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.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81
Getty Images Letter Forum / PicRights/AFP at a Student Org
« Last post by collegestudent on January 08, 2019, 01:08:06 PM »
Hi all,

As my username tells, I'm a college student at a large state university in the US. I'm also the Treasurer for a fairly large cultural/ethnic student organization on campus. The organization has an executive board which helps plan events and manage the responsibilities of the organization. Last year, I was the Webmaster, so I handled everything on the website, including content updates and whatnot. One thing I did as Webmaster is create an informational section on the website that showcased various aspects of the culture. In this section, I mistakenly used a copyrighted image of an eagle (I found it on Getty Images, $175 for small and $499 for large). I had looked up stock images on Google at the time for the image, but alas, it was not royalty-free. This is entirely my mistake, and I feel terrible about it.

Last month, a few of our board members received emails from PicRights (representing AFP) demanding proof of license for the image, but neither of them mentioned it, so time passed by without anybody knowing. Yesterday, we received a follow-up email from PicRights - this time demanding $710 for the usage of the image. This time, our fellow board members mentioned it, so now we're trying to deal with the issue. To be completely honest, we really don't know what to do. Our organization is 100% not a business at all. We host events on campus for students and non-students and most of our funds are provided by the university's SGA. We do make money for our organization by working concessions at football and basketball games, but we don't sell any products (besides tickets to our events and apparel for our members). I would never consider an on-campus student organization to be a business.

I've been reading through this forum for a little while now and I've seen cases where victims of these emails didn't respond at all, and others where they paid a settlement. Since we're a student organization, our funds are quite low, so paying the $710 seems a little outside of our comfort zone. However, our executive board changes every year and I don't want the future boards to have to deal with this mess, especially if PicRights keeps coming at us for years to come.

I looked up the original photographer of the photo and it looks like he's not working with AFP anymore, so is it possible that he may still pursue a lawsuit even though he's no longer employed with AFP? Would it be smart to reach out to him? If so, what should I ask him?

This is quite a difficult situation that's had me stressed non-stop since we received the emails. Do you guys have any advice for us? I'm happy to answer more questions, whether it be on this thread or in a PM. I really appreciate your help!
82
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ImageRights
« Last post by Matthew Chan on January 07, 2019, 04:04:57 AM »
Most don't "litigate" but they do pursue you in as many ways as they can which can lead up to a lawyer threatening to sue. So, the odds are generally in your favor.  Generally.  And no, ignoring them doesn't make them "go away" quietly. They generally make noise before something gives.

Start reading other posts and get educated.
83
Getty Images Letter Forum / ImageRights
« Last post by feistystingray on January 06, 2019, 03:00:34 PM »
Hi all,

First and foremost, thank you for running this site -- it's a great resource! Sorry if this post is misplaced:

What's the deal with ImageRights ... got an email from them?

Do they litigate?
What are the odds that they just "go away" upon being ignored?
Are they inclined to settle for less?

Thanks in advance
84
mosgt times the trolls obtaion the address from either the website itself, or they pull up the domain whois, which is what it sounds like in this instance...private domain is well worth the extra few bucks.
85
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Claim against me from Higbee
« Last post by Matthew Chan on January 04, 2019, 06:47:32 PM »
It sort of sounds like you created a meme here. Memes exist all over the Internet. Not sure how you used that image but I tend to agree with Robert it isn't clear cut because people legitimately execute transformative work all the time. But the burden is partially on you to defend it. They have a burden to prove if they feel it is a legit infringement. It sounds to me there is room for an aggressive settlement if you are willing. Otherwise, you will have to outright stand up to them and explain why your meme is appropriate and why you won't be paying. They will likely test your resolve and knowledge here to see if you will be "easy" or not.

Don't know who Cody Donnell is. Probably a low-end clerk working under the supervision of a Higbee lawyer would be my guess. I don't think they are the sharpest nails in the box on these matters.

