"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.
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.