Messages

1591

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 05, 2012, 06:40:15 PM »

I agree with this sentiment and everyone needs to calm down.  If not, then I start editing and/or deleting messages.  (See Nick? That is how it's done to get everyone civil again. If things don't get civil quickly then messages start disappearing.)

For the record, I welcome Nick to the conversation. He is entitled to have his opinion. We don't have to agree 100% to get along. It would be nice to have a consensus but there are some things we will have to disagree on.  I personally think there are cultural differences that might influence how to approach a similar situation in the UK. I don't even feel comfortable discussing how Canadians should approach it even though they are U.S. neighbors. I just stick to what I feel confident with, U.S. matters.

Let me say that I have exchanged emails with Nick behind the scenes and I believe he is trying to do good. We are exploring possibilities. He is certainly volunteering his time and even stepped out using his full name. His one of only a handful people in the world that would dare sign his name to his opinion. For that, he gets my respect.

I think Nick coming over introducing himself has been great. It is really the second time where an effort has been made to cross the Atlantic divide.  The last time this happened was when Oscar and I tried in 2008-2009 when we participated in the FSB forums. I was known as user: us-crusader at that time.

Ultimately, every letter recipient has to make their own decisions.  The one thing I will not necessarily engage in (at this time) are matters in Europe. I simply don't know enough to make an informed opinion.  I have opinions but I would not consider them informed yet.

In one of my first posts on this site I said that I wouldn't have a forum on the UK site because things start going round in circles and posters start abusing each other.

I think that you have just proved my point!

I have a point of view which maybe correct or incorrect. The same applies to you. It is not made up and whilst what you say about evidence being available pre-trial is absolutely correct I think we do need to speculate about what Getty might do and try and defend against it. Its called good planning.

By the way I love the photo of you in your hat - very cute!

1592

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 05, 2012, 04:14:31 PM »

For what it's worth, Oscar frequently uses what they call an "affirmative defense" for his clients. I used an affirmative defense (through my own actions) in my case. Most people who respond to extortion letters (through their actions) use an affirmative defense.

From Wikipedia:

"in an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense. [2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability"

Just because you admit to infringement does not suddenly mean, you owe $150,000 and legal fees as the extortion lawyers might have you believe. You admit to one point and you move on.

Before I make my next statement, let me preface this by saying I have been to court several times and testified UNDER OATH in different cases.  Let me tell you that if I was standing before a judge UNDER OATH, I am NOT going to stand there and fight the claim that the image was on my website when the screen shot makes it clear otherwise. The reason why is because judges and juries are human beings. They won't be as sympathetic to the person who is burning up the court's time over little matters such as proving your identity, your website, who did it, etc. If you fight these small points, it could be viewed as stone-walling which would paint you in a negative light once they get to the damages part. 

It's difficult to credibly and simultaneously plead innocent infringement because your website developer made a mistake while you are standing there making the opposing side prove the screen shot may not be valid one at all. You also cannot "credibly" claim copyright registration issues, market value, and all the other talking points that have been brought up over the years on these forums without "giving to the other side" that the image in question was on your website to begin with. It makes no sense, defies common sense, and lacks credibility.

I very much understand the notion of "making them fight every step of the way and not give them anything." Believe me, I do. But as a practical matter, you may hurt your case more than help it if you don't view it in the larger context. There comes a point where it defies common sense.  You simply anger everyone (including the judge and jury) by burning up everyone's time over a small point. If you hired a lawyer, do you really want to spend an expensive hour of his time trying to disprove the image was on your website at all when the screen shot has been provided? I suppose if you have a strong case where the screen shot was blurred and unclear, you can make a case for it. But most screen shots I have seen, it would be difficult to do so. Remember, if you are a defendant, there is a good chance you will have to testify under oath.

Last year I received a notice in the mail to pay $4 for running a toll in Florida.  However, the problem was I was nowhere near Florida at the time the night image was captured of my supposed license plate.  I looked at the image very hard, blew it up, and everything I could to see it. I looked at the rear fender and the trunk surrounding the license plate and compared it to the rear view of my own car.  They did not match. I called the agency and told them I was not in Florida at the time the image was captured, the image was unclear, and the rear view didn't match my car. The woman admitted the image seemed unclear and it was dark. She consulted with a co-worker and concluded that they agreed with me. They sent the toll notice to the wrong owner of the registration plate.  I could have paid the $4 to make it go away but it really bugged me to do that since I knew it was not my car. There was an error in the system and I knew it. I stood up for myself and said it wasn't me.  I was NOT exercising an affirmative defense.  It wasn't me! I was rightfully denying the entire event.

