Let the Fear & Paranoia, Fire & Brimstone Begin!

[Matthew Chan]

It has been insinuated and implied more than once that perhaps Oscar and I are giving inappropriate advice especially to those people who made photo errors with 1-3 images and they are mom-pop/sole proprietors.

While we have stated repeatedly that while there are NO GUARANTEES that Getty Images won't sue anyone that erred with 1-3 images, all indications seem to say that it does not seem likely AT THIS TIME they will pursue a full-blown lawsuit for a number of possible reasons: bad PR (eg RIAA suits), inability to win a meaningful judgment, collect on a judgment, etc.

Oscar and I try to empower people with knowledge, education, and a realistic perspective. We try to ease people's worries especially to people who are single-person/mom-pop operation that made a mistake with a couple of images.

However, according to our friendly insinuator (who implies he may have a legal background but never identifies himself), maybe we should change our position.  Maybe we need to up the FEAR and PARANOIA further.  After all, it is far EASIER to say that Getty Image might make a move.

Let us forget for a minute, there is big difference between actually winning a case and collecting on it. Or that winning a $5K, $10, $20K case and getting a judgment against someone plus court costs is a whole different ball of wax than actually ever collecting on it. But hey, Getty might want make an example of someone that made a mistake of a couple images. Why not? It worked so well for the RIAA when they went on a rampage a few years back.

It also isn't quite enough that Oscar is going on nearly 600 new clients since this site launched.

Likewise, I am so sure Getty's team is enjoying having even more people flock to an experienced litigator/IP attorney like Oscar. After all, Getty enjoys being frozen out of all legal communication from letter recipients (after having paid Oscar a financially-crippling, bankruptcy-instigating, credit-damaging $195 to hire him) and having Getty negotiate with Oscar.

We could also ignore what has been said repeatedly on these forums and private emails that People would sooner contribute money to this website and pay money for Oscar's legal services before they give one dime to Getty Images?

But hey, what the heck. Maybe Oscar and I have been running this operation on the wrong premise and doing it the hard way. Maybe we need to discuss changing strategies. We should adopt the philosophy of driving fear and paranoia UP EVEN MORE and play up to everyone's worst fears and nightmares. All this comfort and education talk is encouraging way too many people to feel less stress, empowered, and sleep better. Frak that crap.  We can't have any more of that empowerment and stress-relieving nonsense. We want even more people to be even more dependent on us and this website so they can come back for more. To do that, we should frak with people's emotional states but creating more doubt.

After all, we all know that Oscar is aching to rack up his numbers up further (so he can become friends with Donald Trump) and I am desperate for more website traffic and Paypal contributions (since it is the only thing I do with my days), right? Let us not forget the hero-complexes and egos that Oscar and I have that needs to be regularly fed. We might achieve hero status that way.

And as far as Getty is concerned, they won't mind continually having to go up against Oscar repeatedly (who will one day reach 1,000 clients from this controversy and website). Why bother negotiating with 1,000 inexperienced laymen when you can drive letter recipients into Oscar's law firm? After all, Oscar is only a single-call and email away. It makes it so much easier for Getty to deal with. Got to have the college kids on the compliance staff do something more productive than to talk to or email letter recipients.

Yup, let's go ahead and spread the word that if you are a mom-pop/sole-proprietor biz that made a mistake with 1-3 images, they need to be very worried, get ulcers, and to lose sleep over it. Let's tell people they will get sued by Getty and lose since there is an overwhelming 5% chance that will happen.

How does that sound everyone? Ready for some fire, brimstone, fear, and paranoia?  Our friendly legal insinuator seems to be of that opinion.

Who wants to light the first match to get the fire started?

Matthew Chan

[sundog49]

Dear Mathew, I heartily applaud your spirit of community service with your site and again, am grateful.  

A client received the letter and the 'deadline' is today.  He is innocent and I, as a designer, am the one who actually inadvertently used the image.  He is threatening to sue me if Getty sues him.  Is it possible for me to retain Oscar for him, as I am a third party?

[Matthew Chan]

I see no reason why you couldn't pay Oscar's fee on behalf of your client. However, your client has to be willing to be represented and want to cooperate with Oscar and the process. You cannot make your client have legal representation if he doesn't want it.  

Does your client know that this website exists so that it takes the edge off of him receiving the letter?  He is among hundreds if not thousands.  For many cases, people need to realize that there is nothing more sue-worthy about their situation than any other one.

Matthew

[sundog49]

I've sent him the link and some information about Oscar and my offer to retain Oscar but have not heard back from him.  Getty will not deal directly with me, but the client says he'll sue me if they come after him.

[Matthew Chan]

Well, if your client is being uncooperative, then he has the same problem Getty has.  He can try to sue you but then he would have to prove damages.  So unless he simply gives into Getty and pays them, he has very little damages that I can see.

[sundog49]

Thanks very much for your quick, helpful response.  I'm trying to do what I can to be responsible for what now appears an ignorant mistake on my part.   I've been a professional creative for 30+ years and had no idea how the copyright laws had been made so much stricter and inclusive in more recent years.

But I still feel that much of these current laws, even if well-intended, are very over-reaching and ultimately damaging to the creative community--even those they are designed to allegedly 'protect'.  Kind of another version of 'Homeland Security' imho...

It has and will certainly change how and what I do as a creative professional.

[Matthew Chan]

Sundog,

I think you are being quite honorable and proactive in your approach. While I can understand the anger within your client, I cannot understand why he would not want to take advantage of your willingness to pay $195 so that he doesn't get aggravated anymore or why he would not want to work with you given your willingness to accept some responsibility to help out.

If my graphics designer did what you had done and step up to help his situation, I would have been so happy.

This is my feeling..... if I made a mistake and I do my best to try to make things right, you can either accept it or reject it. If you decided to reject it, that is ok but don't come crying to me later that I didn't try to make things right.

Your client is being a baby about this.  Him throwing a tantrum, sulking, and NOT working with you to resolve any potential situation will reflect badly upon him.  

Matthew

[sundog49]

Thank you, Mathew.  This client is very high profile on the internet and is under fire by the PTB.  So he is already paranoid.  Because of this issue and a few others, recently, I'm not sure I am not a target, myself.  Therefore, I'm doubly thankful for help such as yours and Oscar's.  

I'm somewhat philosophical, though; taking the long view that events like this actually steer you where you need to go if you do your best to act for the highest good as you can see it.