Can we start a "Success Mission Accomplished" Thread for success stories?

[sadieb]

I know I have not read all of the thousands of posts here, but have read a couple of hundred... and did not come across one happy story so far.
In other words where are all the happy campers saying "Thank you ... Thank you... Thank you... Oscar you they settled with me for 1/3 of what they were asking... or they threw my case out...

Hopefully if I keep reading I will come across one of the Happy Campers...

Thank you Oscar and Chan for all the work it took to put this site together.... and I hope someone can steer me to some threads that will make me smile...
Would be nice to have a "Success Thread" all by its self... so we can gloat over all the victories....

[sadieb]

<quote>
I believe the final disposition varies from case to case but if there was a settlement made usually there is a confidentiality clause to not speak about it. Some may simply go unresolved and pending.
</quote>

Oops! Sorry Matthew I just saw what you wrote on the Canadian one... I suppose its similar here also.
I had one of these suckers last year, and did not remember the settlement saying.. "Hush..Hush"  I suppose that is because I paid the usual asking price minus the normal 15% discount... so they dont' care if you disclose that one... but I am sure they don't want you disclosing any low ball settlement.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I think the problem is that there aren't really any "Mission Accomplished" stories. It seems to go one of a few ways.
1.) People get the letter, panic and settle relatively quickly.
2.) People ignore the letters and Getty attempts to escalate the issue. Perhaps they are counting on these people to not take any action and they may be ideal victims to win a default judgment against.
3.) People decide that what Getty is doing is wrong and they decide to fight. They reply to Getty's letters, they outline their position and they wait...

I'm in that third camp. For various reasons I think it would be foolish for them to pursue a claim against me, but that's a story for another day.

Look at Matthew Chan's story. It has been 3 years since they mailed the extortion letter I mean claim and, as far as i can tell, no further action has been taken. There is no way they are going to go after him. He's got his ducks in a row and a very big support network that would gladly kick in to see him win. So Getty won't pursue him. I also doubt that they will pursue the people Oscar represents. It's much easier to find new, easy targets and there seems to be a lot of them.

I doubt Mr. Chan has gotten so much as a postcard from them in the last year or two. But on the other hand, I don't think he is celebrating "Success Mission Accomplished." yet either.

[Oscar Michelen]

The success of this site has been in educating people about the issue and giving people away to respond to Getty's never ending chain of communication. The prior poster is right that those case that have settled usually settle with a confidentiality clause prohibiting an end zone dance when it is over. But our site has been here for three years and has helped thousands of people.  While there are no "Mission Accomplished" stories there are countless posts from forum users thanking Matt and I for the site and the work done on it and through it.   

[designbull]

"Success Mission Accomplished"

It's not really a total success but we did manage to get a settlement, lower than their first letter, after a year of silence. Their solicitors offered a deal and I was advised to just pay as it will just keep coming back and be hassle, as either way, I'll still have to pay my insurance £500 excess if it does eventually go to court...(Big corporates - 1, Poor little companies - 0). He has dealt with a few from his other graphic design clients, and says, on average the amounts settled are around £500 to £1000.

So, to help anyone in a similar situation, here's all the email responses between me, their solicitors, and my client with their offer and also prior emails (names excluded):

-------
Without Prejudice Save As To Costs

Dear xxxx

Many thanks for your email.

We are not in a position to comment in detail on matters that occurred before we were instructed a few weeks ago. What we can say is that there was an offer to you to settle for £1,210 (including Irish VAT) if payment was received by 23 August 2010. You offered £39 which was rejected.

You have repeated this offer of £39 and we are instructed to reject your offer.

The bottom line is that with any copyright infringement, defendants have to settle or go to court.

Parties are responsible for the contents of their sites but may join third party suppliers who were at fault.

Getty Images are not to blame for their copyright being infringed and the quicker matters are settled the less legal fees are incurred.

Offering £39 is not realistic.

You may have found a special offer whereby the image was available at a discounted price subject to size and other stipulations including period of use. Getty Images does not offer these special offers to infringers.

The normal price would have been £1,000 plus Irish VAT. If you are VAT registered, then VAT should not be an issue.

