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.
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.