Getty Images extortion Letter and now McCormack Threat

[floydianjosh]

We received an initial Getty Images Extortion letter back in November 2013. I've heard of Getty Images and their extortion habits from people I know, and from a few articles I read within the last few years. I never thought myself nor my company would ever receive one of their extortion letters, but nothing is in possible.

When I first received it in the beginning of November 13', I almost thought it was a scam (interesting Freudian slip right?) and didn't think twice was about it. To the late end of November 13th, I received another extortion letter from them, which at this time I definitely paid more attention. It claimed we were hosting a copyrighted image on our website and it said we could "settle the situation" with a one time payment of $1,820. Right off the bat, I knew something was fishy...

At the time we hosted 3 websites within our company; a company website, a marketing site, and a brand new website that was still in development. Of course it was the brand new website in development they were complaining about (JRSEOVideoPro.com; which isn't even registered nor active). Here is the brief (and I mean very brief) story of the situation and website:

We paid a 1099 Independent Contractor to create a website for JRSEOVideoPros.com. This website was going to be used to attract Realtors, Insurance Agents that were interested in having a company create and market YouTube videos. We paid this person $300 for the design. The 1099'er purchased a web design template from a website (I do not know where) and used the stock photos that came with the template. He assured me several times via Skype all the images were stock photos (royalty free).

JRSEOVideoPros.com was registered on October 21st 2013. The site was on-line about a month before Getty Images first contacted us via USPS mail about the infringement (From memory in November). At the time of them contacting us the site was receiving absolutely NO TRAFFIC = i.e no visitors. In fact most of the pages were not even completed yet. Absolutely no business was transacted through the website. To further prove this point JRSEOVideoPros.com isn't even listed in Google (site:JRSEOVideoPro.com) and there isn't even a cached version from Google (cache:JRSEOVideoPros.com). Which this proves Google never even crawled the website. There is only a brief showing of JRSEOVideoPro.com on the "Wayback Machine".

As you can see from the website (JRSEOVideoPros.com) it isn't even registered nor hosted anywhere. This was done back in May 2014. There wasn't a need to keep it and we decided to relinquish the domain back to GoDaddy.

Our 1099'er used a photo from a template he purchased that claimed it was stock; it was literally 2" in size. The site was on-line barely a month, and once Getty Images contacted us we immediately removed the image. The domain was never indexed into Google, never received any traffic, and no sales were generated from this website.

A few days ago we received another "more threatening" extortion letter this time from McCormak Intellectual Property Business Law PS. Demanding that we pay the $1,820 before August 29th, 2014 and it "will end this matter immediately".

I have already had my company legal counsel review this website as well as other information. I feel confident in any decision we choose as she has 15+ years herself as a copyright attorney for a huge law firm based out of San Diego, CA. I wanted to share my situation, and hope people can learn from it also. This is utter extortion. The prices they come up with aren't based on reality, and I feel bad for people who pay their ransom fees.

Letter from McCormark's office (nice template; worn about signature): https://www.dropbox.com/s/xfad3px2x7nbk7y/bs-letter.jpg

[lucia]

At the time we hosted 3 websites within our company; a company website, a marketing site, and a brand new website that was still in development. Of course it was the brand new website in development they were complaining about (JRSEOVideoPro.com; which isn't even registered nor active).

I think you mean something slightly different.  It may be that from some business point of view of your own, JRSEOVideoPro.com is some sense not active now. But the domain name 'JRSEOVideoPro.com' is registered; it appears it was registered 2 years ago (http://www.domaintuno.com/d/jrseovideopro.com). The domain name also resolves meaning that if one loads that url, you are taken to a page hosted on the server. The top level shows 'maintainance mode', but the site and page are online.  Google cache is empty, but short synopses of content show at
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fjrseovideopro.com%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
This strongly suggests something appeared at that url in early 2013 -- possibly a blog and images.

Which this proves Google never even crawled the website. There is only a brief showing of JRSEOVideoPro.com on the "Wayback Machine".

