The copyright trolling firm of Sanders Law P.L.L.C

Take a look at all these fucktards that have been recruited by Sanders Law P.L.L.C. naturally they don’t show their faces or even their bios on their own website…Thats just adds so much credibility it’s not even funny!

Just so happens I stumbled upon another site, as it seems that Sanders Law PLLC is also known as Baker Sanders, L.L.C. and many of the “attorneys” listed here are also listed at Sanders Law, PLLC. Gee I wonder why they have 2 businesses, with 2 websites.. My “guess” would be they don’t really like be called trolls, and are maybe slightly embarrassed of thier second copyright trolling / extortion scheme.. ( strike that, they aren’t embarrassed, they are just money hungry slobs.

Sanders Law, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530

Tel (855) 643-9884
Tel (516) 203-7600
Fax (516) 281-7601

The many trollish faces behind Sanders Law P.L.L.C:


Copyright Troll Robert Baker
Copyright Troll David Barshay
Copyright Troll Marc D. Grossman
Copyright Troll Douglas H. Sanders


The Cowardly Copyright Troll Craig B. Sanders


Copyright Troll Mark R. Bernstein
Copyright Troll Martin Block
Copyright Troll Edward A. Cespedes


Copyright Troll Jennifer M. Gerdes
Copyright Troll Michael C. Hayes


Copyright Troll Melissa C. Ingrassia


Copyright Troll Randi A. Kassan


Copyright Troll Val Kleyman


Copyright Troll Joaquin J. Lopez


Copyright Troll Barbara Manes


Copyright Troll Todd D. Muhlstock


Copyright Troll Steven J. Neuwirth


Copyright Troll Edward J. Nitkewicz



Copyright Troll Melissa A. Pirillo


Copyright Troll Malgorzata Rafalko


Copyright Troll Angelo F. Rizzo


Copyright Troll Phyllis L. Sanders


Copyright Troll Stanley J. Sanders


Copyright Troll Cindy S. Simms


Copyright Troll Joseph B. Viener


Copyright Troll Meryl S. Viener


Copyright Troll Michael F. Villeck


Copyright Troll Edward D. Woycik, Jr


Copyright Troll Jennifer Zeidner


Disclaimer:  Any use of the monikers of asshole, douchebag, douchenozzle, asshat, fucktards etc are MY OPINIONS of these scumbag lawyers at Sanders Law PLLC.




  1. Over the past 24 hours after receiving my first “letter” from Sanders Law, I have been doing a ton of research and communicating with my colleagues who also own/operate websites like mine. Some of the larger ones, backed by big corporate sponsors haven’t heard a word from Sanders Law for posting the exact same images I am being accused of stealing. My guess is they only want to go after the little fish because we’re easy targets. My friends and colleagues at larger sites with big money and big corporate attorneys at their disposal…well, they simply are too afraid to go after them. What these people fail to realize is that the community in which my website covers don’t take too kindly to being harassed and toyed with. We are legion and have the numbers and tenacity to turn things back at them. I have also consulted an attorney who’s telling me they are simply fishing and going after the low hanging fruit. To those who might be undergoing the same ordeal as I am…please don’t panic. Protect yourselves, search for as much information as you can and don’t let them bully you. Their entire scheme hinges on fear and intimidation, don’t give in to them.

  2. Although their correspondence appears to be legit…there are a number of discrepancies that some legal professionals I have consulted with find fishy. The first being there is no one specific to contact regarding your “case” only a telephone number. Best guess is that they are making quite a living off this bottom-feeding tactic so the majority of their resources are going into this. Second, the “letter” that I received is NOT signed by anyone…not a paralegal, not an attorney, no one. That is a big red flag to my attorney and is an indication that this is simply an intimidation tactic.

    One thing that stood out to me is that their client, FameFlyNet didn’t apply for a copyright on the images in question until a month AFTER they were hotlinked on my website. Not knowing too much about copyright law, but this just doesn’t seem legit to me.

    In the past, my website has unknowingly posted copyrighted images that were “leaked” online. In this particular case, we were contacted via email by a representative of Paramount Pictures. They demanded that the images be removed immediately. We complied with their request, sent a confirmation that we complied and that was the end of the matter. My guess is that had they wanted, they could have done far more damage than Sanders Law could ever dream of doing.

