ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: scraggy on June 13, 2012, 04:12:13 PM

Title: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on June 13, 2012, 04:12:13 PM
Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

I have important news for ELI members. Today, I personally filed a 12 million dollar class action lawsuit in an Israeli court against “Marot Image”, Getty Image’s representative here in Israel, a “ Getty Images Master Delegate”. The court docket is number 23022-06-12.

Some of you may remember me from a while back here on ELI. My name is Ian Cohen, and I live in Israel. I was sued by Getty’s representative in Israel (Marot Image) in September 2011. They withdraw the case when I proved that they had no legal standing. I wrote my story on the Internet, and was contacted by around 100 other victims in the ensuing months. I collected all the evidence, and directly helped around 75 people in their struggle against Marot. I found a young outraged socially conscious lawyer ( Shahar Zamler ) to help these people for symbolic sums, thus giving people an economic alternative to simply paying up. There are several ongoing court cases, but we reached the conclusion that we had enough evidence to file a class action lawsuit against Marot for the illegal extortion of millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims who believed Marot’s central claim that they owned the right to sue for copyright infringement, when in fact, under Israeli law, they do not own such a right at all.

The payments were extracted under false pretenses, Whilst Getty has around a dozen official Getty Offices (that are listed on their licensing contracts), Marot Image is no such office. They are a completely separate entity listed as a company in Israel. As such, whilst they may suffer from delusions of grandeur, they are not in fact Getty Images, and they do have Getty’s rights. They are Getty’s sales representatives in Israel at best and no more than that. They probably do not own the exclusive license to even a single image in Getty’s image collection, and Getty cannot transfer the right to sue as a stand-alone right. Quite simply, with the explicit backing of Getty Images, Marot Images has been carrying out an extensive economic fraud in Israel for at least the last 4 years.

We claim in our lawsuit that Marot Image has fraudulently presented itself as the owner of the right to sue in cases of copyright infringement, and has illegally extorted vast sums of money from thousands of small businesses in Israel. Almost all these "businesses" were one man operations at best, operating out of home. Almost all were vulnerable targets. For example, there was a non proportionate number working in alternative medicine!

We have dedicated an entire section to Getty Images direct knowledge, involvement, and support (see below), and we have asked the court to add Getty Images as a defendant at a later stage (as allowed by the Israel class action law – clause 18B, 2010 ordinances). Whilst Getty may own an exclusive license, and therefore the right to sue here in Israel, they chose to run their “extortion scheme” by using a local company, whom they supported in every way possible. We claim that the proxy ( Marot Image ) had no right to sue , but deceived letter recipients into believing that they faced legal action if they did not pay up, and indeed filed dozens of lawsuits in Israeli courts.

The Israeli copyright act of 2007 is very similar to the American law. Here is a link to an unofficial English translation of the act - http://www.tau.ac.il/law/members/birnhack/IsraeliCopyrightAct2007.pdf

Clause 54 a states who may file a claim for copyright infringement:

54(a) A claim for the infringement of copyright may be
commenced by the owner of the copyright, and if an exclusive
license has been granted in respect of it as defined in section 37(d) –
such claim may also be commenced by the exclusive licensee.

In other words, only the owner of the copyright (the photographer himself with respect to most Getty Images) or the owner of the exclusive license (which, in theory would be Getty Images, although the Advernet verdict would certainly mean that this could not be taken for granted) could claim to own the right to sue, and indeed go ahead and sue.

Despite the above, Getty’s Israeli representative MAROT IMAGE (not an official Getty branch, but a totally independent local company) has claimed in thousands of “demand letters”, and in actual lawsuits, that it owns the right to sue. People believed this claim, and paid up to avoid the impending lawsuit and expected financial losses and high emotional price. Typically, Marot Images sold a retroactive license for the image used. They used all the scare tactics available to them, including intimidating phone calls, e-mails, draft lawsuits (with Getty as a plaintiff, although Getty was not added to the real lawsuits) and other forms of deception and pressure.

In many cases (including my own), Marot Images claimed to own the outright copyright! This was clearly absurd as even in Getty’s own contributor agreement, the photographer retains his copyright.

In other cases, Marot Images claimed ownership of the “exclusive license”.

Clause 37 of the law, states that the copyright holder can grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license, and that the transfer of an exclusive license has to be in writing.


37(a) Copyright may be assigned by contract or by operation of
law and the owner of a copyright may grant an exclusive license or
non-exclusive license with respect to the copyright.
(b) Assignment of the copyright or the grant of a license, as
stated in sub-section (a), may refer to the copyright in whole or in
part, and it can be limited to a certain territory, period of time, or to
specific acts with respect to the work.
(c) A contract for the assignment of copyright or the grant of an
exclusive license therein shall require a written document.
(d) In this section, "exclusive license" – means a license granting
its holder the exclusive right to do any acts as set forth in Section 11
specified by the license, and restricts the owner of the copyright
from doing those acts or from permitting others to perform those
acts.

In other words, only a direct agreement in which the photographer grants Marot Images an exclusive license would prove that Marot had the right to sue. No such document has ever been produced, but various other documents (provided by Getty Images) and other actions (initiated by Getty Images) have been used to create the false impression that Marot does indeed own an exclusive license. Marot typically claimed that Getty Images transferred its own exclusive license and/or the right to sue to Marot Images.

Marot also claims that they have received the right to sue (alone) from Getty Images.  They use a document signed by a Marek Wystepek, previously manager of Getty Ireland, and now “Director, Getty Images International” based in the Cayman Islands, to prove to Israelis that they have received this right. We claim that the stand-alone right to sue is not transferable under the new Israeli copyright law (2007). The law backs us up, as do important verdicts in the USA.

