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: An Experiment Against Getty  (Read 101392 times)

stinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
    • View Profile
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #135 on: October 08, 2012, 09:59:27 AM »
Just reading this stuff makes my skin crawl.  Good work finding it Greg! 

I have now come to the conclusion that all the mean and nasty things Robert has said about Getty over the years were the work of a gentlemen being way, way too kind.

These guys are scum.

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #136 on: October 09, 2012, 08:29:47 AM »
Agreed, I am currently following up on the story I mentioned above and should hopefully have some new information to post very shortly. It appears as result of this companies business model even when they were a public company it resulted in stockholder suing them and photographers suing them. It will be interesting to see where this research leads.

Just reading this stuff makes my skin crawl.  Good work finding it Greg! 

I have now come to the conclusion that all the mean and nasty things Robert has said about Getty over the years were the work of a gentlemen being way, way too kind.

These guys are scum.
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

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #137 on: October 14, 2012, 06:15:04 PM »
As promised here is the information I have been able to uncover so far about the stock option lawsuits. Since this thread is getting so large I am also going to post this in its own thread as well.

Before getting into the meat of this article I wanted to state that wherever possible I have linked to articles where I have obtained my information and that statements not directly reporting on the facts of the article are my own personal opinions.

I wanted to share a few nuggets that I found while continuing my online research into Getty Images. The first is a very interesting article I found from back in March 2007 when Getty was still a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. The article was about two separate stockholder lawsuits against Jonathan Klein and the top officers at Getty Images and alleged that “a majority of the company's directors and top officers engaged in a secret scheme to illegally line their own pockets”. The original article may be found here:
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2003610937_getty10.html

The lawsuits allege that Jonathan Klein in the top officers that Getty were involved in a practice known as backdating stock options. What this means in layman’s terms for those who do not know is simply this, stock options are company stock issued to employees issued on a specific date and a specific number of shares which the employee may hold onto and keep or sell as they choose. If the company does well and the price of the stock goes up then they can make money on the increase over and above when the stock was issued. The more the stock goes up the more the potential profit can be. Backdating a stock option is when you go back and change the records of the date when the stock was issued to a time when the stock was very low which will allow maximum profit when your options are cashed in.

One of the lawsuits brought by Richard Edmonds who became suspicious when as he alleges  21 of the 25 stock options cashed in by Jonathan Klein and his buddies just happened to coincide with his historic lows in Getty’s stock prices. There is a lot of information here but if you wish to read Richard Edmonds lawsuit it may be found here:
Edmonds v Getty complaint:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109044444/Edmonds-v-Getty-Shareholder-Complaint

Apparently there was enough damning information for the SEC to initiate its own investigation into Getty’s stock option backdating practices.
http://www.photomediaonline.com/blogs/industry-news/item/584-sec-investigates-getty-images-stock.html

While I have looked all over the net I have not as yet been able to find the results of the investigation. A little over a week ago I filled out an online form on the SEC website requesting information as to the result of this investigation. While I have not heard back from them yet I am going to be sending a formal letter through the postal service via certified mail requesting this information. I will post the results of the investigation if I am able to obtain it or if any of the other ELI members can find it and share it or send it to me.

Getty also launched its own internal investigation into the matter and they released a statement saying that yes there was backdating of stock options however Getty claims there was no intentional wrongdoing and that it was more of an error caused by when the stock options were decided to be issued and when the paperwork was actually filled out issuing it. If Mr. Edmonds is right then like him I find it an amazing coincidence that 21 out of 25 times that clerical error or whatever you want to call it (wink wink) just happened result in the issue date coinciding with historic lows in Getty stock prices. Getty also announced as a result of this investigation it would go back and restate its financial results in the amounts of between “$28MM to $32MM” correcting for the error. The article on this may be found here:
http://www.abouttheimage.com/2737/getty_investigation_finds_no_intentional_wrong_doing_in_backdating_of_stock/author3/

@SG I could use a picture here of Johanthan Klein getting caught with his hand in the corporate stock option cookie jar ;)


What I find very interesting about this whole thing is the lawsuits continued until 2009 when they were abruptly ended by Getty going private. Getty had to get both parties to drop their lawsuit before they could proceed with the company’s privatization so unfortunately we will never know how it would have turned out. I do know in the case of Edmonds his legal fees were paid by Getty to the tune of $900,000 and I am not sure what agreement was reached with the other party. The stipulation and order on the Edmonds case may be read here:

