My letter Experience

[Totally Fed up]

Hi Everyone,
 I have been reading the forum for quite some time and also got the 'letter.'
I don't want to say too much in public just in case they are reading this. I did call them and they did go down in price a small bit, however, when I tried to get them to go down further, an argument broke out instead. I am usually a nice person but this just really made me mad as they charge way too much money. They are charging me for 2 pics that I was ignorant enough to think were free online. I took the pictures down of course right away and never even had them up there long but of course that doesn't matter to them. They truly are extortionists and how ashamed they should be for doing this to good people. I might have said some things I shouldnt have and ended the conversation with 'well then, take me to court' Funny how the whole plan was to be cordial and it did start out that way but...
I had the whole thing planned out what i was going to say and they made me so mad it didn't come out the way I wanted. So now I am wondering, with that said, what do you think they will do next. If you want more details you can email me and I will be happy to share. Thanks for all the information on this forum. I do appreciate it and will continue to read it! I'm just so disappointed that a wealthy man can own a company and do this to people. I don't understand this at all.

[Bekka]

I know this respose may be a tad bit late, since you have already had a verbal conversation with them.  In my opinion, it is best to correspond in writing only.  This way you have an audit trail if is does go to court.  Also, when you are writing words, it is easier to edit out the emotional parts before you send it.  It gives you time to calm down and rethink how you sound.  So unless, they recorded your conversation and the state laws allow recordings without your knowledge, I wouldn't worry too much about what was said, however, if it were me, I would sit down and write a letter responding to their claims without admitting any wrong doing.  Go through these posts and you will get a good idea of what to ask for as far as evidence.  By the time they respond, you will have become much more knowledgeable and will better know which course of action you wish to persue.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Good reply from Bekka! You have to remember when "speaking with them, they are generally a bunch of paper pushing monkeys, reading the corporate script.
(sorry if I insulted monkeys). Writing is always the best option.

[Totally Fed up]

Thanks! I don't regret what I said so much, just how I said it- in the angry tone, even if they do deserve it for being so disrespectful, I still regret doing it.
A letter is a good idea for the next step.
Thanks for the advice! 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

you can expect pretty much the same tone/response with a letter, but at least you'll have something that shows some good faith on your part, IF it ever goes further..

[SoylentGreen]

I'm under the impression that many of these conversations get fairly heated.  It's not really unusual.
Also, their attitude stems from talking to people all day who basically figure that their negotiating skills will convince Getty (or whoever) to take zero dollars.
I haven't heard of a single person who has those kind of skills.

Personally, I feel that contacting them is mainly a waste of time and not really in one's best interest.
If you need clarification, Getty won't provide any.  You might get them to lower the demand a little bit. But, what's the point of that if you'll never pay them?
I think that sending them a letter *might* be useful if you're sure that they'll escalate the situation and you've got them where you want them;
ie it's not your domain, it's a DMCA issue, the statute of limitations has expired, etc.
Even then, they'll still bother you.  But, it might save everyone the effort of an escalation.

Otherwise, just save your breath.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

See I think that in the highly unlikely event of this going to court, it is to your advantage to be able to show that you made a good faith attempt to come to a reasonable settlement. I also think that it is to your advantage to require proof of registration and the chain of title for the images. You'll also need the sales history for this image to prove that it is actually licensing for the amount they are claiming and not just some inflated price they pulled out of thin air. And it is worth it to do this all in writing.

Typically they (GI and HAN) will claim that they only produce this documentation in the event this goes to court. Knowing what I know now, I believe the correct response is to shrug (or the written equivalent) and make it clear that this information is mandatory in order for you to even consider offering money. Masterfile does seem to be more buttoned up than the others and often provides some proof of registration. But even their paperwork needs careful scrutiny.

Also, I wouldn't get too down on yourself for loosing it. These banditos have found a legal loophole through which they are trying to pull hundreds of dollars out of your pocket. You have every right to get pissed. But a written reply allows you to remain above that and say, "You have told me what you want, now here is what I require."

[rock]

Don't forget to tell them about the Resolution of Getty v. Advernet , where they lost their claims for many images.
(A blow to Getty & Stock photo companies)

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/resolution-of-getty-v-advernet-(a-blow-to-getty-stock-photo-companies)/

[SoylentGreen]

I can't argue with McFilm's logic; showing that one at least tried to work with them indicates quite a bit of goodwill.

