Guess I should not be surprised after having multiple business websites over the years, but we got a nice demand letter from Higbee & Associates representing their client, The Associated Press, for the use of one image on our website that the gal who put our website together grabbed off of google (she has been sent for reeducation).

I had never heard of such a thing but seems they are enough of a deal to have multiple websites discussing their tactics and other law firms offering assistance.

Anyone have experience in dealing with the yahoo lawyers at Higbee? They are of course set to file any cases in the International Court of Commie California, so we will likely just need to pay.

Also, a friendly beware to others to check the image sources and if you use stock photos make sure you keep a copy of the respective license to use the email.

https://heitnerlegal.com/2020/12/07/what-to-do-if-you-receive-a-higbee-associates-copyright-demand-letter/

Quote:

---

The Law Firm of Higbee & Associates is the type of law firm that is commonly referred to as a "copyright troll." It represents all types of holders of copyright with the intention of enforcing those copyrights far and wide for the purpose of earning a percentage of the payments received, often prior to actually engaging in any litigation against the alleged infringer. The firm is overly aggressive and persistent in its communications, and will often increase its aggression when an accused infringer is not represented by legal counsel.

---

What are they asking for? Can't you just take it down?

AggieT said:

---

What are they asking for? Can't you just take it down?

---

Took it down within 24 hours. They are still demanding $1,500 or go to court... federal court in Santa Anna, CA.

Tell them you will give them $500 to go away.

That's where we are at, but its just friggin ridiculous.

AI is going to make this even more annoying and make more mediocre ambulance chasing lawyers rich.

There are at least some protections against frivolous claims, but AI is going to crawl the web looking for trademarked and copyrighted materials and go full tilt at the little guy.

this happened to me about a decade ago. One of those ****bag firms was representing Getty Images.

I had a real estate blog where I used one of their photos (and sourced it) but they still wanted to sue me for a bazillion dollars.

I just threw away the letters. I think the game is to flood letters out and hope that a small % actually respond.

Tend to agree. But sometimes ignoring costs more money.

Seems like the legalized version of the Russian hackers who corrupt your files then demand ransom.

Same principle, same immoral behavior.

yeah, there's always risk there.

I would have to think that the cost of actually filing these suits on the thousands of people they notify per day would be enormous.

They have to have some way to filter out the "live ones"

I think I used a stock image at some point for my site early on and got a similar image. I think they asked me to put a caption under the photo or get sued. I put a caption under it (I think they use it for the backlinks) and never heard from them again.

Be careful when using those "free to use" photos on google search. Better to pay for a service like Canva.

AgFB said:

---

I think I used a stock image at some point for my site early on and got a similar image. I think they asked me to put a caption under the photo or get sued. I put a caption under it (I think they use it for the backlinks) and never heard from them again.

Be careful when using those "free to use" photos on google search. Better to pay for a service like Canva.

---

Absolutely. We use our own pictures primarily or from website design (Wix) stock photos. So now we are documenting the metadata on our own pics and ensuring we have downloaded the license for stock photos.

I've got an attorney looking at the release before I sign and pay. He may just want to send them a f-off letter but I think it is easier just to pay the vig.

Feel bad for churches or orgs or really small businesses that get harrassed. Our sister company received a notice recently for a certain font used in marketing materials. They had paid for the font but had to provide the records to get it settled.

I am all for protecting IP but this kind of tactic is just bull***** We do not conduct e-commerce on our website... in fact, we do not sell anything and perform work under contracts with certain entities. Our website if purely informational.

Quote:

---

Better to pay for a service like Canva.

---

OR... hire a photographer!

We use a lot of our own photos on the website and in proposals. We have been diligent to have our customers (we usually only use a property not a person in pics) sign a release to use any photos.

This was literally just one that slipped through. Even provided examples of where the photo was posted uncredited on other websites, but no dice.

I think if they sued us it probably gets tossed, But that's a few grand out the door just to respond.

Do you do business or have a presence in California? Your attorney can advise you if you are subject to suit is California.

You're a chump if you pay.

Website was designed by outside firm, and they screwed up? That's who should be worried about the money.

These attorneys are equivalent to ambulance chasers. They spent $5 mailing you a letter. And you're taking the initial offer? Ridiculous. Go look up filing fees for federal court.

Any attorney is going to start with one question - "how were you damaged?" And their answer will be "he used one of our photographs without permission". Then you get to mention that it was honest mistake, and you took it off website within an hour.

Easy killer. Not a novice with frivolous suits.

Website was redone by an employee, hence the reeducation camp.

Lawyer will advise on whether to respond and how, looking more for real world experience, not keyboard warrior response (though I appreciate it and can be guilty of same).

I think ultimately we would be fine, hell likely could get my lawyer paid for as well. But it's a calculation.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Do you do business or have a presence in California? Your attorney can advise you if you are subject to suit is California.

---

No business in Cali. However, the website is available on the worldwide web. So that can get tricky, and expensive, fast.

birdman said:

---

You're a chump if you pay.

Website was designed by outside firm, and they screwed up? That's who should be worried about the money.

These attorneys are equivalent to ambulance chasers. They spent $5 mailing you a letter. And you're taking the initial offer? Ridiculous. Go look up filing fees for federal court.

Any attorney is going to start with one question - "how were you damaged?" And their answer will be "he used one of our photographs without permission". Then you get to mention that it was honest mistake, and you took it off website within an hour.

---

Unfortunately, copyright infringement has statutory damages. That's why these firms exist.

With that said, I throw demand letters in the trash. But that isn't advice. That's just me. If they sue, I'm going to ask for them to prove they sent one (if required) anyway.

Quote:

---

AI is going to crawl the web looking for trademarked and copyrighted materials and go full tilt at the little guy.

---

This has been happening for a long time.

Dump copyrighted images on the web.

Contract a firm to scour the web looking for instances where the image has been scraped and used for commercial purposes.

Profit.

This type of situation is a tar baby.

You can easily blast through $1500 in man hours trying to dick around with it.

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

1500 is only going to get you an hour or two with a good firm

Keeper of The Spirits said:

---

1500 is only going to get you an hour or two with a good firm

---

Settled for $1000.

Not a big deal but that cost me nothing to just send a quick note and look over the release. Well, I owe him lunch.

Feel bad for the mom's and pop's whose son helped them with the website and did not check the boxes or even give it a thought when selecting images and fonts and such.

Ignoring the letters then finding out later they got a judgment in Commie Cali and the heat turns up.

Again, I respect the copyrights need to be protected, but expedient removal particularly when there is no correlation between the image and some sort of commercial use (we were not selling t-shirts with the image) should be able to be dismissed without the offender incurring lawyers or costs.

Fireman said:

---

Tell them you will give them $500 to go away.

---

Mail it in pennies.

JSKolache said:

---

Fireman said:

---

Tell them you will give them $500 to go away.

---

Mail it in pennies.

---

Shipping costs?