Messages

91

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: February 08, 2013, 10:59:12 AM »

Greg, I'm going to put $10.68 in the mail to you to cover the cost of the CDs from the Consumer Protection Division of the Washington State Attorney General's Office. I feel guilty about not being willing to help with the SEC investigation (because of my cynicism regarding redacted documents) so this little gesture will hopefully help me sleep better at night, if Mrs. Mulligan will ever let me out of the dog house.

If you'll PM me your mailing address, I'll make this happen promptly.

92

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Submission to UK Copyright Law Consultation

« on: February 08, 2013, 10:27:12 AM »

Thanks for pointing to this interesting and revealing document. Very useful with much material to use against Getty should they ever suit up against any ELI visitors. I just skimmed the first several pages, but I've printed the entire document out for close reading. That's how good it appears to me to be at first look.

93

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: information to send or not to send

« on: February 06, 2013, 01:37:11 PM »

It's interesting that McCormack didn't sign the initial form letter. I wonder if that was an oversight or it he's distancing himself even further from the paralegals who do all the work so they can take the potential hits when somebody finally stands up to these people and files a countersuit against them.

94

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Help from the Eli Community Needed

« on: February 05, 2013, 04:32:22 PM »

" redact information deemed too sensitive "

This sounds like a serious red flag. Folks at the SEC aren't exactly known for going after the big boys. See Bernie Madoff and the "too big to fail" banks bailed out by our tax dollars.

Getty Images has a lot of grease in government circles, so I'm not confident of redacted info coming from the SEC being of much use.

Charging this much money for information they get to censor? That's not something I'm willing to throw any of my greenbacks at.

From the Freedom of Information Act website:

How much does it cost to make a FOIA request?

There is no initial fee required to submit a FOIA request, but the FOIA does provide for the charging of certain types of fees in some instances.

For a typical requester the agency can charge for the time it takes to search for records and for duplication of those records. There is usually no charge for the first two hours of search time or for the first 100 pages of duplication.

You may always include in your request letter a specific statement limiting the amount that you are willing to pay in fees. If an agency estimates that the total fees for processing your request will exceed $25, it will notify you in writing of the estimate and offer you an opportunity to narrow your request in order to reduce the fees. If you agree to pay fees for a records search, be aware that you may be required to pay such fees even if the search does not locate any responsive records or, if records are located, even if they are determined to be entirely exempt from disclosure.

95

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Gettyimage letter demanding $875 for copyright infringement.

« on: January 27, 2013, 10:01:23 AM »

NotOnMyWatch, you'll find the first post in this thread quite useful for getting up to steam on what to do:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/how-to-stop-gettys-employees-harassment/msg10705/

96

Legal Controversies Forum / Now Illegal to Unlock Your Cell Phone

« on: January 26, 2013, 11:44:21 AM »

Chalk up another victory for lobbyists working for big corporations because now it's illegal to unlock your cell phone according to the story at...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/now-illegal-unlock-cellphone/story?id=18319518

The way things are going, at some point it will be illegal to visit a restroom without first getting a retinal scan to identify you as well as a rectal search to make sure you're not trying to smuggle illegal substances into a public toilet.

And if you have a wide stance, you really better look out!

97

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Date on letter

« on: January 26, 2013, 08:48:09 AM »

Their "deadlines" are designed to create fear and urgency. In reality, they're entirely bogus.

If you want to have a little fun with these jerks when/if you reply to them, put your own deadline in your letter and date it two days after the date on the heading of your letter. That's what I did with my three letters to Getty as well as to that copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his paralegal "Mistress of Misrepresentation" Ashanti A. Taylor.

In my final letter to McCormack's office, for example, I told them if they didn't reply by my deadline with proof of their right to demand money, I would consider the matter closed and would ignore any future correspondence from them. And I dated the letter the same day I mailed it.

Of course several weeks later I get another letter from that creepy paralegal Ashanti A. Taylor of Timothy B. McCormack's collection agency law firm telling me they were going to recommend a lawsuit to Getty Images. This, of course, was just another little attempt to scare me into paying, which I laughed at when I received and put it in my file of correspondence from these trolls.

I haven't heard a peep from Getty or McCormack since then (that was last year).

98

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Here we go! Got my letter!

« on: January 23, 2013, 10:56:18 AM »

Would it be a good idea to sticky the thread Rock just posted above? It's definitely a good summary for new recipients of the Getty letter.

99

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: 25 cents per pixel - for using thumb nail of a site I designed

« on: January 23, 2013, 10:46:20 AM »

WWC96, my experience with that copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his paralegal "Mistress of Misrepresentation" Ashanti A. Taylor is that they are total gas bags. Knowing what I know now from my experience with these two clowns, I'd write one letter saying that without proof of their right to legally demand money, as far as I'm concerned the matter is closed and that I'll consider any future demands without the requested proof harassment that will be reported to the bar associations and Washington State Attorney Generals office.

They'll come back, most likely, with another letter or two but eventually they'll say they're going to recommend litigation to Getty Images and that will be that with McCormack's side of this extrajudicial payment extraction scheme. Just stick to your guns. No proof, there's no reason to communicate with them more than once.

My experience with McCormack and Ms. Taylor can be found at

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/mccormack-office-is-in-potential-trouble-again-over-%27last-chance%27-letter/msg10159/#msg10159

That entire thread is well worth reading for help on dealing with McCormack's illiterate threats full of misrepresentations and shady lawyer shenanigans.

100

UK Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: The Office of Fair Trading [OFT] Response re: Atradius

« on: January 22, 2013, 02:10:54 PM »

If I'm reading this correctly, Atradius Collections Limited is misrepresenting itself as being legally sanctioned to collect debts when in fact it is NOT licensed to do so.

101

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Forum issues and status update

« on: January 19, 2013, 08:28:27 AM »

Robert, posting with FireFox 18. I hope you didn't work all night on this. But great job resolving the issues! Thank you!!

102

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Problems Posting and replying to threads

« on: January 18, 2013, 08:20:36 PM »

Robert, Peeved nailed it. Definitely an issue with Firefox. I was able to log in and stay logged in with Explorer, and to post.

103

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Interesting Article from a Pissed Getty Contributor

« on: January 18, 2013, 08:19:29 PM »

S.G., judging from the very pissed off replies from photographers on the istockphoto.com forum in the "New price slide values" and "Google Drive" topics, Getty Images is losing what little good will it still had left with the people supplying them with images.

Several interesting threads can be found starting at:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_threads.php?forumid=14&page=1

104

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Interesting Article from a Pissed Getty Contributor

« on: January 17, 2013, 01:04:58 PM »

More interesting reading on the Google Drive use of istockphoto images at

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1

The first post in the above thread appears to be an official istockphoto statement trying to clarify how they're screwing over their photographers.

Note this bullet point in the first post:

o No RM content was included in this pool or deal.

As the thread continues, photographers seem to say the above bullet isn't true because models apparently do appear in the images being distributed via Google Drive and, as Oscar stated above, such images are usually Rights Managed.

The message reminds me of one of Mrs. Mulligan's insightful observations that I suspect a lot of photographers think upon reading this first post: "You can paint a turd purple, but it'll still smell like pig shit if you break it in half."

105

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: new copyright thug to add to the list?

« on: January 17, 2013, 12:21:57 PM »

Oscar, I wish I was young and starting out again because I'd love to attend your courses and maybe pick up a law degree specializing in intellectual property law. I suspect it's going to be one of the most important, active, and no doubt controversial areas for years and years to come. Thanks for replying to my question.