S.G.

[Peeved]

As mentioned before, I do agree with Mcfilms in responding and asking questions to show good will. HOWEVER, I wish to also state that what Soylent has been trying to get across to everyone is that in doing so, the trolls will NOT give you the answers that you seek and will CONTINUE to try and get you to PAY REGARDLESS. In other words, asking questions is NOT going to necessarily make them GO AWAY.

Yes, in the unlikely event that you are sued over a couple of images by Getty, especially if there is no registration number and they do not have "exclusive rights" to the image/s in question, it IS in your best interest to respond and try to resolve the issue. YES, you are entitled to ask for PROOF before handing over a large sum of money.

So you have to decide what you are going to do when they refuse to show you PROOF. In other words, can you stand the CONTINUED threats, or are you going to hire an attorney to make them STOP completely. THIS is why Soylent says, "don't waste your breath".

 

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Right. That's a very good point, Peeved. What SG and Matt have been talking about is the idea that you're not gonna out-lawyer a lawyer. And SG is right that if you hope a discussion with them is going to get them to change their mind, then you are misinformed. All you can do is throw up obstacles and demand information that MIGHT get them to question whether going after this yahoo is really worth it.

[Peeved]

Totally agree Mcfilms. The sucky part however is that you get to wait three years before you know for SURE whether or not you were successful in throwing out enough "obstacles". It's all such B.S!

[Totally Fed up]

Well with all the input here is sounds like the best thing to do is write this letter and especially to ask if it is indeed copyrighted. The pictures by the way are from the infamous stone collection I hear others on here have mentioned in the past. I havent found them on any other sites for sale but images comparable to this go for under $10. Our argument was over price and what the actual images were worth. I did a cached search of my site and that particular page of the site wasnt even created till jan of 2011. It doesn't even show that I even had those images on the site at all except for the one snap shot of my page they took in Dec. of the same year. Even the back up files I saved doesnt show the image was on there so it had to be on there less than one month, and on their site they charge over $200 for one month of use for the image which I'm sure sites like National Geographic (who they say are clients) find reasonable, but people just getting by including me, think is outrageous. So yes, I would like to find out the history of what they charged for that image and if it is indeed a registered copyrighted image as I, like many on here feel like I'm being taken.

What I can't understand is, isn't the guy who owns this company incredibly rich? Why would someone like that find this loophole and create a division in the company solely to intimidate and basically steal from innocent hard working people? The tactics they use border on criminal behavior and yet they're still allowed to poison the world with their deceit adding them to a long list of wrongdoers. I can see why why this site was madeand why people are even protesting in New York and all over. The problem can be summed up with one word: GREED.
I want to thank the creators and contributors on this site for creating it and supplying this information and especially your input on my case. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty Images is no longer owned by the Getty Family, tho Mark getty still sits on the board. I think he was a great grandson / grandson or something that started the business, who later sold it to some sort of holding company. Yes the elder Getty was filthy rich and he got that was by taking advantage of people, and was known to not be a very nice personin general..

From Wikipedia:

In 1993, Mark Getty and Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Klein co-founded Getty Investments LLC. Mark Getty is the company's chairman.

In September 1997, Getty Communications, as it was called at the time, merged with PhotoDisc, Inc. to form Getty Images.

In April 2003 Getty Images entered into a partnership with Agence France-Presse (AFP) to market each other's images.

Getty Images acquired the Michael Ochs Archives in February 2007.The Michael Ochs Archives were described by The New York Times as "the premier source of musician photography in the world".

In 2008, the private equity firm Hellman & Friedman acquired Getty Images.

In 2009, Flickr announced a partnership with Getty Images in which specially selected users could submit photographs for stock photography usage and receive payment.

In 2010 this was changed so that users could label images as suitable for stock use themselves.

There are definately issues with the "stone collection" as they were available on CD years ago, then GI snapped them up..

[SoylentGreen]

Just curious... do any readers of the forum presently own the royalty free "Stone Collection" cd-roms?
If so, could the owner kindly submit a copy of the license/copyright agreement for examination?
This would really be a key piece of the puzzle, and could prove what Getty seems to be doing.
Additionally, it would help other extortion letter recipients.

S.G.