ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on April 16, 2013, 08:59:04 PM

Title: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on April 16, 2013, 08:59:04 PM
The times are a changin! Getty files 2 suits in the same week..same law firm, and one of them is for a single image..

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/getty-images-files-suit-over-single-image/

and this one which has been mentioned against Virtual Clinics..

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/trapped-under-the-troll-bridge/

should make for some good discussion.
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Jerry Witt (mcfilms) on April 16, 2013, 10:39:27 PM
I knew it was coming. We throw around the fact that they hadn't done so yet far too frequently, I see this as a strategic move by Getty.

However I really hope the single-image case decides to fight it. Somebody should get word to them that if they believe they got the image from the internet, it might be worth it to offer them $50 or so. Gonna see if I can track them down...

Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Jerry Witt (mcfilms) on April 16, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
Looks like it's Hezog Law Firm in Arizona.

 via: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/arizona-district-court/471134/getty-images-us-incorporated-v-herzog-law-firm-pc/summary/

Does it seem odd to anyone else besides me that the first single-image case is filed against another law firm? I don't want to break out the tin foil hats and murmur "conspiracy," however, it sure would be an interesting strategy to find a law firm to be a "patsy." That is, one that won't put up much of a fight or just plead guilty. That way you have a precedent set for these single image cases. Am I paranoid? Have I been watching too many John Grisham movies?

Question for Oscar (if he happens by). Would that be legal?

Somebody should probably give Michael Herzog a shout and at least let him know about this forum. His phone number is on the front page at: http://www.herzoglawfirm.com/
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Peeved on April 16, 2013, 11:13:24 PM
It's not looking good with regard to "Virtual Clinics". Looks like multiple infringements and after receiving notice of said infringements, Getty received the following responses...

Getty Images received a response by letter from “Abraham Goldstien,” who claimed he was “V.P. Legal Affairs” for defendants Virtual Clinics and Veterinary Website Designers. Goldstien’s letter denied copyright infringement and threatened legal and other action against Getty Images.

It appears that "Goldstien" may be an alias as well...

Defendants Virtual Clinics and Veterinary Website Designers claim to be legally represented by “Abraham Goldstien,” which, upon information and belief, is an alias used by defendant Doe One. Doe One has claimed at various times to be “Legal Counsel” and “V.P. Legal Affairs” for the corporate defendants, and has used the address in Switzerland described in the preceding paragraph, although at least some correspondence from Doe One was postmarked as having been mailed from Orlando, Florida.


Will be interesting with regard to the single image suit. Looks like they are seeking "actual damages" and an "amount to be proved at trial".

Good luck to Jerry on tracking down the defendant. Btw...NO you are "not paranoid" with regard to the case being filed against a "law firm". I thought the exact same thing that it was "odd".
Quote from: Jerry Witt (mcfilms) on April 16, 2013, 11:04:13 PM
Looks like it's Hezog Law Firm in Arizona.

 via: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/arizona-district-court/471134/getty-images-us-incorporated-v-herzog-law-firm-pc/summary/

Does it seem odd to anyone else besides me that the first single-image case is filed against another law firm? I don't want to break out the tin foil hats and murmur "conspiracy," however, it sure would be an interesting strategy to find a law firm to be a "patsy." That is, one that won't put up much of a fight or just plead guilty. That way you have a precedent set for these single image cases. Am I paranoid? Have I been watching too many John Grisham movies?
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on April 16, 2013, 11:49:28 PM
I agree with you Jerry, Getty may be doing this to claim they do go after single images on their demand letters.  I'm adding tin foil to my shopping list now. ;)
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: scraggy on April 17, 2013, 12:39:40 AM

I am not a lawyer, but Getty is requesting "actual damages". In my opinion, if this goes to trial and the judge has to determine the actual damages suffered by Getty, the amount awarded, even if Getty wins, would be ridiculously low.

This would lower the amount for all out of court settlements.

The law firm sued may decide that it's not worth their hassle to fight this ( because it isn't! ) , but alternatively, they may fight it all the way, because they wouldn't incur the same costs as other defendants.

