I received this claim for publishing something on my website
Dear Sir/Madam,I received this claim for publishing something on my website through an automatic rssfeed. Can you tell me if this is scam or real......and what should I do?Dear Mr Elmvang,First of all, thank you for your reply. Secondly, copyright theft is a serious matter and I hope you understand and recognize the seriousness of this situation.It came to my attention that you have reproduced an entire article written by me with absolutely no prior permission. No attempt was made to contact me whatsoever. This article contains 12 photographs of which I am the copyright holder as well as a number of images I purchased from Shutterstock. The article written itself is also my property. I will provide exact details of this below.Here is a link to the original article published on my website on 23 June 2016:http://www.bocphotography.com/guide-aperture-shutter-speed-iso-exposure-triangle/You published the article on your website at the following link:http://photographywide.com/2016/08/10/a-comprehensive-beginners-guide-to-aperture-shutter-speed-and-iso/I note that you have since removed this page. Be assured however that I have downloaded the page as a html document and taken screen shots. I have attached one of these screenshots and the saved html page to this email.It appears that the article was stolen from the Petapixel site. Petapetal did seek and were granted permission by me to reproduce the article in question. You however did not seek permission. I do note that there is a link at the bottom of the article to my original. Please be crystal clear that giving credit does not equal seeking permission in any way.I will shortly send you my invoice for royalties owed to me by you for the use of this article. The invoice will be sent via Paypal and may be paid online. A direct transfer can be arranged if this is more convenient.Please note that my usual price for using one of my images online is €100. You have used 12 images as well as my written property. I will however not charge you 100 per image. You can see a breakdown in royalty fees legally due by you to me below.I would prefer to resolve this matter without resorting legal action and as such I am offering you the opportunity to retroactively pay the royalties due for the use of the image in question.Please note that I simply will not accept the "Sorry I don't have the money" excuse that I have heard many times from people who steal my work up until now. This is something people who steal copyrighted material should think of before committing copyright theft. You have used my copyrighted materials, you owe royalties. Simple. I am being more than reasonable by already halving my price per image from €100 to €50. Further requests for reductions will not be entertained and the matter will be passed to my my legal representative.Payment of this invoice will give you retroactive permission to use the article as well as any future use.Please read the following sentence very carefully.Please note that simply removing the stolen article from your website does not excuse you from paying the royalties that are due to me for the use of the image to date.International Copyright Law is very clear on this matter.Invoice:InvoiceDate28 August 2016Individual / Company / OrganisationPhotographywide.comPhotograph TitlesGondolas in Venice 1Gondolas in Venice 2Gondolas in Venice 3Cat in a BoxSamuel Beckett Bridge at DuskAutumn WaterfallFishing Boat in TunisiaDonegal CoastlineWine Bottle 1Wine Bottle 2Charles Bridge Exposure DiagramCharles Bridge at NightalsoWritten Content from Article entitled:Guide to Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO – Exposure TriangleType of Usage LicenceOnline Royalty FreeRoyalties Owed€50 per image (12) = €600 (half usual price)€100 for written contentTotal: €700Payment Due4 September 2016Please read the following before replying:The following does not excuse you from payment of royalties:· if you link back to the source and list the photographer's name.· if the picture is not full-sized.· if you did it innocently.· if you claim that 'you did not realise the image was copyrighted.· if your site is non-commercial and you made no money from the use of the photo.· if you didn't claim the image was yours.· if the picture is embedded and not saved on your server.· if you have a disclaimer on your site.· if you immediately take down the image from the website.None of the above releases you from liability.You are violating copyright if you have not gotten express permission from the copyright holder. The law is crystal clear.Please reply to confirm that the invoice will be paid by the date specified.Please note that I will not engage in a lengthy discussion on this matter. The law is clear.If you refuse to pay / try to avoid paying, the following steps will be taken:1. The matter will be immediately passed on to my legal representative and legal action will be taken against you.2. A request will be made to your website hosting provider that your site be taken down due to copyright infringement. I can assure you that hosting companies take this very seriously as they are also responsible for copyrighted material being hosted on their servers.As already mentioned, I would prefer to resolve this matter without resorting to the above measures and am giving you the opportunity to so.As a final note, I would like to add that never before has somebody stole 12 images from me. This is certainly a new level of copyright theft.Before replying, I would advise you think very carefully. As mentioned, I will not engage in a lengthy discussion of this matter. If your reply is anything but an agreement to pay the invoice by 4 September 2016, I will immediately pass on the matter to my legal representative and begin the procedure of having your website taken down. Please note that in the event of legal action, you will also be responsible for all legal fees as well as the royalties owed. Sadly, I have had to take several of these cases. Thankfully, they don't last long as international copyright law is crystal clear.B O CarrollOn Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Peter Elmvang wrote:Dear Sir,I am so sorry that I have violated your work. I do not mean to cause any problems and I am new to this. I think you are referring to the photography wide website which I recently bought and it is populated with rss feeds which I was led to believe would be fine.Please inform me which images you take issue with, and if it is a problem to use rss feeds.Kind RegardsPeter Elmvang> To:***@******.***> Subject: Copyright Violation on your website> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 10:25:44 +0000> From:***@******.***>> From: Barry O Carroll> Subject: Copyright Violation on your website>> Message Body:> Dear Sir/Madam,>> I am writing to you to inform you that you have published images belonging to me without permission on your site.>> Please send me the email address of the person who deals with these issues and I will send on full details. I will be sending an invoice for royalties owed and passing the matter on to my legal representative if necessary. If the invoice is not paid, I will be contacting your web host to have your site removed.>> Barry O Carroll>> --> This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Breaking News Times>
