ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on August 27, 2014, 08:05:54 PM
-
ELI will be tracking the Schneider Rotham vs. Getty Images Lawsuit here and bring the latest development and reporting. We will be using both Justia and Pacer to track the progress of this very newsworthy case.
This docket listing is current as of Aug. 27, 2014:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237940732/Schneider-Rothman-vs-Getty-Images
On a side note, IB Times has started covering this case by writing its first article on it.
http://www.ibtimes.com/getty-images-sued-over-settlement-demand-letter-unfair-deceptive-scheme-copyright-lawyers-1670294
-
Attorney Rothman says,
“If I had sent a letter like the one they sent to me, the bar would have my license.”
If that is true, why haven't we been able to get the Washington State Bar Association to pull Timmy McCormack and Lauren Kingston's licenses?
If Rothman can clue us in on how to properly make the request of the WSBA, maybe we can save a lot of people some big headaches henceforth.
-
He might have been engaged in hyperbole.
Attorney Rothman says,
“If I had sent a letter like the one they sent to me, the bar would have my license.”
If that is true, why haven't we been able to get the Washington State Bar Association to pull Timmy McCormack and Lauren Kingston's licenses?
If Rothman can clue us in on how to properly make the request of the WSBA, maybe we can save a lot of people some big headaches henceforth.
-
If he is not, I would sure like to know how to craft the message to get those licenses pulled.
-
Stinger,
I thought the same thing myself when I read this, then I started thinking if it were actually the case I'm sure Oscar would have chimed in on the subject by now.
If we think about it when there have been occasions when Oscar has spoken up about settlement letters. A good example is the couple of times since I have been on ELI where Oscar has graciously given Mr. McCormack a heads up that he may wish to rethink the wording of his letters before it causes him problems. Interestingly enough each time Oscar made the suggestion Mr. McCormack made the changes.
I think everyone here on Eli will be following this case closely. Hopefully they will not back down and through the process of discovery we can get solid facts about Getty's business model.
Attorney Rothman says,
“If I had sent a letter like the one they sent to me, the bar would have my license.”
If that is true, why haven't we been able to get the Washington State Bar Association to pull Timmy McCormack and Lauren Kingston's licenses?
If Rothman can clue us in on how to properly make the request of the WSBA, maybe we can save a lot of people some big headaches henceforth.
-
Greg,
After seeing this article, I went back and re-read my original letter from McCormack's firm. It says next to nothing, is full of innuendo, and makes it sound like the sky will fall in if I don't pay them gobs of money immediately.
I couldn't find anything that I thought was actionable. He doesn't cite any cases specifically, but seems to make up case stories to make his point. I guess I can't make the case that he is lying, because nothing substantive is said. Makes me ill.
But it did remind me of why I originally thought that the letter came from Nigeria. In fact, I believe that the attorneys working for the McCormack law firm would make excellent lawyers in Nigeria. They should just be banned from practicing anywhere else.
-
I couldn't find anything that I thought was actionable. He doesn't cite any cases specifically, but seems to make up case stories to make his point. I guess I can't make the case that he is lying, because nothing substantive is said. Makes me ill.
Sounds like he could be a politician then if the trolling thing doesn't work out ;)
-
There has been a significant docket update:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239559043/Schneider-Rothman-v-Getty-Images-Docket
Schneider Rothman IP Law Group has filed a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for our very own Oscar Michelen to join them in this high profile case.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239558480/Schneider-Rothman-v-Getty-Images-Motion-to-Appear-Pro-Hac-Vice-for-Oscar-Michelen
We assume that Oscar's appearance will likely be approved next week. If and when that happens, it is going to get way more interesting for the rest of us here at ELI! It is going to be time to break out the soda and popcorn and find a front-row seat. There is no question that I will be following this docket closely in light of this recent motion.
The folks at Schneider Rothman are no dummies and this move is no accident. This move is quite brilliant and was unexpected even for me. Thinking they were their own law firm, I thought Schneider Rothman would soldier on alone but I was apparently wrong. Schneider Rothman deliberately chose the legal arch-nemesis of Getty Images as their co-counsel. If there is anyone that can legally break open the secrets of the Getty copyright enforcement operations vault, it will be Oscar. I foresee a formidable team effort between the joint efforts and Schneider Rothman and Oscar Michelen.
