Invalidate response

[Peeved]

It appears that some of us are ok with stating our position, asking the right questions, and then ending communications when we do not receive answers to questions asked regarding "exclusive rights". It also appears that some people such as Lucia, want to hear the words from Getty that GETTY considers the matter closed such as in Mcfilm's case. As for Matthew's case, it is my understanding that Getty stopped the demand letters after Matt's second response however, it is also my understanding that Matt hired Oscar as well which I am not clear as to whether or not the lack of response from Getty was due to Matt's response or the fact that he hired Oscar?

The bottom line is that if you do not hear from Getty that the matter is closed, you will undoubtedly continue to receive letters and threats for the next three years unless you hire an attorney to represent you and therefore all future correspondence will go through your attorney.

If it gives Lucia more peace of mind to hear the words from Getty, then so be it. I also agree with the others that if you can stand the B.S. letters should you choose not to further communicate with Getty, then so be it. If you cannot stand the B.S. letters or are unable to convince Getty on your own to drop it and need to hire Oscar, then so be it. 

[lucia]

Matt--

You regard this as an experiment except that the experiment is flawed and already stacked in your favor to begin with by virtue of the hot-linking issue.

Meaning you think Getty should give up more easily? I absolutely agree. By running the experiment we'll see if they do. If I end up with a huge number of exchanges, you can use the comparison in your book to show that certified letters do seem to make them go away faster.  Because really, it would make no sense for them to keep after me longer than they kept after you.

Unfortunately, this is a situation where we can't really just do experiments in comparable cases. 

Also, you have (intentionally or not) benefited from the leverage of "coming out" and being so active on ELI.

I think this is true.  Mind you, I would have been discussing this on my blog otherwise. GETTY wouldn't have liked that either.  But I think it's better to have people find discussions here where they can also find Oscar, you, McFilms, Buddhappi etc. I don't want my climate blog to become a blog about discussing copyright trolls. 

You may want to take these other factors into consideration in evaluating your experiment.

Of course!!  I think when you get together with your book, you'll have a number of anecdotes. I'm sure you'll have a section on hotlinking.   

[Matthew Chan]

To set the record straight, I NEVER hired Oscar and he has NEVER represented me legally because that was not the nature of my initial contact with him. I contacted Oscar because he was smart enough to publicly make a defense against Getty Images. I reached out to invite him to be part of ELI as a "subject matter expert" and a forum leader. I had no plans on fighting Getty on their terms.  The ELI website was hugely important to me for payback and leverage reasons. 

Oscar came onboard ELI shortly before I sent my 2nd response letter out. It was clear by my letter I was representing myself and I had every intention of continuing to do so.  (Of course, if it had escalated I would certainly have called around for legal advice to get me through some of the legal procedures.)  The one thing I had no intentions of doing was dropping out of the fight because of financial considerations, not because I didn't believe in Oscar's abilities.

It is possible that Oscar's newfound relationship with me back in 2008 might have had some bearing on them backing off but that was predicated upon the fact ELI was up and running to give that impression, I planned on "going big". But I had done my research and saw that Getty didn't have a track record of filing lawsuits, certainly not one over 1 tiny image and I was prepared to take a strong stand.

I am proud to say that Oscar and I are business associates and friends now. Back then, it was just an experiment for both of us. We both respected each other's business reputations enough to agree to a "short-term experiment" that has continued on to this day.

We have a great working relationship. We like that we can be very straight and direct with each other.  He regards me as a consultant and advisor in extortion letter issues.  It doesn't mean I won't ever become a client of Oscar's but his time is limited and it isn't free even for me.

I hope that clarifies my particular situation. I don't want to take FULL credit for getting myself out but I will take the MAJORITY of it. LOL.

To date, I have never been Oscar's client.

As for Matthew's case, it is my understanding that Getty stopped the demand letters after Matt's second response however, it is also my understanding that Matt hired Oscar as well which I am not clear as to whether or not the lack of response from Getty was due to Matt's response or the fact that he hired Oscar?

[Matthew Chan]

You better believe that I will be tapping into the ELI Forums for my Special Report.  I have written so many responses, I need to go back and revisit and resurrect some of it. And yes, there are many variations in the stories but there are certain patterns and themes that recur.

Lucia, I can honestly say yours is a different twist.

I think when you get together with your book, you'll have a number of anecdotes. I'm sure you'll have a section on hotlinking.

[Peeved]

To set the record straight, I NEVER hired Oscar and he has NEVER represented me legally because that was not the nature of my initial contact with him. I contacted Oscar because he was smart enough to publicly make a defense against Getty Images. I reached out to invite him to be part of ELI as a "subject matter expert" and a forum leader. I had no plans on fighting Getty on their terms.  The ELI website was hugely important to me for payback and leverage reasons. 

Oscar came onboard ELI shortly before I sent my 2nd response letter out. It was clear by my letter I was representing myself and I had every intention of continuing to do so.  (Of course, if it had escalated I would certainly have called around for legal advice to get me through some of the legal procedures.)  The one thing I had no intentions of doing was dropping out of the fight because of financial considerations, not because I didn't believe in Oscar's abilities.

