Messages

1

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Letter Advice

« on: June 20, 2017, 01:56:41 PM »

IGNORE once you engage they have you on the hook and do not give up as we know from painful experience. It is stressful having to deal with this sort of thing but it looks like they send thousands of these demands every week so ignoring is the right way unless you get picked on and end up with the solicitors.

All I would say is:

Getty employees do not know how to write a proper letter/email or address it in the correct or most respectful manner. Slight comical to be greeted with a Hiya and you first name then they threaten to sue the pants of you!!! Spent months responding to a their letters highlighting their typos, poor grammar and inability to string a sentence together. Different employee every time but they were real people as was checking them on LinkedIn to ensure they bona fide.

Their debt collectors are clowns and try to extort even more money out of you to include their fees but it is all hot air.

If escalated to their solicitors you end up with hundreds of pages of legal documents (no kidding). We could not risk the action even though all advice seemed to suggest we would not get to court. Guess they know this is the course of action most small businesses will take hence we settled with the solicitors albeit for a lot less than Getty asked for in the first place Just hope their bill to Getty was a hefty one.


Guess we were one of the unlucky ones in ending up with solicitors but cannot see anyone who has had the solicitors involved coming back here and claiming a success hence why we settled.

Doesn't help much I know but good luck.

2

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: July 13, 2016, 12:22:45 PM »

Withdraw crook would not want to offend the tossers.

3

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: July 05, 2016, 04:25:49 PM »

This has got interesting since I last looked. we settled because we did not have the time or resource to take on the big bully boy. Given Getty want £420 (or £600 or £520 or 25 % of the last offer they made) what are you photographers getting out of this? Sounds like the only people getting rich are the Getty organisation. I wish ill on every last one of them.

My issue was never about paying but the manner in which we were dealt with by everyone associated i.e Getty, Debt collectors and their solicitors. Scandalous is the only word.

I fully support copyright but not those clowns.

I look forward to the day when someone with time and money takes them down and reveals them as the crooks they are.

4

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: May 05, 2016, 07:03:09 PM »

Thank you for your support and comments but just not worth it.  If you could see the amount of effort put in by the solicitors for less than £500 on behalf of Getty then would just hope the solicitors are charging them by the page our count on 2 letters rand to 33 pages!

Along the way have managed to get up the noses of a couple of fancy titled execs at Getty UK, debt collectors and solicitors so had some fun and almost got value for money!!!






 
 

5

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: April 28, 2016, 07:56:02 AM »

It is a small claims and is Getty and the photographer jointly both citing USA addresses.

Decided to defend on the basis of the unreasonableness of the demand, the threatening and harassing nature of the past few months from all the various parties associated with this and ask the court to decide what we should pay on the basis we made an offer to meet half way which was rejected.

6

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: April 28, 2016, 04:34:14 AM »

Chancery Lane London
If we want to settle we need to pay in person to the address on the claim form. Seattle!

7

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: April 27, 2016, 12:50:11 PM »

And duly received the claim form for the small claims court. Give them their due they are efficient. Getty using their Seattle address so big American company bullying little English company into submission.

8

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty/Atradius/Solicitors

« on: April 22, 2016, 06:02:51 AM »

We made a counter offer which was rejected and letter states as we cannot agree damages have been advised that client is issuing and serving proceedings. They also state we can expect a court to focus on the actual amount Getty should have received if we had acquired the requisite licence.

Letter is not directed to a single individual but the directors and no named solicitor just pp on behalf of company.

What do you think?

9

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty/Atradius/Solicitors

« on: April 20, 2016, 08:12:47 AM »

Our experience has been:

Original letters from Getty in December followed up by another from a real person with a very fancy title!

Atradius letters (times 2) in January and February with several telephone calls.

Solicitors letter in April.

This seems to be quite quick for them to escalate.

Has anyone else had this experience?

The common feature with all three has been their inability to write a letter without spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and misspelling names. In my view it is also inappropriate to be calling you by your first name then unleashing a tirade of threats in the content that follows. Whatever happened to Dear Mr or Mrs (surname). They also have in common not knowing which of yours sincerely or your faithfully to sign of at the end. Get educated!

I know I am being pedantic and petty but do feel when you are being threatened at least speak properly or write a letter in the correct manner. Particularly unforgivable from a solicitor I feel.

On a separate note with Getty they keep sending junk emails which we have tried to unsubscribe from on numerous occasions but they keep on coming. Given how they have been with us looking to cause maximum havoc back with them. Any ideas? 

10

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: April 19, 2016, 05:39:45 AM »

What a time for scanner to pack up!!!

Have quoted the final bits of the letter after the first 2 pages quoting case law. The ed missing from review is their typo not mine! The original letter from Getty was after £600 not £420. Debt collecting clowns also wanted £600.

