April 2017. I am always very careful to purchase pictures or use ones offered for free. This one was offered for free. I did not know or understand the "attribution" clause, that i recently read on their site. The "client" of Sanders Law is RM media (have seen them mentioned in your conversations). I was ignorant and made the mistake of emailing them, not fully understanding the concept of trolling. They responded and asked for $2,200 in damages by today and claimed "commercial use" of the free picture costs $259.00. Not sure what the definition is of commercial use. My actions have been: I first added the attribute and then a few days later just deleted the picture from the blog post. My question is what is the reality that they will file a lawsuit against me? and possibly my broker? What, if any should my next response be? I am assuming since I didn't comply with their deadline and assumption that I am in the wrong I will be hearing from them again. Any help or direction is greatly appreciated. Thank you
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Matthew Chan on January 20, 2018, 10:36:54 AM
I find your post interesting regarding the fact that you received a letter from Sanders Law on behalf of RM Media Ltd. (aka Nick Youngson), owner of his gotcha, honeypot websites.

It tells me he is spreading his butter between at least two operations: Higbee and Sanders Law.

Regarding the lawsuit situation, most cases have no lawsuits. And the very few that do end up in settlements. They rarely go all the way.

In the case of RM Media Ltd. there was one recent lawsuit but it was unusual because it was directed a a marijuana company that appeared to NOT have removed the image which triggered a willful infringement accusation. I also suspect that it was a strategic move by Higbee to get a case on record so it would stop people like me from telling the world that "Nick Youngson/RM Media Lt. has never files lawsuits."

Incidentally, that lawsuit settled quickly and quietly.

Now let me give you some bad news, I do think there is a higher risk of negative consequence for letter victims based in California with a traditional brick-and-mortar business.  I consider many real estate brokerages to fall into that higher-risk category.

People don't like to hear this but sometimes you SHOULD negotiate a settlement. There are a variety of reasons beyond the possibility of a lawsuit. Many people cannot cope with the stress and uncertainty. Victims want to have it both ways but they can't. They want to eliminate the uncertainty and possibility of a lawsuit but also NOT pay. That is nearly impossible.

Then I hear from people that they are willing to pay a few hundred dollars to settle the matter. While it is certainly possible because to settle a Higbee claim for as little as $300, it is very unusual and requires the victim to fight very hard to convince them to go down that low. (I know people are going to zero in on what I just said and MISINTERPRET that "Higbee claims can be settled for $300". It is RARE, HARD FOUGHT and a lot of circumstantial information has to be disclosed. It is the rare person who is able to have the emotional stamina and determination to navigate this.  Not because it is "difficult" but simply because many folks don't really understand the subtleties and factors that go into taking the wind out of pursuing larger amounts.  There are many variables that enter the equation. And yes, it does require you (or someone representing you) to actually communicate with them to negotiate and settle the matter.

You will be hearing from them and if you are a real estate brokerage firm in California, they will be especially persistent and interested in pursuing your case.

I am an independent contractor with a brokerage in California. We received an email from Lynn Burke of Sanders Law, to our general company email regarding a picture I used in a blog post back in April 2017. I am always very careful to purchase pictures or use ones offered for free. This one was offered for free. I did not know or understand the "attribution" clause, that i recently read on their site. The "client" of Sanders Law is RM media (have seen them mentioned in your conversations). I was ignorant and made the mistake of emailing them, not fully understanding the concept of trolling. They responded and asked for $2,200 in damages by today and claimed "commercial use" of the free picture costs $259.00. Not sure what the definition is of commercial use. My actions have been: I first added the attribute and then a few days later just deleted the picture from the blog post. My question is what is the reality that they will file a lawsuit against me? and possibly my broker? What, if any should my next response be? I am assuming since I didn't comply with their deadline and assumption that I am in the wrong I will be hearing from them again. Any help or direction is greatly appreciated. Thank you
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: carigennarelli on January 20, 2018, 05:03:26 PM
Thank you so much for the information. I am to not the broker. I am an independent contractor/realtor under the broker. The blog (my blog post) was posted on the broker website. I am fine paying a usage fee for the time the blog was posted with the picture. I have deleted the photo from the blog post and would have on day 1 if they had alerted me then. Doesn't seem right or legal to ask me to pay them "damages" for the time between the post date and now when they decide to monitor it. Any advise on how to word a response to minimize the amount I have to pay them to make them go away?
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: kingkendall on January 20, 2018, 10:06:29 PM
If you're going to go the negotiation route I'd give them a once time take or leave it offer of what you think that image is worth.  They're going to reject any offer you make that isn't $2,500.  Then it becomes a matter for your stomach.  Showing vulnerability is the worst possible thing you can do. 
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up on May 17, 2018, 06:20:20 PM
I also got a letter from Lynn Burke a while back. How has your situation developed? If they were to take us to court, would it be superior or small claims. I am in California too, so curious if another law firm takes over at some point?  I would love to take this to small claims. I don't mind paying more for a precedent ruling compared to giving these extortionists more fuel. I don't want a big, lawyer to lawyer fight over what should be a $10 image though.