It is possible that Oscar's newfound relationship with me back in 2008 might have had some bearing on them backing off but that was predicated upon the fact ELI was up and running to give that impression, I planned on "going big". But I had done my research and saw that Getty didn't have a track record of filing lawsuits, certainly not one over 1 tiny image and I was prepared to take a strong stand.

I am proud to say that Oscar and I are business associates and friends now. Back then, it was just an experiment for both of us. We both respected each other's business reputations enough to agree to a "short-term experiment" that has continued on to this day.

We have a great working relationship. We like that we can be very straight and direct with each other.  He regards me as a consultant and advisor in extortion letter issues.  It doesn't mean I won't ever become a client of Oscar's but his time is limited and it isn't free even for me.

I hope that clarifies my particular situation. I don't want to take FULL credit for getting myself out but I will take the MAJORITY of it. LOL.

To date, I have never been Oscar's client.

As for Matthew's case, it is my understanding that Getty stopped the demand letters after Matt's second response however, it is also my understanding that Matt hired Oscar as well which I am not clear as to whether or not the lack of response from Getty was due to Matt's response or the fact that he hired Oscar?

Thanks for clearing that up Matt. My apologies, as I was under the wrong impression after reading Oscar's Policy on your original homepage...

http://extortionletterinfo.com/index.htm

"Let me explain what I have been doing and why. I am a seasoned litigator in NYC and was brought into this issue by Matthew Chan, the founder of this website, who was an independent publisher that received a Getty Images Demand Letter. He had been handling his case on his own publicizing his efforts through this website until he sought legal counsel and advice. He had surmised that many others must be in the same position and created this website to address some of the issues. After receiving thousands of hits almost immediately, and hearing people's similar complaints about Getty, I decided to offer something to help out those who are caught in this current dilemma."

Again, we all have to do what we have to do in our own way in hopes for a positive outcome.

[Matthew Chan]

Oscar is correct and I am correct in each of our statements. I certainly did pick his brain in our conversations. It was partially self-serving when I invited Oscar to ELI and Oscar knew that. The best relationships are those when BOTH parties get something out of it.  Oscar probably would not have given me so much phone time to pick his brain if I didn't have another pretext to have a conversation. That pretext, of course, was to work together on ELI. Was that sneaky of me or what?

I wrote my own letters but on my 2nd response letter, I did incorporate some of his suggestions and legal talking points.  And as all of you know, I have long since passed it forward by openly sharing my letter responses to everyone else. I freely allow people to use my letter as an example and to borrow whatever elements they want into their letter.

However, what I have not yet revealed that I was actually baiting them and MY extortion letters are forthcoming this year....This last sentence was a joke for the humor-impaired.

"Let me explain what I have been doing and why. I am a seasoned litigator in NYC and was brought into this issue by Matthew Chan, the founder of this website, who was an independent publisher that received a Getty Images Demand Letter. He had been handling his case on his own publicizing his efforts through this website until he sought legal counsel and advice. He had surmised that many others must be in the same position and created this website to address some of the issues. After receiving thousands of hits almost immediately, and hearing people's similar complaints about Getty, I decided to offer something to help out those who are caught in this current dilemma."

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Matt-
I'm not under the illusion that I will have a constructive argument! I suspect Getty will never write 'sorry, you're right. We are wrong. We've decided not to pursue this." Instead, at some point, Getty will just go silent just as they did in your case. 

I'm very glad to have your forum where I can report communications as we exchange them.  I plan to live forever, but one never knows. I know that by reporting as the case progresses, future trollees can have access to information describing Getty's current M.O.

I actually suspect that you will get a call or email from Sam Brown or someone at GI in the next couple months with a terse statement of "Getty Images is no longer pursuing this claim."

[Peeved]

I actually suspect that you will get a call or email from Sam Brown or someone at GI in the next couple months with a terse statement of "Getty Images is no longer pursuing this claim."

Could not agree more. Lucia should NEVER have received such a demand in the first place regarding her case! She should also receive a sincere apology and compensation for her stress as far as I'm concerned......just sayin'

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Could not agree more. Lucia should NEVER have received such a demand in the first place regarding her case! She should also receive a sincere apology and compensation for her stress as far as I'm concerned......just sayin'

Getty apologize??   Maybe it will snow in Florida tonight too. I supplied the license for the image in my case and that wasn't good enough.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Yeah, it seems they are rather careful to NOT apologize or admit to any wrongdoing on their part. The closest one can get is "Getty is no longer pursuing this matter." The only reason I believe Lucia would NOT get such a note is that they are probably aware that she would push them for more info. So maybe they will just let it drop.

On the other hand it seems like she is committed too pestering them (Yay-Yeah). So maybe out of a desperate hope for some closure of their own, they may offer some form of mea culpa.

Good times.

[lucia]

If they wrote a letter telling me they had dropped the matter, I would not ask for additional information. I'd be disappointed if I hadn't gotten it-- but once they drop it I don't think I have much basis for demanding how they go around deciding to demand $875 for a small blurry thumbnail of an image that can be downloaded for free from the photographers commercial site.