Are Stock Companies Playing Coy When One Requests Registration Information?

[Littlescoop]

Hi!   Has anyone come across the following scenario:  I asked a stock image company to provide the registration information for an image they claim was infringed on.  (This is not MF.) Their response was it would take time to ascertain the registration information and whether or not that image is registered is irrelevant given they are only seeking actual damages at present so they don't see the need to research this for me.  However they went on to state should we not settle and should this escalate into court, they would seek statutory damages IF they determined the image was registered.  ELI forum (and I've read every page and watched every video) recommends only offering a nominal amount  ($ 200 - $ 300) as reasonable compensation without proof of registration.  Has anyone else run into this explicit type of avoidance by a stock company when requesting registration information? 

Secondly, I'm wondering what the possibility is that a stock company seeking damages would not readily know if they were dealing with a registered or non-registered image when demanding settlement?  Is this information they really would not have readily at hand?  And, if so (which I can't believe), is it really so time consuming to check for registration information, as they claim?  I would think this information would be readily accessible to them.  So that makes me think they are avoiding providing this information because 1) they know it's not registered and 2) they want to keep the threat of a possible statutory damage case hanging over you so you settle for a higher amount than you would otherwise if you knew the stock image company only had an actual damages case.  Anyone's thoughts on this?

Lastly, should one press the stock company for the registration information?  If they really don't know if the image is registered (which I can't believe) and then determine it is registered, might their demand increase or might settlement become more difficult to achieve?  On the other hand, how would one know what a reasonable amount is to settle for if they don't know if they're dealing with an actual damages situation vs a statutory damages situation?  Any thoughts on this?  Any advice on how to proceed forward? 

And yes, the stock companies do monitor this forum.  I know for a fact and if the moderators want more info on this, contact me privately and I'll be happy to elaborate. 

Thank you.

[classaction01]

Check istockphoto.com and Pond5.com for similar image that you infringed on. You can get them for $2 there perpetual license. Why should they be demanding for not materially different image hundreds of dollars??? Ask if the image was ever licensed to anyone before at such high cost. The royalty managed concept is a total scam. Their pricing is a scam. Their websites showing the pricing are a scam.

The only places the images are actually sold are on istockphoto.com or similar for $2 per image, otherwise nobody NOBODY!!!! would ever bought them. BIG SCAM! Oscar of course is unable to see it that way or just wants to look the other way as $195 per letter is a good steal! so in 10 years Oscar will make $1mln. Pretty good huh? Did Oscar ever mentioned this to the judge in court?? I doubt that. Did he ask the judge to have Getty or Masterfile show evidence that infringed image was ever licensed to anyone at the advertised cost? I doubt that. Has Oscar ever asked the judge to have the stock image company show where their money comes from? NEVER!

Good advice: look for a lawyer that will ask these questions should you be sued in a very unlikely scenario. Oscar does not ask these questions. He asks users around this froum LOL.

[Littlescoop]

Anyone else have any first hand experience requesting registration information and getting the run around? ELI's advice is to request the registration information.  So I'm wondering, Matthew and Oscar, what are your thoughts on this?  Are you seeing people requesting registration information, as this forum suggests, and the stock companies responding they would have to research this and to put the time in to research is unwarranted given they are only seeking actual damages at this time?  I don't know how this wouldn't be pertinent information because if one would be potentially looking at a statutory damages case in court vs an actual damages case, that could certainly affect settlement negotiations on the infringer's side I would think. 

Would a stock company really not know at the time they are going after someone for damages whether or not they are dealing with a registered image or not?  Wouldn't this be information readily at hand?  Is trying to avoid revealing whether or not an image is registered becoming the stock companies new tactic because 1) an image isn't registered and they don't want you to know it and 2) they want to hold the threat of a statutory damages case over one's head in the hopes of settling for a higher figure? 

I'm just wondering if others are encountering this response as well, and if Matthew and Oscar are seeing a pattern as to this type of avoidance and what their thoughts are as to why this would be and how should one proceed?  Obviously, my concern would be if this information truly isn't readily at hand (though I can't image how that could be) and it turns out to be registered, that this will make settlement negotiations more difficult? (They might not be as willing to settle for an amount they might otherwise have been open to settling for when they didn't know whether or not the image was registered, though, again, I can't imagine they don't already know if it is or isn't registered from the onset.)

Thank you for any insight and guidance you may be able to provide. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I think you pretty much nailed it with this...

"Is trying to avoid revealing whether or not an image is registered becoming the stock companies new tactic because 1) an image isn't registered and they don't want you to know it and 2) they want to hold the threat of a statutory damages case over one's head in the hopes of settling for a higher figure?"

It is widely thought that GI's library consists of mostly unregistered images, hence they don't provide this info and use the tactic that they would only supply this if the case goes to court.. MF on the other hand are just the opposite and seem to register everything one way or another, but then again, they'll also supply documentation if requested to.