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.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Matthew Chan

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 154
106
Based only his two posts, it appears the user "This Site is a Joke" has an interest in protecting/defending "Richard Liebowitz" or perhaps Mr. Liebowitz himself is posting anonymously here. I cannot say for certain but it does seem peculiar.

In any case, I think people should get a broader view of how he operates. As far as I know, he tends to pursue larger parties like news and media companies. Somehow, Richard Liebowitz has gotten himself a Wikipedia entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Liebowitz

There was The Hollywood Reporter writeup:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/has-man-sued-you-a-copyright-troll-takes-hollywood-1099156

ABA Journal:  http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_who_filed_500_plus_copyright_cases_in_federal_court_calls_10k_sancti

The newest Slate article about Liebowitz is long, interesting, and worth reading:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/richard-liebowitz-why-media-companies-fear-and-photographers-love-this-guy.html

107
I see that you have returned to comment on a thread which references "Richard Liebowitz" after previously accusing Oscar Michelen of not being able to represent people outside of NY. I trust you saw Oscar's response on the matter. You falsely disparage and defame him at your own risk.

Regarding the supposed "analysis", read again, there was no analysis whatsoever. It was an ELI user who posted notable PACER entries asking for assistance in finding out what happened here.  Another ELI user dug out the actual PACER documents for everyone to read.

I don't think anyone is going to be confused with this discussion thread as any formal, legal analysis. But based on my reading, I will state that you are correct. It was not "Richard Liebowitz" asked to post bond, it was his client.

Consequently, I will intervene and make a modification of the discussion thread title to be more accurate.

Last thing, your two posts apparently come as responses to comments made about "Richard Liebowitz".  Are you posting anonymously on ELI, Mr. Liebowitz, or are you just a fan/employee/protector/defender of Mr. Liebowitz? Very curious.

If you are Mr. Liebowitz, why don't you just come out and post publicly in your own name?

What a shock, the analysis of this case is wrong.     The judge did not order Richard Liebowitz to post a bond.  The judge ordered the client to post a bond.  There is a significant difference.   This site continues to be font of bad analysis by people who have no legal training and marginal reading comprehension skills.  I pity anyone who relies on this site for information.

108
The majority of images people use on their websites are "low-value" or "very low-value". The fact that digital cameras are available to nearly anyone guarantees a glut of images available.

There is little possibility of making a meaningful amount of money through legitimate sales, hence, copyright trolling is the way to monetize. They are always looking for the next person who made a mistake in using an image.

Everyone is a "photographer" now and thinks that they too can make it rich by selling their precious photos.

109
Well, the photographer apparently believed that it was a "sure thing" he would win or he wouldn't have pursued this.  The best he can hope for is to get an appeal to get rid of this strange outlier ruling.

After the appeal, will he then go file suit again against the defendants?  I think this whole scenario will give pause to most photographers that filing lawsuits can sometimes backfire in a vicious way.

And what about the lawyer who lost this case? It doesn't paint him in a good light either.

According to this https://www.loeb.com/publications-ipentertainmentcaselawupdates-20180611-brammervviolenthuesproduction they won on summary judgment so appealing, then remand, then trial on this just got a lot more expensive for the photographer and I wonder if he thinks his demands were worth it after having this blow up in his face.

Looking forward to seeing if the attorney gets his client to pony up the money for appeal and trial or leave this really adverse decision against him on the books.

110
This is a big example of what I am talking about.  Even "sure things" are never quite "sure things".  Sure.... the law is so clear.... NOT.  A supposedly smart judge apparently didn't think it was so clear and ruled against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff wanted to push the issue and "go all the way" got their asses handed to them. They now have to decide if they want to go through the hassle of getting it corrected through an appellate court.

My thinking is even if the plaintiffs prevail through appellate court, this was a big waste of time, money, and energy.

For the short term, defendants and victims can quote this lone outlier case to make a fair use argument.

The fact that this case was litigated seems like such a waste.   My guess is that either the copyright holder was overreaching in their demand amount or the user refused to pay anything.  Getting to this outcome would cost most defendants at least $5,000.  It will be twice that if it gets appealed.  It could also be that someone wanted to fight it out on principle.

Good reminder that you never know what a judge will do and litigation is risky for everyone.

