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.

Author Topic: Getty in the UK  (Read 36547 times)

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #45 on: March 07, 2012, 06:10:51 PM »
My understanding is that the changes to the UK court system aren't intended to make it "easier" to sue people.
The changes are intended to streamline the system to save time and money, which benefits both the plaintiff and defendant.
But, if I'm mistaken, kindly clarify this.

I feel as if there's a bit of scare-mongering going on here.  I know that people are entitled to their opinions...
However, making it seem as if Getty has it's house in order and are going to sue a lot of people is misleading given historical evidence.

Unless somebody has something to gain financially by scaring people.

S.G.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 08:37:58 PM by Matthew Chan »

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #46 on: March 07, 2012, 08:44:59 PM »
Well, Oscar and I have been accused in the past of being too cavalier and not taking the extortion letters seriously enough when we tell people that the likelihood of someone getting sued over a few images is very slim.

But yes, I probably will sell more reports and get more ELI Contributions while Oscar will have more people enroll in his Letter Program if we changed our positions and started telling people that the likelihood of lawsuits being filed were going up.

What is a guy supposed to do to get some respect around here.....  :-)  We get pounded on either way.

Unless somebody has something to gain financially by scaring people.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #47 on: March 07, 2012, 11:26:22 PM »
Matt, I wasn't referring to you and Oscar.  I should have been more clear.  I'm referring to the UK guy (Nick).

You've given a lot of your time for free, and so has Oscar for a very long time now.
Therefore, I feel that charging for "value added" services is fine (especially when such a service doesn't cost much more than a consultation with a lawyer).
Additionally, there's nothing wrong with fundraising to support the ELI effort.  Furthermore, I feel that your approach has been balanced.

I just feel that we've established what Getty "has", and I also surmise that "Advernet" was the "big one".
I have no reason to believe that Getty "held back" on that case just so they could lose.
As such, I don't think that it's productive for the UK guy to come on here and try to make Getty into some sort of juggernaut.
If Getty can't do it who can?

I get the impression that this UK guy wants to increase sales of letters through fear.

S.G.


nixlyn1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2012, 03:16:17 AM »
Hi Guys

I do not think that Getty is some kind of unassailable giant.
Maybe in some eyes you think I am scaremongering - I am very concerned because I don't think you can assume that things will stay the same for ever and maybe I should have got all the details first but even Khans link puts the damages limit at £500,000 not £500. I don't really know yet but I will be finding out!

Lets make my position very clear.

Do I think that Getty are a threat - yes.
Do I think that people should prepare properly and answer the letters - yes.

I don't receive any payment from copyrightinfringement.org.uk or Liz Ward the solicitor. I am not here to scaremonger but I am concerned that if you don't respond to the letters then legally you could be in deep trouble eventually.

This is a personal decision that individuals need to make and I am not in the business of wasting my time. I have responded personally and will use copyrightinfringement because I want the best possible preparation in case I am attacked. If nothing happens fine - thats great but doing nothing does not suit me and whatever some of you may think I know that nothing is guaranteed in life so my advice would be to at least respond to Getty or the others and make an open offer to settle IF they can provide proof that they have the right to charge you.

Some of you seem happy that you have established that Getty are a bunch of no-hopers and will never succeed. Maybe you are right - I am not prepared to take that chance because they can't stay dumb forever.

I am in the firing line myself and I will always try and do what is best for me. I also care that companies like Getty are out there trying to put down the small people and extort money from them. I HATE this but I am not going to make it easier for them by muttering and doing nothing.

Like I keep saying - this is my opinion - like it or not and I opened this post to try and let people know that there was something else that they could do as an option. Yes, it costs a bit of money but frankly, I was ecstatic when I found someone with legal knowledge to help and advise me.

As far as Liz Ward is concerned - yes she is a solicitor and business woman and like all of that breed she wants to make money. I don't have a problem with this if she saves me thousands for a fairly minimal amount.

We all make our own decisions!

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2012, 06:28:59 AM »
I know you didn't mean Oscar and I, so no offense was taken.  But your comment reminded me of the criticisms of us from other people and I thought I would share that little story.

