ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: rlocke on January 20, 2014, 04:07:32 PM
-
Hello all,
In 2011 I received the infamous Getty letter for an old website. After reading through the articles and posts here, I engaged the services of Oscar, who sent a letter on my behalf to Getty.
I hadn't received any new letters or communications from Getty until this afternoon, when a local lawyer forwarded me a PDF copy of the lawsuit Getty filed against me.
My question is: what should I do now - hire a copyright lawyer? Or try to settle? Just wanted to see what my next steps should be.
Thank you.
-
I knew it was only a matter of time until Getty filed on someone represented by Oscar. (They wouldn't want it to be seen as an easy solution.) Seems to me step one would be to contact Oscar's office. Have you done that?
Also, how is it that Getty filed a lawsuit against you and you were not notified? Are you SURE this a a LAWSUIT? Or is this one of those bogus McCormack letters with a "case number" and made to look like a lawsuit?
-
I agree with Jerry. Run it by Oscar because they are only supposed to be communicating with you through him. Also, if you could post that .pdf, I am certain that a lot of people on this board would be interested in taking a look at it.
How many images are they accusing you of mis-appropriating? I cannot believe they would file for one. Who is the law firm filing?
-
I did send Oscar an email this afternoon, but didn't expect a response with the holiday. However, he called me and said it was an unusual case and would talk to their lawyer tomorrow.
It was for a single image, and indeed a lawsuit filed in district court (I have the complaint and filing documents).
-
How can they just email notification of a lawsuit? I thought it had to be served in person to a verified address. Is that not true?
-
When you get this all figured out, it would be good to share how the case was unusual. What law firm filed?
-
Absolutely! I'd like to see the pdf and the case number. Lawsuits should be matters of public record, right?
-
Yes, any information you can share would be very helpful.
-
First, I am sorry that you have been sued.
Second, because you have been sued, please be very careful what you post on this site or any other site. Any conversations you have with your attorney are subject to attorney - client privilege and cannot be revealed in court unless you do something to waive that privilege. Posting what your attorney has told you will waive the privilege.
So, while I'm sure everyone would be interested in what is happening in your case, you should wait until it is settled or concluded to post anything unless it is a public document such as a document filed in the case with the court.
-
Hi Terry,
Welcome to the forums. May I ask if you are a letter recipient? As a relatively new member I'm curious what your interest in this situation is. We usually see new members exploring solutions to their own problems prior to offering suggestions to other, so I'm just wondering.
I think getting advice and opinion on a strategy would be very helpful for rlocke. I also think posting what GI has sent would in no way violate an attorney/client privilege. GI has lurked around for years by encouraging people to keep things quite. So maybe I am a little suspicious of a first-time poster suggesting otherwise.
Also, I'm just throwing this out there, but there may be another avenue some of the members of this site might be able to help the original poster behind the scenes. I'm sure if the O.P. contacts Greg or Robert they can help with that.
In any case, I would check with your attorney, Oscar, and see what he recommends.
-
Hi everyone,
New member here that just received 1st McCormack letter after receiving a letter from GI several months ago. I am curious rlocke what the demand was from GI for the 1 image you posted. They are asking $1800 from me for the 1 image I posted (not knowing it was copyrighted; it was up for a few months only) and was thinking that they probably wouldn't bother filing suit for it. Now that I read that you have been sued over 1 image I am rethinking this.
Also, did you mean that you have been sued in your local District Court and not federal district court?
Thanks, and good luck.
-
I also think posting what GI has sent would in no way violate an attorney/client privilege. GI has lurked around for years by encouraging people to keep things quite. So maybe I am a little suspicious of a first-time poster suggesting otherwise.
I think if a suit has been filed, the record of the suit being filed should be public. So, we should be able to see court documents filed by Getty. If there is a link to that, that would be great. Revealing that can't violate attorney/client privilege because it's public regardless.
Other info that I'm pretty sure can't be 'private' are:
1) Court where suit is filed. (Which county/state etc.)
2) Exact name of plaintiff/defendant.
Would this be on Pacer? Is there info that would help the people with Pacer accounts find the filing so we can follow along.
-
The courts are available via pacer, we already have them in our possession, and they will be posted in the near future.
To answer Roywoods' question, it would be filed in federal court, as opposed to the local district court.
-
I can understand the caution here with Getty lurking. I have not received any letters from Getty. My clients have. I am an attorney with 20 years experience.
Posting public records would not violate attorney client privilege. So, the court in which the suit is filed is fine to post. Posting the documents filed with the court is also fine.
What is not fine is telling others what his or her attorney said. The poster stated "I did send Oscar an email this afternoon, but didn't expect a response with the holiday. However, he called me and said it was an unusual case and would talk to their lawyer tomorrow."
While this doesn't reveal much, it does indicate that rlocke, in the desire to help others on this forum, would be willing to tell us what his or her attorney said. Doing so could waive attorney client privilege and would not be helpful to rlocke. Thus, my words of caution before he or she does state something that could waive attorney client privilege. My concern for rlocke is to ensure he or she doesn't damage his or her chances of prevailing at trial if it goes that far.
