Thank you for your response. I don't think you are commenting just to vent or hate, so I'm happy to respond. I've done a lot more research specific to Richard, and I now feel like I have a better understanding of what has transpired. I do think it is possible that my relationship with him has been unique in that my cases do not borderline fair use. In my situation, in 95% of our cases, the infringer has taken one of my photos, removed my watermark and then mocked it up as an advertisement.
How he is handling his caseload, the reprimands, suspensions and so on, are not something I defend. What so many on this thread are failing to see is that there is a legitimate demand for the services he provides. In other words, not many attorneys are willing to work on a contingency, go out of pocket to file suit and then negotiate from there. Having tried to settle so many of these cases on my own, I do not sympathize with the infringers the way so many on this thread do. I've asked infringers to stop using my photos for ads, and many just give me the finger, and in one instance an infringers said, "Sorry, next time we'll give you photo credit." So, I'm under the impression that many on this thread would like to do away with copyright law altogether.
If any copyright attorneys are reading this, you have an opportunity to create lucrative business. His basic model is a success, take that and workflow it into a more select and manageable workload would be a great service to many. And perhaps avoid trying to set precedent for fair use and stay focused on the most obvious infringement cases. Have a great day Ed.
Please note, you are literally putting words in my mouth. You created your own sentence and then wrote it as a direct quote from me. Are you able to respond without railing on someone? Without misquoting them?
I can see that you are passionately outraged, however I gain nothing from someone that just rages on me and puts me down. This was the first blog/article I came across when I found out he was suspended. It was a mistake to engage here. I gained nothing from it. A friend of mine who is an attorney told me to go directly to the court documents, which I have done.
So, I will leave you now to pick at my every word. To club me with all your outrage.
This is the first comment where someone didn't put me down or call me a name. Thank you, and I will continue to research these issues you've mentioned. I've had two attorneys before Richard, and IMO, they were unethical and ineffective.
Richard is the first attorney to produce results for me, and he has been fair with me. I know he deals in volume and relies on a staff. I've dealt with the copyright office quite a bit, and they don't always get things right, make mistakes on certificates and on occasion give out wrong information. But I don't know the details of of the court not allowing the registrations he produced. For Richard to go forward with any of my cases, they have to be registered - his office staff requires it.
His basic formula works, and I would encourage other attorneys to follow it. It is very effective, and perhaps they can do a better job than Richard. But until more attorneys enter this niche market, Richard seems to be the only one serving and underserved market.
Our settlements are usually in 5 figures. I see all the accounting, no hourly charges, just the filing fee which comes off the top. Very recently a judge awarded me a 6 figure settlement, a case with multiple infringements. I appreciate your concern that Richard is taking advantage of me. You are obviously a kind person. If you know of an attorney who takes on these kinds of contingencies and pays better than 50/50 minus filing fees, please direct me.
Sorry, didn't mean to call you Tom. Wow, you've become quite hostile and angry and I am now having a better understanding of what this site is about. Just angry at the system. Frustrated with life in general. A lot of people are right now.
Because my personal experiences don't fit the narrative here, I am deemed to be either a fake or a liar. If you want to live your life with half the story, that's your choice. I'm done here, and I thank you guys for taking the time with me. When Richard's office first alerted me about the suspension, I was concerned and felt like I needed to dig into this a bit. After interacting with you and one other, I will no longer take seriously this particular thread.
Thank you for introducing me to flicr CC, yikes, never done that thank god, but I have put my stuff on social media, and I understand that that gives others license to share on those particular platforms. But it is not license to made advertisements for one's business.
To answer your question about judgements. Only one of our cases has been decided by a judge. This particular judge awarded me 10 times what we normally settle for. All the other cases we have settled.
Regarding my credibility, it is possible that I am the only small artist that he represents. I don't know, but if the author of this article wants to personally reach out to me, I am happy to be non-anonymous while we chat about Richard.