In 2011 alone, no less than seven law firms representing Marot Image sent hundreds, if not thousands of settlement demand letters threatening immediate legal action unless amounts of around $3000 were paid to Marot. The letters were worded in such a way that many recipients believed that they had received the letter directly from Getty Images. The letters are strikingly similar to those received in the USA, and include a copy of the infringement (courtesy of Picscout I guess), a mention of the maximum statutory damages that may be awarded by a court (around $12,500), and a tight deadline to pay up! We estimate that many people paid a compromise amount of around $1,300 per image. Those who chose not to pay were harassed by additional letters, draft lawsuits, phone calls, and ultimately real lawsuits were filed. We estimate that people paid up at various stages of the fraud. For economic reasons alone ( not to mention psychological reasons ), it always made more sense to pay Marot than to fight them in court!

Ultimately, people paid Marot because they faced an expensive legal threat, and untold mental anguish.

We claim that Marot never owned the right to sue under any circumstances, and their actions and claims constituted a sophisticated economic and legal fraud that caused unsuspecting small business and individuals, ignorant in the law, and under financial and emotional pressures, to part with millions of dollars.

What was Getty’s role in the fraud?

1.   Getty provided the details of the infringement to Marot Images.

2.   Getty provided Marot with the “ Getty Images contributor agreement” for each photographer.

3.   Getty provided the “Marek Wystepek” letter, which appointed Marot as their sole representative in Israel, and supposedly gave Marot the right to sue (and other far reaching powers concerning imprisonment, and the winding up of corporations following bankruptcy !)  , but only “in its own name”. According to clause 54B of the copyright law, all parties with the right to sue would in any case have to join an action to sue, so Getty’s agreement in fact contradicts the Israeli law. Furthermore, the law in Israel does not allow the stand alone transfer of the right to sue (similar to the Righthaven, and Sony v Silvers judgments in the USA).

54(b) A claimant filing a claim as stated in sub-section (a), shall join as a party any person entitled to commence a claim according to the provisions of that sub-section, however the court may, at the claimant's request, exempt from the aforesaid duty to join a party.


4.   Marot insinuated that the Marek Wystepek letter constituted the transfer of the exclusive license from Getty to Marot. The law (clause 37A) contradicts this claim (as only the copyright holder can transfer an exclusive license), and closer inspection of the document shows that Getty certainly did not transfer any exclusive license rights to Marot. Marot is at best an “exclusive representative” in Israel, and certainly not the owner of the “exclusive license”!

5.   A second letter with similar content was provided by a Jonathan Lockwood, (Vice president Corporate Counsel, Getty Images).

6.   The Getty legal team in London  (Irene Paricaud from Corporate Counsel, Getty Images) also wrote e-mails to letter recipients in Israel in order to persuade them to pay up!

7.   Getty Images adds a very peculiar question to its web site when purchasing a “rights managed” image for use on the Internet (for Web corporate and promotional sites). It asks, “ In which territories will the image appear? ” Clearly, any image displayed on the Internet will appear in Cyberspace, on the Internet, and therefore, be seen in all territories simultaneously. Yet, Israel (along with a large number of other very significant countries, such as China, Russia, Greece, South Africa, the Czech Republic, etc) is missing from the list. The site then says – “Missing territory? Please call for a quotation”, and clicking on the link leads to “Image Bank Israel”/ Marot Image ( or the local representative in your country ) In this way, anyone whose image is to  be displayed in Israel (aren’t all Internet images?) is forced to call Marot Image in Israel to pay for their Internet license.

8.   The lawyers representing Marot Images in Israel use the fact that Israel is missing from this list of countries in which an Internet image may appear, to claim that Getty has indeed given Marot an exclusive license that covers the territory of Israel. They claim that Israelis can only buy licenses (for display on the Internet in Israel!)  directly from Marot, and not from Getty.

9.   This is, of course, totally absurd. It would mean, for example, that all image licenses bought from Getty would in fact be violating the copyright of Marot Images, and also that of Getty representatives in all the missing countries. It would also mean that the Internet was divided into territories, in which images may or not appear. In theory, a site owner would have to buy dozens of licenses if he wanted his image to appear everywhere on the net!

10.   Marek Wystepek gave direct instructions to Marot Image who to sue, and when to withdraw cases. (The chairman of Marot Images was careless enough to forward some of the e-mails he received from Marek!)

11.   We offer evidence that in several cases (most particularly concerning the Dorling Kindersly and National Geographic collections, that even Getty Images itself did not have an exclusive license, but it still allowed Marot Images to initiate actual court proceedings.

12.   Getty contributed to the spread of its images by easily allowing the free download of images without a watermark from its website.



Other various economic and  psychological elements contributed to the deception. Marot Image pretended to be Getty. They used the Getty logo as a signature on their e-mails, their phone recordings thanked people for calling Getty Images and they used the domain getty.co.il.

The 7 law offices that represented Marot applied constant pressure on the letter recipients, repeating absurd threats such as claiming that the letter recipient will have to pay the full travel costs of the photographer’s visit to Israel! Draft lawsuits were sent to those that did not immediately pay up. The draft sometimes included Getty as a plaintiff, even though Getty had only given Marot permission to sue “in its own name” (Marot). Getty has not been a plaintiff in the real lawsuits that have been filed since the new copyright law came into being in 2007 .The lawyers threatened immediate legal action unless the victim paid up. Eventually, most caved in under the pressure, and were forced to purchase a retroactive license for the image used.

