New York disbars infamous copyright troll

https://abovethelaw.com/2024/03/new-york-disbars-infamous-copyright-troll/

by Turing_Machine • 2 years ago

441 99 2 years ago

abovethelaw.com

charcircuit3• 2 years ago

He can still send such letters if even though he is disbarred, right?

It's not like it's a trial.

freejazz6• 2 years ago

Not ones claiming that he is an attorney that represents the photographer.

charcircuit3• 2 years ago

An authorized representative does not have to be an attorney

Macha• 2 years ago

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Richard P. Liebowitz, shall continue to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

Is "I am an authorised representative for XYZ, and you are infringing on their copyright. Please pay us $xxxx or we will prosecute" "giving another an opinion as to the law"? I could see it being so.

charcircuit3• 2 years ago

No, such a request is not legal advice.

freejazz6• 2 years ago

"Liebowitz wasn’t alone in the copyright trolling practice. A number of entities scour the internet looking for photographs that they can claim are “unlicensed” and demanding thousands of dollars to settle the matter knowing that between statutory damages for copyright infringement and the cost of litigation, most companies will just pay it. Many times, the photo in question actually is legally licensed through an agency like Getty Images, but the plaintiff photographer has, for whatever reason, pulled the image since the license was granted."

This article is so poorly written and uninformed, it conflates asserting copyright infringement against an entity that licensed the photo, with the court demanding past licenses as a means of calculating actual or statutory damages.

Liebowitz problem is that he has lied to courts several times previously, about things as trivial as scheduling issues, or the basic facts of his case as the article points out. His disbarrment has nothing to do with him asserting copyright cases, it has to do with him lying. Unfortunately the term troll is used against pretty much any photographer asserting their legal rights over the work that they own.

paulgb• 2 years ago

I think the term “troll” is generally accepted where someone’s MO is to spray-and-pray settlement demands that the troll doesn’t actually want to take to court. Given that his behavior was all related to trying to avoid demands of judges and court time, it sounds like it actually was related to his trolling indirectly.

freejazz6• 2 years ago

Yeah, but look at any thread where patents are an issue, any plaintiff that isn't a big tech company gets called a troll. Also, Liebowitz had no fear of going to court, he'd sue before he'd send letters. Liebowitz was disbarred because he repeatedly lied. The issue with him not producing licenses is because they didn't support the damages award he wanted, not because he just didn't want to deal with judges or being in court. Like I said, the article is very poorly written.

Eiim• 2 years ago

Part of Liebowitz's problem was that he did ~0 research before filing a lawsuit. Often the only thing he did was send the photographer a list of URLs and ask for "GO" or "NO GO" for each one. In at least some cases there was a license that he or probably should have known about, but he didn't even bother to check. He probably would've been fine with that though if he hadn't lied to the judge(s) so, so much.

freejazz6• 2 years ago

In cases like these, you need to rely on the photographer, they are the ones who will know there is a license. So him relying upon the client, who might make a mistake, wont necessarily be the end of him as you point out, which I agree with. These photographers do not have agents, and to the extent they did, it'd be Getty, who pays them less than $5 for perpetual web-use licenses. That's why so many of them leave Getty. Getty then continues to offer new licenses for the photographs, despite their contract being terminated. The article seems to mistake that as well. I'm a copyright attorney and we have the opposite approach of Liebowitz.

aragonite• 2 years ago

Memorable quote a while back by an SDNY judge about Liebowitz:

In his relatively short career litigating in this District, Richard Liebowitz has earned the dubious distinction of being a regular target of sanctions-related motions and orders. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that there is a growing body of law in this District devoted to the question of whether and when to impose sanctions on Mr. Liebowitz alone. See, e.g., ... This Opinion is the latest contribution to that body of law. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that sanctions should indeed be imposed on Mr. Liebowitz for his repeated failure to comply with this Court’s orders, failures that imposed considerable and unwarranted costs on the Court, its staff, and Defendant NBCUniversal Media, LLC.

https://www.abajournal.com/images/main_images/Lebowitz.pdf

dmix• 2 years ago

He sued NBC? What a dummy

pictureofabear• 2 years ago

Haha--that one caught my attention as well. His litigation is so audacious as to begin setting precedent. This is how our system should work though; through contention it strengthens itself.

KyleBerezin• 2 years ago

"Yea, I work in the office of Liebowitz sanctioning, third floor."

Obscurity4340• 2 years ago

"He's out to lunch right now"

WarOnPrivacy• 2 years ago

What this demonstrates: Years of unethical, overtly extortionary and often illegal copyright trolling isn't enough to trigger disbarment. (Not even criminal charges but a loss of license. In one state.)