I read on another thread that there's a statute of limitations on Copyright Infringement.  I posted a picture to my personal blog which I have never made any money from. The image was altered with the faces replaced by the faces of my cats.  I posted this picture in 2013. And this month (December 2018) I got an email from Higbee Associates. I took the image down as soon as I received the notification. Of course someone named Cody Donnell is pressing me to "resolve this claim".  I have a friend who is a copyright lawyer who is going to help me out. But I'm hoping for a little more ammunition to use against these people as I have NOTHING to give them.
86
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Corporation Doesn't Exist
« Last post by Matthew Chan on January 04, 2019, 06:39:44 PM »
Without knowing the specifics, it seems to me if they want to target a non-profit that is shut down, let them. They are sending a letter there because that is probably the best info they had available at the time.

However, you also state that the image is referencing an image from a blog that pre-dates the non-profit?  And you want to send them a letter to correct them and have them send it to the correct person? That doesn't seem very wise.

If they want to target the directors, you can't stop them. But I wouldn't help their efforts by correcting them.

People fail to understand that anyone can target anyone with a letter. It happens everyday with legit scams and people fall for it.  These demand letters are not traditional scams but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of sloppiness going around. There is a time to pipe up and there is time to stay silent. Each has its pros and cons. There is no clean solution but I am not into giving info that helps the other side.

That is why people have to get educated, have critical thinking skills, and stand their ground.
87
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Claim Against My Corporation
« Last post by Matthew Chan on January 04, 2019, 06:30:19 PM »
Ok, I will bite the apple and make a few comments.

I have a slightly different situation from other postings here. The infringement email came into my personal email but was addressed to the corporation that I own. The infringing posting was on the corporate web site. The domain name of my personal email is the same domain name as the corporate web site.

This happens all the time. They will email almost anyone with a notice in the hopes that it will find its way to the intended target or person of authority. It is common because incorrect recipients will typically forward such messages to whomever they believe should receive it.

First, I heard from Picrights in Canada. They wanted $150, which I would have given them except that I was concerned that I would only encourage more claims. I did communicate with them via email, and I challenged them to prove that they existed as a legal entity, to which they did not respond. (I suspect they didn't know how.) So I decided to ignore the whole thing since I couldn't evaluate the risks from settling, and I had a difficult time imagining that a Canadian firm was going to sue me in the US for small change.

They probably didn't do it because it was, to them, a "dumb question" and wasn't worth their effort to respond.

Second, months went by and then I heard from Higbee, who wanted $1,000. I have ignored (not even opened) emails and ignored voice mails. I considered this to be more serious but nevertheless they were going to have to travel a long distance from California to sue me.

Being outside of California is one less obstacle Higbee has to deal with. They won't have to engage outside counsel but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to "travel" to you. They simply incur the expense and inconvenience to hire an "out of state" lawyer.

Third, completely independently, this corporation no longer has any business nor expects any business, and I had already decided to dissolve it at the end of this year. This just gives me an extra reason to do so.

You didn't ask here but I would like to add that my non-lawyer opinion is that the best and safest way to dissolve a corporation is to simply stop paying the annual fees and most states will execute on an administrative dissolution. No signatures or statements necessary. NO muss, no fuss.

Fourth, in theory, the corporate liability protection should be sufficient, but then again any determined attorney would attempt to pierce the corporate veil and expose personal liability - and might succeed. Not every single i has been dotted or every t crossed in the lifetime of the corporation.

My non-lawyer opinion is the default is you have corporate liability protection. Someone has to ACTIVELY do the work, incur the expense and costs of piercing the corporate veil. Lots of talk about piercing the corporate veil but in a practical sense against very small parties with relatively little assets, not worth it. And even if you do have personal assets, they can't touch retirement accounts and perhaps certain forms of retirement income. Also, scattered bank accounts dilutes the effort too. Lawyers don't like to work for free or work so hard with so little payoff. So, my view is there is theory and there is practicality.

Finally, there is a sister corporation to the one being dissolved which has a similar name. I'm going to pull down the original web site with the dissolution of the corporation, but some of the material on it is planned to re-appear on the sister's new web site, albeit in a different form and with no unlicensed images except those of my own creation.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Unless someone believes you are some whale or have a personal axe to grind with you, I cannot see anyone going to such lengths over this matter.

That's the background. I have read many of the other postings on this web site, but I've seen none that comment on settling resulting in new claims once they've discovered that you will pay. Is this not of concern or has it simply not happened (yet)?