Edmonds v Getty stipulation:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109044445/Edmonds-v-Getty-Stipulation

Edmonds v Getty order:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109044443/Edmonds-v-Getty-Order


Another thing that I am trying to find out now and would not be surprised to discover that the current Getty business model of sending out mass amounts of extortion settlement demand letters coincided with Getty going private. Besides the fact of the privatization of Getty getting Jonathan Klein and his buddies off the hook of the lawsuits hanging over their heads and the ramifications of that, it also would allow their current business model to be operated without having to worry about publicly reporting what they are doing or how much they are making from it. We only have a slight glimmer into the amount of money Jonathan Klein and Getty images reaps from this business model thanks to a 2009 Los Angeles times article in which Lisa Wilmer states at that time Getty finds approximately 42,000 cases per year of what they consider infringement. The article may be found here:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/13/business/fi-lazarus13

This is the first of articles I intend to post showing that Getty’s current business model is nothing new and that Jonathan Klein and his company have a long history of questionable practices resulting in lawsuits from stockholders, their own photographer clients and their current settlement demand letter business model.

Stay tuned more to come....
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

stinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
    • View Profile
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #138 on: October 15, 2012, 10:28:52 AM »
Great work Greg!  Thanks for the post.

Jerry Witt (mcfilms)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
    • Motion City
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #139 on: October 15, 2012, 02:54:22 PM »
Wow, great work Greg. The Getty claim, "I'm a legitimate businessman" isn't going to hold for much longer.  It's going to soon sound a lot like the protests the mobsters would all make before they went to jail.
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: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #140 on: October 15, 2012, 07:09:45 PM »
Thanks Stinger and Jerry!
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

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #141 on: October 17, 2012, 10:48:19 PM »
As promised here is part two in my series of articles about the business practices of Jonathan Klein and Getty images. As before I will also post this in a thread of its own just to make sure there is a nice SEO bump in the search results for Jonathan Klein and Getty images. Enjoy!

Before getting into the meat of this article I wanted to state that wherever possible I have linked to articles where I have obtained my information and that statements not directly reporting on the facts of the article are my own personal opinions.

This is part two of my series of articles focusing on the history that Jonathan Klein and Getty images has of questionable business practices. Previously I spoke about two separate stockholder lawsuits against Jonathan Klein and the top management at Getty which alleged that they were backdating stock option grants to historic low prices and lining their pockets at the company’s and stockholders expense. If you would like to read this article it may be found here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/jonathan-klein-and-getty-images-a-history-of-questionable-business-practices/

Today I would like to talk about how Jonathan Klein and Getty images have treated their contributors in the past. The first case is a class-action lawsuit filed against Getty by its contributors over a new service Getty had started called “Premium Access”. This suit was a result of Getty allegedly disregarding their own contributor agreements on rights managed photographs and offering images for sale and unlimited use for very little money. In this class action suit there were around to 100 individual photographers and companies suing Getty asking for damages in excess of $100 million. Here is a quote from one of the brief articles I was able to find on this lawsuit
 
The photographs have allegedly been licensed by Getty to major media clients for as little as $2.08 for extensive, untracked use. This has severely undercut the market for comparable photographs, damaged the future market for these photographs, and violated both the Rights Managed Image Distribution agreements Getty signed and the Uniform Commercial Code.”

This almost sounds to me like they were trying to create an i–stock within their own site. From what I understand Getty owns i–stock and there are instances where a photograph appears on Getty and i–stock at the same time, the i–stock image being priced reasonable and in line with market value and the Getty image being typically way overpriced.

This case and it is frustrating for me as the stockholder lawsuits were, I do not know how it would’ve played out or if there’s any behind-the-scenes settlement as the stipulation for dismissal makes it appear that both parties agreed to drop the suit and walk away.

