Quotes and Commentary on Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack

I’ve decided to take some time out of my day to do some commentary on Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack and some of the crap that he has been spewing on his blogs, he desperately trying put himself and his law firm in a good light, by becoming a propaganda machine, which I find rather amusing.

“McCormack Intellectual Property PS and its founder, attorney Timothy B. McCormack recently signed up as one of the preferred legal provider of Pic Scout – the world’s largest provider of imaging location services for fining unauthorized use of copyright images worldwide.”

“preferred legal provider” in this case means he has joined an extensive list of in-experienced newbie lawyers who are desperate to get cases, no matter if they are ethical or not. They are just looking for that 30% payday for being a “collection attorney”

“The McCormack copyright expertise is attracting attention not only in North America but worldwide.” 

Expertise may be going a bit far, but he’s certainly getting attention, and Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack  will continue to get attention from the likes of me and ELI.

“The settlement demands are based upon the fair market value of a license, taking into consideration several factors such as usage, size, placement, duration, and territory. The settlement demand is calculated by taking the average length of use and the average cost of licensing for that period, plus a portion of the costs incurred related to the pursuit of the unlicensed use. Because you used the images without first obtaining a license, you are not eligible for our lowest pricing. We have incurred additional costs due to your unlicensed use, and any settlement amount we are prepared to accept must reflect those costs.”

Why is it I have a feeling someone at Getty Images either can’t perform simple math, or Timothy B. McCormack has pulled the above statement out of his ass?

Let us say for example I have an image of a cactus that Getty Images “claims” to own, there are nearly identical cactus images available on multiple stock images sites included IStock ( owned by Getty) these images can easily be purchased for less than $15.00, yet Getty Images demand upwards of 1000.00 for this image, whether its been on my site 1 week or 6 months….FACT the math doesn’t add up! In my opinion Timothy B. McCormack continually makes himself look like an ass when posting these kind of statements..

“Copyright Infringement Demand Letters are Normally Pretty Reasonable.”
The terms of the photo agencies’ cease and desist letters are normally pretty reasonable. For example, Getty Images’ general policy is only to be put back in the position they would have been but for the copyright infringement.”

Reasonable??? are you shitting me? You can’t be serious here? Someone please bitch slap Timothy B. McCormack upside the head, he’s is apparently delusional and out of touch with reality!

Being as I’m so nice I’m going to help Timmy out today and let him in on a little secret…
ssshhhh don’t tell anyone!, but Getty Images General Policy is to line their pockets with money extorted from unsuspecting victims, who are scared, un-educated and just freaked out..and Timothy B. McCormack would love nothing more that to collect his percentage… I feel i need to interject some comedy here…please enjoy..

“Don’t Believe Everything You Read on the Internet
There are some sites on the internet that spread false information about these types of claims. Any nut with a computer can type something on a blog. As any librarian would tell you, “buyer beware.” This is especially true of information acquired from the internet. Once scam site even notes that Getty Images never sues companies. This claim is absolutely false. It is a matter of public record that Getty and Corbis do sue companies. In fact, they sue large companies and small companies and they pursue large and small claims. Any site that says differently is suspect.”

Timothy B. McCormack is a regular propoganda machine!! Yes “any nut with a computer can type something on a blog”!  ( nice pink blog Timmy!) I wonder which “scam site” Timothy B. McCormack is referring to?? Could it be ELI?? Did we say Getty never sues, I don’t think so, but just for shits and giggles lets look at the FACTS… Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack from  McCormack Intellectual Property Law PS might even learn something!!

Since he mentioned the “public record” we’ll use those handy dandy records..
Pacer reveals a whopping 88 cases related to Getty Images, which are broken down below:
(3pd) – third pary defendant – 1
(cc) –  counter claimant – 5
(pty) – party (appellate results) – 9
(pla) – plaintiff – 11
(dft) – defendant- 61

So yes Timothy B.McCormack, Getty does indeed sue…however to be fair to all involved, and  to not spin the facts as you seem to do. They have filed exactly 11 suits in 12 years, less than 1  suit per year! Fact of the matter is Getty gets sued much more often than the other way around! EPIC FAIL!

“Timothy B. McCormack was quoted as saying, “we are proud to help creative people get paid for their work.” There are always nutcases who think they have a right to steal what they want but most reasonable business people see the need to do what is right in these situations.”

oh Timmy, you have such high moral standards it just about makes me want to puke. I do agree that there will always be those that do steal / swipe images, but is it really fair to put everybody in that category?? That is exactly what the likes of you and Getty Images do. Unfortunatley  you yourself and Getty Images don’t seem to fall into the category of “reasonable business people” let me explain why, since you probably have a glazed over look on your face at this point.

1. A “reasonable” business person or company would not act as judge and jury and demand extortionate amounts of money for images that are clearly worth next to nothing to begin with.

2. A “reasonable” business person or company would not threaten legal action, when clearly  there is no intention of filing a suit ( more on this later ) this is clearly a scare tactic and you know it!

3. A “reasonable” business person or company would listen to “reason”…another thing that Timothy B. McCormack or Getty Images are not capable of.

4. A “reasonable” business person or comapny would gladly answer any questions, and or supply any supporting documentation when requested to do so…any moron even one of your caliber should know and realize this..yet Getty Images and Timothy B McCormack NEVER supply requested documentation..

And you wonder why people continue to lodge complaints against you with the Washington State Attorney General as well as the Washington Bar Association?..This is what good upstanding citizens and “reasonable” people do, they do whats right….

“You Shouldn’t Ignore a Letter Notifying you of your Infringement”
“Ultimately this will increase the amount your business will have to pay in a copyright infringement law suit. Also, under federal law, a copyright owner can be entitled to $150,000 per willful infringement. Willful infringement means that you knew about the copyright infringement and did nothing about it.”

Another brilliant statement here!
Ignoring the extortion letter that Timothy B. McCormack sends you and ignoring the alledged infringement are 2 entirely different things. I could easily ignore your stupid, typo laced letter and also remove the image in question, therefore I would not be ignoring the infringement…Which now leads us back to “reasonable” business people…Most would and most likely do remove the image in question, I’m fairly certain the number  that leave the images  is fairly low.

Now lets touch on this other statement that Timmy likes to toss out there to jack up the fear factor.. ” a copyright owner can be entitled to $150,000 per willful infringement”…. Timmy would make a good politician, he’s really good at spinning things to his liking, and looking like a baffoon at the end…

The above would only be true IF the image were PROPERLY registered, and IF it was proven to be “willful”and IF the case were to go to court!

Plain and simple by stating this little law fact , it is the intent to ramp up the fear factor, knowing that most “reasonable”folks would be ignorant and take it for it’s face value..

Oh shit didn’t I read somewhere that Timothy B. McCormack stated that Getty does in fact sue, both large and small companies???  I must digress, i’ll address that in another post..

For the record let it be known that my above comments are my opinion only.


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.