This is the 4th letter to be issued in this claim and again is from McCormack IP law office and is dated June 14, 2013. The initial claim sent by Getty images was dated June 17, 2010 which makes the three-year statute of limitations due to expire on June 17, 2013.
Did McCormack IP law really expect a letter being mailed on Friday, June 14, 2013 just 3 days before the statute of limitations expires on Monday, June 17, 2013 to reach this person and even should they decide to respond cut a check drop it in the mail and be received before Monday? Again, this appears to be just a desperate attempt by McCormack IP law to try and collect on this claim.
This is the 4th letter to be issued in this claim and again is from McCormack IP law office and is dated June 14, 2013. The initial claim sent by Getty images was dated June 17, 2010 which makes the three-year statute of limitations due to expire on June 17, 2013.
Did McCormack IP law really expect a letter being mailed on Friday, June 14, 2013 just 3 days before the statute of limitations expires on Monday, June 17, 2013 to reach this person and even should they decide to respond cut a check drop it in the mail and be received before Monday? Again, this appears to be just a desperate attempt by McCormack IP law to try and collect on this claim.
This is the 4th letter to be issued in this claim and again is from McCormack IP law office and is dated June 14, 2013. The initial claim sent by Getty images was dated June 17, 2010 which makes the three-year statute of limitations due to expire on June 17, 2013.
Did McCormack IP law really expect a letter being mailed on Friday, June 14, 2013 just 3 days before the statute of limitations expires on Monday, June 17, 2013 to reach this person and even should they decide to respond cut a check drop it in the mail and be received before Monday? Again, this appears to be just a desperate attempt by McCormack IP law to try and collect on this claim.
l11' ''"' 1' II 1111"tll '''I I 11,111 I II ' I'' 1' 1'1lll I' I I FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY PURSUANT TO FRE 408 RE: Getty Images v. Attention: Case No. 983568 Demand Amount: $1,820.00 Website: http://www.xenoslaw.com 61 7 Lee Street Seattle, WA 98109 USA p.206-330-0108/ f.206.381.1988 com Timothy B. McCormack Attomey at Law We have made numerous attempts to resolve Getty Images' pending copyright infringement claim. Our hope was to discuss with you the logistics of a pretrial settlement. We have tried to resolve this copyright infringement claim amicably but unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a settlement agreement or compromise. Your communication has been intermittent or non- existent. This remains an active and open claim that does need to be resolved. Please consider this our fmal warning. There is still time to avoid escalation of this case. Jn order to help avoid that possibility, however, I need to hear back from you immediately. If I do not hear from you we will recommend litigation to Getty Images. The settlement demand includes the cost of licensing and protecting the creator of the intellectual property, but it is much less than the amount we would expect to recover through formal legal proceedings. What is relevant is the fact that a photographer, whose livelihood depends on selling licenses to use their imagery, has not been compensated for the use of their imagery on the website at issue. I urge you to consider this very serious matter and remit the settlement demand. As you may be aware, there have been several recent decisions regarding copyright infringement that have generated publicity. In each decision, the infringer was required to pay a substantial amount of damages for infringing on copyrighted material. The following examples help illustrate the repercussions of infringing on copyrighted work$: mccormack - tnttllectu.al Pro11e1.1Y Law lblstntu law PS Shoe company required to pay $1,315 ,800 for the unauthorized use of five of photographer's images, despite actual damages worth only $12,800. ( . . Minnesota woman required to pay $1.92 million, or $80,000 per infringement, for infringing on 24 copyrighted works. Rhode Island man required to pay $675,000, or $22,500 per infringement, for infringing on 30 copyrighted works. A typical settlement offer for similar claims was $5,000. As a final good faith effort to avoid litigation, Getty Images is willing to extend the above referenced settlement offer for an additional 10 days. My client may be willing to offer a payment plan (for an additional $300.00 administrative fee) if needed. This ofter is made without prejudice to Getty Images' rights and remedies under copyright law, all of which are expre8sly reserved. May I suggest that you review business insurance for possible coverage as an "advertising injury." This type of coverage is often found in general business liability policies. If there is such coverage it might be wise to use it. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please cont act me no .later than June 24, 2013 to discuss this matter further. My direct line is: 206-330-0108. Sincerely, Lauren A Kingston Attorney Lauren@McCormackLegal.com 206-330-0108