Different to Getty’s reported actions in the USA, Marot Image has sued with amazing frequency! All the more stunning, as they did not own the right to sue! The economic model worked in most cases. Quite simply, it made no economic sense to fight them in court when the cost of defending oneself was around 5 times the cost of settling. Even if one wins in court, judges never award real costs. Fighting them was a no win situation.

Whilst Marot is the local company that directly violated the law, they could not have accomplished such a feat without Getty as an active accomplice. For now, for practical and economic reasons, we did not add Getty as a defendant. Their role is however central to the fraud, and they can easily be added as a defendant at a later date, as can the many lawyers that represented Marot Image. In my humble opinion, they simply had to know what was going on!

We want to disseminate this information across the web. It way well be that Getty is acting in a similar way in other countries.

I apologize for having written such a long post. I have tried to summarize a 30-page lawsuit!

My name is Ian Cohen. My e-mail is iancohen@013.net. I give permission to any news organizations to publish this story. Please send me a link if you choose to write a story. I will be glad to speak to any reporters from around the globe. Just send me e-mail. I am available on Skype.


Thanks to ELI for supporting me, even when you didn’t know I was here! I follow every post! I like to think of myself as the Israeli Matthew Chan!

I sincerely hope there will be repercussions the world over. Getty overstepped the line here, by running a scam by remote control, but their proxy did not operate according to the law. They simply did not have the right to sue!

I will keep ELI updated.

Ian Cohen
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on June 13, 2012, 04:17:55 PM
Damn IAN! Gonna take me a bit to read thru this, but you go!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on June 13, 2012, 04:24:53 PM
Yes!!!!! Thank you Ian!!!!  This is great news, please keep us all posted on the status of the case.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: SoylentGreen on June 13, 2012, 04:46:45 PM
Wow!!  This is big news!!
One can really see how this parallels Getty's extortion letter program on this continent also.

S.G.

Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on June 13, 2012, 04:48:39 PM
"The Matthew Chan of Israel"!!  Do keep us posted, it's about time someone other than Oscar stepped up to do the right thing. Kudos to you and your lawyer!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Jerry Witt (mcfilms) on June 13, 2012, 05:07:40 PM
Ian, you are my hero of the day. Thanks for doing all the leg work, building a great case, and sharing it with all of us.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Peeved on June 13, 2012, 05:20:36 PM
Holy Moly Ian WTG!

Best of luck!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Peeved on June 13, 2012, 05:38:26 PM
I can't believe these jerks actually filed suits!..

"Those who chose not to pay were harassed by additional letters, draft lawsuits, phone calls, and ultimately real lawsuits were filed. We estimate that people paid up at various stages of the fraud. For economic reasons alone ( not to mention psychological reasons ), it always made more sense to pay Marot than to fight them in court!"

I also love the documentation of Getty's "contributions" to the fraud!

YOU GO IAN!
 8)
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on June 13, 2012, 05:58:26 PM
I believe that they had to file a certain number of lawsuits in order to create and strengthen the public impression that they owned the right to sue. The threat had to be real. I think they got carried away with their success, and exaggerated in the number of lawsuits they filed. But it’s paradoxical that Getty (who may own the exclusive license) rarely sues, and Marot Image (who has no right to sue at all) sues with such regularity. It’s almost as if the more they sued, the stronger their belief in their fictitious legal standing became!
Ian
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Mulligan on June 13, 2012, 06:56:25 PM
Ian, all I can say is "Thank you" for the thousands and thousands of victims around the world who have been taken in by Getty Images and their outside counsel copyright trolls like Timothy B. McCormack of Seattle, WA.

Reading your post made my day, and I've printed it out as bedside reading for this evening before heading off to sleep. Sweet dreams will be thus guaranteed. Well done, well done!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: April Brown (AuctionApril) on June 13, 2012, 07:19:14 PM
IAN - ANOTHER HERO TO MANY!! My respect man.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Moe Hacken on June 13, 2012, 08:44:18 PM
Way to fight fire with fire, Ian. I'm sure it took a whole lot of time and careful planning on your part to put together this plan of counterattack. My hat's off to you for the dedication and precision with which you assembled the parts for the class action.

It will be interesting to hear which party was paying PicScout for Marot's trolling services on behalf of Getty, or if Marot was using another source for the "evidence" used in their extortion letters and lawsuits, and how they split the spoils they extracted from their victims. The sordid details are going to be brought to light for everyone to see.

Getty will also have to explain their deceptive terms of use and their lack of diligence in protecting their clients' intellectual property. I've noticed many micro stock photography companies are making an earnest effort to put very obvious watermarks on their comp images. Some of them, ironically, are even owned by Getty!

Here's an example from iStockphoto:

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/16127471/2/stock-photo-16127471-manele-bay-hawaii.jpg

Here's a comp image from Getty:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/bird-of-paradise-flower-kauai-hawaii-usa-royalty-free-image/139264605

Notice the disingenuous attempt to protect the image with a huge watermark on the right side. On the top left the comp image reads "Want an image with no watermark? Please sign in or register." The registration form is a joke. Anyone can lie to them on it and get a perfectly unprotected image. In a busy workflow situation, it would be easy to forget that the image is not licensed, or even where it came from and end up infringing innocently. I'm not defending people who would intentionally infringe, but Getty is virtually inviting the infringement by offering an unprotected version. That's how you get images on free wallpaper sites.

How come their micro stock company can do a better job of protecting their photographers' work? iStockphoto doesn't offer any options for comp images without watermarks. If you want to comp without a watermark, you have to pay, plain and simple.

