Schneider Rothman IP Law v. Getty Images & Zemanta Lawsuit

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Oscar / Joel are free to use my case as another example, my 3 yrs is long gone, but as many of you know I purchased the images in question in good faith, showed Getty the license, but could not produce the receipt after more than 10 yrs.. But they still hounded me and also accused me of "creating" said license myself..all within 15 minutes of opening the Getty Images extortion letter. Oscar probably still has my documentation on file somewhere, if not i still have it.

[Joel Rothman]

New development.  Getty's attorneys have made an appearance.  This is the firm: http://woodbury-santiago.com/ 


Robert Santiago, the attorney who filed the notice of appearance, was involved in a long running copyright infringement case that is somewhat famous (and infamous) in Florida involving a yacht multiple listing service.  Here are some decisions from that saga: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/0:2002cv60772/9482/


I don't know Mr. Santiago.  I have never heard of his firm before.  We will see what transpires.

[Joel Rothman]

Please promote us on Reddit!  http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/2gb8in/getty_images_notorious_copyright_troll_is_finally/

[lucia]

If you go + my post, I guess it will become more visible:
http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/2gb8in/getty_images_notorious_copyright_troll_is_finally/ckjrm4t

[Matthew Chan]

It would appear that Woodbury-Santiago are experts in Internet stealth marketing. What a terrible and atrocious website.  Did they have their website developed in the late 1990's?  And what about those hokey sound effects?

I guess Getty did a good job hiring them because those lawyers have done a good job hiding themselves online. They must have more business than they need because NO ONE would every sign up with them based on what little you can find.

They have to be reasonably good lawyers because they are clearly bad in cyberspace and would not likely get much business via Internet contacts.

New development.  Getty's attorneys have made an appearance.  This is the firm: http://woodbury-santiago.com/ 

Robert Santiago, the attorney who filed the notice of appearance, was involved in a long running copyright infringement case that is somewhat famous (and infamous) in Florida involving a yacht multiple listing service.  Here are some decisions from that saga: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/0:2002cv60772/9482/

I don't know Mr. Santiago.  I have never heard of his firm before.  We will see what transpires.

[lucia]

Internet stealth marketing.

What's that?

A lot of law firms have bad web site. Getty Images has money. I suspect they will have picked a competent law firm. They don't want to be enjoined from sending out demand letters.

[Matthew Chan]

"Internet stealth marketing" is me being snarky. "Stealth marketing" is an oxymoronic term for those who "try" to market successfully (in this case Internet), but it ends up being detrimental.

And yes, many law firms do have crappy uninformative websites. So, if they have been in existence a number of years, it says that they have enough referrals and a presence to be profitable. I did acknowledge that. Nevertheless, a website is like a calling card nowadays.  One would think they would want to portray a better image of themselves.

Internet stealth marketing.

What's that?

A lot of law firms have bad web site. Getty Images has money. I suspect they will have picked a competent law firm. They don't want to be enjoined from sending out demand letters.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I'm still trying to figure out why they didn't hire Attorney Timothy B. McCormack for this.

</snark>

[lucia]

I'm still trying to figure out why they didn't hire Attorney Timothy B. McCormack for this.

</snark>

They need a Florida firm.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm still trying to figure out why they didn't hire Attorney Timothy B. McCormack for this.

</snark>

1. Maybe they have inspirations of possibly winning?
2. Is Timothy B. McCormack a real lawyer or just a collection schlep?

[Matthew Chan]

Oscar has been formally admitted into Florida in support of Schneider Rothman against Getty Images.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239559043/Schneider-Rothman-v-Getty-Images-Docket

ENDORSED ORDER granting [8] Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing as to Oscar Michelen. Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 9/16/2014. (kcr)

Also, Attorney Robert P. of Santiago Woodbury & Santiago in Miami, FL has filed his Notice of Appearance is heading up the Getty Images side. It looks like Getty waited to see what Schneider Rothman would do first before committing to their own lawyer.

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert Peter Santiago on behalf of Getty Images, Inc.. Attorney Robert Peter Santiago added to party Getty Images, Inc.(pty:dft). (Santiago, Robert) (Entered: 09/15/2014)

Robert Peter Santiago
Woodbury & Santiago, P.A.
9100 S Dadeland Boulevard
Penthouse 1 - Suite 1702
Miami, FL 33156
305-670-9580
Fax: 305-670-2170
Email: [email protected]

[Matthew Chan]

A familiar name has popped up on the updated docket.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239559043/Schneider-Rothman-v-Getty-Images-Docket

Scott "Towels" Wilsdon has filed his notice of appearance on behalf of Getty Images.

It looks like Scottie wants to face off against Oscar again! This is going to get interesting.

I believe Getty will try to bribe their way out of this one to avoid the discovery process. If the money is high enough, I wouldn't blame Schneider Rothman from banking it if it comes to that.  Karmic justice for Getty who ends up paying out for an extortion letter they should never have sent out!

$100,000 to settle out sounds pretty good to me.  A nice round number.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Personally I hope there is no settlement until AFTER discovery, but I'm selfish.

[Joel Rothman]

Getty Images has filed a motion to dismiss the SRIPLAW complaint in this case: http://www.scribd.com/doc/241112937/Getty-Images-Motion-to-Dismiss


The motion is based upon the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. 

[stinger]

So what do the lawyers think?  Should this doctrine apply?  I hope not as it justifies some very bad behaviors.

I can't wait to see the real answer to this one.