ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on May 24, 2012, 03:14:40 PM
-
I just found this on line. It appears Getty may go up for sale or go public.
http://news.investors.com/article/612432/201205231322/getty-images-could-be-sold-or-go-public.htm
A quote from the article:
“Getty Images could soon be put up for sale or head out for an IPO, with a $4 billion valuation just four years after being sold for $2.4 billion, The Financial Times reports.”
I wonder how much of this increase is due to their demand letter campaign? Also if they were to go public I wonder how the stock holders would react to their business practices of extorting money out of individuals and small businesses. I’ll keep an eye on this and post any updates I come across.
-
Wow, this is big news. This is a good catch.
As much as we think the extortion letter business is significant in the valuation, I believe it is the extensive IP portfolio they have accumulated over the years that have boosted the overall valuation. They have been buying and swallowing up so many smaller image and media-related companies.
However, all of that is not important without considering the actual cash flows from the collective businesses.
I favor Getty going public because it gives us more information, channels, and options to attack. Don't get me started. Going public entails many disclosures. They can't keep all the info they have been the last 4 years secret as a private company.
-
Goldman Sachs (GS), which handled Getty's 2008 acquisition, has been hired to look into the sale along with JPMorgan Chase (JPM)..
Birds of a feather...liars, crooks and thieves..all of them..
( this is naturally just my opinion, which I'm entitled to..)
-
I would welcome the opening of the Getty files. I have been trying to find a finacial for them for some time and most recent one I am able to locate is for 2008 which was their last one as a public company.
I agree that Getty going public would release a wealth of information that can be used to bolster our cases. I wonder how the fact that there are so many people out there who have received Demand Letters and would love to find something to take the fight back to them would affect possible investors during an Initial Public Offering.
I can only hope that if Getty does go public it will force them to change their tatics under the public eye.
-
Like I'd buy that stock and lose my money. lol:
http://i.imgur.com/jJrec.jpg
Also, the more they troll, the worse their PR is... it could affect prices...
S.G.
-
Not to mention possibly overhauling or firing their entire "copyright compliance team" and outside "counsel".
-
If they are going to take Getty public, perhaps a good strategy to keep the trolls at bay, for the time being, might be to threaten adverse publicity in any responses to troll letters.
Wall Street does not like negative publicity when trying to take a company public. I'm betting the owners might put the muzzles on the trolls prior to a public offering.
-
It's a little late to muzzle me, even if they were to "tone it down" it will continue to be a PR nightmare as long as I'm walking this earth..some may call me a bit obsesses... I tend to agree with them!
If they are going to take Getty public, perhaps a good strategy to keep the trolls at bay, for the time being, might be to threaten adverse publicity in any responses to troll letters.
Wall Street does not like negative publicity when trying to take a company public. I'm betting the owners might put the muzzles on the trolls prior to a public offering.
-
Getty going public could be very interesting as shareholders could have issues with the way they do business as a gadfly or two could start to raise a stink about the extortion letter practice. At the same time, that extra infusion of capital will likely make them more aggressive in their lobbying for change to the Copyright Act.
-
Getty going public could be very interesting as shareholders could have issues with the way they do business as a gadfly or two could start to raise a stink about the extortion letter practice. At the same time, that extra infusion of capital will likely make them more aggressive in their lobbying for change to the Copyright Act.
Ya....I'm going with "B"....after all that 20 million dollar Picscout purchase needs to be justified.
-
Nice to see Oscar's post!!
If I may, what copyright act changes is Getty proposing?
Is there a link to this?
S.G.
-
Yes this is a huge development and a mixed bag. Like Oscar says, going public may give them an influx of capital at a time when it has never been easier for companies to "buy" our elected officials votes. (Thanks to PACs and the phenomenally bad decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United.) But on the other hand, it sure does open up the books. To my mind it is also easier to change a companies behavior when they are publicly traded.
The other thing that going public means is that any one of us can buy a share of Getty and that entitles you to be on the shareholder quarterly report phone call. You get to ask your questions. "Do we really think suing our potential customers is part of a sustainable business plan?" or "Shouldn't we try to shut down a source of give-away images BEFORE wasting resources trying to collect on a hobbiest or a fan site?"
-
I haven’t been able to find much detail on Getty’s lobbying efforts to change copyright law. Although, I don’t doubt the existence of such.
My thoughts are that they’d like to focus on two areas; copyright registration and contracts. However, I cannot see how they’d gain much ground in regard to these.
Getty may wish to make “bulk registration” a universally accepted method of registration. The problem as I see it is more fundamental than this. Before registering an image in its name, Getty would have to essentially “own” the image outright, or have exclusive rights transferred to them under an exclusive contract with the artist. The Advernet case has proven that Getty has failed in this aspect. One cannot (legally) register a work if he/she does not own the work. The fact that Getty is always unwilling to provide proof of its allegations against alleged infringers indicates that things haven’t improved. Now, some may argue that the law could be changed in order to make bulk registrations an acceptable method of copyright registration, and this could be made to happen. The sticking point will be that Getty will have to buy exclusive rights from every photographer in order to make legally enforceable registrations in its own name. This would be prohibitively expensive for Getty.
You can be quite sure that we’ll never see a scenario wherein the mutually-exclusive legal status of agent or exclusive agent are “combined” (i.e. the rights that exclusive owners are entitled to now fall upon mere agents) in order to allow arms-length third-party retailers to easily threaten/litigate (for statutory damages) over content that they do not even own. Photographers/photojournalists and artists that do top-notch work would be robbed of very lucrative opportunities that come from exclusivity. Finally, the onslaught of “copyright trolling” has made the ability to verify who actually owns a work to be absolutely paramount. This cannot become some sort of “grey area”.
It’s been stated by a troll on this forum that “all anyone has to do is copyright something (even if you don’t own it), and sue like hell” (I’m paraphrasing here). But, this is very flawed thinking. The real power of copyright registration is that one can make the registration BEFORE the work is published or used in any manner. That’s when registration is most powerful. In this case, registration by the owner pre-exists any prior use by anyone else.
I also doubt that copyright law will be changed to enable exclusive business agreements to be “digitally signed”, which was the downfall of the Getty vs. Advernet case. Given how contentious and widespread claims of infringement are, it would be very foolhardy to weaken the substance and verifiability of these documents. Demanding ten-thousand dollars or more for one image? High stakes indeed. Such documents could be challenged by any artist that claimed that a reasonable person pressing a “submit” button couldn’t imagine that it was a “legal” document that bestowed exclusive rights upon Getty. It’s simply not the right time, nor is it practical to “sign” a legal document by checking a box and clicking “submit”. People understand credit card use in these terms, but they do not expect binding legal contracts to handled in such a manner. I do think that Getty’s method of “digitally” signing its submission forms online was simply a way to make it appear that the contracts were exclusive for purposes of litigation. However, both Getty and the artist were aware that the contract was in no way exclusively binding, and Getty paid the lower fee as an “agent” to the artist. They should have known better than to test it in court, as forms can faxed, signed and then mailed back to Getty easily. It’s not the sixteenth century after all.
S.G.