The legal documents may be found here if you are interested:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110376269/Class-Action-Agianst-Getty-Images-Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110376270/Class-Action-Agianst-Getty-Images-Stipulation-for-Dismissal

The brief articles I could find may be found here:
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/photographers-launch-class-action-against-getty.html
http://www.kreindler.com/Recent-Developments/Kreindler-Kreindler-LLP-Files-Class-Action-Against-Getty-Images-on-Behalf-of-Professional-Photographers.shtml


At this point I want to give a shout out to Robert Krausankas who does some photography of his own and pointed me to a couple of photographer sites where it shows how unhappy a lot of photographers are with Getty. Many appear to be contributors who are disgruntled over the recent sale to the Carlyle group saying every time something like this happens the commission rates are restructured and they are not making any money while Getty is keeping the profits. Here are the links to the sites that Robert provided for my research.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/8/15/Getty-sold-for-3-3billion?comment=2837210054
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/hf-presses-on-with-$4-billion-getty-images-sale

So in conclusion we see that Jonathan Klein and Getty images not only have angered stockholders to the point of legal action for allegedly skimming profits rightfully due to the stockholders by backdating stock options as well as angering their own contributors to the point of a class-action lawsuit because of allegedly disregarding their own contributor agreements and offering rights managed photos for sale with unlimited use for as little as $2.08 and continue to anger current contributors by taking more and more of the lion share made from the photographs submitted.

My purpose of these articles is to show Getty has a history of this kind of behavior and the current business model of extortion settlement demand letters is just the latest in a line of questionable business practices designed to make as much money as possible whether earned and deserved or not. As I have said many times I consider Getty’s current business model, in my opinion, is nothing more than a form of legalized extortion where they are using current copyright law, scare tactics, refusal to provide proof substantiating their claim of exclusive rights, artificial deadlines and the threat of imminent lawsuit to get individuals, mom-and-pop companies and small businesses to pay them vastly overinflated sums of money. This is not to say that there are cases of willful infringement and I do not support nor does anyone on this forum that I am aware of support copyright infringement or the true theft of intellectual property, I refer to Getty’s insistence in pursuit of people and businesses which can clearly show that they are the victims of third parties and/or are truly innocent infringers.

You may ask why I have decided to name Jonathan Klein personally in this article. I am a firm believer in associating a face with any complaint that I make. In my original complaint letters I named my Getty Copyright Compliance pen-pal Douglas Bieker along with Getty images in every single complaint letter that I sent out. Jonathan Klein is the top man at Getty, he is aware of his company’s current business model and must give it the green light of approval so I choose to put his face on these articles about the company he runs. If you had not follow the thread and wish to read about my letter writing campaign as well as all letters they may be found here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-experiment-against-getty/

This is part two in a series of articles I plan to write, the next part will show Getty’s history of talking out of both sides of their mouth where they refuse to listen to innocent infringers and tell them they must pay or be sued yet when they are guilty of the same infraction they claim no harm was intended and if there was any infringement on their part it was innocent so they should not have to pay. So stay tuned for part three…
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

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #142 on: October 21, 2012, 05:30:23 PM »
As promised here is part three in my series of articles about the business practices of Jonathan Klein and Getty images. As before I will also post this in a thread of its own just to make sure there is a nice SEO bump in the search results for Jonathan Klein and Getty images. Enjoy!

Before getting into the meat of this article I wanted to state that wherever possible I have linked to sources where I have obtained my information and that statements not directly reporting on the facts of the article are my own personal opinions.

This is part three of my series of articles focusing on the Jonathan Klein and Getty images has a history of questionable business practices. Previously I spoke about two separate stockholder lawsuits against Jonathan Klein and the top management at Getty which alleged that they were backdating stock option grants to historic low prices and lining their pockets at the company’s and stockholders expense. If you would like to read this article it may be found here:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/jonathan-klein-and-getty-images-a-history-of-questionable-business-practices/

Next was an article showing how Jonathan Klein and Getty images has a history of treating their contributors poorly and even having their contributors file a class action lawsuit alleging that Getty ignored their agreement and offered rights managed images for sale for as little as $2.08 with unmonitored usage. If you would like to read this article it may be found here:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/jonathan-klein-and-getty-images-know-how-to-treat-their-contributors-not/

This article will deal with how Jonathan Klein and Getty images do not practice what they preach and is clearly a case of do as I say, not as I do. The majority of the people who come to ELI for help generally fall into a couple of categories, the first being where they are victims of a third party such as a web designer who placed the images on their website without obtaining a license, the next category and the one I wish to address first is the innocent infringer. This is someone who has found an image not through an image search such as Google and not taken from the Getty site itself but from another website or source where the image appears to be offered for free, believing the image to be free it was taken and used. These victims genuinely feel bad when they are told that their image was not free as they believed but part of the Getty collection. The innocent infringer will usually face an exercise in futility by trying to explain to Getty how their image was obtained and how it appeared to be free, so if there was any infringement it was innocent and a simple cease and desist should suffice. Of course Getty is all about the money and cares not one iota and demands payment.