If you settle immediately Getty Images will accept £750 plus VAT plus our costs, which we are willing to discount from £400 to £150 plus VAT. This offer is to recognise the unusual circumstances of the case and will automatically lapse after for 7 days. Please appreciate that legal costs will increase with every email and we are not willing to offer any more discounts in this matter.

Kind regards
XXXXX

-------

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your email. I would like to know why the offer was rejected and would appreciate why neither you nor Getty has provided a substantive response to any of my correspondence on this matter?

Best regards,
xxxx

------

Dear xxx

I confirm receipt of xxxxxxx email of 27 June which appears to offer to settle for £39, which you should note was the offer that was not accepted first time round.

Kind regards
xxxxx

------

Thank you xxx, much appreciated.

Please could you also acknowledge receipt of the  e-mail from our website designer dated 1402 Mon 27th Jun offering to settle this matter (again)?

Thanks for your help,

Kind regards
xxxx

------

Dear Sirs
 
We acknowledge receipt of your email of 1 July.
 
Yours faithfully,
xxxxx

------

Dear Sirs,

I note that you have failed to acknowledge our e- mail to you of 1008 1 Jul despite being requested to do so.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of our mail by return,

Regards

xxxx
--------

Dear Sir,

Thanks you for your letter dated 21 Jun. We are disappointed that your client has chosen to take this aggressive and unnecessary approach.

Your statement that your client, “...remains keen to resolve this matter cost effectively .... AND .. Is mindful of the fact that under Civil Procedure Rules, litigants are expected to try to resolve their disputes out of Court whenever possible.” is quite frankly a joke and not evidenced in any way by their behaviour.

We responded to Getty by letter on 5 August 2010 (attached), followed up by e-mail on 27th and 28th of September (see below) and yet your client did not even have the good manners to acknowledge our correspondence or respond to us in anyway
xxxx (who designed and built our website) have accepted full liability and they wrote to Getty on 5 Aug (attached) and followed up by e-mail.

What did your client, who is so keen to settle this matter, do?  No response no acknowledgement, nothing at all..... Apart from deciding to instruct you that is...

It is not us who should be  “...now proceed(ing) in a co-operative manner..” it is your client who should engage in dialogue rather than using ‘threatening, bully boy tactics’.

We note that xxxx have e-mailed you and accepted responsibility so we suggest you have a meaningful conversation with your client about resolving this issue.

If you and your client do not try to resolve this issue we reserve the right to place this and all the other correspondent before the Court on the question of costs. It does not take a rocket scientist (or a lawyer) to see who is trying to resolve this case and who has made no effort whatsoever in what appears to be a cynical attempt to extort money from us. 

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail by return.

Regards
xxxxx
-------
Dear xxxx,

As requested I would be grateful if you would please acknowledge receipt of my e-mail below. 

Regards
-------

Dear xxxxx,

I am writing in response to your letter dated 17 Sep (attached) which threatens us with legal action if we don’t settle your demands immediately. We made our position on this matter quite clear in our letter of 5 Aug (attached), I have copied the salient points again below:

‘....Our company web site was designed for us by a third-party provider (xxxxxx) with creative design by a third party called xxxxx. xxxxx supplied the image in question and accept responsibility for all the images used within our site design (see enclosure).
We welcome their acceptance of responsibility and agree that they should dispose of this matter with you. We have passed all correspondence received from Getty Images to xxxxx Limited and propose that Getty Images should refer all further correspondence on this matter to xxxxx at the address on their letterhead.
 
With respect to the Settlement Demand, xxxxx do not admit liability.  The image was provided to us by a 3rd party , who informed us that the image was rights free. xxxxxx has accepted responsibility to deal with your allegation of copyright infringement. We therefore cannot comment on your assertion of image copyright or the rights subsisting in the image other than to state that we did not know, and had no reason to believe, that a copyright was asserted by Getty. 
 
We have behaved with complete integrity in this matter and immediately removed the image from our web site upon receipt of your letter because ownership is contested. Furthermore we confirm we will not use this image in the future. As Getty Images has no entitlement to recover payment from xxxxxx under these circumstance we respectfully reject your Settlement Demand but have forwarded it to xxxxxxx on your behalf.’