I don't see how Google has no responsibility here. Sure, we know now we need to understand all this copyright mumbo jumbo, but they trap you into a buffet of images that are filtered as free to use and this is on picserver.net and google image search. Free to use should be free to use.

In any case, just curious if you had any developments. I would rather pay a lawyer $2k and get a ruling than pay these extortionists, but they are effective at instilling fear into normal, busy people.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Ethan Seven on May 17, 2018, 11:42:00 PM
If they litigated, it would probably be in federal court   However, since California has a cause of action that sounds in copyright, it is possible, though very unlikely, they could file in superior or small claims court.  It is also possible that they could bring a state law case under another tort theory, but this too is unlikely.   

Small claims court in CA has a $10,000 limit on damages.  Lawyers are also not allowed to represent individuals in CA Small claims court.

It is very, very rare a copyright owner opts to file a state law in small claims court.  I read somewhere on this forum about some plaintiff doing it somewhere in New England.   That plaintiff had images that were made available on an expensive subscription service, which may make state law claims more viable.

However, it would be very surprising to see someone choose a state law when they have the option to use federal law, which is very pro-copyright holder, especially in the 9th circuit, which includes California.  The courts in the 9th are generous with awards of damages and frequently provide awards of attorneys fees.   

I appreciate your commitment to fighting, but if you are paying an attorney and hope to get to a meaningful ruling , it will most likely cost you north of $10,000.  $2,000 might allow you to get a decent answer filed, but that is no where close to a substantive ruling.   A substantive ruling will not be possible until after a few hearings and most likely, significant discovery. 

If you involve Google, you can bet the any defense attorney willl want at least a $25,000 retainer and will tell you to plan to spend a minimum of 250,000.  Google fights hard and their attorneys are good.

If you were considering seeking declaratory relief from a federal copyright claim, which is almost always a bad idea unless you are facing the threat of an injunction or some other odd fact, you would have to do it in federal court.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: kingkendall on May 18, 2018, 11:06:00 AM
Copyright cases can only be handled in Federal court-period! 
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up on May 18, 2018, 11:36:34 AM
So a friend who has copyright attorneys on retainer tells me to not give them a dime, period! He says copyright infringement cases need to prove damages and willful infringement to gain real claims and says no court will want to hear a case with main page verbage claiming the license that non-legal experts do not know permits the free use for commercial uses and ability to change. Like many on here, he said take a picture of their site and have your evidence in case they do not care about losing money.

If they sue which is very, very rare, can it be fought with filing without going to court? I mean most of these cases should involve about an hour for each side to present for a ruling with some prep. time of course. I just don't get how a judge is going to let a $10 image take away real court time especially when the filing can show how simple the case is for most instances of course.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up on May 18, 2018, 11:43:36 AM
main body of front page of picserver.org. Why would anyone search for more clarity when this paragraph purely states that the ......... license (only specialized people would know what this license is) permits the free use of the images for any purpose......... Anotherwords, this paragraph is purely stating that this specific license permits the free use. If that is not predatory, I don't know what is! It defines and describes the license in the paragraph and apparently this license has terms not defined and instead ignored completely except for hard to find areas on page.

The images on this site are licensed by RM Media Ltd under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license which permits the free use of the images for any purpose including commercial use and also permits the images to be altered - please view license details under each image.

The images are arranged in alphabetical order so just click on a letter below.


1-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 18, 2018, 12:25:30 PM


The images on this site are licensed by RM Media Ltd under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license which permits the free use of the images for any purpose including commercial use and also permits the images to be altered - please view license details under each image.



you need to read and understand the terms, yes the images are "free" to use, providing you abide by the terms set forth...RM Medias terms state, you must show attribution and link back, if you don't, you are not following the terms, and now on the hook for infringement...when are people going to realize NOTHING in this world is free... RM counts on people not reading and or understanding the "terms", that how he snares his victims, nothing "illegal" about it, just morally and ethically wrong, guys a douche bag.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: A Lawyer on May 18, 2018, 12:53:00 PM
So a friend who has copyright attorneys on retainer tells me to not give them a dime, period! He says copyright infringement cases need to prove damages and willful infringement to gain real claims and says no court will want to hear a case with main page verbage claiming the license that non-legal experts do not know permits the free use for commercial uses and ability to change. Like many on here, he said take a picture of their site and have your evidence in case they do not care about losing money.

