Have you thought about a charge of MAIL FRAUD against Getty Images?

[Frivolity Beware]

If the purpose of their letter writing campaign is extortion, isn't it mail fraud to send these letters via United States Postal Service?  I have a client that received a few letters almost a year ago.  I replied to the letters requesting registration information, which I knew they did not have because they had not registered the images.  Now, almost a year later, McCormack has written with almost the identical letter initially sent to my client.  Knowing they did not register the image and knowing that the image was taken down from all my client's servers after having been up for a mere 3 days, isn't it mail fraud to send continued correspondence intending to get money?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Great question and welcome to the forums.  In my opinion I do not think it is mail fraud as what Getty Images and McCormack IP Law (referred to herafter as McCormack)  are doing is legal.  They are asking for money/compensation for an alleged infringement. The reason we refer to it as "legalized extortion" is that they tend to ask for more than what the market value of the image appears to be, more than what we think they could expect to recover in court and they refuse to provide proof that they have the legal right to collect on behalf of the artist they claim to represent. They will tell you when you ask that this information will only be provided through discovery, ie. when we sue you.

Their letters (especially those from Timothy B. McCormack) tend to make bold statements as if the claim had already been to court like...."Your company is guilty of copyright infringement". Getty/McCormack letters also use artificial deadlines and implied threats of an eminent lawsuit to frighten letter recipients into paying. McCormack also likes to quote infringement lawsuits that had large settlements which if you look them up have no relevance to the average innocent infringer receiving a Getty/McCormack demand letter.

All these things are reasons why we refer to these letters as extortion or legalized extortion. Again, I do not think what they are doing constitutes mail fraud but I am of the opinion that if their business practices were thoroughly examined by the Washington state Attorney General's office were brought out through discovery in a court of law Getty/McCormack may find themselves like righthaven and Prenda.

[Oscar Michelen]

It would only be fraud if there was a material false statement of fact in the letter such as Getty not actually owning the rights in the image and even then if the mistake was negligence it would not be a crime. While we call it "legalized extortion" the "legalized" is an important qualifier.