Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« John Oliver on our failure to properly regulate medical devices | Main | Senators ask CFPB to reconsider debt collection proposal »

Wednesday, June 05, 2019

Comments

JLE

Paul-
You're doing a great service here. Higbee's team has come after my family as well. My wife had a now-defunct LLC and blog. THe blog was mostly informational-- I think she threw up some Google ads and I doubt she cleared $50. Unfortunately, a guest blogger submitted a photo (in 2014) that she was not licensed to use. Turns out that it was a stock photo. In 2018, my wife received a demand e-mail from Higbee for $5,000 or face a lawsuit. Since then, we've come across a few problems that make it clear that Higbee is a troll operation:
1. My wife's blog was operated by an LLC, and the paralegal sending the demand emails doesn't seem to know what that even means. At best, her responses show that she doesn't read the emails sent to her. The latest mailing--a sample district court filing--still makes an allegation against my wife and the website address rather than the actual LLC name. It's just... odd.
2. The copyright registration is for the stock photo company, not for their client, who is the original photographer. Obviously, this is the biggest problem they face in a suit. They have a client who they say wants to pursue this who must not know that he isn't the copyright owner.
3. They seem to understand from their earlier correspondences that this was not a willful infringement, and therefore would not be subject to the max $150,000 statutory damages. Yet they threaten it anyway, again.
4. The demand of $5,000 is wholly unreasonable, considering that a 5 year website use copyright fee is $300.

I'm an attorney, so I can at least navigate this stuff, but it's awful and a mental burden I don't want to deal with. I can't imagine how harrowing it is for others.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

June 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30