Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - scraggy

Pages: [1]
Getty Images Letter Forum /
« on: May 21, 2014, 08:45:20 AM » is advertizing on Facebook - "7 Days of FREE Downloads - Start Today!"
Click the ad, and you reach this page:

Create an Account and Start Downloading

 - and what happens after 7 days ????
Seems extremely suspicious to me!

Getty Images Letter Forum / A judgement from The Fourth Circuit
« on: July 19, 2013, 10:11:56 AM »

A worrying judgement that may have been useful to Getty in their case against Advernet ( in which neither side had actually signed the agreement in which the exclusive license was transferred ). Scroll down the page for the courts ruling on the registration of a collection of photographs!

The Fourth Circuit held today that the Copyright Act's requirement, at 17 U.S.C. 204(a), that transfers of copyright interests be "in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed," can be satisfied by electronic means. The court said that electronic transfers of copyright interests are permissible because of the federal E-Sign Act, which provides that an electronic contract may not be denied legal effect merely because it was created by electronic means, 15 U.S.C. 7001(a)(2).

Courtroom Sketch Artist Sues Getty Images For Copyright Violations

She argues that Getty Images has a pattern of acquiring rights to image archives without first making sure that the sellers are allowed to transfer the images. “Upon information and belief, Getty Images has engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to use due diligence to confirm its copyrights in these collections and has acted in continuing reckless disregard of content creators rights in these collections,” she alleges.

Yesterday, we had a very important court victory against the “Getty Images Master Delegate” here in Israel. A court in Tel Aviv wrote a very long, detailed and totally damning verdict against Marot Images.

This was the first time that any case involving Marot Images as the sole plaintiff went the full distance, and Marot Images suffered an extremely damaging verdict, and hopefully killer blow to their ability to continue with their “business model”.

Here are the basic details. A woman called Gili Mazor received the standard “ pay up or we will sue you” letter. She signed a compromise agreement, and agreed to pay around $1000 to Marot Image ( Getty Images representative here in Israel ).

She then found me online, and I explained to Gili why Marot could not possibly own the exclusive license needed here in Israel for Marot to have a legal right to sue her. Her case was even more clear cut because according to the website of Dorling Kindersley books (part of Penguin books, owned by Pearson Education), that also sold the same image, they (DK) owned the copyright! In other words, even Getty did not own the exclusive license, so how could Marot have received any such license from them? The photographer in this case no longer owned the copyright. I also wrote to DK books, and they informed me that they had not given an exclusive license to any other body, including Getty (that only had a non-exclusive license to sell the image). In this case, neither Marot nor Getty had a legal right to sue.

Gili then hired a lawyer (the same lawyer as in the class action suit – Shahar Zamler), and informed Marot that she was canceling the agreement as it was signed under false pretenses and as a result of deception (Marot did not own the right to sue her as they had claimed).

Marot sued Gili for $1000 for violating the compromise agreement. At the first court hearing, the judge warned Marot not to continue with their case, but they insisted. Four months later, they produced (out of the blue) a letter from the photographer in which he wrote that he “gave Marot Image an exclusive license”, but the license itself was not attached! The letter was not dated, nor did it state precisely when any such license had been granted to Marot. No agreement between the photographer and Getty was produced (despite Marot’s claim that they had such an agreement in their possession).

Marot believed firmly that they would win this case, because they felt that the judge would view the fact that Gili violated the agreement as the main issue. However, the judge wrote a 17-page verdict that totally tore their case to pieces. He threw out the letter, explained why Marot did not own an exclusive license, and accepted Gili’s claim that Marot had deceived her into signing the agreement in the first place.

Here is a link to a legal site that wrote a short summary of the case today. It’s a Google translation from Hebrew to English, but it’s the best I can do! Actually, it’s pretty clear!

Here’s the verdict itself, which none of you will be able to read!

You can look for the words GETTY in the verdict if you like – גיטי

The verdict is the first ever that involves Marot Image as the single plaintiff (they had sued together with Getty prior to 2007), and the main conclusion of the verdict is that Getty cannot transfer an exclusive license or right to sue to Marot Image ( under Israeli law ). This was a very important verdict that hopefully will strengthen the class action suit.

I still can’t believe that Marot was so eager to go all the way. They stood to lose so much more than they stood to gain!