It appears that your friend is incorrect. The way the copyright law is written, they do not need to prove willfulness to be awarded statutory damages. The copyright statute allows for statutory damages between $750 and $30,000 for non-wilful infringement. If they do prove willfulness (highly unlikely) then the damage award can increase to $150,000. They don't need to prove actual damages to get a statutory award. I am not saying you should just automatically pay whatever amount they are asking for, but the information you were provided does not seem to be accurate the way you described it.

The images on this site are licensed by RM Media Ltd under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license which permits the free use of the images for any purpose including commercial use and also permits the images to be altered

I have dealt with RM Media before. While you are correct that RM Media supposedly allows the photo to be used for free, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license requires that the photo be used with attribution. So, according to them, if you use the photo but don't attribute it according to the terms on the RM Media website, then they claim that you don't have a license because you didn't follow the licensing terms. When I dealt with them they used a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. You can look at the terms of that license here:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/

Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Ethan Seven on May 18, 2018, 01:35:58 PM
Copyright cases can only be handled in Federal court-period!

Well, the United States Supreme Court and multiple federal district courts disagrees with you, but hey, what do they know?  ;)

See some fairly recent cases:  Maxient, LLC v. Simplicity Corp., 2014 WL 5422195 and Dent v. Renaissance Mktg. Corp., 2014 WL 545006.


Disclaimer:  I maybe be a lawyer, but 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 take the time to properly review the facts of your case. If you cannot afford one, call your county or state bar association and ask for a list of free or discounted legal resources. 
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Ethan Seven on May 18, 2018, 01:53:06 PM
Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) is absolutely correct.   As is with most contracts, the devil is in the details.  RM Media does make it clear that even their “free” images are subject to terms of a license. 

A judge may believe that a very unsophisticated person did genuinely believe that the images were free and was therefore an innocent infringer, but even so, the minimum a judge could award is $200 in statutory damages per infringement. 

If you could convince the judge that RM Media was abusing copyright law, you might be able to get the judge to not award them attorneys fees or costs.   If you fail to prove that, you could be stuck with paying court costs and attorneys fees.

If you do not have money or assets, you can ignore them and hope they don’t sue you.   My guess is that they will not sue you if they see you do not have assets or any prospect of soon acquiring them.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Ethan Seven on May 18, 2018, 02:10:41 PM
So a friend who has copyright attorneys on retainer tells me to not give them a dime, period! He says copyright infringement cases need to prove damages and willful infringement...

This is a real good example of why you do not want to take second-hand legal advice.  What you say your friend said is wrong.   There is never a need to prove willful infringement, even innocent infringers can be found liable under copyright law.   Damages only need to be proved if the copyright holder is seeking relief under 17 U.S. 504(b). 

Fighting these cases does not take 1 or 2 hours.   That would be awesome.  Unfortunately, if you are sued, fighting it requires you or a lawyer who represents you appearing in court, probably multiple times.  Most defendants settle these claims very fast because it is usually much cheaper to pay a couple thousand dollars and eliminate the risk than it is to fight it and still face the risk of losing, and then possibly having to pay the copyright owner’s legal bills.  That is why about 98% of these cases settle within the first 3 months of the litigation.    US Copyrght law is very pro-copyright owner.  These plaintiff’s know it and it emboldens them. 

You always have the option to not fight it and accept a default judgment.  However, if you have assets or income, you probably don’t want a judgment against you.   
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up on May 19, 2018, 11:58:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up 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.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) 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.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: clist 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...

Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Ethan Seven 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.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up 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!
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Ethan Seven 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.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up 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.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) 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?
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up 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.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) 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..
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up 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!
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: kingkendall 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?
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up 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.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: UnfairlyTargeted 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.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up 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!?
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: djl on May 22, 2018, 11:45:22 AM
I too received a letter from Lynn Burke. Need help verifying copyright. Registration # VAu 1-244-944 application date 11/30/2015, registration date 11/30/2015. I cannot confirm this is valid. Can anyone take a look please?
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up on May 22, 2018, 06:41:39 PM
Hi djl,

Here is a little help. I was deceived into one image from Google advanced image search and I dug up a little info. that I think I can use in my lawsuit depending on where it goes. picserver.org has many, many website search snippets with free to use for commercial and to modify. No terms or obligations on the snippet. This website search snippet is where Google picks up the images for placement on their advanced image search. Now, this scam artist company is optimizing their images free to use for commercial and to modify without obligation to gain top presence in Google Advanced Image Search. I cannot believe that Google has allowed this for so long. I am starting to put the pieces together now.

