The interesting case of Getty Images v. J&J Cleaning Co (Rhon Johnson)

[Matthew Chan]

A few weeks ago, I found the case of Getty Images v. J&J Cleaning Company. It is one of the few lawsuits filed against a letter recipient in 2016. What struck me as particularly odd is that is the only case I ever saw where a pro se party (individual without a lawyer) filed a counter-claim against Getty Images. I was intrigued and curious so I investigated the matter.

We have discussed on ELI Forums that one way to gain leverage and hit back against unreasonable infringement lawsuits is to file a counter-claim. You don't pay the filing fee as it was paid by the original plaintiff. And although, it has been discussed here on the ELI Forums, we also know that most people really don't have the stomach or expertise to pursue such a measure.  It is an interesting theoretical discussion but not well suited for most readers here.

HOWEVER, I found that Rhon Johnson of J&J Cleaning did EXACTLY THAT! And I think Getty Images was surprised about that because this lawsuit was filed in Little Rock, Arkansas, not exactly a place one associates with media-related lawsuits.

https://www.scribd.com/document/329195990/Getty-Images-v-J-J-Cleaning-Pro-Se-Counterclaim

https://www.scribd.com/document/329196083/Getty-Images-v-J-J-Cleaning-Case-Docket

What also struck me about this case was the "amateurish" way it was done (and I don't mean that as an insult, it was a compliment for this circumstance). I was impressed because Rhon was NOT a lawyer or legally trained. He also didn't use any standard, spiffy-looking Word legal template that lawyers use.  He crafted his own answer and counter claim filed it with the Clerk's office and, according to Rhon, HAND-DELIVERED a copy to the Arkansas law firm!

This appeared to have gotten the attention of Scottie Wilsdon of Yarsmuth Wilson (lawyer for Getty Images). From what I was able to piece together, there some email exchanges back and forth but at some point, both parties agreed that perhaps having a settlement discussion might be the best course of action.

After all, how would it look that a billion-dollar company like Getty Images is fighting a pro se defendant in Little Rock, Arkansas?  We all know that any Getty Images lawsuit generally make the news. And despite my cracks of Scottie, I believe he is a smart lawyer. Probably smarter than most of the previous Getty Images lawyers we have reported on. He can probably be as tough as any other lawyer but he probably knows that any heavy-handed or egregious behavior on his part would badly reflect upon his client, Getty Images, who have no shortage of PR problems and bad press.

Scottie knows about ELI and certainly knows about the many news sites that report on any Getty Images lawsuits.  And so, Scottie wisely had a civil discussion with Rhon to settle the matter especially when Rhon demonstrated he was prepared to soldier on by himself, if need be.  He wasn't just going to roll over and pay what Getty asked for as he felt it was unfair and unreasonable. He was prepared to go in front of a federal judge and argue his case. I am particularly biased on this because it is something I was prepared to so myself back in 2008 and I admire Rhon's spirit and determination to commit to such a path.

Rhon told me Scottie was entirely respectful during the discussions and easy to talk to. I give Scottie credit for that. Rhon could not tell me what he settled for as he signed a confidentiality agreement but  he did say he had no regrets and was happy with the outcome. Rhon said he didn't have a problem paying a reasonable settlement fee but he was not going to pay an unreasonable and exorbitant one. I tried to find out a ballpark amount he settled upon. I speculated that Rhon might have had to at least pay Getty's court filing fees of $400 but somehow I am not convinced Rhon even paid the $400 court filing fees to settle with Getty.

What is interesting to know that in a counter-claim situation, Getty Images as a plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss the claim if the counter-plaintiff doesn't agree. This document shows that Getty Images needed Rhon's agreement to dismiss this case:

https://www.scribd.com/document/329195993/Getty-Images-v-J-J-Cleaning-Stipulated-Motion-to-Dismiss

The reason why that is important is because if Getty settled for LESS than $400, it was a loss for Getty all the way around. After all, the Arkansas lawyer likely charged a legal fee for being the "local" Arkansas lawyer on behalf of Getty Images in addition to the court filing fee. There is also the matter of Scottie and his law firm being paid for their time in the J&J Cleaning case. Unless the lawyers decided to waive any of their fees, my estimate is that Getty Images ended up paying at least $1,500 for the two lawyers and the $400 filing fee. Getty Images were in it for around $2,000 (again a huge guesstimate on my part) to come after J&J Cleaning and Rhon. But it would seem that Getty Images would have been lucky to have the filing fees fully reimbursed at all.

I suspect that once Scottie knew who he was dealing with: a small business and scrappy entrepreneur who really had no willful intent of the vanilla infringement and that Rhon would continue as a pro se defendant and muddle his way all the way to a federal judge to present his case, this would become a PR nightmare and they would likely not collect much money for this Goliath vs. David case.

If this case had gotten publicity, Rhon would have had a good chance that some defense lawyer would step in to assist Rhon. But fortunately, none of that was necessary.

Rhon did a great job in flipping the negotiating table by filing a cobbled-together answer and counter-claim himself. He said he learned a lot from the entire experience and was gracious enough to share his story with me. On a personal note, I found Rhon easy to talk and he had a good demeanor. I understand why Scottie would have settled with him. I think Rhon himself carried himself in a way that lent him getting benefit of the doubt.

It also happens that Rhon is a publisher and author:
http://rhonjohnson.com/

You can see for yourself what kind of guy Rhon is, there embedded videos of him here:
http://rhonjohnson.com/?page_id=73

[stinger]

Way to go Rhon! 

I wish we could plaster the world with your Counterclaim because it does such a nice job of summing up what Getty has been doing for over a decade now.

Perhaps it didn't happen in your case, but I see no mention of Getty having moved images that were displayed on the Royalty Free Images page to the Rights Managed page in order to claim higher damages.

At the very least, your counterclaim provides angered Getty targets a template for a new way of fighting the Trolls.

I sure hope the settlement you reached required them to pay you for your time and effort in drafting the counterclaim and dealing with their BS.

[Matthew Chan]

The reason why I took the time to speak with Rhon and do a write-up is because ELI has been on the forefront of unconventional defense strategies. I have learned over the years, there are ways of changing the dynamic of a given conflict but you have to be willing to expand your mind, think creatively, and understand how things work in this world. Too many people are brainwashed into the opposing rhetoric. I don't. I take the time to think about different angles of a situation.

And I am happy to say, Rhon did too. Rhon is an entrepreneur and he is scrappy. He had conviction. That inspires others to his cause which is exactly why I took the time to write about him and his handling of the case.

What Rhon has demonstrated is that someone with determination and gumption can gain leverage in a situation when warranted. I spoke to Rhon for about an hour and what he had going for him was a great deal of conviction that he felt he was being wronged. He acknowledged the infringement issue but he was dismayed by the large amount they were asking.

I can't say enough good things about how Rhon handled the whole thing.  And any ELI reader would do well to learn from this case study.