Messages

436

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee & Assoc. (Nick Youngson) Sends $20,000 demand letter

« on: February 28, 2017, 04:14:28 PM »

As an update, in the interest of accuracy, the $20,000 demand letter is for 4 images, not one image.  $5,000 per infringement.

No one in their right mind would willingly settle for $20,000 for four $20 images. It is a wet dream by Higbee. They seem to be getting bolder and bolder and it might blow up in their faces. It takes some real nerve to send out 5-figure demand letters is all I can say.

437

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Asking Getty to change future communication to me - am I asking for trouble?

« on: February 28, 2017, 04:07:10 PM »

Congrats! Glad to hear it! And thanks for remembering and updating us!

Be careful going forward on future image use.

438

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Nicholas Youngson Photographer (Rep. by Higbee Associates) Copyright Abuse

« on: February 28, 2017, 03:59:46 PM »

To be fair, the Creative Commons link is one that we are familiar with and how some people are obtaining Youngson's images. (I got another link confused with a new domain and website creative-commons-images.com which was only registered Feb. 18, 2017. Boy, this one is going to entrap more people.)

Regarding the new domain-website nick-youngson-photography.com, that is very interesting. It is only a couple weeks old.  It seems to be an educational website which is probably a good thing.

Maybe one article he needs to write about is using fine-print attribution rules as a financial honeypot.  Or how they can justify $5,000 demand letters for $10 images simply because someone didn't attribute the image.  After all, attribution is easily remedied if that is truly what he wants.

Or set settlement demands to a more reasonable amount.

But as we have said on ELI about some parties, for some, the honeypot effect and the subsequent financial windfall is too hard to resist.  Some use the infringement as a justification to gouge people for settlements.

And there are some photographers (beyond Youngson) who hide their names or use alias names to extract settlements from people.  Yes, that kind of information does find its way to ELI.

Update: He has another new site which distributes images from the origin site: http://www.creative-commons-images.com/nick-youngson-nyphotographic-com.html

He seems to be very active with his development work.

439

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter received from "Image Sales" claiming infringement

« on: February 23, 2017, 11:51:33 PM »

Sometimes, disregarding the letter is the most effective and economical way of dealing with these letters. It isn't a perfect system and certainly has certain risks but MANY people have taken the simple approach of ignoring because pursuing expensive and time-consuming litigation over a small matter is just not worth it.

440

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image copywright infringement - stockfood.co.uk

« on: February 23, 2017, 11:49:52 PM »

You should refer to the general Getty forum for generalized tactics and strategies used to intimidate and motivate people to pay.

Hey All,

Hope someone can help, I received a letter from stockfood.co.uk for an image I used - wasnt sure at the time may have just googled and used it.
Anyways they asking for £2250 unless i settle within 14 days which is £850.
It's my other halfs website which she does not make a penny from and I will delete the image no probs but man the price is extortionate!

THey have a q & a attached in the letter as well outlining that we have to pay regardless, removing the image is not the option and if we don't pay they can take us to court.

Any advice on this would be highly appreciated.

thanks so much!

441

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: UK Copyright infringement Letter using Getty but not Getty

« on: February 23, 2017, 11:47:53 PM »

David is correct that advance notification is generally not required for any legal action to occur.  It is a courtesy, not a requirement. In any case, there is little incentive for people to file lawsuits when they can squeeze money through letters.

If you want to ignore it, just ignore it then.  But to me, it is not a good use of time to have someone prove they sent the letter. There is no requirement to do so and it is easy for them to send you another one and another one which they will do anyhow until you decide to pay. They will persist and escalate as much as they can short of filing a lawsuit to intimidate you to pay.

442

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Higbee & Assoc. (Nick Youngson) Sends $20,000 demand letter

« on: February 23, 2017, 11:42:23 PM »

Every time I think I figure something out, I get proven wrong.  :-(

I thought Mathew Higbee of Higbee & Associates (on behalf of Nick Youngson) had a well-oiled system of sending out $5,000 extortion letters for Nick Youngson images. Well, it appears a reader (who I am in process of email contact) is now reporting that Higbee has sent out a $20,000 extortion letter!

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/nicholas-youngson-photographer-(rep-by-higbee-associates)-copyright-abuse/

However, there seems to be some dispute if this is a single image or multi-image issue right now.

This amount is among the highest I have seen from ANY company or agency! It appears to be a missing attribution issue as many other people have faced.

I am in the process of getting more information on this to find out if this is a one-off situation or the start of something nastier and uglier.