Let me ask this question. Before using a photo for an advertisement, or before grabbing a photo from the internet (with the exception of photos explicitly in the public domain) why aren't people doing reverse image searches to discover the author of the work and then seeking permission? I know it's more work, but it would protect one from a lawsuit. Rarely do people ask for permission to use my images in their advertising. They just grab them and often it is the graphic designer who knows very little about copyright law, making ads and then presenting them to their employer or with whomever they contract with. It's not the graphic designers we are suing, it's the business owner we sue. You business owners should demand from your graphics people documentation for permission for usage of images in the ads.
This comment was meant as a reply to Anon Coward. I'm trying to message the author of this article, but when I click on his Twitter account, messaging has been disabled. Does anyone have his email? thanks.
I have received several checks from Richard's office, and he never bills hourly, never. We have a contingency agreement, a contract that is very specific. What comes off the top is the filing fee and then we split 50/50. The one time I hired an attorney, she made me put down a $2,500 retainer, billed me hourly, settled for a small amount, and I think my net was about 10% of what I net with Richard. So, I then just started representing myself with certified letters to the infringers, and of those, I would say only 20% settle with me and really small numbers. With Richard, 90% settle and the settlements reflect copyright law. Copyright infringement is a federal offense with statutory damages. It's a serious crime, but a crime that is very difficult to take action on because one has to file in federal court.
Hi Paul,
My response to Anon Coward was because he claims that everything I write is a lie. His passionate hatred for Richard much be personal - that's the only conclusion I can come to.
Yes, of course you're right, and that's what I'm trying to figure out. What is the real issue here? Is this about bringing IP into the public domain? Is is about trying to define fair use? All of my lawsuits with the exception of one, have been black and white outright infringement. Businesses taking my photos, which are registered, and mocking up ads for their services and products. Only one was used in an editorial article, and when Richard's staff brought it to my attention, I had to pause. For the most part, if someone had just asked me if they could use my image for an editorial piece, I probably would have just said "Yes" or charged some small fee like $200. It's the kind of infringement that does not make me furious the way the ads do. BTW, all the other infringements, I think there have been about 20, I have found on my own and brought to Richard. So, this would then make me the IP troll, but like an attorney for Ebay once told me, "It's not our responsibility to protect your copyright. It's yours."
Anyway, in your opinion, in a nutshell, aside from the issues the judges have with him, what makes him such a villain? There are several threads on this site, that villianize him, and one in particular that indicates he is not serving his clients best interests. So, what is it?
Hi, if my cases were unlikely to generate any money, Richard would not have taken them on. I do register my images, and we have prevailed in court more than once. Your assumptions are way off. Why other attorneys are not doing what Richard does, does not make sense to me. My work is STOLEN, yes these people are THIEVES in my opinion. They are horrible, dishonest people, and when I confront them personally, they don't take me seriously. Just recently in fact, I saw one of my photos being sold on t-shirts by an up and coming brand. The company that took my photo and is making money off my photo, is bigger than I am. I am a one man show and need representation against a company like this. They could have done a reverse image search before they grabbed my image for their clothing line, but they didn't because they know that most photographers do not pursue these kinds of claims. We cannot take our claims to small court! We have to file in federal court. We can't do that without an attorney!
When you say he is a troll because of the number of cases, that's like saying a successful real estate agent is a troll if they sell a lot of houses. Or if I license a lot of photos, I'm a photo license troll? How is being successful in one's business a bad thing?
I don't know what his behavior is like in court, and that part of it, I can't have an opinion on. His office just sent me a notification about his suspension, so I googled his name with some key words and found this thread. As I read all these accusations, I was dumbfounded. This is not the Richard I know and have worked with for two years now. I'm going to have a conversation with his office admin about it.
Yes, he does guard his time. He tries to be selective about which suits have defendants that are able to pay, but to me that just seems like good business sense. With all respect, so far, nothing you have written compels me to think he is not a good attorney doing honest work. The issues of him lying in court and frustrated judges, I cannot have an opinion on because I am not privy to these sorts of details.
