Show Posts
1
Getty Images Letter Forum / update from Prague
« on: April 08, 2010, 03:54:30 PM »
Here is an update from Prague and then a question for Mr Michelen.
The debt collection company is called Logicall, and they act on behalf of Isifa (note, not Getty Images) Isifa "is selected partner/master delegate for getty images. " . I wrote the MD of the debt collection company that they should cease their ‘automated’ process of harassment, and that if I hear from them again I hold the CEO of Isifa accountable for this.
A week or so ago I got another letter from them. It says that the process is not automated, they pursue a specific case against me, and that they are in contact with Isifa and “of course” with Getty Images. They then adopt a notably less belligerent tone than in the extortion letter. They say that there is an outstanding issue and that if I would contact them directly they would expect that there can be a resolution of the case. That’s a rough translation, but there is no figure mentioned now, nor any deadline for payment.
However I was pondering the legality of their situation, and wanted to run this past Mr Michelen, while of course acknowledging that he cannot comment authoritatively on Czech law. But I would suppose that there are some legal principles here that would apply anywhere in the civilised world. Firstly: The debt collecting company’ s extortion letter states that it is acting on behalf of Isifa (not Getty Images) to collect a debt. So Isifa would have to be the company that goes to the Czech court. Now Isifa’s relationship with Getty seems to be recent, at earliest 2007. Supposing the entity they pursue has bought the image much further back, say 2003. It could not possibly have had any contractual obligation to Isifa, let alone know how much to pay Isifa. Can you imagine then that Isifa can argue in court that it should be paid 2 times the alleged fee for usage of the image, when at the time of purchase, Isifa simply were not involved in the business?
Would you advise me to go back to the debt collecting company and ask them when Isifa became the legal entity responsible for collecting the image right fee, when they suppose the transaction should have taken place, and how I would have established what the fee should have been? Or would you advise me to just repeat to them that I am satisfied i don’t owe them a koruna, and to leave me alone. Or would you advise me to just ignore them?
The debt collection company is called Logicall, and they act on behalf of Isifa (note, not Getty Images) Isifa "is selected partner/master delegate for getty images. " . I wrote the MD of the debt collection company that they should cease their ‘automated’ process of harassment, and that if I hear from them again I hold the CEO of Isifa accountable for this.
A week or so ago I got another letter from them. It says that the process is not automated, they pursue a specific case against me, and that they are in contact with Isifa and “of course” with Getty Images. They then adopt a notably less belligerent tone than in the extortion letter. They say that there is an outstanding issue and that if I would contact them directly they would expect that there can be a resolution of the case. That’s a rough translation, but there is no figure mentioned now, nor any deadline for payment.
However I was pondering the legality of their situation, and wanted to run this past Mr Michelen, while of course acknowledging that he cannot comment authoritatively on Czech law. But I would suppose that there are some legal principles here that would apply anywhere in the civilised world. Firstly: The debt collecting company’ s extortion letter states that it is acting on behalf of Isifa (not Getty Images) to collect a debt. So Isifa would have to be the company that goes to the Czech court. Now Isifa’s relationship with Getty seems to be recent, at earliest 2007. Supposing the entity they pursue has bought the image much further back, say 2003. It could not possibly have had any contractual obligation to Isifa, let alone know how much to pay Isifa. Can you imagine then that Isifa can argue in court that it should be paid 2 times the alleged fee for usage of the image, when at the time of purchase, Isifa simply were not involved in the business?
Would you advise me to go back to the debt collecting company and ask them when Isifa became the legal entity responsible for collecting the image right fee, when they suppose the transaction should have taken place, and how I would have established what the fee should have been? Or would you advise me to just repeat to them that I am satisfied i don’t owe them a koruna, and to leave me alone. Or would you advise me to just ignore them?