Copyright Extortion, Not Protection: Inside Higbee & Associates’ Threat Machine

An Editorial by the Boss Global Radio Team

October 6, 2025

The war on independent creators isn't fought with swords—it's waged with demand letters, inflated threats, and the cold machinery of copyright law twisted into a shakedown racket. At Boss Global Radio, we're on the front lines. And we're calling it out.

What began as a law firm enforcing copyright has evolved into a nationwide intimidation racket—exploiting loopholes, automation, and fear to cash in on artists, journalists, and independent media.

The Fear Factory: How a Single Letter Can Silence a Voice

It starts with an email. Or a letter.

Redacted Higbee & Associates' demand letter showing intimidation language and statutory citations used in settlement threats.

“Your firm unlawfully and tortiously misused our client's work without authorization... 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501, 504.”

That's the opening salvo from Higbee & Associates, a “national law firm” that's built an empire on terrorizing bloggers, nonprofits, and small sites. The message? Pay up—$5,000, $20,000, or $30,000 — or face a lawsuit with damages up to $150,000, plus attorneys' fees.

No proof of ownership. No evidence of harm. Just boilerplate legalese designed to make your heart stop.

We know because it happened to us. A single image in a commentary blog post on Selena Gomez's career? Their response: a cascade of emails from “legal assistants” dismissing fair use, attaching a 2022 invoice for “editorial use” (irrelevant to our 2025 post), and threatening escalation to the “litigation team.”

This isn’t protection. It’s extortion. And it’s not isolated—it’s a machine.

The Higbee Playbook: Scrap, Scare, Settle

Higbee’s operation is a well-oiled troll factory:

1. Scrape the Web: Automated tools (like PicRights) crawl sites for “infringements”—a blog photo, a nonprofit’s header, a teacher’s syllabus illustration.

2. Send the Threat: Demand letters cite statutes (§106 for exclusive rights, §501 for infringement, §504 for damages)—skipping facts, inflating fear.

3. Escalate the Fear: Assistants follow up with “expiring” offers and false urgency.

4. Extract and Vanish: 75–80% pay without court, per Higbee himself.

As attorney Carolyn Homer exposed in a 2019 Techdirt investigation, Higbee demanded $20,000 from a sci-fi blogger for a single thumbnail—a case so absurd it became a teaching example for copyright abuse. [Link to Techdirt article]

Public Citizen’s Paul Levy called it “extortion dressed up as enforcement” in a 2019 exposé, detailing demands to nonprofits like HUFF over deep-linked New York Times photos—unregistered, non-commercial, and ultimately dropped after pushback. [Link to Public Citizen exposé]

Inflated Numbers, Fabricated Pressure

Higbee’s “damages” are fiction. Market licensing for editorial photos? $49–$1,800 max. Their demands? $5,000–$30,000, often three to five times “rates” pulled from thin air.

In our case: a $900 “example” invoice from 2022 for unrelated images. No tie to our blog. No lost sale. Just a bluff. With the initial demand ask of $5,000.

Courts have consistently rejected inflated “statutory” demands when works were unregistered or registered post-use. (See Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008); McGucken v. Chive Media Group, 2018 WL 5880751 (C.D. Cal. 2018)).

The real goal? Volume. Higbee boasts 75–80% settlement rates without court—contingency fees from clients like photographers, but the machine runs on creator cash.

Questionable Ownership and Due Diligence

Higbee’s claims often crumble on basics. In Homer’s case, X-Files photos were likely Fox work-for-hire—meaning photographer Michael Grecco didn’t own them. Yet Higbee threatened anyway, refusing discovery until called out.

Ours? A 2025 SAG Awards portrait from Vango’s group registration (VA 2-439-209). No chain of title. No specific harm. Just “prima facie” registration (§410) is used as a shield.

They ignored every rebuttal. Our use was fair (§107)—transformative commentary on Gomez’s career, not mere illustration.

Fair Use and Free Speech Under Attack

Fair use isn’t a loophole; it’s constitutional. Section 107 protects criticism, news, and commentary.

