ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: moakat on October 12, 2011, 12:17:58 AM
-
I designed a website for a small business, and they received the first letter from GI one year ago.. I removed the picture immediately and responded to them via a friend attorney and GI didn't contact my client for a year until recently..
Last week my client received a letter from MacCormack asking for settlement. After coming across this site I crafted a letter for my client to send it to MacCormack requesting evidence of registered copyright.
As I spent lot of time educating myself here and going through many of the materials on the website (Great job Mathew and Oscar!) (and recently BuddaPI) I was expecting that they just stop and not bother my client again.. But unfortunately they sent another letter with a snapshot of the image, photographer name, license-type, release information, etc... as a proof of the immediate copyright when picture is created.
They stated that requesting to see the registrations prior to any litigation is not to my best interest because it incurs more cost on their part which could increase the compensatory damages. (in case they have registration of course). They also stated that GI policy is to provide copyright registration only in the context of litigation through the formal discovery procedure, this is to avoid unnecessary cost and protect their client privacy.. then they reiterated the demand for settlement..
I appreciate any insight or advises..
-
Getty always withholds "proof" of their claims so that nobody ever really knows whether or not they have anything to back up their claims.
It's just part of their intimidation tactics.
If your attorney friend contacted Getty on behalf of your client, then Getty should have contacted said attorney this time around and not your client.
This is a legal blunder on Getty's part.
I'm not aware of any lawsuits initiated by Getty over a single image.
S.G.
-
Did your "friend attorney" state in the letter that they were representing said client?? If so i wonder what the ramifications for such a blunder would be? I thought that legally that had to go thru counsel, which to me would mean some sort of sanction or something?? Maybe this could be used in your favor..
-
He is a friend of a friend, they called him first and he told them that he's not handling the case any more. So no I don't think they would fall into something basic like that.
-
I'm thinking to hire Oscar to send MacCormack a letter but I wonder if it's too late at this point and they would respond back with the same thing (providing proof only in litigation context during discovery procedure).
Does Oscar's cookie cutter system includes keeping me informed of their responses? What does Oscar do when receiving such response, does he recommend to ignore it based on the fact that they haven't filed any cases for 1 picture?
Please advise
-
As most lawyers do, Oscar will not necessarily contact you unless he needs your direct response or decision. There may be some back and forth but not every shred of communication will be run through you. That is why you hire someone to represent you. If you don't trust that the lawyer will represent your best interests, you shouldn't hire them.
At some point, Oscar will advise you if and when the case to a critical milestone or point.
Matthew
-
McCormack has never filed a lawsuit in any Getty case to my knowledge-never mind in a case over one image. When I send his firm a letter on a clients behalf the file gets pulled from him and shipped back to Gettys corporate counsel. I would not engage him anymore, if he sues, no judge will be pleased that a lawyer is withholding proof of his claim because it will "up the costs" Also since he is likely dealing with unregistered images, he can't get his legal fees and costs. I would be glad to write him on your behalf just let me know if your interested by emailing me at xxx