It's years of copyright trolling so incompetent that judges began pushing back. Plus another period of angering those judges with non-compliance.

What this hints at: When copyright is on the table, unethical, extortionary and illegal trolling usually flies just fine.

codedokode• 2 years ago

The whole system where a person can lose a license and permission to work for arbitrary reasons is unfair. The license should prove that the person has necessary knowledge and should not be used as a mean to punish someone for his views or for being too smart to profit from unfair laws. If you want to punish people, there is criminal code.

shmerl2• 2 years ago

Disbarring is not enough. Prison time for racketeering is proper.

dudeinjapan3• 2 years ago

Prison is not enough. Patent trolls should be thrown into the deepest flaming pit of hell.

asah2• 2 years ago

Sorry, flaming pits are patented. Can I offer you lava?

porksoda• 2 years ago

Maybe he's a bad guy, but prison is worse than you think, and probably doesn't fit the crime here. Imnsho.

MBCook2• 2 years ago

He wasted a fantastic amount of the court’s time and various people’s time and money which they never got back.

He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong.

Why shouldn’t there be some criminal statute to punish him? Nothing here fixes any of the harm he’s caused. It just (hopefully) prevents him from doing it in the future.

Though based on how he got here I’m guessing he’ll find a new way.

shmerl2• 2 years ago

What do you think the punishment for protection racket and extortion should be? Patent trolling is exactly that, except masking under the legal system.

dudeinjapan3• 2 years ago

Patent trolls literally destroy people’s livelihoods and lives. They make billions by destroying trillions in value.

lelanthran• 2 years ago

Maybe he's a bad guy, but prison is worse than you think, and probably doesn't fit the crime here. Imnsho

Seeing as how he is not required to make his victims whole, even prison time is getting off lightly.

Other criminals don't usually get to keep the proceeds of their crimes, even with prison time.

If the court ordered prison this time, he still gets to enjoy the proceeds when he gets out.

ugh123• 2 years ago

The respondent’s statement in his January 13, 2018 letter that the defendant “had yet to respond to the complaint” was false and misleading, and the respondent knew that it was false and misleading when he made it. The January 13, 2018 letter failed to advise the court of the months-long history of communication between the parties, beginning in July 2017, as mentioned above.

How is that not outright fraud?

dllthomas4• 2 years ago

I'm also curious about that, but we should recognize that whether it's fraud and whether it should be prosecuted as fraud are different questions. For a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, where disbarment seems (from a cursory search) to merely require preponderance of the evidence. If that's right, some people will rightly be disbarred for crimes they cannot be convicted of.

starspangled• 2 years ago

Lawyers rule the entire justice system. Not even the "good" ones want to normalize the prosecution of lawyers for committing crimes while practicing law.

MBCook2• 2 years ago

As ridiculous as that is, claiming his grandfather died as an excuse then claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and decorum by asking for proof is really something.

Damn.

3836293648• 2 years ago

His Grandfather did die, just three days before the day he claimed, according to Leonard French (Lawful Masses)'s stream on the topic

neom• 2 years ago

Leonard French has almost obsessively covered this dude at length

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkdgWccrJAy6scjRxG7bf...

56 videos, heh. :p

phone8675309• 2 years ago

As a copyright attorney, Leonard French will likely be popping a bottle of champagne over this.

throwaway74432• 2 years ago

It's heartening to see people punished for operating in bad faith. Real scumbag behavior seems to thrive when what they do is "technically legal" but super corrosive to the social fabric. I know it's a fine line, which is why judges and other decision makers need to be wise.

dclowd9901• 2 years ago

It doesn’t seem like he was punished for litigating in bad faith but rather for lying about his grandfather dying. Lying to a judge is about the worst thing a practicing attorney can do.

dudeinjapan3• 2 years ago

Dishonesty and bad faith are cousins. Its more or less the chickens coming home to roost.

autoexec• 2 years ago

Go after the guys working for Strike 3 Holdings next!

prbuckley• 2 years ago

Fun fact Strike 3 holding files the 2nd most lawsuits annually in our federal court system (~3000), the US government is #1

ryukoposting• 2 years ago

I found out recently that a local artist was forced to cease operations because of a copyright troll. I can't imagine they're the only example of a small business getting flattened by this kind of abuse of the law.

codazoda• 2 years ago

That sounds interesting, do you have a link?

Is that because of an accusation of using a reference, or copying a reference too closely, or something like being sued for using their own work?

matheusmoreira• 2 years ago

Sony lost in court twice but destroyed at least two commercial playstation emulators in the process. They abused the legal system to disrupt the activities of other corporations by simply burning their money via legal fees until the projects they wanted to kill were no longer financially viable.