Ian Cohen

Getty Images Letter Forum / New wording and interface on Getty's site
« on: September 29, 2012, 07:40:12 AM »
Getty has changed its wording and its interface when purchasing Rights Managed Images.

Let’s take this image as an example:

Click on “View Pricing”

One reaches “Price a rights-managed image” interface

For “Image Usage” I selected “Web and App”, followed by “Web – Corporate and promotional site”, which includes “Commercial or promotional use on a website,”

I clicked NEXT, and chose size (low resolution), placement (secondary page), start date (today), duration (up to one month) and industry (Baby/Childcare).

I clicked NEXT, and reached “TARGET MARKET”. This is new! At this stage, the site used to ask:  “ In which territories will the image appear?” I never understood this question. Today you can click on the question mark, and receive an explanation of what is meant by “target market”. The explanation is as follows:


Choose one or more geographical regions in which your image will appear. If you are licensing for the web, select a territory that best represents the location of your primary audience. For example, if you're licensing for a company website that does a majority of its business in the US, Canada and United Kingdom, select those territories. If a territory is not listed, please call for a price quote.

One might expect that the location of one’s “primary audience” would determine the price.

Leaving all the above parameters the same, I chose the US, Canada and United Kingdom (a combined population of over 400 million people) as my “primary audience”. The licensing price was $315.

Then I chose ONLY the South Atlantic Ocean island of Saint Helena (which has a population of around 4,000 persons) as my “primary audience– the price was an unchanged $315!

Now I chose “select all”. Guess what? A bargain at $315

If the price is the same for any and or all target markets, then why bother asking??

As I have already stated on this forum, one price for Internet licensing makes perfect sense. The Internet is one territory, and cannot be divided into territories for the purposes of image licensing.

How can anyone be sure who are ones “primary audience”? Some sites may be multi-lingual, and be aimed at a worldwide audience. Many English language sites have a worldwide audience. With Google translate, language is no longer a barrier to potential audiences. Ones “primary audience” can also change on a monthly basis.

So why does Getty ask the above question? The answer, in my opinion, is a sinister one. It lies in this sentence  -

If a territory is not listed, please call for a price quote.

PLEASE CALL is a link that opens up a page with a local Getty representative.

Around 30 countries are missing from Getty’s list – among them  - China, The Czech Republic, Israel, Argentina, Greece, Russia, Turkey, Brazil and others.

Why are these countries missing from the list?

If one added these countries, would the pricing be any different? The above evidence would suggest not.

If an American purchases an image license from Getty for his Russian language website, is his license valid in Russia (a country missing from the list)? (No need to reply to this question – clearly no one will actually sue under these circumstances).

If an American has a web site in several languages, does his license from Getty cover the whole Internet?  Or does he need to purchase multiple licenses from multiple Getty representatives around the world? These are rhetorical questions!

If you are in one of these missing countries, and you click for a price quote, you reach the offices of a local Getty representative (not necessarily a Getty office) . For example, in Israel, you reach Marot Image. In the Czech Republic you reach ISIFA  and in Russia you reach Fotobank Biblioteka. There is a drop down list of countries.  Marot Images claims that they own the exclusive license because Israel is missing from the list, and only they can sell licenses for Israeli territory.

If they were right, then an American who purchases a license from Getty, would be violating Marot’s exclusive license if the primary audience were in Israel.

If as an Israeli, I have a web site whose primary audience is foreign tourists, then I can purchase the image directly from Getty! (This didn’t stop Marot from suing me!)

Getty’s question is absurd! Getty’s removal of 30 or so countries from the list of “primary audiences” is not only absurd, but it is also sinister. If the pricing is the same for an island of 4,000 people or for a continent of 400 million people, what possible explanation can Getty have? If Getty owns the “worldwide exclusive rights”, as is written in it agreements with photographers, why bother trying to create the illusion of territorial rights?

Sorry for the long post!

As those of you who have read my story know, I have received copies of around 100 settlement demand letters sent here in Israel by Marot Images ( Getty’s representative here ) .

Approximately, 5% of the images involved the "Dorling Kindersley" or "National Geographic" collections.

Getty’s website gives full copyright credit to these two collections (see links below) , but the two collections continue to sell the same rights managed licenses themselves.

