First Certified Letter

[Anotherextortee]

Hello Everyone,

New here, and I did do a bunch of research, but was unable to find an answer to a couple of questions I have.

Yesterday the first "certified" letter was sent to a previous address of mine. Naturally the resident of that address refused delivery. I only know about it because I converse with them occasionally. Historically the letters I have received were not certified. Does this indicate some sort of escalation in my case? I am worried of course because I did not see the actual letter. For all I know it could be some sort of summary judgement.

Also, I have seen a 3 year statue of limitations in several places, but have not been able to figure out when the clock start's ticking. Is it from point of discovery? Or from point of use? If the statue has run out, is there any recourse to prevent them from sending further communication?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

well it's good they refused delivery!, It is probably an escalation notice, I doubt it would be any sort of judgement, as you were never "served" in the first place.

The 3 years is generally from the date of the original letter, it could be a bit sooner depending on how long they had it in their stack, so safely go by the date of the letter. At this point I would not do anything as they don't know where you are..

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Yes, they can not just win a summary judgment. They would need to serve you first.

If I were you, I'd probably stop signing for certified letters and fed-ex for a while. They can still serve you... they would need to hire a process server and I suspect they won't go through that extra effort and expense.

[SoylentGreen]

I know that "laying low" isn't a very popular concept on the forum.
But, it`s the first step that everyone should take if possible.

We need to keep in mind what "winning" really means.  It means not paying the copyright trolls.
"Facing it head on" as some have previously stated might mean that you get sued (thanks for your honesty!).
Then, you'll end up paying 100 dollars to talk to a lawyer for 30 minutes, paying a retainer of thousands, and 300 dollars hourly (or more for a "good" lawyer) afterwards.

So, now is the time to very careful what you sign for, watch out for "weird" phone calls, and get your workplace info off of LinkedIn.

Others feel that getting their name and story out there has value.
But that only has value if you`re a crusader like Matt, or a figure that the public will have sympathy for.
Besides, we`ve know for years what the trolls have been doing.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

Ok, I will play along on "laying low" a bit. However, I will paint a picture.

Let's say you are an employee that works for some company. If you are in the lower ranks, you can attempt to sanitize the web and expunge all traces of your existence. However, I have personal experience in finding blue-collar, deadbeat tenants, getting them served, winning, and then garnishing them.  I don't get all of them but I get quite a few of them.

Yes, they try to dodge service and they succeed for a long while but then one day, they slip up and bam they get found and served. The issue is, for me, it is effortless to ping my people with a phone call or email once every 2 months.  But the other side is constantly looking over their shoulders trying to lay low.  It is very difficult to be vigilant 24-hours a day, 7-days a week looking over your shoulder.

The above scenario assumes you can stay low.  If you are a higher-level managerial type or have a business, it is much more challenging to lay low because they can send things to the workplace or employer.  (I've done this too).

Don't fool yourself, process servers work inexpensively around $50-$60 per serve (maybe a bit more depending on where you live). So, the serve itself is not expensive, only the lawsuit filing fee and the lawyer fee is.

What concerns me the most about the avoidance strategy is that it can spur your case on more. I tell people "your case isn't that special" but if you persistently avoid it, you might become "more special".  People who avoid me sometimes succeed but I make a point to nail them with EVERYTHING than if they had made it easy for me.

Having said all that, Getty is run by a bunch of hourly collection clerks that have an incentive program. They probably will go after low-hanging fruit. However, misdirected and forwarding addresses aren't difficult to find.

I am not opposed to buying time to help run the clock out or to get educated. But 3 years is a long period of time to try to run out.  Certainly, I wouldn't go out of my way to correct the issue but at some point you have to decide if the hidden costs of living underground is worth it.

Believe it or not, I don't like fights or conflict. I do my best to stay out of them. But if dragged into it, I am a big believe of "shock and awe" and using "overwhelming force" otherwise it becomes like Chinese water torture and gets dragged out infinitum.

I most whole-heartedly agree with what you said regarding "winning". So many don't seem to get it.  Some want to keep trying to outdebate the other side and force them into submission or acknowledgment. They hate the uncertainty and it eats them up alive. And they end up showing their weakness because they are practically begging the other side for a settlement.

