ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: rogwbrown on August 16, 2013, 11:56:41 PM

Title: Educational Web Site
Post by: rogwbrown on August 16, 2013, 11:56:41 PM
I have an educational web site (Glycomeds.com) that I paid a company to build in 2009. They put two of Getty's images on it but didn't tell me. I had set up a LLC company (Glycomeds) before I had the web site built in case it developed any liabilities. The company has no income of any kind, no employees, no phone, no bank account, no income tax filings, it just presents information on new drug discoveries. Three weeks ago I got a demand letter for $2100 for using the two images.  I was laid off (1/31/2009) just after I had the site built and have had to file for Social Security (I am 72 now)  for income.  As Glycomeds is a company I can't do self-representation as I am not an attorney. If I don't pay them and they take me to court the judge will throw the book at me for not coming to court.  I did contact the development company who built my web site and told them about the infringement and now they won't talk to me anymore.  I lost everything in the crash of 2008 and have no funds to hire an attorney. Living on Social Security alone doesn't leave much money to do much of anything.  Short of suicide what are my other options (if any)?  Thanks for all your kind help.
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on August 17, 2013, 08:38:55 AM
Welcome to the forums.  First you need to step back and take a deep breath, when it comes to the Getty Extorion Demand letter program you need to realize that 99.999% of the time it is never as bad as Getty makes it sound.  These letters are designed to panic you and make you feel there is an emanate lawsuit pending. They try to get you to pay out of fear before you have had a chance to research how they operate.

Start out by reading the forums, you can find copies of letters you may receive and ask questions. If you can't or don't want to deal with it you can use Oscar's letter program, they will not be able to contact you after he send them a letter.

Keep us posted.
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: stinger on August 17, 2013, 10:30:58 AM
Chances are that the company you hired to build the web site didn't do anything wrong - and, even more likely, didn't intend to do anything wrong. 

Like most who have found this forum, they could have gotten caught by many of the "traps" Getty appears to set to snare small companies into their extortion letter program.

Greg gives you good advice.  Get educated, stay strong, and figure out the best way for you to fight their program. 

I have been in this fight for 1.5 years and I do not see Getty going after large companies.  Instead, they appear to use their size, to intimidate and harass small companies and individuals.  Many people will eventually give in to bullies.  But every now and then, a bully tends to pick on the wrong guy, and they get what is coming to them.  I, for one, cannot wait to see the day that they get theirs.
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: Mulligan on August 17, 2013, 11:31:11 AM
I'm an older guy, too, Rog, and have been dealing with Getty Images and their copyright trolling outside counsel and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack for over two years now -- though I haven't heard from the company or McCormack or one of his goon paralegals for many months and, frankly, don't expect to hear from them again after repeatedly telling them "If you won't provide proof of a right to demand money from me, I will not send you any money. Without proof of that right to demand money, as far as I'm concerned this matter is closed (so go fuk yourselves until the cows come home)."

Honesty and a devotion to full disclosure requires me to add... Being a polite as well as grumpy old man, I did not actually include the parenthetical portion ("so go fuk yourselves until the cows come home") in my letters, though I admit not doing so required considerable restraint on my part.

Anyway, read the forum and get a good sense of what people have done.

If you want to save a lot of time, energy, and emotional stress, take advantage of Oscar's letter program. For under $200, it's a bargain, especially for someone whose business set-up might require him to use an attorney (which I think you described as the position you're in) rather than taking on the fight yourself.

Main point... don't lose sleep over this. The chances of them actually suing you are most likely close to non-existent. In my experience with these trolls, the whole deal is nothing more than a clever extortion scheme based on threat and intimidation to extract money out of people who are easily frightened.
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: rogwbrown on August 17, 2013, 12:26:39 PM
Mulligan,

Thanks for the comments it was a moral booster.   You are correct their letter was a real shocker right out of left field.  I believe the statue of limitations on how long Getty can wait to take you to court is three years from when they first found out about the infringement, after that they lose the right to sue you for the infringement.   

