Messages

931

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 4th Getty Letter

« on: April 08, 2014, 01:38:29 AM »

No, I would not pay them. Getty is known to be very underhanded, untrustworthy, and inflate their numbers which their numbers do not necessarily represent true market rates. They will not do much of anything for you.  You need to get educated from this side of the fence and not listen to their propaganda.

932

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

« on: April 04, 2014, 12:30:35 AM »

I received a tremendous amount of goodwill, support, and generosity towards help with my legal fees for my appeal fight last year.  It is only fair for me to return the favor to another cause within our community.

With that said, I am in for $100.  For our readers, you need not feel like you have to "match" posted contributions.  But if you are even able to contribute $10 or $20 that would still be a great help because it all adds up. More importantly, you may inspire others to follow.  It is the power of the ELI Community.

Greg has done all the hard work here.  We believe this effort is not in vain.  Whatever you can do will be greatly appreciated.

933

Announcements / Announcement: ELI website sold to new owner

« on: April 01, 2014, 01:36:45 PM »

It is with mixed emotion that I make this announcement.  I was approached by a private party to buy the ELI website. They offered a good sum of money for this small website.

After a great deal of thought and consideration, I think the time is right. As many of you know, I have been subjected to a great deal of stress and ongoing attacks by my enemies. It has worn on me and taken its toll.

I've always said to myself if the right offer came along, I would sell the ELI website. ELI has served its purpose for me.  Well, the right offer has come along by an unexpected party and after great thought and consideration, I am going to accept the offer.

The agreement has been set in place, the money will be wired later today.  When that happens, I will be transferring it to the new owner.  At my buyers request, I cannot reveal the identity of the new owner of ELI. I have signed a Confidentiality Agreement so please don't ask.

They may or may not choose to reveal themselves. But for now, the owner has request anonymity.

I wish there was some easy way to share this news but there isn't.  It is what it is.

I could write a much longer piece but then it would sound self-serving.  So I am keeping it short.

It has been a wild 6 years. See you around on the Net.

Matthew Chan

934

Getty Images Letter Forum / Announcement: ELI website sold to new owner

« on: April 01, 2014, 01:26:55 PM »

It is with mixed emotion that I make this announcement.  I was approached by a private party to buy the ELI website. They offered a good sum of money for this small website.

After a great deal of thought and consideration, I think the time is right. As many of you know, I have been subjected to a great deal of stress and ongoing attacks by my enemies. It has worn on me and taken its toll.

I've always said to myself if the right offer came along, I would sell the ELI website. ELI has served its purpose for me.  Well, the right offer has come along by an unexpected party and after great thought and consideration, I am going to accept the offer.

The agreement has been set in place, the money will be wired later today.  When that happens, I will be transferring it to the new owner.  At my buyers request, I cannot reveal the identity of the new owner of ELI. I have signed a Confidentiality Agreement so please don't ask.

They may or may not choose to reveal themselves. But for now, the owner has request anonymity.

I wish there was some easy way to share this news but there isn't.  It is what it is.

I could write a much longer piece but then it would sound self-serving.  So I am keeping it short.

It has been a wild 6 years. See you around on the Net.

Matthew Chan

935

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 9th Circuit Decision

« on: March 24, 2014, 10:37:59 PM »

Oscar and I have already discussed this setback.  We are going to publicly discuss our views on this new development soon as soon as both he and I can get our schedules together.

AS I want to remind everyone, while the court of law is certainly an important battlefront so is the court of public opinion.

Many cases are still not slam-dunks.  The ruling has nothing to do with the fact that the trolls can't automatically count on getting attorney costs and legal fees from courts.  They can ask and argue for it but we've seen many times those attorney fees/costs discounted and adjusted downwards or disregarded altogether.  Trolls can still take financial bloodbaths if they recklessly file suit.

The only thing the other side has done is created a headache for the idiots at the antiquated U.S. copyright office.

Basically, companies like Getty can start piling 100,000 images per registration.  And good luck to anyone attempt to research the validity of ANY image whatsoever.

And lest the trolls decide to recklessly file suit, may I remind everyone what happened to RIAA, Righthaven, and the porn trolls?  They were brought to their knees by the media and the court of public opinion.

Rest assured, Oscar and I are ready to speak loudly to the media if and when the trolls decide to do something stupid.  As a lot of people know, I have a big mouth and a loud keyboard so I have a LOT to say and point out. 