    At the end of the day folks, these people are simply out to bully people into paying them money. Fight fire with fire and there’s a good chance they will leave you alone. But get educated, you’ve probably read that dozens of times already, but I cannot stress it to you enough.

    Here’s the the breakdown…if you “hotlinked” the image from a source to your page without actually uploading the image to your site’s server, then you are most likely in the clear. It may or may not fall within the user agreement of certain sites like Flickr, but to sue someone over that is probably going to fail.

    • Hi Brian,

      i just recieved a letter from these people wanting me top call their number (855) 456-2240. They said i posted a copyright picture, i feel this seems fishy and i was wondering how to handle this before i call them, if i should even call them at all. any advice you can give would be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

      • If I were you, I would get educated before calling them, and then I would consider NOT calling them, why risk saying something that can be used against you? Remove the image in question from your servers, and visit extortionletterinfo to get educated, we have great forums over there with a great community to help you out.

  3. My friend, who runs a pest control business had posted a picture of a bed bug that she had found on the internet on her website and received a cease and desist letter from Mathew Higbee of Higbee & Associates demanding not just that she remove the photo from her website but also that she pay them $1,000 or they would sue her on behalf of their client, the photographer. I was dumbfounded. As a lawyer I have drafted and reviewed thousands of cease and desist letters but I have NEVER seen one demanding money!!!! I advised my friend to do the following and believe it or not, it actually worked! I advise any of your readers to do the same. I had her call and e-mail both the photographer and the attorney (don’t use the phone number or e-mail address on the letter because it will never get to the attorney- go to your state’s bar website and look up the attorney to get the contact info). She told them that she was completely broke and that if they insisted on suing that she would need to declare bankruptcy. Since it costs $350 to file a copyright infringement lawsuit, most people aren’t going to want to sue you if they think they won’t get anything . . . i.e. you declare bankruptcy. When you call don’t admit to anything. Say the photos aren’t on your but don’t say you took them down. If they ask whether the photos were ever on your website simply state: “I understand that is what you allege.”

    This worked for my friend. She even offered to pay over everything in her bank account . . . $135. The photographer told her not to worry about it. I guess he actually has a heart. She never heard back from the attorney. I guess he doesn’t. In any event, this worked for my friend and maybe it could work for one of your readers. Best of luck!!!!!!

        • Brian, my client received one for him from HIgbee and Higbee – how did you proceed? Mine was a result of outsourcing some tasks to someone in india for his website. Im a single parent of four and i dont have this kind of money!

          • There are many options, depending on your specific issue, the image(s)in question, the company, law firm, troll that sent the letter, the amount demanded, ect.. there is no “magic solution” short of paying them in full. I suggest you head on over to and read through the forums to get better educated, as to your options. Only you can determine how to resolve this.

    • Amazing, I got one of these from Higbee as well. Some image I didn’t even know I had from 2005. So far I’ve been ignoring it and they’ve never followed up. May I ask who the “photographer” was in your case? I”ve considered contacting this person if these attorneys pester me again. The idea that I’ve infringed on this person is so preposterous it’s not even funny.

  4. Bryan

    Here’s the the breakdown…if you “hotlinked” the image from a source to your page without actually uploading the image to your site’s server, then you are most likely in the clear. It may or may not fall within the user agreement of certain sites like Flickr, but to sue someone over that is probably going to fail.

    As long as you didn’t upload the image you hotlinked, you’ll be fine. The issue hasn’t made to the US Supreme courts– but that’s because the two lower courts ruled similarly– it’s not a violation.

    On possible Terms of Service violations: Whatever the legal standing with TOS, it’s not a copyright issue. So, the copyright owner can’t use any TOS violation as part of his case. Any TOS issue would be between you and the company whose TOS you violated– and that violation isn’t a “copyright” one.

    Beyond that: if Twitter doesn’t want people to hotlink, they can use .htaccess. It’s trivially easy to do. Their IT staff certainly know this. It would be entirely idiotic of them to not block hotlinking using technical means and then try to pursue with TOS. So I would think it’s unlikely they would have a TOS complaint about hotlinking, and if they did… it might be pretty easy to convince a judge that it’s pretty silly.