-
Fair enough. Thank you for your clear reply.
-
Once the matter is resolved, I think I will be able to post more details. I don't want to post or say too much while the case is still open.
-
That makes sense. It's best for you to be relatively quite. I am hoping Robert shows us documents from Pacer, but 'in the fullness of time' would be fine with me!
-
That makes sense. It's best for you to be relatively quite. I am hoping Robert shows us documents from Pacer, but 'in the fullness of time' would be fine with me!
Greg will be posting the documents at some point in the near future..
-
I will be posting the docs along with some commentary on Saturday.
-
Rlocke - I have been helping out several defendants in these lawsuits - you can email me to discuss at omichelen@cuomollc.com
-
In http://dockets.justia.com, I now see a total of 5 new Getty Images lawsuits. There may be more that have not yet been posted.
-
In my opinion, this is a huge and unnecessary risk for Getty Images. If they lose in court, or even if they win a small amount, that removes the fear factor so vital for the success of their settlement demand letters.
And it's quite possible that they will lose ( see the Advernet verdict ) or receive a very low symbolic amount.
However, it's always going to be cheaper for the victim to pay up, rather than put up a defense. Lawyer's fees are higher than the cost of a settlement.
I think that the anti copyright troll lobby against Getty Images with ELI at the helm, has put a huge dent in their money making enterprise, and Getty needs a change in tactics, to increase the fear level in letter recipients.
Ian
-
I'm not so sure. Assume they get it in the court system, then offer to settle for a very low amount ($100 . . . $1 . . . whatever), with a confidentiality agreement attached to the settlement ... how would something like the following look?
" . . . single unregistered image . . . infringement lawsuit . . . settled today for an undisclosed amount . . . side note: copyright law carries penalties up to $250,000 per infringement and 10 years in prison . . . blah blah blah . . . more scary stuff here . . ."
I might guess that something like that gets them everything they are looking for with this . . .
In my opinion, this is a huge and unnecessary risk for Getty Images. If they lose in court, or even if they win a small amount, that removes the fear factor so vital for the success of their settlement demand letters.
And it's quite possible that they will lose ( see the Advernet verdict ) or receive a very low symbolic amount.
However, it's always going to be cheaper for the victim to pay up, rather than put up a defense. Lawyer's fees are higher than the cost of a settlement.
I think that the anti copyright troll lobby against Getty Images with ELI at the helm, has put a huge dent in their money making enterprise, and Getty needs a change in tactics, to increase the fear level in letter recipients.
Ian
-
IF they do very many of these settlements you can make the case that Getty is using the federal court as a collection agency and the courts will not like that in my opinion.
If they take these cases to court they run the risk of the court becoming angry with Getty for wasting their time if they are small dollar amount cases.
Getty is walking a fine line here and they certainly don't want the courts seeing the type of information any good lawyer will ask for through the discovery process. The more I look at this to me it looks like a loose loose prospect for Getty but that's just my opinion. :)
-
I just don't know. If the parties agree to something among themselves, and the plaintiff agrees to drop the case as a part of that, is the judge even privy to the settlement amount details? As far as settling "too many" their cases offline with the other party before judgment, I always thought that was quite common and actually encouraged by the court.
But really I'm not entirely sure how that works.
IF they do very many of these settlements you can make the case that Getty is using the federal court as a collection agency and the courts will not like that in my opinion.
If they take these cases to court they run the risk of the court becoming angry with Getty for wasting their time if they are small dollar amount cases.
Getty is walking a fine line here and they certainly don't want the courts seeing the type of information any good lawyer will ask for through the discovery process. The more I look at this to me it looks like a loose loose prospect for Getty but that's just my opinion. :)
-
I agree that what we are seeing now is not "too many" but these cookie cutter lawsuits strike me very much of the crap that Prenda tried. If Getty expands their business model to include cheap cookie cutter lawsuits the courts may start to take notice. If the courts ever look up to see who and what Getty is they are certainly going to see as much if not more negative trolling information as positive. Anyway, it's still way too early to tell yet.
Getty Images the worlds largest supplier of $875.00 photos of sprinklerheads. :)
I just don't know. If the parties agree to something among themselves, and the plaintiff agrees to drop the case as a part of that, is the judge even privy to the settlement amount details? As far as settling "too many" their cases offline with the other party before judgment, I always thought that was quite common and actually encouraged by the court.
But really I'm not entirely sure how that works.
IF they do very many of these settlements you can make the case that Getty is using the federal court as a collection agency and the courts will not like that in my opinion.
If they take these cases to court they run the risk of the court becoming angry with Getty for wasting their time if they are small dollar amount cases.
Getty is walking a fine line here and they certainly don't want the courts seeing the type of information any good lawyer will ask for through the discovery process. The more I look at this to me it looks like a loose loose prospect for Getty but that's just my opinion. :)