So, there is a place for entire denial.  However, is someone really going to, under oath, say "no, that screenshot is not my website"? I would say that most people won't and then you move to the mitigating circumstances, the affirmative defense, the circumstances surrounding the incident (innocent infringement), valid copyright registration, length of infringement, market value, actual damages, etc.

I would say that for most people, it will be difficult to deny to anyone (a judge for that matter) that the screen shot was NOT your website. You can fight that fight if you want but, in my view, that is a losing fight wasting time taking your credibility away.

Credibility absolutely matters in a courtroom. If you are in denial about EVERYTHING, without substantial evidence to the contrary, you lose credibility. Providing an affirmative defense is what Oscar often does for his clients to minimize the hit to the legal fees. He says, "Ok, my client admits infringed on these 2 images. Can we please move the argument forward to the damages portion?" I subscribe to an affirmative defense approach and that is mostly what I advise. Most people, including newbies, by their own actions use affirmative defenses (even though they are not familiar with the term).

An affirmative defense does not automatically mean they get any kind of meaningful damages. I know some of you will still disagree no matter what and that is your choice. You believe that they should work for every little piece but I would question how much practical experience you have in a courtroom under oath testifying for yourself or pay legal fees when the clock is running.  I believe you have to pick and choose your battles here.

The moral of my story is, for most people, I recommend an affirmative defense. It will paint you in a more credible and sympathetic light.

1593

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 05, 2012, 12:47:32 AM »

Hello Nick,

I would say that you don't have to be in a position to give advice. But perhaps, you will be in a position to give an "informed opinion" and let others decide if your opinion if of value. I think, over time, your opinion will become more valued because of your ongoing involvement.

Regarding caution from Liz, I understand this attitude from lawyers/solicitors in general. I would say that there is a balance in "giving everything away" vs. informing others. The fact of the matter is, as Getty Images gets more of those template letters as responses, they will gain insight and become wiser to them. There is nothing that can be done about that. They will naturally craft an inevitable counter-response. The only way to start combating that is to have a UK mindshare and the open exchange of ideas and insights. If not, there is too much burden placed on your or the solicitor.  We try to assist Oscar by escalating new issues and news to him.  NO lawyer can see and know everything, especially cutting edge cases.  The ELI community feeds him information. He, in turn, feeds us his legal opinions back. It is a nice symbiotic relationship.

I would also say that exclusively making the fight a legal matter takes the power away from an average citizen and plays into their hands. Certainly, being in the dark legally is foolish but entirely relying on legal arguments or the legal system plays too much into their game for my taste. That is why I stared the ELI forums to begin with and harnessed the power of publicity, search engines, blogs, social media, social publishing, video marketing, and brand creation. The infrastructure is in place for any letter recipient to get their message out and to fight back. Some have used our resources, others stay in hiding which is their perogative.

Having the best legal argument will not be sufficient defense against ongoing harassment or the possibility of a lawsuit.  Those recipients who have not been sufficiently informed/trained to alternatives outside of the legal and court system could find themselves ill-prepared. There are actions and strategies that non-solicitors can execute that no solicitor could ever endorse. I categorize those as "back pocket" tactics used when traditional arguments and civility fails.

One thing you and I agree upon is the danger of the wholesale notion of simply ignoring the letter and hope it goes away. I saw this line of discussion frequently in the FSB forums. The trouble with that is (as you pointed out) that it leaves you in a very unpleasant and unattractive position if you "get found". It doesn't paint you in a very good light. For many, it is very difficult to stay hidden so long. Even so, that strategy makes it look you committed some kind of severe crime.

I am certainly no expert in UK laws but I have to believe there are provisions for self-representation. Perhaps there are books on the subject?  I also have to believe there are areas of vulnerability with UK solicitors such as U.S. lawyers do with the lawyer-rating websites, online reputations, BBB, and state bar complaints.  U.S. lawyers can be greatly hurt professionally and reputationally if need be. If I was ever burned or attacked by a lawyer and wanted payback, I know what I would have to do.  It is sort of like having your own nuclear bomb.  You never want to have to use it because it hurts all parties.  But if some lawyer would not back off of me and were going to take me down, I may as well set off the bomb and cause as much collateral damage as possible and them down with me.  It is a powerful "back pocket" tool/tactic for those situations where legal arguments itself will not prevail.

