Did I mess up?

[steph790]

First, thank you for all of the information on this website and in these forums! I am a small-time graphic designer who works with various web developers to build websites for small businesses - mostly medical practices.

I was contacted in December 2011 by Getty Images about a single image copyright infringement on a clients' website. Once I received the letter, I immediately removed the image from the website and researched the origin of the image. It turns out that I found the image on 5/31/11 via a Google Images search for "women legs high heels". It was housed on another website without any reference to a copyright to Getty Images so I was completely unaware of any copyright infringement that occurred.

I understand now that finding it on Google Images does not absolve me of any guilt, but it was definitely unintentional!

Had we purchased the image directly from Getty (which we wouldn't have... I would have found an equally good image from istockphoto for $10 and purchased that instead), it would have cost $415 for a 1 year license applicable to the use on their website. Getty initially was demanding an $875 damages fee for 6 months' worth of usage which is absurd. The best case scenario for Getty would have been HALF of the $415 license ($207).

I did a ton of internet research at the time of the initial letter that said for me to just ignore the letters which is what I have done. It is now 11 months later and I have received, via US Mail to my client's office, a "final" letter from McCormack for a $1400 demand amount.

Did I mess up by not writing back and stating my case? I have read now on your forum that ignoring the letters is not advised. But since I did ignore the letters for the past 11 months, am I stuck? Has anybody been in a similar situation with a good outcome?

Thanks, in advance, for your help AND for the wealth of information on this website and forum!

[steph790]

Oh and by the way, it looks like McCormack has gotten yet ANOTHER paralegal named Heather Park who also did not take the time to proof their form letter as mine also says "we have not been able to reach a settlement agreement or COMPRISE."

 

[Peeved]

LOL....another brilliant paralegal.

It never ceases to amaze me how this fear factor works on folks. You make a decision and then once that McCormack letter comes with the inflated price tag, it's panic time!

Steph, my opinion is that in no way shape or form did you "mess up" by not responding initially. There is no reason why you cannot respond to McCormack's letter should you choose to do so with the same questions that should have been asked to Getty initially. Still, do your homework with regard to all of the things mentioned here in the forums such as proper registration etc..etc..

Hang in there!

[Oscar Michelen]

Steph - Don't worry about not responding earlier. It is highly unlikely that you will be the first person Getty or McCormack sue over a single image. Because the image is not registered with the Copyright Office all they can ever get are their actual damages.  That means two things: (1) There is no legal basis to increase their demands as they cannot get legal fees, or expenses back in a lawsuit and whatever their actual damages are should stay the same no matter when anyone settles. (2) Because they can't get their legal fees it would be counterproductive to sue over a $1400 claim (and that number is inflated anyway). There's lots of info on the forums so spend some time reading and watching some videos to get more info. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Very unlikely they will sue for 1 image. It amazes me folks really think that ignoring these things is a good option.. Kinda like a hemorrhoid, it isn't going to just "go away" and at some point you'll end up with a bloody mess.. pun totally intended..I've always wanted to ASSociate Timothy B. McCormack with hemorrhoids, being that I see him as one level above just a pimple on an ass...

Contrary to what Timothy B. McCoramck states, that Getty does and will sue over 1 image, that FACT remains they don't..numbers don't lie, but some lawyers do.

[stinger]

Robert, you must be in a good mood today. 

This may be the first time I have ever heard you elevate your opinion of Timothy B. McCormack ABOVE a pimple on an ass. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Robert, you must be in a good mood today. 

This may be the first time I have ever heard you elevate your opinion of Timothy B. McCormack ABOVE a pimple on an ass. 

As a matter of fact I am in a good mood ( subject to change without notice), I had yet another meeting / visiting from our cult leader Matthew Chan, which was not only productive, but entertaining as well..I also had the opportunity to chat with another one of my ELI "friends" for a short time yesterday.

[Mulligan]

Steph, I received McCormack's "final chance" letter several months ago, and I ignored it because they had failed to show any proof of a right to demand any money. I posted on ELI the sort of reply I would have sent if I'd wanted to waste my time writing to these payment extraction artists, and you can read that reply here:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/mccormack-office-is-in-potential-trouble-again-over-%27last-chance%27-letter/msg10159/#msg10159