You state in your letter dated 17 Sep that ‘..the case has not been resolved...’ yet xxxx wrote to you with an offer of settlement on 4 Aug and you have failed to reply to them. If you truly wish to resolve this case and settle I suggest you respond to xxxxx as a matter of urgency (their contact details are attached).  Failure to do so places accountability for not resolving this case firmly with you not us.

For the avoidance of doubt we admit no liability and firmly reject your settlement demand.  We will not be sending you any money now or in the future.

I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this e-mail,

Regards

xxxx

-----

[Matthew Chan]

Mcfilms,

You are very insightful and quite right on all counts. I occasionally get an email asking what ultimately happened with my case. I respond that I have not heard from Getty Images for a long time since 2008. I can speculate why they have not come after me but that is all it would be speculation. I don't talk about it much and I am not going out of my way to be a lightning rod. Having said that, I have made no secret to anyone, that if Getty Images decides to fire a serious bullet my way, there would be a lot of collateral damage to multiple parties even if I lost. They have seen evidence of what actions I might take against any individual I identify as a combatant/enemy back in 2008 and I think it sent a strong message of how far I would go to defend myself. I think they believe I am not an easy target and they would be correct. By virtue of this website, I am certainly a visible target but not an easy one.

Bottom line, what I last posted on the My Story section is what has last transpired to me directly. Everything else has been related to other letter recipients or my role as special consultant/advisor to Oscar.

Copyright trolling has gotten so rampant (going beyond stock photos), I would never gloat that I could not get hit by another copyright troll again despite my best efforts to be vigilant. I think it would be stupid for anyone to gloat anymore with so many copyright trolls running around.

Matthew

Look at Matthew Chan's story. It has been 3 years since they mailed the extortion letter I mean claim and, as far as i can tell, no further action has been taken. There is no way they are going to go after him. He's got his ducks in a row and a very big support network that would gladly kick in to see him win. So Getty won't pursue him. I also doubt that they will pursue the people Oscar represents. It's much easier to find new, easy targets and there seems to be a lot of them.

I doubt Mr. Chan has gotten so much as a postcard from them in the last year or two. But on the other hand, I don't think he is celebrating "Success Mission Accomplished." yet either.

[Matthew Chan]

As always, Oscar, you are so eloquent and yet so on the money.

Matthew

The success of this site has been in educating people about the issue and giving people away to respond to Getty's never ending chain of communication. The prior poster is right that those case that have settled usually settle with a confidentiality clause prohibiting an end zone dance when it is over. But our site has been here for three years and has helped thousands of people.  While there are no "Mission Accomplished" stories there are countless posts from forum users thanking Matt and I for the site and the work done on it and through it.   

[laveerne]

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for this website.  It brings a little welcome relief to those of us who have received these letters.  I couldn't help but wonder after reading your post, if there is a statue of limitation on these company's ability to sue?  You said that you haven't heard from them since 2008, could they still shoot the perverbial bullet so to speak after this much time has gone by?  Is there a time frame when this threat really ends?

[Oscar Michelen]

The statute of limitations is 3 years.  So 3 years from the date of your first Getty letter is when the issue is as dead as a doornail.

[Littlescoop]

Hi!  In reading through hundreds of posts yesterday after receiving my own Getty settlement demand letter for over $ 2,000 for the use of 3 images, I'm wondering how Getty tends to react when receiving a Oscar Michelen letter.  In reading the postings, it appears if one goes about dealing with Getty alone, Getty tends to escalate their attempts at recovery.  Can anyone who has used Mr. Michelen's letter tell me what their experience has been as far as any additional attempts made by Getty for payment.  I understand by going with Mr. Michelen's letter, Getty must route all future contacts through Mr. Michelen's office, but what I'm wondering is if any future demands by Getty seem to dissipate or go away entirely, or do their tactics at recovery remain the same (typically escalate), but the escalated attempts just route through Mr. Michelen's office instead of to the individual/company they are seeking payment from.  Obviously, Getty has to be aware of who Mr. Michelen is, so I would assume Getty may have a tendency to go away after receiving one of his letters, seeking easier "prey" elsewhere, but thus far I've not been able to locate any posts that would indicate as much.  I've only come across general posts that people are happier when they've chosen to go with Mr. Michelen's letter approach, but no insight/comments as to how Mr. Michelen's letter tends to affect (if at all) Getty's typical escalating demand efforts.  Any insight along these lines would be most helpful.  I'm hoping a Mr. Michelen letter will help deter Getty. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Good question LittleScoop, unfortantely one I cannot answer fully, however I can tell you that I retained Oscar and had my letter drafted in May 2009. I have not heard anything since, I can only assume that if my case was escalated I would have been contacted By Oscars firm. My general understanding is that once Getty gets the letter from Oscar, they tend to back off and go for others. This does not mean that it may raise it's ugly head again, I guess there is always that possability.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