This would seem to suggest that Getty only owns a NON EXCLUSIVE license. Marot Images is therefore sending settlement demand letters for images to which even Getty does not own the exclusive license (and neither therefore right to sue).

I wonder if the situation is similar in the USA.

How many people in the USA have paid Getty a settlement for images from these two collections? Oscar may have a statistical sample of letters on which to base an estimate? If it is a statistically significant number, is this a possible class action suit? Are there other collections similar in nature to these two?

Here in Israel, a letter recipient signed an agreement to pay Marot Image around $1000 for using this image - Title:  Jewish Honey Cake with some slices removed

Credit is given to "Dorling Kindersley"  (DK books).

But the same image is still sold by DK books (at a much lower cost – which is also interesting!) at this link:

If these two companies both sell the same image rights, then neither has an exclusive license.

I actually wrote to DK books about the image, and received this reply

DK Images owns the image and copyright but the image is distributed as well as through us, via Getty Images.
Either DK Images or Getty can sell this image. Exclusive and non-exclusive licenses are available for this image.
DK Images does not currently have an exclusive license with any third party on this image.
Hope this is clear
Paul Turner.


Dorling Kindersley is part of the Penguin Group.

The Penguin group belongs to Pearson plc  and  is considered the largest education company and the largest book publisher in the world.

By the way, Marot Image sued the woman above for violating their copyright. I attended the first court hearing. The judge got it all right! The defense lawyer didn’t have to say a word! The judge knew that there was no way for Marot Images to own the exclusive license! The case will continue on October 10.

Regarding National Geographic, I was personally sued by Marot Image in a Tel Aviv court for using this image:

But the exact same image is still sold by National Geographic - Picture Id:976105

In my case, I spoke to the photographer, who insisted that he had never given an exclusive license to anyone!

The case against me was dropped.

If you use this link -, you can price the image on NG - Picture Id:976105

My main question: Is Getty also sending demand letters in the USA for the two collections mentioned above? If so, wouldn’t this be outright fraud?

Class action suit filed against “Getty Images Master Delegate” in Israel.

I have important news for ELI members. Today, I personally filed a 12 million dollar class action lawsuit in an Israeli court against “Marot Image”, Getty Image’s representative here in Israel, a “ Getty Images Master Delegate”. The court docket is number 23022-06-12.

Some of you may remember me from a while back here on ELI. My name is Ian Cohen, and I live in Israel. I was sued by Getty’s representative in Israel (Marot Image) in September 2011. They withdraw the case when I proved that they had no legal standing. I wrote my story on the Internet, and was contacted by around 100 other victims in the ensuing months. I collected all the evidence, and directly helped around 75 people in their struggle against Marot. I found a young outraged socially conscious lawyer ( Shahar Zamler ) to help these people for symbolic sums, thus giving people an economic alternative to simply paying up. There are several ongoing court cases, but we reached the conclusion that we had enough evidence to file a class action lawsuit against Marot for the illegal extortion of millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims who believed Marot’s central claim that they owned the right to sue for copyright infringement, when in fact, under Israeli law, they do not own such a right at all.

The payments were extracted under false pretenses, Whilst Getty has around a dozen official Getty Offices (that are listed on their licensing contracts), Marot Image is no such office. They are a completely separate entity listed as a company in Israel. As such, whilst they may suffer from delusions of grandeur, they are not in fact Getty Images, and they do have Getty’s rights. They are Getty’s sales representatives in Israel at best and no more than that. They probably do not own the exclusive license to even a single image in Getty’s image collection, and Getty cannot transfer the right to sue as a stand-alone right. Quite simply, with the explicit backing of Getty Images, Marot Images has been carrying out an extensive economic fraud in Israel for at least the last 4 years.

We claim in our lawsuit that Marot Image has fraudulently presented itself as the owner of the right to sue in cases of copyright infringement, and has illegally extorted vast sums of money from thousands of small businesses in Israel. Almost all these "businesses" were one man operations at best, operating out of home. Almost all were vulnerable targets. For example, there was a non proportionate number working in alternative medicine!

We have dedicated an entire section to Getty Images direct knowledge, involvement, and support (see below), and we have asked the court to add Getty Images as a defendant at a later stage (as allowed by the Israel class action law – clause 18B, 2010 ordinances). Whilst Getty may own an exclusive license, and therefore the right to sue here in Israel, they chose to run their “extortion scheme” by using a local company, whom they supported in every way possible. We claim that the proxy ( Marot Image ) had no right to sue , but deceived letter recipients into believing that they faced legal action if they did not pay up, and indeed filed dozens of lawsuits in Israeli courts.

