Confused victim/suspect.... whatever I am :)

[cl12692]

First, we got a demand letter for $600 at our old office address dated several months back and then a second letter dated 2 months later and I'm still going through the mail and haven't seen any law suits so far. However the web site in question was taken down around that time as it wasn't used. Unknowingly Getty images is making their settlement demand about the same time it came down.

My situation is we paid web designers to do a site. Paid the full amount and presumed they were using legit photos. Later I was told they found these photos from google. What is the law about a photo being in the public domain. If a photo floats onto many sites and then is used, is this consider copyright images? How does one check. it would be impossible to check each image. Additionally, I wouldnt be surprised if Getty purposely leaked photos to have reasons to sue later.

Second... I wonder if all these posts I am reading that said the person apologized hoping it would go away seemed to get hit quickly and stronger than those that have ignored the letter. What happens if someone ignores it?

Also I want to hear the happy ending stories. Surely they can't possibly sue all these people across America. It seems they would have to maintain a large organization that only sues. How negative is that?

Can anyone suggest some answers? What do you think? Why isn't anyone suing for entrapment, extortion etc? Am I missing something?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Welcome the the ELI forum! Sorry you're here with the rest of us...a couple of points.

1. Images found thru google are NOT public domain by any means, someone , somewhere owns the copyright to all of those images.
2. I would suggest not ignoring the letter, it will not go away, they will continue to contact you, then resort to having a collection agency contact you, then possibly escalating the matter with a third draft of the loetter.
3. Thus far Getty has not filed any suits involving single images ( this may change in the future)
4. I hired Oscar to draft my letter nad have not heard a word since ( good news as far as I am concerned)
5. What Getty is doing is not illegal, it may not be the appropiate way to handle this, but thats got nothing to do with the way the law is written.

This forum is full of useful information I suggest reading thru as much as possible to get a better handle on whats going on and how to best approach it from your particular situation.
HTH

[SoylentGreen]

I must admit that I'm from the "ignore it" camp in a case such as this involving Getty.
It's a fact that Getty hasn't sued many people the world over since this started.
It's doubtful that they'd pursue you in court over one single image.

Sure, they could send it to a collection agency.
But, it's not an actual "debt", so they really can't do much.
It won't impact your credit rating.
If a collection agency bothered you, you could simply tell them in writing that you are aware of the situation, but deny owing Getty anything.
Problem solved.

Oscar's letter works because once an attorney contacts Getty, they (Getty) must contact said attorney with any further correspondence (and not you).
They know that your attorney will just ignore any further threats, so Getty gives up.
But, if they did want to sue, they'd just inform your attorney.

Personally, if I wasn't going to pay them something, I wouldn't utter a word.
I would recommend against negotiating with them, unless you are actually going to pay them a sum which they'd accept.
If you negotiate, low-ball them, and then you back off, they'll be all over you.

You're unlikely to hear of many success stories, because people who have paid have often signed a confidentiality agreement.
There's surely many people have never paid a cent, but they can't gloat about it here.
They may be worried that it could come back to haunt them.

S.G.

[Oscar Michelen]

Good advice and info from buddhapi and SG. Take a look around the forum and you will find alot of information that should be helpful to you.