Regarding Nick, I am in communication with him through private email and I ask everyone to ease up on Nick right now and not make quick judgments.  I will be scheduling a phone conversation with him in the near future so we can get to know each other better.

Disagreements are ok. Nick might be new to the ELI community but he is the only one from the UK that has stepped up in any kind of capacity. And he appears to have kept up with what is going on in the UK side for the last few years. I am slowly learning about about the program they put together.

Matt, I wasn't referring to you and Oscar.  I should have been more clear.  I'm referring to the UK guy (Nick).

You've given a lot of your time for free, and so has Oscar for a very long time now.
Therefore, I feel that charging for "value added" services is fine (especially when such a service doesn't cost much more than a consultation with a lawyer).
Additionally, there's nothing wrong with fundraising to support the ELI effort.  Furthermore, I feel that your approach has been balanced.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 06:31:54 AM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Nodge

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2012, 10:31:20 AM »
As I am UK based I've been following this thread with interest. I've looked at www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk and I did feel that the website was trying to guide me towards one outcome ("SEEK OUT A SPECIALIST solicitor. This is a complex area of law and not something many lawyers are familiar with. We recommend Liz Ward"). A solictor's letter may well be the best option for some people and it's one that I seriously considered. But as I did more research I found that I felt a lot more confident about dealing with things personally. As for www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk, I think offerering a solictors letter as an option rather than a recommendation would go down better. I would suggest recommending doing some research into the topic before doing anything else. Maybe add a link back to ELI and any other useful sources.

I don't have any issues with Nick's posts here. I've found them helpful. In particular I like the suggestion of offering a sum in settlement on the condition that Getty supply proof of copyright etc. I was going to offer a sum regardless but I think I prefer this option.

I have made an appointment with my Member of Parliament to discuss the Getty scheme. May not do any good but can't do any harm. I'll also be sending copies of all documentation to "Watchdog" (a consumer advice program in the UK) as well as the Trading Standards office if they continue to harass me.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 10:37:10 AM by Nodge »

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2012, 12:18:08 PM »
Good discussion here; and yes we'll ease up a bit on Nick.  In fact, I agree with the points that he made in his last posting.
Indeed, if people need professional help, so be it.

"Suing" has always been easy.  You just pay the nominal fee, write your complaint, and you're in business.
It costs just over $300 dollars in the US, and only $50 in Canada.
"Winning" a lawsuit is the hard part.  You must have everything in order, hire an expert, and have some luck on your side.

The "letters" effectively stop the harassment if you're being "trolled".  But, if somebody wants to sue you, they can just do it anyway.

A large part of what has made people pay up (in my opinion) was the looming question of what companies like Getty had up their sleeve.
Recently, they've failed in an embarrassing way.  But, yes, they may get their act together in the future, or come up with new strategies.
However, we needn't worry or speculate about what tools they have or don't have.
Because we can find out, and then make logical decisions accordingly.

If somebody wants to "release the krakken" so to speak, I'd love to hear about it on the forum!

S.G.


Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2012, 12:55:52 PM »
Both Nick and I recognize that there are many visitors from outside the U.S. not sufficiently helped.  The UK audience is one of those large audiences. I am especially concerned about the letter recipients in Canada and the U.K. not being served in any meaningful way. Because the leadership of ELI and most of the expertise we have are nearly all U.S. based.

I am going out of my way to communicate with Nick so we can compare notes and I can have a better understanding of his intentions and his plans. 

For the record, according to Nick, the copyrightinfringement.org.uk website is not even owned by him and he is entirely a volunteer who (like me) years ago just contributes his time when he can referring people to his solicitor. Incidentally, he is also a extortion letter victim like the rest of us which makes him extra motivated as the rest of us are to keep discussing the issue.

I know he really dislikes the forum behavior on the UK forums when people discuss the Getty matter. I have seen some of the ugliness he is concerned about especially on the FSB forums a few years back. By and large, we don't have that nonsense here on ELI (although there are times when some of us including myself have been guilty of taking a stronger and passionate tone than necessary).

