Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)  (Read 11334 times)

AndrewRaia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« on: March 08, 2012, 12:29:37 PM »
Hey guys, just want to say I am glad this forum. I few years back I received a claim letter from Getty Images, now today I finally received a letter from Mr. McCormack. I emailed them with the case info asking for them to provide proof of the copyright holders claim to the image and how they determined the value they are asking for. I will keep you guys posted, I am going to read some more of the forums.

Thanks Guys

EDIT:
Upon doing some research it appears that there is a statute of limitations that begins once the infringing material has been removed. My site was taken down back in 2006ish, would it be appropriate to respond to Mr. McCormack and inform him that the statute has expired and he can't proceed with litigation?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 12:37:10 PM by AndrewRaia »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2012, 01:31:28 PM »
If the site was taken down in 2006, they are WAYYYYYY past the statute of limitations and he should know this, being a Lawyer...This might be another letter we should share here on ELI.
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

AndrewRaia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2012, 01:36:19 PM »
Ill scan it when I get home for sure. I am just curious as to when the statute clock beings to run, and what I should say to him to get him to send me official notice they are dropping pursuit.

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2012, 01:51:51 PM »
Generally speaking the clock starts when the first original letter was dated, they found it before the letter was written, so gives you a little wiggle room. I doubt they will send anything official stating they are dropping a suit.. it's not a suit, it's a "claim" and at this point the can't file suit, as it's apparently too late for that..Just another example of sloppy and unorganized work from Getty.
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2012, 01:54:42 PM »
The clock "normally" begins to run when the "owner" of the content discovered (or reasonably should have been aware) of the "infringement".

However, if the site was taken down in '06, can I assume that they found the infringement on some archive (such as they waybackmachine)?
If this is the case, then the limitation have expired.  They've missed the point wherein they should have been "reasonably aware".

S.G.


AndrewRaia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2012, 02:11:07 PM »
Correct, here is the wayback machine link - http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.revelationstudios.info
even if they found it yesterday, I would assume that is still way past the date of having to reasonably know correct? When he replies to my questions that I sent him, how should I prevent this information without being antagonistic?

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2012, 02:16:16 PM »
You're quite correct.

Just be completely business-like in your correspondence.
You know, "thanks for the heads-up", mention that "in any case, the legal limitation has run out".
But, don't admit anything directly or apoligize.

Once you've explained your position, I wouldn't respond further.
There's no hope of them gaining any traction on this one.

S.G.


AndrewRaia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2012, 03:01:15 PM »
Ok, I will wait for his reply, thanks for the input.

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2012, 06:36:25 PM »
You're welcome.

Just so that you know, they'll probably keep after you for a while.
You know, harass you in order to make you pay.

But, they couldn't make any successful efforts to actually enforce payment, as the statute of limitations has expired.

S.G.

AndrewRaia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2012, 06:51:29 AM »
Meaning I would really need to rely on them finally saying hey this isn't worth bringing to court or them actually trying to bring it to court and me having to use that defense? Would a Judge even let them try the case, or would they say its past the statute no dice?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 11:28:53 AM by AndrewRaia »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2012, 01:08:13 PM »
IF ( the biggest 2 letter word in the English language) they were to file suit, which is highly unlikely even without the SOL coming into play, you would simply as a first order of business file a motion to dismiss, based on the grounds that the statute has run and expired...end of story case closed. I would hope that Timothy B. McCormack would not be so ignorant as to file in a case like this, as it would be a total waste of the courts time.

Also note that these "attorney's" probably know the staute has run, but they are by no means going to tell you that, they are just hoping they scare you enough to cut a check..They tend to prey on peoples ignorance of the law.
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

rock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2012, 01:27:11 AM »
I had a friend of mine, a policewoman who always told me that WE (the police) can not help you unless you report or file a complaint with the authorities,  and the more complaints the authorities receive the better the case is built against the trolls
You are ONE of many who everyone knows that you should not be receiving any letter as the statute of limitation expired.

You can help everyone if you will file 2 complaints, complaints against Getty and Mccormack, we need YOUR HELP TOO

By sending copies of the letters (this is the most important part) that you received from Getty and Mc Cormack to the police or the FBI, and if they can not help, they will forward these letters to the right responsible authority (example: office of the district attorney, etc...) that can help the consumers.

NCS and McCormack are retained by GETTY, so Getty is still the entity responsible for ALL communications. You need to contact the police department and the FBI where Getty  and McCormack are located.

Getty Images, Seattle
605 5th Ave South, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Reception: 1 206 925 5000
Toll free: 1 888 888 5889

McCormack Legal
McCormack Intellectual Property, P.S
 617 Lee Street
 Seattle, WA 98109 USA
 Phone (206) 381-8888

SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

What number do I call to file a police report in Seattle?
Non Emergency Line (206) 625-5011
http://www.seattle.gov/law/faq/#File

Request Seattle City  Service:
http://seattle-p1csrprodcwi.motorolasolutions.com/ServiceRequest.mvc/SRIntake/PDWEBTMP

Where can I get legal advice if I cannot afford an attorney?
http://www.seattle.gov/law/faq/#Get
If the matter is CIVIL in nature,


You can mail / email your complaint to:
FBI Seattle
1110 3rd Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-2904
Phone: (206) 622-0460
http://www.fbi.gov/seattle/

E-mail: Seattle.fbi@ic.fbi.gov
   
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 02:07:48 AM by rock »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2012, 06:40:39 AM »
I fail to see why contacting the police would help, this is a civil matter and not criminal. While I understand Rocks thinking, I don't think it would get you anywhere..Perhaps looking into filing something with the FTC, Bureau of consumer affairs would yield better results. I also would not classify it as harassment at this point, it's not letters are being sent every week, this was the first letter in years.. Once explained to McCormack that the statute has run, I'm fairly certain he'll send it back to Getty and it will be done with. They are not going to risk their program over this 1 instance.
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

rock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2012, 11:21:36 AM »
We all know now the difference between willful and unwilful mistake. Getty/McCormack have been in this business for many many years. The image case is considered a CIVIL case and I agree about that, but Getty/McCormack actions are NOT a MISTAKE, their actions are a CRIME.
Sending letters asking for thousand of dollars without doing your homework is not part of a civil case.
Sending letters asking for thousand of dollars without doing your homework, to thousands of people, is a CRIME.

This above case is not an innocent mistake, it is an intentional FRAUD. and the FBI can help with that when they receive the originalletters sent by getty/ mccormack.

Getty/Mccormack knows by now that they have to do their homework before they send a letter,
like checking if they own the Exlusive rights to the images, etc...etc...
Their mistakes are not innocent, they are intentional.

Just Recently the government ordered Bank of America to pay Billion of dollars as a settlement for foreclosing on homeowners without even checking their files.
I think this case is no different. getty/mccormack should investigate their claims further before sending FRAUDULENT  letters,
the claim about the images is a considered a civil case, but their repeated willful actions not to investigate their claims befor sending their letters is a crime

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Welcome To The Club? (edit: statute of limitations?)
« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2012, 01:05:14 PM »
ummmm okay...I'll be fininshed now...

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.