Useful Info For Anyone Defending Sadowski & Higbee

[kingkendall]

You can argue the images are not worth his demand amounts, that is part of every copyright case.   But you cannot successfully argue a person has made too much money from enforcement.

You do know the name of this website, right?  Extortion Letter Info.com  That was a nice speech on behalf of the copyright troll you choose to defend.  I speak in favor of the victims of this scam photographers take advantage of.  Are they within there rights as copyright holders.   Yes they are.  I'm not taking anything away from that.  The best photographers in the world don't sit in their pajamas doing reverse image searches looking for hits for their images so they can send demand letters to cash in.  No, they live on their actual work as a photographers.   The copyright troll isn't in that class.  They take pictures of a parked car or a garbage can, license to a newspaper for $150 dollars or so.  But wait there more.  They can send demand letters for $8,000 dollars and get a settlement for half of that or even less and still make good.  So don't put these trolls in a nobility class of honest aw shucks photographers just protecting their rights.  It doesn't wash here! 

[Ethan Seven]

Kendall, you are confusing two issues. 

I have no objection to complaining about the system or the over-reaching of copyright holders.  I will gladly join you when I see it happen. 

My problem is with your making statements like “judges frown on that” when you present no basis to support it other than you wish it were so.   It is a disservice to anyone who comes here looking for help or useful information.

[kingkendall]

Then watch this judge reaction to the scam and tells me how he feels about this.

[Ethan Seven]

That reply leaves me with the following options:

1.  You don’t know that the facts of that infamous case are in no way analogous to the topic of this thread
2.  You know the facts and you lack the analytical skills necessary to spot at least 10 reasons why the judge’s comments are not relevant to this thread.
3.   You know the facts of that case and think I or other readers do not know them.
4.  You know the facts of that case and think I or other readers cannot spot the obvious dissimilarities.
5. You just like posting crap to get a reaction (which I think is called trolling, ironically)

You don’t need to answer which it is.  This thread is a dead horse.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Without "defending" anyone, I don't think you can compare  the pron case to what is generally discussed here, that case was a completely different beast, in which the trolls went to new levels to deceive and extort monies from unsuspecting people. I the 10yrs of the existence of ELI I can think of maybe and I say maybe one instance where a photographer "may have" seeded images, and if so I don't think it was done with the intention of filing copyright suits, I think that idea came to the troll later down the road, when he realized i mighty be a good idea to send letters.

[UnfairlyTargeted]

I don't think you can compare for different reasons.  The porn video at least had value.  It took time and creativity to make it.  Probably money too.  It was sold, not given away.

Looking at our seeder Schwabel, he GIVES his work away, changes rights back and fourth between copyrighted and creative commons, spreads his work around on free image sites and social media, and his work has NO value.  It isn't original.  It's all copies of something that a real photographer did.  How fucking hard is it to go take a picture when you've been spoon fed to go to this or that place, place your camera in this exact spot, and press a button?  Why do you think people are using his work taken from free download sites?  They're using it because it looks like something that should be free.  Like a cheap knockoff of a designer handbag - when you need something cheap that looks expensive.  If I want the real thing, I'd go pay for it.

Then look at all of his buddies on Flickr.  Half of these no-talent hacks would claw at the chance to give away their work just to say they've "professional" or "published".  They sit around and have a daily online orgy and jerk-off fest getting off from exchanging likes with each other.

So you've got a guy that has work with no new creativity that goes around deceptively spreading images to make people take them.  That's worse than the porn case.  At least the porno had some creativity and value.

[Matthew Chan]

Would you agree that sometimes there is a fine line between telling a narrative vs. a "personal attack"?

For example, someone shoots and kills another person with a gun. 

Someone says "He shot the woman in cold blood". Clearly a subjective interpretation but is that really a personal attack?

In my limited experience, lawyers talk about narratives ALL THE TIME! They often hinge upon subtle words and phrasing vs. blunt and flamboyant words and phrases.