The Israeli copyright act of 2007 is very similar to the American law. Here is a link to an unofficial English translation of the act -

Clause 54 a states who may file a claim for copyright infringement:

54(a) A claim for the infringement of copyright may be
commenced by the owner of the copyright, and if an exclusive
license has been granted in respect of it as defined in section 37(d) –
such claim may also be commenced by the exclusive licensee.

In other words, only the owner of the copyright (the photographer himself with respect to most Getty Images) or the owner of the exclusive license (which, in theory would be Getty Images, although the Advernet verdict would certainly mean that this could not be taken for granted) could claim to own the right to sue, and indeed go ahead and sue.

Despite the above, Getty’s Israeli representative MAROT IMAGE (not an official Getty branch, but a totally independent local company) has claimed in thousands of “demand letters”, and in actual lawsuits, that it owns the right to sue. People believed this claim, and paid up to avoid the impending lawsuit and expected financial losses and high emotional price. Typically, Marot Images sold a retroactive license for the image used. They used all the scare tactics available to them, including intimidating phone calls, e-mails, draft lawsuits (with Getty as a plaintiff, although Getty was not added to the real lawsuits) and other forms of deception and pressure.

In many cases (including my own), Marot Images claimed to own the outright copyright! This was clearly absurd as even in Getty’s own contributor agreement, the photographer retains his copyright.

In other cases, Marot Images claimed ownership of the “exclusive license”.

Clause 37 of the law, states that the copyright holder can grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license, and that the transfer of an exclusive license has to be in writing.

37(a) Copyright may be assigned by contract or by operation of
law and the owner of a copyright may grant an exclusive license or
non-exclusive license with respect to the copyright.
(b) Assignment of the copyright or the grant of a license, as
stated in sub-section (a), may refer to the copyright in whole or in
part, and it can be limited to a certain territory, period of time, or to
specific acts with respect to the work.
(c) A contract for the assignment of copyright or the grant of an
exclusive license therein shall require a written document.
(d) In this section, "exclusive license" – means a license granting
its holder the exclusive right to do any acts as set forth in Section 11
specified by the license, and restricts the owner of the copyright
from doing those acts or from permitting others to perform those

In other words, only a direct agreement in which the photographer grants Marot Images an exclusive license would prove that Marot had the right to sue. No such document has ever been produced, but various other documents (provided by Getty Images) and other actions (initiated by Getty Images) have been used to create the false impression that Marot does indeed own an exclusive license. Marot typically claimed that Getty Images transferred its own exclusive license and/or the right to sue to Marot Images.

Marot also claims that they have received the right to sue (alone) from Getty Images.  They use a document signed by a Marek Wystepek, previously manager of Getty Ireland, and now “Director, Getty Images International” based in the Cayman Islands, to prove to Israelis that they have received this right. We claim that the stand-alone right to sue is not transferable under the new Israeli copyright law (2007). The law backs us up, as do important verdicts in the USA.

In 2011 alone, no less than seven law firms representing Marot Image sent hundreds, if not thousands of settlement demand letters threatening immediate legal action unless amounts of around $3000 were paid to Marot. The letters were worded in such a way that many recipients believed that they had received the letter directly from Getty Images. The letters are strikingly similar to those received in the USA, and include a copy of the infringement (courtesy of Picscout I guess), a mention of the maximum statutory damages that may be awarded by a court (around $12,500), and a tight deadline to pay up! We estimate that many people paid a compromise amount of around $1,300 per image. Those who chose not to pay were harassed by additional letters, draft lawsuits, phone calls, and ultimately real lawsuits were filed. We estimate that people paid up at various stages of the fraud. For economic reasons alone ( not to mention psychological reasons ), it always made more sense to pay Marot than to fight them in court!

Ultimately, people paid Marot because they faced an expensive legal threat, and untold mental anguish.

We claim that Marot never owned the right to sue under any circumstances, and their actions and claims constituted a sophisticated economic and legal fraud that caused unsuspecting small business and individuals, ignorant in the law, and under financial and emotional pressures, to part with millions of dollars.

