Messages

31

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

« on: October 03, 2018, 01:24:13 AM »

You are probably right.  I am sure there are some unsophisticated people running unsophisticated businesses that get themselves in trouble. 

It just seems to me that the overwhelming people who are smart enough to do everything else it takes to start a business and deploy a website should be smart enough to know Google is not a source of free images.   

32

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

« on: October 02, 2018, 12:33:11 PM »

which is exactly why EVERY image indexed by google includes "Images may be subject to copyright. Learn More" with the learn more leading to https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp_cy6iujdAhVKIKwKHfs8CbkQlZ0DegQIARAB

Agreed. 

From my understanding the copyright notice has always been there.   Furthermore, I think the reasonable American adult, especially one who is engaged in business, should have enough commonsense to know (1) Google is not a free library of images and (2) that you cannot just take and use what you do not own.

33

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Attorney Mathew Higbee emails ELI's Matthew Chan

« on: October 01, 2018, 12:05:11 PM »

That list of licenses looks like his personal list.  They have several other associates whose licenses cover other states, such as Florida.  They also occasionally partner on cases with law firms in states where they are not licensed; most federal courts will grant pro hac vice (for this occasion) motions that allow attorneys licensed in other states to handle a case. 

34

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: New tactic

« on: September 30, 2018, 11:33:55 PM »

Infringe much???   How did you get caught infringing twice in seven months by a single law firm?

Sending a copy of a complaint is a very common litigation tactic.   It is usually a final warning shot.  It is also a strategic move to later support a request for the judge to order that you pay their attorneys fees.  They will say they did everything they could to resolve the claim without litigation, including sending you a sample complaint, and you made no offers to resolve it.   That being said, them sending the complaint or sample complaint does not necessarily mean they will file it.

Higbee files a lot of lawsuits for Sadowski.  He has filed a few for RM Media too, but not as many as for Sadowski. 

35

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

« on: September 30, 2018, 11:24:37 PM »

$750 is harsh minimum for a $10 image, especially if you are someone who is a good player who properly licenses material 99 percent of the time. 

I do get how many rights holders get frustrated with the staggering percentage of infringements and that there are substantial costs involved in detection and enforcement efforts

In this case, no law firm is involved, so the costs cannot be that high.  I would offer something north of $300 and south of $600.  If they litigate, they will have to explain why they refused a very reasonable offer.  Many judges will not award attorneys fees if the plaintiff rejected reasonable offers prior to litigation. 

All that being said, Pixsy cannot sue you.  The copyright holder would have to find a US based law firm to handle it.   You can gamble and see if it gets escalated to a law firm.  If it does not, you are off the hook.  If it does, the demand amount will probably double or triple. 

36

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pixsy Letter (photographer has history of suing)

« on: September 30, 2018, 10:35:24 PM »

What makes you think a German company with no real presence in the US is going to sue you???    They are not a law firm. 

Yes, you can represent yourself, but it is usually a bad idea if you want to mount a substantive defense.   Federal Court is not the People’s Court, missed deadlines and missteps can lead to request for sanctions.  It is not impossible, but if the otherwise knows what they are doing and you do not, it can get ugly for you.

37

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

« on: September 28, 2018, 01:05:02 AM »

@DavidvGoliath. I know you claim to be a photographer, but you think and write very lawyerly.  My guess is that you had a solid classical education or your parents were lawyers.  No need to divulge, I enjoy a mystery.

38

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: I got a letter from Highbee but I live outside the USA

« on: September 27, 2018, 12:48:56 AM »

My guess is that Higbee does not know you are out of the US, especially if they have only communicated with you via email.

UnfairlyTargeted is a steady stream of horrible advice.  It is reckless and constant, despite continuous correction and coaching.  Unless someone views him as comic relief, he hurts the credibility of this site.  He may mean well, but he needs a disclaimer or giant asterisk by his posts.

39

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

« on: September 27, 2018, 12:39:44 AM »

I do not see anything inherently different about the merits of a claim just because the infringement was on a pdf.   Like all copyright claims, they are fact specific.   I would need to know much more before I called it nutty just because the infringement was on a pdf.   

Many PDF files I see online are copies of materials that are primarily used in other manners.  For instance, I often download pdf files that are product manuals or portions of magazines.  In some instances a pdf online is just a sign of a much larger possible infringement. 

So, I would not make categorical assumptions based on the file format in which the infringement occurred. 

In analyzing this, something has occurred to me that should have long ago.  From what I understand, many of the demand letters are being sent are for a complete release of liability for the infringement.  If that is the case, it makes some sense why the demand amounts might seem high.  The copyright holder is operating with limited information about the full extent of the use. 

Couple that with the fact that most businesses create websites that try to portray the business as big or successful, and it gets a little easier to understand where some of the demand amounts are coming from. 

Believe me, I am sure greed, frustration and other emotions are also factors in many demand amounts, as well as the age old belief that negotiations need to start high and work down.    I just think I have previously failed to consider the information gap and the relief being offered as possible factors.

40

Getty Images Letter Forum / Change of ownership at Getty

« on: September 17, 2018, 02:13:19 AM »

I wonder if this will prompt any changes to how and how often they pursue infringements.