Getty even offers unwatermarked comp images for rights-managed images! You would think an intellectual property they value so highly should be guarded much more jealously than a $10 iStockphoto image, but no. It's not different.

After reading the part about having to license an image for a country or region, I got curious and went on their little pricing form to see what it was like. It was ridiculous. It was far more complex than the form proposed by the Useplus people and it seems intended to confuse and deceive people into buying licenses that would later prove "inadequate" to Getty's "compliance team."

Look at this quote I got by filling out the form for a rights-managed image:

Image: 137409069   

License Details
Use   Web - Corporate and promotional site
Size   Medium resolution - Up to 300 x 250 pixels
Placement   Home page
Start date   Jun 13, 2012
End date   Jun 13, 2013
Territory   United States
Industry   Travel / Tourism
Exclusivity   No Exclusivity
           Contact us for exclusivity

Image:     Collection:                   Title:
137409069     Photographer's Choice   Rainbow Kauai

Price:   $ 475.00 USD
 

So it's $475 to use in the United States for 1 year (and you better not forget to take it down after exactly one year!), for a little 300x250 pixel image. I guess you have to make sure you block every IP outside the U.S. to "comply" with this ridiculous license.

Thanks for taking them to task and forcing them to explain themselves to the world. I'm rooting for you and your team all the way.


Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Matthew Chan on June 13, 2012, 09:10:44 PM
Ian submitted this very interesting document for posting in the ELI Document Library. Thanks, Ian.

Everyone can start salivating and start reading this little authorization agreement by Getty Images.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97024522/Mar-ot-Image-Limited-Authorization-Letter-from-Getty-Images-Israel
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: doggycase on June 14, 2012, 08:39:59 AM
Oh my goodness! This is unbelievable, but believe it. After days of getting frustrated, this has really made my day. I hope this will finally put to an end to their stupid extortion tactics..or maybe shut them down (all Getty offices worldwide).

Way to go Ian! Thanks!!! Keep us updated man. xD
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Bekka on June 14, 2012, 09:18:30 AM
Yea Ian!  This was a most pleasant read today.  Please keep us posted and I hope you guys prevail.  No matter in what country these extortionists tactics are used, it should be nipped in the bud.  I don't begrudge anyone making a living, but these people remind me of parasites, they feed off of others fear.  Time to get out the "troll powder!"
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: stinger on June 14, 2012, 09:57:09 AM
I nominate Ian (Scraggy) for instant "Hero" status on this ELI forum.  Is that possible Matt?

Ian, you have made my week.  If you have any tips for how we can get a U.S. class action suit against Getty started, I am all ears.  And I am willing to devote a significant number of hours to helping such a thing along.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: rock on June 14, 2012, 04:01:12 PM
Ian, WELL DONE !!!

The Getty letter posted on scribd is dated November 16. 2010.
Do you have a copy of the original contract between Getty and  Marot, the contract that Getty is referring to in this letter.
can we have a look at it.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on June 14, 2012, 04:05:20 PM
I wish! You are referring to " pursuant to a written contract" . No one has yet to see a the contents of this contract.
Ian
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: rock on June 14, 2012, 04:26:38 PM
what is Marek Wystepek  official position, and in which Getty: Getty Images international, or Getty Images Inc

http://ie.linkedin.com/pub/marek-wystepek/6/b15/970
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Khan on June 14, 2012, 04:40:12 PM
Quote:
...who believed Marot’s central claim that they owned the right to sue for copyright infringement, when in fact, under Israeli law, they do not own such a right at all..................

Regarding Ownership of the rights :

I have got a conformation of rightholdership signed by Marek Wystepek in which he states:
Hereby I confirm that the exclusive, worldwide right to license and distribute the aforementioned image (s) has / have been conferred on Getty Image (International, Dublin) by respective photographer. ....

The photo is one of the famous Stone Collection. Since there are many photos of the Stone Collection  involved in a lot of cases in the US here comes  my question:

Just in case the photo rights belongs to GI Int. Ireland: Would GI USA be able to sue one person in the USA? Should that not be GI Int.  Ireland?
If it should be GI Ireland we could have a similar case in the US regarding the right to sue?

Thank you very much

Khan
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on June 14, 2012, 05:16:40 PM
MAREK WYSTEPEK has been promoted to "Director, Getty Images International", based in Ireland, according to the most recent document in my possession.
I don't know anything about the relationship between the various Getty offices.

Quote
Hereby I confirm that the exclusive, worldwide right to license and distribute the aforementioned image (s) has / have been conferred on Getty Image (International, Dublin) by respective photographer. ....

If the above is true, this is exactly why a  totally separate company such as Marot Image could not possibly own the same exclusive license.

But Khan is asking if Getty USA is the same company as Getty International? If not, then it would not be possible for both companies to own the same exclusive license.

I guess it is quite reasonable to assume that they are the same company....but I am not 100% sure about this.

In any case, the "Getty Images Contributor Agreement" is with Getty USA, and not Getty International ( see http://www.aphotoeditor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-contributor-agreement-v.4.0-d-sample-english.pdf )

Ian


Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Oscar Michelen on June 17, 2012, 02:31:11 PM
Great stuff Ian! This is fantastic! Please keep us posted! Wow Three exclamation points! (four)
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on June 29, 2012, 02:34:03 PM
Our case got a mention on an American Law Professor's blog. I will copy the blog, and give links below. Please note the final quote -
Quote
Is America next?  A defendant class action bringing lawsuit harassment claims?

Collective Action Against Copyright Trolls

Not quite mass torts, but interesting from a complex litigation prespective anyway, so I hope our dear readers will forgive me.