111
I don't this "win" will hold up very long. It will likely be appealed. Absent that, it will be an outlier case which few people will credibly rely on.

This judge's ruling and rationale shocked me to say the least.

I came across this lawsuit, which went against pretty much everything Higbee continually claims. The ruling was against the use of an image being copyright infringement, and the reasons were VERY interesting for a lot of reasons. Most surprising to me was that damage was evaluated to be non-existent, and the court seemed to take into account intent of use vs. a blanket "you used it, you stole it" philosophy that Higbee's extortion letters indicate. They ruled that the photos' use was "fair use".

Anyway, here's the link to the article which also contains the decision. If Matthew or any others that are in the mix would like to offer thoughts, I'd love to see what you are all thinking.

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/02/court-rules-copying-photos-found-on-internet-is-fair-use/

112
Kudos to the iStock for taking the time to help their prior customers in this matter.

This whole small claims system was definitely NOT masterminded by a lawyer. It was devised by an out-of-the-box thinker. Joel would be my guess as to the guy who came up with this angle.

My case was dismissed by Sharon Albrizio (Executive VP of AdLife) - I assume Joel's wife in crime.

The legal team at iStock sent her a copy of the only possible photo they could be claiming I stole as well as a copy of the small claims notice stating that the image is licensed by me and to close the case.

iStock is well aware of what AdLife is doing -  "it is a shame that some people are paying him when they do not have to".

I hope this helps other people that are getting letters from AdLife aka PreparedFoodPhotos.com aka Joel Albrizio.    Don't give in to this guy.

113
Agence France Presse (AFP) is a French news media company.  They likely acquire/buy the rights/copyrights of their images from independent photographers. However, I have never seen any hardcore documentation on this. It is an educated guess on my part that might be worth a defendant to challenge.

I have seen a recent surge of AFP claims come through being submitted to me. A number of the claims initially being submitted are from Picrights. Surprisingly, some are very low settlement amounts such as $158. I am not a proponent of simply paying off a copyright claim letter but if you did infringe (however unintentional), it is hard to get my sympathy to NOT pay it UNLESS you are prepared to go the long haul and fight to the bitter end. $158 is a very low settlement that is hard to ignore.

If Picrights doesn't get the response or settlement they want, they hand it off to Higbee & Associates to handle the AFP infringement. Picrights & Higbee work together for the mutual client that is AFP.  In theory, the photographer is out of the equation because the rights/copyrights of the images have been sold/transferred to AFP.

The lower ones I have seen get transferred to Higbee and, of course, they jack up the settlement amount.

However, I don't think I have EVER seen a AFP U.S. copyright registration. A potential weakness I see that can help defendants is that AFP's imagery may not be copyright registered in the U.S.  But nevertheless, bringing it up is insufficient. People actually have to have a spine to stand up to the counter-argument that will inevitably be made. Most people aren't going to "convince" them to back off. 99% of these cases will not be "convinced" away.

It always comes down to the resolve and determination of defendants.  We provide insights and some level of knowledge and education. But we can't help people grow spines. You either have it or muster it up. Absent that, settle aggressively to get it as low as you can.

114
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ImageRights proof of representation
« on: July 03, 2018, 01:17:17 AM »
So, what are you saying?  If you get the proof you want, then you will just pay up? You may want to think a few steps ahead.

This is a one page document on the respective companies letterhead with a short statement saying that ImageRights is authorized to represent them on copyright matters and is signed by an individual.  I don't feel this to be sufficient proof.  Am I incorrect?

I could not find much about other ImageRights claims in the forum and any help is appreciated.

115
This news nugget was submitted by a loyal ELI reader. Thank you to that person who wishes to remain anonymous.

The number of firms pursuing copyright infringement and issuing extortion letters is growing again. It appears that Attorney Mathew Higbee and Litigious Photographer Michael Grecco has launched Image Defenders.

http://imagedefenders.com/about/

Higbee has previously represented Grecco on various copyright infringement cases which can be found on Justia and Pacer. Apparently, their pre-existing relationship has led to this new Image Defenders venture and business partnership. It is safe to say that we will soon see the first Image Defenders Settlement Demand/Extortion Letters.

The domain ImageDefenders.com was registered in February 2018. That means this is a very new venture. With Grecco's credentials, I imagine he will be able to find some photographers to sign up for the new service.

