Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: A win for the little guy  (Read 4567 times)

Jerry Witt (mcfilms)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
    • Motion City
A win for the little guy
« on: February 20, 2014, 11:58:23 AM »
I think visitors to this forum will be interested in this item:

http://www.king5.com/news/get-jesse/Small-Seattle-company-battles-large-firm-over-photos-245913071.html

A small travel agency in Washington, Tropical Travel, had written permission from some of the  resorts they represent to use images that were apparently licensed from Getty for marketing purposes.  It seems Getty sent their typical "demand letter" and threatened legal action. The travel agency tried to explain that the images HAD been licensed for promotional purposes, but, shockingly, Getty wasn't interested in hearing about it.

Instead of simply rolling over and cutting a check, the travel agency turned to local news media. Once the news media began to report on the situation, Getty quickly reversed their position and left the travel agency alone.

I hope this stands as an example that it IS possible to fight back. I would encourage anyone faced with a similar situation to take the same path. I also hope some of the people that visit this site will comment on, and share, the story.
Although I may be a super-genius, I am not a lawyer. So take my scribblings for what they are worth and get a real lawyer for real legal advice. But if you want media and design advice, please visit Motion City at http://motioncity.com.

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: A win for the little guy
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2014, 10:10:23 PM »
This was a very interesting story and there has been a lot of action in the comment section too.
Every situation is unique, any advice or opinions I offer are given for your consideration only. You must decide what is best for you and your particular situation. I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice.

--Greg Troy

JLorimer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: A win for the little guy
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2014, 11:13:34 AM »
I can't believe the "little guy" paid up twice before finally fighting back.  I didn't get a chance to read through the comments yesterday but I was happy to see discussion about this stuff on other sites than ELI.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: A win for the little guy
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2014, 03:34:22 AM »
TV station NBC affiliate King5 in Seattle, took shots of the exterior and interior of the Getty Images building.  The interior shot of the office was quite sparse.  You could barely see any people in this large office.

https://www.facebook.com/extortionletterinfo/photos/a.632064456847307.1073741829.168381253215632/632064463513973/?type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/extortionletterinfo/photos/a.632064456847307.1073741829.168381253215632/632065563513863/?type=1&theater
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: A win for the little guy
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2014, 09:39:53 AM »
My guess is this is one of 2 things. If the photos were taken in conjunction with the story probably nobody wanted to go on camera. I know if a business where I worked was going to be on the local news in a story exposing and unethical business model I would not want my face shown there either. Even the person commenting on the story for the company would not let them use their name.

My other guess would be it is stock footage and again it is much easier to show an empty room than a roomful of people where you would need all those releases.
Every situation is unique, any advice or opinions I offer are given for your consideration only. You must decide what is best for you and your particular situation. I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice.

--Greg Troy

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: A win for the little guy
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2014, 01:57:20 PM »
The Getty Images employees have nothing to be proud about. They are working at a dying company within a dying industry.  The reason Getty continues to exist is because of the propping up by the other diminish big media companies who are dumb enough to pay exorbitant amounts for a single story and the fact Getty bought up most of the major stock photo companies trying to become this monopoly.

Glassdoor.com has reports from ex-Getty employees how miserable it is to work on the inside.  I just did a reassessment of the Getty Corporate Counsel team and the majority of the people in their current positions only had it since 2010.  Of special note, 2012 was a special year full of inhouse promotions for the Corporate Counsel team.

There is no question that no one in the Corporate Counsel department will rarely ever show their faces in media.  A couple years ago, someone inside Getty slinked over to Oscar to ask me remove from ELI the name of the girl who worked my case.  I still have that email somewhere of who asked did this favor for the girl. I removed the girl's name only because my girl was respectful to me and she quickly left me alone when I pushed back.  Had she continued to ride me like Getty does with everyone else or forwarded my case to NCS or Timmy, her name would NEVER have come down as the person who worked my case.  She did ultimately leave Getty so I felt a little sympathy for her.  I wonder how the girl feels for being the Getty point person partially responsible for me deciding to launch ELI?

Bottom line, I have a good idea the command and organizational structure of the Corporate Counsel department. When I get time, I will post that information.

Isn't Getty glad that Timmy forced me out of exile?  I had to go check my information sources and look into the the heart of the dragon called Corporate Counsel of Getty Images?

I am very sure these boobs sit around in weekly meetings trying to find new ways to scare and contact victims into paying.  But ELI almost always gets wind of it because unhappy victims know where to report the information to.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 02:03:34 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.