443

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Nicholas Youngson Photographer (Rep. by Higbee Associates) Copyright Abuse

« on: February 23, 2017, 11:13:42 PM »

NYCopyrightrightabuse,

I have received your email and will respond personally there. Once we hammer out the details and issues, I think we should be fine.

IN a general sense, I do like that you are being proactive, strongly voiced your position/opinions, and taken the initiative to do something. I am not giving an endorsement of what you are doing or your arguments but I do respect that you are not sitting back and letting yourself or your client become blindly victimized.

I will offer this nugget to anyone regarding receiving the Higbee letters regarding Youngson's photos. There is a tremendously disproportionate number of Higbee letters and Nick Youngson letters showing up. There is something not right about this.

At least Getty Images, Masterfile, and other stock photo agencies have an "excuse" to send out large numbers of letters. Because they have such a huge library of images from which people can infringe upon.

But the Youngson image issue appears to be VASTLY because of "gotcha infringements".  The majority of victims are making an attempt to find appropriate Creative Commons images to use but getting tripped up on the attribution issue.  And because of that, people are getting bullshit $5,000 "speeding tickets" for goofing up the attribution issue with little or no advance warning.

So whether it is intentional or unintentional, there is a honeypot situation that exists as far as I am concerned.  And it appears to me that these $5,000 demands are taking UNFAIR advantage of that situation. And that is what is creating the outrage right now. The Higbee operation is being followed and reported very closely.

It seems in the near future, there might be a dedicated Higbee Letter Forum due to the significant numbers of people I am hearing from. 

Essentially, the best thing for Youngson image victims to do is spread the word on this trap.

Regarding the anonymity issue, I have no problems with people posting anonymously as long as they do so in a responsible way. Some people and websites abuse the anonymous posting privilege which is why I am vigilant and watchful on the matter.

444

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Nicholas Youngson Photographer (Rep. by Higbee Associates) Copyright Abuse

« on: February 23, 2017, 08:23:36 PM »

I am going to chime in here as I feel a bit uncomfortable with some aspects of the post by nycopyrightabuse.

I am uncomfortable with the solicitation of information from the ELI Community without any disclosure who you are. If you are a lawyer, you should be disclosing your identity.

And if you are NOT a lawyer, you have asked people to entrust their private information to someone who has no standing or credibility. You are simply an anonymous account at this point. You purport to be a victim and you might well be but I am wary of anyone trying to obtain other people's information when you are yourself posting anonymously.

I have sent a private email to the email address listed regarding this matter.

For people reading, I understand the desire to share information and to assist one another. However, how does anyone know that it isn't Higbee, Nick Youngson, or someone related to them trying to collect information from anonymous readers here?

I will not allow an information honeypot to exist here. I don't believe that is the case here but the potential for foul play exists.

For that reason, I exercise LOTS OF CAUTION before giving any information to an unknown party of has NOT identified themselves, not matter how good their intentions might be.

Until I get clarification directly from the author, I am redacting the email address in the interest of community security.

445

Legal Controversies Forum / MOVED: Nicholas Youngson Photographer (Rep. by Higbee Associates) Copyright Abuse

« on: February 23, 2017, 08:10:45 PM »

This topic has been moved to Getty Images Letter Forum.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php?topic=4516.0

446

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Nugget Linking Joel to VOJF

« on: February 23, 2017, 07:46:30 PM »

Greg,

Good article and a good analysis.  Most of us have come to the same conclusions as you did.

However, there is one point that I am not sure I agree with you.  I have found the recurring statement by Joel "I am not your blogger" very peculiar. 

Most people would very simply say "I am not the writer (or blogger) of VOJF."  It is the most direct and precise statement to deny being the author of VOJF.  But "I am not your blogger" is more vague and appears to be carefully crafted.  Joel is telling "a truth of sorts" when he says "I am not YOUR blogger".  If Joel is trying to be truthful, it simply means that his blogging on VOJF is not ABOUT "YOU" (the receiver of that statement).

In this context, Joel could mean "I am Robert's blogger" meaning that VOJF posts (even if they might occasionally refer to "others") are directed at Robert. Clearly, other people have chimed in on VOJF and MANY people (including me, Oscar, Greg, April, Stinger, Peeved, DTD, etc.) have supported Robert but VOJF is relentlessly focused on Robert and his family. Some people get hate mail, Robert gets a disgusting "hate site" dedicated to him and his family. And Robert has been very restrained by comparison. Certainly much more restrained than others in his shoes might be.

