Received C&D today demanding removal and payment

[AzzidReign]

Find a lawyer, ask if you can give their contacts out to these people and tell these people coming after you that you will no longer be speaking to them directly and that all of their inquiries can be sent to your lawyer. Also, ask them for proof that it was posted on your site. No proof, no case.

 

[JulianD]

I finally received a call back. I reiterated I removed the image and that I could provide IP address/email for the user that posted it if legally required and he said he would pass that onto his manager but that that didn't legally absolve me of any claims. I started a LLC for the site so if push comes to shove and they decide to sue the LLC, I'll simply close the site and wash my hands of it. It would suck for my users, but the site is a hobby and the Google ads onsite clear enough for yearly hosting fees.

That doesn't make sense. You didn't benefit nor use the image for commercial purposes. Sure, your site has Google Ads, but your income is not directly related to the posting of this image. How could they demand payment for something that didn't represent a substantial economic value to you?

 

[Edrondol]

Interesting read here.

http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/...o-agency-bwp-dmca-17-usc-512-safe-harbor.html

edit: In fact, Googling "BWP Media USA sue" shows that these people are simply the worst types of internet copyright trolls. They are suing over images that they don't even own the copyright for, probably hoping that the target settles. Patent/trademark/copyright trolls & their lawyers are simply the lowest form of life available.

 

[Jeff Fuqua]

There's a nice, new add-on which grabs the image from the original source and places it on the forum's server so there is never a broken link if the original were to be deleted.

I love this idea but this thread made me wonder how it would look to these stock houses to see the photo hosted on the server itself. I'd think saying "I had no knowledge" would become much more complicated as a defense.

 

[0xym0r0n]

It's sad how crazy some of these guys get over this stuff! I have got a few C&Ds but nothing like this. One was over a popular comic book character and a product we actually SOLD *we didn't make the product, just sold* and the company who owned the character and all the pizazz that goes with that guy were like "okay thanks!".

That was a major company. I suppose lower-end companies that need to pay bills do things like this?

 

[Edrondol]

I got one once from a guy who successfully sued Google over defamation. One of my users was talking about the case and was making the point that you can't take anything you read on the internet as gospel. He then called the guy "either a pedophile or a free range rooster". I then got a letter from the guy threatening all sorts of things and included a TON of attachments on his other lawsuits. After several exchanges (which @DragonByte Tech was helpful in drafting), I never heard from him again. But it wasn't for lack of his trying. Essentially, I told the guy that I was not only going to not comply with his requests for user information, but that he needed to show warrant, court order, or subpoena before I'd even respond. I then threatened him with countersuit for frivolous lawsuit and all legal fees.

This was his response (spelling and grammatical errors left in as is). I only responded to this telling him that no further communication was going to be made anywhere other than through lawyers. Never heard from him again.

This case is not as you lake to be Frivolous Lawsuit.

“International Criminal or Peodophile ora ‘free range rooster ...Michael *******.
This is clear as mud Defamation

You website and your member 668 have defame me World Wide

“In reply #18, ******** posted on the 24.06.10 a comment regarding myself. In which he says ' international criminal Michael *******. If he's not a criminal, he must be a peodophile ora 'free range rooster...Michael *******, free range rooster, you know it's right.'”

I am Not

This Defamation case will be issued in the Supreme Court of Australia

I suggest that You and your Solicitor Should read this case very carefully.

After all email that you send me I believe that you need get new solicitor expert in Defamation Lawsuit
Please find enclosed the Famous Gutnick case This case exactly lake this case.

[FONT=&quot]
The famous Gutnick case[/FONT]

These questions of jurisdiction and publication have actually been considered previously by the High Court in the defamation lawsuit between miner Joseph Gutnick and the Dow Jones Company, after Dow Jones website Barron's Online published an article in October 2000 titled "Unholy Gains" which made several claims about Gutnick that he considered defamatory.

Gutnick lives in Victoria, and Barron's is published in the US, but the Supreme Court of Victoria found that where someone reads an article is where the defamation takes place – not where it was published, because defamation only happens once content is consumed and until then "no harm has been done". Therefore, Dow Jones was found to have published the information "in Victoria". The court warned: "If a publisher publishes in a multiplicity of jurisdictions it should understand, and must accept, that it runs the risk of liability in those jurisdictions in which the publication is not lawful and inflicts damage."

 

[DragonByte Tech]

I got one once from a guy who successfully sued Google over defamation. One of my users was talking about the case and was making the point that you can't take anything you read on the internet as gospel. He then called the guy "either a pedophile or a free range rooster". I then got a letter from the guy threatening all sorts of things and included a TON of attachments on his other lawsuits. After several exchanges (which @DragonByte Tech was helpful in drafting), I never heard from him again. But it wasn't for lack of his trying. Essentially, I told the guy that I was not only going to not comply with his requests for user information, but that he needed to show warrant, court order, or subpoena before I'd even respond. I then threatened him with countersuit for frivolous lawsuit and all legal fees.

