Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Getty Images v. Walter Kowalczuk (Buying/selling images in private FB forums)  (Read 6159 times)

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
There is no love lost between ELI and Getty Images but there are occasions when we are forced to side with Getty Images as a matter of principle.

Getty Images v. Walter Kowalczuk, et al. is one of those cases. We missed this story because all of us involved with ELI don't work on ELI full-time. We don't actively seek out new information as we are accustomed to having new information come to us.

I have not done a full review of all the court documents, only a basic review. However, in the interest of getting the story out, I am pointing to the PDN article which seems to be the best article so far covering the initial story from June 2016. However, keep in mind the Amended Complaint was filed in November 2016 which will include information NOT included in the original June 2016 complaint.

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/06/getty-files-copyright-lawsuit-scheme-sell-stolen-images-facebook.html

Getty Images themselves made a very strong public statement about this case.  This is NOT something they have done with the cases we typically deal with.

http://press.gettyimages.com/statement-regarding-legal-action-taken-against-mr-walter-a-kowalczuk/

For those that want to get into more detail, I have downloaded the most current docket (Feb. 2017) and the Amended Complaint (Nov. 2016). I hope to download more court documents in this case and read them in the future but the docket shows that progress is being made in this case.

https://www.scribd.com/document/339877748/Getty-Images-v-Kowalczunk-Docket

https://www.scribd.com/document/339877743/Getty-Images-v-Kowalczuk-Amended-Complaint

This case has LOTS of defendants being accused of infringements and appears to revolve them buying and selling sports-related images in a private Facebook forum. Posted messages are apparently written euphemistically referring to Getty images as "Spaghetti" images.

To be clear, this is not a situation I could help defend as the egregiousness of this case is off-the-charts. If this guy had come to me, I would tell him immediately go hire a lawyer.  The stuff he is being accused of is way beyond the scope of what we do and certainly do not condone.  If what Getty Images is asserting here is true, THIS is a true case of willful infringements, the repeated act of acquiring, buying, and selling sports-related images that clearly belong to another.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Tufnel11

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Here's an update.  Everything that follows was found while Googling.  No gossip, nothing private.

Larry Hebeler — acquired the passwords allowing access to Getty photos.  Agreed to settle for $21.3 million, July 2017.

Walter A. Kowalczuk — bought the passwords from Hebeler, downloaded thousands of images from Getty, sold copies of the images to everyone.  Agreed to settle for $14 million, February 2017.

Larry Barnes — downloaded Getty images.  Settled for $25K.

Seven others settled for $15K each, for buying and selling Getty images.

Still yet to settle:  Jaysen Moslehi (admin of Facebook group 'Autographs 101') and Jamie Blye, who bought images from Kowalczuk and resold them.






Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Thanks for the lead.  I looked into the PACER docket and pulled down the actual documents to read for myself. I would not say the defendants "settled" which implies they actual made payment to Getty Images.

What most of the defendants appeared to agree to are "consent judgments" which is not the same thing as a traditional settlement. Without knowing the details of how these events occurred, the "consent judgments" are likely for public showing and a good portion of the larger judgments are probably uncollectable. Getty Images probably knows it too. I would like to add that the most of the "consent judgments" were signed by the defendants "pro se". Most had no lawyer to represent them and were likely near broke and in over their heads. The lead defendant, Walter Kowalczuk, did have a lawyer and he might have a few bucks around but millions of dollars? I am not so sure about that.

If the defendants actually had the millions of dollars required to satisfy the consent judgment, I believe there would have been mention of some kind of settlement agreement, not a "consent judgment" which doesn't carry as much weight.

Whether the defendants settled for $4 million or $14 million, $2 million or $21 million probably makes very little practical difference if the the defendants cannot actually pay it.  But there were some who had consent judgments in the $15K-$25K range. Those are able to be paid off and I found one satisfaction of judgment in the docket.   

All these consent judgments make for "good" publicity for Getty Images to publicly humiliate and embarrass the defendants. Honestly, in some ways, I really can't blame Getty Images. I am no Getty Images lover but if the defendants really did resell these images on the scale as Getty Images claims, it borders on criminal behavior.

On ELI, we discuss mostly small-time unintentional infringements which fall entirely within the civil claim realm. But the defendants purported behavior really has me thinking about the criminal side of infringements.

If Getty can't collect actual restitution/reimbursements/cash settlement, the only thing Getty Images can benefit from is the public spanking and humiliation of the defendants with the consent judgments. There is also the small possibility the consent judgment will show up on their credit reports and hurt their credit. I am not sure what the credit agencies will pick up and report given the fact this is not a traditional judgment based on debt.

The defendants might be able to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and nullify the consent judgments if it becomes a real problem. However, it will not solve the fact Getty Images has managed to taint the defendants names and give the impression that the defendants engaged in quasi-criminal behavior.

I suspect Getty Images has done some investigation into the assets and income of the individuals before they seek any collection action such as levying their bank accounts. I don't think it is worth their while to pursue it unless they just want to twist the knife deep and hard.

With this public humiliation, the defendants will probably resort to landscaping work, mowing lawns, or washing dishes for income.  They can't get any job at any large company that might Google search their background.

Very interesting developments. It should be interesting to see how the remaining parts of the case is resolved.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 02:35:01 AM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.