RIAA case...held to cost of single license fee

[SoylentGreen]

That's why you have to ask them for proof of their ownership.
If they can't show you proof, then it just means that they don't have any proof.
Don't pay them anything in that case.
In such a situation, don't worry about "court"; if you requested proof of ownership before payment, and Getty won't give it, then that would spoil their case.
Nobody expects a person or company to just pay some claim without some proof of that claim.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Nobody expects a person or company to just pay some claim without some proof of that claim.

S.G.

Getty fully expects people and companies to pay without asking questions, as do the other copyright trolls Hawaiian Art Network, Alaskan Stock, Masterfile...

[SoylentGreen]

I didn't include crooks in my list of people that matter.

S.G.

[SoylentGreen]

In the unlikely event that anybody finds themselves before the courts, there are some options that have become even more practical with the recent precedents set in Getty vs Advernet, and several Righthaven court cases.

In certain situations, it would be a good idea to file a motion of summary dismissal.
That is, show the court that the plaintiff's evidence is so weak that a trial in the court would be a waste of time.

Simply put, if the likes of Getty won't send you any proof of ownership of the image, then you may refer to the court losses of Righthaven as a precedent in order to gain an immediate dismissal.  Righthaven couldn't prove that they owned the content in question, and lost.

If Getty sends some paperwork, but it's shoddy, dubious, or not signed, then use the court loss of Getty vs Advernet as a precident to gain a fast dismissal.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

SG -- This is an excellent point. I wish the individual that was sued by HAN would have at least filed a motion of summary dismissal rather than just letting a default judgement be lodged against them.