Getty Files 3 New Lawsuits over Single Images

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

First I want to thank Matthew Chan for bringing this to my attention. Apparently Getty has filed 3 new lawsuits against corporations (Don't know how big these are but I assume they are very small).

What is different about these lawsuits beside the fact that they are over a single image is the way the complaints are worded. Unlike Getty's complaints in the past which were many many pages long and extremely detailed, these complaints are only 6 pages long and appear to be "cookie cutter" or boilerplate complaints, meaning it is almost a form where the individuals information is inserted. One complaint does have two additional pages which is a copy of the registration.

In my opinion this strikes me as Getty testing the waters and going down the same route as Prenda did by filing cookie-cutter complaints and attempting to use the court system as a collection agency.

I only hope that Getty will pick on the wrong person in one of these people will pull Aloha Plastic Surgery on them in countersue so that we can force all of Getty's dirty little secrets out into the open. This will happen sooner or later and I can only hope it will happen sooner.

Here are the links to the 3 cases and dockets.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257287/Getty-v-FHL-Logistics-Inc-Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257283/Getty-v-FHL-Logistics-Inc-Docket

http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257286/Getty-v-X5-Studios-Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257284/Getty-v-X5-Studios-Docket

http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257285/Getty-v-Gestalt-Ventures-Inc-Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/202257282/Getty-v-Gestalt-Ventures-Inc-Docket

[rock]

FHL Logistics
- In or about June 2012, Getty Images identified a photographic image
- copyright Certificate of Registration VAu 967-849 dated December 18, 2007

X5 Studios
- June 2012, Getty Images identified a photographic image
- copyright Certificate of Registration VA 1-876-256 dated September 23, 2013
LATE REGISTRATION , asking for actual damages only , no lawyer fees ??

GESTALT VENTURES
- In or about July 2011, Getty Images identified a photographic image
- copyright Certificate of Registration VA 1-876-258 dated September 23, 2013)
LATE REGISTRATION, asking for actual damages only , no lawyer fees ??

[roywood06]

So do you see this as a paradigm shift for GI or just something they are trying out? I wonder how much they demanded prior to suit and whether the business owners attempted to negotiate with them or just ignored the letters.

[lucia]

Rumor has it these were served through 3rd party registered agents, which makes it easy to get served. Not all companies set those up. Possibly most don't.  When a company doesn't set up a 3rd party registered agent, it's a bit more difficulty to serve those companies.

Does anyone know if it's true they were served that way? 

[rock]

It looks like they are targeting corporations and not a mom, a dad, a single person, or a small business that is not incorporated.  I am not a lawyer, but after reading this forum, if you are incorporated, you must hire an attorney to represent you in court. A corporation, at the discovery stage, will ask Getty to provide all the documents to proof the claim. If  Getty has the right documents and proof, the corporation may choose to settle instead of continuing paying an attorney to represent them in the suit.

If you are a mom or a dad, you can go to court by yourself and  represent and defend yourself, no lawyer is needed, and if the infringement is unwillful they may get only $200. That's another game. Getty Images has been in the practice of inflating the image prices from $3-$50 /image  to $300-$500 /image (for the same image) just to ask for higher actual damages. The market price of the images is much below and the actual damages will be established accordingly.

[Oscar Michelen]

I have to be very brief about this topic because I currently represent several of the sued companies. It appears Getty has selected a handful of companies to sue in Federal Court - all of the ones I have seen have been over a single image. Folks who are targeted in these suits tend to be web developers or lawyers I think so that Getty can argue they should have known better, though of course that really doesn't matter all that much in the scheme of things. I don't think these suits will be well-received in Federal Court particularly if the defendant makes a fair offer to Getty. Since the lawsuits deal with unlicensed images, Getty cannot recover legal fees though they may be able to recover their filing fees and process server fee if you don't accept service. It usually is wise not to fight service of process as  most companies can be served merely by serving the State's Secretary of State. That way Getty cannot tack on the cost of process service. Courts are going to want to see these matters resolved quickly especially when they hear they involve a single image. Let's see how this all shakes out.

[Matthew Chan]

Two new ones got listed in http://dockets.justia.com.  I haven't seen the actual complaints as I did with the other lawsuits but I suspect they will be cheap "cookie-cutter" complaints lead by Scott Wilsdon of Yarsmuth Wilsdon PLLC.

There might be more lawsuits coming that haven't been posted or listed.

Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Scott & Fenderson, P.A.
Filed: January 21, 2014 as 8:2014cv00137
Plaintiff: Getty Images (US), Inc.
Defendant: Scott & Fenderson, P.A.
Cause Of Action: Copyright Infringement
Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Florida Middle District Court
Type: Intellectual Property > Copyright

Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Skiltrek, LLC
Filed: January 21, 2014 as 3:2014cv00080
Plaintiff: Getty Images (US), Inc.
Defendant: Skiltrek, LLC
Cause Of Action: Copyright Infringement
Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Florida Middle District Court
Type: Intellectual Property > Copyrights

It appears that Getty Images Legal Dept. might have gotten budget approval from Jonathan Klein to move on this.  Doing some basic math, I am guessing they are investing less than $1,000 on every case they file.  Then, there might be another $500-$1,000 worth of lawyer's time to negotiate settlements.  Essentially, I see "break-even" as being an average $2,500 per claim.

They may or may not make money but they want to send a message about single image infringements.  And, of course, ELI reports on these things so they know we will get wind of it.

However, the minute someone files a COUNTER-SUIT, that could shoot their budget all to hell. In the counter-suit, someone would need to show that Getty Images is NOT using the court system in good faith.  They are using the court system as their collection agency.  The counter-suit would need to include photocopies of ALL the "cookie-cutter" complaints.  When the court sees all these "cookie-cutter" complaints with Scott Wilsdon's name, someone will take pause and a light-bulb will come on.

The delicate trick is if they will hit the wrong client who would go public and speak loudly. They would have the will and determination to file a counter-suit calling out Wilsdon's latest "strategy".  They file too many lawsuits and then they have an RIAA situation on their hands.

My guess is that plaintiff lawsuits by Getty Images would have to get the approval of Jonathan Klein or someone high in management because of the visibility issue and the relative rarity of lawsuits Getty is involved in.

Further, this recent "strategy" was likely approved by Getty Images Legal Dept.  Those inhouse attorneys bury themselves in the corporate infrastructure to hide their names and roles in this.  They let the outside lawyers like Timmy and Scott take the arrows.

I haven't kept up with who constitutes the legal department with Getty Images. Last time I looked, many of the bios were people who have never been in the outside world. They hide behind their cushy little desks trying to figure out ways to extort money generate revenues to justify their department's existence.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I haven't pulled down the suits, but are these single images extraordinary unique? Or are they very similar to those available for $1-5 on pond5 or dreamstime?