Messages

1

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: e-mail

« on: March 26, 2018, 09:19:57 PM »

Robert Krausankas...Have you known Peter Holt to actually file his Settlement Demand Letter complaint to the U. S. Copyright Office if he is ignored?

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Peter Holt Shakedown

« on: March 26, 2018, 06:09:44 PM »

Section 1203 of the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act states: "The court has discretion to reduce or remit damages in cases of innocent violations, where the violator proves that it was not aware and had no reason to believe its acts constituted a violation." [Section 1203(c)(5)(A)].

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Peter Holt Shakedown

« on: March 26, 2018, 04:33:52 PM »

It's curious that the photographer, Michael Briner, placed his images on these free photo download websites if he doesn't want people to download and use them.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Another Peter Holt Shakedown

« on: March 26, 2018, 04:23:27 PM »

Here's more information on the Peter Holt shakedown post. The photographer in question, Michael Briner, registered the copyright of the photo I used 7 months after I used it. How does this affect his claim of infringement?

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Another Peter Holt Shakedown

« on: March 23, 2018, 04:05:13 PM »

I received a threatening "Settlement Demand Letter" about the "copyright infringement" of a Michael Briner photograph from attorney Peter Holt in Folsom CA. His letter, in so many words, said I could be liable to pay $30,000-$150,000, but if I pay him $1672, he will let me off the hook.

I got the photo from one of many free photo image download websites. After a 15-minute web search recently, I found the picture on several of these. There are undoubtedly many more. The copyright symbol had been removed from all the copies and there were no restrictions stated on the download page. I have screen captures and web addresses of all of these pages. So, the download of the photo was in good faith because there was no indication that the image was copyrighted. Also, it was on a third party website that posted the image and built it's site using that picture. Of course, I removed the picture from my website immediately.

I realize this is a form of entrapment where the photographer places his photos on free wallpaper and image sites, then uses an application like PicScout or TinEye to scan the internet for the image. He then works with an attorney to send out a "Settlement Demand Letter" to "coercively extract" money from the unwitting victim with fear-inducing tactics.

I found U.S. Code 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits, Paragraph 2 that states "In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200." So, Holt intentionally inflated that number from $200 to $30,000 in his "Settlement Demand Letter" to perpetrate his scare tactic.

Any sugestions for the best way to proceed from here?