I am guessing that solicitors in the U.K. are very cautious and do not want to fall into public or agency scrutiny either. I believe UK as a culture is a bit more conservative than Americans.  That conservativeness, in my view, can be used against offending, unscrupulous, and heavy-handed solicitors.

The extortion letters we have shared and revealed in the U.S. may not get the lawyers disbarred or reprimanded but they are VERY embarrassing and do not paint the issuing lawyer in a good light. It is helpful that they display so prominently in the search engines. It has bothered them so much, we have gotten veiled threats and DMCA takedown notices only to have them put up again by a counter-notification letter.

Certainly, I could have hired a lawyer to combat all this but then ELI could not exist because the legal fees would be too much to bear. And so on many matters, I have learned to self-represent.

Your template letter program will be a valuable tool for UK letter recipients but I predict that there will be some degree of ongoing support since you say that various solicitors have their own customized letters. That is why education in the relevant issues is paramount otherwise new and unexpected extortion letters will throw people into a tizzy if they don't conform to a preset structure.

Lawyers have a tendency to want to do everything in person. While it is nice to provide personal service, it scales terribly and there is no leverage. It can only escalate your fees and help fewer people. If you are serious about really helping the UK community, you will likely have to spearhead those efforts. Even in the U.S. there are relatively few lawyers that understand leverage and scalability. Most only understand the billable hour.

Anyhow, I understand that your project is secondary to your full-time endeavor. However, if you keep us (or at least me) in the loop of what you are doing, I am willing to extend ELI support to your efforts. But I don't publicly endorse anything that I don't fully understand.

1, I am not a solicitor / lawyer and am not in a position to give advice.
2, I think that Liz is very cautious in what she says (She is a solicitor after all!) and she is concerned that Getty don't pick up too much of the strategy in terms of what we are trying to achieve and how we go about trying to beat them.

I can say that the defence is not a million miles away from what you do in the US and one of the advantages (I Believe) under UK law is that the courts will apply what they consider to be just damages and it is highly unlikely that the thousands and thousands mentioned by 'trolls' and others would be applied.

One of the issues that really bothers me and did back in 2009 when my client first received the dreaded letter was the number of people on the web who were advocating totally ignoring the Getty letter. I think that the courts will always look down on someone who has never responded to the letter. My original letter was cobbled together from what I had seen on the web and a bit of UK law. This worked until July last year when I received a new demand from a UK solicitor who was acting on Getty's behalf. This was when I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk

It seems that Getty have approached a number of solicitors in the UK, probably on some kind of commission basis, to attack locally. These solicitors seem to be free to adapt their approach to suit their own interpretation of the situation and can vary a bit in method and wordage.

Anyway, when I return from my trip I will have a chat with Liz and see if I can ask her for some comments.

Thank you very much for your understanding.

1594

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 04, 2012, 02:27:40 PM »

Hello Nick,

As I said in my post, my comments were meant to be constructive in nature. For years, we waited patiently for help for the Canadian and UK community hoping that someone would step up.  We made some early attempts to help but ultimately gave up because it seemed no one was interested in the "thankless" job.  Certainly, neither Oscar or I felt qualified to help the UK audience. There were enough cultural differences that we, as Americans, would lack credibility in any statements we make regarding the situation outside of the U.S. And so, we have stayed largely silent on international issues.

However, as you pointed out, we do get a fair amount of international visitors and there are various threads that were created by prior visitors.

I respect that you were a Getty Images victim and commend you for taking the initiative to do what you have done thus far. As I said, it is far more than what your UK counterparts are doing. I would be the first to tell you that I questioned whether I wanted to keep the ELI project alive especially the last 2 years.  Not so much now because I have a lot more clarity. But from late 2009 to - late 2011, I can share that I seriously entertained the thought of closing down ELI and just letting people fend for themselves. I was getting worn down by all the help requests. However, Oscar encouraged me to keep it going. It was only around Nov-Dec. 2011 that I got clarity around the ELI project.  All the crazy time and late nights I was putting in to manage and grow the whole ELI network had to stop (or greatly reduced) or there had to be more money coming in (to offset the insane hours I was putting in) than the small amount of Paypal contributions coming in. So I understand the money issue as it relates to the ongoing work to help others. I also understand that the lawyers/solicitors have to be paid some nominal amount for their involvement. I don't claim to understand the intricacies of your template letter system, the 2-year support, and the "no win, no fee" provision but I would love to hear more of how it all works.

