61
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Judge Awarded Higbee & Associates $48,000 for Use of 1 Photo!!!
« on: May 30, 2018, 01:14:46 PM »
not to mention, most lawyers will suggest you pay them to avoid a lawsuit.
| 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.
62
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pixsy demand email
« on: May 26, 2018, 03:22:36 PM »
You will get more letters.. If you registered the DMCA agent after the fact, it's to late, can't remember the case at the moment, but it was ruled on in a believe the 9th Circuit.
63
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« on: May 24, 2018, 01:24:55 PM »
If there was something to sue for, wouldn't somebody have figured it out by now?
I've been actively posting and a member of this forum for over 9 years, the subject comes up on a regular basis, bottom line is it's not going to happen.
I've been actively posting and a member of this forum for over 9 years, the subject comes up on a regular basis, bottom line is it's not going to happen.
64
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« on: May 24, 2018, 12:12:47 PM »Class action is fantasy land talk. I can see no basis for it in law... not even on a bad TV show.
Think about just this part:
Your class would profess to be a group of people who did not comply with a license and then were harmed because they thought it was a good idea to settle a claim that they believed had no merit.
The problem should be obvious.
THIS
65
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee & Assoc. Lists RM Media Ltd in Nick Youngson Template Lawsuit
« on: May 23, 2018, 07:17:41 PM »
The number of court cases is minute compared to the number of letters being sent...the Trolls DON'T want to go to court...
A. hence they get exposed ( look at the porn copyright trolls)
B. they would not profit and could lose their shirts
C. they risk counter-suits, and their backs end up against a wall
this is exactly why they prey on the uneducated ( those that don't know about copyright) and use scare tactics... to grab some quick cash.
This forum has been online nearly 10 yrs, and not much has changed, some new trolls have appeared, others have called it quits, troll lawyers have come and gone, friends have been made, enemies have been made, and it's a great think tank for fighting outside the ring.
A. hence they get exposed ( look at the porn copyright trolls)
B. they would not profit and could lose their shirts
C. they risk counter-suits, and their backs end up against a wall
this is exactly why they prey on the uneducated ( those that don't know about copyright) and use scare tactics... to grab some quick cash.
This forum has been online nearly 10 yrs, and not much has changed, some new trolls have appeared, others have called it quits, troll lawyers have come and gone, friends have been made, enemies have been made, and it's a great think tank for fighting outside the ring.
66
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee & Assoc. Lists RM Media Ltd in Nick Youngson Template Lawsuit
« on: May 23, 2018, 07:06:02 PM »
I would be willing to bet that before that disclaimer appeared, there was a link for terms of use, where the fine print was located, they probably added the disclaimer after catching heat from the interwebs, which in my eyes is a good thing, and surely would make rm media look better in the eye of public opinion.
67
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee & Assoc. Lists RM Media Ltd in Nick Youngson Template Lawsuit
« on: May 23, 2018, 07:02:21 PM »
um right here:
on the main page:
The images below are licensed by RM Media Ltd under a Creative Commons license (the same version used by Wikipedia - CC BY-SA 3.0 ) which permits the free use of the images for any purpose including commercial use and also permits the images to be altered.
CC BY-SA 3.0 is creative commons share alike license
To see more information about a particular image click on the link directly below the image.
and here when you go to get the image itself:
http://www.picserver.org/b/barley-2.html
The image below is free to use for any purpose even commercial under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence attribution required, see license details below and FAQ.
Please ensure the license and image size are suitable for your use, alternatively you can purchase the original full size image on a rights managed license for a few dollars from AlphaStockImages.com here
you keep gpoing on about the meta tag description/slug etc, no-one is required to to discuss obligations...you may think it's deceptive and fraud and I and others may or may not agree with you, the question is what would the courts think?? I tend to think it would be a losing uphill battle...we can agree to disagree though.
on the main page:
The images below are licensed by RM Media Ltd under a Creative Commons license (the same version used by Wikipedia - CC BY-SA 3.0 ) which permits the free use of the images for any purpose including commercial use and also permits the images to be altered.
CC BY-SA 3.0 is creative commons share alike license
To see more information about a particular image click on the link directly below the image.
and here when you go to get the image itself:
http://www.picserver.org/b/barley-2.html
The image below is free to use for any purpose even commercial under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence attribution required, see license details below and FAQ.
Please ensure the license and image size are suitable for your use, alternatively you can purchase the original full size image on a rights managed license for a few dollars from AlphaStockImages.com here
you keep gpoing on about the meta tag description/slug etc, no-one is required to to discuss obligations...you may think it's deceptive and fraud and I and others may or may not agree with you, the question is what would the courts think?? I tend to think it would be a losing uphill battle...we can agree to disagree though.