This story concerns the use of the litigation system to intimidate small defendants into settling non-meritorious suits.  One of the areas where this has come up is copyright litigation.  Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn) and Alex Stein (Cardozo) recently wrote an article about this called the Relational Contingency of Rights (available on SSRN, forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review).   The basic observation is an important one: legal rights afford no meaningful protection against challengers who can
litigate more cheaply than the rightholder and who can use this advantage to  force the rightholder to give up her entitlement.

It turns out that some able litigants in Israel have taken their ideas and run with them.  Unfortunately, the only link I have describing the litigation is in hebrew (here).   Basically, an individual who refused to surrender to a pressing settlement demand filed a class action for over $10M against an Israeli company associated with a  multinational copyright giant, Getty Images. The claim for the Israeli suit, as far as I can tell, sounds in abuse of process.   Is America next?  A defendant class action bringing lawsuit harassment claims?

ADL


Link to blog
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/2012/06/collective-action-against-copyright-trolls.html (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/2012/06/collective-action-against-copyright-trolls.html)

Link to article by Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn) and Alex Stein (Cardozo)
https://bspace.berkeley.edu/access/content/group/e675b947-6067-425e-adbf-10e8922547b9/03.%20Jan%2030_Alex%20Stein%20-%20The%20Relational%20Contingency%20of%20Rights/RCR_1_18_12.pdf
 (https://bspace.berkeley.edu/access/content/group/e675b947-6067-425e-adbf-10e8922547b9/03.%20Jan%2030_Alex%20Stein%20-%20The%20Relational%20Contingency%20of%20Rights/RCR_1_18_12.pdf)

Link to news article ( in Hebrew )
http://www.themarker.com/law/1.1733718 (http://www.themarker.com/law/1.1733718)
and Google translated version
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themarker.com%2Flaw%2F1.1733718 (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themarker.com%2Flaw%2F1.1733718)
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Mulligan on June 29, 2012, 02:44:47 PM
Ian, thanks for these links. Interesting reading, indeed.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on July 05, 2012, 12:53:38 AM
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law has written a short piece on our lawsuit.

www.cardozo.yu.edu/(S(3clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x))/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524

It misses the important point that Marot Images owned no rights to sue at all , but it's still pertinent to the behavior of copyright trolls in the USA.

Quote
Professors Alex Stein and Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn Law School) wrote an article “The Relational Contingency of Rights” that will soon appear in the Virginia Law Review.  This article demonstrates that legal rights afford no meaningful protection against challengers who can litigate more cheaply than the rightholder and who can use this advantage to force the rightholder to give up her entitlement.

These challengers include large companies that acquired portfolios of copyrighted photos available on the Internet. Those companies retain attorneys at a sharply discounted fee, who aggressively sue unsuspecting fair users of those photos.  These un-meritorious suits virtually never go to trial because of the high cost of defense.  The companies offer lawful users of their photos an opportunity to avoid this cost by paying the company a lesser amount in a settlement.  To put an end to this extortionary practice, Parchomovsky and Stein have proposed a number of measures that include punitive damages.

This proposal has now been taken to court in Israel.  An individual who refused to surrender to a pressing settlement demand filed a class action for over $10M against an Israeli company associated with a multinational copyright giant, Getty Images.  If successful, this action might prompt similar suits against copyright trolls across the world.

The link to the article - “The Relational Contingency of Rights” is above.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on July 05, 2012, 07:43:14 AM
Hey Ian, thanks for the article, I would like to read this but I think there may be a problem with the link.  When I click it I get a server error saying the resource is not found.

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law has written a short piece on our lawsuit.

http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/%28S%283clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x%29%29/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524 (http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/%28S%283clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x%29%29/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524)

It misses the important point that Marot Images owned no rights to sue at all , but it's still pertinent to the behavior of copyright trolls in the USA.

Quote
Professors Alex Stein and Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn Law School) wrote an article “The Relational Contingency of Rights” that will soon appear in the Virginia Law Review.  This article demonstrates that legal rights afford no meaningful protection against challengers who can litigate more cheaply than the rightholder and who can use this advantage to force the rightholder to give up her entitlement.

These challengers include large companies that acquired portfolios of copyrighted photos available on the Internet. Those companies retain attorneys at a sharply discounted fee, who aggressively sue unsuspecting fair users of those photos.  These un-meritorious suits virtually never go to trial because of the high cost of defense.  The companies offer lawful users of their photos an opportunity to avoid this cost by paying the company a lesser amount in a settlement.  To put an end to this extortionary practice, Parchomovsky and Stein have proposed a number of measures that include punitive damages.

This proposal has now been taken to court in Israel.  An individual who refused to surrender to a pressing settlement demand filed a class action for over $10M against an Israeli company associated with a multinational copyright giant, Getty Images.  If successful, this action might prompt similar suits against copyright trolls across the world.

The link to the article - “The Relational Contingency of Rights” is above.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on July 05, 2012, 07:53:41 AM
TRY THIS LINK

www.cardozo.yu.edu/(S(3clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x))/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524

Ian
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: stinger on July 05, 2012, 10:03:24 AM
Scraggy, the more publicity this lawsuit gets, the more sweet music I keep hearing.  And I particularly love the last sentence.  "If successful, this action might prompt similar suits against copyright trolls across the world."
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Moe Hacken on July 05, 2012, 11:44:08 AM
Totally, stinger, it's great news to see a precedent is being set to pave the way for local action. I just posted a comment on another thread responding to your idea about fundraising with some brainstormy suggestions:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/carreon's-butthurt-proves-to-be-too-much-as-he-drops-suit/msg9589/#msg9589

Ian, you ROCK! Thanks for all of what you're doing.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Moe Hacken on July 05, 2012, 12:05:21 PM
I'd like to add:

Thanks, Matthew and Oscar, for all of what you're doing and for all of what you have done over the years to help others. I'm personally in your debt for your efforts to put together this invaluable resource and for sharing your core competences with this community.