Don't fret. The ruling is only one battle in this war against copyright extortionists.  They have to run and hide their identities.  They have to be embarrassed in what they do.  Because practically no one outside of their ivory castles believe how and what they are doing is right.

936

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images Sued for Patent Infringement

« on: March 19, 2014, 12:44:43 PM »

I agree with Jerry that karma is a real bitch.  There is no question that Klein and his upper management team that runs Getty has poisoned the entire company and made so many enemies to the point they probably feel like they are being attacked from all sides.

As far as I am concerned, Getty can become a dinosaur and become extinct.  The only way Getty Images can be salvaged is to do house-cleaning of upper management and get another management team that has a whole new vision.

They can never be the company they once were.  They have to become something very different.  Their portfolio of stock photography and stock photography businesses are depreciating assets.

As big media continues to downsize, fragmented, and be wittled down, the bread and butter of Getty's exorbitant licensing prices will eventually drop and perhaps even dry up.  When that happens, the collapse of Getty Images will be swift.

937

Getty Images Letter Forum / Stupid spammer request regarding CopyrightTrollinfo.com

« on: March 14, 2014, 01:45:14 PM »

I get this email from a dumbass (no, I am not referring to Timmy this time around).  This dude spams the old copyrighttrollinfo.com forum with bogus links trying to get incoming links to their totally unrelated website and he then has the nerve to send me an email to remove those spammy links (which was long deleted but apparently still showing up somewhere).

Obviously, I have no intentions of replying to this guy. I could care less about him and his scummy, spammy business and perfectly happy to see him penalized by Google.

===================

Dear Webmaster,
I hope this email finds you well.
I am the webmaster of www.spinningdesigns.com and I am working towards cleaning up the links that have been created on your website:
http://copyrighttrollinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,183733.new.html
Please remove the above links, as well as all other links from spinningdesigns.com.
This is an attempt to ensure that our website adheres with Google’s Quality Guidelines.
I would appreciate if you can please address this and update me as soon as it’s done so I can update my records.
I appreciate your help and attention to this matter.
Thank You!

938

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney advises to JUST IGNORE THE GETTY & McCORMACK LETTERS

« on: March 14, 2014, 04:09:13 AM »

Eric,

The choice to ignore the letters is perfectly sound. I have no problems with that. 

What I have a problem with is the very heavy weight of opinion placed on this retired judge that has no connection whatsoever to the stock image extortion racket.  It is not an attack on you or the Judge.  It is simply a direct challenge that what you shared would be considered "fact" here.  It would be irresponsible of me to not offer a rebuttal on the argument being made since I obviously disagree with it.

 I challenge everyone including Oscar because I refuse to let any lawyer pigeon-hole the fight exclusively into a legal arena. That only serves the lawyers.  The majority of us are NOT lawyers and that is a strength.  We are able to see things many lawyers can't because they are blinded to what "should be" not what actually "is".  If you take any experienced lawyer off the stage behind closed doors, they will freely admit there are preferences as to which judge they want to preside over their cases.  Why is that?  Because of the human element of the judges.

There is no question the retired judge is probably a smart, experienced person and has some good insights.  However, it wouldn't matter to me even if he sat on the Supreme Court because there is no singular judge that can make the call for what other judges will think.  And they cannot know about every situation.

There is this assumption that judges can be totally impartial. I don't believe it for a second.  No matter how hard a judge tries to be impartial, there will be personal biases.  Why is it that we have the Supreme Court justices that can't even agree on legal opinions of so many cases?  Why is it that the GOP and Democrats fight so strongly for or against any Supreme Court candidate?  It is because each side believes that every judge has a political orientation/slant/bias that would affect major legal decisions in the U.S. 

Even Supreme Court justices differ in opinions over the very same brief, presentation, arguments, and set of facts.  The differ because they all have different experiences, backgrounds, biases, priorities, focus, etc.  They are not computers that was fed legal algorithms and then spit out the same legal opinion or ruling.  Different districts rule on similar cases very differently.  There is an appellate process which often overturn lower court rulings because of differing opinions and interpretations.  Judges are human beings who happen to be very well trained, skilled, and experienced in the field of law but they are still imperfect human beings.

This notion that EVERY judge can be unbiased and look at the facts only is a belief for those who have NOT been involved in the legal process long enough.

Whether you are Getty or their ilk or a victim, neither side is absolutely black or white.  It is a risk to BOTH parties to go to court.