But feel free to expand on it here if you like.  You have a large and interested audience here. :-)  It sounds like an interesting approach and a different perspective which we welcome.

Regarding your comments about other discussion forums, I can see your perspective with the various forums in the UK especially the FSB forums.  The problem with the FSB forums is that it appears to be a small business forum which caters to a very wide audience of which the Getty issue is one of many being discussed. While there is a moderator there, he does not have a vested interest nor the subject matter expertise to jump into steer, guide, or moderate the conversation. Further, it appears his role is to "balance" both sides of the conversation.  And because you have different factions warring in the discussion, it becomes this ugly, runaway train.

Here on the ELI Forums, we are clearly focused on the extortion letter scheme and helping letter recipient victims.  That has been a big part of our mission.  We do not prohibit photographers, stock photo agencies, or lawyers from the "other side" from posting or participating in the discussions but I think it is self-evident that our forums would be a "hostile" and "disagreeable" audience to get involved in. It certainly doesn't help when all the moderators and members of the defense team are mostly on one side of the issue and not the other.  I believe all of this has acted as deterrents to their participation.

I have participated in online discussion forums before, as well as started and run them, before the ELI Project ever began. I will tell anyone that in the early stages of forming an online community, it can be a thankless, time-consuming job. What I do know is that a discussion forum doesn't just grow by itself by throwing it out in the open. It requires nurturing and participation until it starts having a life of its own. Even when it has a life of its own, the moderation style and guidelines have a strong influence on who it attracts, who posts, and how people post/respond.  Good posts with a high signal-to-noise ratio are rewarded.  Baiters, troublemakers, trolls that don't contribute to the overall conversation are highly discouraged and even put down.  But don't confuse legitimate difference of opinions/perspectives vs. people who do a hit-and-run number simply saying outrageous things without substantiation. These get weeded out quickly. I am happy to say we continue to maintain a reasonably high signal-to-noise ratio here. Certainly, he have our share of snarky posts, humor posts, and side comments.  But for the most part, I am happy to say most people stay on track without too much intervention.

That is why some of the other forums look chaotic, unfocused, and simply a bloody mess. In any case, you are welcome to share what you are doing.  I do agree with you that what you offer is worth sharing. If I didn't, I wouldn't have drawn attention to this thread by commenting on it or engaging you in this open discussion. We are happy to have your solicitor come on these forums and expand upon what she is doing with her program. My advice is don't pitch us.  This audience is very savvy to such things.  Just openly and honestly educate and inform us, the referrals will take care of itself.

Right now, from what I can see, there needs to be more "openness", clarity, and explanation of what the various letters are for and the specific topics they deal with and how your entire program works.  And if there are specific legal talking points, it would be nice to know those. You don't actually have to put up the actual letters to do this. It sounds like I am asking for trade secrets but I will tell you that people are much more trusting when they know what they are getting.  We also happen to practice what we preach too.  You may lose a sale or two for do-it-yourself types but you will have advocates that will sing your praises for being open. We get a crazy amount of incoming links from all kinds of websites I never knew existed. It really is an honor when people do that for your website without being asked to.

A few days ago, I released an extensive outline of my upcoming special report. It was meant to be informative and to solicit feedback of topics I might have missed. And yet, inadvertently it became a marketing piece because I have already gotten several positive reactions of how expansive and detailed that outline was.  I didn't get the feedback I was looking for but I did get MORE interest in people wanting to get a copy.  LOL.

Anyhow, we will certainly pay attention to your website and monitor it and your offerings to the U.K. audience. Legitimate tools to help extortion letter victims are badly needed there.  Thanks for sharing your story and engaging us.  We are sponges here so our ears are open to any behind-the-scenes story you want to share.  :-)

Hi Matthew

I apologise for saying we are doing the same thing as you. I was so keen to get the video information out there that my post was a bit short and perhaps misleading.