This was his response (spelling and grammatical errors left in as is). I only responded to this telling him that no further communication was going to be made anywhere other than through lawyers. Never heard from him again.

Oh man, I had forgotten all about that! Glad it got resolved. That guy was... something, alright.

 

[OSS 117]

What in the bloody hell is a "free range rooster"? Just say "****" for crying out loud.

 

[JoshuaLorimer]

Svoboda, can you tell us what ever happened with your case? I am currently in a similar situation and I'm freaking out. I also received a message from BWP Media USA. I run a small blog that has a few contributors who post articles. One of them posted a photo found on the web somewhere. I do not have a proper safe harbor agent so it looks like I'm on the hook for it if something happens.

My domain information is protected using Domains By Proxy. I have received crazy people contacting me because they got my info from domain registry in the past. It's a long story. The short of it is that I chose Domains By Proxy to protect myself, not because I'm doing anything illegal. Anyway, last week I received a notice from Domains By Proxy that there was a possible copyright complaint. Through some kind of technical mixup, it took an entire week to get Domains By Proxy to give me the information about the complaint. That's a long story, but needless to say I am also furious with Domains By Proxy for dropping the ball on something this important.

I took my entire site offline a few hours after receiving the complaint because I was freaked out and didn't know what had happened. When I finally got the details of the complaint, I emailed the person listed as the contact - stating that I was unaware that there had been any type of violation, that the possibly infringing image (as well as the article the user had written on his own) had been completely removed from the server and the database, that my site does not generate any sort of profit (actually takes a loss because of the hosting costs), and that I was sorry. I've been so sick over this that I forgot to mention that it is user generated and not created by me. It might not make a difference since I haven't designated an actual DMCA agent, but I wish I had mentioned it anyway. There is definitely a place set up on my site where a DMCA complaint could have been filed without all this hassle. I think they intend to directly get your personal information and skip the whole DMCA process.

I've been reading all over the web to try and find out what kind of situation I'm in here and I'm at a total loss. Some people say that they remove the file for a notice and never hear about it again. Some people are calling BWP Media USA the next copyright troll. I looked through the last 111 filings involving BWP Media USA on some website. It seems that all of them have to do with entities much larger than myself. Most of them are against LLCs, etc. None of them seemed to be against individuals. Perhaps I'm just the dummy who didn't know you should create an LLC to run a website. Who knows.

I've seen that they can sue for well over $150,000. I even read a case where someone had settled for $8,000. Since I'm not an LLC, I would be screwed. Getting sued for that much money would sink me. I would have to sell everything I own and I would probably still have to file for bankruptcy.

Does anybody have any tips or advice?

 

[Svoboda]

I told them to pound sand, basically.

It was a link posted by a user. Told them if they wanted to come after me, have at it. It is set up as a LLC so I'd simply fold it and close the site down if push came to shove.

 

[JoshuaLorimer]

Wow, thanks for such a quick response. So do you think you are in the clear since that happened in July and it's now almost December?

I was thinking of doing the same but I keep reading that you're basically out of luck on copyright matters if you don't have an official DMCA agent and they have any type of proof. Everybody keeps saying that if you fight back you'll lose for sure and then it will cost you the full amount plus their legal fees.

The complaint I received from Domains By Proxy basically said that I had to give these guys my contact info or it would be turned over anyway. So now they can potentially mail me something. I guess I'll see what I receive, if anything.

 

[ManagerJosh]

Shove them under the copyright troll category. Apparently these guys have a long history of not doing their due diligence by following DMCA Safe Harbor Rules, which most, if not all of us falls under.

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/co...of-sanders-law-p-l-l-c-overruns-court-system/

 

[OSS 117]

My work had an issue with a copyright troll group posing as the owners of ID we owned and bought for in full with a transfer of all rights. After personally dealing with the issue and thinking it was done, they tried to pull a fast one with our then host at the time, Media Temple. Having good rapport with MT, one of their managers gave me the heads up. It allowed me to sic our counsel, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (free plug, I better get a few free hours), on the company that made them back off like a pack of hyenas from a gunshot. In the past we've sued until the offending troll had to declare a BK or otherwise forfeit back all profits earned to previous victims and pay our legal fees.

Not completely related to the OP's thread, but the current NewEgg trial that went with a guilty verdict to an appeals process is something everyone should keep their eye on. The more of these twit-run organizations suffer the heavy blow of the legal system and lose lots of money, the sooner they'll stop.


And actually related to the OP's thread:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/25/haitian_snapper_humbles_giants_in_copyright_victory/

 

[RandallC]

If you get one of these and if the image does not have a copyright notice on it ask them to show you proof of copyright before you start freaking out. I would find the copyright and the real copyright owner.

 

[tmb]

BWP filed suit against our site. Haven't been served officially yet but never heard anything from them and then boom a lawsuit is filed. Not very happy about this but apparently these trolls are everywhere now.

 

[JoshuaLorimer]

Sorry about my ignorance, but how do you know they filed suit against you if you haven't been officially served? I thought that was part of the process.