Here’s where it gets interesting, let’s look at a couple of recent and I believe still ongoing cases, the first is Rock Photo which is suing Getty for knowingly and willfully infringing on his copyright by offering his images for sale. The owner of Rock Photo states that his images were stolen and the person who stole them sold them to Getty while at the same time Getty knew the images did not belong to the seller. Getty’s key arguments is that they did not believe they were infringing on anyone’s copyright as they thought they had purchased the images and if they were infringing the action was innocent and non-willful therefore they should not have to pay anything. Sound familiar? You may read the complaint in the case here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110658180/RockPhotos-Sues-Getty-for-Infringement

Now here’s another case that could apply to letter recipients who are victims of third party infringement. This case involves a company called Car Freshener Corp, you know them but probably not by name as they make the little Christmas tree shaped air fresheners you hang from your car’s rearview mirror. They happen to notice that there were several pictures on Getty’s site which included their copyrighted and trademarked air fresheners. I guess Getty was uncooperative with them so they sued Getty for trademark infringement. Even after being sued Getty was still being difficult and not providing discovery information to the point that Car Freshener Corp had to complain to the court and file a motion. Getty once again played their confidentiality card and claimed it would violate the confidentiality between themselves and their artists to provide the information requested. I believe Getty’s main defense was that they were victims of the artists uploading photos containing images of the copyrighted and trademarked air fresheners so it should not be their fault but rather the people who uploaded the photos. While I tend to agree with this statement I find it interesting that when a letter recipient says they know absolutely nothing about the Internet and paid a web designer to do their site and they are the ones that placed any images on their webpages, Getty’s response is always it doesn’t matter, it’s your site now pay us. Getty did end up having to pay a substantial fee for each image that they were selling that contains the trademarked image. You may read the decision and the threads pertaining to this on the forum here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67629206/Decision-Tree-Freshner-Getty

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-images-and-scented-trees-update/


Here’s one that I really like, on Getty’s site they offer many images which are public domain. While I understand and agree that they should charge a “reasonable” fee to license these images from their site since the work was done to bring many images of the same subject together saving time and research on the part of the customer this does not mean Getty can pursue anyone for infringement on a public domain image. First because it is a public domain image and second Getty has no way of knowing where the letter recipient obtained the image. Here are a couple of cases in which Getty has tried to collect from people over public domain images. The first was a gentleman by the name of Dan Evans who came to our forum after receiving a letter from Getty over an image taken back in 1856 of Henry David Thoreau and was taken from the Wikipedia page on Mr. Thoreau, it was even labeled public domain there. Getty was demanding $780 from Mr. Evans for using a public domain image that Getty also happen to offer on their site claiming infringement. Mr. Evans sent them a letter telling them this was a public domain image and to basically pound sand, wisely Getty replied back that they had closed the case. This makes me wonder how many other people Getty has done this to and have frightened into paying hundreds of dollars for a free image.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/don't-pay-getty-thank-you-eli/


The next case like this was gleaned from Roberts excellent work in obtaining all of the Attorney General Complaints filed with the Washington State Attorney General’s office against Getty. There are a few very interesting complaints in these files. The first is a case where Getty sent a letter demanding payment to a gentleman named Jim Conachen for another public domain image; the image was of an F-16 fighter taken by another military plane and released by the government which makes it a public domain image. This image was used in a web template offered for sale from Intuit.com. After the usual Getty runaround Mr.  Conachen filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office as well as informed Intuit of what was going on. While Getty for all intents and purposes ignored complaints from the Attorney General’s office as they cannot force Getty to do anything however, as I have stated in the past it is my opinion that Getty does not go after large companies the same way they go after individuals, small businesses and mom-and-pop companies since large companies have the resources to defend themselves. Intuit replied back to Mr. Conachen complaint and told him don’t worry about it we will handle it, then lo and behold Getty sends a letter to the Attorney General’s office saying in regards to Mr. Conachen complaint we are pleased to inform you that we have dropped our claim and consider the matter closed. It is amazingly how quickly Getty backs down when there is a large company with legal resources behind them telling them to back off. Here’s the complaint in the Eli document library if you wish to view it:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/104557917/Getty-Images-Attorney-General-Complaint-19

