I received a letter from McCormack today

[studiomprod]

It states that Getty made "extensive efforts" to reach an amicable conclusion, which is totally bogus. I received my first letter from Getty in December of 2010. It noted three infringements, and a settlement price of $2,925.00. I did not know they were rights-protected. I immediately removed the images that very day, and also called to discuss a settlement.

At the time, I made a good-faith offer of $500 to settle the claim, as each image only had a list price of $49. That was rejected. An offer was made by Getty to settle on the spot for $2,350.00. As I did not have the money, I declined.

I received another letter today. I again called, and again made the offer of $500. I tried also offering $600, as well as installment payments. Both were rejected, and the full amount was demanded immediately, with failure to do so resulting in an attempt for legal action exceeding this amount.

I never received a cease and desist letter.

The new letter states that I have three weeks from the date of May 7th in order to pay in full, and the demand has now increased to $3860. It claims that $350 is attorney fees on their end, but they want $935 more than they did originally. I've sent my info to Oscar, along with payment, so hopefully there will be some resolution soon. I'm more than a little worried about the claim that they can sue for $150,000 per image, plus attorneys' fees.

[Matthew Chan]

If they could get anywhere close to $150K per image, they would not be "settling" with you and they would have already done it. You did the right thing in contacting Oscar.

Matthew

[studiomprod]

I just wanted to make sure my paperwork and money had been received. I didn't hear anything back.

[studiomprod]

Just checking in. I haven't heard if my paperwork has been received.

One thing I forgot to note in my original post was that the letter from McCormack was sent via FedEx, and I had to sign for it. I would have refused if I knew what it was.

[Matthew Chan]

Everyone, please read this post I wrote for everyone going forward.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2068.0.html

[studiomprod]

I am getting phone calls from McCormack now Has anyone else received phone calls??

[Matthew Chan]

What are they saying and what are they asking for?

Matthew

[studiomprod]

They wanted me to pay by phone today. Had I known who was calling, I wouldn't have answered. They called my business line. They wanted to know if I had business insurance. (I do not, I'm a small, sole-propietor freelancer)

I said I couldn't answer anything today, and certainly couldn't pay today, and they are demanding response by the 27th.

[Matthew Chan]

Basically, they are begging for money and begging for your cooperation.

They hope people have business insurance so they can try to get money that way. Most smaller businesses don't have it unless they have some kind of storefront.

Matthew

[studiomprod]

Does anyone know what their next move in the escalation process is? I did a search on here (and elsewhere online), and can't find anything indicating that anyone else has received a phone call, or letters from McCormack that come via signed FedEx.

[SoylentGreen]

Getting a letter from FedEX doesn't mean anything special, other than they like FedEX.  Or, FedEX was cheaper, or something.
If you intend to evade "service" of court papers, then don't sign for anything or accept registered letters from Getty or its lawyers.

You offered $500, and that's not a bad thing; it shows that you're trying to remedy the situation.
However, since you did that, they likely feel that they can pressure you into giving much more money.

It's time to ask them for proof of ownership of the images in question.
In addition, ask them to provide proof that they have registered the images with the copyright office.
If they refuse your request for any reason, then they simply don't have the goods.
If they have the time and money to have a lawyer send some form letter to you, they can certainly send you their proof of ownership at the time of the alleged infringement.

If the photographer/artist still owns the photo, then Getty would find it more difficult to get punitive damages (the retail price of the images) in court.
If Getty hasn't registered the images with the copyright office, then they cannot collect statutory damages (legal feels).

Note that Getty has registered images in the past.  However, the original artist/photographer still holds the copyright in many cases.  This would be a problem for Getty also.


Good luck,

S.G.

[theisgroup]

i received a letter from getty and then a letter from McCormack himself. just recently recieved a letter from his paralegal. I guess he is too busy to write letters himslef now.

we have requested proof since this ordeal has started and as of yet, have recieve none. they also alluded to using business insurance to cover this cost. we again requested proof.

biggest thing is to be aware of: the differences between copyright and registered copyright. and what your liabilities are with respect to your situation. we will make no offers until we receive the requested proof of registration so that we know what our limits of liabilities are and how we want to proceed. we have never closed the door to settlement

[Matthew Chan]

You should understand the power structure that McCormack will not do anything they are not empowered or authorized to do by Getty Images (McCormack's clients). Ultimately, they are an extension of the Getty Images corporate counsel department and the management of the license compliance department. Remember, there are names of people who make this happen. They try to distance themselves from this issue and not publicize their names because of the increasing hostility and unhappiness they cause from the letter recipients. There would certainly be career repercussions. After all, who wants their job title to be "extortionist" or "copyright troll"?

I suspect Getty Images retained McCormack to get involved as an additional layer of escalation and intimidation factor. I also suspect the financial arrangement is McCormack keeps a percentage of whatever they collect for Getty Images. Having said that, I believe McCormack law firm isn't stupid.  They know they are in a high profile and visibility situation. The cost of them losing even one case is HUGE because word travels fast on the Internet.

If Getty Images pulls that lawsuit trigger, I am quite confident EFF will be the next call who will likely team up with Oscar. Thanks to Righthaven Lawsuits, I know that EFF has little stomach for copyright trolls and legalized extortion which is EXACTLY what McCormack is now participating in.  McCormack has not yet become Righthaven's Steve Gibson who is receiving all kinds of hate from the world at large.

I wonder if they are prepared for the personal hate the entire law firm and the employees would endure. Similar to the Righthaven Lawsuit situation, I would bet my personal reputation that a virtual army would rise to marshal the forces of media, dirt-digging, personal investigations, venomous email and Google scarring if they pulled the lawsuit trigger.

For every single Getty Images employee and McCormack employee, it would never be the same again. They would have to go change their name if they ever changed their jobs.

This is part of understanding the big picture and combating the extortion letters.

Matthew

[Matthew Chan]

This post by SoylentGreen was accidentally deleted. I have reposted it to correct that error.
=================================================================
Thanks very much Matthew, for your succinct post.

Most everyone understands the importance of copyright and that creative people should be paid for their work.
However, the use of blatant lies, deception and intimidation by stock image businesses and their counsel has to stop.

It's common knowledge that an entity can get compensation if another party has wronged them.
But, if any facts are being fabricated, or misrepresented in order to get compensation (or to inflate  compensation), then there's a big problem.

There has been no court judgment against forum participant 'studiomprod'.
Therefore he or she owes nothing to Getty.  The $600 offer was in fact, quite generous.

Those of Getty, Masterfile, Riddick, even McCormack; we know who you are.
You do not want to be sitting at the supper table wondering if the knock at the door is in fact the water heater salesman, or actually a reporter from CBS.

Nothing sucks more than having to look over your shoulder when you're putting out the garbage.

S.G.