And if we are going to go back and analyze the truthfulness of other people's statements relating to VOJF, VOJF interestingly calls for content about Linda Ellis and John Jolin taken down from CRT (but NOT Tim McCormack or anyone else that was written about).

Linda states: "It ain’t me Snuffleupagus and your writing about me is slander that has been copied and saved with the hundreds of other pages of evidence.... But, it’s NOT my blog. I didn’t create it and I have never posted on it except to share examples of what you’ve done to me…and I DID use my name. I am only brought into this fiasco because the immature creations you’ve posted exemplify (and expose) your behavior...

It can be interpreted that Linda might be walking a thin line regarding her involvement with VOJF.  She says "It's not my blog."  Translation: "VOJF is not HER blog and she didn't create it or post on it except to share examples..." She doesn't say she DOESN'T know who is behind VOJF. Linda also DOESN'T state whether or not she is involved or in communication with the author of VOJF. 

What I do find peculiar is, out of the dozens of copyright extortion people/firms discussed over the years, how VOJF seems to be "taking up" for three people:  Joel, Linda and John. But no mention of Tim McCormack despite a subtle mention of support from Seattle very early on. John has made no public statement whatsoever regarding VOJF but it seems peculiar VOJF seems to be advocating for John.

My gut feeling is that the very narrow focus of advocating for Linda and John but not anyone else is NOT a coincidence here. First, VOJF can't easily publicly say "Robert needs to remove all mentions of Joel and Adlife Marketing". That is too obvious and self-serving although I think that Joel would be more than happy to take down VOJF on that basis alone.

Second, why does VOJF not offer a larger laundry list of parties to remove from CRT, only Linda and John? Because Robert has said and shown that he is NOT going to take down CRT. By VOJF offering up a small, short list, it gives Robert the ability to keep CRT up but also gives Joel and Linda what they want. Also, I think people who might have been approached by "Jessica" probably declined to be involved and smartly decided to not get dragged into an online smear campaign. Tim, in particular, would be an easy person have get involved if he wanted to. But I suspect Tim smartly declined, "moved on", and focused on his new cannabis venture (entirely legal in Washington state). It is a smart move on Tim's part because he will make MANY people happy being a supplier of cannabis. He will probably make a bunch of money.  People will HAPPILY thank him and give him money for his business-grown product vs. his old business of being a copyright money collector for Getty Images.

In light of VOJF new posts, I would bet good money that Linda has been or is in communication with Joel. She can continue truthfully denying she posts or writes on VOJF. But who knows what communications may be happening?  I won't get into specific quotes on VOJF but there are some very obscure mentions on VOJF of very small interesting and peculiar details that indicate to me that Linda and/or John have been in communication with Joel. There are simply some obscure personal details I don't think would have ever been written on VOJF without some communication from Linda or John.

So, what we now have is a variation and interpretation of "truth telling" going on but one has to really pay attention to the details, nuances, and subtleties going on that the general public may not be aware of.

But the more posts that go up on VOJF and emails that are sent by "Jessica", "Marissa", etc. the more evidence points towards Pawtucket, Rhode Island and Joel himself. The PNG screenshot from VOJF that Greg shared which shows Joel's smiling face does NOT help the situation at all.

Here is an article going over the latest nugget/screen capture showing an apparent association of Joel Albrizio with VOJF

http://copyrightantibullyingact.org/site/more-evidence-linking-joel-albrizio-vojf/

447

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Images v. Motamedi (Injunction: Ex-employee sharing secrets w/ competitor)

« on: February 21, 2017, 12:31:57 AM »

In yet another unusual Getty Images case, we have a Getty ex-employee of 16 years, Roxanne Motamedi, living in Los Angeles (VP Global Entertainment & Partnerships) who is being sued for allegedly sharing Getty trade secrets and inside information with ex-COO of Getty Images, Nick Evans-Lombe. Nick appear to be trying to be a competitor to Getty Images in his new firm, Silverhub Media in the UK.

Getty Images sought a restraining order and injunction to prevent Motamedi from contacting Getty clients, employees, and further sharing any Getty inside information with anyone. Further, Getty Images sought to obtain ALL devices owned by Roxanne and her husband as well as ALL her email account and other social media accounts to seek out Getty-related information. (Yes, it sounds pretty invasive. I have mixed feelings on the matter.)

Information being sought by Getty within Roxanne's online accounts include strategy plans, business plans, client lists, reports, financial information, contracts, text messages, emails, and instant messages. 