One image!? A " de minimis" defense might be all they need here!

My opinion - there is no way a judge will be the one to determine the damages in this case. It's going to end way before that point. Getty would be insane to take such a risk.

Great! So they finally sued for one image in the USA, but in my opinion, they wont see it through, because it's not logical to do so!
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Couch_Potato on April 17, 2013, 07:04:12 AM
It is interesting in so much as Getty have newish owners but most likely there is a particular reason why this single image case was filed.

If I had to guess I'd bet on the image actually being taken from Getty's website or the image was exclusively licensed to somebody at the time so Getty can more easily prove damages.

It would be too expensive for Getty to start filing suits against every infringer because most wouldn't have the means to pay even if Getty won. It also wouldn't be long before it got noticed by a politician a lot more than sending threatening letters would.

I'll keep an eye on it with interest though.
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on April 17, 2013, 08:07:54 AM
Agreed, remember Corbis v Nick Star, Corbis won the case and legal fees, the court determined that both were too high and lowered the amount.  When it was all said and done it ended up costing Corbis around 125k for the win.  That was also providing that they got paid their judgement too.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/my-analysis-of-corbis-vs-nick-starr-case-outcome/

Quote from: Couch_Potato on April 17, 2013, 07:04:12 AM
It is interesting in so much as Getty have newish owners but most likely there is a particular reason why this single image case was filed.

If I had to guess I'd bet on the image actually being taken from Getty's website or the image was exclusively licensed to somebody at the time so Getty can more easily prove damages.

It would be too expensive for Getty to start filing suits against every infringer because most wouldn't have the means to pay even if Getty won. It also wouldn't be long before it got noticed by a politician a lot more than sending threatening letters would.

I'll keep an eye on it with interest though.
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: UncleJohnsBand on April 17, 2013, 11:45:40 AM
I am part of the Tinfoil Hat party after reading these lawsuits.   I think Getty is picking their victims very carefully.

I think that Getty found their Aronson at the veterinary clinic.  The clinic seems to be doing some weird things including having someone impersonate a lawyer (just my opinion).   That case looks like an easy win.   

In the single-image case, I don't think it is a coincidence that a law firm was picked (though I have absolutely zero evidence to make this claim) and they are asking for actual damages.   This way they don't get too hostile of a response from the other law firm.  I would expect a settlement fairly quickly and they can claim that they have sued single image infringers and move on with their usual scam.

Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Mulligan on April 17, 2013, 04:24:58 PM
A generous choice of options for this RM image (which is very lame in my estimation) is $450 for a three month license to use on an inner page of a website. Now, I know law firms pull in HUGE amounts of money when they're charging clients, but I suspect like the rest of us they may well be penny pinchers when they're shelling the green out to someone else.

Frankly, I can't even imagine a law firm with partners billing $958.72 an hour spending four Ben Franklins and a Ulysses S. Grant for a lousy three month license of a stupid image of a "Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion)."

I suppose there may be a federal judge out there somewhere who would award Getty a few bucks for this alleged infringement, but I don't see him/her awarding Getty with a Woodrow Wilson*...

*http://www.marshu.com/articles/images-website/articles/presidents-on-us-paper-money/one-hundred-thousand-100000-dollar-bill-img.jpg (http://www.marshu.com/articles/images-website/articles/presidents-on-us-paper-money/one-hundred-thousand-100000-dollar-bill-img.jpg)

Well, one never knows what rabbit hole one will stumble into when following Getty's speculative invoicing and settlement demand schemes!
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: SoylentGreen on April 17, 2013, 11:48:01 PM
Suing for "actual damages" against a law firm?
Actual damages wouldn't amount to much money.

We've been beating Getty over the head with the fact that they've never sued sued over a single infringement.
I guess that Getty's strategy is to be able to say that they actually "sued over one image AND won".
Interesting...

S.G.

Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: UncleJohnsBand on April 18, 2013, 12:47:39 PM
Quote from: SoylentGreen on April 17, 2013, 11:48:01 PM
Suing for "actual damages" against a law firm?
Actual damages wouldn't amount to much money.

