My Story

[Peeved]

There is my smile for the day. Thank you Mulligan!
 

And I was thinking I was responsible for that... 

My friend, YOU are responsible for my daily LAUGH today! Thanks for the PM!
 

[Doc]

Thanx for the replies.  I think I'll keep plugging away for now.  I'll formulate my response to their response and see what comes of it.  I know it's futile, but I think it at least it shows I didn't ignore their correspondence.

They stated they didn't have the copyright for the image in question, and that, that is left up to the artist.  They indicate they have a "rights managed" deal.  And they don't require their artist to prove they've registered.  Of course they refuse to supply me with proof that they have the authority to speak and act on behalf of this image.  They state; "Due to confidentiality concerns" they would not supply copies of contributor contracts "at this stage of a claim."  They of course invite me to "view image details", lol.

They state "copyright registration is not currently relevant" since their only going for "actual damages and not statutory ones".  The first veiled threat of greater threats to come I'm sure.  They justify their claim as needing greater compensation because they're "having to enlist additional resources to handle this matter".  What, they have to put a .45 stamp on an envelope telling me to stop?  Unbelievable.

They state "list prices do not apply once an infringement has been identified".  My argument is; list price is not as relevant as much as what you are able to sell something for as a possible starting point of determining how much one has been damaged.  Am I right or not?  i.e., if you can only sell something for $25 but you claim someone damaged you for $1,000,000.00 don't you have to show how the damage added up to $999,975.00?  So the history of the sale price would be significant wouldn't it, regardless of the "list price"?

I've got till May 15th to send the money.  Don't think so.

My response is essentially going to be; since they didn't prove to me they have this authority to make this claim, I'm going to have to refuse their offer.  I mean really, for all I know, Mr. Tony Stone could knock on my door tomorrow and say the exact same thing and claim no one but he had the authority to represent this image and that I've just been duped, so pay up.

Oh yeah, should I include a counteroffer just to show that I made the effort?

Thanx.

[Moe Hacken]

Doc, your web designer was highly unprofessional and unethical. What s/he did amounts to malpractice. However, the trolls have trained their scope on you and won't let go even if the designer made a superhuman effort to stop the bullet. I'm a professional graphic artist and I have to tell you that this is a very frustrating situation for an ethical web designer because they really can't do much (if anything) to spare their client the grief even if they wanted to.

In my view (old school, I know), the correct thing to do is to say "I made the mistake, I'm the professional in charge, the buck stops here, and I will cover the damage my mistake did to you even if I have to mow your lawn for posterity." That's the way I think about my clients and you know what I get in return? Unwavering support and loyalty because they know I got their back and I would never hose them. I bet if your designer said "mea culpa" and worked with you on this, you would consider him a fellow victim instead of a graphics troll. That person will not do well in this business, trust me. Word gets around when you burn the people who hire you.

One idea I'm getting about this situation is that I need to create a clause in my work agreement that specifically addresses the responsibilities assigned to each party regarding the stewardship of copyright information. It's now obvious that one has to be perfectly clear about who owns what and who's liable for what when handing content that is basically a legal hand grenade because of the copyright trolls.

The idea is to protect all parties from the trolls, and to seat responsibilities squarely where they belong. If a client hands me an image that I know does not belong to them and they insist I use it on a work of theirs, I have no choice but to refuse because I want to keep my hands "clean", and because I do believe it is my OBLIGATION to protect a fellow artists' property.

I also think it is my OBLIGATION to stop the trolls. What these "extortion letter farms" are doing is not copyright protection, it's extortion, it's bullying, it's instilling fear in people (I am stopping just shy of the "T" word) and it's pure unadulterated greed based on a cynical plan to distort a well-meaning and necessary law into a profit center for otherwise untalented legal and collection "professionals".

[Mulligan]

If they came down to $700, then you could counter with $699.98 and they might take that, but I'd bet a dime to a doughnut that any counter less than that would be rejected.

Doc, the problem is that reasonable people think they're dealing with reasonable people when the Getty Game begins with their initial letter.

But you quickly learn the hard way that these copyright trolls don't settle matters reasonably like rational people, and they have boilerplate responses to anything you have to say.

This game is all about money, big money, and I view what they're doing as cowardly mugging without a firearm or physical confrontation on their part.

It's the worst kind of bullying, and, as far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve any payment beyond the sweat off of S.G's bal... well, modesty forbids me from completing this image.

