Messages

391

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A new collection Agency working with getty

« on: July 07, 2012, 08:24:31 PM »

Here's some interesting info.  It's from a commercial site, and I'm not affiliated with it.
Normally, I prefer not to post anything too commercial, but I think that the info is really worth reading in regard to debt collection in the United States.

"What if the person asking you for the money, "Bob", is a lawyer?
Under the FDCPA, even if Joe hires a lawyer or law firm to collect a debt from you, the lawyer or law firm is still considered a collector and must adhere to the FDCPA."

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt_validation.shtml


In this case, I see "Bob" as being "Timothy McCormack" and "Joe" as "Getty Images".
As such, McCormack is acting as a "collection agency" and is subject to the FDCPA.


Now, get this:

"The Right to Validate Your Debt
Under the FDCPA, you are allowed to validate this debt, and the creditor (in this case, the collection agency) must show you proof that you owe the debt to the collection agency (not to the original creditor.)"

The specific section of the FDCPA:
FDCPA Section 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]
(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector."

"Plus, they must show proof positive that you owe them this debt. It's not enough to send you a computer-generated printout of the debt."

---


In conclusion, when Timothy McCormack has been "assigned" a phony debt by Getty images, he's acting as a "debt collector" plain and simple.
Because Timothy McCormack cannot Validate such a debt, he has 30 days to prove such debt upon written notice (he can't), and he must cease contacting you.

S.G.

392

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carreon's Butthurt proves to be too much as he drops suit.

« on: July 06, 2012, 11:44:47 PM »

I think that one should be careful not to put the cart before the horse, so to speak.

While money could be raised, important questions need to be answered first, including what people really hope to accomplish.
A lawsuit is a methodology, but it shouldn't be the "goal" in and of itself.
Other things need to be addressed first including; what actual laws have been broken, what the proof is, what are the actual damages, who the plaintiffs will be, and so forth.
In the event of a "win", does it change law, or the industry?  Or, do the winners simply get a piece of paper, and the likes of Getty carry on the next business day as usual?
Additionally, a major "loss" for our side would hurt our cause. 

Oscar is quoted as saying that there may not be a practical basis for a Getty class action:

"(4) Every so often (certainly two months don't go by) a class action lawyer or firm contacts me expressing interest in taking this on.  I provide them with all the info, another hour discussion on the phone, redacted copies of the letters, etc. And then hear nothing.  This happened as recently as a few weeks ago.  No response yet from the  last lawyer.  I am not allergic to making money or handling controversial cases or taking on the big guys. My track record proves that I have done all of those in the past and currently continue to do so. If there was valid way to bring a class action for this conduct, I would have done so years ago or one of these firms, who do nothing but bring consumer class actions. Barratry requires the litigant to have no claim - these companies do have a right to protect these images. It is not harassment to try and collect for an infringement; it is their methods and demand amounts that are just overbearing and  disturbing.  But as always I am open to suggestions so please tell me what would the basis be for a class action; what is the illegal conduct they are engaging in that gives rise to a claim?  I will be the first to sign on to bring the case myself!"   

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/oscar-to-ask-attorney-gen-of-ny-to-investigate-masterfile-evidence-available!/

There's much to consider before making efforts to raise funds for a lawsuit.

S.G.

393

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty For sale

« on: July 06, 2012, 02:40:26 PM »

Interesting.  Sounds like Getty's a bit overvalued, though.
99 percent of the market demand will be for microstock products very soon.
Getty won't be able to sell much of its rights managed content at high prices.
In addition, Getty hasn't been successful in its court forays.
So, it's difficult for them to extort large ransoms under the phony guise of "infringement".

S.G.

394

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carreon's Butthurt proves to be too much as he drops suit.

« on: July 05, 2012, 06:45:37 PM »

Matthew Inman's fundraising success seems to be a result of an issue that went viral.
He's a bit of a "folk hero", and the donations went to nonprofit philanthropic organizations.

What's being suggested here as it stands now is something quite different.
I don't think that anyone actually intended to litigate in the case of Inman/Carreon et al.
In our situation, we do not have a "folk hero" or "victim" that could be the sympathetic "face".  Most of us are fighters.  That could change, though.
Furthermore, I don't feel that fundraising in order to litigate would be seen as "philanthropic".  I don't know whether such an effort could be legally registered as a nonprofit.

The regulars here would like to see a class-action against the major trolls.  We agree on that.
The real crux of this right now as I see it, is the question of whether such an action should come about organically, or if a formal business should be set up that will fund-raise and then litigate (if I correctly understand the ideas presented here).
A valid argument can be made that when some victim becomes angry enough, he/she will file for a class-action and seek out others that are similarly angry enough to join, much as Ian did in Israel.  That's an organic process.
Conversely, setting up what's essentially a business that would market, pr, fundraise, administrate and litigate might work, but it would be much more time-consuming, costly and risky.

Just some thoughts.  Perhaps, Matt will comment again... we'll see...

S.G.

395

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Carreon's Butthurt proves to be too much as he drops suit.

« on: July 05, 2012, 02:18:20 PM »

Here's some discussion from May 2012 wherein Matt weighs in:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/eli-currently-exists-based-on-annual-agreement-between-matthew-oscar/

S.G.