I'm under the impression that persons on this blog have had copyright claims against them? Is this blog about putting all intellectual property into the public domain?
me a better deal, I'm all ears. First, I was fully aware of our retainer agreement from the get go, and it seemed fair to me. I am not out of pocket at all, and the only fees he takes out are the court filing fees.
Before meeting Richard, I could not get any attorney to even take a copyright case on contingency. I used an attorney before him, and she just gouged me with fees and we settled for a paltry amount - no comparison to the success I have with Richard. BUT, if there are firms out there doing what he does and offers the client the majority of the settlement, please let me know.
I'm reading all these comments, and frankly I'm a bit confused. On one hand I see he is being labeled as a troll, and then there also seems to be an issue about how he conducts himself in court. I'm not sure where these two issues intersect or if they even do. I'm sure someone here will elaborate. I'm posting this because I genuinely want to see all sides of this.
I can only speak from my personal experience with him. As a photographer, prior to meeting Richard, I could never get representation. Attorney's want thousands of dollars in retainer fees, and in my first experience with a copyright attorney, she did very little and was barely effective. My images are constantly stolen and used for advertising. I started to handle all this on my own, and the copyright thieves just laughed at me and said, "Hey, next time we'll give you photo credit." Many continued to use my images even after I asked them to be removed.
With Richard I finally have someone on my side - I feel like there is finally some justice. Regarding the registrations, from my personal experience, they are handled meticulously. I'm under the impression that the majority on this thread believe in copyright law, and if so, then what is wrong with pursuing people who steal images? What's wrong with pursuing all of them? It is the only way they will learn.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ross.
Re: Trolling
Hi Ed,
Thank you for your response. I don't think you are commenting just to vent or hate, so I'm happy to respond. I've done a lot more research specific to Richard, and I now feel like I have a better understanding of what has transpired. I do think it is possible that my relationship with him has been unique in that my cases do not borderline fair use. In my situation, in 95% of our cases, the infringer has taken one of my photos, removed my watermark and then mocked it up as an advertisement.
How he is handling his caseload, the reprimands, suspensions and so on, are not something I defend. What so many on this thread are failing to see is that there is a legitimate demand for the services he provides. In other words, not many attorneys are willing to work on a contingency, go out of pocket to file suit and then negotiate from there. Having tried to settle so many of these cases on my own, I do not sympathize with the infringers the way so many on this thread do. I've asked infringers to stop using my photos for ads, and many just give me the finger, and in one instance an infringers said, "Sorry, next time we'll give you photo credit." So, I'm under the impression that many on this thread would like to do away with copyright law altogether.
If any copyright attorneys are reading this, you have an opportunity to create lucrative business. His basic model is a success, take that and workflow it into a more select and manageable workload would be a great service to many. And perhaps avoid trying to set precedent for fair use and stay focused on the most obvious infringement cases. Have a great day Ed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, I'm a client of Richard's and
Please note, you are literally putting words in my mouth. You created your own sentence and then wrote it as a direct quote from me. Are you able to respond without railing on someone? Without misquoting them?
I can see that you are passionately outraged, however I gain nothing from someone that just rages on me and puts me down. This was the first blog/article I came across when I found out he was suspended. It was a mistake to engage here. I gained nothing from it. A friend of mine who is an attorney told me to go directly to the court documents, which I have done.
So, I will leave you now to pick at my every word. To club me with all your outrage.
Re: Re: Hey, I'm a client of Richard's and
This is the first comment where someone didn't put me down or call me a name. Thank you, and I will continue to research these issues you've mentioned. I've had two attorneys before Richard, and IMO, they were unethical and ineffective.
Richard is the first attorney to produce results for me, and he has been fair with me. I know he deals in volume and relies on a staff. I've dealt with the copyright office quite a bit, and they don't always get things right, make mistakes on certificates and on occasion give out wrong information. But I don't know the details of of the court not allowing the registrations he produced. For Richard to go forward with any of my cases, they have to be registered - his office staff requires it.