What I would say is that we are 'fighting' getty and their obnoxious letters in the UK. I myself am a 'victim' and when I found copyrightinfringement.org.uk and eventually met them it was the first time that I felt that there was somebody there to help!

I offered to help them with both website and video work so that the message could be spread. I take no payment for this but obviously the solicitor and company need some finance to keep the whole project going.

We are in the process of redoing the website and the offer involved but I would stress that Liz will be defending participants on a no win no fee basis should it come to that so there is perhaps more to the offer than at first appears. Also the template letters will continue to be supplied for the two year period. We are also offering an enhanced service where we will do the letters from the company as opposed to supplying them to the participants.

I don't believe that yet another forum would be that helpful as a, you have an excellent forum on this site and there are many more in the UK. What tends to happen is that after a while the whole thing starts going round in circles and then forum members start abusing each other. The FSB (Federation of Small Businesses UK) forum is a case in point. Then you get the Getty 'moles' attacking. One on the FSB forum who appeared to be a Getty mole called themselves 'Bambi' which was quite amusing.

Anyway, I apologise again for appearing to offer what you do but personally speaking, although the cost may be higher here than the service you are offering I still feel it is worth offering.

Best Regards

Nick

1595

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty in the UK

« on: March 04, 2012, 06:06:13 AM »

Nick,

Respectfully, from what I can tell from your website, you are NOT doing the same as what we do. It is not even close. While it appears you have a solicitor working with you to help provide a working solution to Getty Images letter recipients that need help, the main focus appears to be selling a template letter program for letter recipients to use starting at 150 British pounds ($237.50 US Dollars).  From what I understand, there will be some background legal support in the use of these letters but essentially letter recipients are self-representing.

What ELI does is much larger in scope. It is first and foremost an advocate website that openly fights and challenges extortion letters of all kinds. Secondly, we highly encourage widespread education of the relevant issues.  Third, we have established an online community,document library, and video archive read by hundreds of people to increase the awareness of the issue but also help letter recipients defend themselves by directing and educating them to issues they need to understand.

Certainly, I brainstormed and worked with Attorney Oscar Michelen to develop the Defense Letter Program in 2008 which actually provides solid legal representation. Quite frankly, we are proud to say that it is an excellent value ($195 US Dollars) that has been unmatched in the U.S. since its inception.

It has only been very recently that I started providing 30-minute telephone support calls for those who want and need it. And very soon, I will be releasing our Special Report that will include advice on how to write defense letters. But more importantly, I feel that people need to know and understand more than simply sending out sample or template letters.

I don't want to sound critical of your efforts because it appears you are offering more than anyone else has in the U.K. (that we know of). But quite frankly, at 150 British pounds ($237.50 US Dollars) for self-representation template letters, you have created a category all your own. We have nothing of that equivalent higher pricing except for full legal representation by Oscar. For us, we try to serve a larger number of people and we try to keep prices at a nominal level wherever possible. 

I don't want to say what you offer isn't of value because value is relative. But if you really want to offer greater help to the U.K. community, might I suggest starting an online discussion forum and educate others in the legal issues specific to the U.K.?  You certainly are not required to. But if you don't, your website simply comes across as opportunistic where you and your solicitor are there just to sell your product.  And anyone else who doesn't buy your product is left out in the cold.

Admittedly, Oscar and I are very unconventional in how we operate and how much we openly share.  Some people might say we are crazy to do so.  We are so crazy that we know the major stock photo companies read our forums also. I know this because I see the web traffic logs.

We have a passion for the positions we stand for.  We have few secrets. While we certainly cannot freely give our personal time away on a one-on-one basis anymore, we continue to contribute to the larger cause through our legal research, analysis, editorials, blog posts, videos, and our online credibility and influence.  WE have even established relationships with other copyright troll fighting websites who do it for the sheer passion of the mission.

We are more than willing to send U.K. letter recipients to your website but I would only do so conditionally simply because there appears to be nothing else available.

Your post will be seen by our U.K viewers but they will also see my constructive comments about how you and your solicitor might better serve letter recipients in the U.K. community beyond simply selling Letter Templates for $150 British pounds ($237.50 US Dollars).

1596

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Am I doing this right?