However, I also foresee that Oscar's admission will galvanize Getty Images in a way that few can which might provide a stiff challenge to the Schneider Rothman legal team. This could get expensive for them. We do not yet know who will represent Getty Images. My first guess is it will be $500/hour Scottie "Towels" Wilsdon of Yarmuth Wilsdon. If so, this could get very expensive for Getty Images to Scottie's glee and delight. It would not surprise me if Scottie Wilsdon (or any other lawyer who works this case on behalf of Getty Images) uses this as a pretext to try and milk some billable hours out of Getty Images. (Maybe he should contact Timmy McCormack for some of his legal "help".)
There are bound to be a few people within Getty Images who will NOT like this development. This is going to be another unhappy weekend for the enemies of ELI.
Last weekend, I announced that EFF & legal scholars Eugene Volokh and Aaron H. Caplan joined me in supporting my position to overturn the obnoxious, overbearing, and overbroad protective order issued against me.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/eli-responses-to-media-coverage-of-matthew-chan-ppo/legal-scholars-eugene-volokh-aaron-h-caplan-support-eli-with-eff-amicus-brief/
I must say after weeks of silence, it was a delicious moment to savor.
I foresee press coverage in the Schneider Rothman vs. Getty Images case stepping up in the weeks and months to come.
-
Looks like life is getting interesting for Oscar. I hope he knows he has my full support in this effort.
-
I think it is safe to say that Oscar has support from many people beyond the ELI Community. I wonder what kind of backroom shenanigans they might try to pull with so many eyes on the case.
-
I think it is safe to say that Oscar has support from many people beyond the ELI Community. I wonder what kind of backroom shenanigans they might try to pull with so many eyes on the case.
I suspect Getty will do its best to negotiate a lucrative financial settlement, a settlement that requires signing a confidentiality agreement that'll make all this simply disappear and go away.
If I'm right with this prediction, I hope Oscar and the Schneider Rothman IP Law Group will stand firm and instead of accepting the money and savoring a legal victory, do what needs to be done to publicly expose Getty Images' settlement demand scheme once and for all.
Of course, it's easy for me to straddle my high horse and write the above since I don't have to ante up to get in this game.
And, honestly, I'm not sure what I'd do if I had the chance to be on the receiving end of a lucrative settlement from a huge corporation like Getty Images in exchange for a confidentiality agreement.
I like to think principle still matters in this world.
Somehow, I like to think principle occasionally even triumphs.
Unfortunately, however, objective reality has confirmed for me far too often that expediency usually takes the prize, especially when the prize involves pots of gold.
In any event, this whole deal will be interesting to watch, and I wish Oscar and Schneider Rothman IP Law Group all success.
-
I agree with you Mulligan. And I too hope the attorneys at Schneider Rothman IP Law do not allow themselves to be bought off. This case could provide a huge service to people around the globe.
-
He might have been engaged in hyperbole.
Attorney Rothman says,
“If I had sent a letter like the one they sent to me, the bar would have my license.”
You asked for it, and you got it. Here's how it goes:
The Florida Bar RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Provide:
RULE 4-4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6.
The ABA has a very good paper on ethics in the settlement negotiation context here: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/dispute_resolution/settlementnegotiations.authcheckdam.pdf (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/dispute_resolution/settlementnegotiations.authcheckdam.pdf)
Section 4 discusses the rule that a lawyer negotiating a settlement (such as by sending a settlement demand letter) may not "knowingly make a false statement of material fact (or law) to a third person." It goes on to say that "The Model Rules define “knowledge” as “actual knowledge of the fact in question,” but such knowledge “may be inferred from circumstances.”
I read these requirements as prohibiting me from sending a settlement demand letter to someone demanding money and falsely accusing them of committing copyright infringement when either I know they did not or the circumstances are such that I should know they did not.
In my statement that if I did that the Bar would have my license, I was putting myself in Getty's shoes. In Getty's shoes, Getty's use of the Picscout Bot puts them in the best position to know whether I am committing infringement or not. In fact, Getty's knowledge is arguably better than that of the average blogger, facebook poster or company owner who has no idea how photos get on the internet or what copyright laws prohibit.
Now, an attorney representing Getty might simply accept his client's facts about the infringement without investigating them further. That could provide an element of plausible deniability since that means the attorney lacks actual knowledge that the client's facts amount to a false accusation of infringement.
