ELI Forums > Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum
Meyer, Suozzi, English, Klein v. Mathew Higbee, Youngson, RM Media, Higbee Assoc
Matthew Chan:
This was brought to my attention by a lawyer who wished to be anonymous. It is a Plaintiff Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Higbee Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2018cv03353/418211/11/0.pdf
As far as I can tell, the lawyer who brought it to my attention has no connection to the parties of the lawsuit. However, he appears to be interested in the topics we discuss here (as some of our other forum participants who might also be lawyers and who contribute valuable insights and perspective).
I am going to come right out and say, some of this is very difficult reading for a non-lawyer such as myself. But we have some smart legal minds who participate here and this might be right up their alley. Some of the points makes sense to me. Other parts are more difficult. Additionally, there are references to many cases I am unfamiliar with.
The plaintiff is: Meyer, Suozzi, English, & Klein. https://www.msek.com/
The four Higbee defendants are: Mathew Higbee, Nick Youngson, RM Media, and Higbee & Associates.
The case is listed here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7088874/meyer-suozzi-english-klein-pc-v-higbee/
The complaint can be downloaded here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.418211/gov.uscourts.nyed.418211.1.0.pdf
I am very impressed with the complaint because it includes and expands upon the many gripes I have against the whole Nick Youngson and RM Media's Creative Commons scheme that has entrapped so many victims. I have been shouting and warning people about the scheme the last few years and it is satisfying to see a victim fight back so hard back and aggressively on the legal front.
Higbee & Associates have happily hooked their reputations on Youngson's & RM Media's ongoing Creative Commons entrapment scheme and now they are being called out on the legal front whereby a lawsuit was filed against the four Higbee Defendants.
I have repeatedly said over the years, these copyright "enforcers" get a little too money-happy, they become greedy, careless, and then hits the wrong defendant. That is when things start to unravel.
Youngson & RM Media ESPECIALLY (out of all the Higbee clients) has been asking for this to happen to him. He sits comfortably in the UK (way outside of the US) running his offensive, detestable Creative Commons $10 image entrapment scheme using a California lawyer to do all the collections dirty work scamming victim after victim. And I keep getting support call requests month after month over this.
There is no doubt I will be following this case. I am not qualified enough to digest and understand everything being argued but it won't stop me from trying...
I will have more to write after I further digest what is going on in this case.
Ethan Seven:
I have been following this case. Not much has happened. Higbee filed a motion to dismiss. The judge is yet to rule on it. There is no notice of RM Media being served.
I posted about this a month or so ago at
https://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/higbee-letter-lawsuits-forum/this-will-be-interesting-to-watch/
At best, this case will force RM Media to tweak their license language to clarify the attribution is a condition and not a covenant. It is a nice counter-punch if it lands, as it may cost them some money to defend (assuming they get served), but it is very unlikely to be a knockout blow.
Matthew Chan:
Hmmm... I guess I did miss it when you posted it initially.
The lawyer who wants to remain anonymous (and not a copyright or IP lawyer that I am aware of) who contacted me wants to bring attention to the following excerpts:
Using a free image without attribution is NOT a copyright violation, but a violation of the license. Accordingly, none of the statutory penalties apply. If people know that they can’t be sued for $150K, people will stop paying and funding this machine. The following research will really help people fight this.
“It is well settled that state law rules of contract construction govern the interpretation of copyright transfer agreements, notwithstanding the federal statutory source of the rights at issue.” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRKPhoto, 882 F.3d 394,412 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Graham v. James,144 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 1998). When a work is subject to a license, the law does not entertain claims under the Copyright Act, as an “award of copyright damages in [any case involving a license] is problematic [ because a] copyright owner who grants a nonexclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement.” See Graham, 144 F.3d at 236 (citing Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749, 753 (11th Cir. 1997); Peer Int 7 Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc., 909 F.2d 1332,1338-39 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also United States Naval Inst. v. Charter Communications, Inc., 936 F.2d 692, 695 (2d Cir. 1991) (for the proposition that though a licensee “is capable of breaching the contractual obligations imposed on it by the license, [it] cannot be liable for infringing the copyright rights conveyed to it.”).
With respect to claims of breach of a nonexclusive license that has no duration and grants broad, unrestricted rights to use a copyrighted work, the license (1) is not terminable at will by the licensor; (2) must be materially and willfully breached by the licensee in order to give rise to the licensor’s right of rescission; and (3) must be expressly and formally rescinded before any use by the licensee can be deemed not subject to the license and thereby, considered copyright infringing. Graham, 144 F.3d at 236-38; see also TVTRecords v. IslandDef Jam Music Group, 412 F.3d 82, 93 (2d Cir. 2005); Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, failure to attribute credit to the author is not a material breach such that a licensor may rescind a license because such obligations are considered covenants, not conditions. See Graham, 144 F.3d at 237 Cord Meyer Dev. Co., 761 F.2d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 1985); Jacob Maxwell, Inc., 110 F.3d at 754; I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, lA F.3d 768, 778 (7th Cir. 1996). Also, failure to attribute credit, alone, is not copyright infringement. Graham, 144 F.3d at 237.
I want to be clear that in this particular instance, I do not have a strong opinion one way or another because my background isn't strong enough to credibly weigh in. That is why I am opening to listening to legal minds debate . However, the case shows that people have different angles and perspectives of defending the Youngson/RM Media case.
--- Quote from: Ethan Seven on September 12, 2018, 12:01:37 AM ---I have been following this case. Not much has happened. Higbee filed a motion to dismiss. The judge is yet to rule on it. There is no notice of RM Media being served.
I posted about this a month or so ago at
https://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/higbee-letter-lawsuits-forum/this-will-be-interesting-to-watch/
At best, this case will force RM Media to tweak their license language to clarify the attribution is a condition and not a covenant. It is a nice counter-punch if it lands, as it may cost them some money to defend (assuming they get served), but it is very unlikely to be a knockout blow.
--- End quote ---
Ethan Seven:
The problem with those case is that they depend on the existence of a contract or a license. Both RM Media’s website terms and the language in the Creative Commons Contract state that no license is granted until attribution is given. They are conditions precedent to the granting of a license or formation of a contract. So, I do not think the provisions are relevant.
If the defendant were to provide the attribution and then remove the attribution, those provisions may govern, as a license would have been granted. However, I think the terms of the Creative Commons license RM Media uses states that the license is automatically revoked if attribution is removed. How enforceable that automatic revocation is, I don’t know.
clist:
--- Quote from: Ethan Seven on September 12, 2018, 04:51:22 PM ---The problem with those case is that they depend on the existence of a contract or a license. Both RM Media’s website terms and the language in the Creative Commons Contract state that no license is granted until attribution is given. They are conditions precedent to the granting of a license or formation of a contract. So, I do not think the provisions are relevant.
If the defendant were to provide the attribution and then remove the attribution, those provisions may govern, as a license would have been granted. However, I think the terms of the Creative Commons license RM Media uses states that the license is automatically revoked if attribution is removed. How enforceable that automatic revocation is, I don’t know.
--- End quote ---
The language on RM Media's [Nick Youngson's] website(s) has changed quite significantly since the RM Media / Nick Youngson honeypot scam began.
If one were motivated enough they could easily locate the original site [containing the original site language] via archive sites and demonstrate that the language contained on those website(s) was designed to encourage usage (commercial and non profit) of the "free" image(s) with very little emphasis placed on the "requirement" of attribution.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version