Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)

[AndrewRaia]

So I received an email from a Lauren Kingston from his office showing me two images they are seeking damages for. A) I asked for proof of infringement and how the calculated damages, neither of which they answered and B) I noticed this after I replied, but they said they are seeking ACTUAL damages, which as far as I am aware, they need to prove that by me having it on the site they lost X amount of dollars, which there is no way for them to do.

So I replied saying that the reasonable time of discovery and the statute of limitations were well past, and at the request of my attorney, that the cease pursual of this matter.

Will keep you guys posted!

[AndrewRaia]

Now they are telling me they have a screen shot from 2010, not sure how they got that. I have to find out when my last payment was and when the domain expired. Even so, the site was put up in 2004, 6 years is well beyond the reasonable time of discovery and contact wouldn't you say?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Did you search at archive.org and domain tools? If the site came down in 06, there is no way they could have a screen shot, someone somewhere is not being truthful...

I found an image of Lauren Kingston the female copyright troll that works for Timothy Mcormack

[AndrewRaia]

LOL, domain tools is not free so I have to search, archive.org says 2006 but she said that was just the last time it was crawled. I am waiting on Godaddy to get me some proof of last payment and when the domain expired from me.

[AndrewRaia]

I registered for a domain tools account and apparently it expired oct-nov 2010. I coulda sworn I took down the site from the hosting at least, i havent touched it since it was up in 2004 the first time.

So question now, if the site began in 04, what is considered a reasonable amount of time before they should have discovered it so that the clock begins ticking on the statute?

Also, if they are seeking actual damages, they have to prove the amount they lost in order to win anything. So should I just zip my lip, let them drag as long as they can until they decide if they want to take it to court and then just let them find out in court it was not a company, have no sales history or anything to base loses on etc?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It's completely your choice, but I can tellyou that going back and forth with Timothy McCormack the copyright troll won't get you anywhere, they just want your money. They have no case, they know this, they just want to wear you down. You need to fight this on your terms, not theirs! They can only get actual damages if they file suit, win that suit, and are then awarded damages.. as it stands right now it is a claim and only a claim..

[AndrewRaia]

so really then, if they notified me in dec 2010, damages tech start accruing from that point when they discovered it correct? Then they now have 3 years to file a suit from that date. So if I just site and ignore them, and they do not file anything by then, at any point they try to do so  if it EVER did go to court, the SOL would apply and they would be out of luck?

If they did file before then, they would still need to prove actual damages? which they cant so they lose again?

I just dont want to let it set if damages are building and they could actually get something, I am content to ignore them lol

[AndrewRaia]

I was thinking as well (while breathing and reading lol, I watched that tech crunch video saying they dont care until they users start making money etc. I have a post in my news feed you can see here which states its non-profit

http://web.archive.org/web/20050418113305/http://www.revelationstudios.info/

that should help me as well no?


hmmm also back to the SOL, the damages can really only accrue while the image is in use, once its removed they cannot claim damages. Those damages can really only accrue from the time that they discovered it correct? So if they discovered it AFTER it was taken down, then they really have no claim?

[Lettered]

. . .

hmmm also back to the SOL, the damages can really only accrue while the image is in use, once its removed they cannot claim damages. Those damages can really only accrue from the time that they discovered it correct? So if they discovered it AFTER it was taken down, then they really have no claim?

Not the way I understand it.  In the worst case (using the discovery rule) they have three years from when they discovered (or reasonably could/should have discovered) it.  In the best case (using injury rule) they have three years from when you took it down.  The interesting thing about discovery rule in these cases is when is the date that Getty could/should have known?  Is it the day the site went public with the image?  Or is it the day picscout found it since picscout is always looking?  I cannot answer that one.
That's my layman's understanding anyway.