I am being sued for copyright infringement by photography company boxist.com

Yah, you are clean. ha ha

 

I know that some people don't respect the copyrights of others. But when a photographer or an artist contacts you and says you're using their copyrighted work without permission, and they ask you to pay for it, it's not necessarily a scam. They have the right to ask for compensation.

On the other hand, it's not too difficult to identify Fake and Scam Copyright Infringement Emails. For example, if the email is from a suspicious-looking address like "," you should check if the sender is a legitimate photographer with a real portfolio and contact information. But what if the cease and desist notice is genuine, and you have actually infringed on their copyright? In that case, just assuming it's a scam won't save you in court. It's best to consult with a lawyer and do some research to make sure you handle the situation correctly.

You can easily find information about the photographer (Sam Mugraby) and their history of filing lawsuits for copyright infringement by doing a quick search in the court system (PACER). Many photographers and photo agencies like Getty Images, Alamy, and Shutterstock regularly take legal action to protect their business from copyright infringement, and it's their right to do so.

Copyright trolls are a real issue. They actively search for unlicensed content and use the threat of legal action after copyright infringers. These trolls often send settlement letters, asking for payment to avoid going to court.

Taking advice from non-legal sources, like you, may not always be the best course of action when dealing with copyright infringement issues. and it looks like they followed advice similar to yours and got into trouble with a copyright infringement lawsuit. This lawsuit cost them a lot of money, time, and energy that could have been used for other things and could have been avoided. It's important to only listen to advice from attorneys. If you receive a letter from a copyright owner or their attorney, don't ignore it. Ignoring the letter may lead to more legal action, like a lawsuit. Ignoring the letter could also be seen as evidence that you knowingly infringed on the copyright, which might make you pay even more in damages.

They will sue you for $30,000, not the $200. The $200 offer is a way to settle the matter before going to court. It seems like they're trying to resolve the copyright infringement quickly and allow the photographer to be paid for the unauthorized use of their image. Paying $200 is a fair and reasonable amount to settle the issue.

Here's what matters, They want to prove 'willful infringement' before going to court. This means you knowingly violated their copyright, and they can show the court that you turned down a small settlement offer of 200$ from the photographer to fix the copyright issue. If they prove willful infringement, you may have to pay up to $150,000 for each work you infringed. Also, you might be responsible for the attorney's fees the copyright owner spent to protect their rights.

You are mistaken in this case. Lawyers often work on a contingency fee basis, which means they charge about 50% of any money they recover from you either through court or settlement. Also, many agencies handle copyright cases without requiring any upfront payment. For example, companies like Imagerights and CopyCat Legal offer this service. If you do a quick search, you'll find more options. This is how lawyers earn their income these days.

By the way, there's a new law called the CASE Act (Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020) that helps copyright owners pursue damages under US$30,000 for copyright violations. You can find more information about it at https://ccb.gov/faq/.