An Experiment Against Getty

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Agreed and my complaint will be in there and my original packet sent was over an inch thick.  My new packet in now ready to burn on a CD as I don't want to injure any postal workers or deplete the rain forests

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"...

[justme123]

Greg, I've just been reading through the 13 pages on this topic & just wanted to tell you you're doing an OUTSTANDING job. I'm in the UK, when Getty took over Picscout they also employed some small companies to work for them, basically to send out the letters & chase for the so called money owed. One of these companies is ipprotection.net. The 2 names involved are David Tyler (or Dave as he likes to call himself) and Scott Christian Davis. They have been mentioned on these forums elsewhere. All the research I've done on them has shown them in a bad light as you would expect working along side Getty/Picscout.

I know this isn't directly linked with your case but the more places we get these people named & shamed the better right. Here is the link to their topic on ELI - http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/ipprotection-net-letter/

Here is the link which states that Picscout have taken on smaller companies in the UK - http://www.picscout.com/press-releases/picscout-enlarges-legal-partner-program-to-support-image-revenue-recovery-throughout-the-united-kingdom-for-photographer-and-stock-agency-clients.html

Keep up the good work, you inspire me to keep fighting back 

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Welcome to the fight!  You can use this strategy with them as well; name their company and them personally in your complaint letters.  I did that in my letters personally naming my copyright compliance specialist Douglas Bieker along with Getty images for extortion.  You make these people uncomfortable enough they will move on to easier prey.  Good luck and keep us posted.

Greg, I've just been reading through the 13 pages on this topic & just wanted to tell you you're doing an OUTSTANDING job. I'm in the UK, when Getty took over Picscout they also employed some small companies to work for them, basically to send out the letters & chase for the so called money owed. One of these companies is ipprotection.net. The 2 names involved are David Tyler (or Dave as he likes to call himself) and Scott Christian Davis. They have been mentioned on these forums elsewhere. All the research I've done on them has shown them in a bad light as you would expect working along side Getty/Picscout.

I know this isn't directly linked with your case but the more places we get these people named & shamed the better right. Here is the link to their topic on ELI - http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/uk-getty-images-letter-forum/ipprotection-net-letter/

Here is the link which states that Picscout have taken on smaller companies in the UK - http://www.picscout.com/press-releases/picscout-enlarges-legal-partner-program-to-support-image-revenue-recovery-throughout-the-united-kingdom-for-photographer-and-stock-agency-clients.html

Keep up the good work, you inspire me to keep fighting back 

[Mulligan]

Greg, I'm going to put $10.68 in the mail to you to cover the cost of the CDs from the Consumer Protection Division of the Washington State Attorney General's Office. I feel guilty about not being willing to help with the SEC investigation (because of my cynicism regarding redacted documents) so this little gesture will hopefully help me sleep better at night, if Mrs. Mulligan will ever let me out of the dog house.

If you'll PM me your mailing address, I'll make this happen promptly.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

My friend, you don’t need to feel guilty and you don’t need to do send that to me.  I have already sent out the check to cover the postage.  You are correct that it is somewhat risky, but I have uncovered a pattern with this company of unethical business practices which in my opinion seem to come from the head Jonathan Klein.  Since Getty admitted that it happened and they reissued a financial to their stock holders with a 38 million dollar correction I am betting that this is not a clerical error and want to see and expose what the SEC found.  I don’t know if the investigation was halted when Getty took the company private like it halted the stock holder lawsuits of if it was completed but four cases of Getty company info is awful hard for a freak someone like me to walk away from especially when they are afraid to even let anyone see their contributor agreement.

Greg, I'm going to put $10.68 in the mail to you to cover the cost of the CDs from the Consumer Protection Division of the Washington State Attorney General's Office. I feel guilty about not being willing to help with the SEC investigation (because of my cynicism regarding redacted documents) so this little gesture will hopefully help me sleep better at night, if Mrs. Mulligan will ever let me out of the dog house.

If you'll PM me your mailing address, I'll make this happen promptly.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Today I received the first CD from the Washington state Attorney General's office which contained nine complaints on it. I found it interesting that the complaints seem to be coming in rapidfire as there was one complaint received on January 18 of this year, one complaint received on January 17 of this year, two complaints received on January 15 of this year, one complaint received on January 14 of this year, two complaints received on January 11 this year, one complaint received on January 9 of this year and one complaint received on December 27 of last year.

I will be posting these complaints very soon once I have all of the fluff edited out and have them down to just the complaints.

There was one very interesting item I noticed that Getty's standard boilerplate letter responding to the complaints has changed. Many these complaints are now calling what Getty is doing extortion which is what I suggested in my experiment against Getty should be done. Also Getty appears to be mentioning me and my campaign as they mention:

"The campaign to file complaints against us is misguided and misdirected"

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/126298848/New-Getty-Response-Letter

[Moe Hacken]

"The campaign to file complaints against us is misguided and misdirected"

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/126298848/New-Getty-Response-Letter

Greg, this is the highest compliment the trolls could possibly lay on you. This is what it sounds like When Trolls Cry.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I was smiling from ear to ear when I realized what this was saying.  Basically, Getty is complaining to the AG about me.  We are getting the word out that you shouldn’t ignore it, you don’t have to take it and you can fight back!