I don't understand why the Federal Court don't catch on to how Getty is twisting the law for their illegal purpose and stop it?  This sounds really illegal to me and it doesn't seem to me like this was the intent of the law makers when they made the law. 

I am thinking about Oscar's letter program but right now I would have to save for it as SS doesn't leave me much excess.   

Thank all of you for your heart felt comments. 

Roger
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on August 17, 2013, 04:39:06 PM
Getty and others operate in a grey area of the law which is why it is referred to as "Legalized Extortion"
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: Jerry Witt (mcfilms) on August 17, 2013, 08:08:02 PM
Yeah this is typical Getty M.O. They are trying to collect from the individual owner of a defunct LLC. On top of that, you are essentially "judgement proof" so even if they decided to go after you and they got a judgement, they wouldn't be able to collect.

I always get concerned when people even jokingly refer to suicide. In the grand scheme of things this is as trivial as a house fly. Why would anyone go that way? I would seriously make it my life's work to expose their scam looooong before contemplating suicide.

Anyway, my response would be along the lines of:

"The LLC, Glycomeds, has been a defunct company for some time now. I have forwarded your demand for payment to the party I believe was responsible for infringing on your images. They have not replied to me. If you would like my assistance in collecting further information for you, I can help track them down and provide you with contact information. I charge $100 an hour and I estimate that this would take me a couple hours. Please write me back to express your interest if you would like me to provide this service for you."


Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on August 17, 2013, 09:28:10 PM
love it Jerry! :D

Yeah this is typical Getty M.O. They are trying to collect from the individual owner of a defunct LLC. On top of that, you are essentially "judgement proof" so even if they decided to go after you and they got a judgement, they wouldn't be able to collect.

I always get concerned when people even jokingly refer to suicide. In the grand scheme of things this is as trivial as a house fly. Why would anyone go that way? I would seriously make it my life's work to expose their scam looooong before contemplating suicide.

Anyway, my response would be along the lines of:

"The LLC, Glycomeds, has been a defunct company for some time now. I have forwarded your demand for payment to the party I believe was responsible for infringing on your images. They have not replied to me. If you would like my assistance in collecting further information for you, I can help track them down and provide you with contact information. I charge $100 an hour and I estimate that this would take me a couple hours. Please write me back to express your interest if you would like me to provide this service for you."
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: Mulligan on August 18, 2013, 10:25:39 AM
Good one, Jerry. Still moping coffee off my monitor after bursting out a laugh from reading your suggested reply to send to Getty. Ha!
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: rogwbrown on August 18, 2013, 03:09:53 PM
Greg,

While what you said sounded really nice there are a few problems with your solution. First is for copyright infringement one must make a protected image/article publically available. You don't have to make any money from this availability, it's just the fact of dilution of the copyright holders value.  While the company I paid to create my web site put copyright images on it they didn't make these images publically available.  As such they are not guilty of any copyright infringement. By the definition of what constitutes copyright infringement Go-Daddy should be the one Getty sues as only Go-Daddy (which is who hosts my web site) can make the files/images there publically available. However, Getty doesn't seem to sue anyone with a lot of money like Go-Daddy.  Even though I pay for a web site and someone else puts copyrighted images in the sites directories it's the actions of Go-Daddy that actually makes the images publically available not me.  At any time Go-Daddy can cut this thread and then nothing in my web site's directory will be publically available.

Actually if you put a copyrighted image file in a directory that can be addressed from the internet is copyright infringement. This image file does NOT have to be displayed anywhere and even if there is no way it can be seen by anyone one on the internet does not matter at all as far as the law goes.  If the file is in a location where it can se found with a robot (even if it isn't viewed) it is copyright infringement.  So if you get Getty's demand letter you not only need to remove the code from your web pages so the image can't be loaded you also need to delete the image file from the server and all servers that have any sort of internet access.

