Getty Images Washington State Lawsuit Against Virtual Clinics

[ws2001]

Old news filed 4/5/2013 by Timothy McCormack about
Getty Images (US), Inc., a New York corporation v. Virtual Clinics, d/b/a Virtual Clinics USA; Veterinary Website Designers, d/b/a Vet Web Designers; Ronald Camp; Kendra Ryan, a/k/a Kendra Camp; John Doe One; a/k/a Abe and Abraham Goldstein; and John Doe Two, a/k/a Harry Granger

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/getty-images-filed-recent-lawsuit-agains-94156/
Getty Images filed recent lawsuit against infringers in Seattle, Wa

A novel means of attempting to sue California residents in a Washington State Federal Court, as plaintiff would usually face an interesting uphill climb proving internet jurisdiction.  i.e. many Federal cases tossed out using the same "Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court because they have purposefully aimed at" (insert jurisdiction here) "their activities from which the claims asserted in this Complaint arise."

In this case though plaintiff managed to show defendants were PHYSICALLY in Washington State.

Forgot the legal term about altering baseline facts, generally you can't, but this is Getty Images statement:

"By letter dated June 30, 2011, Getty Images notified Village Hot Springs Websites in Westlake Village, California that its use of the image was without authorization and constituted copyright infringement. The photographic image is the subject of copyright Certificate of Registration VA 1-850-496 (dated March 4, 2013)"

Defendants GOOFED though:

"By way of example, defendants were on notice of the copyrights held by Getty Images and the photographers it represents, yet defendants continued to make infringing uses of those images:" ... "Defendants received written notice of Getty Images's rights in the subject image at least as early as January 19, 2012, when Getty Images wrote to object" .. "Getty Images notice February 16, 2012" ... "Getty Images notice March 15, 2012".

And:

"as early as June 30, 2011" ... "notice January 12, 2012" ... "April 12, 2012" ... "April 26, 2012".

etc.

Got 'you' worried?  Well this case looks cherry picked, because in addition to the really really willful miss use of images, defendants physically caught in the plaintiff's lawyer court jurisdiction, etc., there's this:

"Camp is the spouse of defendant Kendra Ryan. In 1983, Camp pled guilty to federal charges of fraud and served time in prison. See United States v. Kendra Ryan Camp, Ronald Edwin Camp, No. 83-cr-113-C".
"In 1983, Ryan pled guilty to federal charges of fraud and served time in prison".

Out of perhaps hundreds of thousands of "infringements", a cherry picked likely court win. A case to add to the infringement "letter".

[Matthew Chan]

In an update on the Virtual Clinics case, Getty Images obtained a default judgment of over $600K against Virtual Clinics.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2013cv00626/191997/47/0.pdf

On March 20, 2014, the court awarded Getty Images actual damages of $21,433 for 10 unregistered images and $300,000 maximum statutory damages for 2 registered images. Virtual Clinics made 2 attempts to defend the case and then subsequently abandoned it.

The court awarded Getty Images attorney's fees in the amount of $276,680.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2013cv00626/191997/53/0.pdf

How Getty Images arrived at $276,680 of attorney fees for a default judgment case is mind blowing. Scott "Towels" Wilsdon charges $465/hour.  (Are you freaking kidding me?). A staff attorney charged $385/hour.  And two paralegals billed out at $180/hour. Getty lawyers allegedly spent 1,124 hours on this case allegedly because of the motions, discovery, "deception and stonewalling" by the Camps.  If Getty actually pays all this to their law firm, then I would say that Getty got raped by the law firm.

There is no way Getty Images will ever get collect this judgment or attorney fees in any meaningful way.  They can try to garnish but no way the Camps will have $600K worth of assets to pay Getty or the attorneys.

It should be noted that ELI does not support Virtual Clinics in that their infringements were numerous, egregious, and willful unlike the vast majority of cases we deal with.

These folks received "worst case scenario" because their case was simply the "worst of the worst" and is by far, NOT REPRESENTATIVE of most innocent/nonwillful infringers we encounter.

On July 30, 2014, Getty Images filed for a propose writ of garnishment against one of Virtual Clinics clients to partially collect on the remaining $600K outstanding.

Declaration of Attorney In Support of Issuance of Write of Garnishment
http://www.scribd.com/doc/235860701/Getty-Images-v-Virtual-Clinics-In-Support-of-Garnishment

Proposed Writ of Garnishment
http://www.scribd.com/doc/235860600/Getty-Images-v-Virtual-Clinics-Proposed-Writ-of-Garnishment

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Agreed, while I don't like Getty Images and McCormack IP Law's current business model what the Camp's did was just wrong in every way possible.  They got what they deserved as their actions were willful and blatant.