I thought Getty Images went away. Just got letter from attorney.

[alfbell]

On Aug 23, 2012 we got a letter from GettyImages stating that we were guilty of copyright infringement and owed them $800. (The image in question was a little thumbnail that our webmaster had obtained for free from some image directory, downloaded in good faith, and had cropped to an even smaller size.) We immediately took the image down just to be safe. We corresponded with GI via a few emails, one phone call, and two letters. Our last correspondence to them was a letter dated Nov 1, 2012. In that letter we: 1) demanded proof of their ownership of the image; 2) informed them that, since there had not been a judgement or legitimate bill, they could not turn us over to a collection agency; 3) and, notified them that if they submitted valid proof of copyright ownership to us, we would be willing to settle for $25, which was the going rate for an image of this size. GI never responded to that letter.

Never heard from them again for 9 months, until now. This time a letter dated Aug 2, 2013 from the legal firm of Timothy B. McCormack. The letter informed us that we were guilty of copyright infringement, that GI did not have to submit proof of ownership of the image to us, and the amount of $1,400 was demanded in order to “end the matter immediately”. The letter also stated that damages could be up to $350,000 per image, as well as recovery of all attorney fees and costs.

We don’t intend to pay one penny to GI because we did not do anything wrong, and because this is just extortion. Everyone knows that GI is morally bankrupt and are just fishing for money.

Apparently the statute of limitations is 3 years on this so we are almost at one down and two more to go.

What has proven to be the workable approach to this attorney letter? Ignore it? Or respond with specific points?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Either option...bottom line is they have not proven anything, and McCormack is blowing smoke out his ass ( as usual) damages of 350k are only availalble if the image is registered, which it probably isn't, it would also need to be registered properly, which it probably isn't, and even then it would be up to a judge to make a decision on the amount, and I highly doubt any judge would award the maximum allowed amount for an innocent infringement of a single image.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

In my opinion it would not go well for them when you have stated you are willing to negotiate and you are just asking for proof of claim since you are being presented with a bill.   Also I think it is interesting that Getty and Mr McCormack like to start off negotiations by saying you are guilty without even asking or caring how the image appeared on the site.

[Mulligan]

Send him a copy of your letter to Getty with a cover letter politely saying if he'd bothered to read your previous correspondence with Getty's "compliance office" he'd already know where you stand.

Add that you've included a copy of the previous correspondence because your stance hasn't changed and if they're unwilling to accept your generous and ridiculously fair offer of $25 then as far as you're concerned the matter is closed and you will not reply to additional threats.

Then ignore the next couple of letters from one of Mac's goofy paralegals, the last of which will most likely say McCormack's going to recommend litigation back to Getty Images.

In my experience, the whole deal with Getty's outside counsel is nothing but bullshit threats and attempts at intimidation by lies and misrepresentations. McCormack and the paralegals who work for him should be ashamed of themselves and what they do to make a living. McCormack's attempts to extort this kind of money for cheesy images is really quite unconscionable, but, hey, he's a lawyer, and a lot of lawyers in the copyright extortion game will do or say anything to make an easy buck. These people were apparently born without the moral sense of right and wrong found in most good human beings. For them, life seems to be all about money... the more the better.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

If you feel that what they are doing is wrong I would also let them know that if they continue to harass you without providing the proof of claim you will file complaints against Getty, your compliance specialist, Lisa Willmer and Mr. McCormack with the AG, BBB, FTC, congressman and senator and for Mr. McCormack in addition to the agencies listed above the Washington, Oregon and Idaho state Bar associations.  Making note that they are stating in their letters that you are GUILTY (without a trial or judgement against you) of copyright infringement, demanding monies without providing proof of claim, refusing to provide proof unless you are sued and threatening to sue you unless you pay them without any proof of claim.

[alfbell]

Thanks for the feedback thus far guys. It helps me in considering my options.

I see from studying up a bit that there finally has been a court case in the US (with a law firm of all things) regarding one image. It may be bogus, it may not be. They may escalate and start launching lawsuits in the US now. You never know. Hard to believe that an attorney would do so for such a small amount of money, for one image (of which the "infringement" is questionable). The only thing that would make sense would be to attempt it through small claims court. And, in that case one could go and defend themself and take their chances. And if you lost it would still be a judgement that GI would have to work at collecting (and would never get). 

One understanding I was given was that it is never good to ignore or not respond to attorney correspondence or their attempts to contact you, as if it does go to court it makes you look bad to the judge. It is better if the judge sees that you "were responsible" and tried to deal with or sort out the matter (ignoring an attorney might act as an indication of guilt to a judge). Don't know if this is correct or not. If it is, we could just continue to resend our last response letter to the attorney, collection agency or whoever contacts us regarding the GI "copyright infringement" everytime they contact us... until either the SOL runs out or they get a judgement against us.