I went to see a bankruptcy lawyer a couple week ago to see how bad it could be.  He said I had to have an attorney to represent my company as Glycomeds was a company at the time of Getty's notice (so I couldn't represent my own company myself even if it had no money and I couldn't terminate the company to avoid the infringement).  He said they would sue me in Washington State and claim they have jurisdiction and as I wouldn't have anyone one there to speak for me the judge would go along with it.  As Getty has in-house paid attorneys this action would cost them nothing but $150 filing fee.  As no one would appear it would upset the judge and he would go along with what Getty said - My company made millions of dollars over the years through the sole use of their two images. All in all the bankruptcy attorney said he would expect the judge to award fines and penalties of six or seven digits against my company.

The next step would be for Getty's free attorneys to petition the court to include me as a defendant as I am the head of the company (I am the company Manager of the LLC - there is no CEO or anything else).  Next they would sue me directly in Washington State (I live in Arizona) for mismanagement of company funds for my personal benefit.  They wouldn't have jurisdiction but unless I hired an attorney to contest jurisdiction I would again lose.  I could file a motion with a simple one-liner "I contest jurisdiction" but Getty would argue the Federal case brought me into their Washington jurisdiction.  This would be very difficult to defend for free, for if I sent a letter to the court explaining I didn't live or work in Washington this letter would automatically give them jurisdiction over me...

As soon as I would be accepted into the case Getty would move to freeze my bank accounts so I could not transfer any money out of the country and without me being there at $500 a flight to Washington, the judge would agree. The court would then seize my personal bank account as that is all I have and after they had received all my money (about $150) from my bank the court would send me notice of the pending freeze of my assets.  I know this is exactly how it will go for a fact, as this has already happened to me over a credit card account in Virginia three years ago.  Even though all the money in my bank account came from a protected source, Social Security, the court still took it. It cost me $3500 for a Virginia attorney to get my money back and my account unfroze.  The real problem was every month when the Government deposited my SS into my bank account the bank automatically sent all of this protected money to the court as they were under a court order to retrieve all funds.  I eventually got my account released but this didn't stop the suit and now the Virginia court had actually jurisdiction.

It gets worse. We bought our home in 2002 for $120K. It's now worth about $50K but we have nowhere else to go or live (parents, children, etc). I can't pay all of the bills (credit cards are out of sight and killing us) and make house payments so my wife has a job to make the house payments. Once Getty gets me in their Washington court they will also include my wife as we are married and Arizona, where we live, is a community property state.  Then Getty will file a suit against us for about $125 in Washington State court, equal to the Federal copyright fines and fees plus all their trumped up attorney costs against me and my wife (probably well into the seven digit figures by then).  While I am bankruptcy proof my wife isn't as they can attach 80% of her wages. Without her income we will lose our home.

According to the bankruptcy attorney it doesn't stop there but you have the general picture.  He said after all the dust settles we can file bankruptcy but we have to wait until Getty runs out of things to do to us which could take up to five years.  For this it will cost them less than $250 plus some time from their free in-house attorneys.  What they would get for their $250 would be a great case to flaunt publically, scaring more poor people into paying them extortion money for fear of loosing everything or just pay Getty $2000 and everything will just go away...   

The bankruptcy attorney said for me to wait until everything is over and then we could file bankruptcy for $700 (his fee) plus $1200 Federal filing fees...

Thanks for every ones help and kind words.

Roger
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: lucia on August 18, 2013, 04:46:22 PM
Quote
I went to see a bankruptcy lawyer a couple week ago to see how bad it could be.  He said I had to have an attorney to represent my company as Glycomeds was a company at the time of Getty's notice (so I couldn't represent my own company myself even if it had no money and I couldn't terminate the company to avoid the infringement).  He said they would sue me in Washington State and claim they have jurisdiction and as I wouldn't have anyone one there to speak for me the judge would go along with it.  As Getty has in-house paid attorneys this action would cost them nothing but $150 filing fee.  As no one would appear it would upset the judge and he would go along with what Getty said - My company made millions of dollars over the years through the sole use of their two images. All in all the bankruptcy attorney said he would expect the judge to award fines and penalties of six or seven digits against my company.