We've been beating Getty over the head with the fact that they've never sued sued over a single infringement.
I guess that Getty's strategy is to be able to say that they actually "sued over one image AND won".
Interesting...

S.G.

I agree and how would they prove "actual damages".  I just see this as a way of being able to claim that they do sue over a single image, the will try to claim they picked a tough opponent -- because after all a law firm doesn't have to worry about legal costs (I don't know why they would seek outside counsel for something this small), and because they will eventually settle with the law firm for a tiny amount of money they won't piss off the brotherhood of lawyers too much.   This case, while Getty will certainly win, doesn't pass the sniff test.
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Oscar Michelen on April 18, 2013, 08:03:45 PM
I think that Getty's new lawyers in Seattle are probably "testing the waters".  Choosing a lawyer as their first target is an interesting choice because  I guess this guy could represent himself. But maybe they figure he will have the assets and will want to pay quickly o get out of it.  Jerry - i wrote him the day I learned of the lawsuit a few days ago and he has not responded. I also sent him a link to some of the forum posts here I wanted to make sure he saw (Advernet etc). At his point, I can only assume he does not want our help as if you type in "Getty lawsuit" in Google the first item is expiry./com which has post linking to our site and then our site. 
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 08, 2013, 06:49:52 AM
This is all courtesy of Seattle Copyright Attorney and douchenozzle Timothy B. McCormack who is acting as a good Getty puppet...Even though Getty didn't even give him a shot at filing his own suit..( speaks volumes of their trust in Timothy McCormack)

Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice

The Court, having considered the Stipulated Motion for Consent Judgment filed by plaintiff Getty Images (US), Inc. (“Getty Images”) and defendant The Herzog Law Firm, P.C. (“Herzog”), hereby enters the following Final Judgment and Order:

1. The Court enters judgment against Herzog and in favor of Getty Images on Getty Images’ copyright infringement claim in the amount of $5,000.00.

2. This action shall be dismissed with prejudice and each party is to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

you can read the court document here:

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/final-judgment-and-order-of-dismissal-wi-25552/

I naturally have other comments, but would also like to get some thoughts from others regarding this ( hint, hint Oscar)..By all appearences the defendant didn't even fight, just simply admitted to everything and agreed to pay..
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Mulligan on May 08, 2013, 11:25:33 AM
LOL.
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Jerry Witt (mcfilms) on May 08, 2013, 11:54:23 AM
Like I said at the start:

 
Quote
Find a law firm to be a "patsy." That is, one that won't put up much of a fight or just plead guilty. That way you have a precedent set for these single image cases. Am I paranoid?

My suspicion is that's what happened here. My theory is something like this: 1.) Find a small law firm that is infringing on your image. 2.) Tell them you would like to sue them and if they don't put up a fight, you will forgive the infringement, pay them some cash and/or cover all their costs. 3.) File a "Stipulated Motion for Consent."  You can see this at: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/stipulated-motion-for-consent-judgment-g-25447/

So this means the case never went to trial so it doesn't count as a loss for the law firm. But for Getty, it counts as a big win. It sets the "going rate" for a single-image infringement at $5000 and you can damn well believe they will use that chip to bargain with other innocent infringes in the future.

This is all my opinion of course. But I can think of no better reason as to why this law firm chose to roll over.
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Peeved on May 08, 2013, 12:45:44 PM
My thoughts are in line with Jerry's.

With regard to this statement, "Getty Images has demonstrated that defendant reproduced, displayed, distributed and made other infringing uses of the subject image, without authorization", it is unclear as to how "innocent" this infringement may have been. Other than that, I agree with the insanity of a law firm settling for 5 grand!

Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Mulligan on May 08, 2013, 02:58:51 PM
For me, this entire matter has more holes than the plastic colender Mrs. Mulligan uses to wash chicken necks in.

For one suspicious hole, a Copyright search reveals that the work was taken in 2002 but never registered until March of 2013. Additionally, near as I can tell, it is the ONLY work by this particular photographer that's been registered. Ever.