The image was taken down as soon as we realised the mistake had been made and was up for less than a week. All of this explained to Getty but despite their insistence they have tried to settle this amicably the language used in all correspondence has been one of threats and intimidation in my opinion.

I quote from the letter verbatim apart from including their bank details helpfully inserted for quick payment.

"The costs incurred by our client at this stage are irrelevant and will be a matter for the court at the Case Management Centre

Without prejudice to its rights Getty Images has review the case and will now settle this matter on the following terms at this pre action stage

a)payment of £420 and
b)payment of £100 legal costs

Accordingly as you have been on notice since Getty Images first letter of 3 December 2015 the total amount of £520 should be remitted within 7 days to the following account


You must now respond to us within 7 days i.e by 22nd April 2016. If you make the above payment of £520 and cease to use the image then our clients will treat this matter as closed. If you do not respond to us take this letter as notice we are instructed to issue and serve proceedings on you.

If proceedings are served against you and our clients are successful in their claim please be aware we will seek damages with added interest and you may also potentially be liable to pay our clients legal costs of the entire proceedings. We may also claim additional damages under Article 13(1)(a) of the directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2004/48/EC and/or section 97(2) of the CPDA

11

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: April 17, 2016, 11:26:04 AM »

Geezer123

Thank you for this response it is really appreciated. Still seem to have the good folk of Atradius after us as well so maybe have some fun with both of them. The solicitors want £420 plus£100 legal costs. Atradius want £600.

12

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Simon Muirhead and Burton demand on behalf of Getty

« on: April 16, 2016, 04:31:35 AM »

So it seems we have been escalated to these good people from the debt collectors. The letter runs to several pages quoting case law and ends up with asking us for £420 plus £100 legal fees. Given the original demand was for £600 I suppose this is a result!

Anyone else been chased and how serious should I take it. Looks pretty threatening. Usual methods 7 days to pay otherwise proceedings may be taken.

The letter is signed off by a trainee solicitor who is a real person as she is profiled on their website.

Case law quoted

Alec Saville v Redrup Publications

John Walmsley v education Ltd

Henderson v all around the world recordings

We cannot argue we did not use the image as we did but it was up for less than a week when we realised the mistake but these cases seem horror stories designed to scare the xxxx out of you.

Any views?

the letter, by the way, runs to 21 pages

13

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Atradius/Getty

« on: March 10, 2016, 02:57:09 PM »

Dear All
If Getty knew how to act properly I would have happily settled as the clown/idiot/prat (delete as appropriate) who did our new website used an image he thought was free. It was up for a couple of days before we got the unbelievably poorly written and aggressive letter from Getty for £600. I responded saying if their offer of compensation was more reasonable given similar images were £20 we would settle.
I took issue with the over familiarity of subsequent correspondence which used first name terms then launched into pages of what would happen if we did not pay the money. No negotiation just threats.
I would have settled but took exception to their incredibly crass way of doing business which is offensive and baited them to take me to court.

I then receive a letter from Atradius who have even less idea of how to negotiate.

below is the initial exchange yet to hear any further as did not respond to their last email but am ready and waiting!!!

Their response to my email.

Should you have doubts as to the enforceability of our clients claim you should review the website of Simons Muirhead and Burton who confirm that they have successfully won 2 cases for Getty Images in the last 24 months. You can also review the case Getty Images V JA Coles.

The internet is not a free source of imagery. All images are protected by copyright from the moment of creation and do not need to be marked in anyway. It is your duty to make yourself fully aware of all laws and regulations before carrying out any business activity.

Whilst removal of an unauthorised image is necessary, it does not excuse the act of infringement and does not excuse you from the sum claimed by our client.

We strongly recommend you speak to an intellectual property solicitor.

The internet is not a free source of imagery. Very simply, if you do not have permission from the photographer or their representative that you can use an image you should not use it. If you cannot identify who the owner or their representatives are, you should not use it.

Regards,

Greg Bonser
Atradius Collections
3 Harbour Drive
Cardiff CF10 4WZ
United Kingdom
Tel. + 44  (0)  29 2082 4077
Fax.   + 44  (0) 29 2082 4508
Email: [email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: < ENQUIRIES@
To: < [email protected] >
Sent: < Sunday, February 28, 2016 02:56 PM >
Subject: < Fwd: Atradius Collections Nb. 1602260452 / GETTY IMAGES INTERNATIONAL >

My response to their threatening email

Dear to whomever as you do not have the good grace to put a name to your threatening letter

You are not going to intimidate us into paying money that we dispute that we owe.

We are not scared by threats of being taken to court and will look forward to defending our position vigourously should this happen

So 2 cases in 24 months!!! I am shaking in my boots.

Anyone got any views or similar experiences to share?

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Try ringing the number to talk to Greg Bonser you will have hours of fun being put through to a different person each time claiming to be him.