Oddly, (I think) there is an example of a courts that ruled against Getty in exactly these circumstances!  The judge went through their case and deemed that Getty did not make a sufficiently strong case to rule against the defendant even if the defendant wasn't there!

Also: If I understand you correctly, the LLC still exists. That's why you need to hire an attorney, right? So getty would be suing the LLC.  In that case, they can only collect from the LLC's assets... right?   If the LLC is bankrupt... so what if the judge assesses those fine and penalties.

Your bankruptcy attorney is a bankrupcy attorney... right? So, instead of asking him copyright questions, ask him bankruptcy questions. Ask: Would Getty just be in line with all the other creditors? And so on?

As for copyright: It's not at all clear that the judge would grant Getty 'six or seven digits'.  The judge has a great deal of discretion in these things and it is highly unlikely that he would levy $100,000 or more for damages in the case of 1 image used in an obscure location even if the law permits him to do so if he deems that appropriate. 

Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: lucia on August 18, 2013, 04:59:12 PM
Found it! Read this thread:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/resolution-of-getty-v-advernet-%28a-blow-to-getty-stock-photo-companies%29/

This is what Oscar wrote at the time

Quote
Major news on a Getty case.  Attached is a federal decision in a case called Getty v. Advernet.  I was involved in the case for awhile representing the defendant in court.  Like you, he was bit of a renegade and wanted to battle it out and see what happens.  He was sued for thirty seven images. After the case did not settle at a settlement conference, he decided that he would just default on it as the corporation had no assets and he would have to spend a lot of money on the litigation. So we moved to be relieved and it was granted. Of course, when the company did not show up with a new attorney at a scheduled conference, Getty moved for a default judgment. 
 
Well, while the judge found that the lack of appearance was grounds for a default he REFUSED to enter a default judgment because he said Getty could not establish it rights to the images properly and could not establish when the infringement allegedly occurred! The decision has lots of interesting info on how Getty operates and how PicScout works, etc. Better yet, when Getty got the decision, they tried to move for re-argument saying the judge misunderstood the evidence and the law.  On Nov 22, 2011, the judge denied THAT motion as well!  Both decisions are attached. The reargument decision follows the first one.  This is great news and a big loss for Getty. Even when the other side had no lawyer, a judge had problems with their claims. They will likely re-tool after this and figure out how to correct the issues raised by the court.

Do read the full thread.


http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/resolution-of-getty-v-advernet-%28a-blow-to-getty-stock-photo-companies%29/

Bear in mind: Getty may have their ducks in a better row, but they may not. But with respect to what your bankruptcy attorney said: In fact, it is not at all clear that the judge will throw the book at you merely because you don't show up. At least some judges in copyright court are sensitive to the issue of businesses not showing up. And I think more and more, they recognize that there is a "business" in rather ridiculous suits over copyright.

So: Yes, there is some danger. But no, Getty cannot count on the judge just giving them whatever they want merely because you don't show up in court. And they know they can't count on it.
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: Mulligan on August 18, 2013, 05:35:23 PM
Roger, your latest post is one reason I would chop off my right foot and get around on a pogo stick for the rest of my life before I'd trust a bankruptcy lawyer to inform me on issues involving the internet and unproven copyright infringement of two images.

Your conversation with that bankruptcy lawyer must have frightened you. Hell, it scared the crap out of me and I know better than to believe 90% of what he told you. Shoot, that lawyer doesn't even know how much it costs to file a copyright suit in federal court.

Anyway, I think your best bet would be to hire Oscar to take care of this matter for you. That will save you a boat load of money and a mind full of worry. I may be completely wrong here, but it appears to me like the lawyer you talked with is more interested in scaring you and possibly making some money off of you than properly advising you.

I don't see Getty filing a suit against an old man living on social security whose house is now worth less than half of what it once was. The negative publicity Getty would get from doing this would rock their little extortion scheme nine points on the Richter scale.