Here's the complete listing from the copyright office's search function:

Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)

Type of Work:    Visual Material

Registration Number / Date:    VA0001850730 / 2013-03-08

Application Title:    Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)

Title:    Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)

Description:    Electronic file (eService)

Copyright Claimant:    Robert Daly Ltd. Address: 135 Elborough Street, London, SW18 5DS, United Kingdom.

Date of Creation:    2002

Date of Publication:    2002-08-11

Nation of First Publication:    United States

Authorship on Application:    Daly & Newton, pseud. of Robert Daly Ltd. (author of pseudonymous work), employer for hire; Domicile: United Kingdom; Citizenship: United Kingdom. Authorship: photograph(s)

Rights and Permissions:    Getty Images, 605 - 5th Ave. S., Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98104, United States
   
Names:    Daly & Newton, pseud.
   Robert Daly Ltd.
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: stinger on May 08, 2013, 03:45:27 PM
I agree that the case is a setup.  They are going to use it for one of three reasons:
I am just not sure which reason is why they put this "setup" case together.
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 08, 2013, 04:30:14 PM
you can bet your ass that Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack will be adjusting his typo filled letters, with this "win"..I agree with Jerry, they will use this to bolster the fear factor.."Getty Images does sue over single infringements".... Getty as well as Wilsdon knew damn well that this lawyer would cave in and settle, I'd be willing to bet that he was "hand-picked"...

When will that douchebag Seatlle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack realize that he is just a puppet doing Getty's dirty work..Getty continues to let him send out his letters and catch all of the flack, and when they do decide to file suit like once for every 1000 letters, they choose another lawyer to handle it..Wake up Timmy, grow a friggin back-bone, get a real job where maybe someone would actually appreciate your "talents" ( whatever they are)...Getty images, Lisa Wilmer, and Jonathan Klien are just using you...
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on May 08, 2013, 09:17:14 PM
It is more than that Robert, in 2009 Lisa Willmer stated that Getty finds about 42,000 cases of infringement a year.  That was 2009, with Pic-Scout and other aides I imagine it is a lot more now. 

You figure in the past Getty averaged about 1 suit per year whick equals 0.002%.  This is a number so close to 0 it I don't think it matters, now figure of the 0.002% how many cases the actually got a favorable ruling, I state it like this because of cases like Advernet where it was a win (by default) but it was ruled they got nothing because there were so many problems with registrations they were not entitled to collect.

So in my opinion I think the terms fraud, legalized extortion and the like are still in play and valid.
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 09, 2013, 06:40:11 AM
Quote from: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on May 08, 2013, 09:17:14 PM
So in my opinion I think the terms fraud, legalized extortion and the like are still in play and valid.

Oh make no mistake, those terms still apply, but also remember when speaking of Getty Images, Lisa Wilmer, Jonathan Klein and Seattle lawyer Timothy B. McCormack, to use terms such as asshat, douchenozzle, scumbag, and loser..
Title: Re: Getty Images files suit over single image
Post by: Oscar Michelen on May 09, 2013, 09:57:51 PM
I reached out to this firm when they first got the lawsuit filed and offered my assistance at a low rate and directed them to this site. They did not contact me back. The way that it settled it appears that they made what's called an offer of judgment. In federal practice if you offer in writing that you are willing to let the other side enter a judgment against you for a certain amount, you will get all your legal fees back from that point forward if the other side loses or wins less than you offered. I used that tactic to quickly get rid of Federal lawsuit in Florida brought by George Riddick of Imageline (long story, with its own, now dead forum). The reason I think the Herzog firm used this tactic is that if it was a pure settlement, normally the terms and the amount are confidential and a "consent judgment" is not entered. This is what it looks like when the other side receives the offer of judgment and accepts it; you simply enter a consent judgment for the amount offered and the case ends.  If I may toot my own horn a bit, in the Florida Imageline case, even though Riddick's lawyers accepted our nuisance value offer of judgment, I still negotiated a confidentiality agreement and treated it like a settlement so there would not be a judgment against my client.  This firm (for its credit line or any other similar need) will have to report that in 2013 a judgment for $5,000 was entered against it in Federal court.