Getty Images files suit over single image

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

The times are a changin! Getty files 2 suits in the same week..same law firm, and one of them is for a single image..

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/getty-images-files-suit-over-single-image/

and this one which has been mentioned against Virtual Clinics..

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/trapped-under-the-troll-bridge/

should make for some good discussion.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I knew it was coming. We throw around the fact that they hadn't done so yet far too frequently, I see this as a strategic move by Getty.

However I really hope the single-image case decides to fight it. Somebody should get word to them that if they believe they got the image from the internet, it might be worth it to offer them $50 or so. Gonna see if I can track them down...

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Looks like it's Hezog Law Firm in Arizona.

 via: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/arizona-district-court/471134/getty-images-us-incorporated-v-herzog-law-firm-pc/summary/

Does it seem odd to anyone else besides me that the first single-image case is filed against another law firm? I don't want to break out the tin foil hats and murmur "conspiracy," however, it sure would be an interesting strategy to find a law firm to be a "patsy." That is, one that won't put up much of a fight or just plead guilty. That way you have a precedent set for these single image cases. Am I paranoid? Have I been watching too many John Grisham movies?

Question for Oscar (if he happens by). Would that be legal?

Somebody should probably give Michael Herzog a shout and at least let him know about this forum. His phone number is on the front page at: http://www.herzoglawfirm.com/

[Peeved]

It's not looking good with regard to "Virtual Clinics". Looks like multiple infringements and after receiving notice of said infringements, Getty received the following responses...

Getty Images received a response by letter from “Abraham Goldstien,” who claimed he was “V.P. Legal Affairs” for defendants Virtual Clinics and Veterinary Website Designers. Goldstien’s letter denied copyright infringement and threatened legal and other action against Getty Images.

It appears that "Goldstien" may be an alias as well...

Defendants Virtual Clinics and Veterinary Website Designers claim to be legally represented by “Abraham Goldstien,” which, upon information and belief, is an alias used by defendant Doe One. Doe One has claimed at various times to be “Legal Counsel” and “V.P. Legal Affairs” for the corporate defendants, and has used the address in Switzerland described in the preceding paragraph, although at least some correspondence from Doe One was postmarked as having been mailed from Orlando, Florida.


Will be interesting with regard to the single image suit. Looks like they are seeking "actual damages" and an "amount to be proved at trial".

Good luck to Jerry on tracking down the defendant. Btw...NO you are "not paranoid" with regard to the case being filed against a "law firm". I thought the exact same thing that it was "odd".

Looks like it's Hezog Law Firm in Arizona.

 via: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/arizona-district-court/471134/getty-images-us-incorporated-v-herzog-law-firm-pc/summary/

Does it seem odd to anyone else besides me that the first single-image case is filed against another law firm? I don't want to break out the tin foil hats and murmur "conspiracy," however, it sure would be an interesting strategy to find a law firm to be a "patsy." That is, one that won't put up much of a fight or just plead guilty. That way you have a precedent set for these single image cases. Am I paranoid? Have I been watching too many John Grisham movies?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I agree with you Jerry, Getty may be doing this to claim they do go after single images on their demand letters.  I'm adding tin foil to my shopping list now.

[scraggy]

I am not a lawyer, but Getty is requesting "actual damages". In my opinion, if this goes to trial and the judge has to determine the actual damages suffered by Getty, the amount awarded, even if Getty wins, would be ridiculously low.

This would lower the amount for all out of court settlements.

The law firm sued may decide that it's not worth their hassle to fight this ( because it isn't! ) , but alternatively, they may fight it all the way, because they wouldn't incur the same costs as other defendants.

One image!? A " de minimis" defense might be all they need here!

My opinion - there is no way a judge will be the one to determine the damages in this case. It's going to end way before that point. Getty would be insane to take such a risk.

Great! So they finally sued for one image in the USA, but in my opinion, they wont see it through, because it's not logical to do so!

[Couch_Potato]

It is interesting in so much as Getty have newish owners but most likely there is a particular reason why this single image case was filed.

If I had to guess I'd bet on the image actually being taken from Getty's website or the image was exclusively licensed to somebody at the time so Getty can more easily prove damages.

It would be too expensive for Getty to start filing suits against every infringer because most wouldn't have the means to pay even if Getty won. It also wouldn't be long before it got noticed by a politician a lot more than sending threatening letters would.

I'll keep an eye on it with interest though.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Agreed, remember Corbis v Nick Star, Corbis won the case and legal fees, the court determined that both were too high and lowered the amount.  When it was all said and done it ended up costing Corbis around 125k for the win.  That was also providing that they got paid their judgement too.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/my-analysis-of-corbis-vs-nick-starr-case-outcome/

It is interesting in so much as Getty have newish owners but most likely there is a particular reason why this single image case was filed.