Like I said, dig up the $195 and hire Oscar and put your mind at ease. Here's the page where its described:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/2012-update-expansion-of-attorney-oscar-michelens-defense-letter-program/

In closing, reading Roger's latest post once again infuriates me because it reveals the pure nastiness of Getty's settlement demand program and how it can affect people who already have more than enough on their plates to worry about.
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on August 18, 2013, 06:30:07 PM
To quote Mr. Mulligan, I just shit myself when I read that post... misinformed is not even close, from the very first paragraph, which is full of incorrect information to the "lawyer" also giving bad info.. why not handle this the easy way...you've stated you yourself is for the most part judgement proof, and you have also stated that the LLC is bankrupt.. Tell Getty to pound salt, they are not going to sue you if you have nothing! hell even if you were a millionaire, the chances of Getty filing suit over a single is minscule.

For whgats it's worth, they would need to file in Arizona not Washington, and the filing fee is not 150.00, it would cost them much more to file and pursue this that what any judge would award..simple math.
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: lucia on August 18, 2013, 10:25:30 PM
Oh. Do NOT dissolve the LLC. 
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on August 19, 2013, 08:43:09 AM
My comment appear in bold.

Greg,

While what you said sounded really nice there are a few problems with your solution. First is for copyright infringement one must make a protected image/article publically available. You don't have to make any money from this availability, it's just the fact of dilution of the copyright holders value.  While the company I paid to create my web site put copyright images on it they didn't make these images publically available.  As such they are not guilty of any copyright infringement. By the definition of what constitutes copyright infringement Go-Daddy should be the one Getty sues as only Go-Daddy (which is who hosts my web site) can make the files/images there publically available. However, Getty doesn't seem to sue anyone with a lot of money like Go-Daddy.  Even though I pay for a web site and someone else puts copyrighted images in the sites directories it's the actions of Go-Daddy that actually makes the images publically available not me.  At any time Go-Daddy can cut this thread and then nothing in my web site's directory will be publically available.

Copyright infringement is a statutory offense so it doesn't matter who, what , why or how you are responsible, others may help responsible as well.  Now courts will look at the circumstances and if it was done by a 3rd party and you assumed good faith that what you paid for was legitimate courts may rule for the minimum fine which is 200.00.  Getty knows this and this is one of the reasons they don't sue, beside the fact that the majority of their images are not registered properly.

Actually if you put a copyrighted image file in a directory that can be addressed from the internet is copyright infringement. This image file does NOT have to be displayed anywhere and even if there is no way it can be seen by anyone one on the internet does not matter at all as far as the law goes.  If the file is in a location where it can se found with a robot (even if it isn't viewed) it is copyright infringement.  So if you get Getty's demand letter you not only need to remove the code from your web pages so the image can't be loaded you also need to delete the image file from the server and all servers that have any sort of internet access.

Again, if Getty took you took court which is HIGHLY unlikely the courts would look at the situation you have described and take that into consideration.  IF you get the letter from Getty you should remove the image on your servers and from the wayback machine if archived there.

I went to see a bankruptcy lawyer a couple week ago to see how bad it could be.  He said I had to have an attorney to represent my company as Glycomeds was a company at the time of Getty's notice (so I couldn't represent my own company myself even if it had no money and I couldn't terminate the company to avoid the infringement).  He said they would sue me in Washington State and claim they have jurisdiction and as I wouldn't have anyone one there to speak for me the judge would go along with it.  As Getty has in-house paid attorneys this action would cost them nothing but $150 filing fee.  As no one would appear it would upset the judge and he would go along with what Getty said - My company made millions of dollars over the years through the sole use of their two images. All in all the bankruptcy attorney said he would expect the judge to award fines and penalties of six or seven digits against my company.

Here is part of your confusion, you consulted a bankruptcy lawyer for a copyright infringement case, this is like me asking a plumber about my broken truck...."hey you fix things what do I do about this."  Getty would have to sue you where your business is based in most cases.  I was told by a COPYRIGHT LAWYER I consulted about my case which is as minor as yours that Getty would have to sue me here, you need to have a lawyer as you can not represent yourself in federal court but he said he tries cases there and knows the judges and if Getty were to bring a de minimis case like this before them and waste their time on a 200.00 case they would not be happy and Getty would know it.