  5. This reply is in response to another readers comments about the trolls harassing small website owners over larger websites. I agree with what was said but in addition to that it makes sense for the trolls to go after a lot of people instead of the actual people doing the infringing which would be the original uploaders of their material to the photo sharing websites and those websites themselves. Just think that they could get a one time settlement from a larger company but that is all. They could get 3 times more than that from smaller sites because there are more of them than the larger ones. More bang for the buck as the saying goes.

    It seems funny to me that my website can be taken down due to the constant harassment of these trolls but those photo sharing sites remains untouched and they know about them because at one time these trolls tried to claim infringement on my site on thumbnail linking until I educated them on the law precedence as it currently stands with various court decisions concerning linking. They wanted me to take down my thumbnail gallery but when I checked the link on the thumbnails the image was still there at the source. They never bothered with the source site. Why is the question?

    Call me a conspiracy nut if you want but I believe that these photo companies and the trolls are in collusion with this DMCA scam that they try to pull. It is my opinion that the photo companies themselves upload their material to files sharing sites like say Flickr knowing that eventually a website owner will use that material and the minute that they do then they seek these trolls on them to extort money. The reason I believe this is because most photo agencies require that the end user to have a username and password before you can even access their photos. It is either them doing it or one of their own clients. If it is one of their own clients then that is an internal security matter that they need to solve and not harass website owners.

    This would be nice to be able to prove as this might constitute racketeering. Right now the only thing that will help us is a complete overhaul or repeal of this dreadful law called DMCA. I say repeal it and go back to the old law that actually worked and didn’t create this online mafia that we have now. It needs to go back also to where these companies need to have to prove everything in a court of law. It is just way too easy right now for anyone and their Grandmother to claim a copyright.

  6. In my case I received the letter about a copyrighted image that I had uploaded to my website. I didn’t realize it was copyrighted because it was originally posted and watermarked on There was no copyright notice on the image, just the watermark, so I added a source to the article. Note that I removed the image upon receipt of the letter and that didn’t matter.

    After a phone call with a paralegal the client, Pacific Coast News, wants $1,800. Extortion at it’s finest, but I’m basically screwed either way because I unknowingly hosted a copyrighted image.

    • Brother, you did nothing wrong. It might have technically been infringement but anyone with a shred of moral decency knows you did nothing wrong. Of course, you know these trolls have no decency.

      Tell them politely that you took down the image and that you had not idea it was copywritten, cc the actual humans, ie Pacific Coast News. The lawyers are not human but they will take orders from humans if the human can be persuaded to be sympathetic.

  7. The whole “hotlinking” thing seems incredibly ludicrous to me. I understand how someone who has no understanding of the internet could be persuaded that hotlinking was different from actually uploading an image but from the perspective of user experience there is no difference.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad this defense exists, but the same should still apply to people who copied it. It’s just bits and bytes either way.


  8. We are being bothered by these people. The sad thing about these type of bullying extortion tactics is they work. I was helping a family member start up a small blog devoted to animal related causes. When I say the website was small – I mean it. We probably got less than 50 views, mostly from family members and close friends. That being said, our goal was never to make money – but simply to report on some of the horrible things being done to animals around the world and try to spread awareness.

    We admittedly aren’t versed in copyright law. We stupidly posted ONE PHOTO of a very famous celebrity who was involved in a controversy regarding an animal. It as a news item that flared up for one second and then faded away. At it’s peak, the photo was plastered all over the internet for a few days. We stupidly used it in our blog post regarding the controversy. Using the photo without permission was admittedly our dumb mistake. We realize that now. Had we known we needed to contact someone about it’s usage – we obviously would have.

    At any rate – we just received a very nasty letter from Sanders Law Firm – threatening to sue us for thousands of dollars – and demanding we call them to make financial arrangements. They even listed hypothetical amounts upwards of $150,000 in one of the paragraphs. I’m sure they include that hypothetical “worst case scenario” amount in all of their letters, but it still rattled us.

    Sadly, it rattled my family member so much that she took her entire blog down.This saddens me greatly, because she was just trying to do something good for some animals who couldn’t speak up for themselves. Being kind to animals was always something she felt passionate about, and even though nobody really visited her little website, I still think it sucks that she was scared into silencing herself because some bullies singled her out. Now there’s one less person speaking up on behalf of something meaningful – and that to me is tragic.

    I doubt the “lawyers” pictured above would care about any of this though. To people with little conscience; people who’s sole purpose in life is making money regardless of who gets hurt in the process – squashing a little blog that was just trying to do some good is I guess part of a days work.