As reported previously, it has been my estimate that Higbee and other lawyers in his line of work get a 30% to 40% (roughly a third) commission for their collection/extortion efforts. However, Image Defenders claim to only want to charge 20% collection fees in the pre-lawyer stages with the other supposed 80% going to photographer. However, I am not convinced that the 20/80 split will stay for long.

http://imagedefenders.com/faq/

Image Defenders is the only service that has NO upfront fees. The service is through acceptance, we are looking for artist with high value to their work and registrations with the copyright office. We then assume all cost for the search, any filing fees with the court and services fess. Image Defenders also takes the smallest percentage of any agency of its type, we charge 20% of the gross after expenses. The core law firm works for a rate of 30% deliver 50% of the gross settlement to the artist or their representative.

Supposedly, the advantage that Image Defenders as is, of course, the direct connection to the Higbee law offices existing staff and infrastructure. Another interesting "competitive edge" is reading between the lines. Image Defenders is touting that they are using search technology to find potential infringements, not proprietary search/scanning software (such as PicScout which Getty Images uses and acquired for $20 million).

We know our strengths. Rather than spending our time and resources developing proprietary search technology like many other services, we utilize three different proven search engines developed by companies who are experts in search.

By utilizing three different search engines, we can offer unparalleled search capabilities worldwide. The technical aspects of Image Defenders do not distract our network of lawyers from their primary task, which is getting you paid.


Reading between the lines, we can probably assume Google and Bing are two of the major search engines they are using. I am not sure what the third search engine might be. Yahoo Search doesn't count because as far as I know it has been reliant on Bing for years.

On good point that Image Defenders make is this statement:

http://imagedefenders.com/how-it-works/

Unlike most other services, Image Defenders does not charge a monthly fee for our services. You pay nothing out-of-pocket. There are no fees until your claim has been settled.

Once any claims have been settled, you retain 50% of the actual settlement. While others claim to pay 40-50%, in most cases, that percentage is calculated after the lawyers take their cut of up to 40%. Which means you are actually only getting 20-30% of the initial settlement.

Image Defenders was formed with the idea that photographers should be paid for their work. That is why we strive to pay the highest percentage in the industry.


It is no secret that most photographers are not very business-savvy and most are desperate to collect any monies on their photography however small it might be. It is not a surprise that photographers get relatively very little money in the extortion letter business because the other firms all have to get their share first before the photographer gets anything. And that assumes that these firms are honorable in reporting monies collected. Quite frankly, most photographers have no way of verifying what anyone collects. They are at the mercy of these "service firms".

I have to say Higbee is quite clever and entrepreneurial. The Image Defenders venture feeds his law firm with new clients.  Image Defenders can simply send a couple of weak, token letters to potential infringers. When they don't pay or answer, they can transfer the case to Higbee's own law firm and claim his 50%.

If we use our in house legal services, you get paid 50% of the actual settlement, not what’s left over after everyone else has been paid.

I find it hard to believe the photographer Grecco would incur any labor costs himself. I think Grecco will be leaning heavily (or entirely) on Higbee's existing office operations and staff. I think ImageDefenders will largely be represented and operated by Higbee's inhouse non-lawyer, clerical staff, perhaps a paralegal might be involved. And for victims who refuse to pay ImageDefenders, the "case" will be "transferred" to another Higbee inhouse staff member.

It seems very likely existing Higbee employees will be working in the Image Defenders venture. To the general public, there will be an Image Defenders extortion letter.  And then there will be a separate the Higbee Law Firm extortion letter. They will refer to each other in the third-person as if they were really separate firms when, it is quite likely in a practical sense, they are one and the same. At best, if they are not one and the same in a practical sense, it would be an incestuous arrangement.

Most of the public who are new victims and do not read ELI will not make the connection between the newly formed Image Defenders and Higbee & Associates Law Firm. They will be fooled into thinking that Image Defenders and Higbee Law Firm are two different entities. Based on my read, it is likely an incestuous operation. Grecco will be the "networking cred" to attract photographer clients into the venture to earn his keep in the venture.  But it looks to me, Higbee's non-lawyer, clerical staff will be getting more work now that Image Defenders appears to have come online.

Overall, I have to say it is quite clever and entrepreneurial for Grecco and Higbee to work together in ImageDefenders. It is something to watch and observe in the months and years to come.

