3 ms·

The idea of lawsuit-as-a-service is terrible. Last year I was accused of copyright infringement. I knew was completely in the clear - I hadn't ever heard of th

The idea of lawsuit-as-a-service is terrible. Last year I was accused of copyright infringement. I knew was completely in the clear - I hadn't ever heard of this person or seen their creation before. After dismissing some typo-riddled communication I though was bluffing I found myself named in a lawsuit. Turns out that knowing I was right was a whole world away from proving it in court. I was told it would cost me tens of thousands to defend myself. And the best possible outcome was for me to win my fees back. In the end I paid the other person to go away. The entire process was expensive, time consuming and incredibly stressful. I lost days of sleep worrying about what could happen. My case could have been resolved so much more easily without lawyers. I was actually interesting in monetizing and this person needed eyeballs on their product. I would have gladly sent them traffic if they agreed to an affiliate set up. The problem was that once lawyers start getting involved then the bills start adding up quickly. From then on it was classic sunk cost fallacy. Backing off means paying thousands of dollars for the privilege of being sued. No one wins but the lawyers. Sure, this company is going to be stopping some people from stealing images. But their business model is built on profiting from uncertainty and fear from the people they accuse of theft. This guy is an artist, yet he's so flippant about supporting an industry that profits by making the world a slightly worse place. He'd rather line the pockets of some lawyers than have to go through sending "dozens" of emails a month.

iamhamm 12y ago
This is a very tricky situation it seems. I've never been party to infringement (on either side), but he explained pretty clearly why he outsourced this role. He has people legitimately using his work without license, so what's the problem with outsourcing enforcement? That said, I hear a story like yours and it freaks me out; I could be you some day. Maybe a "non-lawyer" system could exist, but without the threat of lawsuits, I suspect legitimate infringement situations would go ignored.
- underwater 12y ago
  There's nothing preventing him from going to the lawyer after they refuse a request to remove the image. He's using his nuclear option as a first resort and claiming moral high ground.
  - CocaKoala 12y ago
    Except that the time and opportunity cost of requesting each case of infringement be removed before going to the lawyers is becoming onerous for him, which he explicitly states. His moral high ground is "He's not the one stealing an image and the people he's suing are".
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    Well, no one forced you to use his image without license.
- mapt 12y ago
  Damn-near everything in our life is subject to copyright by default. You've been party to infringement a million times over. We all have. Start on your first birthday. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp Move on to the derivative-work picture collages you made in preschool. That copy of 'Peter Pan' that your parents made. The songs you played when you were learning to play the tuba. The first music your friends shared with you. I could go on.
ScottBurson 12y ago
It seems pretty clear that Wild's lawyers are not originating the lawsuits on their own, without input from him. For example: If the infringement appears on a personal blog, forum, or web page, I usually ignore it. If I have time, which I generally don’t, I may issue a takedown notice to remove infringing copies from personal sites most likely to feed downstream infringements. If the infringement occurs on a corporate or organizational webpage, product, broadcast, or similar, even if it is just a small internal image, I generally submit it to ImageRights. There's also this: Considerably more effort and attention went into researching and vetting your case than went into Getty’s ham-handed, largely automated process. And this: Q. You are wrong, I did license that image, and I resent being accused of something I did not do. Goodness! My heartfelt apologies for my mistake. If you forward the license agreement or receipt to my lawyers, we will drop the case and I will fully refund your original license payment, while you may continue to use the image(s). I have made an erroneous accusation before, and I felt terrible about it. The impression I'm getting is that he's being very careful not to make erroneous accusations. I'm sorry for what happened to you, but this doesn't seem like the same kind of thing.
thedufer 12y ago
> "dozens" of emails a month In his Ars Technica article he claims to have been sending 5 takedowns per day (that's more like hundreds a month). The dozens per month are just the minority he's deemed commercial. He's continuing to go with takedowns for all of the rest. > But their business model is built on profiting from uncertainty and fear from the people they accuse of theft. It seems clear that he's the one making accusations; he just hands it off to them. Its not some automated system or evil lawyer going after obvious innocents, unless you're accusing the artist himself of initiating malicious lawsuits.
s73v3r 12y ago
You could have not ignored the first notification, and then you would have been able to resolve things amicably.
- underwater 12y ago
  I skipped that part. I emailed the person, but they were absolutely convinced that I'd ripped them off (they accused me of colluding with their publisher to steal, completely redesign and then share their work for free). My mistake was assuming this person would be rational.

iamhamm 12y ago

This is a very tricky situation it seems. I've never been party to infringement (on either side), but he explained pretty clearly why he outsourced this role. He has people legitimately using his work without license, so what's the problem with outsourcing enforcement? That said, I hear a story like yours and it freaks me out; I could be you some day. Maybe a "non-lawyer" system could exist, but without the threat of lawsuits, I suspect legitimate infringement situations would go ignored.

underwater 12y ago
There's nothing preventing him from going to the lawyer after they refuse a request to remove the image. He's using his nuclear option as a first resort and claiming moral high ground.
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  Except that the time and opportunity cost of requesting each case of infringement be removed before going to the lawyers is becoming onerous for him, which he explicitly states. His moral high ground is "He's not the one stealing an image and the people he's suing are".
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Well, no one forced you to use his image without license.
mapt 12y ago
Damn-near everything in our life is subject to copyright by default. You've been party to infringement a million times over. We all have. Start on your first birthday. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp Move on to the derivative-work picture collages you made in preschool. That copy of 'Peter Pan' that your parents made. The songs you played when you were learning to play the tuba. The first music your friends shared with you. I could go on.

ScottBurson 12y ago

It seems pretty clear that Wild's lawyers are not originating the lawsuits on their own, without input from him. For example: If the infringement appears on a personal blog, forum, or web page, I usually ignore it. If I have time, which I generally don’t, I may issue a takedown notice to remove infringing copies from personal sites most likely to feed downstream infringements. If the infringement occurs on a corporate or organizational webpage, product, broadcast, or similar, even if it is just a small internal image, I generally submit it to ImageRights. There's also this: Considerably more effort and attention went into researching and vetting your case than went into Getty’s ham-handed, largely automated process. And this: Q. You are wrong, I did license that image, and I resent being accused of something I did not do. Goodness! My heartfelt apologies for my mistake. If you forward the license agreement or receipt to my lawyers, we will drop the case and I will fully refund your original license payment, while you may continue to use the image(s). I have made an erroneous accusation before, and I felt terrible about it. The impression I'm getting is that he's being very careful not to make erroneous accusations. I'm sorry for what happened to you, but this doesn't seem like the same kind of thing.

thedufer 12y ago

> "dozens" of emails a month In his Ars Technica article he claims to have been sending 5 takedowns per day (that's more like hundreds a month). The dozens per month are just the minority he's deemed commercial. He's continuing to go with takedowns for all of the rest. > But their business model is built on profiting from uncertainty and fear from the people they accuse of theft. It seems clear that he's the one making accusations; he just hands it off to them. Its not some automated system or evil lawyer going after obvious innocents, unless you're accusing the artist himself of initiating malicious lawsuits.

s73v3r 12y ago

You could have not ignored the first notification, and then you would have been able to resolve things amicably.

underwater 12y ago
I skipped that part. I emailed the person, but they were absolutely convinced that I'd ripped them off (they accused me of colluding with their publisher to steal, completely redesign and then share their work for free). My mistake was assuming this person would be rational.