The next step would be for Getty's free attorneys to petition the court to include me as a defendant as I am the head of the company (I am the company Manager of the LLC - there is no CEO or anything else).  Next they would sue me directly in Washington State (I live in Arizona) for mismanagement of company funds for my personal benefit.  They wouldn't have jurisdiction but unless I hired an attorney to contest jurisdiction I would again lose.  I could file a motion with a simple one-liner "I contest jurisdiction" but Getty would argue the Federal case brought me into their Washington jurisdiction.  This would be very difficult to defend for free, for if I sent a letter to the court explaining I didn't live or work in Washington this letter would automatically give them jurisdiction over me...

Again, unless there is some unique circumstance Getty has to hire a lawyer in your area unless their lawyer is licensed for your state.

As soon as I would be accepted into the case Getty would move to freeze my bank accounts so I could not transfer any money out of the country and without me being there at $500 a flight to Washington, the judge would agree. The court would then seize my personal bank account as that is all I have and after they had received all my money (about $150) from my bank the court would send me notice of the pending freeze of my assets.  I know this is exactly how it will go for a fact, as this has already happened to me over a credit card account in Virginia three years ago.  Even though all the money in my bank account came from a protected source, Social Security, the court still took it. It cost me $3500 for a Virginia attorney to get my money back and my account unfroze.  The real problem was every month when the Government deposited my SS into my bank account the bank automatically sent all of this protected money to the court as they were under a court order to retrieve all funds.  I eventually got my account released but this didn't stop the suit and now the Virginia court had actually jurisdiction.

This is a copyright claim not a debt, but since you already know this for a fact there is no point in me going into detail why this would not happen.

It gets worse. We bought our home in 2002 for $120K. It's now worth about $50K but we have nowhere else to go or live (parents, children, etc). I can't pay all of the bills (credit cards are out of sight and killing us) and make house payments so my wife has a job to make the house payments. Once Getty gets me in their Washington court they will also include my wife as we are married and Arizona, where we live, is a community property state.  Then Getty will file a suit against us for about $125 in Washington State court, equal to the Federal copyright fines and fees plus all their trumped up attorney costs against me and my wife (probably well into the seven digit figures by then).  While I am bankruptcy proof my wife isn't as they can attach 80% of her wages. Without her income we will lose our home.

Again, take a step back and calm down, this is nothing like you are making it if the information you provided about the image is correct.  Let's say Getty were to sue you which is 99.99999999% likely they won't and you lost, if you don't have it they can't collect it.

According to the bankruptcy attorney it doesn't stop there but you have the general picture.  He said after all the dust settles we can file bankruptcy but we have to wait until Getty runs out of things to do to us which could take up to five years.  For this it will cost them less than $250 plus some time from their free in-house attorneys.  What they would get for their $250 would be a great case to flaunt publically, scaring more poor people into paying them extortion money for fear of loosing everything or just pay Getty $2000 and everything will just go away...   

The bankruptcy attorney said for me to wait until everything is over and then we could file bankruptcy for $700 (his fee) plus $1200 Federal filing fees...

Stop asking a bankruptcy attorney copyright questions, talk to a copyright attorney or get Oscar to handle it for you.  For 200.00 you can stop worrying and Getty can't contact you again.  You are obviously and understandably stressed over your current situation with everything else going on in your life and I think every time Getty or McCormick sends you a letter you are going to panic again, I think Oscar's program is a great solution for you.

Thanks for every ones help and kind words.

Roger
Title: Re: Educational Web Site
Post by: rogwbrown on August 20, 2013, 10:22:55 AM
Lucia,

Thanks for posting the law case link.  I read the whole thing and it was GREAT!  It was a real moral booster.

The bankruptcy attorney I went to really scared the pants off of me.   

Thanks everyone for all the helpful information and support.

Roger