116
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An update from 2013
« on: June 28, 2018, 10:29:27 PM »
My comments inline...  My first question is are you American or from the UK? I am unclear what your background is to speak about the UK system so definitively.

Civil procedure is quite simple in the UK for the vast majority of claims and, if someone sticks their head in the sand after receiving a court judgement, a claimant can even apply to the High Court to have enforcement officers recover any monies owed to them; these officers have broad powers to seize cash or other assets/goods that can be auctioned off to meet all or part of the total sum (which, if it reaches that stage, will have accrued considerable additional fees for all the enforcement steps).

The US has laws similar to what you describe. However, people who don't intend to be collected upon don't tend to park their assets for others to see or leave accounts stagnant. I have seen first hand the theory vs. the actual practice. If it was so easy, people would just file court papers all day long and money would then magically appear. 

Assets and goods are easily contested or can be "given" or "gifted" pretty easy simply by giving someone possession.  Accounts can be transferred or closed.  People who know they are being pursued don't generally sit there quietly and wait for someone to take their assets.  All this stuff about the additional fees means very little if there are few assets and goods to be found.


As simplistic as the small claims (£10,000 or less) process is, there are rules to follow (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil), and part of those rules means that claimants must show that they have attempted to settle a matter outside the courts before filing an action... otherwise, they risk censure and having their claim (temporarily) thrown out. That's why letters/emails are always the first steps in any claims process.

I can't speak speak to UK court procedures.  Nevertheless, demand letters are a forewarning if nothing else. I am still not convinced that money transfers so easily if someone is determined to not cooperate. Otherwise, it is easy to just send a few letters to get the formalities out of the way and then go straight to lawsuit to get the "easy money".

Again, the theory sounds so easy. If it was so easy, they could print money by just following a simple, easy system. And there would not be all this conniving, convincing, begging, pleading, threats for someone to pay.

People inherently like easy which is why it is "easier" to ignore the letter. It isn't always the best path but it is "easy". 


118
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Email from PicRights.com
« on: June 27, 2018, 08:47:37 PM »
Because it generally is not a "scam" in the traditional sense.

You can expect lots of attempts to legally threaten you via email and mailed notices. They may even try to call you.

And they won't take your $60 because it is slap in the face to them. It is too small a settlement to be worthwhile.

My question is in declining my offer to settle they are referring my file to outside counsel, what do I expect next?  If this was truly a scam, why wouldn't they just take my $60 and run?

119
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Email from PicRights.com
« on: June 27, 2018, 08:44:42 PM »
You won't know if "ignoring works" until the 3-year statute of limitations is met. "Ignoring" doesn't resolve the matter. It will not cease attempts to collect.  It just postpones it indefinitely until something happens.

Did you get this resolved?  Did ignoring work?

120
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An update from 2013
« on: June 22, 2018, 01:54:14 PM »
That is incorrect. Many of us do not tell people to ignore a claim but if someone refuses to pay or negotiate a settlement, that leaves few options.  Then, it defaults to "ignoring" it.  And most of the information on these forums is geared towards the US victims. This forum is simply a place for UK posts.

And regarding Getty filing lawsuits, maybe they will, maybe they won't. I can't speak for the UK but I don't imagine that losing a lawsuit automatically means money appears out of thin air. Lawsuits have a way of driving people underground and forcing people to shift and hide their money.

Certainly, if Getty or anyone else in the UK can expend money for expensive lawyers and file all the lawsuits they want. But against smaller parties, I think the collection rate rate would be low. Many would not show up. And even if there was a judgment against a defendant, I predict many defendants would simply go underground and move their money to make sure it is inaccessible.

If filing lawsuits and collecting money were so easy, there would be no need for extortion letters and all the cajoling, intimidating, and manipulation to get people to pay.

I think there is a real risk this forum and others may fall victim to its own success. The near universal advice on here and other similar forums is ignore the claim. I would imagine the vast majority of defendants do ignore the claim. Sooner or later Getty is going to wake up to the realisation that its actually more trouble to send 10 letters and do nothing than it would be to send one letter followed by an N1 claim form. 

I know a number of artists who claim for themselves and they don't wait around sending gazillions of letters that all end up in the bin. They write one or two letters and then its straight in with a claim at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 154
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.