Getty's lawyer called our attorney! 30 days to pay or they will file suit

[edgar3]

"Our attorney has advised us that he received a call from the law firm handling the Getty claim.  We have
30 days to respond with payment of they are off to court with a law suit. "

the suit is for about $6000 for 6 images. This is the first I've heard of them making phone calls to lawyers.

My client now wants to offer a settlement to them.

Like most folks, I cannot afford it.

Advice of what to do please.

thanks,

g

[Matthew Chan]

Don't jump the gun yet. WHO is the attorney and law firm?

As I have repeatedly said, getting educated is key.  There are free videos/audios and many forums posts.  Filing a lawsuit and actually winning and collecting on it are very different things.

If you can't afford it, you need to get educated on all the issues before you give yourself unnecessary stress.

The other option is to spend $195 and hire Oscar. I don't know your attorney but exactly how well versed is your attorney in this matter?

Matthew

[edgar3]

Don't jump the gun yet. WHO is the attorney and law firm?

As I have repeatedly said, getting educated is key.  There are free videos/audios and many forums posts.  Filing a lawsuit and actually winning and collecting on it are very different things.

If you can't afford it, you need to get educated on all the issues before you give yourself unnecessary stress.

The other option is to spend $195 and hire Oscar. I don't know your attorney but exactly how well versed is your attorney in this matter?

Matthew

Matthew,
Thanks for responding. After reading it I reexamined the letter from my clients attorney. (I'm the web guy responsible for her trouble) and have offered to go halfsies with her)
It's her attorney, and after rereading everything, I'm not sure there actually was a call to her attorney. I'm trying to get some answers.

I think she may be getting very nervous and wants to try an settle. I have read and researched this for many months. I was comfortable waiting it out. My client however is older and has much more to lose than I do. I understand her position. But, I also want accurate details before I write anyone a check.

thanks!!!!!

g

[edgar3]

 it was indeed a phone call, not a letter he received on May 31 from
McCormack Intellectual Property Business Law firm.  The statements made were that if we didn’t respond
within 30 days a suit would be filed.

now what?

[SoylentGreen]

A phone call seems so much less official than a letter.
They've been threatening to sue from the beginning, so not much has changed, right?

Have they offered and proof in writing to you to indicate that they are the sole owners of the photos in question.
Without that, a successful lawsuit would prove difficult.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

There are no surefire answers. As always, it comes down to your risk tolerance level, your assessment, and how committed you are to defending yourself. I already wrote about this in a sticky post.  If people are going to get an ulcer about this, it really doesn't matter what anyone says.  Go pay and settle and get it out of your life.

However, there is a good portion of people who are committed to fighting this with some intelligence and strategy because they are angry and think this is plain wrong. I fall into this group of people. I respect lawsuits but I don't fear them because it isn't quite so easy to win and collect money. I have said this many times. But that is only my experience and judgment.

There is another group who scare easily and don't have the ability to be look at this objectively. They will have an ulcer because they need finality and a "sure thing".  And the majority of people are somewhere in the middle.

I know what I would do but I cannot tell people what they should do. The question now is do you believe them? And what do you believe the consequences are?

Matthew

[theisgroup]

it was indeed a phone call, not a letter he received on May 31 from
McCormack Intellectual Property Business Law firm.  The statements made were that if we didn’t respond
within 30 days a suit would be filed.

now what?

hmmmm strange. I have never seen a letter from an attorney that would "claim" to sue. they usually leave that wide open. and considering McCormack is not Getty, that would really be up to their client, "Getty" if they persue a law suit

[edgar3]

Have they offered and proof in writing to you to indicate that they are the sole owners of the photos in question.
Without that, a successful lawsuit would prove difficult.

S.G.

we got back the usual, we'll prove it when we get to court, response.

[SoylentGreen]

Getty doesn't have "the goods" in this case.
Do they expect anyone to believe that it's easier to go to court to settle a matter like this, rather than just show you the evidence that you requested?

This is the "Getty Scam", my friend.
I don't think that you've infringed on anything that they actually own.


S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I agree! I'm not a lawyer, but if they DID have proof of copyright ownership and they waited until the issue went to court to spring it on you, you would have proof that your requested these documents prior and they were withheld. Seems to me (maybe Oscar could comment) that at the very least you could reset the court date and ask for time to look into this new discovery. At THAT point you could make the decision to pay them or still argue the fact that what they are claiming is WAY over the image's value.

But I agree with Soylent Green, I don't think they have the proof they registered these images. I'd tell them to pound sand.

[slksanjose]

We have been involved in an exchange of letters and emails since Nov 2009 with Getty.  First they sent their usual stuff and demanded $10,000. We removed all the images that we used from a web designer in Brazil.  We offered GI $500.  They rejected.  We didn't hear from them for almost a year and they made a second claim We offered them $750.00.  They rejected that amount We then didn't hear from them until January of this year.  I lost my cool and told them where to stick their threats.  We didn't hear back from them until May when they offered to settle for $7750. We responded with $2000.  They rejected and demanded $6000.  We rejected and said ... send us proof of ownership, registration and the name & last know address of the owner or you can take the $2000.  They rejected with a letter saying we will do that if we have to.  Today, I sent them an email that said, look there is $2000 on the table ... take it and oh by the way that # is the most that will ever be offered.  They simply said that they rejected my offer.  As far as I am concerned, the ball is in their court.

BTW, we are on the cusp .. we have 10 images involved.

[slksanjose]

BTW ... since 2010 we have been dealing with paralegals at McCormack.

[SoylentGreen]

They've been bothering you since 2009.  That's a long time.
Intuition tells me that if they could have sued you and got some worthwhile money, they would have done that a long time ago.
The long periods between their discussions with you tells me that your 'case' isn't a high priority for some reason.
It could be that this 'case' is simply flagged in their system every once in a while as a reminder for them to send another letter to you.  Just like everyone else.
Also, their experience has likely shown them that the longer the time that they threaten someone, the higher the payout.  So they're playing the waiting game, too.
I'm not sure which country/state that you are in, but their opportunity to take any serious action will expire eventually.
One would think that in a situation like this they'd forward some proof.  It's probable that it simply doesn't exist.
Or, perhaps, Getty's campaign consists only of letters and threats, with no real intent to sue anyone at the moment.
Hence, they can't be bothered trying to prove their case to their victims.  That could change if a 'big stakes' case arises.
In some places (Canada), if you make an offer to settle and it's rejected, your adversary could be liable for your court costs and then some if the court awards a similar amount as to what you originally offered.

S.G.

[slksanjose]

Thanks for your reply.   We are in Northern California.  In Calif. state courts, you can make a CCP 998 offer which if it is not accepted and the other party doesn't do any better at trial, then they have to pay your costs and fees post 998 offer. However, since this may be a federal case, not quite sure that procedure is available.

[Oscar Michelen]

Federal civil procedure allows you to make "an offer of judgment." If you convey in writing that you would be willing to let the other side enter judgment in resolution of all claims (including atty's fees and costs) for a specific amount then you can get your legal fees back if they are awarded anything less.