What Fair Use Actually Covers (Under U.S. Law) According to legal experts at Callahan & Blaine (legally reviewed September 11, 2025), fair use allows limited portions of a copyrighted work to be used without the owner’s permission—particularly for criticism, commentary, news reporting, parody, research, and teaching.

Federal courts decide fair use case by case, but the principle is consistent: when use adds new meaning, context, or expression—instead of replacing the original—it’s protected speech under the First Amendment.

(Source: Callahan & Blaine—"What Is Fair Use Law," published Dec. 15, 2020, legally reviewed Sept. 11, 2025.)

But Higbee dismisses it:

“Simply using images to illustrate… is not transformative.”

Wrong. Courts say otherwise.

In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley (2006), the Second Circuit upheld poster thumbnails in a Grateful Dead timeline as fair use for historical context. Our post? The same—analyzing label dynamics, not selling prints.

Courts reaffirmed that reproducing images for commentary, criticism, or historical analysis is transformative use—even when the work is commercial, so long as it adds new meaning or context.

By ignoring fair use, Higbee chills speech. Indies self-censor, fearing $750 minimum damages (§504). That’s the win: silence without a fight.

The Broader Industry: Copyright as Racket

Higbee’s not alone. UMG’s YouTube strikes crush creators critiquing music (Rick Beato’s rants exposed this). Patent trolls. Debt mills. Same game—law as weapon, fear as profit.

The victims? Us—indie stations, bloggers, educators. The winners? Firms are making contingency cuts, and clients are getting scraps.

Our Case: Same Script, New Victim

When Higbee targeted an independent broadcaster (Boss Global Radio), the pattern was identical: vague threat, no proof, escalation emails from “assistants,” revoked “offers,” and a “prepared complaint” bluff.

We pushed back. Demanded substantiation. Cited fair use. Noted our $100 revenue. They dodged, attached junk, and went silent—until now.

And here’s the kicker—every single one of their emails landed straight in our spam folders.

Gmail and our business filters automatically flag them as junk. That’s not a coincidence; that’s a signal.

These messages aren’t professional correspondence—they’re algorithmically classified as spam, the same digital category as scams and phishing attempts.

Most creators would never even see them unless they were combing through their spam folder—and honestly, who does? That’s why it’s called spam for a reason.

Redacted email chain showing Higbee & Associates’ escalating pressure tactics—from initial outreach by “legal assistants” to threats of litigation and demands to retain counsel.

Redacted follow-up thread from Higbee & Associates showing their step-by-step escalation—from initial copyright complaint to threats of court action after failed “amicable resolution.”

This isn’t justice. It’s a machine preying on the uninformed.

Standing Up to the Threat Machine

If you get one of these letters:

• Don’t Panic: It’s a demand, not a lawsuit. No filing? No obligation.

• Demand Proof: Registration number, publication date, chain of title, and claimed harm. Cite §107 fair use.

• Document Everything: Save emails. Check spam folders. Track the pattern.

• Retain Counsel: Texas Bar referrals are free/low-cost. Groups like EFF or Public Citizen help defend against trolls.

• Push Back: “Meritless” claims can trigger fee-shifting (§505). Report to the California Bar if abusive.

If enough creators refuse to play their game, the business model collapses. Fear stops working once we stop being afraid. Mathew Higbee built an empire on intimidation, not innovation.

The Real Crime: Selling Fear

They can weaponize fear, but they can’t silence the truth.

Our right to speak, criticize, and expose abuse is protected under the First Amendment.

What are your thoughts?

Drop a comment below.

Subscribe and become a site member for free.

Join our music and resistance community today.

Legal References

• Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008).— Ninth Circuit ruling rejecting inflated statutory damages where copyright registration occurred post-use.

• McGucken v. Chive Media Group, LLC, No. 18-CV-01612, 2018 WL 5880751 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2018).— Central District of California case reaffirming limits on damages and registration requirements.

• Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006).— Second Circuit decision confirming transformative fair use for historical and editorial imagery.

Fair Use Disclaimer

This content is presented under fair use (17 U.S.C. § 107) for news reporting, commentary, criticism, and public record.

All rights remain with their original owners. Inclusion does not imply endorsement.