Messages

1

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: e-mail from Getty

« on: April 08, 2013, 05:51:57 AM »

Getty is trying to put the onus on you to disprove their claim to ownership, asking you to get in touch with the photographer and get a statement from them.

However, if Getty is asking you for money, the onus should be on Getty to prove their claim to ownership, not on you to disprove it.  This is common sense.  It's also difficult to prove a negative.

If you do want to reply, keep the onus on Getty to prove their claim to ownership, which as BuddhaPi mentioned, a watermarked image doesn't do.

Check out Couch Potato's 28th March answer in the 'Should I respond' thread which talks about what you should ask from Getty to prove their ownership, eg a copy of their agreement with the photographer, and other things.  A look through the forum may give you other ideas.

2

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Atradius Letter - various thoughts

« on: January 16, 2013, 06:56:43 AM »

Well, I did reply saying we had no reason to suppose we had any debt to Atradius Collections Ltd, that they weren't a licensed debt collector, that they had no authority to demand or receive payment for anything which may or may not be due to Getty Images, and that we knew nothing about the case number they quoted. 

The next thing that happened was that Atradius left a voice message on my business partner's phone but he hasn't called them back. 

Maybe as Dynazzy says we should just ignore them.

3

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / The Atradius Letter - various thoughts

« on: December 31, 2012, 02:22:24 PM »

Hi all,

Hadn't heard from Getty for 20 months, thought they'd gone away, and then the Atradius letter arrived to brighten my Xmas.  Several points occurred to me about it.

The letter mentions a case number which I have not seen before. It contains no cross-reference at all to the Getty invoice number nor to any references given in previous Getty letters.  Admittedly it was sent to the same address, and for the same amount, but I don't see why I should be expected to assume anything; if they are demanding money they should be specific about it.

It strikes me, therefore, that a reasonable initial tactic would be to reply saying simply that I do not know of any such case number and so cannot take the matter further.

Secondly, Atradius is by their own admission not a principal in this affair.  They say 'we have been advised by our client' and 'our clients have provided you with a settlement demand' and 'if you do not respond we will have little alternative but to advise our clients to escalate this issue through a law firm'.  So all they are doing is providing a service to Getty Images. 

But despite this, they 'demand payment' 'into our (ie Atradius's) bank account'.  I do not understand on what authority Atradius can demand payment for a debt payable to Getty Images.  And surely it would be foolish for anyone to pay any money to Atradius without having in their hands a legally binding letter from Getty Images to them assigning the debt to Atradius, or authorising Atradius to collect their debts? Such authority surely must come from Getty Images rather than being on Atradius's say-so.  Otherwise people could find that they had made a completely unnecessary payment to Atradius which did nothing to reduce their debt (if any) to Getty Images.

Incidentally Atradius dated its letter 21st Dec and asked for payment within 5 days.  There is only one working day between the 21st and 26th Dec and that doesn't even allow time for the letter to arrive.  I think an OFT referral is called for.

Any thoughts welcome!