I don't want to get ahead of myself or reveal my hand just yet. But if I had my way and my gut read on Nick and his motivations are positively confirmed, we could see and hear more from Nick on ELI to help fill the UK void.

Bottom line, there is a lot to gain for the UK audience if Nick and I can have a meeting of the minds and better understand each other. Debating on the forums has been good so far.  However, now that I have heard all sides, I am interested in going beyond the debate to doing something bigger and meaningful.

Stay tuned. I hope to have more updates sometime next week.

As I am UK based I've been following this thread with interest. I've looked at www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk and I did feel that the website was trying to guide me towards one outcome ("SEEK OUT A SPECIALIST solicitor. This is a complex area of law and not something many lawyers are familiar with. We recommend Liz Ward"). A solictor's letter may well be the best option for some people and it's one that I seriously considered. But as I did more research I found that I felt a lot more confident about dealing with things personally. As for www.copyrightinfringement.org.uk, I think offerering a solictors letter as an option rather than a recommendation would go down better. I would suggest recommending doing some research into the topic before doing anything else. Maybe add a link back to ELI and any other useful sources.

I don't have any issues with Nick's posts here. I've found them helpful. In particular I like the suggestion of offering a sum in settlement on the condition that Getty supply proof of copyright etc. I was going to offer a sum regardless but I think I prefer this option.

I have made an appointment with my Member of Parliament to discuss the Getty scheme. May not do any good but can't do any harm. I'll also be sending copies of all documentation to "Watchdog" (a consumer advice program in the UK) as well as the Trading Standards office if they continue to harass me.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2012, 01:56:19 PM »
Like I said, please feel free to "release the krakken".
Looking forward...

S.G.


Nodge

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #54 on: March 08, 2012, 06:01:24 PM »

For the record, according to Nick, the copyrightinfringement.org.uk website is not even owned by him and he is entirely a volunteer who (like me) years ago just contributes his time when he can referring people to his solicitor.

This prompted a quick check on Whois which shows that copyrightinfringement.org.uk is owned by Virtuoso Legal, Liz Ward's law firm. Not really surprising then that the website comes accross as not much more than an advert for Virtuoso Legal. I'm not claiming anything untoward is going on - in Nick's second post he almost goes as far as saying they are the same thing. However, in her video Liz says that copyrightinfringement.org.uk are "an association of individuals who club together and use their buying power to hire her services". I think in the interests of openness, Nick needs to explain just who comprises copyrightinfringement.org.uk and what their relationship with Virtuoso Legal is.

Nick also states that Liz would defend you on a no win no fee basis. I would like to ask exactly what constitutes a "win". In a court case the only thing in dispute would be the size of the damages. So would a win be any reduction in damages or perhaps zero damages. In the event of a "win", how would Liz calculate her fees. Oscar has quoted us an hourly rate so it would be good if Liz could do likewise.

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #55 on: March 08, 2012, 06:58:54 PM »
Good questions by Nodge.

Nick was saying "we" and "us" at first, but I see that he's backed off that a bit.

I found a posting wherein Nick said that he worked on Liz Ward's website.
I'm not sure if he volunteered, traded, or bartered, though.

"This time when I scoured the web I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk and contacted them as a solicitor was involved. I then went to meet them and got involved with the fight by working on their website and we have now produced a short video by the solicitor Liz Ward who is a specialist in the field."
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm

Sounds to me as if he's been criticized on the UK forum previously.
But, Matt's offering him some "safe haven" here so to speak... so we'll see how all this affects ELI going forward.

At this point, I'm convinced that Nick is Liz Ward's "marketing guy".
Paid, or unpaid, it doesn't really matter.

S.G.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 10:26:42 PM by Matthew Chan »

Nodge

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #56 on: March 08, 2012, 07:53:54 PM »
I found a posting wherein Nick said that he worked on Liz Ward's website.
I'm not sure if he volunteered, traded, or bartered, though.
Lol, I wondered that. If it was me I would think a bit of battering was well in order.

At this point, I'm convinced that Nick is Liz Ward's "marketing guy".
Paid, or unpaid, it doesn't really matter.

S.G.

