Getty Images files suit over single image

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Like I said at the start:

 

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?

My suspicion is that's what happened here. My theory is something like this: 1.) Find a small law firm that is infringing on your image. 2.) Tell them you would like to sue them and if they don't put up a fight, you will forgive the infringement, pay them some cash and/or cover all their costs. 3.) File a "Stipulated Motion for Consent."  You can see this at: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/stipulated-motion-for-consent-judgment-g-25447/

So this means the case never went to trial so it doesn't count as a loss for the law firm. But for Getty, it counts as a big win. It sets the "going rate" for a single-image infringement at $5000 and you can damn well believe they will use that chip to bargain with other innocent infringes in the future.

This is all my opinion of course. But I can think of no better reason as to why this law firm chose to roll over.

[Peeved]

My thoughts are in line with Jerry's.

With regard to this statement, "Getty Images has demonstrated that defendant reproduced, displayed, distributed and made other infringing uses of the subject image, without authorization", it is unclear as to how "innocent" this infringement may have been. Other than that, I agree with the insanity of a law firm settling for 5 grand!

[Mulligan]

For me, this entire matter has more holes than the plastic colender Mrs. Mulligan uses to wash chicken necks in.

For one suspicious hole, a Copyright search reveals that the work was taken in 2002 but never registered until March of 2013. Additionally, near as I can tell, it is the ONLY work by this particular photographer that's been registered. Ever.

Here's the complete listing from the copyright office's search function:

Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)

Type of Work:    Visual Material

Registration Number / Date:    VA0001850730 / 2013-03-08

Application Title:    Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)

Title:    Businessman falling over, legs in air (blurred motion) (BF1429-001)

Description:    Electronic file (eService)

Copyright Claimant:    Robert Daly Ltd. Address: 135 Elborough Street, London, SW18 5DS, United Kingdom.

Date of Creation:    2002

Date of Publication:    2002-08-11

Nation of First Publication:    United States

Authorship on Application:    Daly & Newton, pseud. of Robert Daly Ltd. (author of pseudonymous work), employer for hire; Domicile: United Kingdom; Citizenship: United Kingdom. Authorship: photograph(s)

Rights and Permissions:    Getty Images, 605 - 5th Ave. S., Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98104, United States
   
Names:    Daly & Newton, pseud.
   Robert Daly Ltd.

[stinger]

I agree that the case is a setup.  They are going to use it for one of three reasons:

• They can cite it in their letters as a recent case to try and scare troll victims.
• They need it on the books to fight all the fraud complaints with the BBB, AG, and various bar associations which state they threaten to sue, but never do, so it is fraud.
• They want it on the books so they can cite it in future cases in the event they get in front of back water judges like those one sometimes finds in small court jurisdictions like GA.

I am just not sure which reason is why they put this "setup" case together.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

you can bet your ass that Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack will be adjusting his typo filled letters, with this "win"..I agree with Jerry, they will use this to bolster the fear factor.."Getty Images does sue over single infringements".... Getty as well as Wilsdon knew damn well that this lawyer would cave in and settle, I'd be willing to bet that he was "hand-picked"...

When will that douchebag Seatlle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack realize that he is just a puppet doing Getty's dirty work..Getty continues to let him send out his letters and catch all of the flack, and when they do decide to file suit like once for every 1000 letters, they choose another lawyer to handle it..Wake up Timmy, grow a friggin back-bone, get a real job where maybe someone would actually appreciate your "talents" ( whatever they are)...Getty images, Lisa Wilmer, and Jonathan Klien are just using you...

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

It is more than that Robert, in 2009 Lisa Willmer stated that Getty finds about 42,000 cases of infringement a year.  That was 2009, with Pic-Scout and other aides I imagine it is a lot more now. 

You figure in the past Getty averaged about 1 suit per year whick equals 0.002%.  This is a number so close to 0 it I don't think it matters, now figure of the 0.002% how many cases the actually got a favorable ruling, I state it like this because of cases like Advernet where it was a win (by default) but it was ruled they got nothing because there were so many problems with registrations they were not entitled to collect.

So in my opinion I think the terms fraud, legalized extortion and the like are still in play and valid.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

So in my opinion I think the terms fraud, legalized extortion and the like are still in play and valid.

Oh make no mistake, those terms still apply, but also remember when speaking of Getty Images, Lisa Wilmer, Jonathan Klein and Seattle lawyer Timothy B. McCormack, to use terms such as asshat, douchenozzle, scumbag, and loser..

[Oscar Michelen]

I reached out to this firm when they first got the lawsuit filed and offered my assistance at a low rate and directed them to this site. They did not contact me back. The way that it settled it appears that they made what's called an offer of judgment. In federal practice if you offer in writing that you are willing to let the other side enter a judgment against you for a certain amount, you will get all your legal fees back from that point forward if the other side loses or wins less than you offered. I used that tactic to quickly get rid of Federal lawsuit in Florida brought by George Riddick of Imageline (long story, with its own, now dead forum). The reason I think the Herzog firm used this tactic is that if it was a pure settlement, normally the terms and the amount are confidential and a "consent judgment" is not entered. This is what it looks like when the other side receives the offer of judgment and accepts it; you simply enter a consent judgment for the amount offered and the case ends.  If I may toot my own horn a bit, in the Florida Imageline case, even though Riddick's lawyers accepted our nuisance value offer of judgment, I still negotiated a confidentiality agreement and treated it like a settlement so there would not be a judgment against my client.  This firm (for its credit line or any other similar need) will have to report that in 2013 a judgment for $5,000 was entered against it in Federal court.