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 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 154
616
Well, well, what do we have here?  What an interesting find. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.  This is a very interesting lawsuit indeed.  The description in the lawsuit is worth reading. I have cut and pasted the text from that section and highlighted the interesting parts.
======================

NATURE OF CASE

1. This is a copyright lawsuit brought by distinguished American photographer Carol M. Highsmith under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. §§1202(a), 1202(b) and 1203, based upon the Defendants’ gross misuse of Ms. Highsmith’s photographs – more than 18,000 of them.

2. In December 2015, Ms. Highsmith received a letter addressed to her nonprofit organization from the Defendants accusing her of copyright infringement and demanding payment for displaying one of her own photographs on her own website. See attached Exhibit A.

3. Ms. Highsmith subsequently learned that the Defendants have been sending out similar threat letters to other users of her photography, and that Getty and Alamy are purporting to sell licenses for thousands of her photographs on their commercial websites.

4. Through the United States Library of Congress (“Library”), Ms. Highsmith had previously given the public the right to reproduce and display all the photographs at issue in this lawsuit, for free.

5. Beginning in about 1988 and continuing from time to time, to the present, Ms. Highsmith has been providing the Library with tens of thousands of her valuable photographs.

6. These photographs represent her extensive documentation of people and places throughout the United States of America.

7. The Defendants have apparently misappropriated Ms. Highsmith’s generous gift to the American people. The Defendants are not only unlawfully charging licensing fees to people and organizations who were already authorized to reproduce and display the donated photographs for free, but are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner (or agents thereof), and threatening individuals and companies with copyright infringement lawsuits that the Defendants could not actually lawfully pursue.

8. As described further herein below, the conduct of the Defendants runs afoul of the DMCA’s provisions proscribing the removal, modification and falsification of “copyright management information,” unlawful conduct that has injured Ms. Highsmith, thereby entitling Ms. Highsmith to the relief sought herein.

9. Furthermore, despite the fact that Ms. Highsmith objected to the Defendants’ conduct shortly after receiving the Defendants’ threatening letter, such brazen and extortionate conduct still continues to this day, as the Defendants continue to threaten users of Ms. Highsmith’s photography. Defendants continue to license these images, in exchange for money that they know they are clearly not entitled to collect.

10. Defendants’ violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1202 entitle Ms. Highsmith to recover, among other things, and if she so elects as provided in 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(3)(B), “an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.”

11. Getty has committed at least 18,755 separate violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1202, one count for each of the 18,755 Highsmith Photos appearing on Getty’s website. Thus, Ms. Highsmith is entitled to recover, among other things, and if she so elects, aggregate statutory damages against Getty of not less than forty-six million, eight hundred eighty-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($46,887,500) and not more than four hundred sixty-eight million, eight hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($468,875,000).

12. The unlawful conduct complained of herein is not Getty’s first violation of the DMCA, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 1202.

13. Getty was found by this Court to have violated 17 U.S.C. § 1202 within the last 3 years, and ordered to pay over $1 million in damages.

14. Because Getty has already had a final judgment entered against it by this Court under 17 U.S.C. § 1202 in the past three years, this Court may treble the statutory damages in this case against Getty.

15. Getty must therefore account for well over one billion dollars ($1B) in statutory copyright damages in this case.

16. Unfortunately, the Defendants’ bad faith business practices have proven to be so lucrative, their behavior has apparently continued unabated.

17. Absent Order of this Court and such exemplary damages to deter such egregious conduct, Ms. Highsmith and the public at large will continue to be defrauded, misled, and irreparably injured by the Defendants’ unlawful acts.

617
Getty Images Letter Forum / June 20, 2016 is ELI's 8th Birthday!
« on: June 20, 2016, 08:06:47 PM »
I just realized that today, June 20, 2016 is ELI's 8th Birthday!

I could not know that ELI would ever last this long but it goes to show how long copyright extortion has existed and how long ELI has fought and stood up to copyright extortionists.

I am grateful that my friend and business Oscar Michelen decided to take a chance to work with me and ELI.  We have certainly had many skirmishes and even legal battles against our adversaries and we are still here on top!

That is the power of a strong, like-minded community and readership.