What was Getty’s role in the fraud?

1.   Getty provided the details of the infringement to Marot Images.

2.   Getty provided Marot with the “ Getty Images contributor agreement” for each photographer.

3.   Getty provided the “Marek Wystepek” letter, which appointed Marot as their sole representative in Israel, and supposedly gave Marot the right to sue (and other far reaching powers concerning imprisonment, and the winding up of corporations following bankruptcy !)  , but only “in its own name”. According to clause 54B of the copyright law, all parties with the right to sue would in any case have to join an action to sue, so Getty’s agreement in fact contradicts the Israeli law. Furthermore, the law in Israel does not allow the stand alone transfer of the right to sue (similar to the Righthaven, and Sony v Silvers judgments in the USA).

54(b) A claimant filing a claim as stated in sub-section (a), shall join as a party any person entitled to commence a claim according to the provisions of that sub-section, however the court may, at the claimant's request, exempt from the aforesaid duty to join a party.

4.   Marot insinuated that the Marek Wystepek letter constituted the transfer of the exclusive license from Getty to Marot. The law (clause 37A) contradicts this claim (as only the copyright holder can transfer an exclusive license), and closer inspection of the document shows that Getty certainly did not transfer any exclusive license rights to Marot. Marot is at best an “exclusive representative” in Israel, and certainly not the owner of the “exclusive license”!

5.   A second letter with similar content was provided by a Jonathan Lockwood, (Vice president Corporate Counsel, Getty Images).

6.   The Getty legal team in London  (Irene Paricaud from Corporate Counsel, Getty Images) also wrote e-mails to letter recipients in Israel in order to persuade them to pay up!

7.   Getty Images adds a very peculiar question to its web site when purchasing a “rights managed” image for use on the Internet (for Web corporate and promotional sites). It asks, “ In which territories will the image appear? ” Clearly, any image displayed on the Internet will appear in Cyberspace, on the Internet, and therefore, be seen in all territories simultaneously. Yet, Israel (along with a large number of other very significant countries, such as China, Russia, Greece, South Africa, the Czech Republic, etc) is missing from the list. The site then says – “Missing territory? Please call for a quotation”, and clicking on the link leads to “Image Bank Israel”/ Marot Image ( or the local representative in your country ) In this way, anyone whose image is to  be displayed in Israel (aren’t all Internet images?) is forced to call Marot Image in Israel to pay for their Internet license.

8.   The lawyers representing Marot Images in Israel use the fact that Israel is missing from this list of countries in which an Internet image may appear, to claim that Getty has indeed given Marot an exclusive license that covers the territory of Israel. They claim that Israelis can only buy licenses (for display on the Internet in Israel!)  directly from Marot, and not from Getty.

9.   This is, of course, totally absurd. It would mean, for example, that all image licenses bought from Getty would in fact be violating the copyright of Marot Images, and also that of Getty representatives in all the missing countries. It would also mean that the Internet was divided into territories, in which images may or not appear. In theory, a site owner would have to buy dozens of licenses if he wanted his image to appear everywhere on the net!

10.   Marek Wystepek gave direct instructions to Marot Image who to sue, and when to withdraw cases. (The chairman of Marot Images was careless enough to forward some of the e-mails he received from Marek!)

11.   We offer evidence that in several cases (most particularly concerning the Dorling Kindersly and National Geographic collections, that even Getty Images itself did not have an exclusive license, but it still allowed Marot Images to initiate actual court proceedings.

12.   Getty contributed to the spread of its images by easily allowing the free download of images without a watermark from its website.

Other various economic and  psychological elements contributed to the deception. Marot Image pretended to be Getty. They used the Getty logo as a signature on their e-mails, their phone recordings thanked people for calling Getty Images and they used the domain

The 7 law offices that represented Marot applied constant pressure on the letter recipients, repeating absurd threats such as claiming that the letter recipient will have to pay the full travel costs of the photographer’s visit to Israel! Draft lawsuits were sent to those that did not immediately pay up. The draft sometimes included Getty as a plaintiff, even though Getty had only given Marot permission to sue “in its own name” (Marot). Getty has not been a plaintiff in the real lawsuits that have been filed since the new copyright law came into being in 2007 .The lawyers threatened immediate legal action unless the victim paid up. Eventually, most caved in under the pressure, and were forced to purchase a retroactive license for the image used.

