However, I am stunned at your response. Does it really need to be said that aggressively defending and fighting back is not meant to be a comfortable, cruise-ship experience?
No. But I don't see why I should actively take steps to make it more unpleasant for myself by doing something that I think likely makes no difference to whether it's uncomfortable for Getty clerks many of whom are merely paper shuffling.
I also tend to think the facts of the case make a bigger difference than the mode of communication. Bear in mind, my case is one of hotlinking of a single, blurred, cropped image image during a blog discussion that would likely make copying of the image fair use even if I'd hosted the image. Licenses to display the image on the web are sold by the photographer's heirs through their Photoshelter hosted storefront, meaning that Getty either does not have the exclusive license or they are not enforcing their exclusive license. Not only are images available at the author's web site: Digital versions at better resolutions are available for download for free. So Getty's case is flimsier than usual. Knowing this, I am both willing to risk going to court and to go to court if sued.
I do not believe that in my case, Getty's decision to sue or not sue or even to stop wasting their time with internal discussions or sending email is going to be based on whether or not I am spending money on paper and postage.
In what I wrote, did you somehow get the impression that my advice was meant for YOUR, MINE, or ANYONE ELSE's personal comfort or preferred mode of communication?
When I said I was going to use my preferred mode of communication, I was responding to Buddhapi not you. I understood Buddhapi to be suggesting that the fact that receiving snail mail letters was annoying was a reason I should send them to Getty. He may be correct. But I'm more concerned about whether something annoys me than whether it annoys them. I prefer email and gave that as my reason for using email.
I wasn't under the impression that by sending email I was following your advice. I'm making my own choice for my own reasons.
They aim to get the message across effectively and that almost always means snail-mail, not because lawyers are incapable or unwilling to use email.
I can see all sorts of reasons an attorney who has been hired sends snail mail letters. I don't think those necessarily translate into evidence that messages sent from non-attorneys come across more effectively by snail-mail than email. I could be mistaken on this, but if so, then the person who will experience the fall out will be me.
I don't care whether the clerks at Getty think I am a high powered professional. My initial aim was merely to get Getty to drop this matter with the minimum fuss, expense and discomfort to me. My aim has also expanded; I now also want to extract as much information about their operations as I can while still avoiding a suit.
So, I want them to see that I am not going to cave in for no good reason. I think the best way to do this is not caving in when their case is absolutely flimsy. If several emails are exchanged, that's ok with me. I'll post the contents here and we'll learn what Getty writes.
Moving to a more general matter, as an empirical matter,I don't think we actually know if sending email or snail mail is "better". I think we haven't whether in the end Getty is more aggressive with those who communicate by email or snail-mail because we don't have cases comparing Getty's response in both situations. So it interests me to do the experimet. I'll be using email and I'll let you know how many emails it takes.
So far I've received:
1) The initial demand letter by snail mail. I responded to the letter provided by email.
2) An email response from "Sam Brown". I responded to "Sam Brown" by email. It's been over a month and Getty has not responded.
3) A letter that appeared to be spontaneously generated by the system. I responded by email sending it both to Getty Litigation and Sam Brown telling Getty Litigation to contact Sam Brown to get the previous communication. Sam responded by email in 10 minutes to apologize for sending the 2nd letter by mistake and informed me that my " December 20, 2011 e-mail (received) is still under review in our department."
If I get additional communications, I'll report them. I'm actually hoping I do receive an email response to my requests for proof of copyright and an explanation of how they come up with their settlement demand. If I can get those, I'll share them. So to the extent that email might make Getty more willing to communicate and send answers rather than cut off communication to save the cost of postage or paper I prefer that. (Others might not. But I do.)
Though others may feel differently, if I end up exchanging emails at the rate of one every month for 3 years, I would still prefer email as a mode of communication to snail mail.
I rather liked being able to send the email to two in boxes telling the Getty people to communicate with each other before sending me letters. I rather liked the Getty representative sending the apology within 10 minutes of my sending my email. I do think with future email I am going to request that they send me a confirmation that they received the email. I'll put a note in my tickle file and if If they don't confirm receipt within a week, I'll resend the body of the email to multiple parties along with a preface requesting someone let me know if they received the email.
I think I would switch to certified letter should I ever get to the point where I am suggesting a settlement of any monetary value. In that event, I have learned I would like evidence of they received my email; with snail mail I could have that if I paid to send certified letters. But I think I can just pester getty for responses and leave sending certified letters as an option for a later time.
So for now, for my reasons outlined above, I'm sticking with the mode of communication I prefer. I'm not telling others they should do as I do. I am entirely aware that I am not following your advice. I am making my own decision.
Topic: Invalidate response (Read 21255 times)