ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: annalise on February 03, 2012, 12:42:59 PM
-
Sent a certified letter to the trolls, received an email response at an address not related in anyway to contacts for my domain or website.
Do I ignore email, reply with response that they have reached wrong email or send another certified letter stating why haven't they responded?
-
If that email was not on the letter and not related to your domain name, I would not respond to it. Out of curiosity, did the response in the email mention your letter?
-
No, I did not include any email address in the letter. The email mentioned the letter I sent. Also noticed, as in most letters posted in this forum, it doesn't refer to the company that owns the domain, it refers to me personally. The email is associated with another blog domain I own-but not connected to the site in question. Maybe I should mark it as spam. hmmm. It is unsolicited email right?
Would you respond with another snail certified letter? Is it time to lay down the law as they say in this business?
-
If you sent a certified letter and it did not come back to you, then it got delivered...why do you insist on going back and forth with them?
-
Not really a back and forth. Just sent one response to them certified.
Are you suggesting to ignore them completely?
-
Not really a back and forth. Just sent one response to them certified.
Are you suggesting to ignore them completely?
Nope not at all, I'm suggesting that you replied the ball is now in their court, is all. Ultimately it's your decision on how you want to proceed.
-
You would recommend not acknowledging the email and waiting for mailed response?
The alleged infringement is for one photo appearing in two different places.
-
If you went to the trouble sending a certified letter I suggest sitting tight and waiting for a response by snail letter. Of course, you can read the email-- but the fact is you sent them a certified letter. They should communicate at the address you gave them by the mode you gave them.
Don't communicate in two modes. Stick with certified letters or email, not both.
-
There is a such thing as too much follow-up. It shows your desperation and need for approval from them if you contact them again after you submitted your reply. Certified Mail is more than enough. Just wait.
Side note: I absolutely oppose emails in these matters. Using email is the lazy way. It may be easy for you but you also make it easy for them to contact you ANYTIME, FOR FREE. If someone wants to come after me legally, I insist everything be on hard copy and they need to spend the postage and envelope to mail it.
You act firm and professional, you will get treated as such. You want to be lazy and take shortcuts, then be prepared to be treated accordingly.
-
Matt--
I'm going for lazy and short-cuts. The message I think I'm communicating is: I don't want to pay for paper and postage on such a stupid matter. Turns out they send letters and emails either way!
I did respond to their 2nd letter by email. I got a prompt response telling me that the 2nd letter was sent in error. :)
-
Everyone gets to choose how they want to handle their situation.
However, I don't think that is entirely true unless an opening is given to send email.
Emails has its pros and cons. Snail mail has its expense and inconvenience but if you ask any lawyer, if you are trying to establish gravitas, snail mail using Certified Mail is the way to go. Alternatively, send a Fedex or UPS letter is powerful also.
I keep trying to tell people in these cases to stop focusing so much on "outlawyering", "convincing", or asking for approval. But no matter how many times I say it, so many become sheep and "follow the rules" anyhow.
I am telling everyone that symbolically, there is nothing more powerful than using snail mail using Certified Mail to deliver a message. It is so powerful a symbol that I have had recipients over the years refuse to accept my Certified Mails out of fear. They simply didn't want to accept service and read the contents of MY letters. Refusal of service worked in my favor because it was reputationally damaging to the other side when it came out.
Yes, Certified Mail can get expensive but my intent is not to get into a debate indefinitely. It has strong symbolic value to deliver a strong message directed at some conclusion. That is my advice.
I have a long track record of successfully winning (or at least partially so in those I didn't) the disputes both in writing and in person on all kinds of matters (traffic, credit disputes, customer satisfaction, etc.) When I play, I play to win. There are some "shortcuts" that simply undermine what you are trying to do. I continue to say that emails undermine that effort in having gravitas in your communication.
People may think they are saving time and money on one hand but they lose something else in another. If people must, I would send a FAX over email anytime. FAXes have higher symbolic value than emails. In fact, emails are among the lowest.