« on: March 03, 2012, 04:07:30 PM »

Actually, I don't think he reveal anything specific or material. He didn't say who he was or what he paid.  He only provided very general information unless I missed something somewhere.

1597

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: a quick share from another forum

« on: March 03, 2012, 04:04:32 PM »

Halloween? We have to wait THAT long for another "team" image?

Thanks for the laughs regarding the "Troll Patrol"! It was TOO FUN to make! I've got another one swimming around my head but you have to wait till Halloween! lol!!!

1598

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: a quick share from another forum

« on: March 03, 2012, 01:50:30 AM »

Peeved,

You are killing me again with your little image mockups! LOL. That is 2 for 2. I gotta share this one too.

uh oh the riot gear is on now....

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/515/trollpatrol.jpg/

 

1599

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: a quick share from another forum

« on: March 03, 2012, 01:36:56 AM »

If we have an avalanche of photographers posting nasty messages now, it will be entirely your fault for provoking them with these fighting words. :-)

You know about my inability to cope with conflict and disagreement.  :-)

But see, that is the problem with some of these nimrod photographers. Instead of being appreciative that someone enjoyed their work, they want to sue. And for what? Did the lady from Chase make a buck? Did Chase? "Real" artists are happy to have their work exhibited and appreciated. Sure, if someone is using it to make a buck, the artist wants a slice too. But this was purely someone going "Hey, I liked your work and I showed it to some people."

I hate greedy people that don't "get it." And you can tell all the photographers on that forum I said so.

1600

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Am I doing this right?

« on: March 02, 2012, 04:13:57 PM »

If Gumby is happy with his decision, I am happy for him. For some, it is better for them to part with their money. After all, he appears to have more money than time and he doesn't seem to feel the extortion like the rest of us.

I am a big believer in only helping those that will help themselves. And only help fight with those willing to fight for themselves.

If people are foolish enough to pay an inflated amount and support the extortion machine, it's their money, not ours.

1601

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New image bot Pixray

« on: March 02, 2012, 02:46:41 PM »

I notice that Pixray is from Germany.  I am guessing Pixray will be just as intrusive and invasive as Picscout.  Apparently, folks in Europe don't have to play by the same rules as those in the U.S.

1602

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: FUTURE DEMANDS - Getty Outrageous prices

« on: March 01, 2012, 07:39:18 PM »

Very good observation.  I went back to the image I allegedly infringed upon to see the retail pricing and it was ridiculously high. It is way more now in 2012 than what they listed for back in 2008.

There is no question in my mind, the extortion letter business side has clearly influenced and dominated the retail sales side. In my view, the retail side is mostly for show.

I also agree that the overall market value of images and stock photos (as well as music, newspaper articles, etc. for that matter) have all plummeted. What Getty Images displays is artificial and inflated pricing designed to justify the extortion amounts. People are simply not willing to pay that much due to the sheer abundance around.

After getty bought picscouts, getty raised the prices per license/photo
In 2008 - 2010, the price per license/photo was , $20 - $50 ,
In 2012, the price of the same license/photo is $ 500- $1000 .

could they request now a larger settlement demand for "actual damages"?
(instead of proofing " statutory damages")

1603

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter: Special Report!

« on: March 01, 2012, 07:28:19 PM »

Thanks for say that. I appreciate it. I have to try to live up to the hype now!  LOL.

In dealing with Matt for almost 3 years, I've made a few observations worth noting..

1. When he says he going to do something....he does something
2. No half measures, he always goes above and beyond for the greater cause!

1604

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Beat the Getty Images Extortion Letter: Special Report!

« on: March 01, 2012, 07:27:05 PM »

I take it has high praise coming from you!  If I get your stamp of approval, it says a lot. I am working hard to create a solid beta-version.

Looks like it's going to be with every penny and then some.
Just reading the table of contents makes me want to read more.

S.G.

1605

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Taking Action

« on: March 01, 2012, 02:42:20 PM »

It would also be interesting to see what the other agencies charge assuming it isn't exclusive to Getty.

The asking price is $269 for 1 month.

Getty has always gone after "actual damages" since they don't register their images (and therefore cannot get statutory damages) Their pricing regimen is one thing, how often they sell them at those prices is another and what the fair market value of the image is a third!

Anyone receiving a demand should also insist on seeing the pricing history for that image.