Another understanding I was given is to ignore them and they'll most likely just go away. If they actually did take it to court, and you continued to ignore them and didn't show up, they would get a judgement against your company. But getting a judgement is one thing. Collecting and getting the money is another. In our case they would have a judgement against our company which is an S Corp. The judgement could just sit there for all we care. We plan to move to another state within the next few years anyway. When we do we'd dissolve this S Corp anyway and create a new one for the state we are in.

The only question I have about this approach is... will a state allow you to dissolve a corporation if there is a judgement against it, or would you have to handle the judgement first and show documented proof to the state that the judgement was in fact paid before they would allow a dissolution of the corp? Anyone know about this?

Thanks in advance.   

[alfbell]

Greg Troy:
Resending my last letter to GI to this attorney, with a cover letter stating the points that you just made re: reporting them, might be the right next move for me in this silly chess game. Thanks buddy.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Don't say you will do it if you have no intention of following up.  I filed the complaints against Getty and ever since they have left me alone.  I let them know if I received any more letters from them I have letters ready to go in the mail within an hour of receiving anything from them that does not contain the reasonable request for proof I have asked for.

I never did hear anything from Mr. McCormack as I told GI in my last letter before filing the complaints that if I heard from him or his paralegals I had letters already to go for him as well including the bars associations mentioned above.

I meant everything I said and followed through, when GI sent their response to the agencies I filed complaints with I sent another letter to the agency pointing out the errors in the facts that Getty made, the obvious omissions where they did not answer many of my complaints about there business model and out right lies.

You can see all the letters between Getty and myself as well as the complaints I filed, Getty's replies and my responses to their replies in this thread:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

Hope this helps and please keep us posted.

Greg Troy:
Resending my last letter to GI to this attorney, with a cover letter stating the points that you just made re: reporting them, might be the right next move for me in this silly chess game. Thanks buddy.

[alfbell]

Oh, if I decide to act rather than sit back and ignore I will definitely follow through.

[alfbell]

Anyone know the answer to this?

Will the Secretary of State of California allow you to dissolve a corporation if there is a judgement against it, or would you have to handle the judgement first and show documented proof to the Sec of State that the judgement was in fact paid before they would allow a dissolution of the corp? 

[lucia]

I don't know. But generally, I'm under the impression that if the entity that was responsible for the site is a corporation, you want to keep it that way at least until the statute of limitations runs. The reason is that you don't want to become personally liable.  If the corporation is bankrupt, then it can't pay getty even if getty wins. Look through the threads for more. But when in doubt do not dissolve while any potential liabilities exist. 

[Oscar Michelen]

Correct lucia. Many attorneys and others give folks bad advice to let the business go bankrupt or close it. (We have discussed this on this site before).  Doing that exposes the corporation's owners to personal liability. Keep the corp open while all claims are pending. Make sure to pay all yearly fees and taxes as well.

[alfbell]

I've decided to respond. Will take Troy's advice. Will send them a cover letter over my previous letter to Getty. Will make the key points that challenge their actions and will notify them that if they don't cease and desist I will execute a letter writing campaign (informing: my gov reps, AG, FTC and all of the bar associations and BBBs for every state that McCormack practices law in) notifying all parties of this criminal extortion activity. Hopefully that will be enough to make these parasites go away. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I've decided to respond. Will take Troy's advice. Will send them a cover letter over my previous letter to Getty. Will make the key points that challenge their actions and will notify them that if they don't cease and desist I will execute a letter writing campaign (informing: my gov reps, AG, FTC and all of the bar associations and BBBs for every state that McCormack practices law in) notifying all parties of this criminal extortion activity. Hopefully that will be enough to make these parasites go away.

It won't make them go away...if you want that result...simply pay them the amount they demand.. Timothy B. McCormack is like a bad case of genital warts. Goes dormant for a period then BAM!! he raises his ugly head again demanding money.

[alfbell]

Well... it is hard to conceive that he would spend the time and money to take legal action against my company for a $25 thumbnail image that was offered for free by an image directory and downloaded. (And, is an altered, reversed and cropped version of the image Getty Images furnished me with.) What is he going to do, hire an attorney firm down here in Southern California to take me to court for a judgement that would probably never be more than a few hundred bucks? I would think that if I write back or ignore him the result will be the same... no action. Yet, the reason I decided to write was that if it ever did go to court a judge would see that I was being responsible and civil by corresponding and attempting to work out a resolution, as opposed to ignoring Getty Images. That is my line of reasoning. Am I missing something?