LCS letters

[Moe]

Hi Folks, I've found this forum very helpful to date, though I do have a question.
I used an image on my non-commercial blog in 2011, LCS discovered it last year (after the blog was merged with a business webpage) and I'm now receiving "The Letters" through email and letter mail. They are asking for a sum that is MUCH smaller than most others, less than 3X the licensing fee for commercial use.
My question: I am in the wrong, I shouldn't have used the image. I know paying the fee just feeds back into the trolling that they are doing, but because I have no argument of fair use etc. is that the route I should go? I'm broke right now, but I'd prefer that over a lawsuit - and from the looks of it, they are not hesitating so much in that realm.
I have already replied to their emails, but every reply has either been a standard letter or a reference back to a past letter. Meaning that they really aren't answering my questions, and despite this correspondence (if you can call it that...) I'm still receiving threatening emails/letters. I'm assuming they have them on auto-send?

So, in short, what should I do that puts me at least risk?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

So if you're broke, and they sue and win, what do they collect??? zero I would assume... you need to keep reading ,getting educated, then decide what is best for you. That decision is completely up to you.

[Moe]

So my understanding is that LCS/Getty (etc) didn't launch any lawsuits between 2008-2014, and since then they are taking people to court, yes? Including single-image infractions?

I'm broke in the sense that I'm self-employed, have a lot of expenses right now, coming out of a slow time of year and this month was slower than expected, and that amount - albeit relatively small - will make an impact. But it's not going to kill me. I'd far rather pay that amount that deal with the courts. Let's just say it will be significantly less than hiring a lawyer.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Generally speaking Getty does not file over single image issues, it's not worth it to them. I don't have the stats in front of me regarding what they filed in the last couple of years, however the percentage of suits filed verse the number of letters, is rather small, as in probably less than 1%.

[Moe]

Does it frequently happen that they can be argued down in cost?  I know of the church newsletter situation.

[stinger]

It seems to me that if you ask the right questions:

• who holds the copyright
• is the copyright registered
• who holds the rights to enforce the copyright,

and they give their standard, we don't have to tell you till we take you to court BS response, that they are bluffing.

Why do I say this?  If you have a documented letter that you know they received (I only send mine registered to this kind of entity), and they refuse to answer your legitimate questions, no reasonable judge will award them more than the $200 minimum.

Now it costs more than that to file.  So if they did enough of these, they would put themselves out of business.  They might be unethical and scummy, but they are not stupid.  They are trying to stay in business as long as possible.  A much better business plan is to save the filing fees and collect something from a percentage of those they approach.  I would expect that their cost structure is a percentage of what they collect.

So they go after people with a conscience or those who will pay a little to save the potential of big costs down the line.

It's your decision.  I am not a lawyer.  But I did hang through it for 3 years and paid them nothing, with my eyes open to their tactics the whole time.  Their claim on me was something like $42,000 on fifty some mages that my firm used over a less than 2 year period.  Did we use them - yes.  Did I think we did anything wrong - no.  I wanted them to file.  I would have rather spent $100,000 in court, on the public record exposing their tactics, and how they mislead us, and how they tried to cover their tracks about the misleading before trolling. 

Once they get you in a courtroom, their is no non-disclosure statement in the settlement.  In my case, they acted just like a bully.  I am not referring to Getty here or LCS, I am referring to McCormack IP Law.  When I punched back, they ran and hid.

I don't know the details of your case, and I don't know how much effort you are willing to put out to save the money.  But I do agree with Robert.  Keep researching this.  Do what's right for you.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Also, you mentioned that you have replied to them in several emails. If you have already admitted that you used the images and "found" them on the Internet (or something like that), it may make you a more likely target. Not knowing what was said and what they want, it's really hard to offer advice.

I'd hate to see you "feed the trolls". If you do decide to pay them, I would make it clear that this is not admitting any guilt and make it contingent on seeing the copyright documentation and the contract with the photographer. When they tell you that they don't do that until they file suit, which will be for much more money, you can tell them that it is highly unlikely that any judge would award more than what they originally asked for. You are simply doing due dillagence and asking they provide evidence of what they are asking for.