Getty must proof that "Getty" own the rights to these pictures, (otherwise they have NO CASE)
When you ask Getty for the copyright registration info, signed contract by the photographer, etc....they will not provide any proof because in most of the cases they do not have it , or it was done in a sloppy way - that's why they can not provide it. Generally Getty’s employees will respond as they usually do and state they will only show this in court. They will say your case got "escalated". They will tell you, "Your case will be sent to Council". You may receive a letter from an outside collection council, or Timothy McCormack, or another collection attorney. They will try to create fear.
Do not fall a prey to this, do not cower to their USUAL fear-based strategy.
These collection councils cannot sue you without Getty’s approval. In 99.99% of these caes , Getty did not sue over a single image. In general, these collection lawyers do not have any proof that "Getty" own the rights to these pictures, they do not know if they even have a legal CASE against you, they just use collection tactics. They will try to get some information from you, do not volunteer any, resist your urge to give details. The only SINGLE thing they have is just the screenshot, that's the ONLY thing they will say they can send you, (they do not have anything else!) and by itself this can NOT win a legal case.
Hopefully this will reduce your fear.
I thought everyone would enjoy commenting on McCormack Law Firm's "final warning" form letter, a copy of which I received not too long ago from one of my favorite extraction scheme trolls, paralegal Ashanti A. Taylor of Seattle, Washington.
Although I didn't reply to Ms. Taylor because I don't respond to form letters demanding $X,XXX, if I had replied, it might have gone something like this:
Achtung Fraulein Taylor!
You didn't make any attempts to resolve this claim because you refused to provide proof of your right to even discuss it when I requested that proof in my response to Timothy B. McCormack's initial form letter to me.
Ms. Taylor, though I know what a "settlement agreement" is, I don't know what a "comprise" is. Is a comprise something like a commode? Or perhaps a Seattle version of a bidet?
"Intermittent or non-existent" communications from moi?
Not so!
I communicated with you, Ms. Taylor, but you refused to provide the simple proof I requested, so I could see no point in wasting any more of my time with additional letters. I mean, honestly, trying to communicate with you, your copyright troll boss Timothy B. McCormack, or your "compliance officer" clones at Getty Images is akin to discussing the finer points of Shakespeare's 23rd sonnet with a Dempster Dumpster.
Ms. Taylor, you write: "Please consider this your final warning."
Oh my, Fraulein Taylor, with those bold-cased words you scared me so much I shit my pants.
Then you add, "There is still time to avoid escalation of your case."
OMG, I shit my pants a second time, this time from relief that there was still time!
And then... "We will recommend litigation to Getty Images."
Holy shit, I shit my pants a third time!
This is a record for shitting my pants.
But all shit aside, Ms. Taylor, it was only a few short months ago when Getty Images was threatening to escalate my case to a lawyer for litigation. And now the law firm that the case was escalated to is threatening to escalate again by threatening litigation to the image company that hired the lawyer that I thought was going to escalate by litigating.
Whoa, I just shit my pants a fourth time because I'm so confused as to WTF is going on here.
Missus Taylor, the three legal cases you cited on page two of your "last chance" form letter did NOT cause me to shit my pants a fifth time because the cases are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Did you really think me stupid enough to empty my sphincter over three old legal cases, especially when you obviously whited out a fourth case that was once between the first and second case?
BTW, why is that case whited out, Ms. Taylor? I smell something seriously stinky here. Perhaps Timothy B. McCormack shit his pants because there was something about Case No. 2 that might cause him legal problems? Is that why Case No. 2 was removed from the form letter? Or maybe it had something to do with the X-Files? Perhaps an alien invader came into McCormack Law and extracted Case No. 2?
But I digress.
Ms. Taylor, I had to chuckle when I read your "final good faith effort to avoid litigation" paragraph. Though I certainly appreciated your offer of a payment plan, I have to admit that I shit my pants a fifth time when told it would cost me an "additional $300.00 administrative fee" to take advantage of that plan. Alas, I'll have to pass on your generous offer. So sorry!
Ms. Taylor, to address your next point, I admit to having no insurance whatsoever. I'm just a poor old man crawling his way toward retirement, living on a pittance, scratching out enough money some weeks to afford chicken necks for my one meal a day (when they're on sale) and living the rest of the time on cans of dog food that the local supermarket throws out when the expiration dates have passed.
I'd call you to discuss this matter further, Ms. Taylor, but, oh my, the phone company cut off my service many many months ago, just before the bank foreclosed on my house.
That was the first time I shit my pants in almost sixty years, I might add.
Sincerely yours,
Mulligan
P.S. It's terribly unprofessional for a law form to send out form letters threatening litigation and demanding thousands of dollars for thumbnail images without providing a shred of proof of a right to make such a demand. I guess that's why you and your boss Timothy B. McCormack are in such deep -- dare I say it? -- shit with the Washington State bar association?
Topic: I got a letter today (Read 9080 times)