Messages

286

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Fake Lawsuit?

« on: November 12, 2017, 01:32:53 AM »

Yes, people who read these forums and pay attention will pick up a lot of helpful nuggets that they can take into aspects of their personal and business life.  It is all about getting educated, learning how to evaluate the situation, evaluate your inner self, and deciding or adapting to a course of action.

In the grand scheme of things, there are much worse legal things people can face in life than getting an annoying copyright infringement letter. It is a big inconvenience, not a catastrophic event. But the copyright enforcers wants your imagination to run wild of all the nasty things that could happen.

287

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com

« on: November 12, 2017, 01:28:21 AM »

One can respond to show that they are not afraid to acknowledge and confront the issue.  And one can be very firm and state their position. As a a general rule, I prefer to respond and state my position and back the hell out of it. But that is simply a personal choice. I don't like being accused of not attempting a resolution.  If there is no agreement, one can simply go back into the cave and sit it out.

Again, this is not necessarily advice. The only point I am making is that responding does not automatically equal being fearful or cowering. Sometimes, it is simply a statement of respect and confidence.

So much of of HOW people respond comes down to people's individual personalities. For some, going dark is the easiest, best solution. It is efficient and saves time.  But the downside of that is there is no closure for 3 years.  People have to pick their poison.

@ Tuna Guy

Responding to them, in my opinion, is a big mistkae1  It tells them your scared and that's not what you want them thinking of you.

288

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Copytrack extortion letter

« on: November 09, 2017, 02:02:08 AM »

Absent some compelling information or unexpected developments, I tend to believe Copytrack is pretty harmless to most people. They might persistently and annoyingly nag people for payment but I have not yet seen them take any meaningful action against anyone in the U.S.

289

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images v. Walter Kowalczuk (Buying/selling images in private FB forums)

« on: November 09, 2017, 02:00:09 AM »

Thanks for the lead.  I looked into the PACER docket and pulled down the actual documents to read for myself. I would not say the defendants "settled" which implies they actual made payment to Getty Images.

What most of the defendants appeared to agree to are "consent judgments" which is not the same thing as a traditional settlement. Without knowing the details of how these events occurred, the "consent judgments" are likely for public showing and a good portion of the larger judgments are probably uncollectable. Getty Images probably knows it too. I would like to add that the most of the "consent judgments" were signed by the defendants "pro se". Most had no lawyer to represent them and were likely near broke and in over their heads. The lead defendant, Walter Kowalczuk, did have a lawyer and he might have a few bucks around but millions of dollars? I am not so sure about that.

If the defendants actually had the millions of dollars required to satisfy the consent judgment, I believe there would have been mention of some kind of settlement agreement, not a "consent judgment" which doesn't carry as much weight.

Whether the defendants settled for $4 million or $14 million, $2 million or $21 million probably makes very little practical difference if the the defendants cannot actually pay it.  But there were some who had consent judgments in the $15K-$25K range. Those are able to be paid off and I found one satisfaction of judgment in the docket.   

All these consent judgments make for "good" publicity for Getty Images to publicly humiliate and embarrass the defendants. Honestly, in some ways, I really can't blame Getty Images. I am no Getty Images lover but if the defendants really did resell these images on the scale as Getty Images claims, it borders on criminal behavior.

On ELI, we discuss mostly small-time unintentional infringements which fall entirely within the civil claim realm. But the defendants purported behavior really has me thinking about the criminal side of infringements.

If Getty can't collect actual restitution/reimbursements/cash settlement, the only thing Getty Images can benefit from is the public spanking and humiliation of the defendants with the consent judgments. There is also the small possibility the consent judgment will show up on their credit reports and hurt their credit. I am not sure what the credit agencies will pick up and report given the fact this is not a traditional judgment based on debt.

The defendants might be able to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and nullify the consent judgments if it becomes a real problem. However, it will not solve the fact Getty Images has managed to taint the defendants names and give the impression that the defendants engaged in quasi-criminal behavior.