Based on declaration statements from many VIPs in Getty Images (CEO Dawn Airey, COO Craig Peters, Corporate Counsels Elizabeth Vaughan, Jonathon Ames, VP Human Resources Anne Hatcher, and Sr. Info Security Analyst Tom Blikre to name a few.), there appears to be a very dismal view of Roxanne.

While I have downloaded and read many of the court documents, there are still many I still have not read or reviewed yet. But what I have downloaded and read is very eye-opening and reveals Getty Images in a way that few outsiders (including ELI) know about.

Based on the declarations and exhibits, it appears Roxanne was careless and reckless in regards to her use of the Getty corporate email system. It appears she sent and forwarded MANY emails she should not have done to her PERSONAL email account as well as Nick (ex-COO of Getty) in UK.

The exhibits show how very peculiar so many Silverhub Media agreements and contracts seem to mirror and match those that Getty use. It strikes me as being nearly impossible for Silverhub Media to have created such similar documents without having obtained copies from Getty.

One exhibit shows a purported Silverhub employment agreement to compensate Roxanne a base salary of $350K plus annual bonus, benefits, and equity participation. (This is just a guess on my part but Roxanee while at Getty was probably taking in a base salary of around $300K per year!)

Another exhibit shows a Getty employment agreement with Nick Evans-Lombe when he was COO from 2008 to 2013. His base salary as Getty COO was $500K! It does not include a potential bonus of 60% of the salary ($300K). It also does not include equity participation and other employee benefits.

My guess is that current COO Craig Peters is making at least $500K/year in base salary but it is likely more to be $600K-$700K in 2017.

Other interesting nuggets in the exhibits which I both quote and paraphrase:

1. Getty considers Adobe and Shutterstock to be their remaining significant competitors.  Getty regards most of their "historical competition is in decline and in need of distribution to survive."

2. Getty views "Simplicity" as the future in many areas such as model (royalty-free), search (no barriers between editorial and creative), subscriptions, offerings, pricing, workflow, and messaging.

3. Getty acknowledges existing customers as the base but growth is driven by small-purchase customers of less than $200/year fron non-traditional geographic markets.

4. Interestingly, Getty views long-term competition from outside the industry through social platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, etc.

5. Getty feels they are lagging to their competitors in new customer acquisition due to expanded advertising and geographic focus targeting e-commerce, small-purchase customers.

6. Getty makes mention on benefiting from the Corbis transaction (creative and editorial)

7. Getty uses Office 365 Microsoft Outlook as its enterprise platform for email. Apparently, there is a feature for a "litigation hold" which preserves all mailbox content including archives, deleted items, and original versions of modified items.  (The moral here is be careful how to use corporate email systems.)

Docket: https://www.scribd.com/document/339883759/Getty-Images-v-Motamedi-Docket

Complaint: https://www.scribd.com/document/339883755/Getty-Images-v-Motamedi-Complaint

Temporary Restraining Order: https://www.scribd.com/document/339884528/Getty-Images-v-Motamedi-Temporary-Restraining-Order

Transcript of Preliminary Injunction: https://www.scribd.com/document/339883988/Getty-Images-v-Motamedi-Transcript-of-Preliminary-Injunction-Hearing

Order of Preliminary Injunction: https://www.scribd.com/document/339883952/Getty-Images-v-Motamedi-Order-of-Preliminary-Injunction

There is more to come...

448

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Images v. Walter Kowalczuk (Buying/selling images in private FB forums)

« on: February 20, 2017, 11:26:23 PM »

There is no love lost between ELI and Getty Images but there are occasions when we are forced to side with Getty Images as a matter of principle.

Getty Images v. Walter Kowalczuk, et al. is one of those cases. We missed this story because all of us involved with ELI don't work on ELI full-time. We don't actively seek out new information as we are accustomed to having new information come to us.

I have not done a full review of all the court documents, only a basic review. However, in the interest of getting the story out, I am pointing to the PDN article which seems to be the best article so far covering the initial story from June 2016. However, keep in mind the Amended Complaint was filed in November 2016 which will include information NOT included in the original June 2016 complaint.