Special thanks to Robert, Greg, April, Stinger, Lucia, and many others who have stood with the ELI cause.

618
Legal Controversies Forum / Linda Ellis In The News
« on: June 15, 2016, 02:49:45 AM »
It has been interesting to watch Linda react to April.  I have been very preoccupied these last months so I have not made many public comments.

From what I can tell, all the Linda Ellis/Dash Poem coverage throughout Google and the Internet has taken a toll on her "copyright enforcement business". I think she relied on that income quite a bit over the years until April Brown took it public and met ELI.

We all know the huge chain of events that eventually became and continues to flare up every so often.

I would say that Linda has left a huge legacy on the legal front that she never anticipated or foresaw. Linda has a bunch of legal eagle types watching and waiting to pounce on her if she does something someone doesn't like.

619
Legal Controversies Forum / Re: A Case To Remember
« on: June 15, 2016, 02:40:01 AM »
I hear that Netflix series is pretty good. My gf and I are backed up on the shows we want to watch but it was on my list.

620
It appears Getty Images UK is utilizing Atradius Collections to step up their collection activities. The Atradius letters are becoming much more common and I am getting more reports of them. I have posted a sample Atradius letter for Getty UK letter recipients to become familiar with. Getty UK letter victims can expect to see Atradius letters in the near future if they haven't already seen them.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/308908013/Atradius-Collections-UK-Settlement-Demand-Letter

Because ELI is primarily U.S.-based, I equate Atradius Collections as a hybrid of the U.S.-based McCormack Legal operation and the NCS IP operation. For UK victims, you can use that insight and apply it to your situation.

In the U.S., Yarsmuth Wilsdon law firm appears to have recently taken over the role McCormack Legal had for so many years prior. The primary difference is that McCormack never had any hand in any Getty Images lawsuits. Yarsmuth Wilsdon, in the last couple of years, have taken up the mantle of being the primary lawyers who file strategic lawsuits against hand-picked targets.

I bring this up because oftentimes Getty Images UK operation emulates the Getty Images U.S. operation. Getty UK victims can read up on the Getty U.S. operation to gain insights into their own situation.


=======================

Your reference :
Case Number : XXXXXXX
Amount : XXXX.00 GBP

Re : Unauthorised Use of Getty Images’ Photograph

Dear Sirs,

IMPORTANT: FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER MAY LEAD TO LEGAL ACTION BEING TAKEN AGAINST YOUR BUSINESS.

We have been advised by our client that you have used an image (or images) exclusively representated by Getty Images for online promotional purposes without purchasing a valid license for the use of the image(s).

Unauthorised use of the image(s) consitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act of 1988. Please be aware that copyright legislation provides for strict liability, meaning that you can be found liable for infringement regardless of your level of knowledge of the infringement or your intent. A FAQ from Getty Images is enclosed for your information.

Our clients have provided you with a settlement demand together with a copy of the image(s) in question and the usage found on your company’s website.

We hereby demand payment of the full outstanding amount within 5 days of the date of this letter; payment should be transferred into our bank account 20423165 SORT CODE 20-18-15 IBAN Code GB38 BARC 2018 1520 4231 65 SWIFT Code BARCGB22 BARCLAYS BANK PLC CARDIFF BUSINESS CENTRE PO BOX N° 69 CF10 1SG CARDIFF, stating our reference number. If you prefer to pay by cheque, we instruct you to make the bank cheque(s) payable to ATRADIUS COLLECTIONS quoting our ref.

We urge you to comply with our request, if you do not respond we will have little alternative but to advise our clients to escalate this issue through a law firm. If done so, costs incurred, if legally recoverable, could be charged to you.

If you are experiencing any financial difficulties we are prepared to discuss the possibility of a payment schedule or reduced settlement upon receipt of evidence of your financial deterioration. Please contact us immediately with any payment proposal you may have.

If payment has already been made, or you believe you have received this letter in error, please inform us immediately.

Yours faithfully,

ROBERT BRISTOW
Atradius Collections
Tel. : +44 (0) 29 2082 4579
Fax : +44 (0) 29 2082 4508
[email protected]

=========================

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Getty Images?
Getty Images represents some of the world’s best photographers and filmmakers. Getty Images has contractual agreements with its photographers to represent certain Rights-Ready and Rights-Managed imagery exclusively and to license the use of these images to companies all over the world. The images Getty Images provides can be found in magazines, websites, and billboards, marketing collateral, product packaging and mobile devices, to name only a few. Getty Images, on behalf of itself and its represented photographers and artists, is committed to protecting its imagery from unauthorised use.