His basic formula works, and I would encourage other attorneys to follow it. It is very effective, and perhaps they can do a better job than Richard. But until more attorneys enter this niche market, Richard seems to be the only one serving and underserved market.
Re: Re: Wow
Our settlements are usually in 5 figures. I see all the accounting, no hourly charges, just the filing fee which comes off the top. Very recently a judge awarded me a 6 figure settlement, a case with multiple infringements. I appreciate your concern that Richard is taking advantage of me. You are obviously a kind person. If you know of an attorney who takes on these kinds of contingencies and pays better than 50/50 minus filing fees, please direct me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, I'm a client of Richard's a
Sorry, didn't mean to call you Tom. Wow, you've become quite hostile and angry and I am now having a better understanding of what this site is about. Just angry at the system. Frustrated with life in general. A lot of people are right now.
Because my personal experiences don't fit the narrative here, I am deemed to be either a fake or a liar. If you want to live your life with half the story, that's your choice. I'm done here, and I thank you guys for taking the time with me. When Richard's office first alerted me about the suspension, I was concerned and felt like I needed to dig into this a bit. After interacting with you and one other, I will no longer take seriously this particular thread.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, I'm a client of Richard's and
Hi Tom,
Thank you for introducing me to flicr CC, yikes, never done that thank god, but I have put my stuff on social media, and I understand that that gives others license to share on those particular platforms. But it is not license to made advertisements for one's business.
To answer your question about judgements. Only one of our cases has been decided by a judge. This particular judge awarded me 10 times what we normally settle for. All the other cases we have settled.
Regarding my credibility, it is possible that I am the only small artist that he represents. I don't know, but if the author of this article wants to personally reach out to me, I am happy to be non-anonymous while we chat about Richard.
Let me ask this question. Before using a photo for an advertisement, or before grabbing a photo from the internet (with the exception of photos explicitly in the public domain) why aren't people doing reverse image searches to discover the author of the work and then seeking permission? I know it's more work, but it would protect one from a lawsuit. Rarely do people ask for permission to use my images in their advertising. They just grab them and often it is the graphic designer who knows very little about copyright law, making ads and then presenting them to their employer or with whomever they contract with. It's not the graphic designers we are suing, it's the business owner we sue. You business owners should demand from your graphics people documentation for permission for usage of images in the ads.
Re: Wow
This comment was meant as a reply to Anon Coward. I'm trying to message the author of this article, but when I click on his Twitter account, messaging has been disabled. Does anyone have his email? thanks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, I'm a client of Richard's and
Hi Tom,
I have received several checks from Richard's office, and he never bills hourly, never. We have a contingency agreement, a contract that is very specific. What comes off the top is the filing fee and then we split 50/50. The one time I hired an attorney, she made me put down a $2,500 retainer, billed me hourly, settled for a small amount, and I think my net was about 10% of what I net with Richard. So, I then just started representing myself with certified letters to the infringers, and of those, I would say only 20% settle with me and really small numbers. With Richard, 90% settle and the settlements reflect copyright law. Copyright infringement is a federal offense with statutory damages. It's a serious crime, but a crime that is very difficult to take action on because one has to file in federal court.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, I'm a client of Richard's and
Hi Paul,
My response to Anon Coward was because he claims that everything I write is a lie. His passionate hatred for Richard much be personal - that's the only conclusion I can come to.
Yes, of course you're right, and that's what I'm trying to figure out. What is the real issue here? Is this about bringing IP into the public domain? Is is about trying to define fair use? All of my lawsuits with the exception of one, have been black and white outright infringement. Businesses taking my photos, which are registered, and mocking up ads for their services and products. Only one was used in an editorial article, and when Richard's staff brought it to my attention, I had to pause. For the most part, if someone had just asked me if they could use my image for an editorial piece, I probably would have just said "Yes" or charged some small fee like $200. It's the kind of infringement that does not make me furious the way the ads do. BTW, all the other infringements, I think there have been about 20, I have found on my own and brought to Richard. So, this would then make me the IP troll, but like an attorney for Ebay once told me, "It's not our responsibility to protect your copyright. It's yours."
