Hi, I have a website with dolphin 7.4 a user uploaded a photo that has copyright in an article. A law firm called Sanders Law Firm PLLC sent a letter claiming me money for damages to his client for using his image. I replied saying that we delete the image and the user's account. Today the firm replied telling me they not mind I erase the image and want me to pay for damages or they will sue me. My website is in Houston Texas and is hosted on a dedicated server with Zarconia.net
The image is of actress Jennifer Lopez where is smoking a cigar, is posted on her Facebook here:

https://facebook.com/peopleenespanol/posts/10151860042885069?stream_ref=5

If someone can give me some advice I would greatly appreciate it. I do know what to do.

Thank You.

There are a couple of false statements in their letter.

1) The letter states this. That you knowing and without a valid license. ect. 

Well, the photo was uploaded by a member of the website. Not you, then therefor you did not know.

2) Made comericial use of our clients copyrighted material.

Well, considering you did not know to begin with, how did you make money from it? Can they prove that you made commercial use of it? Unlikely.

Unfortunately you may have to consult with an attorney, Some do pro bono work, so you may be able to find something, but i don't believe they have a solid case considering the circumstances on how the photo found it's way onto your site.

I don't think they are aware your site is a social networking site.

You will also want to review your sites terms of service section and make sure it lists specifically that you are not responsible for your members action while on the site. See facebooks terms for an example. https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms section 2 on sharing content and information, and section 5 on protecting others rights and section 15, the disputes section. You will want something similar in yours, but do not copy facebooks word for word.

Hello,

One of the things you must have in consideration is the ability to keep records of your members that way you take all the weight off your back, try at least to have a verified email address since every media you upload on your site have the verify copyright block that you must check before you upload any material, by deleting your member account you did wrong since you cant now held him accountable for their actions, another thing, unless your site is as popular as FB it is extremely unlike somebody will find their copy right material on your site so be aware of the scam I see here, because probably someone did it in order to come by later with this scene. Like Deano says find a professional but a local one that way you don't have to spend a lot of money for something stupid like this, good luck and don't lose your sleep with this stupidity, they have nothing.  

Hi Man,

Have a look here , hopefully this may help ! http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/need-an-opinion-on-a-letter-i-received/

It seems this law firm is a copyright troll, and uses fear tactics on smaller sites. Quite despicable. Generally it looks like they back off once they catch a whiff of a defense. I'll however err on the side of caution with Deano and recommend you talk to an attorney if you feel this is serious enough.

Hello everyone,

I worked for some time with lawyers and they have this cowardly habit of putting that kind of pressure on small businesses online.

They will send you a mail with the minimum and maximum amount of the fine only to reach the person psychologically (which always has a tendency to focus on the highest value) doing that kind of pressure, they know that 90% of people they do this kind of thing can not risk a legal fight.

In the end they will negotiate an amount equivalent to the price you would pay to a defense lawyer.

They simply use the law to extort people.

If you prefer to see a lawyer to calm your spirit, go ahead.

Good luck

Thank you very much for your help.

These emails are the dialogue I had with the law firm:

From: Stacy Berkowitz 

 We are in receipt of your letter dated January 13, 2015. While we appreicate you including your Terms and Conditions and Disclaimer. You have not addressed the issue of your website posting an image that my client owns the right too. Nor, have you advised if the image in question has been removed. 

RE:

Hi, I have a website with dolphin 7.4 a user uploaded a photo that has copyright in an article

I don't suppose you registered a DMCA claim infringement  agent with the US Copyright Office?  If you  have, you can just refer them to your agent and tell them to send your agent a proper DMCA takedown notice.

If you haven't done that, here's the form to send in with the $105 fee.... for the next time a copyright troll comes your way.

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/the-copyright-trolling-firm-of-sanders-law-p-l-l-c/

http://ask.metafilter.com/267531/Copyright-Troll-Legal-Notice

This kind of stuff is a good reason to have private registration on all your active domains.  I wouldn't be surprised if this scumbag "law firm" employed people to go around joining websites and posting copyrighted material, just so they could later send out these letters.

Thank Houstonlively, I think it's too late for me.

Thank you for your help.

RE:

Thank you HoustonLively,

Thanks for your advice and tomorrow I'll send the agent form.

I sincerely appreciate your help. 