Narratives matter. The court system is full of flawed human beings.  They are not objective, fact-driven robots only.  Judges are "judging" and narratives matter whether they want to admit it or not. Facts matter but they can be interpreted in different shades. I think many letter recipients lack the insight or understanding that narratives have sway and influence in the communication process.

In my experience, when litigants attempt to make personal attacks against the other side that have little or nothing to do with the ultimate merits of the case, all it does is piss off the judge and reflect poorly on the party bringing it up in the first place. Judges hate personal attacks and generally view them as a waste of time. It's also seen as a pretty obvious sign that you aren't confident in your case and don't have a very strong argument on the merits.

[Matthew Chan]

Just to be clear, I acknowledge that there are bad actors who probably do seed the Internet to profit from infringers. However, I believe it is a very small portion of parties who do that sort of thing.

I wrote elsewhere, I could post every photo I have taken and I would probably starve to death hoping someone would "infringe" upon them. Just because you put it out there, it doesn't mean people will come.

There are more extortionists who take UNFAIR ADVANTAGE of the system, than actual seeders. Nick Youngson and RM Media come to mind. That is a gamed system that he and Higbee are currently taking advantage of with people's ignorance of Creative Commons system.

Quite frankly, I have no love of copyright extortionists, but it doesn't blind me to the fact that piracy is quite rampant which gave birth to the whole copyright extortion industry.

I think if we want credibility to our defense opinions and viewpoints, we must not embrace unprovable conspiracy theories. Now, if you don't believe that, all we can do is agree to disagree.

But I just don't believe that there is an intentional seeding by most parties. There may be unintended viral effects of some images because of the nature of their work.

Or, the fact that there are 70 cases means this guy is another POS image seeder.  How else would you have 70 defendants to sue in court plus hundreds of others that settle before going to court if you haven't been off spreading your image around in deceptive actions to trap people into using them?

[Matthew Chan]

Sorry, I just had to say, I laughed when I read your mention of Tom Schwabel. Nice to see a bit of humor in these forums. 

But I do agree that "intentional" seeding is generally a rare thing. It is more of a case of virality or piracy (intentional or not) that occurs.

Let me start my saying congratulations to UnfairlyTargeted for not mentioning Tom Schwabel in a post.  Huge step.   

Now if we can just disabuse you of the silly notion that everyone who enforces their copyrights is seeding images.  For the love of God, get over it.

[Matthew Chan]

Glad to have you here and offering your insights. We don't always have to agree to get along.

Oscar isn't out here as often anymore so having some legal voices (even anonymously) is a good thing. Different voices represent different interests, different venues, different expertise, or different life experiences.  All can be true simultaneously.

The end reader does have a challenge synthesizing all the various viewpoints being shared. I think we can all agree that ultimately, the end letter recipient has the responsibility and burden to choose the course of action and insights they deem most appropriate for them.

It my hope that with the spirited debates and exchanges, a greater wisdom prevails that supercedes any one person including myself. 

Just voicing my perspective based on my experience. You are perfectly free to disagree with my opinion. Readers can decide for themselves which advice is more pertinent to their own particular situation. Part of the reason that I started posting on these boards is because I have found that is a lot well-meaning, but seriously misguided advice. I wanted to offer an alternate perspective in the hopes that people who are targeted by these photographers get the best information possible so they can make the right decision for their own situation.

[Matthew Chan]

Robert often has a better memory than me of the last 10 years worth of posts. It IS important to know that Robert is correct. We have discussed the possibility of intentional seeding but it is the rare instance where we directly accused someone of it.

Generally, we found that there was an unintended benefit of image virality and piracy for some photographers. Some more than others.

In the 10 yrs of the existence of ELI I can think of maybe and I say maybe one instance where a photographer "may have" seeded images, and if so I don't think it was done with the intention of filing copyright suits, I think that idea came to the troll later down the road, when he realized i mighty be a good idea to send letters.