Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Sending
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
Stanford Center for Internet & Society
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Derivative Works > Notices > Notice of Copyright Infringement Printer-friendly version

July 2, 2003

 

Sender Information:
Les Kelly Enterprises
Sent by: Leslie A. Kelly
[Private]
Huntington Beach, CA, 92649, USA

Recipient Information:
[Private]
American Cigar Cabinets, Inc.
Plymouth, IN, 46563, USA


Sent via: FedEx
Re: Notice of Copyright Infringement

Les Kelly Enterprises

Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1765
E-mail: leskelly@

July 2, 2003

Don E. Green II
President
American Cigar Cabinets, Inc.


Plymouth, IN 46563

Gregory A. Payne
Secretary
American Cigar Cabinets, Inc.

Plymouth, IN 46563

Randy Burkholder
Pages-Online.com

Plymouth, IN 46563

Re: Website American Cigar Cabinets, Inc.
Notice of Copyright Infringement
Demand for Profit and Damages

Dear Don Green, Gregory A. Payne and Randy Burkholder:

I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Doyle Yoder, President, DYP, Inc., Berlin, Ohio, regarding the use of two images at the website of American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. Mr. Yoder and I became aware recently of the illegal use of two of his images that appear prominently at http://www.amcigcab.com.


The purpose of my letter is to advise you that use of two of his images, with a double use of one for a total of three uses, to create the connection between American Cigar Cabinets, Inc., the furniture that you sell, the Amish lifestyle and the reputation of the Amish for excellent craftsmanship is not a licensed use. Your use of the three images (the main image on your splash that you use to advertise and promote your company?s ?Amish Craftsmanship?; the icon and full size use of the Amish buggy framed against the sunset at the Ordering page; and the icon and use Amish buggy framed against the sunset as a link to Amish Woodworking http://www.amishwoodworking.com) is a violation of US Copyright Law (17 USC ?100 et al).

Mr. Yoder is an internationally acclaimed photographer of the Amish. The grandson of Amish, he lives and works in the Amish settlement in Holmes County, Ohio. Yoder has documented the Amish Lifestyle throughout North America. Mr. Yoder publishes a yearly calendar, Amish Country, and numerous other Amish related publications. Mr. Yoder and I have co-written, co-illustrated and published two photo books about the Amish in the US and Canada, America?s Amish Country (1992) and America?s Amish Country II (2000).

Mr. Yoder has authorized me to bring this matter to your attention and attempt to negotiate a favorable monetary resolution to this matter. It is not our intent to attempt to shut down your business or pursue a lawsuit in a Federal Court. We seek only to negotiate a fair settlement for your profit earned from and for damages that are the result of your illegal use of Mr. Yoder?s images to create an Amish connection to American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. Embedding the name of American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. in Mr. Yoder?s image use on the front page of the website and your use of his image with text at the Ordering page to create the ambiance of an ?Amish Country? website is particularly egregious.

Yoder is alleging direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement of his images.

Please note that while I am not an Attorney. I have extensive knowledge of copyright infringement law and have successfully reached settlements in various copyright infringement matters through negotiation as well as through the filing of lawsuits. I am also the Owner of NetCopyrightLawSM Net Consulting Services and operate a website at http://netcopyrightlaw.com. You can find information about Mr. Yoder?s concerns with your use at this website. You will also find further information about some of the settlements at http://netcopyrightlaw.com/settlements.asp. In my more than ten years of active copyright infringement work, I?ve seen only a few cases of theft of images as egregious as this one.

United States Copyright Law grants exclusive rights to the creator of an image for use of the original image as well as other potential or actual uses of derivatives of that image [17 USC ?106]. When that exclusive right has been infringed, the creator may elect to claim actual profits earned by the infringer as a direct result of their infringement or may elect to seek statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringing use if the infringement is proven to be willful on the part of the defendant. [See 17 USC ?504(b) and (c) at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504] Legal fees may be recovered for a successful action brought by a plaintiff. [See 17 USC ?505]

We make special note that American Cigar Cabinets, Inc., incorporated in the State of Indiana, and Individual Officers of American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. are liable for the actions of the Corporation, and none are excluded from liability by 17 USC ?100 et seq.

