ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: odisey on January 21, 2013, 07:54:07 PM
-
Hi!
Glad you guys are here to provide so much info for those of us who are being pursued by Getty. First I got the demand letter with the screenshot, etc ... photographer's name and the stock number in Getty's library of images.
I was told to pay $965.00 to settle now. I replied after researching how and where I obtained the image in question. The image was actually part of a website template I had downloaded back in 2005. I cannot recall if it was a free template or if I purchased it. I purchase everything ... so I am guessing I purchased it. The original zip file was on a hard drive that has since crashed. I actually have the MyBook crashed hard drive on my desk shelf, and I look at it periodically wondering what goodies it holds.
I replied to the email address provided in the letter explaining my situation. I told them when I had obtained the image (2005), and I that am indeed unsure as to whether I have a license to use it that I can provide in a flash - as it may have been lost or on the crashed HD. I found a screenshot of the template with the image in question on the template screenshot in a file folder of old websites though. The properties inspection suggest I got the image in 2005.
The image Getty found on my site was a greatly reduced version - about 1 in height and 4 inches wide, and it was placed BEHIND another image - that was actually obscuring 50+% of it. I had a semi-transparent layer on top of the image in question covering it with a word like OHHELP. So image this obscured image behind the image overlay or the word, and peeking through the O H H E L P on top. The letters were a very heavy font, and very little image peeked through. (Wondering how they found it in first place)
In response I provided the law that any judgment can be reduced to not less that $200.00 when using an image that was unknown to not have a license, and suggested I pay them $200.00 now to just get through the red tape. Otherwise, I am considering bankruptcy - as I am making no money here. I also told them I was using it not knowing I was in any violation. I told them a license 'could still turn up' if I get the data off that hard drive. I sent them a screen shot of the template where I obtained the image.
They replied that they now want $820.00 after careful considerations.
I am on the fence here. I could send the letters the site suggests, and stop any collections, or just file bankruptcy - this business has no assets. Then start a new business for $135.00.
Or, I am thinking about also providing a response that says 'I believe I may have a license on the crashed hard drive. If you sue me I will have it data mined and we all see.'
In any case, after reading these forums, I see no stories from start to finish .... from "I got the letter," to "I responded this way," to "and this is what happened." It just seems everyone posts on the initial fright of it all, then they don't follow up on their case and results. Or am I missing some cases here that I have not found yet?
If no one is getting sued for 1 image ... I believe I will just send the "stop trying to get money from me letters ...." and see what happens .... Or try to get them to reduce the penalty again .... stating my case of image obscurity (they claimed it added to the aesthetics of my site - when it was actually not entirely visible), and that I may have a license on that old drive.
* ... shrugs ...
-
"penalty"???? no it's not a penalty!! or a "fine"....it's a bullshit claim....they don't care if it came with a template, they don't care if your Hd crashed...they want your money PERIOD. They have NEVER sued over 1 image... My case from start to finish..
I have a license for the image, they threatened me as well, I hired Oscar to draft a letter, heard from them once with a "lowered settlement offer", I declined....the 3 years came and went...end of story..
generally speaking the other stories are basically the same, people either pay them to go away ( thus letting Getty win) or they don't pay ( some hire Oscars services) those that don't pay simply wait for the 3 years to pass and it's over with..
-
Hello Robert .... Thank you for reply! What do you mean ... "wait three years to pass ..." and it will be over?
-
I agree with Robert's statements. It doesn't matter what you say or what you do the only thing Getty wants his money. As Robert says you can retain Oscar and uses defense letter program and after that point you will never receive anything directly from Getty again, you can send a letter telling them to pound sand and wait out your three-year statute of limitations dealing with the occasional letters and harassment, or you can fight them and make them leave you alone and move on to easier prey. I chose the last option.
My story start to finish.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/got-my-getty-letter-thank-you-for-this-site/
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/
"penalty"???? no it's not a penalty!! or a "fine"....it's a bullshit claim....they don't care if it came with a template, they don't care if your Hd crashed...they want your money PERIOD. They have NEVER sued over 1 image... My case from start to finish..
I have a license for the image, they threatened me as well, I hired Oscar to draft a letter, heard from them once with a "lowered settlement offer", I declined....the 3 years came and went...end of story..
generally speaking the other stories are basically the same, people either pay them to go away ( thus letting Getty win) or they don't pay ( some hire Oscars services) those that don't pay simply wait for the 3 years to pass and it's over with..
-
The three years Robert and I refer to our the statute of limitations from the time you receive your first letter that Getty has to file a lawsuit, again it is a moot point as Getty has never filed a lawsuit over a single image violation here in the states.
