ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Couch_Potato on March 13, 2012, 09:12:48 AM
-
Good afternoon.
I've been following this site for a little while with some interest. I haven't personally been victim to the Getty letter but I do know a company who was in the UK. I won't bore you with the details because it followed a similar pattern to most other stories here.
I was reading an article the other day about a challenge somebody had made to a parking charge notice issued by private companies and not the local council for parking on private land. The view here in the UK is that they have long been extorting people into paying unreasonable sums in much the same manner as Getty.
The article I refer to was a reply somebody had sent one of these companies which seemed very comprehensive. I do not work in the legal profession but wondered whether any of the points raised would also apply when replying to a Getty letter in the UK if that is the course of action taken.
Article can be viewed here: http://www.babybarista.com/2012/03/09/a-challenge-to-a-private-parking-charge-notice-issued-at-the-car-park-of-the-aggi-in-braunton/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+babybarista+(BabyBarista)
I believe that where no infringement had been proven you would be effectively entering into a contract by paying Getty on the basis of one of their letters and the reply in that link raises some interesting points about contract negotiation. The further information section also highlights some possibly useful avenues to pursue.
Food for thought perhaps.
-
This is very interesting, and a very good reply letter, I'm very curious as to if the "Parking Troll" will issue a response. Kudo's to this blogger for bringing this public and naming and shaming them, a little bad PR goes a long way these days.
-
Yes it did seem a good letter.
Unfortunately I don't know the person myself but I may enquire via their blog how their reply panned out. Most likely, if action was not going to be pursued, the parking enforcement company wouldn't even bother replying. Most of them are not very well organised unlike Getty.
It would be helpful to get a legal opinion on whether any of the points would be relevant in replying to a Getty letter but I don't personally know a legal professional trained in copyright. I do have a friend who is a barrister in a different field but I may ask them if they know somebody who would offer their opinion on this next time I see them. If that happens I will post an update here.
-
Just an FYI: Getty is not known for being overly organized, take a look at the advernet case, and you'll see how dis-organized they really are..
-
Interesting posting here. I've heard of the parking trolling in other places too.
Here's one... a Canadian lawn care franchise makes calls to homeowners with a sales pitch, and an offer to stop by for a lawn inspection and quote.
Even if the homeowner declines, they show up a few days later and work on the lawn (spraying chemicals, aerating, etc.).
When the homeowner gets invoiced, and they don't pay, the company sends it to a collection agency.
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2012/snakeinthegrass/
It's a franchise, so it's also been reported that not all of the franchisees operate in this manner (just to be fair).
But, you can see that there's no end to the scams these days.
Also, note how the tv show got positive results for the people who were scammed.
S.G.