Mr. Yoder has placed a visible, legally correct copyright notice on each published usage of his image of Amish farm buildings with buggies in his Amish Country 1997 Calendar. For this reason, based on copyright law, anyone who uses his images illegally may not benefit from a claim of ?innocent infringement?. [See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc] This calendar, and all images therein, has been copyright registered with the U.S. Library of Congress? Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. since May 21, 1996. The copyright registration is VA-754-445.

Mr. Yoder has placed a visible, legally correct copyright notice on each published usage of the image of an Amish buggy framed by a sunset in his Amish Country 2000 Calendar. For this reason, based on copyright law, anyone who uses his image illegally may not benefit from a claim of ?innocent infringement?. [See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc] This calendar, and all images therein, has been copyright registered with the U.S. Library of Congress? Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. since May 26, 1999. The copyright registration is VA-995-483.

Mr. Yoder has not granted Don Green, Gregory Payne and American Cigar Cabinets, Inc., or Randy Burkholder and Pages On-Line.com any rights to use of any of his original images. It is clear that Mr. Yoder has never granted license to any of his images specifically found in his Amish Country 1997 Calendar or his Amish Country 2000 Calendar. Your creation and use of derivatives, based on your display in a commercial setting, is a willful and egregious violation of Mr. Yoder?s rights as outlined in 17 USC ?106 et seq.

After review of your use of Mr. Yoder?s images at http://amcigcab.com, it is clear that the main logo image of Amish farm buildings with buggies was scanned from the Cover or April 1997, manipulated and had the ?American Cigar Cabinets? name and its slogan ?Amish Craftsmanship? embedded therein and assigned image name ?head372128.jpg? and appears at http://www.amcigcab.com/head372128.jpg;

and the sunset image was scanned from the back of the 2000 calendar, manipulated and assigned image name ?buggy212146.jpg? and appears at http://www.amcigcab.com/gifs/buggy212146.jpg

and a second use was made of this image by manipulating it and creating a derivative with the name Amish Woodworking embedded thereon and used as an icon to link from http://www.amcigcab.com to http://www.amishwoodworking.com. This unlicensed is a willful and egregious violation of Mr. Yoder?s rights to exclusive creation of derivatives of his images.

It is appears that American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. either manipulated (or directed the manipulation of) these images to hide their true ownership for the personal gain of its owners. This is a serious violation of Mr. Yoder?s rights. US Copyright Law at 17 USC ?1201 through ?1204 allows the Court to sentence violators to prison terms of five years and fines of up to $500,000 for the first offense for removal of copyright management information.

It appears that American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. offers its goods and services throughout the Continental United States; therefore it offers to do business outside the State of Indiana as a routine matter and is subject to laws that govern commerce in other states, to include Ohio and California.

Based on our extensive research, and copies produced of the website, and attached, Mr. Yoder and I have reason to believe that American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. has used Mr. Yoder?s images since early 1999. We have documented use from October 2000 forward. Given the extensive potential sales volume during these four years, we believe that actual net profits, attributed to your high profile use of Yoder?s images at American Cigar Cabinets, Inc., could readily exceed $750,000. If this were proven in a court of law, based upon discovery of subpoenaed company records, Mr. Yoder would be entitled to a judgment in that amount.

Mr. Yoder?s images are used on each and every page of American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. website at http://www.amcigcab.com. In fact, there are at least 55 individual uses of the sunset image within the website?s product display pages. This would place all sales and profits for the operation of American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. within the scope of 17 USC ?504 (b). In addition to profits, Yoder is also additionally entitled to damages to his copyrighted images. The exposure to the general public is quite significant, with worldwide reach via the Internet. We have located the images at the Google.com Image Search, AltaVista.com Image Search and PicSearch.com. Illegal use by American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. only increases potential downloading by others since Yoder?s Notice of Copyright is missing from your usage and only serves to increase the damage to Mr. Yoder?s images.

Your long term and extensive use of Yoder?s images at American Cigar Cabinets, Inc., created without permission and used without Mr. Yoder?s knowledge until their recent discovery, has created a significant financial liability for American Cigar Cabinets, Inc.

