Messages

271

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty getting some of its own medicine

« on: February 08, 2014, 11:00:15 AM »

I am not familiar with Gettys photog interface.  Do they do any do diligence to verify that an uploaded photo belongs to the person that uploaded it?  Or do they simply rely on something in their click through agreement to protect them?

Could the fact that they don't have proper controls in place to protect their customers from potential suits, be a source of BIG TIME legal exposure to them?

272

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Just ignore them

« on: February 02, 2014, 04:31:15 PM »

They don't give up.  You will hear from them again.  My guess is that when will be a function of their current workload and their estimation of the likelihood of separating you from your money.

273

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got My Letter

« on: February 02, 2014, 10:19:14 AM »

I agree with Robert that it would take too long to tag McCormack's screw ups.  What I've done instead is tag everything that Tim McCormack or McCormack IP Law has done correctly.  You can find these things by simple searching on #YouWouldHaveToBeAFrigginIdiotToThinkThatTimmyMcCormackOrMcCormackIPLawHasEverDoneAnythingRight

274

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Just ignore them

« on: February 01, 2014, 08:12:24 PM »

Getty is too smart to ever let Timmy in a courtroom on their behalf.  He and his firm are nothing more than a scare tactic.

275

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Got My Letter

« on: February 01, 2014, 10:48:46 AM »

If you are hot-linking to the image on the manufacturer's web site, you have nothing to worry about.  The courts have deemed that legal because you are not serving the image.

If you are serving the image from your site, you might have to get into the license agreement the manufacturer has over the image.

Herein lies the problem.  Getty and McCormack IP Law are set up to collect money.  They don't really listen to the facts.  Just because the image is in their catalog does not prove that they hold the copyright to that image or the right to pursue it legally.  If you ask them for proof of their rights in the image, they will ignore the question and continue asking for money.  They have been know to cite case history, wrongly to further impel their targets to pay.

Your options for dealing with them are well laid out all over this site.  I suggest that if they frustrate your efforts to settle this, that you complain loudly to your congressmen, the Washington State Bar Association, the better business bureau, the Attorney General, and whoever else you find in power that may listen.  If enough of us rise up, this will end.

276

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Founder Matthew Chan Returns to ELI After Year-Long Exile

« on: February 01, 2014, 10:33:16 AM »

Welcome back, Matt!

And to Tim McCormack, "Thanks for waking the sleeping bear."  I think I am going to enjoy watching what he has in store for you.

277

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: stockfood.com extortion letter- getty images? what to do- any help appreciated:)

« on: January 31, 2014, 07:54:59 PM »

Hot linking is NOT copyright infringement.  Apparently, picscout does not let them know exactly where the image comes from.

If I were in your shoes, I might ignore them.  You can choose to inform them of the fact, but be forewarned, they don't always listen to what you write.

278

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: It has now been over 3 years since my Initial letter and still getting threats.

« on: January 28, 2014, 05:08:54 PM »

Robert, I would say that you are being wayy too kind to them.  Must be warm where you live.

279

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: It has now been over 3 years since my Initial letter and still getting threats.

« on: January 28, 2014, 03:51:38 PM »

Who is sending the threats, Getty or McCormack?

They should not be sending anything if the Statute has run.  Are you sure the issue is over the same image?

280

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Question about precedent

« on: January 23, 2014, 02:41:48 PM »

Bear in mind that Getty doesn't use McCormack for lawsuits.  They are in place to scare people into paying.  As soon as you, respond, they have identified you.  And they don't really like to bargain.  I expect that they get a percentage of what they collect.

If they are really going to sue you, I would expect you would hear something from real attorneys.  There is lots of good information on this forum concerning your options.  You need to do what you are most comfortable with.  But I recommend you learn as much as possible about this game before making your decision.

281

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Here I am... 2nd GettyImages letter

« on: January 21, 2014, 12:15:44 PM »

Good points Lucia!

282

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty filed a lawsuit against me

« on: January 21, 2014, 08:57:08 AM »

When you get this all figured out, it would be good to share how the case was unusual.  What law firm filed?

283

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty filed a lawsuit against me

« on: January 20, 2014, 04:39:24 PM »

I agree with Jerry.  Run it by Oscar because they are only supposed to be communicating with you through him.  Also, if you could post that .pdf, I am certain that a lot of people on this board would be interested in taking a look at it.

How many images are they accusing you of mis-appropriating?  I cannot believe they would file for one.  Who is the law firm filing?

284

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA

« on: January 17, 2014, 12:35:37 PM »

The statute of limitations actually starts from the day they discover the mis-use.  So the question becomes, what is the earliest day you can prove that they had made the discovery.  Usually that is their first contact with you.  But if they send you their "proof" document and it happens to have an earlier date on it, that would seem to be the date the courts would use for when they discovered the mis-use.

285

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Received a Complaint from BWP Media USA

« on: January 15, 2014, 11:03:35 AM »

Welcome to the fight, JL.