Copyright Troll Backfires: Has To Pay Up To Get Out Of Its Lawsuit Of Lies
Summary
Prepared Food Photos (PFP), a long-running copyright-trolling operation that used CopyCat Legal to send threatening demand letters, has been thoroughly exposed and forced to pay its target to dismiss a federal lawsuit. Paul Levy and the defence team for Pool World used discovery to show PFP’s claims of a $999-per-month minimum licence were false (some customers paid as little as $29.99). Documents revealed PFP derived most of its income from coercive enforcement, not legitimate photo licensing, and that real licence fees were typically measured in pennies or a few dollars. Facing a likely adverse ruling that could destroy its revenue model and trigger large attorney-fee awards, PFP settled by paying Pool World to permit dismissal. The revelations create clear pathways for many past victims to seek to void settlements and pursue recovery, and the company appears to be attempting a rebrand as Rockefeller Photos to escape reputational damage.
Key Points
- PFP and CopyCat Legal ran a classic copyright-troll scheme: threatening demand letters claiming massive damages based on a purported $999/month minimum subscription.
- Discovery proved the $999/month claim was false; some subscription offers were as low as $29.99 and Getty-licensed fees averaged about a dollar or less per use.
- PFP derived roughly 95% of income from enforcement and settlements rather than from licensing new photographs.
- After extensive discovery and motions (including a Rule 11 sanctions threat and a summary-judgment push), PFP agreed to pay Pool World to allow dismissal of the suit — essentially paying its target to walk away.
- The exposure of fraudulent statements opens the door for hundreds of prior victims to challenge or void past settlements and potentially pursue class-action or fraud claims.
- PFP appears to be operating under a new name, Rockefeller Photos, likely attempting to dodge the toxic reputation its tactics generated.
- Pool World’s decision to fight (rather than involve insurers) was pivotal — many trolls thrive because insurers prefer quick settlements over litigation.
Context and relevance
This case is a significant example of how meticulous litigation and discovery can dismantle predatory enforcement businesses. It matters beyond the single dispute because it highlights systemic vulnerabilities small businesses face from copyright-trolling tactics, and how those tactics exploit insurers and general risk aversion. For legal practitioners and small-business owners, the decision shows a clear roadmap: document preservation, discovery pressure, and willingness to push for summary judgment can flip the script on bad-faith enforcers. For regulators and policymakers, the case underscores the need for stronger deterrents against fraudulent demand-letter campaigns and clearer rules around assignment and enforcement of digital-image rights.
Why should I read this?
Short version: this is delicious. A bully of a copyright-troll got caught red-handed, had its lies exposed in court papers, and ended up forking out cash to the very business it was trying to extort. If you run a small business, handle IP, or care about stopping legal shakedowns, this is a brilliant how-to showreel of how to take one down — and why you should never just pay up without checking the facts.