Now a perfect example of Getty’s talking out of both sides of their mouth can be found here, this is a PDF pamphlet made available on Getty’s website called “Copyright 101”, in this pamphlet Getty poses questions and answers them such as “I am a blogger, am I allowed to use the image in my blog for free?” and “I am a volunteer or nonprofit company can we use the image for free?”. In both cases the answer is an emphatic no, yet in a recent video CEO Jonathan Klein seems to say sure take our images, play around with them and feel free to use them up and to the point where you start making money on them which apparently contradicts their own pamphlet. The video may be found here and Mr. Klein’s statement starts right around one minute into the video:



Finally for the last example of do as I say and not as I do, Getty always tells the letter recipient the burden to find out the copyright status of an images falls on the consumer which is true, but who in their right minds after getting an image that all around it says FREE-FREE-FREE, who would think now I need to try and find the owner of this image and see if it was licensed to this website.  Here is pamphlet available on the Getty site called “Be Sure of It” where they talk about making sure you have rights to the image you want to use. If you go to page 5 called “Image Guarantee” it appears that Getty is trying to sell you image insurance to protect you from their own images!?!  Their pitch is:

Not every image comes with a model or property release.
Sometimes, with certain non-released imagery or
footage, it’s simply not possible to find or identify a rights
holder, if one even exists. So clearance just isn’t an option
.”

It appears at least to me that Getty is saying were not even sure of the copyright status or even who the copyright holders are on all their images so rather than Getty following their own instructions they say will sell you insurance to protect you from the images we sell you.  You may read this pamphlet here:

http://www.gettyimages.com/CMS/Pages/RightsClearance/StaticContent/RnC.en-us.pdf

This also seems to be backed up by a statement made by Getty Copyright Compliance Specialist Nancy Monson when replied with the following statement to a letter recipient:

Copyright exists the moment a photograph is created and copyright registration is not a requirement of copyright ownership. Getty Images does not own the image. Getty Images has contracts with its contributing photographers who are the copyright holders and owners of the images. The contributor agreement contains representations and warranties that the contributor is the sole copyright owner. Consequently, Getty Images does not require contributors to provide Getty Images with certificates of registration and leaves the option of copyright registration to the individual photographer. Due to confidentiality concerns, Getty Images does not provide copies of our contributor contracts or copyright registration at this time.”

While the first part of Ms. Monson statement is 100% correct in that copyright exists as soon as you take the picture, I love how Getty in their demand letters wants “Damages” that their artist have suffered when they admit here that they have no idea whether or not an images has been registered or registered properly allowing them to ask for and collect damages, albeit in my opinion the damages that they ask for exist only in their mind.  If Jonathan Klein currently owns or ever buys a yacht he should name it Damages so their demand letters would at least be accurate when they say you must pay for damages, I bet he really misses those stock options too.  The article with Ms. Monson’s quote may be found here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/an-interesting-message-from-a-getty-'copyright-compliance-specialist-'/

So in conclusion we can see Getty images doesn’t practice what they preach and likes to act a lot like congress by holding themselves to a completely different standard than they do everyone else.  In the next article we will look at some of the legal cases Getty has been involved in.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 12:14:17 AM by Greg Troy (KeepFighting) »
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

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #143 on: October 28, 2012, 10:21:04 PM »
I found another little nugget here that took place right around the same time as the backdating of the stock options and thought was fairly interesting. From January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2006 Getty was found not to have paid the proper amount of business and operating taxes, this resulted from a 2001 foreign audit in which the Getty affiliates were required to enter into a formal written agreement for administrative and management services with its parent company Getty Images. Without this agreement Getty could not deduct the cost of administrative services that Getty images provided the foreign affiliates, so Getty formed a limited liability corporation under the laws of California called Getty Management. Under the written agreement created called the General and Administrative Services Agreement (GASA) Getty images agreed to pay itself $1 million a year for handling the administrative issues and only pay taxes on the $1 million a year, yet an auditor found that Getty management incurred costs ranging between $25 million and  $98 million per year for total of approximately $307 million during the audit period. The auditor concluded that Getty owed back taxes on the difference of the money and must start paying on the total amount here forward rather than the $1 million written into the agreement.

Getty immediately paid the back taxes but sued the city of Seattle saying that they did not owe the money. During the case in the Court of Appeals for the state of Washington Division I the chief financial officer of Getty Jeffrey Dunn testified, when asked what the primary reason was that this was set up this way he replied and I quote
Quote
I think, again, the primary reason was to -- to affect the management charges to the foreign affiliates, with a secondary reason being to avoid an increase in tax in the state of Washington.