The best analogy I can give is that if you received a hand-written letter from anyone, how would you react? The handwritten letter is so rare today, it is practically extinct or certainly an anomaly.
Turns out they send letters and emails either way!
-
The best analogy I can give is that if you received a hand-written letter from anyone, how would you react? The handwritten letter is so rare today, it is practically extinct or certainly an anomaly.
Honestly? I'm usually annoyed by hand-written letters. There are two people I know who like to send them and I don't like receiving them. I prefer email or phone calls.
-
The best analogy I can give is that if you received a hand-written letter from anyone, how would you react? The handwritten letter is so rare today, it is practically extinct or certainly an anomaly.
Honestly? I'm usually annoyed by hand-written letters. There are two people I know who like to send them and I don't like receiving them. I prefer email or phone calls.
This is Matts point exactly!
-
buddhapi--
The difficulty is that if I send letters to Getty, I'll get letters from Getty. I don't like that mode of communication. Since I don't like snail mail, I would prefer to use the mode of communication I like.
With regard to the two people who send me letters: One is my mom. The other is a good friend since high school. I reply by email. :)
-
If you want to continue "enjoying and liking" your communication experience with Getty Images or anyone else on legal matters, have at it.
However, I am stunned at your response. Does it really need to be said that aggressively defending and fighting back is not meant to be a comfortable, cruise-ship experience?
In what I wrote, did you somehow get the impression that my advice was meant for YOUR, MINE, or ANYONE ELSE's personal comfort or preferred mode of communication?
Does anyone really think I enjoyed the entire experience of what I did to successfully fight back? Does anyone really think I enjoy typing up my hard-copy letters on a laser printer, running down to the U.S. Post Office, manually fill out a Certified Mail form, and paying $6 to mail it out? Seriously?
Do you think lawyers who want to seriously communicate a strong message is thinking about their personal comfort in sending their messages? I promise you that if someone decides to hire Oscar or any decent lawyer to represent a client's interests, they are not sitting back and thinking how easy the communication might be if that lawyer could only send an email on behalf of their clients instead of an envelope and postage. They aim to get the message across effectively and that almost always means snail-mail, not because lawyers are incapable or unwilling to use email.
Do you realize that MY goal in my advice to others is NOT to encourage a easy leisurely, ongoing debate with the stock photo companies? That MY goal to others is to decisively put a stop to it quickly, once and for all.
But for those of you who are much too bothered with postage, paper, and getting out of your chair although they persistently threaten the crap out of you, be my guest. But then people shouldn't complain that the emails from Getty (or whoever) continue on without stopping.
The difficulty is that if I send letters to Getty, I'll get letters from Getty. I don't like that mode of communication. Since I don't like snail mail, I would prefer to use the mode of communication I like.
-
However, I am stunned at your response. Does it really need to be said that aggressively defending and fighting back is not meant to be a comfortable, cruise-ship experience?
No. But I don't see why I should actively take steps to make it more unpleasant for myself by doing something that I think likely makes no difference to whether it's uncomfortable for Getty clerks many of whom are merely paper shuffling.
I also tend to think the facts of the case make a bigger difference than the mode of communication. Bear in mind, my case is one of hotlinking of a single, blurred, cropped image image during a blog discussion that would likely make copying of the image fair use even if I'd hosted the image. Licenses to display the image on the web are sold by the photographer's heirs through their Photoshelter hosted storefront, meaning that Getty either does not have the exclusive license or they are not enforcing their exclusive license. Not only are images available at the author's web site: Digital versions at better resolutions are available for download for free. So Getty's case is flimsier than usual. Knowing this, I am both willing to risk going to court and to go to court if sued.
I do not believe that in my case, Getty's decision to sue or not sue or even to stop wasting their time with internal discussions or sending email is going to be based on whether or not I am spending money on paper and postage.
In what I wrote, did you somehow get the impression that my advice was meant for YOUR, MINE, or ANYONE ELSE's personal comfort or preferred mode of communication?
