An Experiment Against Getty

[stinger]

Well done Gregg and Cranky Fish.  Isn't this

Extortion is theft by threat if a person obtains property of another by threatening to accuse anyone of a criminal offense.

what every Getty letter I've seen does?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Well done Gregg and Cranky Fish.  Isn't this

Extortion is theft by threat if a person obtains property of another by threatening to accuse anyone of a criminal offense.

what every Getty letter I've seen does?

yes pretty much....the difference being and the part Getty Images, Masterfile and the rest of the trolls don't like...is the fact that "extortion" is a criminal offense, while copyright infringement is a "civil" matter... thats why they hate being called extortionists, but yeah criminal or civil...give me your money or else all equals the same thing...

[stinger]

So the question is, if we have a judge who says it is extortion, and we have the letters that do what the judge says is extortion, do we have a criminal case against Getty?

Or do the criminal courts see the definition of extortion differently than the civil courts?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I don’t know if the court can say in a case that this is an extortion letter as they are supposed to listen to the evidence that is presented before them.  It is the lawyer’s job to bring this up, however it appears to me that they were issuing a warning that if the issue had been brought up it might not have gone well for them and to let future victims who may be sued to pay close attention to the wording and tone of the letters you have received.

With all the good nuggets of information we have had over the last few days I am going to have a lot to update on my ready-to-go letters.

Still waiting to hear back from the SEC on Jonathan Klein / Getty stock option back dating investigation, I really want to see these documents.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I just filed a request with the Washington State Attorneys General Office for all complaints filed with them since Roberts request in May of last year.  When I receive these I will get Robert copies so he can add them to the ELI library.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I heard back today from the Washington state Attorney General's office that my request for all complaints filed against Getty Images since Roberts request last year has been accepted.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/122848776/Response-from-WATG-for-Public-Records

I still have not heard back from the SEC as to my requests for their investigation into Jonathan Klein and Getty images for the backdating of stock options. If I do not hear from them by February 4 which is two months since they acknowledge receipt of my request I will query them as to the status.

[Oscar Michelen]

Yeehaw! Wonder how many there are?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Moving right along, got an email response today my request is being transfered to the correct department.  I guess the online form just goes to the main office.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123263890/01-31-2013-Response-From-WATG-for-Public-Records

[kerrylee]

Glad to have found this site. We just got our Getty letter for $900.00. I felt like a complete idiot since I was a lawyer and thought I was so careful. All our images are our own or ones I purchased royalty free. Unfortunately someone who was to start a program with us gave me a flyer with images. I put them on our website. I didn't even think to ask where the images came from thinking she had the right to use them - which she probably does but I can't locate her. Of course, the program never started so we gained no revenue from the images.

Knowing it was strict liability, I just assumed we were completely doomed. Luckily after seeing this forum I realized that while Getty's position is legal, it's really unethical. It's a heavy burden for a small business owner to know that they must ensure every image they use is legitimate. I knew. I'm careful and I messed up so the average business owner is unlikely to know. I get that artists should be compensated but in this day and age where kids take great photos with their phones, asking enormous amounts of money is insane. If I remember correctly from my econ class, a dying industry, which would be managed photos, milks as much as they can before the industry completely dies.

I'll be doing research on how the California Federal Courts hold in this area. I'll post anything interesting. Meanwhile what does someone think about contacting the Chamber of Commerce en masse? The Chamber of Commerce on a national level seems to have some sway. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Not that it matters, but even if you did "find" this person who gave you the flyer and even if this person licensed the image, Getty wouldn't care, the license is non-transferable...meaning you still are in the wrong to use it..just another example of how people get caught up in the whole mess..

[Beanpole]

...while Getty's position is legal, it's really unethical.

I'm surprised by the common acceptance that Getty's position is legal. They're accusing you of infringing their copyright without offering proof that they possess any such right. Who knows whether they do or not? I'm not in the US and I don't know US law, but I'd guess that if they don't have the appropriate license, the accusation and payment demand must be very illegal indeed.

It's a given that they operate unethically, and that lack of ethics could easily extend to not checking their facts before firing off a demand. It's happened before (35 times in a single case, if I remember rightly). At best, surely, their position may be legal, but without proof you can't possibly know.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

...while Getty's position is legal, it's really unethical.

I'm surprised by the common acceptance that Getty's position is legal. They're accusing you of infringing their copyright without offering proof that they possess any such right. Who knows whether they do or not? I'm not in the US and I don't know US law, but I'd guess that if they don't have the appropriate license, the accusation and payment demand must be very illegal indeed.

It's a given that they operate unethically, and that lack of ethics could easily extend to not checking their facts before firing off a demand. It's happened before (35 times in a single case, if I remember rightly). At best, surely, their position may be legal, but without proof you can't possibly know.

valid point BeanPole...however doesn't much matter if it's legal or not, cause none of these cases ever get to court anyway...and if it did, and it was shown they ( Getty) did not own the image(s), yeah they'd be in hot water...which is a big part of the WHY they don't sue..

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Getty and other trolls operate in a grey area of the copyright law, most find it disgusting but you would need to get them before a court and to obtain their records through discovery to get anywhere unless you can tighten up the current copyright laws.  This is why we call it “Legalized Extortion”.  Getty Images knows that they are straddling the fence line of legality with one foot on each side, while the copyright law is statutory and allows compensation regardless of how the image in question was displayed very few courts would find in favor of a company that refuses to provide the reasonable request proof to letter recipients trying to reach a reasonable settlement nor would the courts if the case were not thrown out as de minimis likely award anywhere near what was being asked. It would cost both sides more in legal fees than the rendered judgment in a federal district court would seriously frowned upon having their time wasted on a $200-$500 case.

We have already seen where courts in their opinions and judgments in reference to what the copyright, P2P and patent trolls are doing are starting to use the word extortion but I’m not sure what the courts can do until somebody actually brings the case in front of them claiming extortion. If I had the financial means I would try to find a way to bring such a case against Getty.

So Getty will continue to send out there letters and make their threats knowing that a great many will pay out of fear and until the laws change or they are spanked in court hard enough that it sinks in they will continue to ride the legalized extortion money train.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

It looks like my experiment against Getty may be working as I heard back from the Washington State Attorney General's Office today on my request for all complaints filed against Getty images since April 2012. I spoke to Robert tonight and asked him how many CDs of complaints he received and he said he believed it was just one in the postage was only a couple of dollars. I was informed that my search yielded six CDs worth of information and over $10 and postage. It will be very interesting to see what information is on here and of course I will make it public and share it with all freely.

If anyone is interested the letter may be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123892752/02-04-2013-WTAG-Request-for-Records-Results

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm going to confirm this today, I can't believe they have 6 cd's...thats a lot more in a year or so..even if much of the info is "fluff"...