A new collection Agency working with getty

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Glad to see you back posting again Robert, I have certainly missed your humor although Oscar may have enjoyed the break from having to cringe so much

Great find, great discussion..for every letter the copyright cow Timothy Mccormack sends out, we can now send out like 5 complaints! His sphincter is probably so worn out from puckering at this point, he's probably got himself a butt plug....well actually he may have already had one of those.....just say'in

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Just a few hit and runs, I'm due back in the office by friday, which gives me the weekend to "catch up"!
Oscar probably has been glad for a small break, but be warned there will be verbals enema's coming for those that deserve them!

Glad to see you back posting again Robert, I have certainly missed your humor although Oscar may have enjoyed the break from having to cringe so much

Great find, great discussion..for every letter the copyright cow Timothy Mccormack sends out, we can now send out like 5 complaints! His sphincter is probably so worn out from puckering at this point, he's probably got himself a butt plug....well actually he may have already had one of those.....just say'in

[Couch_Potato]

Isn't Getty now attempting to charge for a retrospective licence rather than collect on an infringement and that is why they are adding sales tax where applicable? It's definitely what they are doing in Europe because they add VAT which you can't do on a settlement for infringement.

If that is the case then it's a debt they are chasing and anyone chasing it should adhere to the appropriate laws.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

They may claim it's a debt, but it's still a claim, they have nothing on paper stating you have done business with them and owe them..They are trying to adapt to the changing landscape thanks to ELI, but as in the past, they don't seem to have their ducks in a row....

I have an 1976 AMC Pacer for sale...make an offer
needs a little work, parts are obsolete, it's the ugliest car ever produced....come buy it...kinda like Getty being for sale..

[Couch_Potato]

By the looks of it they are trying to reach an agreement on the basis that you have used their image and want to charge you for that use. So at first it's neither a debt nor a claim but a sale.

They are operating in such a grey area that I bet if most of their cases did go to court they'd have been put out of business long ago.

[gettyhater]

Hi All,

My client received the letter from Atradius Collections. We are based in England and i thought it was a bit strange that the contacted my client again with an absence of 11 months.

Attached is their letter.



We dont know whether to pay up or continue ignoring them.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

@ Gettyhater, first thing you need to do is get educated as to the whole process..you also need to know that this is a claim not a debt, I don't know the laws in the UK, but you may want to throw this back in the collection agency's hand, explaining this to them, they have no right to collect on a claim!

[Matthew Chan]

Can you email your letter to matt30060 at gmail? Your posted image is painfully difficult to download. We are happy to redact the personal information.

Hi All,

My client received the letter from Atradius Collections. We are based in England and i thought it was a bit strange that the contacted my client again with an absence of 11 months.

Attached is their letter.

We dont know whether to pay up or continue ignoring them.

[Moe Hacken]

Good point, Buddhapi. I find this letter quite confusing. They have a collection agency collecting a settlement claim for Getty without providing any specifics about the infringement in question, claiming Getty had sent you some information in an earlier communication. This raises all kinds of questions:

• Did the first letter have any information about the alleged infringement, such as the copyright registration and the author's name?
• Does Getty have the right to enforce this copyright?
• How did your client infringe a copyright and what "proof" do they have that an infringement was committed?
• Did they send you a PicScout screen capture?

Furthermore, has anyone agreed to pay any amount to Getty and then reneged? If not, why is a collection agency talking to anyone about a settlement claim that has not been discussed?

Maybe we need to see the first letter to get a better idea of what's going on. Switching from legal claim to debt collection seems totally capricious and haphazard, not to mention absurd.

By the way, Matthew's right. It's hard to download and read the image of the letter. Maybe you could send him copies of both letters.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I think this just might be a legal loophole that they're using Moe, if anyone who is familiar with the laws concerning debt collection tries to call them on it saying you have not provided me with proof of the debt, they have an out by saying that Getty has informed us that they have already sent you this information and did not forward it to us. I think they put that line in there just as a CYA move.

Good point, Buddhapi. I find this letter quite confusing. They have a collection agency collecting a settlement claim for Getty without providing any specifics about the infringement in question, claiming Getty had sent you some information in an earlier communication. This raises all kinds of questions:

• Did the first letter have any information about the alleged infringement, such as the copyright registration and the author's name?
• Does Getty have the right to enforce this copyright?
• How did your client infringe a copyright and what "proof" do they have that an infringement was committed?
• Did they send you a PicScout screen capture?

Furthermore, has anyone agreed to pay any amount to Getty and then reneged? If not, why is a collection agency talking to anyone about a settlement claim that has not been discussed?

Maybe we need to see the first letter to get a better idea of what's going on. Switching from legal claim to debt collection seems totally capricious and haphazard, not to mention absurd.

By the way, Matthew's right. It's hard to download and read the image of the letter. Maybe you could send him copies of both letters.

[Couch_Potato]

UK Debt collection law states they must supply you with information on your debt if requested. If you requested it they couldn't simply state that Getty had provided it earlier but they can probably get away with it in their initial communication.

If you did request it and they didn't provide it they couldn't contact you again requesting payment. If they don't have the proof they'd have to go back to Getty and get it. If they did have it all along you could certainly question why it wasn't provided at outset....and round and round you go.

[Couch_Potato]

Looking through the Office of Fair Trading overarching principles of fair business practice for companies collecting debts they do state the following:

companies should be transparent in their dealings with debtors and others – information provided should be clear and should not be confusing or misleading.

It could be stated that a debt collection letter with only a passing reference to what the debt is they are collecting without any further information is not very transparent.

and

treat debtors fairly – debtors should not be subjected to aggressive practices, inappropriate coercion, or conduct which  is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not

Threatening court action is definitely unfair as they must know that no debt actually exists and Getty couldn't prove it without a court order. As far as I can tell they have no authority to take you to court for the alleged infringement themselves, only Getty can do that so what they have stated is also deceitful. They wouldn't get away with the excuse that it's a standard template.

Depends whether you think a complaint to the OFT will make them back off or annoy them enough to try to take further action.

[Matthew Chan]

The copy of the Atradius Collection Letter has been posted as a reference:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99950455/Atradius-Collections-Letter

It references the UK Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99950309/UK-Getty-Images-Settlement-Demand-Letter

This is the first copy of the UK Getty Images Letter ELI has acquired and posted. It is very similar to the U.S. and Canadian Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter. The UK letter is only different by virtue of the letterhead address, payment party information/instructions, and the currency used for payment.

The Atradius Collections Letter references the Copyright, Design, and Patents Act of 1988 (aka CDPA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

[Moe Hacken]

It's interesting that in the FAQs they explain that "pursuant to Irish VAT regulations, legal settlements are subject to Ireland VAT."

In another thread we were discussing sales tax being added to claims in some states in the US. I wonder if they explain it as neatly in those extortion letters.

[Couch_Potato]

I'm not familiar with VAT regulations in Ireland, however the letter has come from Getty Images in London and they have a registered office here. If it is the case the copyright is owned only by Getty Images International then Getty Images UK office have no right to collect on the infringement as they do not own the copyright and cannot be assigned that right by anyone other than the copyright holder, which is not Getty.

If Getty Images here in the UK do own the copyright then the demand is from them, and no VAT should be due.