When I said I was going to use my preferred mode of communication, I was responding to Buddhapi not you. I understood Buddhapi to be suggesting that the fact that receiving snail mail letters was annoying was a reason I should send them to Getty. He may be correct. But I'm more concerned about whether something annoys me than whether it annoys them. I prefer email and gave that as my reason for using email.
I wasn't under the impression that by sending email I was following your advice. I'm making my own choice for my own reasons.
They aim to get the message across effectively and that almost always means snail-mail, not because lawyers are incapable or unwilling to use email.
I can see all sorts of reasons an attorney who has been hired sends snail mail letters. I don't think those necessarily translate into evidence that messages sent from non-attorneys come across more effectively by snail-mail than email. I could be mistaken on this, but if so, then the person who will experience the fall out will be me.
I don't care whether the clerks at Getty think I am a high powered professional. My initial aim was merely to get Getty to drop this matter with the minimum fuss, expense and discomfort to me. My aim has also expanded; I now also want to extract as much information about their operations as I can while still avoiding a suit.
So, I want them to see that I am not going to cave in for no good reason. I think the best way to do this is not caving in when their case is absolutely flimsy. If several emails are exchanged, that's ok with me. I'll post the contents here and we'll learn what Getty writes.
Moving to a more general matter, as an empirical matter,I don't think we actually know if sending email or snail mail is "better". I think we haven't whether in the end Getty is more aggressive with those who communicate by email or snail-mail because we don't have cases comparing Getty's response in both situations. So it interests me to do the experimet. I'll be using email and I'll let you know how many emails it takes.
So far I've received:
1) The initial demand letter by snail mail. I responded to the letter provided by email.
2) An email response from "Sam Brown". I responded to "Sam Brown" by email. It's been over a month and Getty has not responded.
3) A letter that appeared to be spontaneously generated by the system. I responded by email sending it both to Getty Litigation and Sam Brown telling Getty Litigation to contact Sam Brown to get the previous communication. Sam responded by email in 10 minutes to apologize for sending the 2nd letter by mistake and informed me that my " December 20, 2011 e-mail (received) is still under review in our department."
If I get additional communications, I'll report them. I'm actually hoping I do receive an email response to my requests for proof of copyright and an explanation of how they come up with their settlement demand. If I can get those, I'll share them. So to the extent that email might make Getty more willing to communicate and send answers rather than cut off communication to save the cost of postage or paper I prefer that. (Others might not. But I do.)
Though others may feel differently, if I end up exchanging emails at the rate of one every month for 3 years, I would still prefer email as a mode of communication to snail mail.
I rather liked being able to send the email to two in boxes telling the Getty people to communicate with each other before sending me letters. I rather liked the Getty representative sending the apology within 10 minutes of my sending my email. I do think with future email I am going to request that they send me a confirmation that they received the email. I'll put a note in my tickle file and if If they don't confirm receipt within a week, I'll resend the body of the email to multiple parties along with a preface requesting someone let me know if they received the email.
I think I would switch to certified letter should I ever get to the point where I am suggesting a settlement of any monetary value. In that event, I have learned I would like evidence of they received my email; with snail mail I could have that if I paid to send certified letters. But I think I can just pester getty for responses and leave sending certified letters as an option for a later time.
So for now, for my reasons outlined above, I'm sticking with the mode of communication I prefer. I'm not telling others they should do as I do. I am entirely aware that I am not following your advice. I am making my own decision.
-
In the future, can you ask Getty to cc [email protected]?