I received the following email from a lawyer in Germany:
Hi,I received the following email from a lawyer in Germany:Infringement of Copyright: Stanzel / Enrico Massetti (45-00110)Dear Mr. Enrico Massetti,I hereby notify you that the photographer Karl Stanzel, Meran (www.stanzel.info) has entrusted me with the representation of its legal interests in this specific matter. In my capacity as attorney I hereby verify that I am duly authorized to act in this matter.In the name and on the authority of my client I must inform you of the following state of affairs:I.My client was made aware by www.photoclaim.com that you have published a photograph taken by my client on the website under the URLhttp://www.tangoitalia.com/recipes_ice/recipe_pandoro.htm.With this act of publication you have violated the copyrights of my client.The matter in dispute relates to the photograph reproduced in this letter which you are using in breach of the copyrights, with particular reference to the moral rights, of my client.Your website has been secured by our firm to the extent necessary for use as evidence in court and will be produced by way of such evidence in the event that you should contest the claim.No agency that my client works with confirmed a license purchase from your side. Should you have a valid license, please forward us the licensing agreement. Unfortunately you didn't identify my client as the copyright owner as it would be due to any agreement.II.With the publication of the photograph you have acted in violation of the copyrights due to my client as holder of the copyright, in particular the right of distribution pursuant to section 17 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG), as well as the right to make works publicly available pursuant to section 19 a UrhG. There can be no doubt that the photograph is a copyrighted work within the meaning of the Copyright Act.You are not entitled to disseminate the photograph, as you have done in flagrant disregard of the copyrights and moral rights of my client. The appropriation of third-party photographs without the consent of the rights holder represents a violation of copyright law. At no time did my client agree to the publication of the contested photograph in its present form.The deliberate act of incorporating the photograph into your website is sufficient cause for us to assert the contested use by you of the photograph in question. ....III.To effectively rule out the risk of any recurrence, it is necessary to issue a cease and desist declaration enforced by penalty for the future.I therefore request that a declaration to cease and desist is submitted by 28 June 2016.On the last page of this letter you will find a pre-formulated declaration to cease and desist enforced by penalty, which you are at liberty to use.A jurisdiction clause is common practice that goes beyond the infringement notified. The reimbursement of damages and legal fees is a legal obligation and the placement thereof in the declaration also goes beyond the infringement notified. ...We hope that a lawsuit won't be necessary and we will help you with any questions you may have.Yours faithfully,Rechtsanwalt Robert FechnerI deleted the photo from my site, but I received the following email:Dear Sir or MadamEnrico Massetti,In the case Stanzel / Enrico Massetti I refer to the previous correspondence. In my last writing I made you aware of your infringement of my clients copyright.This infringement of my client's copyrights obliges you to pay compensation in pursuance of section 97 UrhG.By the way of license analogy, you have to pay my client the usual licensing fee. To provide a high degree of transparency, my client applies the fees of the MFM-tables (Mittelstandsgemeinschaft Foto-Marketing) that represent an industry average fee and that are taken by the German courts to determine the fair compensation of a photographer.In your case this fee is:Monolingual Subpage, 27.03.2013 – 21.06.2016 465.00€Worldwide use (+120%) 558.00€Subtotal 1.023.00€According to the law you also have to reimburse my client for the costs incurred by my involvement in this matter through the reimbursement of the business fee pursuant to no. 2300 of the remuneration schedule (VV) appended to the Lawyers' Remuneration Act (RVG), as follows:Value in dispute € 6,000Business feeSections 2, 13, RVG, no. 2300 VV RVG (sentence 1.5) € 531.00Flat rate expenses no. 7002 VV RVG € 20.00Total legal costs € 551.00I NEED ADVICE ON WHAT O DO,Thank you in advnceEnrico Massetti
We are a publisher. One of our authors has been missing ten
We are a publisher. One of our authors has been missing for over ten years. Her book is still in print and I know that her daughter has been receiving the checks and depositing them. I don't know if she is depositing them into the authors account of the daughters account. We don't have a problem with the daughter getting the money since we always continue to pay a deceased author's royalties to their heirs. Our problem is the heirs have never contacted us and we have no way of contacting them. Now we would like to publish the mother's work as a condensed version. Can we do this without a contract with the heirs?
A company formed in '06 as an LLC in VA. They collected
A company formed in '06 as an LLC in VA. They collected investor funding but the business did not move forward. In '08, that business was no longer an LLC and no longer attempted to conduct any business. In 2016, I was given a business plan from that '06 company by one of the original investors and copied a few pages of legal jargon from theirs into docs we are using in a new LLC; parts of the operating agreement and subscription agreement. Completely separate businesses, no relation to each other at all. The owner of the '06 business caught wind that I used some of the language in his old agreements and is now attempting to say we have violated copyright laws by copying the legal jargon which he paid counsel to draft for him in '06. My question is... if those agreement were from a now defunct LLC, can this guy sue my company for copyright violation for use of the old agreements from an LLC which has been out of business since '08?
I am wondering about possible copyright infringement. I have
I am wondering about possible copyright infringement. I have a small business doing leather work. I have been asked to make a pair of leather suspenders with tattoo flash hand tooled and painted for the design. The flash art was from the Internet and I cannot find the original artists name to ask permission. Would this be a violation.