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/05/getty-images-to-be-owned-by-the-getty-family-once-again/

41

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: RM Media LTD Creative Commons Copyright Statement

« on: September 16, 2018, 01:10:09 PM »

It looks like they have raised some of their prices too.  Some images are $249. 

RM Media has filed several lawsuits in US Federal Courts and is selling products in the US (I assume), so they are not out of reach from a legal, personal jurisdiction standpoint, but they are probably an expensive hassle to serve.

Being abroad with US counsel is a big advantage in these types of situations.   For those on the defense, it makes the normal temptation to simply negotiate down the price and to settle much more tempting.

42

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Lawsuits Higbee Has Actually Filed

« on: September 13, 2018, 06:30:26 AM »

A quick look at this and I can you tell that this list is very incomplete.  Higbee & Associates filed way more cases than this.  You are missing lots of states. My guess is that you searched only on cases filed by Mathew Higbee and you did not include cases filed by his past and present associate attorneys.  His associates are probably the ones filing most cases. 

 I read one of the lawyer/help forums about someone who was dealing with a non-Higbee litigation case that was handled in the pre-lit stage by Higbee.  I think it was a case in Missouri or Georgia.  He also partners on cases with other IP firms.   

Tracking this stuff gets a very tricky. 

I got about 50 hours deep into analysis of their cases, primarily focused on their success rate on his motions.   I got sidetracked.  In short, like most copyright cases, their cases settle fast.  They won every motion that they filed (mostly motions to strike or discovery related).  They were about 50 percent on motions they defended, but I only saw a handful.

43

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Meyer, Suozzi, English, Klein v. Mathew Higbee, Youngson, RM Media, Higbee Assoc

« on: September 12, 2018, 04:51:22 PM »

The problem with those case is that they depend on the existence of a contract or a license.  Both RM Media’s website terms and the language in the Creative Commons Contract state that no license is granted until attribution is given.   They are conditions precedent to the granting of a license or formation of a contract.   So, I do not think the provisions are relevant. 

If the defendant were to provide the attribution and then remove the attribution, those provisions may govern, as a license would have been granted. However, I think the terms of the Creative Commons license RM Media uses states that the license is automatically revoked if attribution is removed.  How enforceable that automatic revocation is, I don’t know.   

44

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / RM Media LTD Creative Commons Copyright Statement

« on: September 12, 2018, 12:17:23 AM »

I just saw this on RM Media’s website.  It predates the filing of the NY case.  But may have been posted in anticipation of it.

http://rmmedia.ltd.uk/why-rm-media-ltd-uses-creative-commons-licenses/

Why RM Media Ltd Uses Creative Commons Licenses

Every month tens of thousands of people use our images to add meaning, interest and value to their website or other marketing material.  There are nearly 2,000,000 of our images in use on the internet.

Our image library consist of more than 30,000 images.   A portion of these images can be licensed by either paying a modest price or complying with a Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. 

We are proud to make some of our images available via a CC BY-SA 3.0 license.   The link required as a condition to use our images provides us significant value because backlinks to our websites help our websites perform well in search engines.    The required attribution also helps build our brand and increases the use of our images.

Of course, it also makes us feel good to share.   The CC BY-SA 3.0 license makes our images available to those who cannot or would rather not pay money to use them.   The CC BY-SA 3.0 license also allows users to improve or modify our images to meet their individual needs.

The CC BY-SA 3.0 license is a simple industry standard license that is clearly summarised in 56 words (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).   Our labelling of our images as CC BY-SA 3.0 is clear with each page containing six or more references to the license and attribution requirements. As a result, our images have been properly licensed millions of times.   

Making intellectual property available via a Creative Commons license is something that government and courts encourage.  Every country and court that has addressed the issue has confirmed that offering a Creative Commons license does not diminish the copyright owner’s right to protect their property. 

Despite the clarity and simplicity of the licensing requirements, a small percentage of users choose to not comply with our licensing requirements. Just like any other copyright holder or business, we must take steps to protect our business and intellectual property.

Accordingly, we do enforce our copyrights against some users who do not properly license our images.  Historically, we have only initiated enforcement against those businesses who do not license the image and then use our images to make a profit.  While we have been forced to file lawsuits, we only do so after making several attempts to resolve the matter outside of court. We have never knowingly pursued claims against those who have used our images for personal, non-commercial projects. 

We are very proud and grateful for all those who properly licensed our images.   The proper licensing allows us to continue to create new and highly useful images.  We look forward to continuing to make many of our wildly popular images available via a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, and, hopefully, providing inspiration for more creators to do the same.

45

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Meyer, Suozzi, English, Klein v. Mathew Higbee, Youngson, RM Media, Higbee Assoc

« on: September 12, 2018, 12:01:37 AM »

I have been following  this case.  Not much has happened.   Higbee filed a motion to dismiss.    The judge is yet to rule on it.   There is no notice of RM Media being served.

I posted about this a month or so ago at
https://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/higbee-letter-lawsuits-forum/this-will-be-interesting-to-watch/

At best, this case will force RM Media to tweak their license language to clarify the attribution is a condition and not a covenant.   It is a nice counter-punch if it lands, as it may cost them some money to defend (assuming they get served), but it is very unlikely to be a knockout blow.