;)
-
I could. I could also cc you guys when I email them. That would bring a 3rd party into the loop which I think would be to my advantage. One reason I would like that is I noticed this in the footer from the reply from Sam Brown:
©2012 Getty Images, Inc.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
This message may contain privileged or confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail or any attachments hereto. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail and any attachments from your system without copying or disclosing the contents. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Getty Images, 605 5th Ave South, Suite 400, USA, www.gettyimages.com. PLEASE NOTE that all incoming e-mails will be automatically scanned by us and by an external service provider to eliminate unsolicited promotional e-mails ("spam"). This could result in deletion of a legitimate e-mail before it is read by its intended recipient at our firm. Please tell us if you have concerns about this automatic filtering
So, in my next email response to Getty, I was planning to write something to communicate that:
1) I have chosen email because their letters request that mode of communication. Specifically they write "For questions or to settle the matter, please contact [email protected] or call 1-800-972-4170"
2) Responses from Sam Brown now warn me that Getty may lose incoming email.
As their preferred method of communication is email but they are aware that their system sometimes loses email, I am concerned my always timely communications to them might be lost. To allay my concerns, I would like them to promptly affirm they have received my email. If it's ok to copy the forum I would happy to tell Getty that I am doing so to have an independent witness to the fact that I replied. :)
-
Or, don't pay, stop talking with them, have a couple of brewski's and enjoy life.
Hell, spring's coming. F'-em.
lol.
S.G.
-
I can only imagine this would upset Sam Brown, they don't like us airing their dirty laundry for all to see. My guess would be that any and all communications are priveledged and confidential, and perhaps even copyrighted! We've been down this road in the past. Naturally it's only confidential if BOTH parties agree to such in writing..
-
Or, don't pay, stop talking with them, have a couple of brewski's and enjoy life.
Hell, spring's coming. F'-em.
lol.
S.G.
Theres also this! I can see where Lucia is coming from with the emails, the main reason I would do it differently is for the nuisance factor, hell if they are going to waste my time and energy, I may as well make them do the same..especially if it get escalated to McCormack, at that point I would demand everything be sent certified mail, and any emails will be promptly rejected.. If it gets that far, it's clearly time to run up the billable hours for Getty..
-
In all seriousness, just so everybody knows, there's quite a bit of "plausible deniability" with emails.
One can send an email to another person, and that person can simply say "I never got it".
So, we should keep this sort of thing in mind when dealing with legalities.
Anyway, I'm going to enjoy some Canadian beer (it's Monday, you know), play the best sport in the world (hockey!), then go for some free healthcare just for shits and giggles.
S.G.
-
SoylentGreen,
There is also plausible deniability when you snail-mail dead tree versions too. I've had people "never get" important-to-me- things <i>I've snail-mailed</i> and I have no idea how Getty could prove a trollee received the demand letters they sent. (I know for a fact person who "never got" the important-to-me thinkg I knew for sure he'd gotten it because he'd passed it along to someone I chatted with who willingly told me he'd read it!)
Certified letters prevent plausible deniability with snail-mail. My plan forward is to ask Getty staff to send a brief confirmation they received my email. Right now I'll look to see if there are any tracing systems for email. Maybe there are now.
-
Lucia made a good point about regular mail, too.
Anyway, while most wouldn't say "ignore them", what's the point of engaging these people (Getty) after making them an offer?
If they refuse it, what the point of further communication? They'll just say "you have to pay".
So, you either pay, or don't. They already know that they're usually in the wrong legally and many people have told them that.
What's the point of wasting time debating it?
They don't normally sue people over 1 or two images.
If they threaten to sue (through McCormack), I would then state my legal standing informally.
Or pay it. But, there's no real "discussion", as they're not going to change their position.
They're making you "work", and that's what they want.
S.G.
-
S.G.
Anyway, while most wouldn't say "ignore them", what's the point of engaging these people (Getty) after making them an offer?
I haven't made them an offer. In my first email I communicated my position which is I did not infringe at all. I cited the Perfect 10 v Amazon case. They disagreed, assigned the case to Sam Brown who wrote back some nonsense including telling me that unlike Amazon or Google I was not covered by DMAC. I wrote back and quoted the parts of the ruling that noted DMAC was irrelevant to the ruling in favor of Amazon and Google because hotlinking is not copying under the US copyright act. I have had no official response to that-- but I got a snail mail 'escalation' letter. I emailed Sam and their compliance department pointing out that there was an ongoing discussion with Sam Brown and requesting the compliance department as Sam for the previous communications. I told them I would like them I was eager to discuss the issue with them but I would like them to read my previous communications first so as not to waste my time and theirs.