Imagine the power imbalance when one of these multi-billion dollar monopolists go after some random individual for downloading a song or something.

alexey-salmin4• 2 years ago

For years, Richard Liebowitz ran a very successful operation mostly sending threatening letters to companies claiming that they had infringed upon copyrights held by his photographer clients. Under the best of circumstances it’s a niche practice area that’s… kinda shady.

Why is it shady when done properly? Copyright violations are a valid concern for photographers.

whatshisface• 2 years ago

Toll bridge sales do occur, but if you think that's not a shady practice area, I have a bridge to sell you. :-)

alexey-salmin4• 2 years ago

That's a good example. Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of "shady" but I don't see toll bridge sales as such. It's either a perfectly legitimate deal or an outright fraud. It's not some grey area when selling toll bridge is semi-legal with courts disagreeing over whether to punish you or not.

AnthonyMouse6• 2 years ago

Why is it shady when done properly?

The issue is that it isn't.

The economics of it don't militate in favor of diligence and precision. An individual claim is rarely going to be for a lot of money so to turn it into a profitable business it requires scale. At which point they typically rely on automated systems with a significant false positive rate that don't take into account possible fair use etc. Meanwhile the coercion to settle applies just as much to an innocent party, because the premise is "pay a little to avoid an expensive court battle" which is still coercive even if you could win in court.

Practices that involve shaking down innocent people are shady.

alexey-salmin4• 2 years ago

I agree that running an automated system with a significant false positive rate is shady, it's just I don't think that this counts as "under the best circumstances".

I've seen cases of e.g. big newspapers publishing photos without permission and when asked politely to purchase a license reply that "you should be proud of your work being published in such a respectable establishment as ours". For a photographer in question an "expensive court battle" is an obstacle just the same and I have nothing against a lawyer who makes a living out of cases like this.

Karellen• 2 years ago

An individual claim is rarely going to be for a lot of money

Isn't it? I thought the MAFIAA had made it so that copyright violations incurred $150,000 in damages per work infinged?

cowsandmilk• 2 years ago

Fun thing is I’ve faced the same automation of incompetence at scale from the lawyers who run Florida’s child support system. There’s a deadbeat dad out there born 10 days before me with the same first and last name. Every time I move, the automation goes into action and it takes me hiring a lawyer remotely in Florida to get it to stop every time.

kube-system2• 2 years ago

Yeah, that sentence was an odd way to start this article. Under "the best of circumstances", sending C&Ds is a pretty damn common, normal, and boringly routine thing for a lawyer to do.

emilecantin• 2 years ago

It's true that copyright violations are a concern for photographers, however some online photographer communities really need to take a chill pill regarding copyright.

I've seen some photographers wanting to sue clients because they cropped or modified their wedding pictures when posting them online. "It doesn't reflect my style" is the argument I've seen excusing this behaviour. I understand that there's a creative aspect to photography, but in my opinion it's mostly linked to subject choice and overall aesthetic. In wedding pictures, the subject is pretty obvious and non-novel, the artistic choices around background / decoration are not made by the photographer, and (this is IMO the crucial point) the photographer is paid for their time while they create the pictures. This makes it pretty clearly a "work made for hire" in terms of copyright, which should be pretty familiar to everyone here.

Now, a photographer that goes out on their own, sees something that nobody else saw, captures it in an interesting way, makes a beautiful edit of said capture, and finally sells that picture on their website; that absolutely is creative work and wholly deserves copyright protection.

tanepiper• 2 years ago

A quick search and yea the guy looks as slimy as he sounds.

bigbillheck• 2 years ago

Looks like he should be working for a VC.

classified• 2 years ago

The headline makes it seem that being a copyright troll is grounds for disbarment. If only!

lelag• 2 years ago

This discussion [1] from last week about a Cory Doctorow article sheds interesting lights on this type practices by copyright / copyleft trolls.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39610509

willcipriano• 2 years ago

Actual footage of the lawyer being told by the bar association that he's going down for this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dJHaHwzuRTk

master-lincoln• 2 years ago

to spare others the disappointment I had when clicking: this is a video titled "The Dark Knight Rises - Bane l Tom Hardy #2"

I assume this was meant to be some pop culture joke I didn't get.

sudden_dystopia• 2 years ago

I try not to be hateful but dealing with attorneys every day will make you truly despise their profession. This brightened my day. Now if we could only disbar a couple million more.

trogdor2• 2 years ago

Fun fact: the majority of U.S. states have no procedure for permanently disbarring an attorney.

Including New York, though he has to wait seven years before he can apply for reinstatement.

~~~

See ”Should Permanent Disbarment be Permanent?”

https://web.archive.org/web/20081112072221/http://findarticl...

New York disbars infamous copyright troll

Related Stories