Any attorney defended lawsuits yet?

[meatshield]

I see a lot of good information on this site and I thank the people running it.

I used to design websites using a company offshore and now have several of my old clients coming to me for solutions in these matters ranging from Getty Images to Superstock. Of course that company I used is not to be found now, lol.

Of course they aren't going after me but the eventuality of the website clients coming after me are there i'm sure.

Have there been any of these cases actually defended in court with an attorney or at least someone defending themselves with a decent defense? The only one I see is a default judgement on your site.

I see some of these have gone to collection agency firms. Can they put this on your credit profile as a collection? I can't see how they could if you never agreed to anything in writing such a loan or credit card agreement.

Any experience with SuperStock on these letters? I haven't found mention of them yet here though I've just started my read.

Also, not to be ungrateful but how do we know you the moderators and people running this site aren't in on it with them or out to turn a buck yourselves? I read through your descriptions and backgrounds but I still find myself asking that question. Henry Kissinger once said "you can call me paranoid but that doesn't mean I'm crazy".  I would think you are not but thought I would ask just the same. The stock photo companies have just as much access to all of this information here as we do I suppose.

[Matthew Chan]

As the founder of this website, I would have to say you are extremely paranoid if you think I went out of my way to be a Getty Images letter recipient. This website was originally started so I could defend myself by tapping into Internet resources. When Attorney Oscar Michelen came into my life, we started corresponding, and he "got" what I was saying, I knew I had found the perfect ally and partner.

We make no secret that we accept fees and donations.  Oscar charges a nominal fee to be part of his letter program. I invite (but not actively solicit) donations to help me continue this website. However, I would tell you that Oscar and my greatest rewards thus far is probably the large amount of goodwill and thank you's that have come our way and the boost in our professional reputations for taking up this cause.

For me, if I did not get some thank you's or some donations along the way, there would almost be little point for me to stick my neck out. After all, it does take some of my time and resources to keep this site running for the greater good.

So, there you go. My honesty at its finest.

MatthewC

[meatshield]

Matthew,

Thanks for the reply on that question. I appreciate your honesty, and yes I'm a bit paranoid and its companies like Getty and PhotoStock that make me that way. They seem to run these operations like a collection agency, not reasonable business people. They don't care about your side of the story or circumstances, they just focus on the money. I don't think it is beyond them to use any resource possible in pursuit of their goals.

Edit: I hope I haven't blacklisted myself here by asking you that question, I can't help but notice nobody has commented on my other questions as of yet. I've always looked at forums as a way to discuss a broad range of topics and concerns openly.

Also I was reading this article here http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/07/21/the-stock-photo-industrys-massive-copyright-campaign/ and it mentioned you were an attorney as well, I didn't see that in your bio so just wanted to let you know that in case you were unaware of this.

From that article:

What is Being Done

There are several things that are being done to address these issues. For one, attorneys Matthew Chan & Oscar Michelen have set up a site and offer reduced-rate legal counsel for those who receive these letters.

[Matthew Chan]

You have not been blacklisted for such a simple comment/question.  It takes a bit more to be banned.  LOL.  You would know if you were banned here.

BTW, I am NOT an attorney, only Oscar is.  I am only a Getty Images letter recipient who also happens to be a publisher, author, and Internet marketer that got dragged into this (just like everyone else that visits this site).  But I appreciate the sentiment.

MatthewC

[meatshield]

Thanks for the reply, good to know.

I did find one thread on the site here involving superstock, as noted in that thread it seems they are not as aggressive as the others. They have sent two notices thus far to a client so if I can get those posted I will. They have asked for over $2k for the one image that was immediately taken down.

[Oscar Michelen]

Let me answer your questions:
Have there been any of these cases actually defended in court with an attorney or at least someone defending themselves with a decent defense? The only one I see is a default judgement on your site. To my knowledge, no one has ever gone to the mat over this issue.  Almost all of the cases brought by Getty across the country were resolved by default judgment sa the defendant did not invest the time or money to defend. However, recently we reported on the Muensch case which is being heavily litigated.  So far the judge has ruled twice in a manner very favorable to our position.  It is discussed at length at other posts on this site.  

I see some of these have gone to collection agency firms. Can they put this on your credit profile as a collection? I can't see how they could if you never agreed to anything in writing such a loan or credit card agreement.  This is also discussed at length elsewhere In brief: They cannot put you into collection or damage your credit with this claim.  It is a claim not a debt
We forced their main collection agency to change the language in their letters years ago
Any experience with SuperStock on these letters? Yes Superstock behaves just like Getty and we have handled about a dozen Superstock claims

[Helpi]

"very favorable to our position"

How is Muench so helpful ?

I mean does Muench stand for anything other than fill out a registration in accordance with the statute ?

If the author doesn't mess up the registration you'll have to deal with the substantive infringement issue. Which HM has spent nearly two years fighting to avoid. Assuming HM is successful stock agency will merely change the way they do any "bulk registrations" and/or photographers will register themselves (which they should anyway.)  <

[Oscar Michelen]

Muensch is so helpful because all of the image companies that register their images use the method struck down by Judge Preska in Muensch. So if this decision stands up on appeal, the image companies will have to re-register all of their images to get full copyright protection for them. Until that time, the companies would only get actual damages not statutory penalties and attorneys fees.

But on a personal note, the case was huge personal vindication for me. When this first started years ago, when I would object to the manner in which they had registered the images, the image companies would shove a letter in my face from the Copyright Office that Nancy Wollf, then an image company lobbyist, now an image company lawyer I believe, received in response to her  request for guidance on whether mass registration was valid protection for the individual images included in the compiled registration.  The Copyright Office wrote her back that it was valid. I kept saying "I don't care what they say, they're wrong!" I can't tell you the remarks and condescending replies I would get about how I was trying to say I knew more about copyright than the Copyright Office.  Well in Muensch, Judge Preska employed the very same analysis I laid out in countless letters and emails  to Corbis, Getty and Masterfile and she stated in her decision exactly what I had been saying: The Copyright Office was wrong! Mass registration in this manner does not provide copyright registration of the individual images included in the registration. She said she felt badly that the image companies had relied on the Copyright Office  letter but she had to follow the language of the Act.  I cant tell you how good it felt to read that.

[Helpi]

I was thinking for going forward with new works and new registrations.  After looking at that case, I'm aware of the implications for many existing registrations done by the stock agencies using that bulk registration process.  

"she had to follow the language of the Act"

Maybe the 2nd Circuit will have to give effect to the intent and purpose of 411(b) and rule that "contains any inaccurate information" includes missing information. That 411(b) trumps 409.  That Congress intended to end this practice of invalidating registrations statements on technicalities when it adopted new 411(b) (and if the Copyright Office says you are good to go any purported defect is almost by definition a technicality).  Or whatever else someone more creative than me can come up with that sticks to get a more "just" result.

Anyway, whichever side one is on, that case highlights that the registration process is way too complicated. If lawyers and the Copyright Office (which is an expert agency) are arguing over whether a registration process satisfies the statute what hope do lay persons have ?

[Oscar Michelen]

Helpi, the copyright act needs to be modified so that it is clear.  It also needs to be amended to follow UK and Canadian law that you get no damages if the infringement is innocent and the "infringer" ceases and desists.

[Helpi]

"Helpi, the copyright act needs to be modified so that it is clear."

That does not seem a realistic task for many reasons.

But making the registration process simple, relatively inexpensive and clear is. We can all agree or disagree on what the remedies should be but whatever they are should be available without traps.