It appears you are mistaken about google crawling the site.  Google cache is empty, but a search on your site suggest it picked up text like

CSI:- Risky Business Class (Sneak Peek) - Small Business ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Video Production
Dec 15, 2012 - When five people are killed in a small plane crash a mile off the Vegas strip, the CSI team is called to investigate. Also, Sara feels the strain of ...
Good Morning Mindcrack - Marketing Strategy - 12/15/12 ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Videos of Video Production
Dec 28, 2012 - Orange Wool – orangewool.tv Submit a photo of Good Morning Mindcrack and your meal! – http Submit Topics of the Day – bit.ly ? Follow MC ...
Video marketing strategy | Local Video Marketing - Small ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Videos of Video Production
Sep 21, 2013 - Video Marketing Strategy for Local Video Marketing Video Marketing Strategy is becoming very clear that video sharing is the future of the ...
Local Storage Solutions for Madison, WI - Small Business ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Video Production
Sep 28, 2012 - Moving companies provide a variety of services for those who wish to shift their house or office in one location completely to another one.
Video Marketing Course - Build Trust Using Video - Small ...
Video for site:http://jrseovideopro.com/►►
www.jrseovideopro.com/video-marketing-course-buil...
Aug 31, 2013
Video Marketing Course: In this Video Marketing Course video marketing coach Matthew McDonald shows how ...
Small Business IT Consulting (Glossary Definition ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Video Production
Jul 14, 2013 - http://HowToStartAnITBusiness.com Small business IT consulting firms give small companies access to the sort of expertise and strategic ...
VLOG (YouTube) ¿Qué Es GOOGLE ADSENSE ...
www.jrseovideopro.com › Videos of Video Production
Apr 21, 2013 - Tienes TWITTER? ¡Sígueme! https://twitter.com/UskoKruM2010 ** FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/UskoKruM2010 **

As you can see from the website (JRSEOVideoPros.com) it isn't even registered nor hosted anywhere. This was done back in May 2014. There wasn't a need to keep it and we decided to relinquish the domain back to GoDaddy.

If so, you may need to sort out the 'whois'. My search found this http://www.jrseovideopro.com.ipaddress.com/

Contact Email

[email address hidden]
Creation Date

10/12/2011
Updated Date

07/09/2013
Expiration Date

10/12/2014
Registrant

Ricardo Blanco
JRSEO Marketing
9562 Winter Gardens Blvd Suite D254
Lakeside, California 92040
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 8809590182
Email: [email address hidden]
Administrative Contact

Ricardo Blanco
JRSEO Marketing
9562 Winter Gardens Blvd Suite D254
Lakeside, California 92040
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 8809590182
Email: [email address hidden]
Technical Contact

Ricardo Blanco
JRSEO Marketing
9562 Winter Gardens Blvd Suite D254
Lakeside, California 92040
UNITED STATES
Telephone: 8809590182
Email: [email address hidden]
Nameservers

NS1.TABCENTRAL.INFO
NS2.TABCENTRAL.INFO

None of the above necessarily means you ought to settle for the amount requested.  If the image is 2" in size and is rather bland, it may not be worth anywhere near that amount. Also: it may not be registered or Getty may not actually have a right to pursue this. It may be that the image was licensed to the company who created your site. It may be that it's in the public domain and so on.  (Or not. We would need to know the image and so on.)   It may be that the image was hotlinked (though your discussion sounds like you hosted it.)

Also, you appear to have a good case for "non-willful infringement" especially if you can prove that you hired someone else to create the site and especially if you can prove you asked them about licensing.  (Note: bad unethical web designers are a menace. That is why no one here objects to Getty going after the web-design company that violated copyright when making sites for their customers.  Those sorts of outfits put people like you in great financial jeopardy and deserve to have the book thrown at them.)  If you can prove 'non-willful infringement' you could be found 'guilty', but fine can be as low as $200. (Or it could be higher. That's up to the judge.)

 However having said that I think you have a good case for 'non-willful infringement' , it's important for you to express the facts as you  know them using proper terminology.  A judge won't like it if you appear to be shading the truth (even if you do so unintentionally.)   As far as I can tell, the domain was registered. (Maybe you meant 'the business' was not incorporated or something?)  The current whois suggest it remains registered to a Ricardo Blanco.  The domain once did host content, and that content seems to have been intended as a 'business' site-- thought it may not have taken off. Now the url now does resolve to more or less blank content.  It appears to have been crawled by google.  You should not make any contrary claims (nor even mistakenly make any that appear to contradict these facts.)