-
and just to be clear, Gregs' case has not yet reached the 3 year mark, so his case is not technically finished, although it's the general consensus that he won't be hearing from them again, but he did address the issue just a wee bit more aggressively than most... ;D
-
You get just a wee bit more agressive and you get two things:
1) Getty runs away less in less than two months.
2) Matthew and Robert start calling you "Freakshow" ;)
and just to be clear, Gregs' case has not yet reached the 3 year mark, so his case is not technically finished, although it's the general consensus that he won't be hearing from them again, but he did address the issue just a wee bit more aggressively than most... ;D
-
2) Matthew and Robert start calling you "Freakshow" ;)
Please wear that "Freakshow" badge with honor. It's all good IMHO.
;)
-
Thank you for links Greg and your experiences so far ... I should post mine too for others to consider ...
Well I guess my offering them $200.00 and their rejection was good on my part. I could reply and offer them $300.00 just to make it look good ... as they are likely to reject that. And the fact that I 'may have a license' would be a kick in their pants if they went to the trouble of suing over one image and then 'lost!' They need to factor that into their rubric of pursuit in my case.
The image in question is patented to the photographer. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=greg+pease&Search_Code=TALL&PID=Upt2CigPIGv9NuH2DwQv-O7VI&SEQ=20130121204246&CNT=25&HIST=1 (http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=greg+pease&Search_Code=TALL&PID=Upt2CigPIGv9NuH2DwQv-O7VI&SEQ=20130121204246&CNT=25&HIST=1) But Getty is not mentioned in the patent ...
.... So, if the collection agency must go away on request, because this is not a bad legitimate dept, I may as well go with the three years. Any letters I get anyway, I will promptly "return to sender - not at this address!"
You say Greg is not past the three year threshold yet. Is anyone else past it and also left a report of their case with play-by-plays on the site here?
* ...
-
there are plenty past the 3 yrs...not much in the way of "play by play"...Getty sends letters, Getty recruits NCS to send leters...when they get shot down, Getty recruits Asshat Seattle attorney and his "mistress of misrepresentation Ashanti Taylor to send letters...eventually you reach 3 years.. same story different images and targets...
-
I know that it is all in fun, we are all one big family and we have fun with each other. I laugh every time he says it too me.
2) Matthew and Robert start calling you "Freakshow" ;)
Please wear that "Freakshow" badge with honor. It's all good IMHO.
;)
-
I know that it is all in fun, we are all one big family and we have fun with each other. I laugh every time he says it too me.
2) Matthew and Robert start calling you "Freakshow" ;)
Please wear that "Freakshow" badge with honor. It's all good IMHO.
;)
Freak!
-
I would not offer more than 200.00 and make that contingent on them providing proof of claim.
Thank you for links Greg and your experiences so far ... I should post mine too for others to consider ...
Well I guess my offering them $200.00 and their rejection was good on my part. I could reply and offer them $300.00 just to make it look good ... as they are likely to reject that. And the fact that I 'may have a license' would be a kick in their pants if they went to the trouble of suing over one image and then 'lost!' They need to factor that into their rubric of pursuit in my case.
The image in question is patented to the photographer. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=greg+pease&Search_Code=TALL&PID=Upt2CigPIGv9NuH2DwQv-O7VI&SEQ=20130121204246&CNT=25&HIST=1 (http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=greg+pease&Search_Code=TALL&PID=Upt2CigPIGv9NuH2DwQv-O7VI&SEQ=20130121204246&CNT=25&HIST=1) But Getty is not mentioned in the patent ...
.... So, if the collection agency must go away on request, because this is not a bad legitimate dept, I may as well go with the three years. Any letters I get anyway, I will promptly "return to sender - not at this address!"
You say Greg is not past the three year threshold yet. Is anyone else past it and also left a report of their case with play-by-plays on the site here?
* ...
-
Thank you!
I know that it is all in fun, we are all one big family and we have fun with each other. I laugh every time he says it too me.
2) Matthew and Robert start calling you "Freakshow" ;)
Please wear that "Freakshow" badge with honor. It's all good IMHO.
;)
Freak!
-
I'm guessing Greg that you were escalated and started getting letters from their attorney, and then you started getting letters from a collection agency ....? And that is where you are now .... wondering what will be in mail, tomorrow...?
If you all joke around that is fine by me. Eases the stress of the situation.
And I really do appreciate your replies, attention, and support .... !!!!!