68
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« on: May 23, 2018, 06:30:32 PM »
Good luck with the class action, let us know how that works out, might want to read up on thatto learn how they work first...just sayin...
"False advertising"?? I think this would apply to something you purchase that does not perform or work in the way advertised...these are FREE images we're talking about here, as of now other than your time, you haven't spent a nickel on any of this...I think you need to take a step back, and refocus your energy's what to do to remedy the immmediate situation..just my opinion.
"False advertising"?? I think this would apply to something you purchase that does not perform or work in the way advertised...these are FREE images we're talking about here, as of now other than your time, you haven't spent a nickel on any of this...I think you need to take a step back, and refocus your energy's what to do to remedy the immmediate situation..just my opinion.
69
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee & Assoc. Lists RM Media Ltd in Nick Youngson Template Lawsuit
« on: May 23, 2018, 06:24:56 PM »
Getting to the point of beating a dead horse but here goes...
Can someone please answer on here how RM Media, picserver.org, and/or any other Nicholas Youngson sabotage sites can legally use web search snippets designed to optimize and advertise their images in the free for commercial purposes and free to modify labeling filter in advanced image searches with Google?
Very easy...there is nothing "illegal" about performing SEOmto get better search engine results.
These pictures show up high and front and center in this search platform and the website search snippets do not contain any obligations or terms.
and they don't need to
They purely say that they are free to use for commercial purposes and to modify. They are optimized and designed for ranking and to be labeled in the filter for Google images advanced search for free to use for commercial purposes and to modify.
correct, and they are FREE to use for commercial purposes and CAN be modified, so long as the end user abides by the terms, which are clearly there.
How in the world can someone advertise something is free, get placed on a popular image search site as such which uses their website search snippets with meta desctriptions that they designed, and then threaten lawsuits and extort money for settlements to the poor tricked fools who believe what they are advertising??
Because they are free, as far as I know there are no laws on the books dictating how one performs SEO, you were not "tricked" nor was anyone else, you simply failed to abide by the terms of the creative commons license agreement... I'm not defending Youngson, he's an asshole and douchebag for being a copyright troll, but from a legal standpoint, he hasn't misled anyone.
My bigger question is how in the world is Google either unaware or doing nothing about it???
Google has bots that grab the meta-description, and index the images, no human intervention, and if there was,it's not google job to police anything, their job is to serve relative search results to users and generate revenue through ads, and selling your surfing habits, along with tracking everything you do online,
Picserver.org and it's owner cannot say that they do not know about the deceptive issues as so many have been caught up in the sabotage?
Again with the deception.....Let me ask you a question, if you had read the terms and conditions would you have used the image?....Likely not, becqause you would have understood that attributiuon was a requirement..this all falls on the end user.
Has anyone formally informed Google about this abuse and extortion due to their incorrect filtering and labeling of these pictures?
What "incorrect filtering"?? every google search resulot for an images contains "Images may be subject to copyright"...thats all google needs to do, they don't host the images, they simply link to them. As a web developer I can tag my pages, content or images anyway I would like to, if google percieves these tags to be "blackhat" seo, they may or may not index those items
This is out of control! I can't believe this has gone on for this long and people are still getting entrapped.
Most people get "entrapped" because they don't know any better, others do and simply don't care about taking the risk, some like myself purchase or use images with a license that may be obtained from nefarious sources.
These webpage search snippets make it clear as day that many or maybe all of these picserver.org images are free to use commercially and to modify with absolutely no obligations,exceptions, or terms while there are licensed terms that are very hard to find and know.
They have no obligation to include anything in there meta descriptions...when you go to the site where the images are hosted there are links to the license agreement, which most people don't read...Have you ever read the EULA agreement before firing up your windows or Apple operating system?...Likely not
This is how and why Google image search is filtering them in that incorrect category.
Google doesn't serve results in categories, don't know where this come froms, Yahoo used to serve resukts in categories many moons ago.. I'm assumingt you mean a search like "free cat images"...if thas the case, there is no reason why the images should not show up there, provided they are images of cats, the images are FREE to use,,WITH ATTRIBUTION.
Everyone needs to write Google a letter, Godaddy (picserver.org), I think the FCC (please correct me if there is a different govt. commission for this type of abuse), and any other internet business enabling this extortion and abuse. Take pictures of all these snippets and keep all of your email threats in a file.