Had a few of these over years. As long as you're conducting your business in good faith and act on reported violations, there may be no trouble. I generally reply with something like this:

---------

- Content in question has been been uploaded by a person we have no association with. Our site operates as an "open forum", where anyone can join our site and upload content.

- We have zero-tolerance policy to copyright violation and promptly remove any violating content, along with permanent deletion of offending account. 

- We haven't had any prior knowledge of the implied potential offence, haven't used the content in any way and upon your request removed it from our site. 

- Since your first letter is not a take-down notice (as is normally the procedure), but a claim for damages, that also conveniently correlates with the time of the content upload, we have to take into account a possibility that offending account may be associated with your firm or your client. We also have no means to verify that it wasn't your client's account in first place. Hence, to verify your claim and rule out an extortion scheme, we would like to receive from you: formal takedown notice with proof of copyright ownership; proof of no-association with the offending account; explanation of how you have found the content and our site; specific record of damages and their direct relation to the content being posted on our site; formal proof of the use of the content by our company (such as payment receipts). 

- We are keeping record of the time and any legal expenses accosted with this communication, that may be passed on to you should there be insufficient evidence of your claim or any evidence of pre-fabrication of the upload by your associates. As of now, total expenditure amount to $485. 

Very truly sincerely yours.

---------

So far, haven't heard back from any of them.

 RE:

 Well done letter.

@rugosi... Since you have already communicated with these trolls, sending them a copy of Andrew's example letter wouldn't hurt.

Had something similar happen with a client a few years ago.  I told him to replace or remove the copyrighted image and *not* respond to their emailed legal threats.  I suggested he wait for them to send legal documents by registered postal mail before contracting a lawyer to deal with it.  Nothing happened.

I sincerely appreciate your help.

You make me feel like I'm not alone.

 but isn't that copyrighted

- We have zero-tolerance policy to copyright violation and promptly remove any violating content, along with permanent deletion of offending account. 

- We haven't had any prior knowledge of the implied potential offence, haven't used the content in any way and upon your request removed it from our site. 

- Since your first letter is not a take-down notice (as is normally the procedure), but a claim for damages, that also conveniently correlates with the time of the content upload, we have to take into account a possibility that offending account may be associated with your firm or your client. We also have no means to verify that it wasn't your client's account in first place. Hence, to verify your claim and rule out an extortion scheme, we would like to receive from you: formal takedown notice with proof of copyright ownership; proof of no-association with the offending account; explanation of how you have found the content and our site; specific record of damages and their direct relation to the content being posted on our site; formal proof of the use of the content by our company (such as payment receipts). 

From: Stacy Berkowitz <SBerkowitz@bakersanders.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF COPYRIGHT IMAGE CASE# 108112
To: me

 RE:

 Now there's a fckn surprise.... they're willing to settle out of court.  This is where you cease all communication with these scumbags.  Like I said, these lowlifes don't make money by taking people to court... they make money by finding idiots that will take their "settlement offer".

I found this on another site about dealing with these very same people. I guess when they were dealing with them Stacy Berkowitz was a Lawyer not a Paralegal.

http://ask.metafilter.com/267531/Copyright-Troll-Legal-Notice

If you can't let this go then spend your energy learning about local copyright laws... particularly those dealing with "fair use" of online publishing of images owned by someone else... where the image has been uploaded, not linked to... where there was no attempt to profit from displaying it and the number of people viewing it was but a handful compared to Facebook, where the image is also displayed.  You may find their *legal* case against you is weaker than you originally thought... and that "Stacy" has thus far failed to present her client's case against you sufficiently.

BTW, was the watermark copyright note (that I see on the JL images on FB) visible on the image that was displayed on your site?  If it was, that could help you case... my understanding is if there is a proper reference from where the image came from then it helps with a reasonable attempt at "fair use".

And, important note, I'm not a lawyer so interpret what I have suggested appropriately.

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/copyright-troll-craig-b-sanders-of-sanders-law-p-l-l-c-overruns-court-system/

GOOD INFO

Baker Sanders, L.L.C.

If they REALLY intended to sue you why would be they be wasting all this time emailing back and forth? 

A few years ago I received an email from someone in the Universal Studios legal department. They demanded I hand over 10 domain names I had purchased. I responded by demanding they pay me for them. After a few months and tons of emails I got $1000 and they got 10 worthless domains that I had spent less than $100 on. I know that isn't the same situation but my point is you should never cave to an email threat.

