Lisa Willmer letter

[parkerbenson]

I notice in the Lisa Willmer letter that she refers to reviewing the "circumstances of this particular case", and that once the offender discloses the full extent of use, it tends to me more than they assumed (which is 2-5 years).

Well, what if the website in question only obtained a domain name about a year ago, at which point the web designer began to add content, so it can be shown that usage is only about 1 year, and thus actual charges had the photo been licensed would have been less than $200, the minimum award for actual damages that is likely to be imposed for an unintentional infringement.

Would advising Getty Images of these specific "dated" particulars be to the person's advantage to discourage future harassment or suit?

It seems they assume the worst, double the charges for Pic-Scout, etc., and then demand maximum damages.  If they knew their assumption was baseless, are they less likely to be unreasonable?

Has anyone explained their usage was for less than 1 year, and has it been helpful.

[Oscar Michelen]

The letter is a boilerplate response and Getty does not seem to take length of use in consideration even though it should.