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/06/getty-files-copyright-lawsuit-scheme-sell-stolen-images-facebook.html

Getty Images themselves made a very strong public statement about this case.  This is NOT something they have done with the cases we typically deal with.

http://press.gettyimages.com/statement-regarding-legal-action-taken-against-mr-walter-a-kowalczuk/

For those that want to get into more detail, I have downloaded the most current docket (Feb. 2017) and the Amended Complaint (Nov. 2016). I hope to download more court documents in this case and read them in the future but the docket shows that progress is being made in this case.

https://www.scribd.com/document/339877748/Getty-Images-v-Kowalczunk-Docket

https://www.scribd.com/document/339877743/Getty-Images-v-Kowalczuk-Amended-Complaint

This case has LOTS of defendants being accused of infringements and appears to revolve them buying and selling sports-related images in a private Facebook forum. Posted messages are apparently written euphemistically referring to Getty images as "Spaghetti" images.

To be clear, this is not a situation I could help defend as the egregiousness of this case is off-the-charts. If this guy had come to me, I would tell him immediately go hire a lawyer.  The stuff he is being accused of is way beyond the scope of what we do and certainly do not condone.  If what Getty Images is asserting here is true, THIS is a true case of willful infringements, the repeated act of acquiring, buying, and selling sports-related images that clearly belong to another.

449

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from LCS/AFP: First steps

« on: February 20, 2017, 10:26:26 PM »

Greenhat,

I know you want specific answers but you will get few definitive answers.  You will get mostly "probable" or "likely" type of answers.  There are no definitive answers because the folks doing the pursuing don't treat every infringer the same and every victim is in a different circumstance and have different response dispositions/personalities.

My comments to your questions are inline...

1. Is it advisable to visit the link contained in the letter? The letter itself did not specify the settlement amount they are after. I believe that information is only attainable after visiting the link. If we visit this link, are we identified as "suckers" who are paying attention––and thus putting a bigger bullseye on ourselves?

"Advisable" is a strong word.  If you feel sticking your head in the sand is the best course of action as plausible deniability, the don't click. However, if you don't want to be accused of ignoring a situation, then you click to find out more. But you can't complain the settlement information isn't available to you. It is but you have to click on the link. You have to decide for yourself if you feel it is worthwhile. Personally, I am not a big fan of sticking my head in the sand.

2. We can hardly be called a mom-and-pop company and that is obvious from our website. Will LCS go after a higher settlement fee? Are they more likely to sue or at least be more aggressive in pursuing us?

We get lots of smaller parties and mom-and-pop businesses that become nervous nellies. However, they are in many ways "safer".  The general consensus is that the larger and more "traditional" business you are, the greater the risk. Having said that, we have not seen much litigation from any LCS case.... so far.

3. What exactly does Oscar's letter-writing program entail? I understand that he sends a letter to LCS, but what happens next? Does LCS typically respond to these letters? What then?

Oscar does not have a "letter-writing program". It is a no-frills, affordable, legal representation program that begins with a notification letter.  There is no magical pill. He is simply a reputable lawyer who knows his stuff. And he doesn't fall for the common BS tactics being used. He handles any communications that occur including settlement issues.

4. LCS's initial deadline for us to contact them passed before we received their letter. What can we expect to happen and when might we hear from them again?

This is repetitive from other posts. You will definitely get more letters and it might also get escalated to a collection lawyer. They are not going away for the short term. They and others will persist. Count on it.

5. If you were in my position, what would be the next steps you took?

Greg Troy offered one response scenario. The next step is to do more reading here. Or enroll in an ELI Support Call to get a jumpstart and save hours of reading/research.

450

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee & Assoc. Lists RM Media Ltd in Nick Youngson Template Lawsuit

« on: February 20, 2017, 01:59:03 PM »

It seems we have now established that Higbee has filed lawsuits on behalf of its clients but it is important to understand that the CLIENT has to agree and likely foot the bill for such an action. There is a fair chance that Nick Youngson/RM Media may want to test the waters by selectively choosing a victim to go after. By virtue of Higbee being in California, a victim in California is the most efficient for Higbee.  However, Youngson/RM Media is based in the UK which might present an extra obstacle/challenge to get over.

The general pattern in this set of lawsuits you shared is that most are focused in California.  They also fit the general pattern that traditional  brick and mortar businesses seem to be receiving lawsuits, not people who work at home.

Getting a lawsuit is no fun but it is not a catastrophic event. Having said that, as a practical matter, I do think some people are better off than others to try to negotiate a settlement at some point. It is a very personal choice. There is a fine line between rolling over too quickly and being an easy mark and putting up some resistance to get a better settlement.

Everyone pays one way or another. Even the people who don't financially pay expend lots of energy researching, reading, and worrying.  And there are people who are more risk-averse, more prone to stress, losing sleep, and getting ulcers, those are the people I recommend settling the matter.