Q. Getty of Seattle could not continue to perform its management services under its contract with Getty management unless it received these payments to the cash management system to pay its expenses?

Dunn: that's correct

Dunn also testified later in a pertinent part:

Quote
so it was critical to -- critical for us to implement the process of -- of charging these management fees and getting the deductions in the foreign countries. In doing so, we would have increased our exposure to B&O tax both in the state of Washington in the city of Seattle, and so the management company structure was -- was used to shield that increase in tax.

Getty cited several different cases as precedents which they believed prove that they did not owe the tax and the court ruled that none of them applied and they did owe the tax. Getty also appealed the court's decision to the Washington state Supreme Court who refuse to hear the case.

As I said all this took place about the same time as the stock option backdating and in my opinion just as another example of how Getty images chooses not to play by the rules and operate in an unethical manner weather it is with innocent infringers they send their demand letters to, their own contributors, their stockholders and even the local and state governments. There is a lot of information contained in this case and to truly grasp it you'll need to read the documents which I am providing below:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111396110/Getty-v-City-of-Seattle

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111396108/Getty-v-City-of-Seattle-Ruling

Request for review by Washington Supreme Court Denied Entry #8
http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/?fa=atc_supreme.display&year=2012&petition=pr120207#A1
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

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #144 on: October 31, 2012, 12:25:48 AM »
I just wanted to give everyone that has been following my experiment an update on its status. The last communication I received from Getty images was their notice that if I did not pay they were going to escalate my case to their legal department, which in turn prompted my letter writing campaign/experiment. Today makes it exactly 6 months to the day since I received that letter and as a result of the experiment I have yet to hear a peep out of Getty, NCS or McCormack legal. I seriously doubt I will hear anything from any of them ever again as I’m sure they read the forums and are well aware that I am now prepared to do far worse at a moment’s notice should I hear from any of them.

I hope others will find this experiment useful and be able to modify it to their individual needs and use it to fend off these legalized extortion demand letters sent from copyright trolling individuals and companies. If you are new to this thread and starting it at the end, links to copies of all my correspondence, complaint letters and replies may be found here:

Here are the Letters between Myself and Getty Images:

http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/3777294

Here are copies of the complaint letters that I sent out along with any replies and follow-up responses.

http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/3777301

If you use this information please consider sharing your letters and results with your personal information redacted so that others and I can see how it works for you and I can add in the new data and update/modify the experiment as needed.
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

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #145 on: November 07, 2012, 10:53:39 PM »
This should be helpful to the many other folks who are dealing with the issue!

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #146 on: November 08, 2012, 08:51:46 PM »
I have been away this week and upon returning I have found a reply from the SEC to my request for information about the backdating of stock options by Jonathan Klein and other top executive officers. I did not get a yes and I did not get in no as of yet but it appears I had not provided quite enough/accurate information the SEC needed which I hope I have corrected with my reply. I am posting the reply and if you scroll down you can see my original request as well as the SEC's response.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112637179/Request-for-information-from-the-SEC-in-regards-to-the-backdating-of-stock-options-by-Getty-images-CEO-Robert-Klein

I will keep everyone posted as to what I am able to find out.
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

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #147 on: November 09, 2012, 12:25:06 PM »
Thank you Oscar and this is why I have made this experiment public in the hope that others can see what can be done and join in the fight.  The more people we can get that are in similar situations to stand up and fight and send complaint letters the sooner we can reach a tipping point where these agencies will see the scope of this issue and take action.

This should be helpful to the many other folks who are dealing with the issue!
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

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #148 on: November 19, 2012, 08:34:10 AM »
I just got this response from the SEC to my inquiry about their investigation into Getty images backdating stock options. It looks as if they cannot provide me the information but she is telling me to go through the freedom of information act and providing me a link to it. When I get home from work this evening I will follow the link and see what I need to do and continue to pursue this through the FOIA. Here's a link to the response I received from the SEC.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113769493/SEC-Response
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

coriblk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« Reply #149 on: November 19, 2012, 12:28:21 PM »
After this, I just removed all of getty's images from my site and all they images have been banned from other blogs I write for. Not taking any chances with these people. Thought once the image was in the public domain it was free to use under fairshare..clearly not.

 

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.