Maybe someone can help here, but has Google been warned about this sabotage and incorrect labeling and filtering that so many are being abused and hit with duress and extortion from?? Has Go Daddy been warned? I'm starting to write my letters and assumed people were before. This whole thing is shocking to me. I am going to call a few class action attorneys soon too. Not saying they can or will take the case, but I can prove that picserver.org is filling their website search snippets and meta descriptions to place high on pages filtered and labeled for free use for commercial purposes and able to be modified.

Now, here is where it gets sticky for Mr. Youngson. He has had a law suit and an enormous amount of settlement letters and threats that have gone out where he had to have been warned about the sabotage and deception of his optimization and free to use commercially verbage that was used to put his images on the front page in image searches due to these false advertising website search snippets. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how in the heck is this legal? There has to be some law against false advertising to be followed up by pure extortion and duress, large settlements, and financial gain???

The proof is in all the website search snippets aimed to optimize and advertise for free use without obligation. That is how they get in Google Advanced Image Search and the bigger infraction he should be responsible for is KNOWING IT and continuing the practice. One might say it has become a business for him.

So many legal questions: When did Google know about this? Hell, do they know about this? How in the world do these attorneys extorting money from poor fools like me not know about these snippets and their intent?

I have a lot of letters to write and so should everyone else on here. There could be relief imo. Google, Godaddy, The FCC, class action attorneys. I will do my part to halt this sabotage. I hope everyone else will too!

Hey djl, here is my free to use car. Go drive it and have fun....... Officer, that man (djl) stole my car. All you need is a video camera or in this case a picture of those website search snippets and those images on google advanced image search nicely placed for all the fools to use only to be abused and extorted from at a later date.

I don't know the legal terms yet, but sounds a lot like false advertising, lying and extortion, fraud, blackmail, etc. They are planning the deception and then extorting money through duress and fear. Just be sure and give him back his car and don't lose your evidence. Damn crooks!
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 23, 2018, 06:30:32 PM
Good luck with the class action, let us know how that works out, might want to read up on thatto learn how they work first...just sayin...

"False advertising"?? I think this would apply to something you purchase that does not perform or work in the way advertised...these are FREE images we're talking about here, as of now other than your time, you haven't spent a nickel on any of this...I think you need to take a step back, and refocus your energy's what to do to remedy the immmediate situation..just my opinion.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: fed up on May 23, 2018, 07:02:28 PM
Oh really, the images are free? If they were really free, many of us would not have this problem. His images and work are commercial, so his work is for the purpose of making money. He is advertising/promoting/optimizing. He is falsely advertising many images on snippets that are incorrectly filtered and labeled through Google as free however you wish with no obligations. He knows this and he continues to do this. His intent is to optimize the images in Google advanced image search under free to use however you wish and he is not illustrating any obligations in the snippets for the letters of directory of images. Planned sabotage if I have ever seen it!

Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: UnfairlyTargeted on May 23, 2018, 07:25:04 PM
Class action is an awesome idea.  There must be hundreds of victims of this scam who paid out money to a troll.

Someone could gather up a list of the most prolific photographer trolls in these forums and name them all as defendants.  Don't go after the law firms.  You won't win there.  Go after the ones seeding the internet with their images and then calling up the law firms.  Show them that sending any sort of demand is very dangerous.  Also, they'll be much more likely to settle easily than the law firms after their names are dragged through the mud and their plundered treasure threatened.

Further I'd venture anyone who has ever received a demand letter from a named troll could receive part of the settlement.  I once got a settlement check in the mail for someone spam calling me.  The class doesn't need to have spent money to qualify for a payout from the trolls.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Ethan Seven on May 24, 2018, 01:01:04 AM
Class action is fantasy land talk.  I can see no basis for it in law... not even on a bad TV show.

Think about just this part:

Your class would profess to be a group of people who did not comply with a license and then were harmed because they thought it was a good idea to settle a claim that they believed had no merit. 

The problem should be obvious.

Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: UnfairlyTargeted on May 24, 2018, 11:02:22 AM
The point fed up and I are making is there are many trolls who are actually putting their copyrighted work online and intentionally labeling it as free to use.  In the case of Schwabel, he's put it onto completely free sites without any terms whatsoever.  Youngson seems to be a little different because of the attribution requirement.  But in both cases and I'm sure hundreds of others the trolls are seeding their work to ENCOURAGE infringement and then extorting a disproportionate amount of money from hundreds of victims.