It appears from our review of the evidence readily available at the website that American Cigar Cabinets, Inc. has conspired to steal Yoder?s images and hide their theft by creating derivatives of his images and removing copyright management information. That information is now posted at http://netcopyrightlaw.com.

Don Green, Gregory A. Payne and Randy Burkholder, I welcome the opportunity to discuss a proper monetary resolution to this matter. I would anticipate that you might have questions about copyright law and your potential financial liability in this matter. I would encourage you to contact an Attorney who practices intellectual property law. I would be pleased to discuss with you or your Attorney a reasonable monetary settlement and a potential licensing arrangement that would be mutually beneficial.

Please note, however, that if your position is such that you will not consider discussion of a monetary settlement, or if I do not hear from you or your Attorney within ten days of your receipt of this letter and attachments, Mr. Yoder is prepared to file a lawsuit in the appropriate Federal Court, alleging direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, under the authorities noted and seek profits and damages in excess of $500,000.

Sincerely yours,


Leslie A. Kelly
President
Les Kelly Enterprises
NetCopyrightLawSM Net Consulting Services

 
FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: What kinds of things are copyrightable?

Answer: In order for material to be copyrightable, it must be original and must be in a fixed medium.

Only material that originated with the author can support a copyright. Items from the public domain which appear in a work, as well as work borrowed from others, cannot be the subject of an infringement claim. Also, certain stock material might not be copyrightable, such as footage that indicates a location like the standard shots of San Francisco in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Also exempted are stock characters like the noisy punk rocker who gets the Vulcan death grip in Star Trek IV.

The requirement that works be in a fixed medium leaves out certain forms of expression, most notably choreography and oral performances such as speeches. For instance, if I perform a Klingon death wail in a local park, my performance is not copyrightable. However, if I film the performance, then the film is copyrightable.

Single words and short phrases are generally not protected by copyright, even when the name has been "coined" or newly-created by the mark owner. Logos that include original design elements can be protected under copyright or under trademark. Otherwise, words, phrases and titles may be protected only by trademark, however.


[back to notice text]


Question: Who may hold a copyright?

Answer: A copyright ordinarily vests in the creator or creators of a work (known as the author(s)), and is inherited as ordinary property. Copyrights are freely transferrable as property, at the discretion of the owner. 17 U.S.C. ?201(a), (d). In some cases, however, the actual creator is not considered the author of the work for copyright purposes: if a work is created by an employee in the regular course of her employment, it is considered a "work for hire" and the employer, not the employee, is considered the "author" of the work for copyright purposes. For example, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a staff writer for a newspaper does not hold the copyrights in her product, the newspaper does. This only applies to works created in the ordinary course of employment: if the same reporter writes a novel in her spare time, she herself owns that copyright.

Certain commissioned works may also be considered works for hire. 17 U.S.C. ?201(b); Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989). The term "work for hire" is defined in 17 U.S.C. ?101.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is copyright infringement? Are there any defenses?

Answer: Infringement occurs whenever someone who is not the copyright holder (or a licensee of the copyright holder) exercises one of the exclusive rights listed above.

The most common defense to an infringement claim is "fair use," a doctrine that allows people to use copyrighted material without permission in certain situations, such as quotations in a book review. To evaluate fair use of copyrighted material, the courts consider four factors:


  1. the purpose and character of the use
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work
  3. the amount and substantiality of copying, and
  4. the market effect.

(17 U.S.C. 107)

The most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth, effect on the market. If a copier's use supplants demand for the original work, then it will be very difficult for him or her to claim fair use. On the other hand, if the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report, it is more likely to be permitted as "fair use."

Trademarks are generally subject to fair use in two situations: First, advertisers and other speakers are allowed to use a competitor's trademark when referring to that competitor's product ("nominative use"). Second, the law protects "fair comment," for instance, in parody.


[back to notice text]


Question: What rights are protected by copyright law?

