What If Getty Decides to Sue Me?

[Canada]

I have just received my second letter from Getty asking for $850x3 for images that were used on my site.  Of course, unintentional, immediately removed and I will never use Getty or any of their counter parts again.

I have not responded to any of their letters and don't actually see the point. I understand their situation, and fell that removing the images was more than enough.

My question is, what if they decide to sue me?  Can they ask for more than they are currently asking? 

I would be happy to settle for a reasonable figure, but we are talking $100 per image, not $850.  And from what I see, contacting them with that amount is in vain.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

They would naturally ask for more as they would also want to collect Attorney fee's... Past history tells us They don't file suit for one or 2 images ( at least they haven't thus far) where the threshold is i'm not exactly clear.

However I do believe this is more of a money making venture for them, so I like to do some simple math, taking the following into consideration.

They would need to file the suit where you are located, so they would need to pay an attorney to travel, pay for lodging, meals ect.. in addition to hourly rates.

They're looking to collect 2550 from you and IF they win and any other costs...however if they LOSE, it will probably cost them more than that right out of  gate, than what they are trying to collect.. some may think my thinking is a bit warped here, and maybe it is.

you might want to do some research into he images in question, could they possibly be available on other sites? did GI own the exclusive license when you got the images? are the images registered? All of these items could potentially weaken their case..

[SoylentGreen]

Just a few thoughts here.

Getty's already stated a value of $850 x3 for the images, so they're kind of stuck with that figure.
They could ask for more, but they've indicated that this figure is the value of the images.
In the event of a lawsuit, they could seek court costs in addition to the cost of the images.

If there was a lawsuit, I would imagine that they'd have to hire a lawyer close to your vicinity, with knowledge of your country's laws.
The costs of sending a lawyer from elsewhere would vastly eclipse any settlement value that they could hope to achieve.
I don't think that Getty could collect such costs even if they won, as these wouldn't be considered "reasonable attorney fees".

Yes, if Getty loses, you could get your court costs paid.

Getty images filed two lawsuits in Canada in 2008.  Both in Vancouver, but no other lawsuits since that time.
Neither lawsuit ever made it to court, so it would appear that either Getty dropped the suits, or the defendants paid a settlement.

Personally, I wouldn't pay anything to anybody unless they could provide proof that they owned the images, or could collect monies on behalf of the actual owner in the event of an infringement.  So, I'd need to see an actual document showing that they own the copyright, or an actual signed contract that shows that the photographer/artist has transferred his/her rights to Getty.

If Getty does decide to sue, you could pay them some sort of settlement to make it go away, you could fight them in court, or you could file a defence, sit tight and see if they actually go to court (or back out before the court date).

S.G.

[Canada]

Thanks for the advice.  Would you recommend that I reply to the letters, or should I just ignore them?

My thought was to reply requesting all the information showing that Getty Actually owns the images, and has proper copyright licenses, but I also don't want to open up a dialogue that will be wasting my time.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty won't provide you with proof, they like to say " we'll show you in court", as far as wasting you time, I don't think it would be a total waste, you could make a offer to settle, which they would probably turn down. But at least at this point you have a record of asking for proof and also making an offering, which any judge in the right mind would consider favorable..on one hand it would be a waste of time, but not so much on the other hand..

Thnax SG for chiming in, good info as usual!

[Canada]

Sounds like good advice to me.  I will send a reply this week.  I have been in touch with a copyright lawyer in Canada, if I receive any good information I will be sure to post it. 

[SoylentGreen]

Withholding as much information as possible is a standard tactic, intended to cause alleged infringers to make uninformed decisions.
Masterfile seems to be more cooperative in this regard, however.

I would say that if an entity won't give information about the infringement, then there's not much chance of a lawsuit at all.
If thousands of dollars are being demanded, it's reasonable to ask "who are you?", and "what right do you have to demand this payment?".

Getty would pretty much have to give you all the information before a litigation.
There's an onus on litigants to try to solve a dispute before heading off to court.
That includes an explanation of the dispute from Getty.

Imagine a session in court wherein the defendant said "They wouldn't tell me who they are, and why I owed this money.  I thought it was a scam".
That's a fast way for Getty to get into hot water in court.

In any case, I find it interesting that most people would be appalled if the gas company sent them a bill for $2500 for the month of June, and the gas company said "we'll explain our billing practice to you if we go to court".  I can't see how anyone tolerates this from Getty and some others.

S.G.

[Canada]

Buddhapi and SoylentGreen your advice is very helpful, it adds a strength to my resolve.  I have written my first letter to send to Getty and was wondering if it would be possible to have you review it.  I understand if you cannot, a simple No will suffice, having too many people send you letters to proof read would be daunting.

If you can, is there a way to send it privately.