And regarding the "head on" approach, I don't necessarily say "screw you, come and get me" (at least to anyone's face).  If you read my responses, I never took that approach.  Mine was much more subtle.  I certainly didn't invite or challenge anyone to come after me.  But I do think some people really do literally say "screw you, if you want me then come get me".  That is simply stupid and baiting someone.

I will confess that one rule probably doesn't fit all situations and circumstances. Gosh knows I have heard all kinds of stories and scenarios since 2008.

For me, I guess I don't think I could ever get away with running because I am too easy to find and would eventually get caught. I don't think I could be that vigilant always looking over my shoulders in that way. So, I just tell myself "I will have to face the music".  Hence, I feel the need to take things head on.

The original poster probably needs to stay vigilant.  His address will eventually get found. I do agree that without that signed first contact, he is in good shape. It should be easy to NOT sign a package or letter without checking to see who it is from first. It is a bit more difficult coordinating that effort if he has family members though that can sign for it.  They would have to stay vigilant as well.

I know that "laying low" isn't a very popular concept on the forum.
But, it`s the first step that everyone should take if possible.

We need to keep in mind what "winning" really means.  It means not paying the copyright trolls.
"Facing it head on" as some have previously stated might mean that you get sued (thanks for your honesty!).
Then, you'll end up paying 100 dollars to talk to a lawyer for 30 minutes, paying a retainer of thousands, and 300 dollars hourly (or more for a "good" lawyer) afterwards.

So, now is the time to very careful what you sign for, watch out for "weird" phone calls, and get your workplace info off of LinkedIn.

Others feel that getting their name and story out there has value.
But that only has value if you`re a crusader like Matt, or a figure that the public will have sympathy for.
Besides, we`ve know for years what the trolls have been doing.

S.G.

[lucia]

I agree with Matt on laying low.  The best you can do is make it slightly more expensive for Getty/Han/Corbis etc. to find you.   But if they have information that from their POV makes them think it's worth actually filing a suit against you, they have three years to do it in. Given this amount of time, the cost of finding almost anyone who owns or operates a web site and getting them served is just not that great. 

[SoylentGreen]

So, you're saying that the Original Poster in the thread should call up Getty of MF and give them their contact info?
I strongly disagree if that's what you're saying.

In addition, I think that some of the arguments here assume that the trolls will go to the ends of the earth to find you.
That usually isn't the case.  It's usually not worth it.

If you're quite difficult to find, it'll go away probably 50 percent of the time.  I like those odds.
But, if people feel that they'll get off easier by calling up the trolls and saying "here I am", then that's an option, I guess.
If somebody does that, I hope that they'll report back and tell us what a "good deal" they got. lol.

If you're "laying low", then they "find you", it wouldn't change the material facts of your case.
Now, if you're actually "served" and you "disappear", there could be consequences.

Keep in mind that putting your name "out there" and exposing your communications with the trolls (while amusing) can get you into more heat than "laying low".
I wouldn't bait them too much.  If they serve you (even out of spite), you're going to lay out a lot of cash to defend yourself.
If you get sued, you have to file a defence.
But, it's not my money, I guess...

Just my opinions.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

That's one of the great things about this forum! People taking different scenarios, thinking out of the box and sharing this with others. The more time that passes, more options are revealed, discussed, etc.. this all serves the greater purpose of educating the newcomers, so they are better armed to make their own decision on the best way to handle their own situations.

In my case I decided very early to hire Oscar rather than deal with these asshats at Getty, fast forward to today, and I would probably do it differently, now that I am much better armed.

[Peeved]

I'm on both sides of the fence here. I agree with Soylent that why give up the info, make them work for it! However, if and when you do receive a demand letter, I agree with Matt that you should at least respond and ask questions so that if it does go to court, it shows good faith that you made an effort to try and resolve the issue. I also feel that there is a big difference between someone who is trying to "extort" money from you verses a "tenant" who refuses to pay the rent.

With all due respect to Matt, A lot has changed since Matt's "final response" to Getty in 2008. They now RESPOND to those questions asked regarding "proof" of registration and ownership. Granted, it is B.S. responses such as "those things will be disclosed during the discovery process". So for the "new comers", it appears that they have no intention of backing down with regard to these questions. I also strongly feel that a statement made by Matt in his first paragraph of his final letter made a HUGE impact...
"I have already taken it upon myself to consult with a well-established attorney that is more than familiar with copyright and intellectual property.". BAM.....end of story IMO.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I still maintain that in this case the OP has had a warning shot fired across the bow. If it's possible to lay low and make it difficult and/or expensive for his adversary to communicate with him at this juncture, then I say by all means do so. Of course if there has already been some communication via email or if his lifestyle is such that he cannot refuse registered mail, that's different.

