ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: w0nderbrad on January 19, 2016, 08:07:34 PM
-
I ignored all emails and letters from Getty. So they sent the case to NCS IP Solutions. I responded with a letter that said
"I have received your request for payment related to your file #XXXXXXX. Unfortunately I am not aware of any contract or civil judgment in the matter referenced against _______. and therefore we are disputing your claim and request for payment. I do not owe Getty this money and there is no debt to be collected. Please do not contact me again in this matter."
Then, they sent me ANOTHER letter - FINAL WRITTEN REQUEST FOR RESPONSE lol. They're obviously disregarding FDCPA. However, I didn't send the letter via certified. Should I resend via certified? And inform them that this is my 2nd letter to them and informing them that they are in violation of FDCPA?
What else can I do?
-
FDCPA only applies to debt collection issues not copyright claims which is what they are attempting to do.
Historically, NCS IP Solutions don't really do anything except send letters. At some point, they will punt it back to Getty.
You will not stun them into silence. It is simply a matter of disregarding the letters if you don't feel you should pay.
-
FDCPA only applies to debt collection issues not copyright claims which is what they are attempting to do.
Historically, NCS IP Solutions don't really do anything except send letters. At some point, they will punt it back to Getty.
You will not stun them into silence. It is simply a matter of disregarding the letters if you don't feel you should pay.
I'm not sure I agree with this assessment. NCS is certainly trying to collect on something they see as debt,even though it is clearly a "claim".. By stating as much I think they are legally required to punt it back, and cease any further communication. IMHO a second letter would make them think twice, however,Getty will simply "escalate" the case to one of their "Lawyers" ( term used loosely) like Seattle Attorney and drug dealer Tim McCormack.
-
It's also offered by Nat Geo Creative or whatever. Does that mean it's not exclusive? So they wouldn't have much of a case against me anyway?
-
yes,someone is fibbing here,and my guess is that it is Getty. Hell how is Getty to even know if you licensed the image elsewhere..
-
Does it matter that they seem to be part of the same umbrella of companies? Getty and Nat Geo Creative I mean.
-
People don't always do what they are supposed to do. In those situations, people need to get their head on straight.
It certainly doesn't hurt to assert FDCPA because NCS is at the heart a debt collection agency who extended their operation to copyright claims collection.
All I am saying is that quoting FDCPA may not be all that effective.
I'm not sure I agree with this assessment. NCS is certainly trying to collect on something they see as debt,even though it is clearly a "claim".. By stating as much I think they are legally required to punt it back, and cease any further communication. IMHO a second letter would make them think twice, however,Getty will simply "escalate" the case to one of their "Lawyers" ( term used loosely) like Seattle Attorney and drug dealer Tim McCormack.
-
Yup, Getty is notoriously sloppy. They went and bought millions of images in an attempt to monopolize and hold the value of stock photo images. They finally realized they can't buy EVERYONE out. And that most images are fundamentally depreciating assets.
Every year that goes by as many millions of images are produced everyday, it further diminishes all the other images in existence. It is a pretty shitty business to be in and there are only so many big paying customers.
yes,someone is fibbing here,and my guess is that it is Getty. Hell how is Getty to even know if you licensed the image elsewhere..