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: Getty Images, Picscout, License Compliance Services (LCS) Sued by Photographer!  (Read 4383 times)

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
I think people will want to learn more about the recent lawsuit filed by a photographer against Getty Images  & License Compliance Services (LCS): Carol Highsmith vs. Getty Images, Picscout, License Compliance Services, Alamy, etc.

The photographer received an extortion letter for a photo she owns and posted on her own website!

On top of this, she says that she gave the public the right to reproduce and display her photos for free!

And yet, the notoriously sloppy Getty Images & LCS gets caught in an embarrassing situation.  I suspect Getty Images & LCS will be settling this case quickly but the cat is out of the bag now.

It is further evidence to what we at ELI have been saying for years.  Getty is very sloppy about their extortion letters. Only the uninformed will blindly pay the extortion letters.

For more information & detail of what is in the lawsuit, go this thread which is where it all started.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/photographer-sues-getty-for-extortion-letters-over-her-work/


I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
IN the Ars Technica article, Sarah Lochting (supposed Getty Images VP of Communications) tries to bullshit the reporter by saying:

Quote
Lochting also underscored that LCS and Getty Images are "separate entities and have no operational relationship."

In all of LCS correspondence we have seen, they outright use the same physical address as Getty Images. ELI has long reported through its own independent research that LCS and Getty Images are closely intertwined sharing a common physical address, technology, and organizational structure.

The Ars Technica article states:
Quote
However, DNS records show that LCS' listed address is 605 5th Avenue South, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington, which is Getty Images' corporate address, a fact that she would not explain to Ars.

"It’s a no comment in response to your follow up questions," Lochting e-mailed.

It's "no comment" because the Getty scrawny bimbo, Sarah Lochting,(see Google Images) doesn't realize many people aren't that stupid and ELI already knew about the connection for nearly a year now before anyone cared about looking into how LCS came into existence.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/license-compliance-services-inc-corporate-naming-hanky-panky/


« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 07:11:31 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.


Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
IN the Ars Technica article, Sarah Lochting (supposed Getty Images VP of Communications) tries to bullshit the reporter by saying:

Quote
Lochting also underscored that LCS and Getty Images are "separate entities and have no operational relationship."

In all of LCS correspondence we have seen, they outright use the same physical address as Getty Images. ELI has long reported through its own independent research that LCS and Getty Images are closely intertwined sharing a common physical address, technology, and organizational structure.

The Ars Technica article states:
Quote
However, DNS records show that LCS' listed address is 605 5th Avenue South, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington, which is Getty Images' corporate address, a fact that she would not explain to Ars.

"It’s a no comment in response to your follow up questions," Lochting e-mailed.

It's "no comment" because the Getty scrawny bimbo, Sarah Lochting,(see Google Images) doesn't realize many people aren't that stupid and ELI already knew about the connection for nearly a year now before anyone cared about looking into how LCS came into existence.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/license-compliance-services-inc-corporate-naming-hanky-panky/

This is the same BS Getty plays with the Washington State Attorney General too.  When a complaint is file against Getty over a LCS letter they reply saying you have the wrong company and make the AG's office send a second letter to the exact same address addressed to LCS or the company who LCS sent the letter out for.  Then LCS responds with a letter on letterhead for the company they are trying to collect.

I have copies of this practice in my Ag complaint files.
Every situation is unique, any advice or opinions I offer are given for your consideration only. You must decide what is best for you and your particular situation. I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice.

--Greg Troy

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
I am a little late with this but people should read Oscar Michelen's take on the Carol Highsmith vs. Getty Images, LCS, etc. case.

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2016/07/1-billion-lawsuit-against-getty-images-shows-effects-of-trolling/

Oscar asks for the community and readership help in finding any victim who has received extortion letters regarding any Carol Highsmith images to contact him at digitalimagelitigation@gmail.com.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Amanda

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
This is great! I am surprised that Highsmith hasn't hit them with fraud, racketeering, and copyfraud along with the theft. I hope they aren't able to sweep it under the rug like all the rest. Getty has gotten to big for its breeches and "too big to fail" syndrome.

Engel Nyst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Highsmith's team filed the first amended complaint.

 

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.