Preparation for 'next round of extortion'

[mph_mtc]

Hi there,

First, let me say thanks to Matthew and all those responsible for providing all the information in these forums.  I've been reading through off and on for several months now since I received the dreaded 'first Getty letter', and it's nice to know I'm not in this one alone.

It would seem my case is at the 'low-end' of the spectrum - I received a letter last December (we'll call it my early Christmas present) demanding $1050 for a single image that appeared on my website for all of a month (a tiny thumbnail posted there by my web designer).  Nevertheless, I won't be passing blame here - it was unintentional, and as owner of the website, I'm fine with taking responsibility.

After hours of reading up on response suggestions to the letter, I responded to Getty via email rather quickly to inform them that I had immediately removed the image, and that I thought the $1050 claim was a little unreasonable, and even went as far as to offer a lesser amount.  This (as per the 'modus operandi' I have come to learn about in these forums) was refused by Getty via email, to which I responded requesting their proof of title and exclusitivity of the copyright, and the date they obtained the right to distribute the image, as well as the breakdown of the costs that poor Getty has 'incurred as a result'.  Their response was short - that information 'would be made apparent through discovery, should the matter reach the court'.

I simply stopped responding at that point, and patiently waited for their next letter.  Their printer must have jammed at one point, because I received two copies of the same letter, dated Feb 17th, 2012 about a week apart.  I did not respond to this one, as I did see a point in getting yet another cookie-cutter response.

Fast forward to May - I (as per the schedule) received a letter from NCS IP Solutions with another offer of settlement.  I have since responded with a short letter indicating that because there never has been proof of title provided, and there is no civil judgement against me, that Getty merely is making a claim, and there is no debt to collect, and therefore requested that they no longer contact me.

So, this leads me to my question - as per the outline layed out by numerous posters in these forums, I am expecting now that in the future I will receive a letter from one of their now-famous copyright lawyers.  Although I've found a lot of information regarding responding to Getty/NCS - I am wondering about a response I need to make to any legal-eagles that are hired by Getty to chase little ol' me for $1050?  Further to this, I am located in Canada, and while a lot of the information refers to laws in the U.S., are there any special considerations I need to keep in mind being located outside the U.S.   

I realize the underlying tone in the forums is that it would be hard to imagine someone in Canada being sued by a law firm from Washington State for a dollar figure of $1000, but I'm just trying to remain informed, prepared and level-headed about things.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

[Mulligan]

I'm in the U.S., but if I lived in Canada I'd do the same thing if Getty turns the matter over to an outside counsel. I would reply to one letter from that outside counsel, requesting the proof you've already requested, and I'd tell them without seeing that proof I won't be paying any money at all: If you can't provide the proof, Mr. Outside Counsel, then as far as I'm concerned the matter is closed.

If the outside counsel is the notorious copyright troll lawyer Timothy B. McCormack or his copyright trolling paralegal Ashanti A. Taylor or one of their clones, and if your experience mirrors mine, you will most likely get another letter or two.

Eventually you'll get a "final warning" letter (form letter) from the outside counsel threatening that if you don't pay up they will "recommend litigation to Getty Images."

Oh, scary. I just shit my pants.

Well, not really. I mean, by this point, their empty stupid threats are nothing but laughable, especially when they come in a form letter addressed to Attention: with no name after the Attention. Achtung!

I digress. Anyway...

Duh, I thought imminent litigation was what Getty Images was doing when they turned the matter over to their outside counsel and tripled the demand amount, still without providing a shred of proof of their right to demand any money.

But, no... turning over to outside counsel was just another empty fear ploy to get suckers to pay up because now they were being threatened by a "real" lawyer with a "real" letterhead.

Oh, scary. I just shit my pants again!

Well, not really. Actually that could have happened from the laughter that erupted on reading the "final warning" form letter but after dealing with the Getty machine for close to a year now, I have much better control over my sphincter.

I don't yet know what happens once the outside counsel recommends litigation (yeah, right, ha!) to Getty, but it'll either be more of the same or perhaps they'll put it in the automated system to send a scary letter once a month or every other month or whatever until the three year statute of limitations is over.

Or maybe they just give up, though that doesn't seem to be likely since Oscar has stated people get anywhere from six to twelve letters from these extortionists.

I think I'm at six letters at this point. I'm fully prepared to ignore (or respond to if I feel like having more fun with these ass clowns) sixty more if that's what it takes.

My bottomline: no proofie, no money!

[SoylentGreen]

Getty actually filed a couple of lawsuit in Canada many years ago; I don't think that these suits went anywhere.
So, they can sue here; they'd have to get a Canadian lawyer, and work with Canadian laws.
They do have a couple of Canadian lawyers that they use to send threatening letters.

It's interesting that you received a demand from NCS.  I thought that it was illegal for collection agencies to pester people over claims that aren't actual debts in Canada.
I'm guessing that NCS in the 'states sent you this?  It's illegal.

Anyway, the likelihood of this going ANYWHERE is close to zero.

I posted the following previously, which I feel is the best defense against Getty for Canadians at this time (if you need a defense):

----

"Innocent infringement" is an angle that could work for you if necessary. Again, Getty usually doesn't own the actual copyrights to their content.
That is, they not do have the copyright registrations in their name, nor exclusive contracts with the artists in most cases.  Consider the following:

"Registration, while not necessary, provides certain presumptions that are useful if the copyright is litigated and prevents any person from relying on the defence of “innocent infringement” (i.e., where the infringer did not know and had no reason to suspect that copyright existed in the work). If there is no registration, an infringer who successfully proves the defence of innocent infringement could be prohibited from further copying but would not be liable for damages." from page 66:

http://www.osler.com/uploadedFiles/News_and_Resources/Publications/Guides/Doing_Business_in_Canada_-_2011/DBIC-Chapter13.pdf

There's nothing to stop anyone from asking for "Statutory Damages". However, the above would likely nullify this option.

Keep in mind here that we're talking about Canada.  So, a US registration counts for nothing.

---

Getty has nothing registered with the Candian Copyright office the last time that I checked.

S.G.