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.

Messages - Lettered

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
were you reselling the images (or a derivative of the images) or were you just using them to decorate a website?
 Were they "run of the mill" stock photography or something more "special" from a well known artist?
do you know if they were registered before the alleged infringement began?

I was surprised at how unprepared the appellee team looked.  A few times there, they appeared to me to actually be anxious for their time to expire.

Admittedly they do have an un-compelling set of facts to work with, but I really thought they'd come out stronger than they seemed to in the video.

Anyway kudos to Oscar, Matt, et. al. who were obviously well prepared and did a spectacular job in my humble opinion.

This irritates me.  I'd be even more irritated if I lived in Nashville and paid taxes there.

Not sure I understood some of the points being made, but here is an article about Matt's appeal:
apologies if its already been posted here.

very cool. 

The way this is shaping up I wonder if McCormack is even going to waste money on a plane ticket to Georgia . . .

Good read.  I've been following the case as much as possible through the documents posted online.  Unless I am mistaken the following statement from the ARS Technica article is inaccurate:

After initially refusing to hear the case, the state's highest court reversed course in an order last week.

My understanding was that the state's highest court (state supreme court) has never refused to hear this case . . . it was the court of appeals that initially refused to send it up to the state supreme court .


Well played!  And congratulations.

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 9th Circuit Decision
« on: March 25, 2014, 01:23:28 PM »
I was particularly annoyed that the copyright office showed up with an amicus brief.  Wish they would have used all that time and resources to rewrite their registration policy to something fair.

Our tax dollars at work against us?

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 9th Circuit Decision
« on: March 24, 2014, 09:58:13 AM »
This court seems to me to be overly concerned with the "intent" aspect of copyright law as it applies to PHOTOGRAPHER commercial protections.  What they have missed, IMO, is the "intent" as it applies to CONSUMER protections.

We, as consumers, should have a registration database to consult to see if works are registered.  Isn't that the underlying purpose . . . to put us as consumers on notice that work(s) are registered?  As a minimum, we should be able to easily identify registered works using a photographer's name.  And, although probably an unrealistic expectation, image recognition software would be better applied to database searches available to consumers rather than after the fact to extort them.

Letting them plead "its in the collection" even though there's no way on earth an "offender" could have known is just unacceptable IMO, no matter how long they've "been doing it that way".

Thanks Eric.  You make some valid points.

Speaking for my own case, having Oscar respond worked great for me.  No one in my company ever heard from them again. I think I probably could have just put up with the harassment, ignored it, and had the same outcome.  That said, I don't regret that I had Oscar write a response.  More importantly, I do not feel like having taken this route encouraged Getty to try to engage in lengthy negotiations.  In fact, I'm pretty sure it discouraged it.

I hope you weren't taking my responses as an "attack".  I can appreciate the fact that you don't want to debate the issue, but I think if you are going to put something like this up on a public forum, you should expect some discussion that includes questioning and varied opinions.

I appreciate your posting the summary of your communication with the lawyer/judge.  I think there is valuable information.

As far as "He said that responding would be interpreted by the court as you responded because thought you should respond." . . . isn't this kind of obvious?  If you responded, of course it was because you thought you should respond.  I don't see it being anything akin or near an "admission of guilt".

Thanks for the clarification.  Still sounds ambiguous to me.  Maybe its just me.  One other comment that I would make is that I got Oscar to write the letter for me and I never heard from them again.  The statute of limitations has long passed in my case.  So this part of your lawyer's assessment never happened in my case:

 " because it would only encourage Getty to engage in an long, drawn out negotiation. "

or at least, if they were "encouraged" they never actually engaged in any long drawn out negotiation in my case.

However, I think it is good to hear varying opinions and assessments.
Thanks again.


To ignore the Getty/McCormack letters was not the answer that I was expecting from an attorney.  I was expecting the exact opposite.  However, this attorney had no vested interest in my case.  He knew that he would not be representing us, and stood to make no money off of us.  If the opposite were true, meaning that he would be representing us, them perhaps his advice would be for him to engage in negotiations with Getty.  I sometimes wonder about the thought processes that attorneys may go through.  Perhaps it goes something like this:

“My client has admitted he copied an image without permission.  There is no chance that Getty will sue over this.  If I write letters for him to Getty, it will take up a lot of my time, and that process will cost my client more money than if he settles with Getty.  I will just advise my client to settle out of court.”

My statement that is interpreted as ambiguous, was as close an exact quote from the retired judge and trial attorney as I can remember.  He told me that the judge won’t care if I tried to respond to Getty.  He explained that any response would be interpreted by the judge as not in our favor, and that the best response to this kind of letter scheme is no response.  I asked him if a letter response back to Getty was like an admission of guilt.  He said that if we responded, it would be interpreted that we did so because we believed that we had a duty to respond.  Actually, we have no duty to respond.  It would be like if we received a request to transfer money to Nigeria, and we did not respond.  If we were ever asked, “Why didn’t you respond to the the Nigerian money laundering scheme?”  Our answer would be that we believed that we didn’t have to.

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Letter
« on: March 12, 2014, 06:55:45 PM »
Here's one of the threads I was thinking of:

Regarding the assets, I don't think there's much to lose. My understanding is they are working toward distributing all funds to other organizations over the next year or so. I don't even know what it takes to "dissolve" the organization. I'm not on the board... just the "lowly volunteer" who had the bad fortune of using that website template with the image in question.

Thanks Eric.  Good info. There are ambiguous statements in your post (unintentional I am sure):

"The judge will not care if you ignored Getty or responded."

". . . the court will interpret that your act of a response was because you believed that you were obligated to respond.  This is akin to an admission of guilt, or at the very least, an admission of responsibility."

I think this is an important issue that would be good to discuss (respond or no).  From Oscar's summary:
(1) Ignore it:  Many folks who have been contacted about a single image have chosen to ignore it. As a lawyer I cannot recommend this tactic. Getty and the NCS will also step up their contacts with you and it can get annoying and disruptive.But, it is a fact that Getty has not to our knowledge ever sued anyone through this PicScout program so folks who have ignored it have not been sued yet either."

Would be interesting to hear Oscar's take on your attorney's view on the matter.

Thanks again for the info.

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Letter
« on: March 12, 2014, 04:24:13 PM »
In the unlikely event that they sued the non-profit over a single image, what would be the consequence? Any assets your worried about losing? I mean, you're "winding down" anyway, right? 

I think I saw some advice somewhere on these forums that you shouldn't dissolve a company if your worried someone is going to sue.  Not sure if that advice would apply to non profits or not.  Ill see if I can find the thread.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
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.