ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: tinycorp on October 09, 2013, 02:10:31 PM
-
I'm curious how many of the parties receiving these letters are businesses that appear to have legal departments. We are a micro-corporation -- two people operating out of a cheap apartment. Like many here, we made an honest mistake and are now on the receiving end of threatening letters. It started with Getty and now McCormack. They're not asking for very much, but it's more than we have.
Were we just individuals we wouldn't be so worried. But we're not. We are a registered corporation and we responded to McCormack via email from a legal@... address. We never admitted to anything nor denied it -- simply asked for proof like so many others have done.
Our concern is that we may have hurt our position with our posturing, giving McCormack the impression we're bigger than we truly are. McCormack now knows the address they have for us is valid, they know we are a corporation, and they know we seem to have legal staff.
Should we be worried? The only other small business I know of who received one of these just paid it as they felt they'd lose more money by fighting. If we had the cash we would do the same, but we don't.
-
ALL of the recipients are either individuals or small mom and pop shops, Getty knows better than go after any big companies, as they would most likely face counter-suits and would most likely lose.. Yes you sure tipped your hand to McCormack, he'll continue to push your buttons.
-
Thanks for responding. We're not worried about McCormack pushing buttons. We probably shouldn't have ever replied, and we're prepared to ignore further letters. Anything more substantial, however, could be a problem. While he'd never collect anything from us since we have nothing, he could still shut us down.
-
My own business is even smaller as in me, myself and I. Plus it only runs part time, as in when I have a contract, which can sometimes be months apart. I thought it amusing Getty addressed their letters to my "Legal Department". McCormack's was "To Whom It May Concern". Since I'm neither an attorney or concerned, I haven't replied to anything yet.
-
In any case Tinycorp, you should refrain from dealing with them via email. Registered snail mail is the only way to go. That way they can never say that they didn't hear from you.
-
In any case Tinycorp, you should refrain from dealing with them via email. Registered snail mail is the only way to go. That way they can never say that they didn't hear from you.
We're not planning to respond any further. Regardless, they cannot claim they didn't hear from us since they replied to the emails, even quoting what we wrote. We have them archived just in case.
-
Tinycorp,
Welcome to the forums and the wonderful world of legalized extortion letters. Since you have contacted them I would let them know if they refuse your reasonable request for proof of claim and contact you again you will file complaints against them with the Washington State Attorney Generals office, the FTC and the Washington, Idaho and Oregon State Bar Associations where he is licensed to practice law.
Also don't not make this threat unless you:
1) Feel what they are doing is wrong. (ie: refusing to provide proof while threatening legal action) These complaints are serious and should not be done lightly.
2) You fully intend to file the complaints if the terms of your letter are not met.
I personally feel that the way Getty and McCormack's business model is wrong and on the edge of legality and this why they never file suit unless they feel it's a slam dunk for them.
Please keep us posted on what you decide to do and the results.
-
I personally feel that the way Getty and McCormack's business model is wrong and on the edge of legality and this why they never file suit unless they feel it's a slam dunk for them.
Unless they're completely stupid (which I doubt), we're hardly a slam dunk. Even if they could prove their claim, that wouldn't guarantee them any money. One Google search is all it takes to see that we don't even have an office. One would hope they would be smart enough not risk a suit against somebody so obviously small whose holdings they know nothing about.
-
The odds are extremely remote that they would sue you especially if it is over one image.
-
I was just reviewing the papers Getty sent to us and I noticed something. They included a reproduction of images that we hold the copyright to. Can they do that? I'm just spitballing here, but it's not like this was part of any legal proceedings. Were it in court filings I wouldn't think anything of it. But that's not what they did. In fact, we have the physical evidence to show they did it as part of a bulk-mailing campaign.
-
I'm assuming you are referring to the screen capture in contained in the letter? If so it's neither here nor there.
-
I'm assuming you are referring to the screen capture in contained in the letter? If so it's neither here nor there.
Why?
-
I'm assuming you are referring to the screen capture in contained in the letter? If so it's neither here nor there.
Why?
Because you said: "They included a reproduction of images that we hold the copyright to. Can they do that? "
If your image was in the screen shot, yes they can do that, and no it would not be considered an infringment.
-
If your image was in the screen shot, yes they can do that, and no it would not be considered an infringment.
Why not?
-
it's evidence ( kinda sorta), they don't have it posted on their site for commercial gain...it's been discussed at lenght before in the forums, you can searh for it or take me at my word, it's a moot point and won't get you anywhere.
-
Robert is 100% correct, I thought the same thing when I got my letter.
-
Its also not infringement because its use was "incidental" (like a guy who happens to be in the background of picture taken of a celebrity). Further, they were not commercially using your picture specifically. Finally, they also just used it for you and in a letter to you. So there are no damages.