They don't know who I am?

[GI Stress]

So, as I said, I paid a guy to register my domain name, set up WP blog, and I made a few posts.  Never did anything with it, then after 9 months, got my letter.  Called the guy who registered and had the site on his server and told him to get rid of the site.  He did. 

Obviously, GI's letter was addressed to the legal department of XXX.  There never was a company. It was just going to be a blog about stress.  The website no longer exists, and my name doesn't look like it appears on the whois as a contact.  Can they really do anything to me?

[lucia]

Did they have your home address? 

Obviously, if they really don't know who to sue, it's in your interest not to help them figure out precisely who owned the domain name.  This is a toughie.  Usually, I think responding is best. After all, if they have your real home address and they know who you are, they know you you are.  But on another thread Soylent suggested reasons why it might not be and if they really don't know who you are-- that might incline me to say don't respond.  I guess you could send a letter from "the legal department", don't include a name etc. But I would assume people can connect a name with an address and if you respond at all they will have information to know that someone at that address responded.  Of course, if the address is an apartment complex or dorm the fact that someone responded would be pretty uniformative!

At a minimum do keep the letter. The statute of limitations is 3 years from the time they discover. They obviously discovered at least a milisecond before sending the letter, so you need to keep that!

[SoylentGreen]

My understanding is that your case is regarding one image with Getty.
As I mentioned previously, this isn't a big deal at this time.  Although they'll try to bother you a bit for payment.

Nobody wants to say "ignore it".  No lawyer could tell you to ignore it
They can't do that, as it doesn't facilitate a "legal resolution" in terms of what I call "fairplay".
Even though evading service of actual court papers isn't illegal (but yes, that would look quite bad if your adversary could prove that you were doing that).

However, if Getty cannot find out what your name is, then they're dead in the water.  It's as simple as that.
Delivering something to an "address" is simply that; delivery to a place.  There's nothing to say that the anon that they're looking for ever resided there.
If this issue isn't about a lot of money, they're not likely to expend much effort to find you.

All anybody really worries about is getting sued.
Keep in mind that they can't mail you an actual lawsuit labeled "occupant" or "legal department" of some company that never existed.

Personally, if I received threatening letters to my address, and it didn't have my name, or the name of a business that I owned on it, I'd simply shred it because I would assume that it's a phishing scam.

Just be wary of signing for certified letters or unexpected courier deliveries.

S.G.

[GI Stress]

Thank you.  They sent the letter to my office address.  They got the address from the website that existed until I got my first letter.  It was removed immediately upon recieving letter one.  My office is in a house, but not my house.  The house also has 2 other apartment/residences - not that that has much to do with the case.

The letters were obviously addressed to the legal department of xxx, and I did have the blog xxx.  but I'm not sure they know who to go after.  The person who registered the domain name and was hosting the site has never been notified.

I sure appreciate your input.  I'm feeling pretty good about this.  I'm willing to pony up money to Matthew or Oscar if I need to.  $200 is far less than $840. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This is a bit different that in the past the letters generally got sent to the contact on the whois of the domain, unless it was a private registration, and this info was hidden. Then that would give them cause to use the addy on the site itself. The"guy" that registered the domain, did he use his name? did he put the image on the site? if so he's the responsible party, and you could respond stating that you do not own that domain, and that they need to look elsewhere.

[GI Stress]

The TRUTH is that I put the picture up there.  No one but me knows who "I" am, but I would never throw the guy who registered the domain under the bus.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I wasn't suggesting to throw anybody under the bus by any means, just sorting out who was responsible. It's been reported on so may times here of web developers/designers that use unlicensed images, then leave their very own clients hanging with this problem, that it's sickening.

[GI Stress]

Please understand that I wasn't thinking you were suggesting that I throw him under the bus.  I just wanted to make it clear that he isn't the "guilty" party, I am. GI just may not know who I am.

[SoylentGreen]

If it's not your house, they can't even confirm that it's actually your address (or still your address).
They don't even know your name. lol.  I think that this isn't going to go anywhere.
People running blogs should follow this example if possible.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

>> GI's letter was addressed to the legal department of XXX

Since the company doesn't HAVE a legal department, and indeed, the "company" no longer exists, I'd say that letter belongs in the circular file. I'm not a huge proponent of the "don't answer" camp, but this is clearly a case of Do Not Answer. If it were me and someone calls looking for that company I would just not have a clue what they were talking about.

They could go the further step and track down the register of the domain. That could lead to your web developer. I kind of doubt they are going to go through these extra steps, but you may want to get out in front of it, talk to your web guy, let him know you got his back and ask that if he hears anything else to contact you first.

I have to say Getty would be nuts to pursue this one.

[SoylentGreen]

We're going to see many people (especially bloggers) going "underground" just to avoid any future extortion letters, and scams from Russia, etc.
People are using proxies more and more for everyday Internet tasks.
"Domain privacy" will be the norm.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

On a whole different note, I get tired of receiving bogus domain renewal notices hoping that I might trip up.

There are all kinds of reasons to go "private" nowadays very similar to having an unlisted number.  Too many crooked types out there.

We're going to see many people (especially bloggers) going "underground" just to avoid any future extortion letters, and scams from Russia, etc.
People are using proxies more and more for everyday Internet tasks.
"Domain privacy" will be the norm.

S.G.