My answer to that is two fold. First, if the lawyer knows from past experience that the client's facts have not supported an infringement claim, the lawyer could be guilty of failing to investigate further because he knows, from the circumstances, that the client's facts sometimes do not support a claim.
Second, Federal Court jurisdiction is exclusive for Copyright Infringement. When an attorney files suit in federal court he is subject to Rule 11 which requires the attorney, prior to filing a complaint, to make "an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances." If after making such an inquiry, the attorney files a complaint that contains legal contentions that are not warranted by existing law or which contains factual contentions that lack evidentiary support then that lawyer subjects himself and his client to sanctions and his case will be dismissed. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11)
In my view, if you are going to send a letter accusing a person of copyright infringement you must be prepared to make the same claims in the letter in court. But that is probably just my view. I have not seen a decision that says that.
-
Joel,
Thanks for engaging the ELI Community and sharing what what you have.
The average intelligence of our regular ELI readers are quite high and they will happily devour any advanced insights you might have. They are also very helpful.
I invite you to ask from the ELI Community specific information you would like to see submitted to you so people have the option to help provide evidence in your case. You might be surprised at what you get.
-
I can't wait for the day that Joel or Oscar get to turn to the attorney representing Getty and say the magic words:
"I look forward to deposing your client"
-
Oscar / Joel are free to use my case as another example, my 3 yrs is long gone, but as many of you know I purchased the images in question in good faith, showed Getty the license, but could not produce the receipt after more than 10 yrs.. But they still hounded me and also accused me of "creating" said license myself..all within 15 minutes of opening the Getty Images extortion letter. Oscar probably still has my documentation on file somewhere, if not i still have it.
-
New development. Getty's attorneys have made an appearance. This is the firm: http://woodbury-santiago.com/ (http://woodbury-santiago.com/)
Robert Santiago, the attorney who filed the notice of appearance, was involved in a long running copyright infringement case that is somewhat famous (and infamous) in Florida involving a yacht multiple listing service. Here are some decisions from that saga: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/0:2002cv60772/9482/ (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/0:2002cv60772/9482/)
I don't know Mr. Santiago. I have never heard of his firm before. We will see what transpires.
-
Please promote us on Reddit! http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/2gb8in/getty_images_notorious_copyright_troll_is_finally/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/2gb8in/getty_images_notorious_copyright_troll_is_finally/)
-
If you go + my post, I guess it will become more visible:
http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/2gb8in/getty_images_notorious_copyright_troll_is_finally/ckjrm4t
-
It would appear that Woodbury-Santiago are experts in Internet stealth marketing. What a terrible and atrocious website. Did they have their website developed in the late 1990's? And what about those hokey sound effects?
I guess Getty did a good job hiring them because those lawyers have done a good job hiding themselves online. They must have more business than they need because NO ONE would every sign up with them based on what little you can find.
They have to be reasonably good lawyers because they are clearly bad in cyberspace and would not likely get much business via Internet contacts.
New development. Getty's attorneys have made an appearance. This is the firm: http://woodbury-santiago.com/ (http://woodbury-santiago.com/)
Robert Santiago, the attorney who filed the notice of appearance, was involved in a long running copyright infringement case that is somewhat famous (and infamous) in Florida involving a yacht multiple listing service. Here are some decisions from that saga: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/0:2002cv60772/9482/ (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/0:2002cv60772/9482/)
I don't know Mr. Santiago. I have never heard of his firm before. We will see what transpires.
-
Internet stealth marketing.
What's that?
A lot of law firms have bad web site. Getty Images has money. I suspect they will have picked a competent law firm. They don't want to be enjoined from sending out demand letters.
-
"Internet stealth marketing" is me being snarky. "Stealth marketing" is an oxymoronic term for those who "try" to market successfully (in this case Internet), but it ends up being detrimental.
And yes, many law firms do have crappy uninformative websites. So, if they have been in existence a number of years, it says that they have enough referrals and a presence to be profitable. I did acknowledge that. Nevertheless, a website is like a calling card nowadays. One would think they would want to portray a better image of themselves.
Internet stealth marketing.
What's that?
A lot of law firms have bad web site. Getty Images has money. I suspect they will have picked a competent law firm. They don't want to be enjoined from sending out demand letters.
-
I'm still trying to figure out why they didn't hire Attorney Timothy B. McCormack for this.
</snark>
-
I'm still trying to figure out why they didn't hire Attorney Timothy B. McCormack for this.
</snark>
They need a Florida firm. :)
-
I'm still trying to figure out why they didn't hire Attorney Timothy B. McCormack for this.
</snark>
1. Maybe they have inspirations of possibly winning?
2. Is Timothy B. McCormack a real lawyer or just a collection schlep?
-
Oscar has been formally admitted into Florida in support of Schneider Rothman against Getty Images.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239559043/Schneider-Rothman-v-Getty-Images-Docket
ENDORSED ORDER granting [8] Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing as to Oscar Michelen. Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 9/16/2014. (kcr)
Also, Attorney Robert P. of Santiago Woodbury & Santiago in Miami, FL has filed his Notice of Appearance is heading up the Getty Images side. It looks like Getty waited to see what Schneider Rothman would do first before committing to their own lawyer.
NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert Peter Santiago on behalf of Getty Images, Inc.. Attorney Robert Peter Santiago added to party Getty Images, Inc.(pty:dft). (Santiago, Robert) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
Robert Peter Santiago
Woodbury & Santiago, P.A.
9100 S Dadeland Boulevard
Penthouse 1 - Suite 1702
Miami, FL 33156
305-670-9580
Fax: 305-670-2170
Email: robert.santiago@woodbury-santiago.com
-
A familiar name has popped up on the updated docket.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239559043/Schneider-Rothman-v-Getty-Images-Docket
Scott "Towels" Wilsdon has filed his notice of appearance on behalf of Getty Images.
It looks like Scottie wants to face off against Oscar again! This is going to get interesting.
I believe Getty will try to bribe their way out of this one to avoid the discovery process. If the money is high enough, I wouldn't blame Schneider Rothman from banking it if it comes to that. Karmic justice for Getty who ends up paying out for an extortion letter they should never have sent out!
$100,000 to settle out sounds pretty good to me. A nice round number.
-
Personally I hope there is no settlement until AFTER discovery, but I'm selfish.
-
Getty Images has filed a motion to dismiss the SRIPLAW complaint in this case: http://www.scribd.com/doc/241112937/Getty-Images-Motion-to-Dismiss (http://www.scribd.com/doc/241112937/Getty-Images-Motion-to-Dismiss)
The motion is based upon the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noerr-Pennington_doctrine).
-
So what do the lawyers think? Should this doctrine apply? I hope not as it justifies some very bad behaviors.
I can't wait to see the real answer to this one.
-
LOL!
I'm still trying to figure out why they didn't hire Attorney Timothy B. McCormack for this.
</snark>
-
Wish I could be there to see that. :)
A familiar name has popped up on the updated docket.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239559043/Schneider-Rothman-v-Getty-Images-Docket
Scott "Towels" Wilsdon has filed his notice of appearance on behalf of Getty Images.
It looks like Scottie wants to face off against Oscar again! This is going to get interesting.
I believe Getty will try to bribe their way out of this one to avoid the discovery process. If the money is high enough, I wouldn't blame Schneider Rothman from banking it if it comes to that. Karmic justice for Getty who ends up paying out for an extortion letter they should never have sent out!
$100,000 to settle out sounds pretty good to me. A nice round number.
-
Getty is defending THE LETTER.
Isn't this lawsuit about Getty sending these letters without checking if an image is hotlinked before sending them?
Did they answer that?
-
What stood out to me was, Getty saying that their nice little letter included "if you feel you have recieved this in error please contact us directly"...every letter states that.. how many times have people gotten this letter in error and contacted getty only to be told to pay up anyway.. I myself got the letter "in error", but was still told to pay or face a lawsuit..These bastards lie at every turn..I sincerely hope Lisa Wilmer, Douglas Beaker and Scott Wilsdon get to experience some first class butt hurt...To bad Seattle attorney Timothy B.McCormack is not involved.
-
Amen.
And also when they present the list of items for discovery too. :)
I can't wait for the day that Joel or Oscar get to turn to the attorney representing Getty and say the magic words:
"I look forward to deposing your client"
-
Sorry to disappoint everyone. This case is over.
http://www.sriplaw.com/dismissed-case-getty-images/
-
Bummer, does that mean the mistake didn't cost Getty a dime? Or does the covenant not to sue come with a stipend?
-
well balls, I had a feeling it would come to something like this..
-
Well damn, I hope it at least makes Getty think twice about who they pick on.
-
Do we have a copy of the "covenant not to sue". It would be nice to see if they admit there was no copyright infringement.