This just struck me as an opportunity to make the stock company work for it. And there is the factor that they may just turn their attention to low hanging fruit.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

@Peeved, I think the general response from getty when asked questions has always been, "we'll show the proof in court", which has always been an empty threat. I agree with making at least an initial contact, informing them the image has been removed and perhaps making an offer of good faith, as this would look good for you IF it goes to court.. I also like Mc's method of maddness, in making them work as hard as possible..all the while burning up time and effort..

[Peeved]

Well if it has "always" been Getty's response to make the "empty threats" of "showing proof during the discovery process", then I feel even more strongly that you should "lawyer up" in order to make the letters stop entirely.

So again, you can lawyer up, or if your case is very strong you can go back and forth like Mcfilms & Lucia until you actually hear the words that they are "no longer pursuing the case" or, you can ignor all further correspondence after their "empty threats" which could be like Matt described as "Chinese water torture"........NO PROBLEM!
 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

@Peeved, I think the general response from getty when asked questions has always been, "we'll show the proof in court", which has always been an empty threat. I agree with making at least an initial contact, informing them the image has been removed and perhaps making an offer of good faith, as this would look good for you IF it goes to court.. I also like Mc's method of maddness, in making them work as hard as possible..all the while burning up time and effort..

Well if it has "always" been Getty's response to make the "empty threat" of "showing proof during the discovery process", then I feel even more strongly that you should "lawyer up" in order to make the letters stop entirely.

So again, you can lawyer up, or if your case is very strong you can go back and forth like Mcfilms & Lucia until you actually hear the words that they are "no longer pursuing the case" or, you can ignor all furthur correspondence which could be like Matt described as "Chinese water torture"........NO PROBLEM!
 

Perhaps I should rephrase, up until now it has been largely an empty threat, as they rarely file suit ( as it is now)..

 

[Peeved]

@Peeved, I think the general response from getty when asked questions has always been, "we'll show the proof in court", which has always been an empty threat. I agree with making at least an initial contact, informing them the image has been removed and perhaps making an offer of good faith, as this would look good for you IF it goes to court.. I also like Mc's method of maddness, in making them work as hard as possible..all the while burning up time and effort..

Well if it has "always" been Getty's response to make the "empty threat" of "showing proof during the discovery process", then I feel even more strongly that you should "lawyer up" in order to make the letters stop entirely.

So again, you can lawyer up, or if your case is very strong you can go back and forth like Mcfilms & Lucia until you actually hear the words that they are "no longer pursuing the case" or, you can ignor all furthur correspondence which could be like Matt described as "Chinese water torture"........NO PROBLEM!
 

Perhaps I should rephrase, up until now it has been largely an empty threat, as they rarely file suit ( as it is now)..

 

Completely understood and I happen to agree whole heartedly regarding the threats.
 

[SoylentGreen]

I know that "official folks" here can't really say "ignore it", and that's part of the reason that I didn't formally "join".
As for asking questions of Getty, they won't tell you anything other than "we won't provide that unless we go to court", and "you have to pay or we might take legal action".
So, I think that I've saved some people a lot of time with the above statement.  Save your breath.

Just be forwarned that once you begin communications with these people, they'll bother you relentlessly.
Then, their lawyers will threaten you, and then they'll send it to collections which will pester you relentlessly.
There's a slim chance that you could be sued.  So, now you know what to expect if you come forward.
Many pay just to make the threats stop.

Many people have "blogs" without much identifying info on them.
If you've been simply contacted by email, and they don't know your home address or workplace, I would not come forward.
Keep in mind that they won't know for sure if you're "ignoring them"; they may just think that a spam filter is intercepting their threats.

Had I "come forward", I could have been out nearly six figures by the time legal fees were included in the event of a loss.
Even if I had "won", I wouldn't have gotten my time and frustration back.
Even before court, coming forward would have meant a few different hundred-dollar consultations, a five-thousand-dollar retainer, 200 to 600 dollars for each letter written and 300 to 500 dollars an hour on top of that.

So just think about what kind of "fighting back" that you do.
"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu says "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."

S.G.