I suspect Getty Images has done some investigation into the assets and income of the individuals before they seek any collection action such as levying their bank accounts. I don't think it is worth their while to pursue it unless they just want to twist the knife deep and hard.

With this public humiliation, the defendants will probably resort to landscaping work, mowing lawns, or washing dishes for income.  They can't get any job at any large company that might Google search their background.

Very interesting developments. It should be interesting to see how the remaining parts of the case is resolved.

290

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Email from PicRights.com

« on: November 02, 2017, 08:46:24 PM »

I have consulted for a number of lawyers over the years. They pay to speak with me to get my perspective on behalf of their clients.  Many are easy to speak with because they understand the legal side but they also understand my practical perspective.

Most outside lawyers are not going to understand these characters. As you say, they will see "copyright infringement" and that is about as far as it goes. The fact of the matter is 1% of these cases ever end up in a lawsuit. As a rough estimate, there are likely a couple thousand of letters being sent out every year by this industry.  But how many lawsuits ever get filed? And out of those few, nearly all are settled and rarely come close to any judge.

But so much of the heartache and stress is people mentally dwelling in the 1% area.

291

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Fake Lawsuit?

« on: November 02, 2017, 08:32:49 PM »

I think you are making a big leap with your assumptions.  Two lawsuits does not show any particular pattern. It just means 2 cases. Who knows how many other cases they did not file lawsuits on. We don't know how much they asked to settle. We don't know the responses of the defendants.

One thing I do know is that people don't like to file lawsuits against parties who are unlikely to pay. And a lawsuit can simply be motivation device to get the other side to settle.

For most people, the should negotiate a settlement. Not because a lawsuit will be filed against them.  But their own inability to cope with the stress and uncertainty.  And most people really have little understanding on what a lawsuit actually means in practical terms. I am not a lawyer but I have a good enough understanding that I could give a 3-hour seminar on what it means in "practical terms". But many people's eyes will glaze because of the information overload or because it becomes too many variables to juggle.  They want someone to tell them DEFINITIVELY what to do. Very few people will do that.  Telling people to settle is easier than telling people to learn and getting educated on the finer points.

I do know that many people have bad assumptions on what they "SHOULD" do vs. what they could do.

This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. The world will not end even if there is a lawsuit. And not all lawsuits have to be responded to. There are lots of granularity to this but most of it is irrelevant because most people are governed by the fear and uncertainty. The time and effort to learn is too much for many people. It overwhelms them.

Many people should settle so they get closure and don't have to lose sleep or stress over it. Even if a case is low-risk and a lawsuit is unlikely to happen, with some people, I would still tell them to settle if I thought they had little ability to control the inner chattering of their brain.

292

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Confused on Who Getty Targets and Who They Ignore?

« on: November 02, 2017, 05:35:12 PM »

I have seen a few letters that do cite the date of discovery. But most do not.

People need to understand that these demand letters are NOT legal filings. No one has to send a notification, warning, or information letter of ANY KIND to a potential infringer. Accusers can go straight to lawsuit without any warning whatsoever although doing that is fraught with risks and frowned upon.

ANYONE who comes to ELI and don't get the message to clean up their websites are foolish. 

As already discussed, there is no telling if or when you will receive a letter or not. Some people are luckier than others. But letters do come out of nowhere. You cannot turn back time. All anyone can do is to clean up the websites of unlicensed images and hope for the best.

If you had one or two images, the risk is probably very low.  But if a website owner made a practice to use MANY licensed images for several years and only now taking it down, then yes, they have reason to sweat for the short term of getting a letter.

The more infringing images, the greater the chance of discovery. It is just plain statistics.

Do they actually cite the date of discovery? I would assume they have to by law?

What I'm saying is, if I found some infringement violations today, and took the images down, do I have to sweat for the next few months wondering if they caught the images prior to removal and plan to issue a letter.