@buddhapi,

But they only have that three year window to take action. So you are only 8 or 9 months from popping the cork and passing out the Cubans.

[Littlescoop]

Hi buddhapi!  That would be my assumption too.  Just wondering what others experiences have been in this regard.  Thank you so much for sharing your experience.  I'm sure his firm would have notified you had the necessity arose.  Mr. Michelen really seems on top of everything.  Keeping my fingers crossed for you that you hit your 3 year anniversary mark without incident! 

[MikeD]

buddhappi,

So did you counter offer or Oscar just sent a letter and they left you alone?

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

First, this is a long post. But it's worth the read, I swear.

We don't see to many posts from people that get to share their success with the group. Well I am happy to announce that last week I got an email from an attorney at McCormack notifying me that Getty would not be pursuing a case against me. My total out of pocket cost: zero dollars. (However hours of letter writing and more than a few sleepless nights that I'll never get back.) Here's my story:

I am a multimedia designer and developer. Part of my business is developing and hosting web sites for my clients. In March of 2005 I was hired to create a site for a client to promote a TV show they were developing. All of the photos, images, logos and copy was provided by this client. My job was to create the HTML pages from the provided artwork and build a short demo video. I hosted this site on my website.

I should take a moment and interject that I take copyright very seriously. I have some stock video and animation footage up for sale on a couple stock footage sites. I have spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars over the years purchasing stock photography, video and audio. It was my understanding that my client had the rights to the images he was asking me to post.

Well the show never went anywhere and eventually my client moved to northern California or Oregon. Years went by and then in (I believe) February of 2011 I got a letter from Getty Images demanding $3850 for the use of four images. I immediately removed the reference to this section of my web site, essentially scrubbing it from public view.

The next day I phoned Getty Images and spoke to a person that insisted I pay them for these images. I explained that I was providing a hosting service for the developer of this show. As such, I was covered under Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I told them I have complied in blocking access to the images to which they claim to hold the copyright. But I will not pay for these images. This is the extent of my communication with Getty Images.

Then, on May 14 I received a letter via Fed-Ex from the Seattle law firm McCormack Intellectual Property Law. It stated that I still had the images accessible and was willfully infringing. This was not true as there was no link that could lead to the images on my site. However I did go the extra step and completely removed the entire directory from the site.

This letter made references to "extensive efforts to reach an amicable conclusion." There was no attempt on their part to reach a solution. I had one phone call and related that the images were removed and that I was hosting this site for someone else. The only other contact I had was when I phoned one of their acquired companies, iStockPhoto. I requested that they close my account and refund my money since I no longer wished to do business with a company that sues their customers. The person I spoke to laughed and said "good luck with that, we don't issue refunds on credits over 30 days old."

So the following week I emailed McCormack. I expressed my irritation for having to deal with images for a project that wasn't mine. I requested a copy of the Copyright Registration for the images that were identified. I told them if Getty was not the original copyright registrar to please provide a chain of title. Adding that once I obtained proof that Getty held the rights to these images I would make my best effort to put them in touch with the person that provided the images. I told them that if Getty decides to pursue this matter with me further, I am going to insist they pay my legal fees. The next day I contacted a friend who is a lawyer and had a brief discussion. He told me to hold off on hiring him and see what developed.

Well, a couple months passed and I got a phone call. I was told that Getty was "willing to dismiss the unauthorized use claim against Motion City Films." And that, " Getty Images shall keep the terms of this settlement confidential, except as required by law." Well they might want to keep the terms of this confidential, but I am under no such constraints.

I seriously hope that this gives other people facing similar circumstances the will to stand up and fight -- not just cut a check. Based on this experience I will never purchase another stock ANYTHING from Getty or iStockPhoto again.