"The campaign to file complaints against us is misguided and misdirected"

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/126298848/New-Getty-Response-Letter

Greg, this is the highest compliment the trolls could possibly lay on you. This is what it sounds like When Trolls Cry.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

The more I think about this statement from Getty the more it bothers me. I believe the same could be said for Getty settlement demand letter program. Shortly above this statement Getty claims that what they are doing does not meet the definition of extortion, while I firmly believe in the intellectual property rights of the artists and for them to make legitimate and fair claims on infringement this is not what Getty does. According to Wikipedia the definition of extortion is as follows:

Extortion (also called blackmail*, shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

If you look at what Getty does I believe it is so close to this definition if not completely meeting it. I will use my case as an example. I let it be known from the beginning that while I did not agree with Getty's demand for money I was willing to negotiate a reasonable settlement in the only thing I was asking for was proof of their claim which they responded would only be provided when they took me to court. I had my lawyer send them a letter stating if they could not provide proof due to some confidentiality agreement we would both be willing to sign one binding us to only discuss the information with Getty for the purposes of settling the claim to which Getty responded they cannot provide this proof because it would take too much time and cost additional money, again proof would only be provided when they sue me. They also sent me the final notice letter stating if I did not pay it would be escalated to their legal Department. So here we have Getty trying to coerce me to pay while providing no proof of their claim in light of the fact I made clear several times I was willing to negotiate a fair settlement in all they had to do was to show me proof they had rights to the image in question which is reasonable in light of Getty V Advernet.

It is Getty's use of these tactics which ultimately led to me starting my complaint letter campaign and encouraging others if they agreed with me and felt as strongly as I did to send in complaint letters of their own. Maybe Getty should take the hint if there is such an increase in complaints that it requires this additional statement in their responses to the Attorney General's office that maybe they need to rethink their business model and perhaps adopt one more like Glen Carner has of late.

           

"The campaign to file complaints against us is misguided and misdirected"

 

[lucia]

Boy that image is copied all over the place:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=simg:CAESXRpbCxCo1NgEGgIICgwLELCMpwgaNAoyCAESDPkH6AfqB80H0AfpBxog5qdHd7m3b0aFl9r2T6SXBs2wp2o5Z3bX1IOHlJhX2QcMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgRHAiqMDA&q=resume+writing&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=0EAlUZiyIYTYqQHu24GIDw&ved=0CEIQsw4&biw=1334&bih=833#q=resume+writing&hl=en&tbs=simg:CAQSXRpbCxCo1NgEGgIICgwLELCMpwgaNAoyCAESDPkH6AfqB80H0AfpBxog5qdHd7m3b0aFl9r2T6SXBs2wp2o5Z3bX1IOHlJhX2QcMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgRHAiqMDA&tbm=isch&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=J0ElUeuNKM_vqQH81oG4BQ&ved=0CCEQpwUoAQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42661473,d.aWM&fp=dac7d204fa1ac4fa&biw=1334&bih=833

The photographer is named David Gould.  There appear to be several photographers by that name.

I read Getty's response and they want to complain about someone requesting proof of copyright suggesting the person might be 'confused'.  But in fact,  it perfectly  fair for a letter recipient to try to find out if Getty has a valid and *license* permitting them to demand money.  In that context, it is certainly fair for the letter recipient to want to see a *registration* as that's not only required in court but also helps pin down whether the Getty has a valid exclusive license that would permit them to demand money on behalf of the copyright owner.

The fact that copyright exists at the moment the image is created is not particularly relevant because that fact is insufficient for *Getty* to have a right to demand money on behalf of "their client". Getty needs to be able to show that the copyright holder *is* their client and that *Getty* has a right to demand the money.  A person asking for proof of registration is hardly "confused" about copyright law. Possibly, they don't know how to word a letter to Getty-- but they know that they want proof that *Getty* has a right to demand money on behalf of whoever the copyright holder is!

 

[stinger]

Lucia, I completely agree.

What galls me is that the arguments Getty is making to the Attorney General don't even make sense to me.  I hope that someone with a sense of the law in the AG's office can see this.  I hope this doesn't just go through some clerical process where someone checks a box that says that Getty responded appropriately.  Because I think their response is a bunch of BS.

I also find it funny that there is no signature on the response.  Perhaps no one wants to take credit for bending the law to their desire.

[lucia]

This is interesting.  This flicker account shows that image and lists it as copyrighted by

License
    Copyright All rights reserved by onebuckresume

Download
    Download the Medium 500 size of this photo

Sizes

            Square 75 (75 x 75)   
            Square 150 (150 x 150)   
            Thumbnail (71 x 100)

   


You can read more here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/onebuckresume/7062907037/sizes/m/in/photostream/

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

"The campaign to file complaints against us is misguided and misdirected"

BOO HOO!

Gee I wonder where Getty would like this campaign to be guided and directed. Personally I think the campaign to extort money out of current and potential customers is "misguided and misdirected." But that ain't stopping anyone.

I wonder, is it possible to offer up a rebuttal to their rebuttal? I'm sure the D.A. does not need to be reminded that Getty seldom (never?) provides proof that THEY control the copyright to an image in question, that the image is properly registered, and that the image is exclusively theirs to represent. But maybe a little reminder is a good thing.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Once I receive all six CDs of Attorney General complaints I am already planning a follow-up letter to the Attorney General asking at what point there will be enough complaints to investigate this company for extortion. I also have included an cited quite a bit of case law backing up my claim.

I also have a couple of other things in the works which I am not at liberty to talk about at this time since Getty reads the forums and I don't want them to have a heads up.

"The campaign to file complaints against us is misguided and misdirected"

BOO HOO!

Gee I wonder where Getty would like this campaign to be guided and directed. Personally I think the campaign to extort money out of current and potential customers is "misguided and misdirected." But that ain't stopping anyone.

I wonder, is it possible to offer up a rebuttal to their rebuttal? I'm sure the D.A. does not need to be reminded that Getty seldom (never?) provides proof that THEY control the copyright to an image in question, that the image is properly registered, and that the image is exclusively theirs to represent. But maybe a little reminder is a good thing.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Greg that post just put the glorious image of some Getty Images legal drone staring into his computer, setting down his powdered sugar donut, and saying, "uh-oh."