Different to Getty’s reported actions in the USA, Marot Image has sued with amazing frequency! All the more stunning, as they did not own the right to sue! The economic model worked in most cases. Quite simply, it made no economic sense to fight them in court when the cost of defending oneself was around 5 times the cost of settling. Even if one wins in court, judges never award real costs. Fighting them was a no win situation.

Whilst Marot is the local company that directly violated the law, they could not have accomplished such a feat without Getty as an active accomplice. For now, for practical and economic reasons, we did not add Getty as a defendant. Their role is however central to the fraud, and they can easily be added as a defendant at a later date, as can the many lawyers that represented Marot Image. In my humble opinion, they simply had to know what was going on!

We want to disseminate this information across the web. It way well be that Getty is acting in a similar way in other countries.

I apologize for having written such a long post. I have tried to summarize a 30-page lawsuit!

My name is Ian Cohen. My e-mail is I give permission to any news organizations to publish this story. Please send me a link if you choose to write a story. I will be glad to speak to any reporters from around the globe. Just send me e-mail. I am available on Skype.

Thanks to ELI for supporting me, even when you didn’t know I was here! I follow every post! I like to think of myself as the Israeli Matthew Chan!

I sincerely hope there will be repercussions the world over. Getty overstepped the line here, by running a scam by remote control, but their proxy did not operate according to the law. They simply did not have the right to sue!

I will keep ELI updated.

Ian Cohen

Today, I received an example of a stockfood settlement letter here in Israel. A local Israeli lawyer claims to represent, or “StockFood GmbH”. (The same lawyer represented Marot/GettyImages in 2008!)

 “StockFood GmbH” is a German company whose head office is in Munich.

I would guess that if this company has indeed received exclusive licenses from various photographers, then the license would have been transferred to the company’s head office.

However, in the stockfood settlement demand received in the USA:

it says “StockFood America is the exclusive licensor for the copyright holder”.

Who is stockfood America? If the German company owns the exclusive license, then isn’t the American branch/subsidiary/franchise/ (whatever they are). …only in receipt of the right to sue alone? 

Stockfood has branches/ representatives in many countries, including the USA. In Israel, they have an agent/affiliate ( )  that also sells Masterfile images. On this site, the catalog numbers are the same as on the Masterfile and sites. 

Do all the national branches/ representatives own exclusive licenses. or does ONLY the German head office own the exclusive license? If the latter is true, then the local offices have no right to sue. It’s Righthaven all over again.

Here in Israel, it’s the main German office that is threatening. Of course, they will have to be the main plaintiff, prove the transfer of the exclusive license, and add the copyright holder to the lawsuit.

Does anyone have any extra information about this company based in Germany, but sending out settlement letters in other countries?

And now, a few words in Hebrew if I may !

חברה בשם סטוקפוד ,סטוק פוד - stockfood (
החלה לשלוח מכתבי אזהרה לאנשים כתוצאה של הפרת זכויות יוצרים - לכאורה
אני מציע לכם לקרוא פורומים אלו או לשלוח לי דואר אלקטרוני כדי להבין את משמעות האיומים
תודה ( thanks)

I live in Israel ( hence the Hebrew above ), and I have been sued (not just threatened, but actually sued), for $27,000 for having one image on a website.

But it is not Getty that has sued me, but a local company (MAROT IMAGE) that claims to be Getty’s exclusive representative in Israel. אם מישהו רוצה לשאול שאלות, הם יכולים לכתוב לי ( If anyone has any questions, they can write to me)

Marot Image has included in the lawsuit a letter signed by a Marek Wystepek of Getty Images that supposedly gives Marot the right to “take any legal actions” IN THEIR OWN NAME!

I wonder if the recent Righthaven judgment that the "right to sue," is not a transferable right under copyright law” would apply to Getty’s supposed transfer of such a right to an Israeli company.

In my case, the single image in question is registered to the photographer himself in the United States copyright library, yet Marot Image claims that the “ copyright and all other rights” belong to them, which is clearly not the case!

If the transfer of the "right to sue" alone is illegal under American law, then maybe Marot has no rights at all.

Same issue would perhaps apply to any country in which Getty has a “local franchise”!

Can anyone add any light to the above?

Pages: [1]
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.