Recieved Letter from getty

[mliggett]

Yes , next you will hear from NCS recovery or Tim MCCormack

Yes indeed. Heard from mcCormack today. Wanting even more $ for the same issue.

Still no answer to my letter requesting the legal license and signed agreement with the owner.

Not sure if this matters, but I live in Louisiana, typically, the Napoleonic Code of law here is a little different when it comes to civil suits.

So, I guess I need ot know what is next and what if anything I should do in response to this new letter from McCormack.

Thank you

[mliggett]

just aside. When does the legal statute of limitation begins? In other words, from teh time of notice from Getty? The time the image was taken down?

Not like it matters too much, but just to clarify.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

The statute starts at the date of the first Getty letter, 3 yrs.. Being in LA has no bearing on anything, IF it ever went to court it would be federal court...they'll send at least a couple more letters, and then maybe you'll be passed off to NCS collections, whom have no power to do anything..remember it's a claim..not a debt..

[mliggett]

Yes, forgot about this being a federal jurisdiction.

all good.

Thank you

[Oscar Michelen]

We always use the date of the first letter you received because that's when Getty could not possibly deny they knew of the infringement.  But under the law it's three years from the date of discovery of the infringement or from the date when the alleged copyright holder should have learned of the infringement.

[mliggett]

OK, just to make sure I am not dropping the ball on the McCormack letter...I need to reply to that letter with the same requests for proof of license and all that I requested originally from Getty?

This time, I will leave out the offer for a deal though.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

OK, just to make sure I am not dropping the ball on the McCormack letter...I need to reply to that letter with the same requests for proof of license and all that I requested originally from Getty?

This time, I will leave out the offer for a deal though.

You can reply or not, doesn't much make a difference, being as Getty Images did not address your request for information, neither will asshat Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack from mccormacklegal.com

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/timothymccormackcopyrig.jpg
 

[mliggett]

got the McCormack letter at Thanksgiving and it was just a repeat of the Getty demands from the original first letter without addressing my request for proof

I am ignoring it, but was wondering if I should send a letter with delivery confirmation to have some sort of tangible evidence just in case.

I think I asked this or read on the forum, but these are Federal cases, not State right? I ask because Louisiana has a little different take on the legal system

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

It is not necessary but I sent my correspondence via registered letter with a signed return receipt.  I wanted it to show that my letter had been received just in case, since Getty images and Douglas Beiker refused to provide the reasonable request of proof to continue negotiations.

[Oscar Michelen]

There is no State copyright law - copyright and patent in this country  were created by the US Constitution.  All copyright law is Federal which is why all copyright lawsuits have to be filed in Federal Court.

[mliggett]

LOL

Got a new letter from McCormack dropping the extortion amount from 1323.44 to 1124.92 or 15%.

Oh well, time is running out for them. 1 year down, 2 to go...