I am going to say outright there is a weird paranoia that settling one case that will spawn others. That is generally a false notion. If that is happening, I have not heard of it in 10 years.  Yes, we do a lot of name-calling of those parties who pursue excessively high settlement amounts but I have not heard or seen of any legitimate complaints where you settle one and it automatically spawns other demands from the same parties. I have to explain to people that there are people who get MULTIPLE extortion letters but they generally come from different copyright owners or enforcement agencies altogether. And it happens because some website owners have MULTIPLE infringing images that belonged to different owners. It has nothing to do with settling one case spawning another one. It happens because some website owners have too many infringing images which increases the likelihood of more demand letters!  So, let's get this straight once and for all.

The decision to settle any particular case is subject to individual scrutiny and evaluation but to adopt a conspiracy mindset about this has never been remotely substantiated by anyone I am connected to through ELI.


Any comments on the corporate versus personal liability? I've considered simply faxing them the dissolution papers, but decided that any communication would not be wise. Let them figure it out. If they actually did sue me as president of the corporation I could probably craft a sufficient pro se motion to dismiss as the corporation no long exists, and I am no longer an officer of the corporation. If that didn't work, I could let them secure a judgment against the corporation which doesn't exist and no longer has a bank account. On the other hand, if they were to actually travel here to sue me, they would probably be back for a new filing against me personally which I would have to defend. I'm sure that it is unlikely but not impossible.

You are overthinking this. Why do you think they would sue you over anyone else? Statistically speaking, outside of some extenuating circumstances, less than 1% of these types of infringements ever result in a lawsuit. And even it there was a lawsuit, I would say 90% get settled out.

Or I could tell them I'm in my 70s and living on social security - which is true but not the whole story as they could quickly discover on LinkedIn.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to go dark, then fine. There are pros and cons. If you want to selectively reveal facts that serve you, that is fine too. There are pros and cons. I tend to lean towards a strategic response and providing a narrative with facts that serve you.

Mostly, I'm just sharing my situation for others, though I'm happy to take any comments anyone would care to make.
88
Forgive my confusion, how is Getty connected in this conversation? I haven't done in-depth research by I assume that AFP images are owned by the AFP. If AFP allows Getty to sell and license the AFP photos, that doesn't mean that AFP cannot independently pursue other actions to enforce purported infringements that might be found.

In this particular context, Getty doesn't seem to be a relevant issue here.... aside from the fact that they severely tarnished their names with their aggressive decade-long campaign to go after everyone big and small (thereby leading to inadvertent creation and formation of ELI, their primary online adversary to their extortion letter program).

Again, I could be confused but I am not understanding what Getty is supposedly doing in relation to the alleged AFP images infringements.

I would assume that it would be relevant to a class of people if Higbee was simply sending out demand letters without proof. Getty may be aware, but that would imply there is some sort of agreement between AFP and Getty for collections. Here's the problem with that though... Getty got out of doing stuff like this after it got a lot of bad press. Why then would they open themselves back up to this? Also, if Getty is responsible for licensing, why would they sidestep the collections process?
89
Hmm.... I have frequently used the phrase "low-hanging fruit" on the ELI Forums. My use was intended as a euphemism for being an easy victim to target and pick at, not anything remotely sexual or connected to LGBT.

So, it seems I learn something new about a long-established euphemism. As of this post, a casual Google search on "low-hanging fruit" still overwhelmingly displays definitions analogous to "a thing or person that can be won, obtained, or persuaded with little effort" and "Easily obtained gains; what can be obtained by readily available means."

For now, we should be safe from the PC police.

I think some in the LGBT crowd find the phrase offensive.   It is tough to navigate the seas of political correctness.
90
Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Corporation Doesn't Exist
« Last post by EHP on January 04, 2019, 03:45:28 PM »
Got a Higbee letter addressed to a non-profit we were attempting to make fly, but ended closing about a year later. The image that Higbee references in his letter is from a blog a year before non-profit was formed. The non profit's corporation name is no where on the blog and don't know why the letter was sent to it. Not sure if I should send him the paperwork showing the non-profit was not liable for the image or just ignore the letters. I'm wondering how likely it is that he would then come after the directors of the non-profit corporation personally?

Feedback would be most welcomed.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
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.