The fact that they've made a business model from extorting settlements should be obvious.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: UnfairlyTargeted on May 24, 2018, 11:17:59 AM
Oh, and the class would also include people who had been harassed for years and perhaps even had to pay for legal consultation before realizing the whole thing was a giant racket and scam.  The class isn't just people who actually caved and paid.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 24, 2018, 12:12:47 PM
Class action is fantasy land talk.  I can see no basis for it in law... not even on a bad TV show.

Think about just this part:

Your class would profess to be a group of people who did not comply with a license and then were harmed because they thought it was a good idea to settle a claim that they believed had no merit. 

The problem should be obvious.

THIS
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: A Lawyer on May 24, 2018, 12:18:11 PM
If there was something to sue for, wouldn't somebody have figured it out by now?

Think about it this way. Guys like Higbee, Getty, etc. probably send out thousands and thousands of letters and probably file hundreds of lawsuits. I know not everyone hires a lawyer, but a lot probably do, and of those who get sued, I would bet that most do. Some of those letters and lawsuits are probably going to big companies with lots of resources and who probably have full-time salaried lawyers, so it would not cost them much money to litigate. Even if a fraction of those who receive letters hire a lawyer, that's still probably hundreds of different lawyers who have dealt with these cases. So despite the fact that hundreds and hundreds of smart sophisticated lawyers have gone up against these people, some of whom represent large companies with enough cash to fight hard if they wanted to, not one has ever sued or even so much as alleged a counterclaim after being sued as far as I can tell.

One more thing to think about. Youngson and RM Media are in England right? In order to sue, the court you sue in has to have jurisdiction over the person or entity you are suing. You would run the risk of them challenging jurisdiction and getting the lawsuit immediately dismissed. That's not to say that no court has jurisdiction, but you can't just run down to the local courthouse and file a lawsuit and expect it to automatically stick. Additionally, if you sued them you would have to serve them with the complaint and summons. I have never had to serve someone in England, but I have dealt with service in other foreign countries, and it can be complicated, to say the least.

On a final note, it costs $400 to file a lawsuit in Federal court. I suppose you could always go self-represented if no lawyer wants to take your case. I would caution against it mostly because class actions are very complicated procedurally, and lots of judges hate self-represented litigants because they generally don't follow the court rules and don't know what they are doing.

I know it all seems unfair, but the law allows it to be that way. Even if you were to fight and win, as we have seen on these boards, some new player will inevitably enter the fray and take their place. In my opinion, you would be better served writing your congressman about changing the law than you would by filing an expensive time-consuming lawsuit that you have little chance of winning.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 24, 2018, 01:24:55 PM
If there was something to sue for, wouldn't somebody have figured it out by now?

I've been actively posting and a member of this forum for over 9 years, the subject comes up on a regular basis, bottom line is it's not going to happen.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Zeke on May 26, 2018, 01:05:54 PM
I really think it's not in anyone's best interest to use the "Google said it was free" defense. Even for images that have been labeled for reuse and modification, Google specifically says "Images may be subject to copyright". When you use an image it is on you to make sure you follow the source of the image and understand the license being offered for that image.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Matthew Chan on June 07, 2018, 12:53:46 PM
Totally agree here. Blaming Google is not going to make anyone sympathetic to anyone's case. Certainly not from me.

I really think it's not in anyone's best interest to use the "Google said it was free" defense. Even for images that have been labeled for reuse and modification, Google specifically says "Images may be subject to copyright". When you use an image it is on you to make sure you follow the source of the image and understand the license being offered for that image.
Title: Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
Post by: Matthew Chan on June 07, 2018, 01:03:56 PM
No one is going to hear me oppose the notion that some of these characters (especially those who have unknown, low-value works) hope for and encourage infringement and jump on the extortion letter bandwagon. I do believe SOME (not all) parties engage in seeding the Internet to entice people to using images thereby creating "infringements" that would not otherwise exist.

I personally think Nick Youngson/RM Media found himself a nice little income niche here riding on people's ignorance of the Creative Commons system.  How many $10 images do you have to sell to equate to a $2,500 settlement, right?  Hell, despite all these infringements going on, he wants to acquire more images!  That means more opportunities for people to "slip and fall" in Creative Commons system and more potential for his income!

The point fed up and I are making is there are many trolls who are actually putting their copyrighted work online and intentionally labeling it as free to use.  In the case of Schwabel, he's put it onto completely free sites without any terms whatsoever.  Youngson seems to be a little different because of the attribution requirement.  But in both cases and I'm sure hundreds of others the trolls are seeding their work to ENCOURAGE infringement and then extorting a disproportionate amount of money from hundreds of victims.

The fact that they've made a business model from extorting settlements should be obvious.