Good luck with this, I'm going to go piss up a rope, I'll be using my time better.
Can someone also please, please, please get me the date that the disclaimer was added to that picserver.org website at the top as it is the only other disclaimer in the screenshot of the website as the other warning is under the letters directory for the image that the license permits you to use free for commercial purposes and to modify however you want.
bottom line is the disclaimer is there, might not be the most prevalent item on the page, it's there..
What they truly are guilty of is knowing this deception is fooling people into thinking the images are safe while they are not.
FALSE, they are guilty of knowing that most users are to ignorant, lazy, dumb (use whatever term you want here) to read the terms.. I gurantee you if I were to use those images and provide attribution as stated in the terms I would NOT get a letter..
They are handing you the keys to their car, telling you that you can take it for a drive, and then telling you that if you don't give them enormous amounts of money they are going to tell the police that you stole their car. This is screaming of fraud, false advertising, blackmail, etc. I just don't get how this has gone on so long. What the heck am I missing??
You're missing that you may have used an image and did not adhere to the terms of use, so now you got a letter and need to decide how to move forward with YOUR situation to make it go away.. It's great to be pissed and fed-up, and great to be an advocate, but you need to see it for what it is, and not what it's not..It's a shitty thing, and youngson and others that are copyright trolls don't deserve a dime, there really are not many legal arguments to stop him, but the more negative exposure he gets, and the more people learn, the better off we all are.
Can someone please answer on here how RM Media, picserver.org, and/or any other Nicholas Youngson sabotage sites can legally use web search snippets designed to optimize and advertise their images in the free for commercial purposes and free to modify labeling filter in advanced image searches with Google?
Very easy...there is nothing "illegal" about performing SEOmto get better search engine results.
These pictures show up high and front and center in this search platform and the website search snippets do not contain any obligations or terms.
and they don't need to
They purely say that they are free to use for commercial purposes and to modify. They are optimized and designed for ranking and to be labeled in the filter for Google images advanced search for free to use for commercial purposes and to modify.
correct, and they are FREE to use for commercial purposes and CAN be modified, so long as the end user abides by the terms, which are clearly there.
How in the world can someone advertise something is free, get placed on a popular image search site as such which uses their website search snippets with meta desctriptions that they designed, and then threaten lawsuits and extort money for settlements to the poor tricked fools who believe what they are advertising??
Because they are free, as far as I know there are no laws on the books dictating how one performs SEO, you were not "tricked" nor was anyone else, you simply failed to abide by the terms of the creative commons license agreement... I'm not defending Youngson, he's an asshole and douchebag for being a copyright troll, but from a legal standpoint, he hasn't misled anyone.
My bigger question is how in the world is Google either unaware or doing nothing about it???
Google has bots that grab the meta-description, and index the images, no human intervention, and if there was,it's not google job to police anything, their job is to serve relative search results to users and generate revenue through ads, and selling your surfing habits, along with tracking everything you do online,
Picserver.org and it's owner cannot say that they do not know about the deceptive issues as so many have been caught up in the sabotage?
Again with the deception.....Let me ask you a question, if you had read the terms and conditions would you have used the image?....Likely not, becqause you would have understood that attributiuon was a requirement..this all falls on the end user.
Has anyone formally informed Google about this abuse and extortion due to their incorrect filtering and labeling of these pictures?
What "incorrect filtering"?? every google search resulot for an images contains "Images may be subject to copyright"...thats all google needs to do, they don't host the images, they simply link to them. As a web developer I can tag my pages, content or images anyway I would like to, if google percieves these tags to be "blackhat" seo, they may or may not index those items
This is out of control! I can't believe this has gone on for this long and people are still getting entrapped.
Most people get "entrapped" because they don't know any better, others do and simply don't care about taking the risk, some like myself purchase or use images with a license that may be obtained from nefarious sources.
These webpage search snippets make it clear as day that many or maybe all of these picserver.org images are free to use commercially and to modify with absolutely no obligations,exceptions, or terms while there are licensed terms that are very hard to find and know.
They have no obligation to include anything in there meta descriptions...when you go to the site where the images are hosted there are links to the license agreement, which most people don't read...Have you ever read the EULA agreement before firing up your windows or Apple operating system?...Likely not
This is how and why Google image search is filtering them in that incorrect category.
Google doesn't serve results in categories, don't know where this come froms, Yahoo used to serve resukts in categories many moons ago.. I'm assumingt you mean a search like "free cat images"...if thas the case, there is no reason why the images should not show up there, provided they are images of cats, the images are FREE to use,,WITH ATTRIBUTION.