-
we understand the stress associated with veiled threats of litigation, make no mistake we take this very seriously, while at the same time interjecting some humor whenever possible, especially at Getty's expense!, Once you get passed the stress part, you'll become pissed, and you'll get thru that as well..we've all been there at some point...as much as I seem to joke and poke fun at these a-holes, truth of the matter is that it still pisses me off to no end..hence i'm still here fighting the good fight....plus peeved is here too ;)
-
Not quite, I had several letters of correspondents between Getty and myself which are all available for viewing in the Experiment Against Getty thread but the last letter that I received from Getty was there threat saying that they were going to escalate this to their legal Department. I responded with this letter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914504/1-8-Letter-to-Getty-07-03-12-Redacted
Included with that last letter was a letter that they would have to include to NCS collection agency should they try sending it there which would kick it right back to Getty and I also launched a complaint letter campaign against them filing complaints with the Washington state Attorney General's office, the Ohio State Attorney General's office, the Washington state Better Business Bureau, my Congressman, my Senator and the FTC.
Also included in my letter was a promise that they should pass along to their outside counsel Timothy McCormack that if I should receive so much is one word from Mr. McCormack or any of his paralegals without all the proof that I had reasonably been requesting that there would be complaint letters filed against Mr. McCormack with all of the same agencies listed above as well as the Washington, Idaho and Oregon State Bar associations where Mr. McCormack is licensed to practice.
There are also copies of all of my complaint letters, Getty's responses in my replies to their responses available in the thread mentioned above as well. After I sent out these letters and became a major time suck and pain in the asked to Getty I have not heard a word from them since their last letter saying they were going to escalate nine months ago. Also immediately after my campaign started in they saw I meant exactly what I said my online claim status with Getty changed from click continue to make payment or something like that to the status of This Claim Is No Longer Available for Online Payment . It still says this today, which is why the consensus is they are done with me as they would have a hard time taking me to court and demanding money when they have made it impossible for me to settle the claim should I ever take a hard hit to the head and be stupid enough to want to.
Getty also reads these forms and they know that should I hear anything from them I am now prepared to do far worse than I did before and am prepared to do it at a moments notice as I have complaint letters ready to go which I update with new information whenever I find it as well as a means now to have them hand-delivered personally bypassing the interns and secretaries, to my Senator, Congressman, FTC and possibly the Washington state Attorney General and the Congressional research service.
Now you see why Robert and Matthew lovingly call me "FreakShow". I don't take kindly to extortion and I fight back hard :)
I'm guessing Greg that you were escalated and started getting letters from their attorney, and then you started getting letters from a collection agency ....? And that is where you are now .... wondering what will be in mail, tomorrow...?
If you all joke around that is fine by me. Eases the stress of the situation.
And I really do appreciate your replies, attention, and support .... !!!!!
-
Well Greg you've given me some things to think about. And options to pursue. I have a PC guy who has some software that may be able to scan my crashed drive for the template and licence should they be there. I would like to work out all options, but I feel strong armed to respond to Getty with money in unreasonable time frames. For example, I have until the 24th to pay $820.00 or the deal is off. It is difficult to meet their deadlines. For example, they mailed my first letter January 5. I did not get it from post office until January 17 - leaving me 2 days to panic and react (14 days).
I think I may go the complaint route .... They should provide info that they do have rights to the image if they request that I in turn provide proof I have a license to display it.
And, aren't they totally clogging up the jurisprudence system in Washington for $1000.00 cases? Can the court there handle the demand, and do they want to try to handle the demand? Seems to me hundreds of people would be dragged to court there monthly - maybe more.
-
The complaint route seems to work, but make sure you don’t threaten anything that you are not truly willing to do or they will see you don’t mean what you say and continue to harass you.
Don’t worry about the deadline, it is designed to do exactly what it is doing to you now and make you panic, it means nothing plain and simple. It is not for you to prove your innocence, it is for them to prove your guilt and it sounds like a de minimis case at best (I am not a lawyer and Oscar may tell me I’m wrong) and Oscar recently shared a wonderful case Davis v. The Gap where it said that de minimis is not infringement at all and tossed it out. You bought the template, even if not the license, believing that any pictures in the template were part of the fee.
Again, Getty has never sued anyone in the states over one image. The last case they fought was Getty v. Advernet filed Mar 2009 and settled in June 2011 which was over 35 images, Getty was suing for 24k plus legal fees. They won this case by default when Advernet could no longer afford to fight. The court looked at the testimony and evidence presented in the trial thus far and ruled that Getty would get no monies as there were issues with every single registration negating them from being able to collect anything. This is why Getty will not provide proof of claim because they don’t have any on the vast majority of their images.