Whoa! Still going! Like HL said, it's probably the time yo mark their address as junk sender and be done with it. 

Pay attention to what you are being told. Just leave it alone! Take a moment and think to yourself:

- Why is a paralegal threatening you with a lawsuit and not an 'real' lawyer?

- Why is someone threatening you with a lawsuit via email and not by certified mail?

- Why does this person have an email address that belongs to a DIFFERENT company that what she is claiming to represent? Why the multiple companies?

- Searching Google tells you that this 'law firm' has been harassing 100s of people a month with the SAME exact letter and settlement offers.

- Why do they tend to go after ONLY the small personal blogs/websites? (hint: They are more vulnerable. They have lost when trying against the big boys)

- Why are they so eager to 'settle' with you for $100s - $1000s of dollars?

- If you are in Texas and they are in New York, That means they would have to find a lawyer in your state to 'represent' their company, submit the paperwork for a court date and pay the filing fees up front, then attempt to get you in court and hope like hell that a judge will rule in their favor. Do you really think it's worth all that trouble for 1 picture that is no longer on your website?

Just these few things will tell you that this company is known to use scare tactics to try and get people to pay settlements.If you read some of the stories, you will see where some people received a letter even after they no longer have their websites. How? (Hint: They use software to scan the web for images of celebrities on websites that includes 'archives')

Looking at the information on this; they have file for a copyright on the images but have yet to be granted one by the US copyright office.  It appears that one can not search for applications.  However, basically they are claiming they are the copyright holders without actually holding a copyright.  However the image on People's site credits Pacific Coast News for the photo.  Of course that credit does not mean that Pacific Coast News has any claim on the photo; one should contact the agents (whatever) for Lopez.  One can not freely take photos of people and then use them for commercial use without a signed release.

It depends on how much you want to interact with these people.  I think I would replied to the last email and state that if Pacific Coast News had not been granted a copyright on the image at the time the photo appeared on your site they had no legal standing; one has to prove they hold the copyright to the image, .  One needs to know the chain of custody on the photo; was the photographer that took the image working for Pacific Coast News; or did the photographer sell the photograph to Pacific Coast News thus handing over any rights of copyright of her/his work?

Looking at the history of Sanders, they may well file a suit, it costs little to file a suit.  Copyright falls under federal law so this will be a civil suit in a federal court.  You should read up on the Civil Rules of Procedure for the federal courts; they won't be the same as for a state suit.  You need to find out the legal ways they can serve the notice of legal process; you have to be served notice of the lawsuit if they file one.

Hopefully you made copies of your site and database before you removed the content.  Looking at the pdf of the first letter, they are way too vague in their notice of the offending content.  Was the image uploaded to your server or was it just a link to the content on another site?  That is very important to know because linking is not the same as uploading to your server.  Read this: https://www.eff.org/cases/perfect-10-v-google

Before replying to them again, give us more information and maybe we can give more advice in how to proceed.

Update; Zarcon posted while I was composing; it is quite possible that the best action is no action.  You might could find a lawyer with free consultation; take all your emails to her/him if you do find one.

Thank you all for your help. I will wait and see what happens. As Epaulo says I need to learn more about copyright laws.

Thank you

Will they sue you?  They do sue; these are scumbags like the debt buyers.  So you can not just hope they go away.  If you get a notice of proceedings against you; do answer it in the proper manner.

Look at this law firm site; they claim to offer a free consultation:

http://pietzlawfirm.com/bwp-media-usa-inc-dba-pacific-coast-news-and-national-photo-group-llc-photo-copyright-infringement-lawsuits

Attorney Craig B. Sanders* has been busy filing copyright infringement lawsuits in the Central District of California on behalf of a few photo agencies. One frequent plaintiff is called BWP Media USA Inc. d/b/a Pacific Coast News.

Another frequent photo plaintiff that Mr. Sanders represents is called National Photo Group, LLC.

The Pietz Law Firm has substantial experience defending copyright infringement lawsuits of this sort.  If you have recently received a demand letter or been served with a complaint and would like to discuss your options,  attorney Morgan E. Pietz would be happy to speak with you for a free consultation.

 @geek_girl thanks for your help I will talk with the counsel you recommended, anyways is a free consultation.

About the question you made, yes the image was upload by a user was not a link.

Greetings

 Zarcon thank you very much for the time you spend giving your analysis of my situation, really I appreciate your help, and make me feel stronger to confront this problem. 

Best regards

I think this is very interesting. Please keep us updated if anything else happens.

Hello, I'll keep updating this post until my case is finished with this firm, I hope my experience will serve others to prepare their websites for claims of copyright pictures.

Also I mention that already register as an agent with the form suggested by Houstonlively. The check was cashed and I'm just waiting for a confirmation.

Since the last email they sent me I have not answered anything and I have not had any kind of contact with them.

Here I share an email received today. All comments and advice are welcome.

Please be advised that we have not received a response or payment on our settlement offer of $1000.00 that was due March 27, 2015. This offer has now been revoked and is now considered null and void.  

Please note, we have been authorized to commence suit against you and this case is now being prepped for litigation. Please be further advised that once we commence such litigation, we will seek the maximum statutory damages available to our client, and will start to accrue legal costs and attorney's fees for which you may ultimately be responsible. 

If you intend to have an attorney represent you, please provide me with their name, address, phone and email address as soon as possible. If I do not receive that information by the end of business tomorrow, I will assume you are electing not to have counsel at this point in time and will proceed accordingly. 

This letter is without prejudice to all rights and remedies afforded our client under statute and common law, all of which are expressly reserved. 

GG,

do you know what the judge ruled on this case

It looks more like this could be an issue.

Yes they are trolling but their client which is not mentioned is People Magazine, who owns the photo, period.

http://www.peopleenespanol.com/

The image, 

Crédito: Pacific Coast News/The Grosby Group

They actively have pursed these for years now and win.

Below information is from http://copyright-trolls.com/site/copyright-troll-craig-b-sanders-of-sanders-law-p-l-l-c-overruns-court-system/

There is sure to be much more commentary on this latest troll Sanders Law, P.L.L.C. Seems they have filed over 100 copyright infringement suits as of late over posting of celebrity photos, many of these postings have been on forum type sites, where 3rd party users have the ability to upload images, and some of these sites clearly have DMCA Registered Agents, But Sanders Law doesn’t care to do the footwork required under DMCA, they just go ahead and file suit. I wonder how long it will be before the courts see these asshats as trolls? We all know fair-use is a pretty grey area, but I’d be willing to bet that some of these cases will fail based on fair use, never mind the fact that Sanders Law P.L.L.C. doesn’t adhere to the rule governing DMCA, but many of these forum type sites are commenting on shows, actors, actresses, which “might” be fair use.. Much more to come, as I've just begun digging into this..

As a side note it looks like BWP Media Inc. is a fairly new company and doing business as Pacific Coast News and National Photo Group, LLC . National Photo Group, LLC is already known in the copyright troll circles.

 Here you go: http://www.scribd.com/doc/253553479/RKCC-Defeats-BWP-Media-Claim#scribd

People on here telling you to ignore this were not the ones to listen to.  Listen to the Geek Girl.  They will sue you and I told you that because that is what they do.  You may be able to win against them as in this case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/253553479/RKCC-Defeats-BWP-Media-Claim#scribd

However, are you prepared to learn how to write and file briefs; learn the rules of civil procedure for federal courts?  Believe me that takes a lot of time.  Or you have to hire an attorney to do these things for you.  Did you talk to that attorney that offered a free consultation?  Considering what attorneys cost, it would probably have been better to just pay them.

Instead of ignoring them, you should have asked them to send you the document of the settlement agreement so that you could have your attorney to peruse it.  That would have brought you a little more time to work on this or to raise the funds to pay the settlement.

You forgot the golden rule, all lawyers are arseholes, some are just bigger arseholes than others.

They still have to prove they are the copyright owners; just because they claim they filed an application does not mean the own the copyright, until the copryright office actually issues the copyright, they are not legal copyright holders of the said photo.  They have to grant your or your lawyers' request for discovery.  I hope this turns out good for you, I really do.

Read the case linked to above and see if you can find an attorney to help you out.

Go here; join the forum,

extortionletterinfo.com

Look dude ,

Play the poor guy, try it , send them a letter and say that your a family man , not a business and you don't have money and your site just a hobby and you can't afford to pay 1000$ and you have lot of debt and instead you can afford to pay between 400$ to 500$ as it  will be donated . And lesson is learned .

If they are after money they will accept that offer .

And if they did make sure they send you formal paper with that price in it and read it carefully and sign it and free yourself.

Hi listen i know this is crazy but if i was you this is what i will do.

The Law people Like Uncle Sam they want your Money. There's no such free Fully Consultation ! Partial Consultation exist and the rest is $$ and if they case get bigger the more $$ you will fork.

At the end of the day , They have the right to sue you and until now they got you from the Balls !

Nothing to loose try it .

Finish your email with God bless America !

 Note : if they do have a branch in your area go down and see them , they will not eat you !

I agree with this, make a counter offer and they will probably accept it; remember they will have to have someone going to court and such and they want easy returns.

They are scum suckers, worst that most scum sucking lawyers.  However, they are known to sue often.  Their evidence is weak; that is why they lost in the case cited above.  A good lawyer could win for you but it is going to cost you in lawyers fees unless you want to try it on your own and I will tell you now, the court system in the USA is an ol' boys network; you will lose even if you are right without a lawyer.

Yeah... Go ahead and send them sob story letters and make counter offers... nothing like a little more self incrimination to help your cause.  If you follow those incredibly stupid suggestions, you deserve to be sued.

Hi, I'm not in the USA but even here we have copyright laws but also laws that protect online service providers (OSP) as the more I read this the more I feel this is just a ploy from this law firm to make money from their clients in fees by telling them they have a strong case and in the hope that the OSP (you the site owner) will pay the so called demanded amount to end this a avoid bad publicity as well as counting on the fact that you don't have the money to fight them in court.

There is a law that protects OSP called (Online Copyright Infringement liability Limitation Act) Under that act which protects OSP (you) from what 3rd party users do, the so called copyright owner must provide proof actual hard core undoubtable proven fact that you yourself as the site owner OSP actually downloaded that file from their website onto your website and not some 3rd part user on your website. You would have logs on your server which would be able to show all that (if you haven't deleted your server logs that is) thus which IP address/user account downloaded which file from where at what time etc etc.

They would also have to prove that you actually copied that image from their mentioned website, They would also have to prove that this image is NOT being used on any other website on the internet in the world other than where this so called copyright owner owns that account where this image is being displayed. And I could go on with at least another 20 or more scenarios which would need to be proved before any claim could even be thought of but I hope you get the idea here. 

 Write to them and request they send you all this proof that you your self actually committed these act.

The online fair usage act also states that for any copyright material to be actually deemed 100% copyright material the owner must take all possible measures to protect their copyrighted material like, Make that product None Clickable, make it None Downloadable, Place a message/sign (C) with that product that this is a copyrighted item and as such protected.

Lawyers play on scare tactics because their lawyers and your a nobody. Know and understand your writes as a site owner to start with, write appropriate T&C's and Privacy policies and make them clearly visible, make your whole website none right clickable which would also protect your users and again I could keep going on here but I hope you get the idea.

  NOTE;

To many so called webmasters want to start up websites on the internet (no so much a bad thing) but in this day age an online actual business has the same rights as any brick and mortar business which means you as the site owner need to understand the laws and insure yourself against them, If your website offers world wide usage then you need to know the laws of all the those countries your website is displayed in and write your policies to counter act their laws and protect yourself as many countries have different things/laws they do not accept. If your serious about your website and business then these things should be become second nature to you and if this is just a hobby then creating a social network site is not for you, find something that doesn't involve world wide or public uploading/downloading usage (not trying to be rude here, just stating plain hard facts of life in the real business world).

NOTE 2. In the future when a lawyer contacts you and threatens to sue you what ever reason, DODN'T deal with it yourself if you have no actual knowledge of the laws as it's far cheaper to pay a couple of hundred to a real lawyer for a consultation on the next step to take should there be any and save yourself time and money by taking with you "proof". Next here we have a law that any business whether brick and mortar or online must keep all records for at least 5yrs which means deleting old, unused etc accounts becomes illegal to do, thus the reason everyone with an .com.au URL address must be registered as a business owner, .com URL's are subject to nothing more than public entertainment for fraud, mis-usage and just about anybody who wants to think their somebody which is why the internet is sure a mess.

Anyway! the bottom line here m8 is you do have rights and more than you actually think you do, find out what they are in your area and use them to protect yourself and stop acting like a scared little lost boy with nowhere to go. Dealing with the law is called (being in the real world).

What you don't seem to understand is that these are the scum of arsehole lawyers and they have sued hundreds upon hundreds; they are counting on him not being able to afford his own arsehole lawyer; yes, I despise lawyers.  So they sue; cheap to file even in federal court, and if he does not answer the civil suit they will win a default judgement.  Therefore, he either learns how to file briefs and motions; or hire an arsehole lawyer that will charge plenty to do it and he may still lose.  Perhaps if he had never answered; however, he did, so that is a moot point.  I would offer a counter settlement; tell them you have been sick and unable to respond; they may or may not give some credence but it may help.  Offer $500.00, they may come back with something higher but lower than the grand they first offered.

They have no evidence; that is clear and will be even clearer when you get to the discovery phase.  However, I think if you can get them to settle for $500 you will be ahead in the game in the long run; and you are setting up the DMCA so you will be protected from them in the future.

I understand that they may have sued hundreds, or even thousands.  They probably send threatening letters to ten times whatever number they actually sued.  The ones they sue are likely the ones they know they have running scared... like the ones that "make counter offers" or continue to communicate.  The more you communicate with scavengers, the more you are playing their game.... and that is just plain dumb.

WOW!!!!

everyone sure must be making a LOT of money here that the first idea is to get a lawyer to handle a few idle threats from someone that could just as easily be uploading the copyrighted photo themselves and then threatening to sue you for hosting said photo....

there is a reason that they call organized crime "organized".

if the photo is taken down, "forget about it"!

the cost to "sue for damages" would far outweigh any expected recovery.  So, the only money any of these people ever recover is from some webmaster running scared. don't run!

on the second point--- did you mention something about a cigar? were there any "satirical comments" made about J Lo and the cigar?

Satire and Parody are VERY protected forms of speech here in the good old USA! (google it)

stop the worry.....

and tell them to go make babies with themselves...

cheers

It would be nice to have a lawyer that would at least consult with you; however, the internet can help you to learn how to write legal documents.  It would have been best to have done this at the beginning but it can be done now.

Here is the site of the US Copyright information: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

1. In order for you to have infringed on their copyright they must be the holders of the copyright (or in this case their client).  They claimed they have file for a copyright but have yet to be granted one.  Ask for discovery on this; one can not search for applications at the copyright office; I tried and there is no form there to find applications.  So this is a grey area; they could actually be denied the copyright.  Research if one can sue during an application.  Request discovery from them asking them to provide the application for the copyright.  Providing you with an application number you can not search and retrieve is worthless; demand a copy of the application itself.  They may have no legal standing to sue until they are actually granted the copyright. 

2. In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or (2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

They asked for a settlement of $1000.00.  If you are not making any profit from your site then you earned no profits for them to claim.  Then it falls to actual damages; which would be the royalty fees they charge for use of the photo.  You should determine what is that fee.  If they sue, they most likely will ask for attorneys fees.

Under the law, the fines for infringement can range from $200 to $150000.  I doubt if the court would award anything near the upper range.  Of course it is the attorney's fees that can hurt.

I would have to go back and look at the emails you provided again but if you have not admitted that the photo was uploaded to the site, then you could claim that it was merely linked from an outside source; the courts have ruled that linking is not infringement.  They have provided little in the way of proof, a poor copy of a website page is not proof, I could easily do the same of the lawyer's website showing some photo on the page;   So if you have not admitted it was uploaded by a member in an email they can produce in court, then claimed it was a linked image.  If you have backups of your site with the image, download that backup to a local machine and remove the backup; I doubt if they would go so far as to get a court order to search your server but this is how this game is played.  If you have already admitted to such, then you can not play this card.

I don't know if this is relevant to your case, but you might want to check out "Copyright Fair Use". 

Interesting stuff about embedding and how this is not copyright infringement because it is merely a link to another page. In the case referenced up thread the plaintiff only ever had some form of screen capture of the image. Now way to know from that if it was hosted on the defendant's site or a link to the plaintiff's site. 

This is plainly a shakedown for cash. No point in appealing to the good nature of the law firm. They may be acting on behalf of the image owner but the law firm profits from every interaction between you and the firm, whether you or the rights owner pays. 

Interacting with the law firm was the not the best move because you made it clear that you were prepared to assume the role of victim. Right now you need some qualified advice, even if you research and carry out some or all of the following activities yourself. You placed yourself in a funnel, getting out of the funnel is likely to be less easy than getting in. 

Geezus GG ..... give it a rest already.