Question about precedent

[roywood06]

Hi everyone,

New member here that just received 1st McCormack letter after receiving a letter from GI several months ago. I posted 1 image and GI is demanding $1800.  I was curious what people's experience has been with GI filing a lawsuit, especially over one image.  Has anyone, other than rlocke who recently posted, been sued over 1 image?  On the reverse side, has anyone had the statute of limitations of 3 years pass without being sued?

Thanks for any info.

[lucia]

Really, what's reasonable for an image depends on the image.  $1,800 is unreasonable for the overwhelming majority of Getty's images. But remember: They do have some celebrity images. That number might not be unreasonable for a celebrity image especially a good one.  They also have some sports images-- and those are sometimes (though not always) worth a decent licensing fee. Occasionally, they have some one of a kind images.

People do sometimes need to think about what kind of image in addition to the number.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

$1800 for a single image?! That's ridiculous!

GI did file suit for one image last year, against Herzog Law Firm. Herzog settled for $5,000.

Can you confirm the 5k settlement? Generally speaking these settlements are kept confidential, and we saw no mention of this in PACER. Also remember that we believe the herzog case was hand-picked, knowing it would not go the distance and be settled quickly allowing getty to claim, they do indeed file over single images.. It now appears that Getty is once again trying to drive this point home with these new cases.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

on a side note I'd venture to guess that since I've been around there have been plenty, maybe in the hundreds who have passed the 3 yr statute without any action being taken. Me being one of them. They "offered" me a reduced amount to settle, I quickly refused, as I had already purchased the image in good faith years before they came along.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

If you got your letter from Mr. McCormack remember he is going to jack up the price on top of what Getty wants because he has to take the time to load that boilerplate form letter and insert your name and image details on it.

[roywood06]

Did a little research and found the following: (this concerns me a little)

Single Image suits filed by Getty.  All of these images had a certificate of registration and Gettu had the sole right to distribute these images.  McCormack's firm was not the filing firm, rather YARMUTH WILSDON PLLC out of Seattle.  However, McCormack posted the filings on jdsupra.com (along with the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling denying Michael Chan's motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court - unrelated case but obviously McCormack has it in for Chan.  Also found it strange that McCormack filed an amicus brief in the case.)  I wonder if this means Yarmuth files all these complaints for McCormack and Getty or if Yarmuth is the firm to be concerned with if you get a letter from them instead of McCormack (assuming you are a business and not just an individual with a blog or something similar).

Florida
Logistics Company
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-damages-getty-images-us-10259/

Website Development company
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-damages-getty-images-us-10110/

Georgia

Website building company

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-damages-getty-images-us-09710/

Arizona

Herzog Lawfirm (previously posted)

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-getty-images-us-inc-v-the-05630/

[lucia]

Florida
Logistics Company
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-damages-getty-images-us-10259/

This filing is recent. If we examine information about the image, it falls in the class of images that I would consider to be 'most likely to sue' here's why:

1) It appears the photographer himself registered copyright on this image.  Sea Logistics appears to have posted in image in 2013.  The filing states

The photographic image described in the preceding paragraph is the subject of
copyright Certificate of Registration VAu 967-849 (dated December 18, 2007). Attached as
Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Certificate of Registration.

If we look up VAu 967-849 we find
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=vau000967849&Search_Code=REGS&PID=WTOW7ObkakMt608q3uJlx7oVttGV&SEQ=20140123120656&CNT=25&HIST=1

Type of Work:    Visual Material
Registration Number / Date:    VAu000967849 / 2007-12-18
Application Title:    Agency Collection Volume 4.
Title:    Agency Collection Volume 4.
Description:    CD-ROM & 8 pgs of contact sheets.
Copyright Claimant:    Greg Pease, 1948- . Address: 23 E. 22nd Street, Baltimore, MD, 21218
Date of Creation:    2007
Authorship on Application:    Greg Pease, 1948- ; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: Photograph.
   
Names:    Pease, Greg, 1948-

So Greg Pease actually spends money to register.


2) It appears the photographer himself regularly registers his images and has been doing so since 2002. See this:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Pease%2C%20Greg%2C%201948-&PID=9X0nThk7D-OFQUt2F4IsUZfWKNbJ&BROWSE=1&HC=15&SID=4

The fact that the photographer himself regularly spends money to register his images means that it's quite likely he is an honest to goodness professional photographer who has actual honest to goodness customers who pay for his images.  Generally speaking, people who can't or don't sell lots of photos don't spend the money or go to the trouble to register their photos.  This Greg Pease guy does. 

The issue of licensing will still come up in court.  But based on the photographer's behavior, this would appear to be a "marketable" image (even if I personally, would never buy it!)