I think that's probably an overstatement but I agree it doesn't really matter. What's important is that they offer a quality, value for money service.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2012, 10:42:24 PM »
From my limited experience, it isn't hard to get criticized on the FSB forums (UK forum).  Heck, I frequently get criticized for one reason or another in some aspect of my various business activities.  It is what it is when you push the envelope like I do.

Nick is being given "safe haven" so I can find out more. I don't expect that Nick's involvement will change much of anything we already have in place.  If anything, he would add a component and dimension we don't already have. Essentially, filling in a vacuum.

It's no secret I am the "marketing guy" for Oscar when it comes to people needing legal help for extortion letters. I voluntarily did that from very early on. But it's not like he took out an ad for the yellow pages here. I like Oscar and trust him. We work well together and make a good team. It's easy for me to "market" Oscar for so many reasons. The fact that he trusts me with his name and online reputation is flattering.  Let's face it, ELI got to where it's at today by my adopting some marketing principles. So, it's no crime to market for someone else.  The true issue is WHY?

I predict the answers and more are forthcoming when the time is right.

I found a posting wherein Nick said that he worked on Liz Ward's website.
I'm not sure if he volunteered, traded, or bartered, though.

"This time when I scoured the web I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk and contacted them as a solicitor was involved. I then went to meet them and got involved with the fight by working on their website and we have now produced a short video by the solicitor Liz Ward who is a specialist in the field."
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/b/2011/08/23/getty-image-settlement-demand-letter-scam-or-for-real.htm

Sounds to me as if he's been criticized on the UK forum previously.
But, Matt's offering him some "safe haven" here so to speak... so we'll see how all this affects ELI going forward.

At this point, I'm convinced that Nick is Liz Ward's "marketing guy".
Paid, or unpaid, it doesn't really matter.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 06:11:38 AM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

nixlyn1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #58 on: March 09, 2012, 06:03:16 AM »
Hi Guys

I am away on family business at the moment but thought I should try and cap the conspiracy theories at once!

The reason for change from we and us to me is because Matthew asked me for MY informed opinion - which is what you've been getting - for better or worse!

I have never hidden the fact that copyrightinfringement.org.uk is owned by Liz Ward. After I found and met them I offered myself to help the fight - NO MONEY!!!
It is operated by Paul Traynor who works for himself - read into that what you will but I found him very helpful and he often hasn't charged people at all!
When I found them and met up I offered to do anything to help and subsequently re-designed the website and made the video.

There is nothing either secret or underhand about any of this. It maybe that I need to start my own website which will have some basic information - and no forum!!

I would refer people to this one or something.

What I have been trying to get across to people and obviously failed - my bad - as you would say is this;

1, Copyrightinfringement.org.uk is not a huge profit making organisation. Liz Ward came up with the idea and is a specialist in her field. She is responsible for producing the template letters and supports the work with follow up letters when necessary. This can save an individual hundreds of pounds or more because just signing up with any solicitor in the uk will probably cost at least £300 because of regulations plus they may not have expertise in this area. It could end up costing thousands with no result in which case you might as well send Getty a cheque now.

2, This is a 2 year deal and encapsulates follow up letters and representation in court on a no win no fee basis. Normally, the losing side pays the costs! Ok this is not a guarantee but what is?

In about a week or less the website will have new copy and I will post a more comprehensive post on here. I am just a bit tied up for the next few days.

I like a good conspiracy theory myself but hey give me a break! Liz Ward is a Solicitor subject to the SRA Solicitors Regulatory Authority in the UK - she's hardly the mafia!

Like I keep saying I love having informed and specialist legal advice behind my defence. Others can do what they like.

steve livesley

  • Guest
Re: Getty in the UK
« Reply #59 on: March 11, 2012, 03:06:16 PM »
i had a meeting with our MP yesterday about the getty extortion letters - she was appalled that large companies using expensive lawyers bullying small businesses with extortionate demands for money - using copyright laws not for what they were originally intended - which is to protect the originator and not to be used to keep a company that is in administration from going under by menacing small businesses to pay large sums of money to them.
She wants everybody receiving these letters to contact their MP to make everyone aware that these laws are being abused.

 

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.