information to send or not to send

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

If it were me I would go ahead and file the letters you have. If your letter to the Washington state Attorney General's office is already prepared you may want to check to make sure you have the right person as it has just recently changed from Rob McKenna to Bob Ferguson.

I wouldn't for Mr. McCormack that these complaint letters have just been filed and if anyone from his office contact you again without providing full proof meaning a copy of the signed contract between Getty and the artists giving them exclusive rights to the image, proof the image is properly registered with United States copyright office and complete sales history for the image in question along with how the fee was determined based upon sales that you will file another round of complaint letters to the same agencies naming him personally as well as complaints filed with the Washington, Idaho and Oregon State Bar associations where he is licensed to practice law.

I seriously doubt he wants to deal with any Bar Association complaints and will most likely back away and give the case back to Getty. Once the complaint start coming into Getty's office and they have to start dealing with that I would imagine they will back down as well and go after easier prey. I did this and have been left alone for almost a year now.

One more question...I have already prepared letters of complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau, Attorney General, and my congressman.  Should I let McCormack know I will follow through with these complaints or should I just file them ahead of my response.

The thing that is ridiculous is that all McCormack did was provide a Getty catalog number as proof.  He didn't even sign his letter.  It was just copy that was an obvious form letter.

[Mulligan]

It's interesting that McCormack didn't sign the initial form letter. I wonder if that was an oversight or it he's distancing himself even further from the paralegals who do all the work so they can take the potential hits when somebody finally stands up to these people and files a countersuit against them.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I think it is intentional but that doesn't get him off the hook, anything coming from his office on his letterhead he is ultimately responsible for. 

It's interesting that McCormack didn't sign the initial form letter. I wonder if that was an oversight or it he's distancing himself even further from the paralegals who do all the work so they can take the potential hits when somebody finally stands up to these people and files a countersuit against them.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It's interesting that McCormack didn't sign the initial form letter. I wonder if that was an oversight or it he's distancing himself even further from the paralegals who do all the work so they can take the potential hits when somebody finally stands up to these people and files a countersuit against them.

Well even if he is distancing himself, if a suit were ever filed along with a counter-suit, he would still be involved, the paralegals work for him, he is ultimately in charge of overseeing them and their behavior..at least thats how I see it..

[bondnj]

Stinger,
Good honest share, thank you. Quick question - What does your reference to statue of limitations refer to?

[stinger]

My understanding is that the Digital Media Copyright Act (DMCA) gives copyright holders three years from the time they first discover a mis-appropriation of their content to pursue an action.  It's kind of odd, that statute of limitations begins when the act is discovered, not when it actually happened.

This gives people who aren't certain of the copyright status of things they have posted in the past, a strong incentive to take them down, lest they be accused of a crime after they have discarded their licenses.

[bondnj]

That is quirky but helpful! Thanks

[Oscar Michelen]

All copyright statutes of limitation usually run from when the copyright holder discovered the infringement, otherwise imagine in the old days (1990)before the internet you could be ripping off an artist for years in California or Idaho and if they were in NY or Florida, they would never find out and the statute would have expired.

[Oscar Michelen]

I just want to add, that the defendant in those cases could also argue an affirmative defense called laches, meaning that if the holder knew or should have known about it for some specific reason and then sat on the information for a period of time after the statute ran, that they lost the right to bring the claim.  Very hard to prove but just wanted my answer to be complete.