Copyright Violation. Any Solicitors suggest where we can get help?

paddyrg

It's Getty, this is pretty common for them, but because so many people steal the IP they represent.

I'd be inclined to see if they'll take an offer - there seems to be no question that your guy was in breach for a long time, and Getty are absolutely in the legal threats business.

steampowered

I personally would not make any offer. I am sure they send out thousands of these letters. If you start making an offer you'll be in the 1% of suckers that actually engage with them, and they will then hound you for more.

BossyFlossy

It is not Getty.

Aubrey_Thicket

Hi all

Here is what happened, what action we took etc.

I have thanked everybody who commented on this thread.

THE COMMENTS HERE WERE ACTUALLY DIRECTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT A SOLICITOR TOLD US.

So, my BIL remembers he has free legal advice as part of some packaged business policy. So, he rings the Free solicitors up and they tell him that he's bang to rights and ignorance is no defence. That he should pay up before the company escalate things.

He and I both agreed that this wasn't the best course of action.

So, we followed the suggestions of you guys:

1. He took his site down immediately. BTW It's still down.

2. He wrote a letter back to the solicitors (by recorded delivery) demanding a letter from the copyright holder as to why they were bringing the action. He also requested that the copyright holder give an estimate in costs of how much in costs had this alleged violation cost his company. He Requested a copy of the official, dated, copyright agreement in the copyright holders name.

Suffice to say he has heard nothing since. In fact, he has since discovered that (as somebody has alluded to earlier in this thread) this is a bit of a scam. These 'solicitors' are chancing their arm and targeting small, vulnerable entities in the hope that a percentage pay up!

After telling this story to few people a friend of a friend (who has a high up legal background) has gotten involved for free and is now taking action to gather further evidence to report this solicitors company to the relevant authority.

That friend of a friend has warned him not to say too much on here because there is a possibility that the firm actually read these threads.

The upshot here is that this may go full circle and end up with the cowboys who sent this letter getting the dirty end of the stick.

In another twist... they contacted BBC watchdog program and a researcher actually rang them back asking for the whole details of the case. Apparently the senders of the solicitors letter... their name has popped up "one or two times previously" with watchdog.

So, just goes to show... the advice on here is sometimes even better than legal advice.

Thank you to all who gave advice.

Finally, unfortunately for legal reasons I won't be able to post back on the actions the friend of a friend is planning against the solicitors or what plans BBC Watchdog have.

Thanks all.

harrys_dad

So the solicitors that your BIL got advice from through his insurance didn't want to say that the other solicitors for the copyright owner were trying it on. What a surprise. Advice on here is nearly always better than free advice from a random firm of solicitors provided by random insurance. Is your BIL going to let the insurance provided solicitors know that their supposed legal advice could have left him victim to a scam?

alumende27

That's really interesting! Sorry to hijack the thread but I had a legal dispute with a builder and originally spoke to a legal helpline supplied by my work. They advised *I* was in the wrong. Advice here was entirely the opposite and with a bit of further help from the CAB to verify, not only was the builder wrong but he had broken the law too.

Aubrey_Thicket

Makes you wonder what the value of this 'Free' legal advice is.

BossyFlossy

Thanks for the update. Might get onto watchdog too. CBA just advised that we pay up. Really badly informed.

gollum007

What the posters criticizing the free legal advice are failing to understand, is that they have a duty of care to their client.

The legal position of the company who own the image is relatively clear- Their copyright has been infringed, and there is no doubt about this fact.

This means that they have what is essentially a cut and dried case against you, and the only thing that's really in dispute is the possible level of damages to be awarded.

As the free legal advice firm have a duty of care towards you, they have to advise on the absolute legal position, not ifs, buts and maybes.
If they advised you that the letter had no grounds (or similar) , I suspect you'd probably have a decent chance of claiming against their professional indemnity insurance for the costs of any judgement against you.
For that mater, engaging a solicitor to send letters back and forth contesting this is highly likely to rack up a total bill far in excess of the £1000 odd being claimed. (~£250 an hour, if we work on a 1/2 hour block for sending/ responding to each letter it soon adds up)


On the other hand, we as posters here have no duty of care towards you, and you have no comeback if what we post is absolute, utter rubbish
Therefore, we can freely advise you on what is likely to happen-
This is unlikely to be pursued in small claims court, as the total returns are unlikely to make this sufficiently worthwhile.
(Remember that in small claims court they will not necessarily get awarded the £1000+ they're claiming, and that costs will not be awarded against yourself if you act in a reasonable manner)

TLDR:
The legal position of the firm is probably valid, but the amount they're claiming is far less likely to stand up in court.
From a professional point of view, the advice given by the free advisers is probably correct.

-Gollum

[Deleted User]

gollum007 wrote: »

What the posters criticizing the free legal advice are failing to understand, is that they have a duty of care to their client.

The legal position of the company who own the image is relatively clear- Their copyright has been infringed, and there is no doubt about this fact.

This means that they have what is essentially a cut and dried case against you, and the only thing that's really in dispute is the possible level of damages to be awarded.

As the free legal advice firm have a duty of care towards you, they have to advise on the absolute legal position, not ifs, buts and maybes.
If they advised you that the letter had no grounds (or similar) , I suspect you'd probably have a decent chance of claiming against their professional indemnity insurance for the costs of any judgement against you.
For that mater, engaging a solicitor to send letters back and forth contesting this is highly likely to rack up a total bill far in excess of the £1000 odd being claimed. (~£250 an hour, if we work on a 1/2 hour block for sending/ responding to each letter it soon adds up)


On the other hand, we as posters here have no duty of care towards you, and you have no comeback if what we post is absolute, utter rubbish
Therefore, we can freely advise you on what is likely to happen-
This is unlikely to be pursued in small claims court, as the total returns are unlikely to make this sufficiently worthwhile.
(Remember that in small claims court they will not necessarily get awarded the £1000+ they're claiming, and that costs will not be awarded against yourself if you act in a reasonable manner)

TLDR:
The legal position of the firm is probably valid, but the amount they're claiming is far less likely to stand up in court.
From a professional point of view, the advice given by the free advisers is probably correct.

I've quoted the entirety of your post because it's an excellent summing up of the whole saga and deserves repeating.

Bravo sir!