Getty sends out the lawyers?

[rrwede]

I've been following this website for a couple of years. - Thanks for all the great information. 

A client who I built a website for in 2007 has just received an ominous threatening letter from McCormack Intellectual Property Law, of Seattle this week.  I’ve never heard of this group.  Anyone have any experience? 

The letter states that they have been retained as legal counsel for Getty Images and that Getty had tried several times in 2009 to find a settlement to no avail.  The letter has a case number and reference number and demand amount for $3950.  The 13-page letter goes on to state the company is liable even if others are liable, threatens damages up to $150k, and even requests for direct help in the investigation of the “illegal” use of the images to determine possible resolutions.    It goes on and on.  The last two demands are:

1.   Instructions for Immediate Settlement  for $3950 (expires three weeks after date of letter) check/CC paid to McCormack
2.   An official looking affidavit of additional information

Back in 2009 we removed the 2 images in question (secondary pages) and I reviewed the website’s other images, to insure proper licensing was in place.  All but those two had been purchased/licensed through istock or had been taken by the client.  I'm still do not know how I ended up using those two unlicensed images - they were so similar to ones I had purchased and rather unremarkable. 
 
Right now, obviously my client is panicked and doesn't want to involve lawyers and is scared his company could be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars.   He wants to settle this immediately splitting the cost of the demand ($3950) with me.   

Appreciate any insight or thoughts you all might have.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This just tells me (again) that ignoring the letter is not a good option.. Yes McCormick has handled other Getty cases, unfortunately your client did not want lawyers involved, but now they are. Use the search function on the site, as there are other references to McCormick. IMHO I still think it's unlikely they will file suit, unless the images in question are actually registered with the US copyright Office, have they offered any such proof of this? Have you been able to track down the owner of the copyright? Perhaps the photographer? When was the initial letter sent? there is a 3 year statute of limitations, and it seems you're getting close to the cut-off date for them to actually file suit. It might be a good time to get educated as much as possible, and maybe open a line of communication with them ( albeit a little late for that) By contacting them you could possibly buy some time to do the proper research, and perhaps get counsel.. If you can delay them for any lenght of time that will work in your favor as far as the SOL is concerned..

I know I wouldn't pay them $3950 for 2 images, nor would I offer to split this amount with my client/developer. By giving in and paying, they win and have more reason to keep sending the letters. Look up the image in question how much do they charge for it??? not nearly that amount is my guess...

[Matthew Chan]

I agree with buddhapi.  Ignoring merely motivates them to escalate the matter. You also help their case in jacking up what they ask for because a case could be made that it will cost more to escalate the matter to an outside attorney.

I would also not agree to pay that exorbitant amount. Your client being fearful is no excuse for not getting educated in this matter.  Their ignorance and lack of spine is forcing you to pay out the nose when, in reality, if you handle it correctly, could go away.

If you must split expenses, I would split Oscar's Letter Program fee.

Matthew

[rrwede]

Thank you all for the sound advice. I will try to convince my client to go the route of working with Oscar. Obviously I don't want to damage this relationship. What really makes me upset professionally is that I thought I had sourced every image correctly. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

If you were willing to split it with the client in the first place, why not just explain to the client the options and offer to foot the bill to hire Oscar on the clients behalf, this way the client pays nothing, and you still pay less than splitting it, it's wa win win for both party's, the client is covered, and you keep the relationship in good standing..

[Oscar Michelen]

Do not pay that amount of money!!! McCormack has never field suit over this issue and that fee amount is exorbitant. Also he cannot get his legal fee as the Getty Images are likely unregistered.  You will not be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars nor will you be held responsible for that. If you don't want to hire me for $195 make him an offer around $1,200 and let don't respond after wards if he rejects it.

[Canada Bob]

Oscar,

Wondering about the $1200 offer you recommended - is that because there are 2 images involved (2x $500) plus a premium?

[SoylentGreen]

Great to see Oscar taking a stand here.

S.G.

[Littlescoop]

I'm confused.  From what I understand through this forum and Oscar's postings and videos, for an unregistered image,       $ 100 - $ 300 should be appropriate compensation for actual damages, given fair market value should be the basis in determining actual damages.  What would one have paid had they gone out into the market place to purchase a similar type image? So I'm confused as to the suggested offering of approximately $ 1,000 if the images are not believed to be registered, as similar images I'm sure are available in the market place for only a few dollars to license.  Even if the approx. $ 1000 is to compensate for two images, plus a little extra for the inconvenience factor, I'm not understanding why $ 500 apiece is a reasonable offer to make if actual damages should be based on what one would pay in the market place, as that price would not come anywhere close to $ 500 per image.  Oscar, can you please clarify for us so we better understand.  I get that a stock companies charge hundreds of dollars for their rights-managed images and then demand their licensing fees when an image is infringed upon, claiming their licensing fee should be the basis of actual damages.  So is it $ 100 - $ 300 per image if not registered or should the offer be higher if the stock company normally licenses their image for hundreds of dollars, even if not registered?  Thank you Oscar!   

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I could be wrong in my thinking here and i'm sure Oscar will correct me if so..

The infringement occurred in 2007 according to the OP, GI knows this, I'm sure they have screen captures.. based on the maximum amount of 200.00 per unregistered image ( assuming they they are not registered, it would be the same as offering 150.00 per image / per year since the infringement took place.., hence 600.00 per image x2 = 1200.00..

[Canada Bob]

I c, thanks for the clarification buddhapi

[Littlescoop]

Yes, if Oscar could chime in on this, that would be great.  I think this would be invaluable information to the forum given one of the  purposes, if not the main purpose, of this forum is to educate and empower, in particular those trying themselves to settle with the stock companies and certainly having an idea of what's appropriate in trying to settle is very important.  From reading the forum posts throughout, it seems most people who have infringed with an image have done so for more than a year's time, and I would think the stock companies would check screen shots to verify the time the image has been in use.  I have seen lots of posts where $ 100 - $ 300 per image is advised if unregistered (or no proof of registration), but no mention of increasing that amount if the image was utilized for more than a year's time.   

[Oscar Michelen]

I chose $1,200 as a number that McCormack would not likely accept but that would insulate you if you were one of the few folks Getty decided to sue. That number is so far above what its worth that a court would likely say Getty should have taken it and ran. Now, if the infringement allegedly took place in 2007, then the statute of limitation has expired!

[Littlescoop]

Although the infringement may have taken place in 2007, he states Getty claims they tried to settle in 2009, not 2007. 
Does the statute of limitations start running from the date one initially infringed (2007), or upon the date of the initial letter Getty claims it sent out (in 2009)?  That would be great of the statute of limitations starts running from the initial date of infringement.       

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

The statute starts from the first letter, not from the when the infringement started..