[lucia]

For what it's worth: I may be mistaken, but all four cases seem to involve honest to goodness companies that incorported (as opposed to hobby bloggers, students working on school projects and so forth.)

[roywood06]

Thats my concern lucia.  I am trying to determine whether to respond to McCormack or see if it just blows over.  My first inclination was to wait until the "final" demand letter from McCormack but now I'm not sure.  A little background:  Got the image from a google search, no watermark or any indication it was CR by anyone.  Have since seen the image on hundreds of websites ranging from law firms to blogs to news organizations.  Used it for a small business (DBA unfortunately) website that generated little to no income.  Home Page posting.  Picture only up for a month or so.  Its a pic by a guy that has 56 entries on the CR website (scarry).

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=+Menuez%2C+Douglas&Search_Code=NALL&PID=XDjBxh_QwI3XSNBqbRSrZ19Flghi&SEQ=20140123134659&CNT=25&HIST=1

I cannot find whether this particular image was registered.  So my dilemma is do I ignore with the chance of suit?  None of the letters have been registered mail just ordinary post so they cannot be sure I received them.  If I ignore there is the chance that I stay hidden among the crowd and get passed over.  But, I really don't want to be sued. 

If I respond there is a chance I can reach a more reasonable settlement than $1800 assuming they registered the image and have exclusive rights to it.  On the other hand I risk sticking my head above the crowd and put into a pile of "live ones" that they will more vigorously pursue. 

Man I just dont know what to do.

[stinger]

Bear in mind that Getty doesn't use McCormack for lawsuits.  They are in place to scare people into paying.  As soon as you, respond, they have identified you.  And they don't really like to bargain.  I expect that they get a percentage of what they collect.

If they are really going to sue you, I would expect you would hear something from real attorneys.  There is lots of good information on this forum concerning your options.  You need to do what you are most comfortable with.  But I recommend you learn as much as possible about this game before making your decision.

[roywood06]

stinger - I noticed that it wasn't McCormack that that filed the suits in the complaints I saw.  That makes me more hesitant to respond and get myself singled out.

So, I guess that brings up a question for all of those on this forum that have been sued (maybe I should start another post with this question) - what was the series of events?  Did you get a letter from Getty then one or two from McCormack and then sued by someone else?  Or did you get any communication from the litigating attorney to try to settle the matter prior to filing suit? 

Also, did the ones who got sued ever respond to the initial extortion letters?

I noticed rlocke's post made it sound like he got a letter from Getty, had Oscar send a letter on his behalf and the never heard from anyone else until he got the notice of filing.   I'm just trying to read the tea leaves here a bit.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I anticipate quite a bit of information on Mr. McCormack;s Laugh-a-davit and amicus brief before to long so stay tuned.

Did a little research and found the following: (this concerns me a little)

Single Image suits filed by Getty.  All of these images had a certificate of registration and Gettu had the sole right to distribute these images.  McCormack's firm was not the filing firm, rather YARMUTH WILSDON PLLC out of Seattle.  However, McCormack posted the filings on jdsupra.com (along with the Georgia Court of Appeals ruling denying Michael Chan's motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court - unrelated case but obviously McCormack has it in for Chan.  Also found it strange that McCormack filed an amicus brief in the case.)  I wonder if this means Yarmuth files all these complaints for McCormack and Getty or if Yarmuth is the firm to be concerned with if you get a letter from them instead of McCormack (assuming you are a business and not just an individual with a blog or something similar).

Florida
Logistics Company
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-damages-getty-images-us-10259/

Website Development company
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-damages-getty-images-us-10110/

Georgia

Website building company

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-damages-getty-images-us-09710/

Arizona

Herzog Lawfirm (previously posted)

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-getty-images-us-inc-v-the-05630/

[lucia]

DBA?  Does that mean something is incorporated? Or not? All the case above appear to be corporations: that is something that literally incorporated having filed paper work.

(a) If the site was "owned" by a corporation but your corporation has no assets, keep the corporation in place.  Getty can sue it, win and collect nothing because they can't get $$ out of a corporation with no assets.

(b) If the site is owned by something that is not a corporation but by you as a person, at least for now it looks like Getty hasn't filed against any individual for 1 images. That can change, but that's how it looks. 

[roywood06]

Lucia not incorporated merely doing business as. Do we know if rlocke who posted about the suit over 1 image was an individual or corporation?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I have to head off to work now, I will be posting the cases either tonight or tomorrow for you to review along with commentary.

Lucia not incorporated merely doing business as. Do we know if rlocke who posted about the suit over 1 image was an individual or corporation?