    And at the end of the day – it doesn’t change the fact that we still need to address the matter at hand – and we’re kind of clueless as to what we should do. We obviously don’t want to contact them, and we certainly don’t want to shell out thousands of dollars (money we don’t have) for a blog that doesn’t even exist anymore.

    The image in question was apparently the property of Should we contact that company directly? Should we try to contact the actual paparazzi photographer who snapped the photo – or the photographer’s representatives? We’re not even sure if this law firm actually was “contacted” by their “client”. It feels more like they Googled a celebrity’s name and surfed around on the web until they found a website they could go after and shake down for money.

    Again – this was a dumb mistake on our part. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Yes, the photo was all over the internet, but I guess we needed permission. The image and the entire blog have since been removed and we just want to get this all behind us. Any helpful suggestions would be appreciated. Sorry for the longwinded note – but this whole experience has upset me greatly. My family members website was always only intended to do a little good for defenseless animals. The fact that it has turned into something awful for us is heartbreaking to me.

    • visit and join the forum, there are literally thousands of posts to get you educated first and foremost, then only you can make a decision as to how to proceed. If it were me I wouldn’t to much about being dragged into a court-room over this, and even if you did it’s highly unlikely a judge would award a significant amopunt

  9. I feel like some of these clients WANT to make more money off their split of the “damages” collected than actually selling the photo itself. If they really wanted to protect their images, they’d act like major images websites and place a copyright watermark obstructing the use of their graphic… but instead, they post their images and then go after small businesses or operations. I would like to think that if you have to hire a law firm to scan the web and they detect your images are being used within days of being posted, that you hold some responsibility to prevent this from happening. When my city has too many people driving off the road at a curve, they put up barriers and lights with signs to decrease the speed limit.

    • Thats just it, most of these “artists” and “photographers” don’t, won’t and can’t make any money from selling the images, there are just to many available from various outlets, hence they look elsewhere for income. unfortunately placing a watermark doesn’t solve the issue, nor is it required by law, as they are easily removed.

  10. Now what??? Higbee and Associates just sued me for copyright, well technically Alex Wilde did? They were offering to settle this claim in October for $800. I was hoping this would just go away. What they filed in court does not ask for a specific dollar amount. I am afraid to ask what this is going to cost for me to settle now. Should I get a lawyer or contact Higbee to see if I can settle this myself? Am I allowed to try to talk to the photographer?

    • Did you actually get properly served? If so contacting the photographer won’t serve any purpose, there are far to many unanswered questions in regards to this case to answer your question of how to proceed.

      • Someone came to my office and gave it to one of my employees. I think someone is also trying to deliver it at my house. Every attorney wants to charge me more than $3000 just to start on this case. This seems so unfair. I just used couple of photos and I took them down just few weeks after they asked me. Why is Higbee & Associates suing me?? I see lots of other people using these photos. How much should I expect to pay an attorney to fight this? Thank you for the help.

        • If someone came to your office and gave paperwork to an employee, you have not been properly served, doesn’t work that way. Why are they coming after you? Most likely because they feel they have a case and an easy win… Yes lots of people maybe using the images, some of them or all of them, may be targets as well, and some may have licensed the images in question.

          • Thank you for you help. Higbee & Associates gave me 14 more days to file an answer. Higbee is now negotiating with my lawyer who also told me that I am not supposed to talk about this law suit with anyone besides him, my web developer and my employees. So this will probably have to be my last post. Thank you for responding.

          • I too just got a letter from Higbee and I am working on a response. I made the mistake of calling them first because I was so upset. I would love if anyone could share how their cases worked out.

          • DDD… Higbee & Associates sued me. I hired a lawyer. The lawyer negotiated a settlement to the law suit. Lawyer cost me $2,100. Settlement cost me $5,350 and I was able to continue to use one of the images. Total nightmare, but it is overwith and my lawyer says it could have been worse. I am hoping that my insurance will reimburse me.

          • Don,

            How much was Higbee asking for in the first place? $5,350 seems like a lot of money when they’re typically hitting people for $1,000-3,000… Especially when they were willing to settle for $800. Did they actually file a case?