Somebody else created my company’s website.
Getty Images understands that a third-party designer, former employee, or intern may have been contracted to design and develop your company’s website. However, if no licenses from Getty Images exist, the liability of any infringement ultimately falls on the company (the end user) who hired that third-party, employee, or intern. Getty Images recommends that your company contact the third-party, employee, or intern to see if any licenses from Getty Images surrounding the specific use of the images in question exist. Please provide an invoice number or sales order number and Getty Images will research as appropriate.

We have removed the images and now consider this matter closed.
Getty Images appreciates the removal of its represented images from your company’s website. However, removal of the images in question solves only part of the issue, as Getty Images will continue to require full payment of the demand presented to settle the matter and avoid further escalation.

We found these images on the Internet or the Getty Images website and thought they were Royalty-Free.
Although Royalty-Free images from Getty Images are different from Rights-Ready and Rights-Managed images, a license must still be purchased for Royalty-Free image use.

We didn’t know these images were represented by Getty Images and had to be licensed.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that your company may not have known, this does not excuse your company’s unauthorised use, nor does it relieve you of the obligation to pay the demand to settle Getty Images’ claim of copyright infringement. If no licenses exist, you received the benefit of using the images in question on your company’s website without permission from Getty Images or its represented photographers. Since the unauthorised use already occurred, payment for that benefit is necessary.

We purchased these images from a company we found online as part of a web template.
As the end user of Getty Images’ imagery, you are ultimately responsible for ensuring that you have obtained the appropriate rights to use the imagery. That means that if you acquire imagery from a web template provider or other such company, you are still liable for copyright infringement if that provider or other such company did not properly license the imagery for your use.

Why are you charging Irish VAT?
Getty Images International is an Irish resident company. Pursuant to Irish VAT regulations, legal settlements are subject to Ireland VAT. If your company is VAT registered, please provide us the VAT number before the payment is made so no VAT will be charged. If your company is not VAT registered, the VAT will need to be collected with your settlement payment.

621
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Atradius/Getty
« on: April 13, 2016, 08:32:08 PM »
It is pretty embarrassing. It makes them look like morons. As most people know, all Greg needs to do is privatize his FB account. Instead, they look like idiots with their so-called complaint.

Clearly a case of this high powered claims collector familiarising himself with his facebook privacy settings.

This really is novice stuff. If they fall at that hurdle what sort of debt collectors are they?

622
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Atradius/Getty
« on: April 13, 2016, 08:28:50 PM »
They cannot blame me for something you posted.  In the U.S., we have Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which states that every individual is only responsible for what they post, not what other people post.

My belief is their request has more to do with getting rid of the Atradius information posted here and this discussion thread altogether.

However, as supporters of the Streisand Effect and Section 230 CDA, we have to do our part to publicize and report these ridiculous takedown requests.

Who knows?  We may end up having to launch a dedicated Atradius forum because of the genius of Dean Jones, Greg Bonser, and Karl Foster. I wonder what other Atradius employers and lawyers want to be on the Atradius roll call list of people to avoid.

Quote
You're going to be in big trouble mister! You think you can just go ahead and post that email without retribution?! "Counsel" will not be happy and will likely jump on the next trans-atlantic flight to summons you to the high court of the queens land..

623
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Atradius/Getty
« on: April 13, 2016, 04:55:35 PM »
Robert beat me to it but here is the FULL email with all the stupid email footers from this morning:

Dear Mr Chan

I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding a post on your forum and a request to remove this post. The link to this post is as follows:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/atradiusgetty/

The reason for the complaint and request to remove is that it includes personal details of one of the collectors on my team:

·  Facebook profile link
·  Facebook profile picture of which the collectors 3 year old daughter is present

I have copied in our Legal Counsel and also informed our client of the complaint and request to remove the post.

At this juncture it is simple a request to remove the post and once our Legal Counsel returns from leave and we further discuss with our client we will contact you again.