396

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pinterest blocks Getty's Picscout infringement bot?

« on: July 05, 2012, 01:02:05 PM »

Yes, Lucia's correct.
ImageExchange is used manually.
I guess that it's intended as a cheaper solution for individuals.
Picscout is only economical for very large-scale operations consisting of thousands of photos.
 
I doubt that people will get "ideas" from reading postings here about "ImageExchange".  People are already aware of it. 
But, I do keep my thoughts to myself as to how people will troll in the near future. lol

S.G.

397

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pinterest blocks Getty's Picscout infringement bot?

« on: July 04, 2012, 11:32:18 PM »

Most of these photogs are amateurs or semi-amateurs that want to get on the demand letter bandwagon.
They have this idea that they'll find infringements, write letters, and the checks for $1000 to $2000 dollars will arrive in the mailbox every couple days.
Most of these people will never properly register their work, and without a sales history of the image in question, it's probably a worthless picture.
Also, this is probably the worst possible to to get into trolling.  The enormous backlash began a long time ago.
Hell, even if they get a bullshit lawyer like McCormack, people will still tell them to piss off.  Get haircut and get a real job.

S.G.

398

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Pinterest blocks Getty's Picscout infringement bot?

« on: July 04, 2012, 06:18:01 PM »

Thanks...

Wonder if it's intentional, or just an error on certain platforms?

https://getsatisfaction.com/picscout/topics/image_exchanged_doesnt_work_on_pinterest

S.G.

399

Getty Images Letter Forum / Pinterest blocks Getty's Picscout infringement bot?

« on: July 04, 2012, 05:56:12 PM »

Just a small tidbit here.  But, it fits in nicely with the recent Picscout herp-a-derp.

"I remembered PicScout and the ImageExhange plug-in and thought that would be a great tool we could use to find copyright infringements.  So off I went and loaded my plug-in and just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, it did!  Those thieving little scammers at Pinterest have gone and fiddled with their code again, this time to avoid any infringements being picked up by PicScout, which is now owned by Getty."

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/pinterest-getty-picscout-interesting!/

Anyone else heard anything about this?

S.G.

400

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today.. What do you think of my response?

« on: July 04, 2012, 02:14:54 PM »

That's a good point, S.G. However, I think they can ask for attorney's fees as it stands now. If that's the case, the only improvement is that they only have the right to ask for those "in certain instances where an orphan works user acts in bad faith."

The "orphaned works" thing is a proposed legislation.
That is, it doesn't exist as yet, and nobody can ask for anything under its guise.
So, I guess that it's plain old trolling for now.

S.G.

401

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today.. What do you think of my response?

« on: July 04, 2012, 12:34:52 AM »

Interesting post and links!  Thanks for that.

In regard to the topic of "orphan works", the following statement should cause everyone concern:
"The Office agrees with copyright owners who have since suggested that an award of attorney's fees might make sense in certain instances where an orphan work user acts in bad faith."
This would enable copyright holders (whether real or fake) to come out of the woodwork and hold the prospect of an expensive legal battle over the head of a "user".
This is how copyright extortionists have been stealing money from people all along.  Paying the extortionists a ransom is a bit cheaper than fighting it out in court.
I guess that they'd use probably use the term "thief" instead of "user", though.  Additionally, I can't wait to hear how every alleged infringer has acted in "bad faith", without proof of such.

It's these small details that really keep the laws from progressing into a form that discourages baiting, greed and threats.

S.G.

402

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty on a screenshot

« on: July 03, 2012, 09:05:19 PM »

I agree with you 100 percent, Greg.

My reasoning is that one can give the alleged copyright holder a chance to prove the claim.
If they don't (and Getty never has to my recollection), then you have good cause to ignore them.

Of course, a statement of "we don't have to prove anything" is an outright lie, and it simply means that they're pulling a scam.

S.G.

403

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today.. What do you think of my response?

« on: July 03, 2012, 04:07:19 PM »

Yes, I'd like to see it.
It would probably come through some sort of class-action.

S.G.

404

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Letter from Getty on a screenshot

« on: July 03, 2012, 11:08:22 AM »

If the ad was actually hosted on your site, don't admit any wrongdoing.
But do ask for proof of their copyright ownership of the image.
If they refuse to provide any proof (which means that they don't own it), then you're basically off the hook on this.

S.G.

405

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today.. What do you think of my response?

« on: July 03, 2012, 11:04:15 AM »

My opinion is that Getty/Picscout would have to obey U.S. laws.
Otherwise, any information gained by Picscout would be useless in U.S. courts, regardless of what country the data was gleaned from.
Remember, if they're coming after you in the U.S., we are talking about U.S. laws, not Israeli laws.

The only action that would be illegal in regard to a bot like Picscout would be defeating passwords/ breaking into servers.
That would be "criminal".  I don't think that they're doing that.

Fighting Getty by using the argument that Picscout is operating illegally would be the most arduous, expensive legal battle you could imagine.
Because many millions of dollars in revenue would be at stake for Getty.  I doubt that anyone could pull it off.

But, like I said, it's been discussed before.  Getty's most easily defeated on legal standing.

S.G.