Here's Another Extortion Letter

[stinger]

I agree with not acknowledging for the time being. 

It is possible they may have gotten the screen shot using waybackmachine.org.  I am not certain about the legality of their pressing a case discovered this way.  After all, if they find the image on another machine that says you were hosting it at some point in the past, they really haven't found you hosting it.

Maybe someone else can speak to this point.

[Documentarian]

I'd be interested in the answer to that too. (Though it won't apply to me...I made it so my material can't be archived by Wayback.)

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Keep in mind, that a bot is used in finding offending images, so even if you redesigned the site, and possibly removed images from pages, if the directory where the images were uploaded remained on the server, those images would be found ( unless the directory was password protected).. For example if you are running a wordpress, joomla or other CMS, when you remove an image from a page or post, the images still remains in the library or upload directory. So stating that you removed images, could be incorrect.

[Documentarian]

I deleted the images from the website server itself.

[Documentarian]

So! Now I have a print version of the demand letter that was mailed at what seems to have been about the same time I got the email...the return address goes to these guys:

http://www.corporationwiki.com/New-York/New-York/digitaltoprint-inc/56379334.aspx

Nothing new in the print letter, but I realized that their screenshot does have a date on it. They took a shot of the entire screen of a Microsoft Windows setup, and the date is down in the right bottom corner. Now I can see that their date of discovery was as early as October 2013. That means the SOL is more than half over already.

It'll be ignored like the other, but from all I've read here it seems a little odd that they'd let anyone get any hint of the date of discovery.

[Documentarian]

Got letter #2....only note of interest is that they say they're "willing to offer" another 10 day period to pay and that failure "may result in legal escalation".  So just the usual shtick for now.

[Documentarian]

And now we have letter #3!  This time is says failure to pay "will result in escalation to our legal representatives and the possibility of legal action being commenced...." Yada yada. So I'll probably get the Robby Cook letter soon.

For certain reasons I won't get into, if I get the Cook letter, I'm debating whether I'll respond with a "$100 take it or leave it, provided you can show you own the copyright" response of the kind some here have discussed...or whether I'll spring for a second letter from Oscar, or just keep ignoring them. But something else occurred to me, a question maybe someone has addressed here before, but I can't find it in a search.

Given the small amounts they're demanding...why don't Getty and Superstock go after people in small claims court?

Is it maybe because in small claims, you're responsible for collecting the judgment yourself?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

1. copyright infringement is a federal issue, hence you can't bring it to small claims court.

2. you stated the option of a second letter from Oscar...Are you saying Oscar sent a letter already on your behalf?? IF so  they are bound BY LAW to not contact you, they MUST go through your attorney ( Oscar if he sent a first letter).

3. IF you care to respond, I would make it short and sweet. something along the lines of. " my attorney has already responded to your request, I will be forwarding this contact by your firm to the state bar association...yada, yada, yada..

[Documentarian]

1. Great, thanks!

2, 3. Sorry for the confusion. Oscar did a letter for me for Getty late in 2013. It shut them up good. Now I'm dealing with Superstock.