I look forward to confirmation of the removal.

Best Regards

Dean Jones
Operations Manager I Collections
Atradius Collections
3 Harbour Drive, I Capital Waterside, Cardiff, CF10 4WZ I United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0)29 2082 4656 I Fax: +44 (0)29 2082 4508 I Mobile: +44 (0)77 6695 1557
E-mail: [email protected]:  I Website: www.atradius.co.uk:
logo_sig

Connect with Atradius on Twitter: @atradiusUK | YouTube: atradiusUK | LinkedIn: Atradius

 ****************************************
The operating companies affiliated with Atradius N.V. (Atradius Group) conduct insurance, debt collection and information services business through their registered (branch) offices in many countries. For information about the main registration details of Atradius Group offices in your country please visit http://global.atradius.com/general-content/legal/legallist.html

Important Notice
This e-mail, including any and all attachments, is intended for the addressee or its representative only. It is confidential and may be under legal privilege. Any form of publication, reproduction, copying or disclosure of the content of this e-mail is not permitted, unless expressly otherwise indicated in the e-mail by the Atradius contact person. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and its contents, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this e-mail and all its attachments subsequently. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and/or opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Atradius Group companies, either jointly or severally, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. E-mail received by Atradius Group can be stored for business purposes

****************************************

======================================================

This was my response to him from this morning:

Dean,

I have looked into your complaint on behalf of Greg Bonser who apparently cannot send emails himself.  There is no specific information that was posted except a public link to Greg Bonser's public Facebook page by an ELI Contributor. Might I suggest that you tell Greg Bonser to not place any content in public view he does not want shared on social media. Or he can simply hide his Facebook account and make private any content he does not want in the public eye. It is that simple. It seems foolish to me that Greg would intentionally expose his personal Facebook account in his line of work of threatening the legally unsophisticated.

To paraphrase Greg in his original email to his victim, it is HIS duty to make himself aware of HIS responsibilities as a Facebook user and how to use its privacy settings and hide whatever content he doesn't want to be seen in the public eye. How is it your job or my job to censor and protect the content of HIS publicly available Facebook page?

In any case, we are not in the practice of removing content posted by legitimate readers and contributors. In particular, Robert Krausankas is a member of the ELI Defense Team. He is a loyal, trusted ELI member and has violated no rules or laws by posting these publicly accessible social media links. I have copied Robert and he can decide whether he wants to delete or modify his post but I am not going to delete his post based on your complaint or removal request. In any case, Robert just might have something to say to you and Greg Bonser over your forum thread removal request. I have copied him on my reply to you.

By the context of Robert's comments, he is making the point of revealing the identity of Greg Bonser not so much about his child. She just happens to be in the shot. All he has to do is remove any photos he doesn't want the public to see or hide his Facebook account through privacy settings and the problem is solved. It's his job to patrol and guard his Facebook account, not our job train him to do so.

Matthew



Looks like not only is Greg Bonser an asshat, he's a crybaby as well...Grow some balls for christs sake!

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/copyright-troll-greg-bonser-atradius-collections-employee-cries-to-boss/

624
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: BWP Media Sanders Law
« on: March 21, 2016, 02:24:03 PM »
Yes, Robert does get into one of his moods where he wants to stick his middle finger up at these people!  LOL.

yes I'm a rebel!, if it were me and the image was hot linked and not residing n your servers, I would put it back, and tell them t pound salt.. If you want to send me the link to the iage in question, I'll gladly link to it n my blog, just to bust their balls...cause I'm nice like that.

625
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images and LCS
« on: March 21, 2016, 02:21:54 PM »
Well, as far as I know they are low-end hourly wage clerks.  You know they aren't getting necessarily the brightest when they are fishing on college campuses for young lawyer wannabes who have zero work experience.

It isn't hard to cut and paste pre-written, canned replies. I could train a teenager to do that.

I'm curious as to how signed their response letter, most Getty employees are dumb as fuck.

626
Your brain is in a fear-feedback loop. That is a personal problem many people have. 

It goes to show that emotion often trumps information with some people. There are people who simply are not well equipped for dispute and conflicts in life.  And they make the easiest victims.  This is what we call "low hanging fruit" for them to pick at.