From your personal experience, I'm sure you've seen countless cases to get an idea of when someone is in the clear so to speak.

293

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Fake Lawsuit?

« on: November 02, 2017, 05:23:16 PM »

It is entirely appropriate to truthfully name the lawyer and the photographer involved. In fact, it is more helpful if you want better advice/suggestions. It is hard to evaluate without some names because the ELI Community can often research and reference the parties to determine if they are new to us or have been previously reported. But you should also know that the ELI Forums is sometimes read by "the other side". So you should keep that in mind. 

It is entirely appropriate for a lawyer in one state to hire another lawyer in another state to work a case. But the lawyer being hired will generally NOT work for commission/contingency.  Someone has to front the filing fees and the work involved to file the lawsuit.

294

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Confused on Who Getty Targets and Who They Ignore?

« on: November 01, 2017, 10:39:56 PM »

That is not a question people on the "outside" are going to answer. It probably varies greatly from firm to firm. The response time for a private photographer is likely going to be shorter than someone like Getty Images who deals with far more infringement cases. But that is a terribly generalized statement on my part.  I have always been open to receiving information from an inside "leaker" but no one has after nearly 10 years of following this.

I will take a stab at answering that it probably takes them anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months from getting a "potential hit" to getting a letter out.  It does not behoove them to take too long because the statute of limitations technically begins from "date of discovery".

What is the usual turnaround between them finding infringement and sending a letter to demand payment?

A week? Two weeks? A month?

I would assume they don't sit on their hands and knees for a year, waiting for you to either take it down or move away.

I've read stories where people got letters within two weeks of posting an image on a test page. And then I've read others where a site was shut down for as long as 2 months (or so the person claimed) and then a letter came in.

295

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Email from PicRights.com

« on: November 01, 2017, 07:11:41 PM »

This is pretty spot on for the vast majority of small-time cases. There are some exceptions but most people overreact until they get educated by ELI and get some real perspective.  Getting an opinion from a lawyer who does not closely follow this type of thing will generally end up getting a bad opinion that will cost the client unnecessary money.

Through my work I've handled many litigation and judgment enforcement files, and normally you don't go on suing rampages unless you either have a point to prove to everyone else (PR reasons), or you have some way to collect on the judgment once granted by the courts. You can sue someone for thousands of dollars, but cannot force them to pay unless you can seize assets that you know of, garnish bank accounts, or go after receivables, ect... (business to business litigation). Personal can be a bit worse if you own property however, and you're working at a secured job.

A lot of these demands are sent out in the masses, and they're just counting on a certain percentage of people who will pay out of fear. I used to issue legal demand letters and it's more about seeing of shit will hit the wall and stick to avoid having to spend additional money and time to pursue the matter in court, as well as the post judgment process.

296

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Confused on Who Getty Targets and Who They Ignore?

« on: November 01, 2017, 07:06:52 PM »

They might just be lucky.  There are many people who unknowingly had unauthorized images for years. Some people get notices very quickly even for experimental/testbed websites. Others can go for a decade and not get any demand letters.  There are people who get letters and deal with it quietly, with the public no wiser for it.

We have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

Robert,

They run a website on political news and information - almost in a gossip website style. They update in high volume - 30-40 updates a day. They often have photo galleries with celebrities at the political events or photo galleries of the events themselves... sometimes the images are provided by the pr reps, the venue, etc. - but when they are not, these guys grab all the photos they can from wherever they can.

But what you say is true, they are reporting it for news and information purposes, so it might be "fair use" or close enough to it, to prevent Getty from pulling the legal trigger.

297

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Is Higbee Stuck at the Bottom?

« on: October 17, 2017, 10:39:33 PM »

I am not sure I agree with your assessment. Higbee and his clients just want some money, not to go all the way to consummate the deal. (Double Entendre intended.)  And defendants become motivated to settle because they are lost in the legalities.  Each side does a bit of blinking and standing. Each side settles because no one likes the lawsuit to continue. Take the money and run.