Answer: The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative work by granting a temporary monopoly in an author's original creations. This monopoly takes the form of six rights in areas where the author retains exclusive control. These rights are:

(1) the right of reproduction (i.e., copying),
(2) the right to create derivative works,
(3) the right to distribution,
(4) the right to performance,
(5) the right to display, and
(6) the digital transmission performance right.

The law of copyright protects the first two rights in both private and public contexts, whereas an author can only restrict the last four rights in the public sphere. Claims of infringement must show that the defendant exercised one of these rights. For example, if I create unauthorized videotape copies of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and distribute them to strangers on the street, then I have infringed both the copyright holder's rights of reproduction and distribution. If I merely re-enact The Wrath of Khan for my family in my home, then I have not infringed on the copyright. Names, ideas and facts are not protected by copyright.

Trademark law, in contrast, is designed to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of goods (as well as to protect the trademark owner's market). To this end, the law gives the owner of a registered trademark the right to use the mark in commerce without confusion. If someone introduces a trademark into the market that is likely to cause confusion, then the newer mark infringes on the older one. The laws of trademark infringement and dilution protect against this likelihood of confusion. Trademark protects names, images and short phrases.

Infringement protects against confusion about the origin of goods. The plaintiff in an infringement suit must show that defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause such a confusion. For instance, if I were an unscrupulous manufacturer, I might attempt to capitalize on the fame of Star Trek by creating a line of 'Spock Activewear.' If consumers could reasonably believe that my activewear was produced or endorsed by the owners of the Spock trademark, then I would be liable for infringement.

The law of trademark dilution protects against confusion concerning the character of a registered trademark. Suppose I created a semi-automatic assault rifle and marketed it as 'The Lt. Uhura 5000.' Even if consumers could not reasonably believe that the Star Trek trademark holders produced this firearm, the trademark holders could claim that my use of their mark harmed the family-oriented character of their mark. I would be liable for dilution.


[back to notice text]


Question: Can I post a copyrighted image on my website?

Answer: Maybe. In order to determine whether you can post a copyrighted image on your website, a court would apply the four factor fair use analysis.

First, it is important to determine the purpose and character of the use. If the use is commercial in nature, rather than for nonprofit education purposes, it less likely to be considered a fair use. To determine if it is commercial, a court would consider whether the use was exploitative and for direct profit, or if instead any commercial character was incidental. Also, if the use is transformative and for a different purpose than the original work, it is more likely the first factor will weigh in favor of finding a fair use. For example, in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, the court found that posting "thumbnail" images on a website was a fair use because such images served a different purpose than the original images.

Second, the court would consider the nature of the copyrighted work. The reproduction of a predominantly factual work is more likely to be considred a fair use than the reproduction of a highly creative one.

Third, it is important to consider the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copyrighted image used. This inquiry looks at not only the quantity, but also on the expressive value, of the portion used. If a large amount of the original image is copied, or if the portion copied is substantially significant to the work as a whole, it is less likely the court will find such copying to be a fair use.

Finally, the most important factor in this inquiry is the effect of the use on the potential market for the copyright owner's work. If posting the image on the website leads to a reduction in sales of the copyrighted work or discourages people from accessing the copyright owner's website, a court is more likely to find that the use is not fair and has an adverse impact on the copyright owner's market.

These four factors will be evaluated by a court in a factual inquiry to determine whether the posting of the image would constitute a fair use.


[back to notice text]


Question: How can a webmaster directly infringe copyright?

Answer: Courts are split on whether an operator of a web site that simply acts as a conduit for others to share information may be found directly liable for copyright infringement. Though technically, even a passive operator violates the copyright holder's exclusive right to distribute and display their materials, most courts have required an affirmative step by the operator to further the infringement. Thus creating and maintaining a system where others may post pirated software and information that helps others obtain pirated software would not generally be sufficient whereby actively participating and encouraging the piracy would be. Posting any tools which help users circumvent copy protection ("cracker utilities") is also prohibited by ?1201 of the DMCA, see Anticircumvention (DMCA).


[back to notice text]


Question: What is contributory infringement?

Answer: The other form of indirect infringement, contributory infringement, requires (1) knowledge of the infringing activity and (2) a material contribution -- actual assistance or inducement -- to the alleged piracy.