Everyone needs to write Google a letter, Godaddy (picserver.org), I think the FCC (please correct me if there is a different govt. commission for this type of abuse), and any other internet business enabling this extortion and abuse. Take pictures of all these snippets and keep all of your email threats in a file.
Good luck with this, I'm going to go piss up a rope, I'll be using my time better.
Can someone also please, please, please get me the date that the disclaimer was added to that picserver.org website at the top as it is the only other disclaimer in the screenshot of the website as the other warning is under the letters directory for the image that the license permits you to use free for commercial purposes and to modify however you want.
bottom line is the disclaimer is there, might not be the most prevalent item on the page, it's there..
What they truly are guilty of is knowing this deception is fooling people into thinking the images are safe while they are not.
FALSE, they are guilty of knowing that most users are to ignorant, lazy, dumb (use whatever term you want here) to read the terms.. I gurantee you if I were to use those images and provide attribution as stated in the terms I would NOT get a letter..
They are handing you the keys to their car, telling you that you can take it for a drive, and then telling you that if you don't give them enormous amounts of money they are going to tell the police that you stole their car. This is screaming of fraud, false advertising, blackmail, etc. I just don't get how this has gone on so long. What the heck am I missing??
You're missing that you may have used an image and did not adhere to the terms of use, so now you got a letter and need to decide how to move forward with YOUR situation to make it go away.. It's great to be pissed and fed-up, and great to be an advocate, but you need to see it for what it is, and not what it's not..It's a shitty thing, and youngson and others that are copyright trolls don't deserve a dime, there really are not many legal arguments to stop him, but the more negative exposure he gets, and the more people learn, the better off we all are.
70
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Copyright Registration Question
« on: May 23, 2018, 12:23:06 PM »
I think you missed my point... technically you are correct, but that doesn't mean they can't file for one or the other or both, they would simply fail, and it would be dismissed... Highbee is smart enough to not file for both.. Heck I could file suit against you today for damages for misspelling my last name, would I prevail, no..would the judge be pissed??? yes, but if i want to pony up the money to file, it's within my rights.. (probably a bad example) Again Higbee is counting on people being uneducated and fearful, the letters are largely scare tactics.
71
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Copyright Registration Question
« on: May 23, 2018, 11:41:02 AM »
Issue here is he is not misstating the law... he can sue for anything he wants, whether it be actual damages or statutory, he just wouldn't prevail, he's counting on the ignorance of letter recipients and the fear factor.
72
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Receive extortion letter from Matthew K. Higbee today - need advice
« on: May 22, 2018, 11:31:00 AM »
The 3 yrs is from the date of discovery....best to use the date of the first letter as your "start" date.
73
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« on: May 21, 2018, 11:42:24 AM »
ughhhh.....so it's not a question of "the courts allowing", only 1 case has been filed and that case settled, well before going the distance..which has nothing to do with the allowing anything, once both parties agree to settled, the court does just that..it's over... Now onto part 2, yes you could probably convince a judge to lower the amount to 200.00, but i guarantee the plaintiff will argue, that the judge needs to read the license agreement in full, and when that happens, you're 200.00 argument is dead in the water. the agreement clearly states "with attribution", it's on the defendant to read and understand this.. furgther that by the fact that you'll be spending much more than 200.00 to even get to that point.. So yes it may very well be an "innocent infringment" but the terms are pretty clear cut...Youngson is very well aware that most people don't read the fine print, but that would likely not have any bearing on a judges decision..
74
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« on: May 20, 2018, 08:12:32 PM »
huh?? what??? you state "Is that maybe why no court has allowed a case except for the one where the defense did not take down the image???"...what do you mean the court has not allowed?? as it's been said many times, most cases that are actually filed end up settled quickly, thats not the courts doing, thats generally the defendants folding.. can you clarify what the court is not allowing?
75
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Letter from Lynn Burke, Sanders Law
« on: May 19, 2018, 02:15:03 PM »
"Also somehow Google labels the images free to use commercially as well which means even Google does not understand the terms. "
Google doesn't "label" anything, the search results snippets come directly from the "description meta-tag" and title meta-tag of the originating site, google also does not need ti understand or even read the "terms", they are simply linking to existing content.. Not to mention all indexing is done by robots/spiders anyway, very little if any human intervention.
Google doesn't "label" anything, the search results snippets come directly from the "description meta-tag" and title meta-tag of the originating site, google also does not need ti understand or even read the "terms", they are simply linking to existing content.. Not to mention all indexing is done by robots/spiders anyway, very little if any human intervention.
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. |