Copyright Trolls Now Going After Random Bloggers Who Reposted Photos

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Apparently, the Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG), one of the earliest copyright trolling operations in the US, is really building up its copyright trolling photo business. Last year, we wrote about how CEG had gone after a Lindsay Lohan fan site because the young fan had posted some (you guessed it) photos of Lohan. And now it appears that it's ramping up the practice, as a number of sites have apparently received demands from CEG for $500 because they posted a random photo which they likely found via Google's image search. Yes, reposting photos in such a manner can be copyright infringement (though, quite frequently, there may be a very strong fair use defense -- but that's very context specific), but it really does seem quite scammy to go after clearly naive internet users, who are just trying to post a photo of a red pepper to go with a blog post about vegetables.

As noted by the Cashman Law Firm, this whole practice seems really icky. Yes, technically, the law may have been broken, but does anyone actually think that these users would have otherwise purchased the image? And is hitting the ordinary internet user who just wants to illustrate their blog post about red peppers with a federal lawsuit threat really seem proportionate?
On a personal note, hitting website users with a threat of a lawsuit over an image pulled from a Google image search is simply obscene. I would certainly understand such a letter if the image had a watermark pointing the user to a website where they can purchase rights to the photo without the watermark, or if there was a copyright mark on the image. Yet these photos have none of these, and they are literally trolling old websites and blogs looking for photos which were copied from other websites.

What makes this so obscene is that the photo copyright owners are asserting the same copyright infringement claims as do the copyright holders for the bittorrent cases we deal with daily. Along with the same copyright claims come the same shock of having the law provide statutory damages of $150,000 to the copyright holder who can prove the infringement. $150,000 for a movie download in my mind is an obscene and disproportionate punishment for the “crime” of downloading a copyrighted title. Even moreso for a photo. AND, even moreso for an unmarked and unwatermarked photo freely available on a Google image search.
And, in fact, it appears to be even worse, since that same blog post later indicates that at least some of the people being threatened had the images show up via third party RSS aggregators -- meaning they didn't post or host the image themselves. But, that's the kind of situation you get when copyright laws are completely screwy.

Filed Under: copyright trolls, photos
Companies: copyright enforcement group


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    fishaddict, 11 Aug 2014 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's risky to use other people's property.

    Quick question for the uninitiated, if an image is not marked in any way to show a copyright...how does one know whom to ask permission from? Really, my question is does the photographer has rights, the image's object focus, any ancillary images captured as background? If one cannot find the actual title of the image, no watermark, and being many are reposts of reposts, does say a blogger need to have a team of lawyers on retainer to investigate the image of a blue ribbon on an apple with a drip of water on it to find out that it may be reblogged from a gardening blog who posted from a magazine article, reprinted from a county fair ad flyer, taken by a 15 yr/old high school student for art class? Who owns the picture? If the magazine owns the copyright can the student sell the picture or even use it in their own blog? They took the picture. What about the farmer who one the blue ribbon for the apple in the first place? He owns the actual object of the picture. Seems the law is vague at best and the only ones to benefit are the lawyers. Time to revisit the law in todays amateur photog, online publishing, and the internet. Seems if one takes a picture of a naked, passed out college kid, the college kid owns the picture and the courts will have ISPs remove all record of it but here the one with the most lawyers run the show.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.