  11. I was non-stop badgered by these a-holes a few years ago. I shut my site down and ignored ALL their correspondence. It started with emails and then went to “packets” in the mail. I ignored EVERYTHING. I also deleted my site about 3-years ago. Today I awoke to a new email from these scumbags, years after I supposedly used a copyrighted photograph. I laughed! They don’t scare me anymore. I am off to go YELP them and everything else I can possibly think of. I want their online footprint to look like it stepped in sh*t. Join me?

    • Statute of limitations for infringement is 3 years, if you are indeed past the 3 yr mark, you might have grounds for a bar complaint, which would be far more effective than YELP, no one really pays attention to yelp anyway.. a bar complaint would be like stepping in shit with bare feet!

  12. I’ve heard about these clowns but never had the displeasure of hearing for a copyright troll until last Friday. Some far away webpage of mine had an image and I am getting nailed by Sanders Law, PLLC. To be fair…my team put the image on the site and I did not check their work. So, they want $2K to settle the matter. FYI – a similar image can be purchased for about $2.50.

    I told them that I was willing to pay…but only a fair and reasonable amount. IE – about $10.00. So, I’ll keep you posted. Any thoughts on previous settlements? Any experience from others that had [or did] settle similar issues?

    • That sucks altonj. I believe you’re taking the correct route in offering a reasonable settlement. They’ll most likely push back but keep fighting.

      • Jon – I do have good news brother. I know something they don’t know that I know. I work in internet marketing and advertising for a living. Thus, my response to offer is NOT going to be anything over $100.00. Not EVEN CLOSE. A. I know the cost per click vaules. B. I know the estimated cost to licence the image …. around $2.50. C. There is NO way the can ever justifiy $8,000.00 in a court of law. D. I took it down the SECOND I got notice. So, not sure if this is a help to me…but I WILL FIGHT!!!

        • Good Alton! It’s time people begin fighting back. Do you know how long you were using the image? Do you know if the image was registered copyright? If so, how long before/after the copyright was filed that you used the image?

          • Jon –

            Not sure about how long…less than 2 months for sure. I had NO idea it was even on my site. My dev team put it on there and they ASSURED me that it was fine [ex-post facto]. As soon as I got the notice…I pulled it from my site. Like, within a few minutes. Funny thing, I’ve not had anything from them since. I would have assumed they would be banging down my door at this time…as I WAS WILLING TO PAY. It’s not like I don’t agree that I misused the image…but I will NOT be taken to the cleaners for something that should be around $10.00 dollars NOT $120K plus. Bastards…the lot of em.

  13. i had a web site that was made for me by a web designer, it was a news site that posted updated news on everything in the world. The site had a rss news feed that gave sports,govt news,weather,Hollywood stars news and other news report. I had no control of the news. But images of movie stars and music artists popped up at any given time on these rss news feed links. Now here come the lawyers asking for money due to their client photos was seen on my website and i should send them a check for $2,500.00 and be sued for well over 150,000.00. The lawyers sent me a email then a letter to my home requesting a check with in 30 days or face court and other court fees plus other charges due to using photos on my site with out asking the photographer.
    Again..i never post any of the news..its all rss news feed links.

    So, what the law on rss feed links and using rss feeds on a non profit site. I say nonprofit..i never made a cent off my site. It was just a fun hobby news site to have and look at and say…i own that news site.
    Can you be sued from rss news feed?

    • forget about the “non-profit” issue, if you served any ads, it’s a for profit site, and if you are not registered as a non-profit, then it’s also for profit…it’s a non-issue anyway, let them sue you, they will loose..the offending images were never copied to your server, they came fro an outside source via the RSS feed…long story shot, they have no case..If it were me I would explain this to them and follow that by telling if they continue to contact you, you will invoice them for every single time you need to address the issue. Tell them you charge 500.00 per hr, and by replying to your email they are agreeing to your terms set forth.

      If they do file suit, be prepared to file a counter suit, this will force them to follow through and they will lose!

  14. I just received an e-mail from Sanders. They want me to call their 855 number and settle (thought there is nothing saying this is actually going to a court). I posted a few pictures from the set of a movie about a year ago. I copied them from a bigger source (which has taken their images down, too.) and credited that source. I haven’t had the images on my site for about 6 or 7 months due to switching my platform and pruning my articles. However, Sanders does have screenshots of when it was on my site. I saw that someone mentioned when Flynet put a copyright on the images. How did you find that out?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.