With respect to your discussions with your attorney, do be sure that their guidance is based on correct interpretations of facts-- for example: the site was crawled by Google and it appears to have hosted quite a bit of content. (This is not a major adverse fact-- Google crawls everything and fast. Also, external links are probably all from companies that do nothing more than track "whois" entries. )  The difficulty with your current rendition is it sounds like the site contained no content at all. 

As a business person disappointed the site attracted little traffic or revenue you may "think" of it this way in your mind, but as a matter of literal truth: that's incorrect.   If the image was registered, and you did host it (it appears you did) it may turn out that you should offer $200 on grounds that the infringement was non-willful and provably so. (Note: when settling do not admit infringement. Just say you are willing to settle to get this matter behind you). Should you chose to negotiate a settlement, also request Getty justify the size of their monetary demand and prove they have standing to sue on behalf of the copyright owner. 

[floydianjosh]

Hi Lucia,

Thank you for the reply and information. Kindly note that JRSEOVideoPros.com and JRSEOVideoPro.com are 2 different websites. The website in question is JRSEOVideoPros.com. The other site was completely different and was registered in 2011. I was told by the web designer the domain was relinquished back in May. Appears to not be working currently.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

just to add..."stock photos" and "Royalty Free" do not equate to "FREE". If the template was purchased through template monster, they should pick up the tab, IF you can get the designer to confirm this.. The designer will probably need to work with template monster, as he was the purchasing party.

[floydianjosh]

Hopefully I can get in touch with the guy. I want him to send me a signed document saying that he purchased the template (show invoice paid) and it included the stock images. At this point, I do not know where he purchased the template from. In fact I wasn't even aware it was a template until a few weeks after the site was on-line and I confronted him. I know it's a Wordpress template.

[lucia]

Ahh! Sorry, I must have copied from this:

JRSEOVideoPros.com was registered on October 21st 2013. The site was on-line about a month before Getty Images first contacted us via USPS mail about the infringement (From memory in November). At the time of them contacting us the site was receiving absolutely NO TRAFFIC = i.e no visitors. In fact most of the pages were not even completed yet. Absolutely no business was transacted through the website. To further prove this point JRSEOVideoPros.com isn't even listed in Google (site:JRSEOVideoPro.com) and there isn't even a cached version from Google (cache:JRSEOVideoPros.com). Which this proves Google never even crawled the website. There is only a brief showing of JRSEOVideoPro.com on the "Wayback Machine".

which alternates the one with the "...pros.com" and the one with the "..pro.com).  You are correct that the one with the ".. pros.com" currently shows nothing with google.
https://www.google.com/search?q=JRSEOVideoPros.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=site%3AJRSEOVideoPros.com&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

The whois shows it owned by GoDaddy.
http://whois.domaintools.com/jrseovideopros.com

Thanks for clarifying. Obviously, much of what I wrote doesn't apply!

[floydianjosh]

No worries Lucia, I do appreciate you.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Search on this site for a link to the video of the CEO of Getty saying he is fine with people using images from Getty Images until such a time as they begin making money. Be sure to share THAT with your IP attorney.

In my opinion you offer nothing or a token payment (that they will refuse).

[floydianjosh]

Long time update... We never did receive any further letters from these idiots, nor were we ever taken to court. Our company lawyer suggested it was a waste of time contacting McCormack back as well as Getty Images. So, we took counsel's advice and never contacted them and it appears it has gone away.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

SOL is 3 yrs, hop you didn't just jinx yourself!!...Seattle "attorney" and grand douchebag has been busy growing and selling dope, dealing drugs is most likely more lucrative than chasing BS infringements for Getty Images.

[zazen]

Got my first Getty letter (with 4 followup McCormacks) on exactly the same month, 11/13. Ive been completely dark from the get go, and aint heard nuthin since. Im going to stay dark, and in the meantime treat myself to  a followup support call w/Matthew to orient myself to tactics that will put the kabosh on any judgement that could go against me in the unlikely event.
Like you, Im gettin close, and realize that my SOL isnt up for another 9 mos, and that most lawsuits are filed in that 3rd year.  I highly recommend that you also consult w/Matthew down the final stretch, at the very least you"ll get the peace of  mind of having  some aces in the hole.  Hopefully we'll both cross the finish line unscathed..