The answer has been given many times in these forums.  You just don't want to listen because it doesn't satisfy the closure you want.

Get it together or you will continue to be an easy mark in life.

If I had to get extortion letters from someone, it would be LCS I would choose.  What more needs to be said?

I guess my primary question comes down to this: since this was an innocent infringement of a single photo, do I just shut off my correspondence with LCS at this point, call it a day, and try to stick it out for 3 years, hoping for the best, or do I continue to try and engage these people? If I do the latter, I feel like it could go on ad nauseum, with neither side getting anywhere, so why even bother to do that? I made a first attempt, lawyers and a judge would be able to see that, and their answers didn't make sense. If I shut it down entirely at this point, knowing they won't provide the answers I'm seeking, why bother continuing to draft these responses to no avail?

I'll admit that I hardly slept last night because of their letter. My mind spirals out of control and I envision a ridiculous judgment of tens of thousands of dollars via a prolonged lawsuit. Yes, I know, ridiculous, right? I just couldn't shut my brain off. I can't imagine anyone gets happy feelings from getting these things.


627
That is bad advice. You don't sign confidentiality agreements over a public document.  The copyright registrations are a public matter and publicly available. However, because of the antiquated system, it can be difficult to search and determine the correct ones.

I have read a lot of advice on various websites.  Some of the advice that deviate from what ELI espouses are not ones I recommend.  They may think they know a lot based on a couple of extortion letters but I say that we have a much larger mindshare, we see more, and have a broader perspective on the issue.

As far as I know, no entity aside from ELI has seen, reported, or dealt with as many stock photo/imagery extortion letters as we have.  We work as a collective team effort with many eyes and ears here.

What I've read from the forums and everywhere else so far is to request for the actual Certificate of Registration from the US Copyright Office from Getty (in your case, LCS).  And of course, after that they would supposedly reply that it is confidential, in which case... you should tell them that you are willing to sign a confidentiality agreement.  That's as far as I know.

628
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: LCS Inc on behalf of ALAMY
« on: March 16, 2016, 08:02:13 PM »
Stinger has correctly and concisely stated the simplest course of action. Most LCS letters can be handled by simply sucking it up for 3 years. It is the least expensive option.

Unfortunately, some people don't have the stomach to withstand these letters by themselves. In those cases, ELI offers the ELI Phone Support and Defense Letter Programs as part of our premium services.

If the infringement is about 1 image, I would completely ignore everything you receive.

Unfortunately, this will not achieve the result you desire - cease communications.

Persist for three years, and you are in the clear.  If this is too difficult, you might want to consider Oscar's letter program.

630
Most of us here on ELI are Americans. Hence, our primary focus is to assist extortion letter victims in the U.S. and sometimes Canada. However, I have occasionally consulted with extortion letter victims in Australia and the U.K. also.

For U.K. victims, I have located some good information sources to get educated and read. The general extortion strategy of trying to scare and intimidate people to pay up holds true in the U.K. just as it does in the U.S. 

As with most English-based courts, the legal process is expensive, time-consuming, and a tedious process. Neither the plaintiff or defendant enjoy the process and most of the time, representing yourself "pro se" is too arduous for the average person.

The best way for any victim to protect themselves is to get educated and not believe the propaganda that is being espoused by people trying to squeeze money out of you.

I have had to force myself and get somewhat educated in the U.K. legal process because I provide paid phone and email support to many people.

This link is a start point for information on how a UK copyright infringement lawsuit might be filed in Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. The IPEC multi track is suitable for claims with a value above £10,000 but not exceeding £500,000.
https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/intellectual-property-enterprise-court

For the legally-ambitious who really want to get into the legal procedures of how a UK copyright infringement lawsuit is to be filed (and defended):
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-enterprise-court-guide

Here is the "small claims" version filing a UK copyright infringement lawsuit:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-enterprise-court-a-guide-to-small-claims

Here is information on how someone takes a case to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/take-a-case-to-the-intellectual-property-enterprise-court

I really like the UK Citizens Advice page for UK copyright infringement claims.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/copyright/the-internet-filesharing-and-copyright/

It is a good starting point to get educated on how to defend yourself against unreasonable and extortionate copyright claims.

Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] 43 44 ... 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.