Also, to the ELI community at large. Specifically and in no particular order: Buddhapi, SoylentGreen, mcfilms, lucia, and so many others I won't list them for fear of leaving someone out. You have also contributed an immense amount to this community.

All hail ELI, those who are willing to fight back salute you!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on July 05, 2012, 05:12:25 PM
That one works, thanks Ian!

TRY THIS LINK

www.cardozo.yu.edu/(S(3clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x))/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524

Ian
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on July 06, 2012, 09:31:21 PM
Very good artice and thanks again for posting the corrected link, I agree it misses the point but I love how it does points out that you are opening up the opportunity for similar suits against trolling companies worldwide.

Again, thank you so much Ian!  Keep us updated on the progress of the case!

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law has written a short piece on our lawsuit.

www.cardozo.yu.edu/(S(3clvkj55pdnihx55tjbmxc3x))/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10556&contentid=24754&folderid=524

It misses the important point that Marot Images owned no rights to sue at all , but it's still pertinent to the behavior of copyright trolls in the USA.

Quote
Professors Alex Stein and Gideon Parchomovsky (Penn Law School) wrote an article “The Relational Contingency of Rights” that will soon appear in the Virginia Law Review.  This article demonstrates that legal rights afford no meaningful protection against challengers who can litigate more cheaply than the rightholder and who can use this advantage to force the rightholder to give up her entitlement.

These challengers include large companies that acquired portfolios of copyrighted photos available on the Internet. Those companies retain attorneys at a sharply discounted fee, who aggressively sue unsuspecting fair users of those photos.  These un-meritorious suits virtually never go to trial because of the high cost of defense.  The companies offer lawful users of their photos an opportunity to avoid this cost by paying the company a lesser amount in a settlement.  To put an end to this extortionary practice, Parchomovsky and Stein have proposed a number of measures that include punitive damages.

This proposal has now been taken to court in Israel.  An individual who refused to surrender to a pressing settlement demand filed a class action for over $10M against an Israeli company associated with a multinational copyright giant, Getty Images.  If successful, this action might prompt similar suits against copyright trolls across the world.

The link to the article - “The Relational Contingency of Rights” is above.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on July 07, 2012, 06:27:56 AM
Porn copyright troll targets strike back in new class action

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=51585&terms=%40ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+%27ANV%27 (http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=51585&terms=%40ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+%27ANV%27)

Quote
it's cheaper and easier to pay the settlement than to hire a lawyer and defend the litigation.

Quote
"By extorting settlements of $1,000-$5,000 the pornography purveyors have developed a model whereby they can unlawfully gain more money than they can by selling access to their pornographic videos."

Sounds familiar?
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Moe Hacken on July 07, 2012, 09:49:16 AM
Right on, scraggy! I think you may have identified the rationale for a class action against image copyright trolls! This is a great line of thinking you're following there.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on July 10, 2012, 07:22:03 AM
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/09/porno-copyright-trolls-named-i.html

Porno-copyright trolls named in RICO class action suit

Quote
This event was bound to happen. Two things never come together: greed and the art of quitting when it is not too late. All it takes to damage an extortionist’s "business" severely is to mess with a wrong person, and with every day, the likelihood of such an event increases. Fortunately, all the "wrong persons" to date have responded civilly, within the law. Nonetheless, the risk to mess with a wrong type of a "wrong person" is still there.

Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Moe Hacken on July 10, 2012, 10:05:06 AM
Thanks for the posts, scraggy. These lawsuits are making some very interesting point about the "strategic litigation"/"extortion letter" racket.

In the Baker case, the argument is that the trolls have no intention of filing a lawsuit, so the extortion letter constitutes fraud and the letter itself is an instance of wire fraud because they used the postal service to deliver an extortionate claim.

The reason the porn trolls generally back off when someone threatens to fight back in court is precisely what Oscar mentioned before about some of the image trolls — they have to consider the risk of going to court and losing cases, thus creating legal precedents that are bad for the trolling industry.

The legal paper from law professors Gideon Parchomovsky and Alex Stein also address why the trolls fear actual litigation:

Quote
Enforcement organizations are repeat players in the copyright arena. As such, they can produce “cease and desist” letters and court briefs at a much lower cost than their adversaries, and then leverage this advantage into a favorable settlement. These settlements economize on litigation costs, but they also stunt the development of fair-use, misuse and other copyright defenses, as courts are increasingly denied the opportunity to consider these defenses. A corollary cost of this dynamic is that it sweeps problems under the rug and thereby prevents policymakers from adopting corrective measures. After all, disputes that have been settled privately between the parties rarely make policymakers to do list.

Source: The Relational Contingency of Rights ( http://tinyurl.com/6vw7u4j )

The emphasis is mine. This statement is basically what Matthew has been saying: Rolling over and being a coward to save money and/or because of ignorance and fear is wrong. Why? As the professors say, because it basically empowers the trolls to go after other innocent victims and prevent the abuse from any oversight by the courts or any possibility of the policymakers taking corrective action to prevent future instances of the abuse.