Higbee wants to up his profile of being a "bad ass". The problem with that is one day he will get spanked in a manner by an entity, person, or circumstances he will not foresee. Lawsuits have a way of generating unintended consequences and publicity.  I have been around enough to have seen this happen to different people.

All the defendants and plaintiffs are different, but Higbee is the constant in these scenarios. It seems to happen more often than not so I wonder if Higbee is the one blinking when put up or shut up time comes and he has to pay local attorneys out of pocket for trial time or take what he can get without dealing with judgment collection issues.

298

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Higbee law getting all they can handle from from defendent fighting back lawsuit

« on: October 17, 2017, 10:29:45 PM »

As far as I know, there are no "free lawyers" in civil cases unless you happen to know someone. Most of the copyright infringement situations I hear from on ELI are smaller situations. I cannot see any court expend any resources to appoint a lawyer on these types of rinky-dink cases.

I didn't know that it was possible to ask for a lawyer in a civil case if you can't afford one.  I thought that pretaianed to criminal cases only.  Have you ever heard of this before?

299

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com

« on: October 17, 2017, 10:25:40 PM »

I am a little late to the party.  But from my online research, PicRights.com shares the street address as Masterfile:

3 Concorde Gate, 4th Floor
Toronto, ON, Canada M3C 3N7

The PicRights website claims that Masterfile, AFP, SciencePhotoLibrary, Loupe Images, Cephas Picture Library, PA Images, Aurora Photos, Jill Greenberg, CartoonStock, and the Associated Press are "clients".

It also lists this business address in Switzerland:

PicRights Europe GmbH
Albisstrasse 14
8134 Adliswil Switzerland

Given the fact that Masterfile has had their Toronto street address for many years, it appears to me that PicRights is leveraging Masterfile's prior and existing office and operations infrastructure for their copyright enforcement letters. It is unclear to me which was created first, PicRights Switzerland or PicRights Canada. Regardless, they appear to be working symbiotically with the Masterfile operation.

Along with PicRights.com, ArtistDefense.com also shares Masterfile's street address.

In addition to sharing the street address, what they have in common are the names of the worker bees like "Geoff Beal" who previously operated as "Geoffrey Beal" years ago.  A familiar name "Michael Hilsheimer" who I remember was with Masterfile years ago now works for PicRights.com.

Has anyone dealt with PicRights.com?

300

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: The love affair between Attorney Adam Gafni and Vincent K. Tylor

« on: October 17, 2017, 10:03:28 PM »

It has taken a few years but I think we have finally uncovered the deal with the "missing" corporate registrations with the Gafni law firms. The insight found its way to me when a victim recently forwarded a copy of their email recently written and sent by Gafni Attorney, Jason Levin.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/what-is-up-with-attorney-adam-gafni-of-gafni-levin-llp/msg21538/#msg21538

The short answer is that the California Business Search page does NOT list the Disclaimer text shown in the Business Search Tips page which states that general partnerships (GP) and limited liability partnerships (LLP) will not appear in online searches. It seems California Business searches only display corporations and LLC's, not other legal entities.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business-programs/business-entities/cbs-search-tips/

Disclaimer: This Search tool allows you to search the Secretary of State's California Business Search database for abstracts of information for domestic stock, domestic nonprofit and qualified foreign corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships that have filed with this office. This search tool groups corporations separately from limited liability companies and limited partnerships and returns all entities for the search criteria in the respective groups regardless of the current status. This database does not include other types of business entities that are registered with the California Secretary of State, such as general partnerships and limited liability partnerships. The search results only include copies of filed Statements of Information for corporations and limited liability companies that have been imaged. Search results that indicate “Image not available online” may be available by ordering copies, refer to refer to Information Requests.