Messages

1936

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Is it legal for GI to hire debt collection?

« on: November 03, 2011, 12:03:36 PM »

Class action has been brought up many times already.  It has been looked into by several lawyers over the years and it appears to be concluded that what Getty is doing is technically legal.

Suing and winning is not so easy or it would have been done before. Too bad extortion letter recipients can't seem to understand this simple concept. Otherwise, they wouldn't continue to be consumed with worry and keep trying to beg and "convince" Getty for a settlement.

Matthew

1937

Getty Images Letter Forum / Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (ELI Highlights)

« on: November 02, 2011, 03:04:04 AM »

Ok, gang. I think the ELI website deserves some Paypal contributions for this. I have gone out of my way to serve this helping on a silver platter.

The whole collection agency thing has been brought up repeatedly. And yet, this piece is the easiest to fight off.  I have tried to tell people in the past to read up on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  I have told people to write a letter to the collection agencies to not contact them anymore but people are not listening.  It has also been explained many times by Oscar and others that there is NO DEBT here.  It is a claim.  And that claim, presumably, you are disputing.

You actually have to communicate this to the collection agency preferably in writing!  They are not telepathic! Just ignoring and complaining about the collection calls and collection letters does nothing!

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) has been around a long time here in the U.S. These rules are posted on the FTC website. Clearly no one has bothered looking in the last 3.5 years this forum has been in existence and so I am forced to serve this up on a silver platter.  (Gratuities are more than welcome here)

* The entire text is here:  http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm

* The original PDF document is here: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf

However, what I have done is taken the original document and removed the blank pages but MOST IMPORTANTLY highlighted those sections that are directly relevant to the extortion letters.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/71252305/Fair-Debt-Collection-Practices-Act-ELI-Highlights (Download the doc to see the text.)

You need to read Page 6.  It is Section 805, Paragraph C (Ceasing Communications)
====

(c) CEASING COMMUNICATION.  If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except --

    (1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;
    (2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or
    (3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

If such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt.

====
It is very clear. You communicate clearly you do not want them to contact you anymore and they need to stop.

Now there are other helpful clauses such as Section 809 - VALIDATION OF DEBTS (Page 11) where the collection agency needs to prove or validate the so-called debt. If you want to gather more information regarding Getty's claims/copyrights/registrations/etc., this is the time to communicate it.  From there, let them be the gopher if they want to. Chances are, you won't get much but the standard reply.

The easiest way to get a legitimate, law-abiding collection agency off your back is to simply exercise the CEASING COMMUNICATION clause.  Write the letter.  It does not require a lawyer!  But if you have the money and want to hire one instead, that is your choice.

Yes, I know there are plenty of sleazy collection agencies that don't follow the rules.  However, I suspect Getty Images and most of the established stock photo companies will only use reputable collection agencies. Getty Images (and others) are trying to keep their noses clean as they attempt to collect. So they are not going to be so stupid as to use a rogue and illegitimate collection agency.

Also, legitimate collection agencies know there is no actual debt here.  It is only a claim and they will be very careful in their communications, words, and wording so that they don't violate Section 807 - FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS.

A collection agency may want their clients business but they also don't want to be reported to the FTC for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). And if they violate, don't be afraid to report them to the FTC and to the Attorney General in your state.

As has repeatedly been said on the ELI forums, next to hiring a competent lawyer, EDUCATION is you best weapon and line of defense.  Quite honestly, I don't believe many IP lawyers know much about FDCPA. But now, EVERYONE gets to learn about this.

AS I get ready to leave my soapbox, I have a disclaimer.  I served up this document with some important highlighted clauses very late at night. I did not go through FDCPA with a fine-tooth comb to think of every possible scenario that could happen. I invite ELI community members to put on their thinking caps and go through FDCPA to see what else might be helpful here.

The whole collection agency fear thing has been happening way too long and I couldn't take anymore complaints about it. So I have written what I consider the most definitive post on the collection agency issue using FDCPA as my legal reference.  This post is meant to squelch that fear once and for all.  Going forward, it will become clear who is paying attention and who isn't.

The easiest way to answer any future questions or concerns regarding the collection agency issue is to provide a direct link to this post so they can read and get educated for themselves.

Off my soapbox now....

Matthew

1938

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile & Arius3d acquisition closing date extended, Arius3D pays MF 450k

« on: November 01, 2011, 12:34:50 AM »

Well, this is certainly interesting.... Masterfile being bought by another company.

I wonder how this will impact Masterfile's extortion letter program.

Matthew

1939

Getty Images Letter Forum / New Settlement Demand Letter by Attorney Peter T. Holt of Roseville, CA

« on: October 31, 2011, 05:56:06 PM »

WE have a brand new settlement demand letter on behalf of Hawaiian Art Network.

Attorney Peter T. Holt of Roseville, CA has an ultra-sophisticated website: http://peterholtlaw.com/

It seems to match his equally sophisticated form letter:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/71069382/Attorney-Peter-T-Holt-Settlement-Demand-Letter

Once again, special thanks to yet another ELI community member for their contribution.

1940

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Client Received Getty Letter

« on: October 31, 2011, 01:04:19 PM »

In case you haven't done more digging, all of your questions have been answered many times in the past as your questions are frequently asked by others. No offense intended.

Also, No one is going to tell you what YOU should do. Every person's individual disposition and case is somewhat different.  LOTS of advice and viewpoints have been given in the past. You have to compare and contrast what has been said before to your situation.

Regarding Oscar's $195 letter, no one is trying to sell you on it. If you don't want to go into it "blind", that is ok, you are perfectly allowed to represent yourself.  Many people have (including me) and it turned out fine.  I often recommend it when possible as long as you get educated on the matter.  There are several reasons for silence on Oscar's letter.

1. People have asked about the letter repeatedly in the past and don't wish to answer this again.
2. Any settlements would stay confidential.
3. Some cases may still be pending where there is nothing to report.
4. No one is motivated enough to write a rave review or a scathing complaint.

This forum is accessible and read by all including the stock photo companies. Some things are not going to be spelled out explicitly.  Sometimes you simply need to read between the lines and make your own judgment call.  There is no singular right path. I have heard the full spectrum of responses.  Some lawyer up all the way paying full fare for legal fees.  Some use Oscar's program. Some pay the full demand.  Some represent themselves. Some pay a settled demand.  Some tell them off and pay zero. Some simply ignore it.  A case can be made for each scenario.

Most people who have settled it put the matter behind them and don't come back. I can't say I blame them really.

Matthew

1941

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: October 31, 2011, 06:17:00 AM »

Regarding clients and their issues, they can raise all the stink they want but until they actually incur actual damages and losses from a lawsuit, clients won't have anything to jump on web developers about except for the fear, frustration, and aggravation factor.

Clients need to understand that they need to do their part and get educated on the issue as well.  I believe in trying to make things right. However, making things right doesn't simply mean paying out whatever they deem necessary or just rolling over.

Clients have just as much right to jump on these forums and use the free information to their benefit.  But if they don't bother to even seek out free information on the Internet, it is going to be hard for me to feel any sympathy.  Some people prefer to stick their heads in their sand and complain instead of taking some meaningful action and get up to speed.

Every client/vendor relationship is different and so each party needs to evaluate whether the relationship is worth keeping or if parting ways is the way to go. Personally, I would try to help and work things out but if they became too unreasonable and irrational, then I would cut them loose.

Matthew

1942

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: October 31, 2011, 06:07:25 AM »

In theory, all the scenarios you listed COULD happen. Will they all happen? Not likely especially if you take corrective measures now.

But part of taking these corrective measures goes beyond the technical aspects.  It is actually getting familiar and getting educated on these extortion letter issues. The longer people stay ignorant on these issues, the more the fear will grip them.

I have said this many times before, it isn't quite as easy as the stock photo companies make it sound of filing a lawsuit and taking it all the way to victory.  Alas, few people believe this and they let their own ignorance get the better of them and the irrational fear takes over.

Just because someone demands or threatens doesn't mean it can actually happen.  We do have courts of law that have judges that generally have some common sense.

If it was so easy and inexpensive to file lawsuits, there would be a ton of lawsuits flying around already. Thanks to Righthaven, judges have shown they don't take too kindly to companies using the court system as their collection agencies on trivial matters. RIAA tried this several years ago and they got severely reprimanded for this approach. So much so, RIAA has mostly given up such tactics.

The stock photo industry is now in this game except (so far) they have been smart enough to not actually pull the lawsuit trigger yet. They know there is related precedence in these types of matters. I guarantee you they will not casually file a lawsuit on any small-timer without some extremely careful thought and consideration.  The minute they do, you can believe they will open a Pandora's box.

As long as they stick to letters and simple threats, they will probably be ok.  The problem is the majority of letter recipients are too lazy to learn more about this and they don't know the first thing about fighting or defending themselves.  Sometimes, all it takes is to just say NO and move on.

Matthew

1943

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Infringement Letter- Hawaiin Art Network LLC

« on: October 28, 2011, 07:24:29 PM »

Who is the person, law firm, or attorney that sent you this letter? That has some bearing.

Regarding advice, start reading up on the various posts on the forums is a good starting point.  Very few are going to provide advice starting from ground zero as there have been thousands of people who have received letters.

Get educated and informed, and then ask clarification questions. Those will likely get answered then questions where someone has done no research or reading.

Matthew

1944

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Being sued by Getty for images on non-live test website

« on: October 28, 2011, 03:38:20 PM »

It is safe to say that website developers working with 3rd-party clients on test websites also need to exercise great care.

That means if you are working with a client, you better make the test site password-protected or use public-domain images (many government website provide this) as placeholder images.

Unfortunately, there will be more website developers who will continue to get ensnared in the stock photo industry trap. Most clients are pretty ignorant about all this and it will force website developers to be much more proactive so that they are not negatively impacted if and when an extortion letter shows up.

Matthew

1945

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Thoughts on Picscouts ignoring Robots.txt

« on: October 28, 2011, 02:51:45 PM »

I am sure you understand where I am coming from when I say I will be making zero time and effort in trying to change legislation.  That means potentially dealing with Congress and other legislators.  And the political, law-making game is left for those who have the stomach for it.

We can sue different people for all kinds of reasons but there is a line where you have to decide whether it is worth it.  I make decision like that nearly every other month.

I know this might upset some people but I have begun losing sympathy for many extortion letter recipients mainly because of their attitudes, ignorance, or lack of spine.  For some, I don't really feel sorry they had to pay because they didn't care enough about themselves to do anything about it.  They were almost asking to be taken advantaged of.  If paying someone to go away is the way some people want to operate even when they have a good case, then that is their right.  I just don't want to hear them griping how they lost the money then.

Matthew

1946

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Thoughts on Picscouts ignoring Robots.txt

« on: October 28, 2011, 02:04:50 PM »

My practical position is if anyone is depending on robots.txt to ensure any privacy of their content on web servers, it is a foolhardy exercise.

That is the equivalent of telling strangers not to go inside or intrude into your car if you are not there but the doors are unlocked.  Or telling strangers not to enter your house but you leave your doors unlocked.

Robots.txt was mostly designed as a "courtesy" measure to instruct search engines and other benevolent Internet entities to not scour, scrape, or index specific locations and content on your web server.

I don't care what the law says about it because it is contingent upon legally enforcing it (which is not always easy or cheap).

Unfortunately nowadays, if you want to ensure people stay out of your car or home, you have to lock your doors each and every time.  The same goes with content on your webserver.  If you want someone to stay out, lock it down. Robots.txt only "work" for people who want to follow the rules of etiquette. I think we can clearly establish that the stock photo companies don't follow that otherwise they would engage in cease or desist letters or make more reasonable settlement amounts at least.

If you want to keep robots, search engines, PicScout, or any other person/entity out of your content, you have to secure your servers with at least password access (if not more).

Matthew

1947

Getty Images Letter Forum / New Canadian Settlement Demand Letter by Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: October 28, 2011, 03:38:21 AM »

Check out yet another new player in the settlement demand letter business generously submitted by Loopster.

This new settlement demand letter comes from Toronto, Canada by Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law (http://blacklinelaw.ca)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/70625769/Blackline-Settlement-Demand-Letter-Sample

Our online database of players in the settlement demand letter business continues to grow.

==============

As of November 16, 2011, Julie has conveniently filed a DMCA complaint to Scribd about our revealing a demand letter she issued to a letter recipient. She knows it does not qualify for copyright protection. It has been explained to her but she is making that claim nevertheless. She desperate wants to hide this information and we are equally determined to make people aware of it.  It is my intention to respond to Scribd and contest this.

Scribd:

Hello, extortionletterinfo --

We have removed your document, "Blackline Settlement Demand Letter " (id: 70625769) in response to a third-party notification or other indicia that this document was uploaded to Scribd.com without the authorization of the copyright owner. If you believe the removal of this document is the result of a mistake or misidentification, please visit our Scribd Support Desk to access the instructions for providing a counter-notification.

For more information, read about our Copyright Management System or contact us through [email protected].

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that content was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability. Please also be advised that we enforce our policy that provides for the termination of users who are identified as repeat infringers.

Thanks for your cooperation.
-Scribd Customer Care

P.S. You can always fine-tune which notifications you receive or opt-out completely.

Scribd Inc., 539 Bryant St., Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94107, USA

1948

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image Hosting Question

« on: October 20, 2011, 01:21:07 AM »

Your case is not quite so clear cut no matter what Getty or their attorneys might say. You did ask permission to post the content which accidentally included Getty's. And if the photo wasn't even hosted by you, it blurs their position even more.

Nearly anyone you could possible interact with at this point have little or no meaningful authority. Their job is to sing the company song and make their arguments.  You have to be comfortable with your arguments and case.  Much of that will come from your getting educated in the finer points of all this.  Another part of it is whether you have the ability to make your case and then stand your ground.

They can send correspondence all day long. You simply need to do your part in responding with intelligence and conviction.  The people who go hiding in a hole have a weaker position because they are acting like they are guilty when they aren't. It only motivates them to dig deeper into their arsenal of threats vs. them realizing that you believe in your position and you are facing them head on.

Matthew

1949

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: I got hit by GI. $9860!

« on: October 20, 2011, 01:04:54 AM »

They do accept offers if:

1. It meets their minimum threshold.
2. You do so from a position of strength & conviction.

If they don't accept your offer especially after you made a good faith effort (given one's particular situation), it is incumbent upon them to do something about it to prove their case. Historically speaking, Getty's "threats" work quite well psychologically despite the fact they have not filed suit much less won a case against anyone over a few images.

The more you beg them to accept, the weaker your position. As several letter recipients can attest to, by making a strong stand for themselves and against them, is also a valid tactic and strategy.  For that, you don't have to ask anyone's permission. Of course, a nice middle ground is to simply hire someone like Oscar.  You are fighting it but with someone knowledgeable and experienced in your corner.  And if paying $195 is an issue, as it frequently is, then you have to make up for it in learning, education, and having the gumption to deal with it.

Matthew

Apparently they won’t accept offers, but you think I should offer anyways? Perhaps it would be in my favor in court that I have attempted to settle with a reasonable offer?

Thank you for reading. Any advise and thoughts are appreciated.

1950

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ASMP to Getty Photographers: Time to Bail

« on: October 16, 2011, 02:00:16 PM »

A quick note to everyone, we should not cut and paste entire articles that we are referring to without risk of violating fair use.  This was the sort of thing that people got into trouble for with Righthaven.

There is no specific formula for how much is too much. But in my mind, no more than 20%-25% of the article should be excerpted.  You choose the most important sections and delete the rest. Of course, posting the web page address (URL) is entirely acceptable. (I have gone back into the original post to reduce the excerpt.)

Thanks for helping us make sure we don't get into another copyright infringement fiasco.

Matthew