With that said, offering $200 seems to be an amount many people use, and it's also a figure Getty will most likely reject. But if the case ever did go to court, you would then have proof that you made a fair and reasonable counter offer to their absurdly inflated $700.

Swapping letters with them is like swapping spit with a vampire -- not much satisfaction to be had... unless, again, you enjoy playing this sort of game and have the time and energy to do so.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Good discussion here!

@ Moe - I have had several clients get letters ( no doing of mine as developer) and I simply gave them a hosting credit and had them hire Oscar, so it did not "cost" them anything, and I come off as being honest, reputable and willing to go to any lenght for my clients. ( Which I might add I am in every respect). You are correct this "designer" will not go or last long in this business.. I have also adjusted my contract accordingly in regards to copyright issues, as well as I always explain to new client what is going on so they are aware of the pitfalls...

@Mulligan - thanx for the image! 

[Doc]

Thanx gang.  I plan on action towards my "web designer" but I want to focus on resolving the issue first.  I suggested that he take responsibility for his actions but he continued to deny any.  He did suggest initially that I do an internet search about the issue which is what led me to this site.  I wonder if he monitors this site at all and has put 2 & 2 together?  Probably not, but I'd be curious of his thoughts on here with peers able to evaluate his position.  Oh well.

I sent my response to Getty's second letter explaining to them why I won't pay their ransom, and offering $200 without admission of guilt to get the mess of my plate.  I suspect they won't accept it as everyone on here has indicated, but we'll see.

I got to thinking, and this idea may have already been broached, is Getty a publicly traded entity?  If so, would a letter writing campaign to shareholders maybe make a difference?  If all they are focused on is the bottom line, then getting the shareholders stirred up may have an effect.  Or, purchasing one share of voting stock, and making some noise at their shareholders meetings could also bring pressure to bear.  Just a thought.  Thanx again everybody.

[Mulligan]

I got to thinking, and this idea may have already been broached, is Getty a publicly traded entity?  If so, would a letter writing campaign to shareholders maybe make a difference?  If all they are focused on is the bottom line, then getting the shareholders stirred up may have an effect.  Or, purchasing one share of voting stock, and making some noise at their shareholders meetings could also bring pressure to bear.  Just a thought.  Thanx again everybody.

My experience with shareholders (limited, admittedly, but cynically forged from plenty of reading and life observation) is that they want as much return as possible at dividend time and would just as soon not know where that money comes from.

Near as I can tell, letter writing campaigns, online petitions, and things like Walk Against Getty are a total waste of time.

If you want to make noise about the Getty Images and Timothy B. McCormack Law Firm copyright trolling, settlement demand, and speculative invoicing scheme, your time would be better spent contributing as much as you can to ELI or else write a polished piece that will go viral.

[Matthew Chan]

First off, regarding the web designer.  It is mostly a waste of time there. You can't really go after him unless someone successfully "nabs you". He could have offered to help pay for Oscar's defense letter fee or help get educated which is what most conscientious web designers have done.  It is the fast, most effective way to get them off your back.

If your web designer doesn't change his ways, he will put himself out of business. It isn't hard to take down a web designer and hurt their reputation.  You place their name on the ELI forums and tell your story how he operates and he will have a nice little Google entry ranked very high.  There is your easy, low cost payback.

Regarding the Getty being publicly traded, it was bought out in 2008 by private equity investors. So most of the information that are required to be publicly revealed is no longer happening. There are LOTS you can do to public companies because PR is important and there are many stakeholders and shareholders in public companies.  That is why some companies decide to go private to escape the scrutiny. That is why many public companies ultimately lose their founders.  Going public isn't always good because of the accountability they have and the transparency they have to keep up.

I got my letter in 2008 and I did investigate Getty's public company status. I was disappointed that Getty had been "taken private" because I do believe that ELI and this online campaign could have been more damaging to Getty over time. Private equity investors don't care too much about PR issues because most are hidden away by layers for corporate structures.  They only care about returns which the extortion letter program is successfully producing.  CEO Jonathan Klein and his underlings are pretty much as far as you can go in terms of hitting back at someone and putting pressure on them.

As I discussed before, the Corporate Counsel team are all lawyers and they all stay low key. You can expect nearly all Getty employees want to stay out of the public light regarding this issue also.  They don't want their names printed in relation to this. It is the ugly underbelly of their business.