Within 10 minutes of sending that email I got an apology from Sam Brown who told me my case was still pending review.
From my POV I benefited from this exchange in a number of ways.
-
I would say that in Lucia's case, she has the "good fortune" in the hot-linking issue vs most other people's mistakes. That is most definitely NOT clear cut. Making that one argument and slapping that down should ultimately take care of it, email or otherwise. But how many email exchanges remains to be seen.
However, let us not forget that Sam Brown is now getting public exposure on these forums that he has not before. He has to be careful what he says and his team knows that.
Lucia, you have a good chance of making this go away by virtue of your particular hot-linking issue and the fact that Sam Brown knows that your case has "gone public" with every single Getty response being scrutinized. They don't like that much scrutiny or publicity because most employee-types are cowards outside of the workplace.
You may believe in having a constructive argument but tell that to the other hundreds of letter recipients who went down that road and see how effective that got them. Having said that, most did not have hot-linking issues.
Ultimately, there is a school of thought of ending this quickly and moving on with life and another school of thought to try to debate and discuss your way out.
-
I heard that. Sometimes it comes to that when being rational doesn't work.
Or, don't pay, stop talking with them, have a couple of brewski's and enjoy life.
Hell, spring's coming. F'-em.
lol.
S.G.
-
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 agree with you to not cave in for no good reason. I agree with you that their case is very flimsy and you will likely come out on to on that merit alone.
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. Most letter recipients, including myself, did not have a hot-linking issue. My issue was a very small bird image was embedded into a much a larger web header that was custom-designed. Others, simply made the mistake of going into Google Images and using those saved images within their website. In these cases, I am absolutely sure Getty would not back off so quickly. I know this because this has been reported ad nauseum. That is one reason why Oscar gets so many clients (although he is very good at what he does). The sheer aggravation and annoyance factor has driven people into Oscar's service.
Also, you have (intentionally or not) benefited from the leverage of "coming out" and being so active on ELI. (Thank you for that and good for you.) Copyright trolls don't generally like the publicity, light, and exposure. It is unforgiving and any mistakes they might make is magnified greatly. That also works to your favor.
In retrospect, I would say you have the leisure of running your experiment because you have a lot going for you. But for most others who don't have such an argument or case as you did and deathly afraid of coming out or speaking out, they will continue to be harassed unless they change their posturing which is why we encourage people to speak out.
If ELI were to be permanently shutdown for whatever reason in the future, I feel very certain that the most of the stock photo companies would revert back into a far more aggressive approach (including yours). The ELI Team and this website is well-read by all the stock photo companies.
You may want to take these other factors into consideration in evaluating your experiment.
So, I want them to see that I am not going to cave in for no good reason. I think the best way to do this is not caving in when their case is absolutely flimsy. If several emails are exchanged, that's ok with me. I'll post the contents here and we'll learn what Getty writes.
Moving to a more general matter, as an empirical matter,I don't think we actually know if sending email or snail mail is "better". I think we haven't whether in the end Getty is more aggressive with those who communicate by email or snail-mail because we don't have cases comparing Getty's response in both situations. So it interests me to do the experimet. I'll be using email and I'll let you know how many emails it takes.
-
Glad to hear it. I would say it is highly likely they will go away in your case.
Thanks for recognizing that the ELI Forums gives every letter recipient a ton of additional leverage. ELI was very tiny and ugly by comparison when I started it in 2008. But it was still good leverage for me even back then.
Today, any letter recipient willing to post has an instant community and support system. And their story gets out to thousands of people well embedded in the search engines. We happily provide a huge platform for anyone that cares to use it.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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."
-
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'
-
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?? :P Maybe it will snow in Florida tonight too. I supplied the license for the image in my case and that wasn't good enough.
-
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.
-
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.