If I had to guess I'd bet on the image actually being taken from Getty's website or the image was exclusively licensed to somebody at the time so Getty can more easily prove damages.

It would be too expensive for Getty to start filing suits against every infringer because most wouldn't have the means to pay even if Getty won. It also wouldn't be long before it got noticed by a politician a lot more than sending threatening letters would.

I'll keep an eye on it with interest though.

[UncleJohnsBand]

I am part of the Tinfoil Hat party after reading these lawsuits.   I think Getty is picking their victims very carefully.

I think that Getty found their Aronson at the veterinary clinic.  The clinic seems to be doing some weird things including having someone impersonate a lawyer (just my opinion).   That case looks like an easy win.   

In the single-image case, I don't think it is a coincidence that a law firm was picked (though I have absolutely zero evidence to make this claim) and they are asking for actual damages.   This way they don't get too hostile of a response from the other law firm.  I would expect a settlement fairly quickly and they can claim that they have sued single image infringers and move on with their usual scam.

[Mulligan]

A generous choice of options for this RM image (which is very lame in my estimation) is $450 for a three month license to use on an inner page of a website. Now, I know law firms pull in HUGE amounts of money when they're charging clients, but I suspect like the rest of us they may well be penny pinchers when they're shelling the green out to someone else.

Frankly, I can't even imagine a law firm with partners billing $958.72 an hour spending four Ben Franklins and a Ulysses S. Grant for a lousy three month license of a stupid image of a "Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion)."

I suppose there may be a federal judge out there somewhere who would award Getty a few bucks for this alleged infringement, but I don't see him/her awarding Getty with a Woodrow Wilson*...

*http://www.marshu.com/articles/images-website/articles/presidents-on-us-paper-money/one-hundred-thousand-100000-dollar-bill-img.jpg

Well, one never knows what rabbit hole one will stumble into when following Getty's speculative invoicing and settlement demand schemes!

[SoylentGreen]

Suing for "actual damages" against a law firm?
Actual damages wouldn't amount to much money.

We've been beating Getty over the head with the fact that they've never sued sued over a single infringement.
I guess that Getty's strategy is to be able to say that they actually "sued over one image AND won".
Interesting...

S.G.

[UncleJohnsBand]

Suing for "actual damages" against a law firm?
Actual damages wouldn't amount to much money.

We've been beating Getty over the head with the fact that they've never sued sued over a single infringement.
I guess that Getty's strategy is to be able to say that they actually "sued over one image AND won".
Interesting...

S.G.

I agree and how would they prove "actual damages".  I just see this as a way of being able to claim that they do sue over a single image, the will try to claim they picked a tough opponent -- because after all a law firm doesn't have to worry about legal costs (I don't know why they would seek outside counsel for something this small), and because they will eventually settle with the law firm for a tiny amount of money they won't piss off the brotherhood of lawyers too much.   This case, while Getty will certainly win, doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Oscar Michelen]

I think that Getty's new lawyers in Seattle are probably "testing the waters".  Choosing a lawyer as their first target is an interesting choice because  I guess this guy could represent himself. But maybe they figure he will have the assets and will want to pay quickly o get out of it.  Jerry - i wrote him the day I learned of the lawsuit a few days ago and he has not responded. I also sent him a link to some of the forum posts here I wanted to make sure he saw (Advernet etc). At his point, I can only assume he does not want our help as if you type in "Getty lawsuit" in Google the first item is expiry./com which has post linking to our site and then our site. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This is all courtesy of Seattle Copyright Attorney and douchenozzle Timothy B. McCormack who is acting as a good Getty puppet...Even though Getty didn't even give him a shot at filing his own suit..( speaks volumes of their trust in Timothy McCormack)

Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice

The Court, having considered the Stipulated Motion for Consent Judgment filed by plaintiff Getty Images (US), Inc. (“Getty Images”) and defendant The Herzog Law Firm, P.C. (“Herzog”), hereby enters the following Final Judgment and Order:

1. The Court enters judgment against Herzog and in favor of Getty Images on Getty Images’ copyright infringement claim in the amount of $5,000.00.

2. This action shall be dismissed with prejudice and each party is to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

you can read the court document here:

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/final-judgment-and-order-of-dismissal-wi-25552/

I naturally have other comments, but would also like to get some thoughts from others regarding this ( hint, hint Oscar)..By all appearences the defendant didn't even fight, just simply admitted to everything and agreed to pay..

[Mulligan]

LOL.