Anyway, in your opinion, in a nutshell, aside from the issues the judges have with him, what makes him such a villain? There are several threads on this site, that villianize him, and one in particular that indicates he is not serving his clients best interests. So, what is it?
Re: Re: Hey, I'm a client of Richard's and
I assume you've been a defendant in one of his cases and lost. That is the only explanation.
Wow
So, basically anyone who has something positive to say about Richard you light your hair on fire and run down the street, screaming, "Liar!"
Re: Re: Hey, I'm a client of Richard's and
Hi, if my cases were unlikely to generate any money, Richard would not have taken them on. I do register my images, and we have prevailed in court more than once. Your assumptions are way off. Why other attorneys are not doing what Richard does, does not make sense to me. My work is STOLEN, yes these people are THIEVES in my opinion. They are horrible, dishonest people, and when I confront them personally, they don't take me seriously. Just recently in fact, I saw one of my photos being sold on t-shirts by an up and coming brand. The company that took my photo and is making money off my photo, is bigger than I am. I am a one man show and need representation against a company like this. They could have done a reverse image search before they grabbed my image for their clothing line, but they didn't because they know that most photographers do not pursue these kinds of claims. We cannot take our claims to small court! We have to file in federal court. We can't do that without an attorney!
When you say he is a troll because of the number of cases, that's like saying a successful real estate agent is a troll if they sell a lot of houses. Or if I license a lot of photos, I'm a photo license troll? How is being successful in one's business a bad thing?
I don't know what his behavior is like in court, and that part of it, I can't have an opinion on. His office just sent me a notification about his suspension, so I googled his name with some key words and found this thread. As I read all these accusations, I was dumbfounded. This is not the Richard I know and have worked with for two years now. I'm going to have a conversation with his office admin about it.
Yes, he does guard his time. He tries to be selective about which suits have defendants that are able to pay, but to me that just seems like good business sense. With all respect, so far, nothing you have written compels me to think he is not a good attorney doing honest work. The issues of him lying in court and frustrated judges, I cannot have an opinion on because I am not privy to these sorts of details.
I'm under the impression that persons on this blog have had copyright claims against them? Is this blog about putting all intellectual property into the public domain?
I'm a client of Richards, and if an attorney here wants to offer
me a better deal, I'm all ears. First, I was fully aware of our retainer agreement from the get go, and it seemed fair to me. I am not out of pocket at all, and the only fees he takes out are the court filing fees.
Before meeting Richard, I could not get any attorney to even take a copyright case on contingency. I used an attorney before him, and she just gouged me with fees and we settled for a paltry amount - no comparison to the success I have with Richard. BUT, if there are firms out there doing what he does and offers the client the majority of the settlement, please let me know.
Hey, I'm a client of Richard's and
I'm reading all these comments, and frankly I'm a bit confused. On one hand I see he is being labeled as a troll, and then there also seems to be an issue about how he conducts himself in court. I'm not sure where these two issues intersect or if they even do. I'm sure someone here will elaborate. I'm posting this because I genuinely want to see all sides of this.
I can only speak from my personal experience with him. As a photographer, prior to meeting Richard, I could never get representation. Attorney's want thousands of dollars in retainer fees, and in my first experience with a copyright attorney, she did very little and was barely effective. My images are constantly stolen and used for advertising. I started to handle all this on my own, and the copyright thieves just laughed at me and said, "Hey, next time we'll give you photo credit." Many continued to use my images even after I asked them to be removed.
With Richard I finally have someone on my side - I feel like there is finally some justice. Regarding the registrations, from my personal experience, they are handled meticulously. I'm under the impression that the majority on this thread believe in copyright law, and if so, then what is wrong with pursuing people who steal images? What's wrong with pursuing all of them? It is the only way they will learn.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ross.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt