Oct 20

Trolling Pattern Emerges with Joel Albrizio of AdLife Marketing


preparedfood_logoAs more Joel Albrizio extortion demand letter victims come forward, there seems to be many with a recurring theme and comments. Ironically, iStockphoto.com has been mentioned multiple times. Ironic because iStock is owned by the KING of copyright trolls Getty Images.

The pattern thus far seems to be of people that have properly licensed images with iStock are now receiving demand letters demanding $8,000.00 for a purported infringement from Adlife Marketing/ PreparedFoodPhotos.com and CEO Joel Albrizio.

From what we know at this time, Joel Albrizio and Adlife Marketing at one point in time were a contributor with iStock, that relationship apparently soured, which is when PreparedFoodPhotos.com was born and brought online.

My opinion based on posted comments and people I have directly spoken with, is that Adlife Marketing CEO scumbag Joel Albrizio search and find sites using their images by whatever means. When images are found and they see no license purchased through PreparedFoodPhotos.com, the $8,000.00 extortion letter is drafted and sent. Keep in mind the letters seem to get sent regardless of whether the user obtained a license from iStock or elsewhere, there seems to be little vetting or checking of anything. Sounds almost like Getty Images, but Joel Albrizio really takes the cake demanding $8,000.00 for images that are sold for $20.00 – $30.00.

These images may or may not be still available via iStock, we are working on confirming this,but I have confirmed that some of the images in question appear here. 

I got one of these letter from these scamming opportunistic pieces of shit Joel Abrizio & his son … what a shit team. Here’s what you do:

1) Ignore it and do not engage them. They cannot sue you for this as you legally licensed the image via iStock.
2) Contact iStock photo with your demand letter. they will walk you through how to get them to go away & provide you with language from their legal team if you would like to send it to AdLife.

AdLife was an iStock contributor and pulled all their content a while back. They are searching the internet for these images so they can falsely send demand letters and scare people into paying.

Be sure to continue reading for my recommendations of dealing with these assholes!

I also received one of these letters to pay $8,000 for copyright infringement from Adlife. This is a false claim and I have never used the photos that they said that I had infringed. I have reasoned with Joel over the phone and via email but he still won’t back down from this bogus claim of infringement . This company is a complete sham! Jeremy Howard who is Joel Albrizio’s right hand man sent me an email link that is infected with malware. This is a phishing scam meant to gain information from you. I called the city of Pawtucket and the BBB and they have never even heard of this company. Beware!

I called iStockPhoto this morning and the rep I spoke to knew exactly who Joel Abrizio is, and said they’ve received a bunch of complaints about this guy. I sent her the screenshot of the account page showing proof of purchase, along with Joel Abrizio’s extortion letter that he sent to my client. She’s going to add it to their list of growing complaints, and send us a cease and desist letter we can forward to him.

It also appears that Joel Albrizio / AdLife Marketing will and have turned at least some of these cases over to collection if people fail to make his completely stupid demand amount… THIS IS MOST LIKELY ILLEGAL! This fucktard and his cohorts have no right to send an “invoice” much less involve “collections”.
This is not a debt! This is a claim, one which hasn’t even been proven. Joel Albrizio should now be on alert that folks will be urged to file complaints with the FTC as well as the Rhode Island Attorney General.

You can file a complaint to the attorney general online right here: https://riag.wufoo.com/forms/q1851amb1bdd4d5/

and the FTC Consumer Complaint page: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/#&panel1-1

Oct 19


Court documents don’t lie!

adlife-logoIMHO Joel Albrizio can be as slippery as an eel, sneaky and underhanded… the more I learn the more I distrust this self serving scumbag… I’m not going to waste too much time commenting on this suit, readers can make their own judgement, but I do find it interesting that most if not all of the plaintiffs, were “terminated” before getting the chance to quit being employed by AdLife Marketing.

Oct 19

AdLife Marketing CEO Joel Abrizio reaches out to yours truly

Joel Albrizio might have sour grapes

Joel Albrizio Adlife Marketing CEO might have sour grapes

My Telephone Conversation With Joel Albrizio

I had the distinct privilege to speak directly with Joel Albrizio, Owner/CEO of AdLife Marketing about 2 weeks ago, I’ve taken this time to ponder our conversation, as well as pondering if I would share our talk with the general public, hence this new post.

It was 2 days after my original post, calling out Joel Albrizio and AdLife Marketing for being a douche-bag and copyright troll, over the outrageous demand letters his company sends with his name on them, I knew as soon as the phone rang it was him, as the caller ID showed a MA. number, and I know very few people in that area.
Please keep in mind I did not record our conversation, and my comments may not be in the exact order in which they happened.

Joel opened the conversation by stating he wanted to have a civilized conversation, he seemingly doesn’t like my use of certain language or me calling him a fucktard, douche-bag etc.. I informed Joel I did not promise to not call him names, as his ilk really pissed me off, and he can’t get by my colorful language, that’s just to bad.

We spoke about copyright, and copyright enforcement, and we did agree on several points, such as copyright owners having the right to enforce their copyright to protect their IP, I drove home the point (which mostly fell on deaf ears), that it wasn’t the fact that AdLife Marketing was attempting to protect their copyrights, rather it was the overbroad methods used….extremely high demands, with threats of pending lawsuits, which triggered me and others calling him and his company out as copyright trolls…that title still remains.

Joel Albrizio / AdLife Marketing “claims” they have tried sending letters requesting more reasonable amounts, with no success. He also claims the $8000.00 demand amount takes into account of researching, finding, and addressing the supposed infringements… Sorry Joel Albrizio, no matter how I do the math, it simply does not add up to $8K when you have a stock image you are hawking for $20.00-30.00.

I guess now would be a good time to mention, that I stated to Joel Albrizio, that I fully expected a formal apology and a public retraction, from when he libeled me by calling me a “thief” and stating “You stole my image”. Needless to say, I’m still awaiting that apology and retraction. Joel response to that was “I never said that”…well you can plainly see in his own comment on my post, he stated just that!

So now I’m done waiting, I’ve refueled the Karma bus! Act like an asshole, get treated like an asshole.

Another interesting point of our conversation was Joel’s wish that “we work together” and that I ( yes me) create a website where the accused could go to settle these matters by purchasing a retroactive license….why the fuck would I want to do any such thing? I’m not the one sending extortion letters and threatening lawsuits, that would be Joel Albrizio and AdLife Marketing…Perhaps Joel Albrizio needs to govern himself according from the onset??

Perhaps the most interesting part of this conversation related to the statement Joel made to me that they only file suit against “larger businesses” and that he would never sue a small “mom & pop shop” or hobbyist blogger. While I give credit to him for this ( the 9 currently filed lawsuits do appear to be larger companies ) Joel Albrizio and AdLife Marketing apparently fail to understand the emotional and mental stress an $8000.00 demand letter and threat of suit puts on small business owners, as they do not vet the letter recipients prior to sending out their demand letters.

Joel Albrizio also mentioned, that if recipients do not pay, they then send the “invoice” to collections! This money hungry greedy bastard actually thinks this is a debt? No Joel, it’s a claim, and a claim that you haven’t even proven, therefore there is no debt. I highly suggest to any letter recipients that go to collections to do 2 things.

  1. Contact the collection agency immediately, and inform that that this is a claim, not a debt, and to cease communications immediately or be reported to the FTC
  2.  Advise Joel Albrizio of the above and do report AdLife Marketing to the FTC, as well as sending in a complaint to the Rhode Island Attorney General

But wit there’s more!!!

In addition to the above, Joel stated that if I ( yes me again) sent him an email regarding any small businesses that received a letter, he would see to it that those cases disappeared, I don’t remember his exact words, but they were something along the lines of “I assure you if you send me an email explaining the details of the small business I will make it go away.”

Again I’m not sure why he attempts to get me involved in any level of this, I simply report and report copyright trolls for the douche-nozzles they are. At this point in time I’m not convinced he would stand by his word, after reflecting, my opinion of Joel Albrizio hasn’t changed much I think he can be sneaky and sleazy, and this is further enhanced by the fact that since my original post I have heard from at least 5 individuals, all stating the same, some have been letter recipients, others not…There will be more follow-up posts as I continue to research and speak with people…..

Stay Tuned! Future posts will include first hand accounts from AdLife Marketing letter recipients, as well a lawsuit filed by ex-employees that were owed back wages for overtime, (most of which were thereby “terminated”) and much more to be revealed!

Oct 09


Further proof that Joel Albrizio and Adlife Markting and Communications were strapped for cash at one time and may still be… This is generally the reason why companies resort to copyright-trolling, Getty Images is another perfect example…..technical reading below, but worth the time, decide for yourselves….more to come, I’m saving the best for last.

Superior Court of Massachusetts, County.



    Decided: April 8, 2011


This action arises out of a failed business relationship between plaintiff Joel M. Albrizio (“Albrizio”) and defendants John P. Puccio (“Puccio”) and Celestino A. DiGiovanni (“DiGiovanni”) (collectively, “the defendants”) with respect to the governance of Adlife Marketing and Communications Co. Inc. (“Adlife”) a company in which the three once held equal shares. ? Now before the court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss Albrizio’s complaint, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. ? For the following reasons, the defendants’ motion is allowed.


The court takes as true the following facts set forth in the plaintiffs’ complaint. ? See Marshall v. Stratus Pharm., Inc., 51 Mass.App.Ct. 667, 670–671 (2001). ? Adlife creates and prints advertising flyers for retail sales businesses to be distributed through newspapers and other print outlets. ? In September, 1994, Albrizio, who had owned a similar business, agreed to purchase a 33.3% share of Adlife from Puccio and DiGiovanni for $200,000, payable over two years in the form of a tender back of Albrizio’s earned bonuses. ? The parties entered into a series of agreements, including a Corporate Control Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated September 7, 1994, an undated Covenant Not To Compete, and an agreement related to the disposition of corporate shares dated September 7, 1994. ? Albrizio, Puccio and DiGiovanni signed each instrument in their individual capacities.

The Agreement provides that Puccio, DiGiovanni and Albrizio each own one third stock in Adlife and Advision Corporation (“Advision”), and are directors and officers of the companies.1 ?It states, by way of introduction, that:

WHEREAS, the Shareholders, being the owners of all of the authorized, issued and outstanding stock of the Corporations, desire to set forth the agreement which they have made among themselves concerning the operation, ownership, and control of the Corporations’ business.

The Agreement contains an arbitration provision which reads:

If any controversy or claim arising out of this Agreement cannot be settled by the Shareholders, it shall be settled by Arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect?

The non-competition agreement was amended by an agreement dated January 16, 2006, which provided that Albrizio “may pursue clients for radio and television advertising outside of his employment with and ownership interest in [Adlife].”

Albrizio asserts that, since 2001, Puccio and DiGiovanni have frozen him out of “the governance and operational decision making” of Adlife, resulting in lost clients and profit. ? In January, 2010, Puccio “gave his voting interest in his 33% in Adlife” to DiGiovanni, reducing Albrizio to a minority shareholder. ? In addition, the complaint claims that Puccio and DiGiovanni have made “disguised dividends” to themselves by employing their children in jobs for which they are not qualified at excessive salaries and benefits, and by paying excessive premiums for their own life insurance and automobile allowances. ? Albrizio asserts that, consequently, Adlife became under-capitalized and had to borrow monies. ? He estimates that, over fifteen years, these “disguised dividends” and “unnecessary borrowings” exceeded $3,000,000. ? Albrizio claims that, as a result of the defendants’ conduct, Adlife has suffered a considerable decline in its net worth and stock value. ? He also argues that he accounts for 60% of all revenues but receives only 33.3% of Adlife’s profits, and therefore has not been compensated for his share of sales and commissions.

Albrizio filed this action on July 16, 2010. ? He asserts on behalf of both himself and Adlife a claim for breach of fiduciary duty/disguised dividend (Count I); ?on behalf of only himself he asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty/freeze out in a close corporation (Count II), breach of contract (Count III), quantum meruit (Count IV), and unjust enrichment (Count VII). ? He also seeks declaratory judgments to the effect that the non-competition agreement is unenforceable and that the amendment to that agreement must be extended to include email, internet and all social media (Counts V and VI). ? He seeks $5,000,000 in damages.2


In order to withstand a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s complaint must contain “allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) an entitlement to relief, in order to reflect [a] threshold requirement ? that the plain statement possess enough heft to sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.” ?Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1966 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). ? While a complaint need not set forth detailed factual allegations, the plaintiff is required to present more than labels and conclusions, and must raise a right to relief “above the speculative level ? [based] on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” ?Id. See also Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 445 Mass. 745, 749 (2006).

The defendants first argue that the arbitration provision of the Agreement compels the plaintiffs to arbitrate this case. ? They contend that all of Albrizio’s claims arise out of the Agreement, the purpose of which was to address the “operation, ownership and control” of Adlife. ? The plaintiffs’ response is twofold. ? They first claim that Adlife did not sign the Agreement and is therefore not subject to its arbitration provision. ? They also argue that the present controversy does not arise from a specific term of the Agreement, and that arbitration would be too costly. ? The court is not persuaded.

Under G.L. c. 251, §?1 “a provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties shall be valid, enforceable and irrevocable?” ?“[W]here a contract has an arbitration clause that is ‘broad’ in its reach, there is a rebuttable presumption that a contract dispute is covered by the clause, and doubts whether a particular dispute comes within the scope of the clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” ?Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 454 Mass. 390, 396 (2009); ?see also Drywall Sys., Inc. v. ZVI Constr. ? Co., 435 Mass. 664, 666–667 (2002). ? The phrase “arising out of” constitutes broad language that invokes the presumption in favor of arbitration. ?Warfield, 454 Mass. at 396–397.

The court concludes that the claims set forth in Counts II, III, V and VI all arise out of the “operation, ownership and control” of Adlife’s business. ? Count II, for breach of fiduciary duty, alleges a “freeze-out” where Albrizio claims he “has not been fully notified of corporate activities and has been excluded from participation in corporate affairs.” ? Count III, for breach of contract, alleges that he has not been compensated for sales and commissions for over three years. ? Counts V requests a declaratory judgment that the non-competition agreement be declared unenforceable. ? None of these claims can be taken outside the operation and control of the corporation, which is clearly governed by the arbitration provision. ? As to Count VI, which seeks a declaration that the January 16, 2006, amendment to the non-competition agreement includes electronic media, the agreement itself provides that any controversy “arising out of this Agreement ? shall be settled by arbitration?” ?Given the strong public policy favoring arbitration, see Home Gas Corp. of Mass., Inc. v. Walter’s of Hadley, Inc., 403 Mass. 772, 774 (1989), the court concludes that the arbitration provision controls. ? Counts II, III, V and VI must therefore be dismissed.

As to Counts IV and VII, for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, Albrizio has asserted both tort and breach of contract claims which, if the defendants are held liable, will adequately compensate him for any losses. ? See, e.g., Fox v. F & J Gattozzi Corp., 41 Mass.App.Ct. 581, 589 (1996); ?see also MCI Worldcom Communications v. Department of Telecommunications, 442 Mass. 103, 116 (2004). ? Therefore Counts IV and VII must be dismissed.

The issue is somewhat different as to Count I, where Adlife is not a signatory to the Agreement and is thus not subject to the arbitration provision. ? The defendants contend that Count I is a derivative action that must be dismissed because the plaintiffs made no demand. ? See, e.g., S. Solomont & Sons Trust Inc. v. New England Theatres Operating Corp., 326 Mass. 99, 113 (1950); ?Halprin v. Babbitt, 303 F.2d 138, 141 (1?st cir.1962) (applying Massachusetts law). ? The plaintiffs argue that any demand would have been futile and that this requirement is therefore excused. ? See, e.g., Harhen v. Brown, 431 Mass. 838, 844 (2000). ? This argument is without merit.

If the only injury asserted is a diminution in the corporation’s worth or other financial injury to the corporation, a shareholder may not bring a direct action. ? In such circumstances, the corporation is the injured party with the right to sue. ?Hurley v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 719 F.Supp. 27, 30 (D.Mass.1989). ? The essence of Count I is that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty by paying family members excessive salaries and benefits and, as a result, needed to borrow money. ? Otherwise put, the defendants essentially diverted funds that otherwise would have inured to Adlife. ? Nothing in the complaint would lead the court to infer that this conduct caused Albrizio to suffer an injury separate and distinct from that suffered by Adlife. ? The wrong is but indirect as to Albrizio, affecting him merely as a shareholder. ? See, e.g., Jackson v. Stuhlfire, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 924, 925 (1990). ? Count I must therefore be brought derivately.

Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 23.1, the complaint in a derivative action must be verified by oath and “allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.” ? The demand would be futile, however, where the shareholders themselves are the wrongdoers and would be expected to, in essence, sue themselves. ?Harlen, 431 Mass. at 844. ? Under those circumstances, the demand requirement is excused. ?Id.; ?see also Houle v. Low, 407 Mass. 810, 813 n.13 (1990).

Here, the plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of the Rule; ?Count I of the complaint is thus fatally defective. ? Not only is the complaint not verified, but it fails to state with particularity those conditions which would have excused the plaintiffs’ failure to make efforts to seek redress from the majority shareholders. ? See Aliberti v. Green, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 41, 45 (1972); ?see also J.W. Smith & H.B. Zobel, Rules Practice, §?23.1.5 (1974) ( “These requirements depart from the relaxed policy of ‘notice pleading’ which the Rules generally promote.”). ? Although the plaintiffs contend in their memorandum that any demand would be futile, since both Puccio and DiGiovanni are alleged wrongdoers, this does not mitigate the deficiencies of the complaint. ? Failure to plead futility demands requires dismissal of Count I. Id. See also Thomas P. Billings, Remedies for the Aggrieved Shareholder in a Close Corporation, 81 Mass. L.Rev. 3, 13–14 (March, 1996).


For the forgoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is ALLOWED.


1.  FN1.?Nothing in the record before the court identifies Advision, although the language of the Agreement refers to both the “corporations” and the “corporation.”

2.  FN2.?The court notes at the outset that a plaintiff may not include in the complaint a claim for a specific monetary amount. ? See G.L. c. 231, §?13B; ?Hermanson v. Szafarowicz, 457 Mass. 39, 44 (2010).

Peter M. Lauriat Justice of the Superior Court

Oct 09

Joel Albrizio of Adlife Marketing & Communications Co., Inc. stupidly responds

In its entirety, with my follow up comments below…


It seems you tell us you have not done anything wrong but you seem to concern yourself with an issue to which you have no involvement. Like myself you seem to dislike anyone in an uncomfortable situation. So to anyone uncomfortable about accusations of photography theft I suggest to your readers, please don’t steal.

When your readers steal no one ends up better off. With regards to your language and accusations, i would suggest a more refined approach if you in fact have the customers you claim. no upstanding client would like to see a professional service individual they employ using the language you employ to drive your point home.

You may find a thinner customer base with such an approach.

if you buy image legally, for all of us out there working hard at it, thank you. Why not tell your readers to do the same?


It’s called “reporting”, and again I’ll help you understand, seeing that I’m nice like that:

re·port (n): To write or provide an account or summation of for publication or broadcast.

Please don’t compare me to being like yourself, I don’t try to extract absurd amounts of money by threatening, or suing people into large settlements. I earn my income honestly and with integrity… I also dislike very few people in general, but I do loathe the likes of you and your ilk…plain and simple I see you and other trolls as dirt-bags, that are lousy in business, hurting for cash, that will stoop very low to line your pockets..don’t like it? tough shit, I’m entitled to my opinion..

Thanks so much for your suggestion, but my client base is just fine and growing daily, I’m not so sure yours is, seeing how you are resorting to such scum-bags tactics…might I suggest that you and your company treat innocent infringers fairly and with respect and not threaten them with outrageous demands and lawsuits.

Anytime you’re ready, you can post your apology and retraction, I really dislike being called a thief, and you saying I stole from your company.

Older posts «

Attention Copyright Trolls
Entry at your own risk: By entering this web site, you acknowledge and agree that your use is at your own risk and that neither Copyright-Trolls.com or any of the parties involved in creating, producing or delivering this web site is liable for any direct, incidental, consequential, indirect or punitive damages, or any losses, costs or expenses of any kind (including legal fees, expert fees or other bullshit fees) which may arise, directly or indirectly, through the access to, the use of or browsing of this web site.

The OPINIONS contained in this site are of the owner and contributors and are considered FREE SPEECH, if you disagree with these opinions and views, please kindly consider fucking off and leaving. ALL visits are tracked and monitored and subject to being blocked at any time at my discretion. All Images contained in this site are either created by copyright-trolls and are parodies, used under fair-use or linked from outside sources..If you are considering playing the "this image is copyrighted, please remove"...again go fuck off.