Invoking RICO to go after the basterds may be a stretch because they are basically taking advantage of a legal loophole that favors copyright owners in a disproportionate way, but if it works it would be the best way to start the drive to make real and permanent change to copyright law in order to level the playing field.

Whether or not they can nail the porn trolls with the RICO charges, these cases substantiate the need for changes in policy. Perhaps some of us in the ELI community can start lobbying the appropriate authorities and bring this serious problem to their attention. Perhaps it could be included in the proposed Orphan Works Amendment, as some kind of "anti-abuse" measure to take out the loopholes.

The changes I would like to see:

1) A warrant or court order being a legal requirement for collecting evidence from someone's server, thus taking out PicScout and any other crawler's gill-netting approach and the profit motive for people to hire them, and;

2) The requirement of a proper cease-and-desist letter being issued FIRST for any alleged infringement, giving copyright users the opportunity to back off in the case of innocent infringements. This wouldn't apply if the infringement was clearly malicious or if evident damage had already been done to the copyright owner. If the copyright user resists, then the settlement claim and threats of litigation can proceed.

The Orphan Works Amendment is still in the works, so to speak. The US Copyright Office would be a good place to start the lobbying.

I'd like to add that Dr. Michael from Aloha Plastic Surgery is my hero for taking Glen Carner and Vincent Khoury Tylor to task for their business practices thinly-veiled extortion bullshit at much expense to himself in money and effort. I eagerly await to see him prevail with a decisive victory and have Carner and Tylor pay HIM for statutory damages, attorneys fees, and perhaps punitive damages.

In doing so, another precedent would be set that hurts all the other trolls for their evil ways and the way would be paved for corrective legislative measures.

Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on January 13, 2013, 08:57:04 PM
Ian, I was wondering if there was anything new with this case or if you have an update for us?
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on January 14, 2013, 12:04:29 AM
Hi Greg,

We have our first court session on Feb 4!

Marot Images has requested an immediate dismissal of the case, to which we replied, and they responded, but unfortunately, the judge has not ruled on their request.

Regarding the court verdict against Marot ( Gili Mazor ) , in which the judge determined that Marot did not have the right to sue, Marot did not appeal.

The bottom line is that the letters have stopped ( for now ) . The class action suit,  their court loss, a Marot victims Facebook page and several online articles written by copyright lawyers, have created a new reality. People are not paying up! The whole system has collapsed! Seven law firms are with significantly less work! Such a shame!

Here is a link to our Facebook page. Join us! I think it increases the Google ranking!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%92%D7%A2%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%92/343388542351419?ref=ts&fref=ts

There are still half a dozen or so ongoing court cases. With the score at 1-0, they have nothing to lose! From their point of view, losing 3-0 is no different than losing 1-0. They may as well go for it. Unfortunately, several defendants are without representation.

I will keep you posted!

Ian
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on January 14, 2013, 08:57:32 AM
Thank you for the update Ian, I have liked your FB page, I will have to run it through Google translate tonight when I get home.  Keep us posted
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on January 14, 2013, 11:14:12 AM
Thank you for the update Ian, I have liked your FB page, I will have to run it through Google translate tonight when I get home.  Keep us posted

yeah I looked at it, it was all Greek to me..let me know how that google translate works out for you..
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on January 28, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
An unexpected update, and a bonus!

I have been helping a young guy called Yohai who was sued by Marot Image ( Case # 31499-07-11 ) . The pre-trial hearing was set for yesterday morning (Jan 27, 09.00) in the Jerusalem Court.

Last Thursday, Marot’s new lawyers called the defendant, and after some correspondence, agreed to drop their case without paying him costs. They did not ask him to sign anything (he would have, had they asked), and they did not bother to send him a copy of the request they planned to send to the court. Had they sent him a copy; we would have likely not gone to court.

Yohai  (I accompanied him because he had no lawyer) had no choice but to go to court yesterday morning. At 08.45, the judge had still not ruled on their request (because it arrived late on Thursday and courts are closed Fridays and Saturdays here), so we decided to enter the courtroom, and see if we could claim costs.

Marot’s lawyer at first threatened to continue the lawsuit if Yohai insisted on requesting costs, but the judge soon put an end to that threat! She was very clear as to how she would rule if the case continued, and all sides then agreed that the judge could award costs.

Without commenting at all on the merits of the lawsuit, she said, among other things, in an approximate translation:

Suing for 100,000 shekels was totally unacceptable and bore no reasonable proportion to the circumstances of the lawsuit.

She criticized Marot’s behavior, and she was adamant that Yohai deserved to receive costs.

She then awarded costs of close to $1000 to Yohai, and closed the case.

The court documents are in PDF format ( in Hebrew! ), and are posted on the Marot Images Victims Facebook pages!


One week to go till the first court meeting in the class action suit! Too bad yesterday's judge isn't presiding!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on January 28, 2013, 02:54:45 PM
Glad he got some shekels, hopefully Marot Images will get some schmekels!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Oscar Michelen on January 28, 2013, 03:10:07 PM
Great Result! Mazel Tov!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on January 28, 2013, 03:14:07 PM
Where is the "LIKE" button? Sometimes, I feel such a strong emotional need to "LIKE", and there's no button there!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: SoylentGreen on January 28, 2013, 03:19:38 PM
Thanks for the update and good news Scraggy!!
There seems to be a trend in the courts wherein these huge legal demands for minor infringements are being called out as excessive.

Scraggy seems to be quite a good Mensch!!

S.G.

Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: stinger on January 28, 2013, 03:38:21 PM
Thanks for the news Scraggy.

