ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: AndrewRaia 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Ok, I will wait for his reply, thanks for the input.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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: [email protected]
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
So I received an email from a Lauren Kingston from his office showing me two images they are seeking damages for. A) I asked for proof of infringement and how the calculated damages, neither of which they answered and B) I noticed this after I replied, but they said they are seeking ACTUAL damages, which as far as I am aware, they need to prove that by me having it on the site they lost X amount of dollars, which there is no way for them to do.
So I replied saying that the reasonable time of discovery and the statute of limitations were well past, and at the request of my attorney, that the cease pursual of this matter.
Will keep you guys posted!
-
Now they are telling me they have a screen shot from 2010, not sure how they got that. I have to find out when my last payment was and when the domain expired. Even so, the site was put up in 2004, 6 years is well beyond the reasonable time of discovery and contact wouldn't you say?
-
Did you search at archive.org and domain tools? If the site came down in 06, there is no way they could have a screen shot, someone somewhere is not being truthful...
I found an image of Lauren Kingston the female copyright troll that works for Timothy Mcormack
(http://sandalpunk.com/beth/newguild7e.jpg)
-
LOL, domain tools is not free so I have to search, archive.org says 2006 but she said that was just the last time it was crawled. I am waiting on Godaddy to get me some proof of last payment and when the domain expired from me.
-
I registered for a domain tools account and apparently it expired oct-nov 2010. I coulda sworn I took down the site from the hosting at least, i havent touched it since it was up in 2004 the first time.
So question now, if the site began in 04, what is considered a reasonable amount of time before they should have discovered it so that the clock begins ticking on the statute?
Also, if they are seeking actual damages, they have to prove the amount they lost in order to win anything. So should I just zip my lip, let them drag as long as they can until they decide if they want to take it to court and then just let them find out in court it was not a company, have no sales history or anything to base loses on etc?
-
It's completely your choice, but I can tellyou that going back and forth with Timothy McCormack the copyright troll won't get you anywhere, they just want your money. They have no case, they know this, they just want to wear you down. You need to fight this on your terms, not theirs! They can only get actual damages if they file suit, win that suit, and are then awarded damages.. as it stands right now it is a claim and only a claim..
-
so really then, if they notified me in dec 2010, damages tech start accruing from that point when they discovered it correct? Then they now have 3 years to file a suit from that date. So if I just site and ignore them, and they do not file anything by then, at any point they try to do so if it EVER did go to court, the SOL would apply and they would be out of luck?
If they did file before then, they would still need to prove actual damages? which they cant so they lose again?
I just dont want to let it set if damages are building and they could actually get something, I am content to ignore them lol
-
I was thinking as well (while breathing and reading :) lol, I watched that tech crunch video saying they dont care until they users start making money etc. I have a post in my news feed you can see here which states its non-profit
http://web.archive.org/web/20050418113305/http://www.revelationstudios.info/
that should help me as well no?
hmmm also back to the SOL, the damages can really only accrue while the image is in use, once its removed they cannot claim damages. Those damages can really only accrue from the time that they discovered it correct? So if they discovered it AFTER it was taken down, then they really have no claim?
-
. . .
hmmm also back to the SOL, the damages can really only accrue while the image is in use, once its removed they cannot claim damages. Those damages can really only accrue from the time that they discovered it correct? So if they discovered it AFTER it was taken down, then they really have no claim?
Not the way I understand it. In the worst case (using the discovery rule) they have three years from when they discovered (or reasonably could/should have discovered) it. In the best case (using injury rule) they have three years from when you took it down. The interesting thing about discovery rule in these cases is when is the date that Getty could/should have known? Is it the day the site went public with the image? Or is it the day picscout found it since picscout is always looking? I cannot answer that one.
That's my layman's understanding anyway.