Posting access codes from authorized copies of software, serial numbers, or other tools to assist in accessing such software may subject you to liability. Providing a forum for uploading and downloading any copyrighted file or cracker utility may also be contributory infringement. Even though you may not actually make software directly available on your site, providing assistance (or supporting a forum in which others may provide assistance) in locating unauthorized copies of software, links to download sites, server space, or support for sites that do the above may contributorily infringe.

To succeed on a contributory infringement claim, the copyright owner must show that the webmaster or service provider actually knew or should have known of the infringing activity.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is vicarious liability?

Answer: Vicarious liability, a form of indirect copyright infringement, is found where an operator has (1) the right and ability to control users and (2) a direct financial benefit from allowing their acts of piracy. User agreements or Acceptable Use Policies may be evidence of an operator's authority over users. The financial benefit may include a subscription fee, advertising revenues, or even a bartered exchange for other copyrighted. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, you may be found liable even if you do not have specific knowledge of infringing acts occurring on your site.


[back to notice text]


Question: How can I find out whether a work has a registered copyright?

Answer: Works are copyrighted as soon as they are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," but some legal rights and remedies are available only if the work's copyright is registered. To find a copyright registration, you may search copyright records at the Copyright Office website, but be aware that not finding a match does not mean the work is uncopyrighted.


[back to notice text]


Question: Do plot synopses and reproductions of photographs infringe on copyrights?

Answer: A plot synopsis may or may not infringe on a copyright, depending on whether the court finds that the use of original material is fair use. Photographs are protected by the copyright holder's rights to both reproduce and display his work, and this right may be violated by posting those photographs on the Internet.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the possible penalties for copyright infringement?

Answer: Under the Copyright Act, penalties for copyright infringement can include:

  1. an injunction against further infringement -- such as an order preventing the infringer from future copying or distribution of the copyrighted works
  2. impounding or destruction of infringing copies
  3. damages -- either actual damages and the infringer's profits, or statutory damages
  4. costs and attorney's fees

A copyright owner can only sue for infringement on a work whose copyright was registered with the Copyright Office, and can get statutory damages and attorney's fees only if the copyright registration was filed before infringement or within three months of first publication. (17 U.S.C. 411 and 412)


[back to notice text]


Question: What if I need to contact an attorney?

Answer: This website is meant as an aid to help you decipher Cease and Desist notices so you can make informed decisions about your course of action. If, after reading this, you think the C&D you received might have some merit, or you think you might engage your opponent in battle even if the C&D is, in your opinion, baseless, consultation with an intellectual property attorney is always a good idea. You can find an intellectual property attorney at www.martindale.com or by calling your state or local Bar Association and asking for a referral.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is "intellectual property"?

Answer: Intellectual property refers to the rights one has in the product of one's intellect. This includes copyright (rights in creative expression)and patents (rights in inventions, discoveries, methods, compositions of matter, etc.) which are granted by article I, section 8 clause 8 of the US Constitution which gives Congress the power to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Related rights include trademark (rights in the names one uses to identify one's goods and services), trade secret (confidential business practices), unfair trade practice, passing off, trade libel, false advertising, misappropriation. Laws protecting most of these rights exist at both the state and federal level. "Proprietary rights" is just a general term meaning "one's own rights."


[back to notice text]


Question: Does a cease and desist letter recipient have a duty to remove materials alleged to infringe copyright?

Answer: The cease and desist letter gives its recipient ("you") notice that someone is claiming something you've done or something on your site infringes a copyright. If the materials that are the subject of the notice are in fact infringing, then you do have a duty to remove them, although there may be statutory provisions (DMCA Safe Harbor) that protect you from a lawsuit if the materials were posted by someone else. You may have to give the poster notice of the complaint.

If you do not believe that the materials are infringing, or if you believe that you are making fair use of the materials, you may choose to take the risk of not removing the materials, but a lawsuit might follow in which the complainer tries to prove they they are right and you are wrong. If the accuser obtains a court order, then you must take down the materials.


Topic maintained by Stanford Center for Internet & Society

Topic Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - www.chillingeffects.org
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts