2146
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A New Twist in the "Getty Letter"
« on: January 19, 2011, 05:54:58 PM »
His contact info is on the home page of our website. http://extortionletterinfo.com.
| 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.
2147
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A New Twist in the "Getty Letter"
« on: January 19, 2011, 03:58:57 PM »
What they are offering is pretty much nothing, just smoke and mirrors with that "discount". You can try to hire a different attorney than Oscar but I have very little confidence they will be brought up to speed and understand all the nuances that have occurred in the last 3 years.
2148
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A New Twist in the "Getty Letter"
« on: January 14, 2011, 07:56:27 PM »
I believe your first mistake was to ignore the letter. People who ignore the letter and make no effort to explain their situation or circumstances risk the kind of actions you face now. Oscar and I have repeatedly told people NOT to ignore the letters. There should be some acknowledgment, apology, and an attempt to remedy their concerns. It shows goodwill. Should you go to court, you could show that you did try to resolve this. By ignoring it, it only aggravates the situation and Getty.
Having said that, It has been our opinion that there will likely not be litigation for cases involving less than 5 images. We have also suspected that there will come a time where Getty might try to make "an example" of someone. While we have no wish for anyone to actually go into the courtroom and litigate this, however, there is an opportunity to more fully substantiate many of Oscar's arguments which have already been partially substantiated in other related cases.
Getty could technically win a case but still lose big if they are not careful. Let's say a judge found that there was an infraction but the value of the images was only $100 and there were no proven damages. In my view, any judgment of less than $2,000 would be a clear "loss" for Getty because I can promise that Getty will have spent far more in legal fees to win that. Further, if word got out that they "only" won $2,000 or less, Getty would probably be publicly mocked. But they would have sent a message that they will litigate.
Keep in mind, continuing with litigation could be simply filing papers and the suit. It does not necessarily mean they really want to go in front of a judge and risk an embarrassing and unfavorable judgment. But if I were on the receiving end of an actual lawsuit, you can believe I would be getting ready for a big, nasty, and loud battle.
It sounds like Getty is heating things up with threats of litigation. The question will become a game of chicken and what your risk tolerance level is. In my view, it is time to hire Oscar.
Finally, I am very certain Oscar is very familiar with the McCormack law firm.
Having said that, It has been our opinion that there will likely not be litigation for cases involving less than 5 images. We have also suspected that there will come a time where Getty might try to make "an example" of someone. While we have no wish for anyone to actually go into the courtroom and litigate this, however, there is an opportunity to more fully substantiate many of Oscar's arguments which have already been partially substantiated in other related cases.
Getty could technically win a case but still lose big if they are not careful. Let's say a judge found that there was an infraction but the value of the images was only $100 and there were no proven damages. In my view, any judgment of less than $2,000 would be a clear "loss" for Getty because I can promise that Getty will have spent far more in legal fees to win that. Further, if word got out that they "only" won $2,000 or less, Getty would probably be publicly mocked. But they would have sent a message that they will litigate.
Keep in mind, continuing with litigation could be simply filing papers and the suit. It does not necessarily mean they really want to go in front of a judge and risk an embarrassing and unfavorable judgment. But if I were on the receiving end of an actual lawsuit, you can believe I would be getting ready for a big, nasty, and loud battle.
It sounds like Getty is heating things up with threats of litigation. The question will become a game of chicken and what your risk tolerance level is. In my view, it is time to hire Oscar.
Finally, I am very certain Oscar is very familiar with the McCormack law firm.
2149
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Re: Imageline sues H.P. Development
« on: January 11, 2011, 02:26:12 PM »
If HP is smart, they will have their legal team do a Google search. They will consequently find Bernina. And if HP decided to countersue as Bernina did, it could put a world of hurt on Riddick.
However, HP might consider this a nuisance suit. It will be interesting to see how HP responds to this.
MatthewC
However, HP might consider this a nuisance suit. It will be interesting to see how HP responds to this.
MatthewC
2150
Getty Images Letter Forum / Stitches magazine articles (Jan. 2011 issue) quote Matthew Chan & Oscar Michelen
« on: January 08, 2011, 01:47:29 PM »
There are 2 magazine articles that may be of interest to our readers.
Stitches magazine's recent article (January 2011 issue, pg.53-55) "Might Makes Copyright" quotes Matthew Chan and Oscar Michelen regarding the Copyright Settlement Demand Letter controversy. The PDF version of the article is here.
Stitches magazine's recent sidebar article (January 2011 issue, pg.54) "Play it Safe with Copyright" quotes Oscar Michelen regarding advice after receiving a Copyright Settlement Demand Letter. The PDF version of the article is here.
Stitches magazine's recent article (January 2011 issue, pg.53-55) "Might Makes Copyright" quotes Matthew Chan and Oscar Michelen regarding the Copyright Settlement Demand Letter controversy. The PDF version of the article is here.
Stitches magazine's recent sidebar article (January 2011 issue, pg.54) "Play it Safe with Copyright" quotes Oscar Michelen regarding advice after receiving a Copyright Settlement Demand Letter. The PDF version of the article is here.
2151
Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / Stitches magazine articles (Jan. 2011 issue) quote Matthew Chan & Oscar Michelen
« on: January 08, 2011, 01:45:12 PM »
There are 2 magazine articles that may be of interest to our readers.
Stitches magazine's recent article (January 2011 issue, pg.53-55) "Might Makes Copyright" quotes Matthew Chan and Oscar Michelen regarding the Copyright Settlement Demand Letter controversy. The PDF version of the article is here.
Stitches magazine's recent sidebar article (January 2011 issue, pg.54) "Play it Safe with Copyright" quotes Oscar Michelen regarding advice after receiving a Copyright Settlement Demand Letter. The PDF version of the article is here.
Stitches magazine's recent article (January 2011 issue, pg.53-55) "Might Makes Copyright" quotes Matthew Chan and Oscar Michelen regarding the Copyright Settlement Demand Letter controversy. The PDF version of the article is here.
Stitches magazine's recent sidebar article (January 2011 issue, pg.54) "Play it Safe with Copyright" quotes Oscar Michelen regarding advice after receiving a Copyright Settlement Demand Letter. The PDF version of the article is here.
2152
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Statute of Limitations
« on: December 24, 2010, 01:44:54 PM »
Apparently, I was unclear (or perhaps misunderstood the initial comment) although I did quote the comment in question. You mentioned something about the "rewards of pro bono work." Lettered replied "No offense intended, and if you are indeed a lawyer, I apologize for the incorrect assumption that you were not."
As a general rule, posts don't get deleted unless they cross the line in some fashion. Having a cordial and civil disagreement does not qualify for deletion. As I said, I felt you added to the conversation.
What I meant by your capacity is pretty simple. If you are a qualified attorney, say so.
MatthewC
Helpi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Admin, what in particular did you find
> "unpleasant" ?
>
> It's your board so feel free to delete what you
> wish. But don't expect people to participate if
> you delete their posts.
>
> "But I must agree that I am unclear as to what
> capacity you are speaking in."
>
> In what capacity ? I have absolutely no dog in
> this fight. No affiliation with Getty. I found the
> site and some of the issues interesting. I should
> add that I realize receiving these letters causes
> real distress to people receiving them and I'm, of
> course, sensitive to that. I thought I was adding
> to the conversation. If you want a site sanitized
> with only site approved views, your choice.
>
> Regards.
As a general rule, posts don't get deleted unless they cross the line in some fashion. Having a cordial and civil disagreement does not qualify for deletion. As I said, I felt you added to the conversation.
What I meant by your capacity is pretty simple. If you are a qualified attorney, say so.
MatthewC
Helpi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Admin, what in particular did you find
> "unpleasant" ?
>
> It's your board so feel free to delete what you
> wish. But don't expect people to participate if
> you delete their posts.
>
> "But I must agree that I am unclear as to what
> capacity you are speaking in."
>
> In what capacity ? I have absolutely no dog in
> this fight. No affiliation with Getty. I found the
> site and some of the issues interesting. I should
> add that I realize receiving these letters causes
> real distress to people receiving them and I'm, of
> course, sensitive to that. I thought I was adding
> to the conversation. If you want a site sanitized
> with only site approved views, your choice.
>
> Regards.
2153
Getty Images Letter Forum / Stepping in here....
« on: December 23, 2010, 11:02:17 PM »
Generally, I try to give some latitude in discussions here. This thread has certainly generated it share of discussion.
But there is an unpleasant undertone I wish to acknowledge here and hopefully defuse.
Helpi, you seem to be a very intelligent and analytical person as is presented through your arguments. But I must agree that I am unclear as to what capacity you are speaking in. If you are, in fact, an attorney or someone with legal training, it was not made clear. You don't to identify yourself by name if you don't want to but you did take an unfair "swipe" at one of our regular participants.
In an earlier comment, Oscar acknowledged that is part of the "beauty and curse" of the law, that you can often interpret things how you like but ultimately the argument must be tested in court if you want substantiation. But even in court is not absolute. There is a chain of command where if it deserves enough merit, you can go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Being on this particular discussion board, it is only going to be natural that Oscar's legal opinion is going to dominate here. I (and many others) rely on his legal expertise which he freely dispenses through this website and its related resources (videos, audios, articles, forum posts, etc.) After all, when I started this site, my goal was to find people to argue for MY side, not Getty's side! Lucky me (and so many others who have visited this website), Oscar hit the ball out of the park and understood my amateurish intent/rationale and translated it to "legalese".
Could the scenario you painted occur in court? It is conceivable but I will say that the general consensus is that Getty is certainly not going into full-blown lawsuit mode for cases with only a few images regardless of what arguments could be made in their favor. The stipulation we make is that they may decide one day to make an example out of someone (ala RIAA lawsuits against teenagers).
Helpi, you may in fact have some legitimate arguments and concerns. Oscar and I are continually impressed by the quality of discussions that occur without our intervention. They simply "happen". Whether you know it or not, you have positively contributed to this. Your replies are NOT being deleted. You have come upon Oscar's radar and he has acknowledged your thread. He may or may not agree with you but your arguments are here nonetheless.
I say all this because I don't want discussion disagreements here to become unpleasant. Sometimes, you simply have to have a friendly agree to disagree attitude. Bottom line, we welcome intelligent and spirited discussion, but revealing the context (and perhaps your qualifications) from which you speak might be very helpful.
MatthewC
Lettered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Helpi Wrote:
> . . .
> > Thanks for the compliment. Reminds me of the rewards of of pro bono work.
> >
> . . .
>
> No offense intended, and if you are indeed a lawyer, I appologize for the incorrect assumption that you were not.
But there is an unpleasant undertone I wish to acknowledge here and hopefully defuse.
Helpi, you seem to be a very intelligent and analytical person as is presented through your arguments. But I must agree that I am unclear as to what capacity you are speaking in. If you are, in fact, an attorney or someone with legal training, it was not made clear. You don't to identify yourself by name if you don't want to but you did take an unfair "swipe" at one of our regular participants.
In an earlier comment, Oscar acknowledged that is part of the "beauty and curse" of the law, that you can often interpret things how you like but ultimately the argument must be tested in court if you want substantiation. But even in court is not absolute. There is a chain of command where if it deserves enough merit, you can go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Being on this particular discussion board, it is only going to be natural that Oscar's legal opinion is going to dominate here. I (and many others) rely on his legal expertise which he freely dispenses through this website and its related resources (videos, audios, articles, forum posts, etc.) After all, when I started this site, my goal was to find people to argue for MY side, not Getty's side! Lucky me (and so many others who have visited this website), Oscar hit the ball out of the park and understood my amateurish intent/rationale and translated it to "legalese".
Could the scenario you painted occur in court? It is conceivable but I will say that the general consensus is that Getty is certainly not going into full-blown lawsuit mode for cases with only a few images regardless of what arguments could be made in their favor. The stipulation we make is that they may decide one day to make an example out of someone (ala RIAA lawsuits against teenagers).
Helpi, you may in fact have some legitimate arguments and concerns. Oscar and I are continually impressed by the quality of discussions that occur without our intervention. They simply "happen". Whether you know it or not, you have positively contributed to this. Your replies are NOT being deleted. You have come upon Oscar's radar and he has acknowledged your thread. He may or may not agree with you but your arguments are here nonetheless.
I say all this because I don't want discussion disagreements here to become unpleasant. Sometimes, you simply have to have a friendly agree to disagree attitude. Bottom line, we welcome intelligent and spirited discussion, but revealing the context (and perhaps your qualifications) from which you speak might be very helpful.
MatthewC
Lettered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Helpi Wrote:
> . . .
> > Thanks for the compliment. Reminds me of the rewards of of pro bono work.
> >
> . . .
>
> No offense intended, and if you are indeed a lawyer, I appologize for the incorrect assumption that you were not.
2154
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need Help in the UK.
« on: December 17, 2010, 08:53:58 PM »
UK Lawyer,
I would say that if you are serious in establishing a working relationship, at some point, a conference call might be in order. Too many of the finer points get misunderstood resorting to only emails.
MatthewC
I would say that if you are serious in establishing a working relationship, at some point, a conference call might be in order. Too many of the finer points get misunderstood resorting to only emails.
MatthewC
2155
Getty Images Letter Forum / "The Stock Photo Industry’s Massive Copyright Campaign" Article
« on: December 03, 2010, 04:21:10 PM »
This is a well-written, well-researched article on the stock photo industry campaign.
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/07/21/the-stock-photo-industrys-massive-copyright-campaign/
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/07/21/the-stock-photo-industrys-massive-copyright-campaign/
2156
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Any attorney defended lawsuits yet?
« on: December 01, 2010, 08:35:49 PM »
You have not been blacklisted for such a simple comment/question. It takes a bit more to be banned. LOL. You would know if you were banned here.
BTW, I am NOT an attorney, only Oscar is. I am only a Getty Images letter recipient who also happens to be a publisher, author, and Internet marketer that got dragged into this (just like everyone else that visits this site). But I appreciate the sentiment.
MatthewC
BTW, I am NOT an attorney, only Oscar is. I am only a Getty Images letter recipient who also happens to be a publisher, author, and Internet marketer that got dragged into this (just like everyone else that visits this site). But I appreciate the sentiment.
MatthewC
2157
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Any attorney defended lawsuits yet?
« on: November 30, 2010, 10:06:45 PM »
As the founder of this website, I would have to say you are extremely paranoid if you think I went out of my way to be a Getty Images letter recipient. This website was originally started so I could defend myself by tapping into Internet resources. When Attorney Oscar Michelen came into my life, we started corresponding, and he "got" what I was saying, I knew I had found the perfect ally and partner.
We make no secret that we accept fees and donations. Oscar charges a nominal fee to be part of his letter program. I invite (but not actively solicit) donations to help me continue this website. However, I would tell you that Oscar and my greatest rewards thus far is probably the large amount of goodwill and thank you's that have come our way and the boost in our professional reputations for taking up this cause.
For me, if I did not get some thank you's or some donations along the way, there would almost be little point for me to stick my neck out. After all, it does take some of my time and resources to keep this site running for the greater good.
So, there you go. My honesty at its finest.
MatthewC
We make no secret that we accept fees and donations. Oscar charges a nominal fee to be part of his letter program. I invite (but not actively solicit) donations to help me continue this website. However, I would tell you that Oscar and my greatest rewards thus far is probably the large amount of goodwill and thank you's that have come our way and the boost in our professional reputations for taking up this cause.
For me, if I did not get some thank you's or some donations along the way, there would almost be little point for me to stick my neck out. After all, it does take some of my time and resources to keep this site running for the greater good.
So, there you go. My honesty at its finest.
MatthewC
2158
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Need Help in the UK.
« on: November 05, 2010, 11:40:27 PM »
It has been my limited experience of U.K. culture and people from conservative circles that they are not interested in rocking the boat and certainly not willing to go against the grain or challenge authority in such an unorthodox way.
Here in the U.S., we value and appreciate free speech. Hence, we can publicly criticize any politician with little consequence to ourselves. We can also challenge the system and status quo. It is part of the independent streak within Americans.
When I was on assignment many years ago, I taught some technical networking courses and the students were eerily silent during my presentations. They rarely engaged in class discussions or challenged the instructors. Here in the U.S., my students often (but respectfully) challenged me and engaged in class discussions.
I think because of how conservative U.K. professionals seem to be, they seem to not want to be involved in a public way. It is good for Getty but not so good for people needing legal help.
MatthewC
Here in the U.S., we value and appreciate free speech. Hence, we can publicly criticize any politician with little consequence to ourselves. We can also challenge the system and status quo. It is part of the independent streak within Americans.
When I was on assignment many years ago, I taught some technical networking courses and the students were eerily silent during my presentations. They rarely engaged in class discussions or challenged the instructors. Here in the U.S., my students often (but respectfully) challenged me and engaged in class discussions.
I think because of how conservative U.K. professionals seem to be, they seem to not want to be involved in a public way. It is good for Getty but not so good for people needing legal help.
MatthewC
2159
UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Lime One Ltd. Represents 300 U.K. Clients Against Getty Images
« on: November 05, 2010, 11:33:25 PM »
Oscar is absolutely right. I was supposedly contacted by the CEO of Lime One. I returned the call, left a message, and even an email. There has been silence ever since. Very strange. I am guessing they like to engage in stealth publicity.
MatthewC
MatthewC
2160
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: patent atty advised me to settle and I responded to McCormack Getty Images
« on: November 04, 2010, 05:01:07 PM »
Bonb,
The letter is not a "magic pill" fix and it has no magical incantation written within to make "Getty go away". It only lets Getty know a client is being represented by Oscar and his law firm. There are no guarantees of results but I promise you I have not heard one person regret paying $150 for Oscar's service. The letter is simply a medium to deliver his message and argument on your behalf. Quite frankly, even if there were a couple of dissatisfied people, you are more than welcome to use another knowledgeable IP litigation attorney and ask THEM if they will give you the time of day for $150.
MatthewC
The letter is not a "magic pill" fix and it has no magical incantation written within to make "Getty go away". It only lets Getty know a client is being represented by Oscar and his law firm. There are no guarantees of results but I promise you I have not heard one person regret paying $150 for Oscar's service. The letter is simply a medium to deliver his message and argument on your behalf. Quite frankly, even if there were a couple of dissatisfied people, you are more than welcome to use another knowledgeable IP litigation attorney and ask THEM if they will give you the time of day for $150.
MatthewC
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. |