I think we should nominate that judge for an ELI "person of the year" award.  She righted a wrong that she saw even after a settlement had been reached.  I wish all judges were like that.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: lucia on January 28, 2013, 04:18:08 PM
Thanks for the update and good news Scraggy!!
There seems to be a trend in the courts wherein these huge legal demands for minor infringements are being called out as excessive.

Scraggy seems to be quite a good Mensch!!

S.G.
Cool! And the judge! Whoo hooo!  Mensch is masculine, right? So, what do we call the judge?
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on January 28, 2013, 04:23:28 PM
Where is the "LIKE" button? Sometimes, I feel such a strong emotional need to "LIKE", and there's no button there!

there is a like button...2 in fact....directly under every post!!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on January 28, 2013, 04:32:07 PM
You guys are so right. The Jerusalem Magistrate court judge's name is Tamar Bar-Asher Tzaban. She had the easy option of putting her stamp on the plaintiff's request, and drinking her morning coffee. Instead, she absolutely knew what she was doing when she exited her chambers. She was fulfilling her responsibilities, and achieving a degree of justice. When we have an ELI awards ceremony, I think the judge in the Advernet verdict will still win first place.

One other point related to SG's comment. The judge also said that the entire case was right on the border of "de minimis", either just below or just above the cut off line.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: SoylentGreen on January 28, 2013, 04:33:31 PM
We can call the judge "informed"..!

S.G.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on January 28, 2013, 05:50:48 PM
That is awesome news Ian!  Thanks for the update, keep the good news coming!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Jerry Witt (mcfilms) on January 29, 2013, 03:27:04 AM
Thanks for sharing that Ian. I love hearing about these reasonable proceedings around the world. Good luck next month. It looks like the tide is going your way.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on February 04, 2013, 10:56:09 AM
Sorry to inform everyone that the class action suit came to a halt today.

The judge advised us strongly to withdraw our request, citing the great difficulties ahead!

For example, our request did not come within the consumer protection laws, as required by the class action laws here. Furthermore, there would be great difficulty in canceling the signed agreements between Marot Image and those who had already paid them.

The judge (Anat Baron) had read all the details of the case, and was, in my opinion, being honest and fair. She made no comment regarding Marot’s right to sue, one way or the other.

She did not award any costs against me, which is saying something!

I did my best! The decision by no means gives Marot the right to sue!

Ian
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: stinger on February 04, 2013, 11:15:02 AM
That sucks.  But Ian, you are a fighter, and I would welcome you on my team anytime.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on February 04, 2013, 01:32:12 PM
I am sorry to hear about that Ian, it was a good fight and showed many others they don't have to stand there and take it.  You did a great job!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Oscar Michelen on February 04, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
Hey a battle well fought regardless of the outcome!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Moe Hacken on February 04, 2013, 10:35:13 PM
Ian, what you've done amounts to a victory anyway. You've gotten both Marot and Getty exposed for their sleazy practices and in that sense you scored big in the court of public relations.

You've also made it a lot less likely for others to fall into the Marot/Getty trap by shining light on their chicanery.

Pretty much what ELI does for anyone who will research, learn, and most importantly, fight back.

Well done, Ian!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on February 04, 2013, 10:51:56 PM
I just thought of another benefit/victory Ian, you created a major time suck and financial drain on them both and a little payback for what they are doing to innocent infringers is more than okay with me.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on February 05, 2013, 06:24:52 AM
Agreed! Perhaps now they will be a bit more selective in whom they send letters to.. You are to be commended on your efforts.
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: SoylentGreen on February 09, 2013, 12:12:52 AM
This is a "win" in my book.
It's likely the end of Marot's bogus copyright enforcement efforts.

From this, one can see that it's difficult to challenge or essentially "undo" settlement agreements.
This should be a lesson for those that are considering settling with Getty, or others.
If you find out that you paid too much, or even that you shouldn't have paid a settlement at all, it's difficult to rectify that after the fact.

S.G.



Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: scraggy on February 09, 2013, 07:08:17 AM
Thanks guys!

I certainly don't feel like I lost!
Here is a link ( translated ) to a summary of the conclusion of the case

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.co.il%2Fnews%2Fcopyright%2F2013%2F02%2F06%2Fcourt-dismissed-class-action-suit-against-image-bank%2F&act=url (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.co.il%2Fnews%2Fcopyright%2F2013%2F02%2F06%2Fcourt-dismissed-class-action-suit-against-image-bank%2F&act=url)

The fact that no costs were awarded against us says a lot about the judge's feelings in the case. Marot must have spent a fortune defending themselves, not to mention the sleepless nights, which gave them a taste of their own medicine.

I have exposed Marot Image for what they are - a Getty "Master Delegate" that represents Getty in Israel, but does not have the right to sue in Israeli courts. They do not own the exclusive license necessary under Israeli law.

Perhaps as a result of the class action suit, they made errors in other lawsuits, and now there is a clear court verdict that states that whilst Getty may have a right to sue here, Marot has no such right.

Perhaps Getty will now return, as the law demands, but I would advise them not to bother! My lawyer and I will be waiting for them, ready to help everyone who receives any threatening letters. With all the publicity generated by our case, people here will not roll over and pay so easily.

The judges are also not likely to be sympathetic. I think that that "DE MINIMIS" will be an adequate defense.

Ian

Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Mulligan on February 09, 2013, 09:37:33 AM
Ian, that's a win! Congratulations!!
Title: Re: Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.
Post by: Cliff61 on February 10, 2013, 05:42:33 PM
Problem is even after the translation I still don't really understand it! Can anybody translate without the legal terminology? The way I understand it the company that represent Getty can't sue in Israel, is that it in a nutshell?