Thanx gang.  I plan on action towards my "web designer" but I want to focus on resolving the issue first.  I suggested that he take responsibility for his actions but he continued to deny any.  He did suggest initially that I do an internet search about the issue which is what led me to this site.  I wonder if he monitors this site at all and has put 2 & 2 together?  Probably not, but I'd be curious of his thoughts on here with peers able to evaluate his position.  Oh well.

I sent my response to Getty's second letter explaining to them why I won't pay their ransom, and offering $200 without admission of guilt to get the mess of my plate.  I suspect they won't accept it as everyone on here has indicated, but we'll see.

I got to thinking, and this idea may have already been broached, is Getty a publicly traded entity?  If so, would a letter writing campaign to shareholders maybe make a difference?  If all they are focused on is the bottom line, then getting the shareholders stirred up may have an effect.  Or, purchasing one share of voting stock, and making some noise at their shareholders meetings could also bring pressure to bear.  Just a thought.  Thanx again everybody.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Drinking to much of the Getty Kool-Aid is bad for ones complexion .

http://palmbeachdns.com/john_BA.jpg


Disclaimer: The above original image is available for download, and is shown here as a parody stritcly for entertainment purposes.

[Moe Hacken]

Brilliant Buddhapi. Solid concept and a very professional execution. I would have to call this parody a perfect example of Fair Use.

[Doc]

O.K. so I posted my original situation, responded, they sent second letter offering lower amount, I responded with counter offer, and now I've got my first "escalation" letter.

It is essentially a one page demand letter similar to their first one.  They don't acknowledge receipt of the second correspondence and my counter offer.  I'm assuming their ignoring my counter offer.

So since it doesn't say anything new and they still haven't supplied me with the documentation supporting their position I was just planning to send them another copy of my second letter since there is nothing new to discuss. 

I did finally find the image in question on the copyright sight someone posted in another thread.  It's listed under a different title.  I had to find it by using the artist's name.  It's interesting that it is the only image that pulls up when I entered the artist's name.  I expected to have to wade through a bunch of images to find out if the one in question was registered.

So from what I can gather here, I can expect a series of these escalation letters and then notifications from their attorney(s)?  To these notices, I'm assuming I should respond essentially the same as I have regarding asking them for their supporting documents until they are supplied, take me to court, or stop bothering me?  Is this pretty much what will go on for the next three years or so?  You'd think these people would have better things to do with their time.

Hope you all had a Great Memorial weekend and if you haven't done so, it's never too late to thank a vet for their service.

[Doc]

As an update from my last post, re-sent them previous copy of my counter offer.  They just sent me another letter stating that they won't be sending me anymore information then what they've already sent.  They refused the counter offer and feel their offer was "fair".  They end with having noted my position and will let me know of the "next steps".  Que ominous sounding music......

At this point I don't see any reason to contact them again as they will not give me proof of their position.  I don't want to appear to ignore them but it seems fruitless to continue to engage in dialog that is obviously going nowhere.  Any thoughts?

Thanx everybody.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm in no position to advise you of what to do, I know what I would do tho..

I would go read this thread, and see if this could fit into your plan of action..

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-images-timothy-mccormack-the-washington-state-attorney-general/

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

You are right it is fruitless at this point to continue the conversation with them.  I basically told them we have nothing to discuss unless they provide me with all the proof I have asked for.  I have completed and am ready to send off letters to the Attorney General’s Office in Washington State and Ohio State (Where I reside) as well as to the BBB.  I have received my fourth letter stating that if I don’t pay the matter could be escalated to their legal department, if I get a letter from good ol’ Timmy and still have not been provided with all of the documentation I have asked for I will fire off complaint letters about him to all of the above along with the State Bar Associations of the three states where he is licensed.  I am done talking with them until they prove we have something to discuss.

You have to decide what is best for you and your situation though, hang in there and please keep us posted.

[Doc]

Thanx Buddapi.  I have read that post before.  I must have misread it.  I was taking it as waiting until they had forwarded it to McCormick, NCS, whoever, et al, then sending complaints to the AG regarding those entities.  I see now your suggesting that I do it with Getty right now and also again with those others as they become involved in the situation.  A sort of shoot everybody and collect names later kind of attitude.  I like it.

Thanx again.


@KeepFighting, thanx for the confirmation and encouragement.