Messages

1

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Recent articke- Investigating the Higbee & Associates Copyright Trolling Operati

« on: February 28, 2019, 09:50:47 PM »

What I wrote speaks for itself and the article I posted loudy echos my research on Higbee.  They do sloppy work top notch law firms don't do.  It doesn't mean they need to be ignored.  One has to learn the copyright law cold.  And yes, HAA is about the low hanging fruit.  That's where they make the bulk of their money.  It is what it is.   

2

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Recent articke- Investigating the Higbee & Associates Copyright Trolling Operati

« on: February 26, 2019, 01:32:38 PM »

The below article documents the shoddy work done by Higbee & Associates.  The biggest takeaway is that these lawyers ARE NOT intellectual property lawyers.  They don't know copyright law and they don't care.  Their in the copyright troll game to secure payments from "low hanging fruit", people that get so scared they pay up quickly.  The way to combat this is to get educated and push back with knowledge.  It isn't a great feet to become more knowledgeable than Higbee. 


 Yesterday, we wrote about web developer Daniel Quinn's harrowing experience receiving a $20,000 payment demand from copyright troll Higbee & Associaties. That post ended with Quinn explaining how he found lawyer Carolyn Homer to represent him. Today, we have a companion post by Homer to talk about her experience investigating and dealing with Higbee, and calling out some of his questionable legal practices.

The moment I saw Higbee’s demand letter to Daniel Quinn I knew I was dealing with a troll. Although I’ve recently joined the #resistance, I spent the first five years of my career defending Silicon Valley companies against mass copyright trolls. Higbee is new to me, but I know this game.

I immediately scanned his demand letter for problems. There were many — Michael Grecco’s power of attorney authorization isn’t even signed! — but I’ll focus on three major ones.

Major Defect # 1: Pricing Unmoored From Market Reality

As Daniel quoted yesterday, Higbee’s November letter threatens litigation, statutory damages up to $150,000 and attorney fees. Supposedly to avoid this terror of litigation, Higbee demands payment of $20,000 within seven days, accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement.

Daniel Quinn did not pay the $20K. So Higbee sent a December follow-up letter which escalates the demand: “[P]lease do not make the mistake of ignoring this. If this matter is litigated, the demand amount will likely quadruple or more, and then you will also likely have to pay attorneys fees.”

Higbee’s message is clear: pay $20,000 now or risk litigation and $80,000—maybe even $150,000—later.

None of those numbers make sense. The market rate for a license to publish most individual photos on the internet ranges between $0-$1000. Similarly in my experience, typical litigation damages for adjudged infringement of individual photos on the internet range between $200-$2000. At this exact moment in time, a photograph from Michael Grecco’s same X-Files photoset is available to license for $1800. And that is itself insanely high—there’s a multitude of other professional X-Files stills available from stock photo agencies Alamy and Getty for $49-$499.
 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190220/13283641640/investigating-higbee-associates-copyright-trolling-operation.shtml

3

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Just got a letter from Higbee

« on: February 12, 2019, 01:36:19 PM »

They're trying to scare you into sending them money.  That's the game. 

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com

« on: February 06, 2019, 10:33:11 AM »

The last thing a copyright troll lawyer wants is to see the inaide of a court room at trial.  That's not the business model.  They want the law hanging fruit, the people who get freaked out and pay up because they're so afraid of getting sued.  They want people who are fearful.  Which one do you wanna be?  Stop panicking read the forum and learn.   

5

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: UrbanLip.com v. Lereve Skin Institute (Higbee Client v. Pro Se Defendant)

« on: December 13, 2018, 10:45:32 AM »

I doubt any semi-competent attorney would file a complaint based on a claim that is outside the SOL.  So... I read the fact section of the complaint.   

Then Higbee must be semi-competent. 

6

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: UrbanLip.com v. Lereve Skin Institute (Higbee Client v. Pro Se Defendant)

« on: December 10, 2018, 11:22:00 AM »

I give Yu a lot of credit fighting this herself.  But, there's a simple way of getting this case kicked.  If the discovery of these images occurred in 201 as the complaint says, that's when the clock started to file a lawsuit.  That means the case SOL ends in 2015 no matter the merits of the case.  This was filed this year 2018 three years too late.  I don't think Yu knows that. 

7

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Creative Commons Photos on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

« on: December 06, 2018, 11:40:37 PM »

@@bilbo1

I think you're missing my point.  Low hanging fruit in the context of this forum are the people who give into the copyright troll troll after feeling a little pressure.  It's the bread and butter of the scam that the copyright troll depends to keep their scam going.  Do you want to be low hanging fruit?

8

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Copyright troll Photog Sadowski lawyer slapped with $10K bond demand

« on: December 06, 2018, 01:47:34 PM »

This is an order by the presiding judge not liking the antics of the copyright lawyer.  It wasn't the first time he got nailed.   

9

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Creative Commons Photos on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

« on: December 06, 2018, 01:44:29 PM »

@bilbo1

Do you know what low hanging fruit means?

10

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Copyright troll Photog Sadowski lawyer slapped with $10K bond demand

« on: December 04, 2018, 10:40:29 AM »

JSN is giving copyright troll Christopher Sadowski all he can handle. 


    order Order on Motion for Reconsideration  Mon 10:57 AM 
 ORDER denying18 Motion for Reconsideration: Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration or reargument, [dkt. no. 18], is denied. This Order constitutes a resolution to the motion for reconsideration. Therefore, as this Court directed previously [dkt. no. 25], Plaintiff shall post a bond no later than ten days from today in an amount not less than $10,000 in order to proceed with the action. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 12/3/2018) (jwh)

 https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23729445/Sadowski_v_JSN_Global_Media,_LLC
 

11

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Judge Awarded Higbee & Associates $48,000 for Use of 1 Photo!!!

« on: November 19, 2018, 10:58:17 AM »

If Higbee is touting winning default judgement then things might not be going well for that law firm.  Getting a default judgment takes no work on their part besides filing a complaint and letting the clock run out.  There's also a strong possibility they never could collect a dime because if the defendant never responded to the complaint, as an entity they may cease to exist.  It's a win on paper only but is worth crowing about?  However, it does scare and impress the legally ignorant. 

12

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com

« on: November 14, 2018, 12:41:31 PM »

That's part of the procedure they follow. 

13

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com

« on: November 12, 2018, 05:58:50 PM »

Nothing 95% of the time.  It becomes a question of percentages and case specifics. 

14

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lapixa copyright email received by client

« on: October 25, 2018, 10:15:23 AM »

As far as I'm concerned a software that determines the market value of a photo is bogus.  What determines "market value" of anything is the laws of supply and demand, not a software created by a photog organization to artificially create a market value.  for their worthless photos. 

15

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee, PicRights and AFP for photo inside a PDF

« on: October 04, 2018, 01:13:24 PM »

Technically billions of people are guilty are infringement when a copyrighted image is shared on social media.  That's the problem with an antiquated law in the internet age.  Is there an incentive to update the law? 

I don't see none?  The copyright troll makes money by sending demand letters for outrageous sums to snatch up the low hanging fruit.  The court makes $400 dollars a pop for suits that are actually filed.  Lawyers for plaintiff and defendants make money for stretching out a mickey mouse claim that that eventually will end in a settlement one way or another.  So where is the incentive to fix it all? 

Meanwhile the little guy is getting hurt in a system that set up to screw him coughed in the language of legality.  He's the one that's called a thief by a bigger thief who has the nerve to act like he has the moral high ground when he's committing extortion?