Help! Debt collection letter arrived

[Couch_Potato]

Although their reply doesn't confirm anything it only serves to strengthen my belief they have no legal right to chase this on Getty's behalf.

[Couch_Potato]

As you have failed to deal with this matter in the correct manner and persist in wasting time asking for information which is irrelevant, we are not willing to discuss the matter with you any further.

I would definitely reply and ask what the correct manner is in dealing with an infringement case. I would love to see them justify how your approach is wrong.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Very nicely done, I love it when people stand up to the trolls and make them squirm.  Great Job!

[Mulligan]

Print and frame that email. It's rare to see one of these trolls capitulate so soundly. Good job!

[coleman1b]

Hi

I have been dealing with Getty for about a year now and more recently Atradius.

I have received several letters from Getty regarding copywright infringement, which I chose to ignore until I got a letter from Atradius, which did in fact look more like a debt collection letter, in fact they call themselves Atradius Collections Ltd.

I spoke to a Uk Solicitor about 2 months ago whom I can not remember the name of unfortunately because he has been dealing with Getty cases in the UK for about 12 years now, and like others on this forum also told me to write to Atradius to ask for proof of licence between getty and the original rights holder.

This is a synopsis of what I got back from Atradius
" Your statement that we have to supply you with the contact between the photographer and our client is incorrect"

"Indeed it is you that has to supply to us a licence you have to use the image. As you cannot do this our client is entitiled to claim damages from you on behalf of the photographer."

And so on regarding the infingement of copywright and that a business does not know of that infringement is of no defence.

Then on a seperate piece of paper they sent me a copy of a bill for the Debtor: Nigel O'Hara
Their reference number, and wait for it-
Unpaid invoices to JENS J. AAGAARD A/S AS

Doesn't that sound a bit Dutch to you, it certainly does to me, and thankfully as I think since Ryan has done some research on the credit licence of Atradius and they are operating from Amsterdam in Holland it is certainly sounding very fishy.

Anyway I will be copying the reply and sending it to Atradius and telling them to go suck a duck.

Thank you for all your posts

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Actually Coleman, it falls on THEM to prove this claim.

[Couch_Potato]

The only reference I can find to a JENS J. AAGAARD A/S AS is to some Danish jewellery company

http://byaagaard.com/uk/contact

Seems odd Atradius would want you to pay them. Perhaps Atradius handles collections for them and has accidentally left their payment information on the invoice.

[jackslad]

I have recently received an email from Atradius offering a 75% discount to "settle amicably". I have referred this outfit to the Cardiff Council Trading Standards. In the most recent email Atradius state they are not members of the FSA.

[Couch_Potato]

This gets more and more sketchy.

If Atradius doesn't collect debts (which they confirmed because they aren't licensed to) and they are only collecting for a copyright infringement (although not for themselves because they aren't the copyright holder of exclusive licensee) then who is authorising the 75% discount?

As I see it only Getty could ever authorise the discount. If Atradius haven't been passed the 'debt' then they are in no position to offer a reduction in settlement amount without Getty's consent.

If Getty have authorised this then they'll surely never take anybody to court unless they have evidence of a wilful infringement. Imagine trying to convince a judge that the amount you asked for was fair when you are offering other customers a 75% discount.

Jackslad, it might be worthwhile replying and asking whether it was Getty or Atradius offering the 75% discount.

[jackslad]

The "offer" of a 75% discount was in an email from Atradius. I had a long chat with the Cardiff Trading Standards office about Atradius. Trading Standards have been sent all of the emails I have received from Atradius. I have a feeling that that Atradius have been given a list of "prospects" by Getty and if they can get some money from anyone on it, to keep things "amicable" - they will. I will keep the board posted when I hear back from the Trading Standards people.

[Couch_Potato]

Good work Jackslad and thanks for keeping us updated.

Please let us know when Trading Standards reply.

[fedup]

I have also received this letter from Attriadus around 18 months after I thought Getty went away.

Quick history: I buy all of my images, but missed one small one by mistake.  Getty demanded a settlement of £1,225 for this image, even though I took it down, apologized and purchased a retrospective license for £30.

Since then I haven't heard from them for over a year.  Then, I got the Christmas email from Atradius.

I think I made a mistake of replying to say that I had a licence, which opened the door to a bombardment of cut-and-paste letters with incorrect dates etc. So far I have responded to tell them to get lost, but I've been bombarded with more harassing and quite unprofessional emails.

They don't seem to be bothered that the amount they are asking for is arbitrary and not at all commensurate with the value of the license. I'm not a repeat offender. I'd be happy to pay a reasonable penalty and put it down to experience, but this really is extortion.

Not sure what the next step is.  Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks for posting progress on here guys.  This really does seem like the worst case of big companies trying to squash the small man.

[Mulligan]

If I were you at this point, I'd send one email telling them I won't reply to additional emails and if they have anything else to say, to send it by registered postal service. Tell them you want official paper at this point on this matter because you will be sending it to the agency in your country that looks into those who demand money without a legal right to do so.

I forget the name of the agency in the U.K. that polices collection agencies, but you'll find it in one of the threads here on ELI in this U.K. section.

My experience here in the U.S. with Getty Images and its copyright trolling lawyer and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his paralegal Ashanti A. Taylor is that these people are nothing but hot air who capitalize on those easily intimidated.

[Couch_Potato]

If you want to do things by the book then you could make them an offer because you have basically admitted to them that you committed copyright infringement (even though it was entirely mistakenly).

I am no lawyer but my understanding of the legal process for civil cases is that before Getty can even launch legal proceedings they must go through the mediation process with you which would involve trying to negotiate a settlement. If it did end up in court (extremely unlikely based on past evidence) and the judge decided that during mediation you had made a good faith offer of settlement that he felt was proper he could decide not to award Getty any costs for litigation.

This would make taking you to court a very high risk strategy for such a small potential reward.

As for Atradius, they can't do anything. They can't chase debts and they can't take you to court for legal proceedings because they don't have the authority. I'd wipe my arse with any of their correspondence.