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.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - stinger

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 44
106
I recommend that you google and read up on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 - presuming you are in the U.S.  If you are located elsewhere, read the appropriate statute there.

I am a lay person, but these guys seem to be doing a really good job of talking around the law.  I find that untrustworthy.  My understanding is that one and only one entity may own or pursue the copyright of an image.  Unless there is a contract turning that ownership of that copyright over to this organization, the copyright rests with the photographer.  If they want to take you to court, they WILL need to produce that contract.  So why wouldn't they show it to you now?  You should ask to see it.

To file suit, I believe they need to register the image.  That would be the responsiblity of the owner.  You can still be found guilty if the image was not registered at the time you used it, but this is a hoop they must jump through before they can sue you.  For an innocent infringement, the court might only award them $200.  Costs to file the suit are above this amount.  So the odds are, they will not file.  They can, however, pester you for 3 years from the time they discovered the infringement.  So, if you choose not to pay them, give some thought to how you will deal with their pestering.

My personal experience is that the older I get, the faster three years goes by.  Once you stop letting them bother your conscience, they are doing all the work.  They also should provide you with a copy of the image's sales history to help prove their damages.  You could choose to just offer them $10 as settlement in full - or whatever number you deem appropriate.  Or you can just ignore them.  That's worked for lots of people here.

Before you decide your strategy, I recommend you spend as much time as you are comfortable with reading up on these guys and their tactics.  There is lots of good information in the Getty forum here.  Take it in bite size pieces.  Don't let it overwhelm you.  Nothing has happened.  All they are doing is threatening you.  You have nothing you must deal with until they file suit - which is highly unlikely for a $600 claim.

Good luck!  Share your experiences with others here on this forum.  It's a good way to "pay it forward".

107
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images & a Penguin
« on: September 09, 2015, 08:40:00 AM »
NAME them and SHAME them.

When done effectively, it raises the cost of doing business for Getty because only the lowliest of low life's stick around.  Employee turnover can not only be costly, but can slow down their trolling operations.

108
I don't know - I might want to randomly click thru claims just to make the trolls life harder. 

They might think they have a "live one" on the line, and all it is, is bored people like me trying to see what they are up to next.

109
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Publicly Shaming Trolls?
« on: August 06, 2015, 03:58:35 PM »
You are welcome to take and use anything I have contributed to this site in your message.

110
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images is now also August Image
« on: August 03, 2015, 01:59:13 PM »
Nice blog post.  I hope we can find ways to get it in front of the eyes of millions of readers.

111
Lawyers love to use word processors to cut and paste things into documents.  Write it once, cut and paste it forever.

For my two cents that probably looks a lot like the legal verbiage that Hillary Clinton (allegedly) ignored when doing State Department business on her personal email account.  :)

112
I agree with your colleague.  It is likely all about intimidation.

113
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I'm done worrying about it.
« on: July 07, 2015, 03:48:58 PM »
Congratulations Mike!

A smart and efficient plan.

114
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...
« on: July 01, 2015, 11:18:55 AM »
If this lawyer is unwilling to prove that the photo is registered and that they own the rights to the photo, I don't think they will sue over one image.

A real attorney does not want to go to court with a losing case.  If he doesn't have those things, his is a losing case. If he does have them, and you have requested to see them, and he does not let you see them, I am fairly certain a good judge will find in your favor.  Because that link shows that image and claims it is theirs, doesn't make it so.

115
Seems like a New York Law firm might have a very difficult time suing you in Canada.  I would keep quiet, rather than letting them know the error of their ways.  The Statute of Limitations in the U.S. is 3 years from the time they discover the mis-use.  Not sure about Canada.

If it's only one photo and no models, I would ignore them.

116
It seems like it might be difficult for them to sue you if they don't know your name.  Unless Canada makes that kind of thing ease, aye?

The law firm in question might be McCormack's counterpart in Canada.  Getty does this around the world.  In different legal systems they have to behave differently.

If it is just one photo and it doesn't contain images of celebrities or models, I wouldn't worry too much.  Would a Canadian court approve of them suing you with no previous contact or attempt to settle?  I would do some google research on the firm to check them out.  Also, check out what kind of suits they file.  McCormack IP Law threatens to file in the U.S.  I don't know of any cases where they were allowed to file any cases on Getty's behalf.

117
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...
« on: June 04, 2015, 12:05:11 PM »
Quote
They did demonstrate how compartmentalized they have structured things so that they are assigning various "powers" to their individual incorporated divisions, which limits the liability of any action to that corporation and protects all of the other parts that are not directly involved. It's a giant octopus with all of these corporate "arms" and the "head" is therefore protected.

In spite of Robert's truthfullisms, I might be falling in love with SaraZ as only a fellow Getty hater can.  You hit it right on the head when you describe the octopus like compartmentalization they are building to insulate themselves.

I would support a class action suit against Getty in any way I can.  Unfortunately, the courts may not consider me a victim, because I did not pay one dime to Getty or McCormack IP Law.  However, I have a lot of time and effort tied up in research, letter writing, complaints to Bar Associations and the like.  If only the class action could compensate me for that.

I agree with Robert that they will not file suit over one image, particularly not to someone who describes themselves as broke.  But I really appreciate the time, effort and thought you have put into this.  It took me a year or more to realize that they weren't really reading anything I sent them.  It was at that point, after I had laid my case out as clearly as possible, that I realized they are more likely to just go away if I ignored them.  From a time value of money point of view, that is what I would recommend you do.  And if they refer this to McCormack IP Law, I would ignore them even more.  In my opinion they are only used as a collections agency disguised as a law firm to instill fear in letter recipients.

118
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The best defense ...
« on: June 02, 2015, 09:14:03 AM »
Bravo saraZ!

Count me in the camp willing to offer comments and support.  This site's legal adviser, Oscar Michelen, has made it clear that it would be very difficult to find a law firm willing to go after Getty.  And after watching their behavior for more than three years, I think I can see why.   When they find themselves behind a losing case, they find a way to settle out of court.

Still, I think it would be a great idea for you to publish your correspondence in your case.  If for no other reason, it would help establish the scope of what I consider the fraudulent activities they practice.  Had I had your correspondence available when I filed my bar complaint against Lauren Kingston of McCormack IP Law, it would have provided outside evidence that mine was not an isolated event with one attorney, but that this was a coordinated effort to use the threat of the law to extract large sums from innocent infringers.

I encourage you to publish your history with these scoundrels.

119
This Jonathan Thomas guy is apparently proud of what he does.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathandthomas

You might want to research whether his firm has filed any lawsuits.  It is difficult to make money pursuing $1000 claims through our court system.  That might be difficult because he uses the camouflage of saying that he partners with law firms to pursue . . .

I also wonder why so many of these copyright trolls seems to come out of Hollywood type education backgrounds.  Lauren Kingston pursued a similar degree before hooking up with Timmy the troll.

120
My advice to you:
  • Do not correspond with them via email.  It only makes their life easier.  Force them to use registered mail.  It drags things out and leaves a real record.
  • Read as much as you can on this forum about Getty.  The more you understand how they work and what they do, the less angst you will feel about what happened.
  • Understand that you can try to explain what happened, but they don't care.  The people you will be corresponding with are likely paid on how much money they bring in.  In the past, they have shown themselves willing to say anything to collect fees.  They will likely ignore whatever excuses you put forth.  So why bother.
  • Your having removed the offending image has accomplished one of Getty's goals.  They need to show photographers that they are policing images they license.  Good job.  This also makes them far less likely to sue you.  It also shows a court that as soon as you found out about the mistake, you took action.
  • In the U.S., the cost of filing a case like this is more than they are likely to win by filing.  Ergo, they usually don't file.  What they do is threaten to file, I call it using the law to extort funds from the weak who are willing to pay.  There is a risk to ignoring them, if they do choose to file.  But they rarely do.  Again, read more.  Educate yourself and you will feel better that yours is not the only organization to make this mistake.
  • Recognize that, at least in the U.S., many judges are onto Getty's game.  I expect it is the same in the U.K.  You will find some experiences of U.K. people on this forum as well.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 44
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.