Look at my letters and use them as guides, do not copy them or sections of them as Getty will spot it and call you on it, they most likely remember them all too well. They did call someone out for coping parts of one of Matthews letters so they know and keep tract.
Well Greg you've given me some things to think about. And options to pursue. I have a PC guy who has some software that may be able to scan my crashed drive for the template and licence should they be there. I would like to work out all options, but I feel strong armed to respond to Getty with money in unreasonable time frames. For example, I have until the 24th to pay $820.00 or the deal is off. It is difficult to meet their deadlines. For example, they mailed my first letter January 5. I did not get it from post office until January 17 - leaving me 2 days to panic and react (14 days).
I think I may go the complaint route .... They should provide info that they do have rights to the image if they request that I in turn provide proof I have a license to display it.
And, aren't they totally clogging up the jurisprudence system in Washington for $1000.00 cases? Can the court there handle the demand, and do they want to try to handle the demand? Seems to me hundreds of people would be dragged to court there monthly - maybe more.
-
check this link: How to STOP Getty images settlement demand letters - Cease All Communication
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/how-to-stop-gettys-employees-harassment/msg10705/#msg10705
-
Would it be a good idea to sticky the thread Rock just posted above? It's definitely a good summary for new recipients of the Getty letter.
-
Well guys I asked them to provide their proof that they hold the copyright or signed documents from the author giving them rights to demand .... otherwise cease all communication. I added that without such proof, any communication will be considered harassment and I will file harassment cases against them, their employees, and their representatives.
The reality is I was initially battling with whether this claim was not only legitimate, but if it was actually Getty. I've seen so many stories about scammers and the lengths they go to rob people. Realistically, how can you or anyone respond to their demand of 'pay me on the internet' with no proof of who they are 'first' and that they actually have rights to demand 'second' in 14 days? Well, in one day in my case since I get the mail twice a month from the box.
Next ...... avoiding the summons ...... If they decide they want you, be sure not to forget the predicament you are in for the three years.
I am not a lawyer, of course, so I can only suggest you speak with one if necessary - there seems to be availability of representation here. But, it is my believe that if you are NOT served then there can be no hearing, and if there is no hearing there is no case. So ... no certified mail is accepted for three years. After 15 days of the notice in your box, it is automatically sent back to sender ... I think.
-
IF they were to serve you, it has to be done in person, not certified mail...they actually have to pay someone to do this, usually an off-duty cop or deputy...keep in mind Getty has NEVER filed for 1 or 2 images...you case is no different from the thousands of others, so it's unlikely they would select you to be an example...
-
Buddhapi is correct on both points.
However, you should be aware that rules vary from state to state and province to province as to what might be considered to be a successful delivery of legal papers (service).
Generally speaking:
Personal delivery by a "process server" is the gold standard for delivery.
Be aware that it needn't be passed from the server's hand to your hand.
For example, imagine that you were approached in public by a server and he/she asked if you were "John Doe".
You might respond in the affirmative, at which point he/she would hand an envelope to you.
But, even if you did not take the envelope, he/she could simply drop it at your feet, and say "you've been served".
It's sometimes difficult to duck service to a workplace.
If a server can find out where you work, he/she may approach someone in charge, and ask if you work there.
He/she may then give the document to that person to give to you.
In some places, regular mail is an acceptable form of service if the document isn't sent back "return to sender" within a handful of days.
Email is a really crappy way of sending legal documents.
If you receive documents by email (or even Facebook), and you respond at all, an argument may be made that you've read the documents in question.
Some will just shove the envelope in your door, or mailbox.
This can work if they can prove that you do in fact reside there, or if you respond.
In some states, the rules are fairly strict as to what constitutes service.
In some Canadian provinces, all that needs to be proven is that the person read the documents, and/or was aware that they were being sued.
Protip: watch the online court docket for your state and province.
If you've been sued, it'll appear on there. Expect delivery within the next business day to three weeks.
Evading a lawsuit can actually work, in spite of the impression that process servers prefer to give, which is "you can't hide, and we'll get you every time".
While resources are certainly available to track people down, it's actually very, very expensive to do so.
But, it can be quite stressful, as you'll feel that you're always looking over your shoulder.
Having said all that, lawsuits are very rare, especially in the case of Getty and relatively minor infringements.
Most folks here don't recommend ignoring these issues, and letting things snowball into bigger problems.
A final thought. Even if you can't work things out at first, it's never too late to negotiate a settlement even if a lawsuit has been filed.
Nobody (even the trolls) want to risk going to court.
S.G.
-
I see no reason why your case will be the first one of this nature Getty puts into suit. Keep track of the statue of limitations date - 3 years from the date on the first Getty letter your received is the safest starting point.