For the sake of clarity, I tell many people to ignore the Getty and McCormack letters but I don't tell EVERYONE to do this.  Some people SHOULD enroll in Oscar's Defense Letter Program because it is the best option not because we are pushing sales.  Getty and their ilk are bone-headed and money-driven.  Their onslaught of letters create negative consequences for some people and situations.  Ignoring is not good enough in those cases.  It actually requires dealing with the situation head-on whether you like it or not, fair or not, guilty or not.

The idea that "you didn't respond because you didn't believe you had to respond" is a reckless and outright dumb reply in some situations. I am sorry it sounds bad but it is dumb in some situations.  It will get some people in a lot of trouble.

If you had gotten an extortion letter from someone else besides Getty (such as Masterfile a few years back) and the advice was to "just ignore it" for all of the reasons you brought up, there would be a good chance you would live to regret it because at one point Masterfile filed a LOT of lawsuits to scare people into settling. 

Fortunately, you got a Getty letter and ignoring it will probably be just fine.  But if it was a non-Getty letter, ignoring the situation too long could result in an "unpleasant escalation."

939

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Attorney advises to JUST IGNORE THE GETTY & McCORMACK LETTERS

« on: March 13, 2014, 12:43:31 AM »

Eric,

Thanks for relaying your thoughts and those from your retired lawyer/judge friend.  They make for interesting reading and certainly a legitimate point of view.  But just understand that I consider what you wrote one person's opinion.  I have no doubt that your intentions are honorable in sharing the insights you have. There is also little reason for me to doubt that you incorrectly interpreted your retired lawyer/judge's interpretation.  But I consider that one interpretation and one person's opinion no matter how qualified it might be.

You write in a tone that comes across as the "definitive" answer to not only extortion letters but also resolving any other legal matter. It is dangerous and preposterous to consider the idea that responding automatically conveys "guilt" and that you should only answer when confronted with a lawsuit.  If that were the case, communication between lawyers of any kind would stop and all cases would automatically go to court further clogging up the judicial system.

Anyone who has ever been to court whether you are in the right or the wrong knows it is inconvenient and costly in time and/or money.  The whole idea of communicating and replying to accusations is to prevent the escalation of conflicts to a court of law.  Judges on all levels tend to encourage legal adversaries to resolve their differences outside of court whenever possible.  That is why there are mediators and abritrators around to help alleviate the need to go to court. The only way resolve differences is through communication whether it be verbal or in writing, not telepathy.

As a general rule, communication is a good thing in resolving legal conflicts if for no other reason to evaluate the resolve and arguments of the other side.  However, in the case of Getty, McCormack, and similar extortion letters, they are a cookie-cutter, money-machine operation.  Because we've studied their patterns of behavior, their copyright registrations, their legal arguments, their staff, their letters, the legal environment, the costs and challenges in a lawsuit, extrapolated the statistical probability of actually being a defendant of a Getty copyright infringement lawsuit, along with many other factors, ELI has largely come to the conclusion that ignoring the letter is one "reasonably safe" response to extortion letters NOT because of the simple idea that because you respond, there must be some shred of guilt involved.  Just because you disagree with the accusation or you feel that the matter you are being accused of does not warrant a response, does not mean it is the best response.  No one has a "duty" to respond to anyone else but I can promise you such a cavalier attitude that because YOU believe there is no duty to respond that there may not be an unpleasant and unintended consequence.

I can list any number of circumstances where ignoring a legal accusation could lead you to very unpleasant legal consequences especially if the plaintiff has some grounds for the accusation and THEY made a good-faith effort to confront you to resolve it.  Ignorance of the underlying legal issues is NOT going to protect you.  You can't say because you don't believe there no duty to respond that you shouldn't respond. That is a dangerous notion.

Eric, you are a newcomer to ELI and clearly a new recipient of an extortion letter.  You have the right attitude to want to fight it and ask for legal advice.  And you received what you think is good advice.... to ignore Getty and McCormack.

I would say that it is good advice for MANY people but you will not hear me say that it is appropriate for ALL people.  Ignoring the letters is problematic for many parties such as web developers and other parties that service clients.  It is also problematic for people who are not emotionally or mentally equipped to handle legal threats.

There is also the issue that, however small the statistics and the unlikelihood, there is a possibility "someone" could be targeted as we have seen.  When the lawsuit trigger is pulled, a Pandora's box is opened creating a great deal of inconvenience to the parties involved.  I know this because it has already happened. Not everything gets reported on the ELI Forums.

And I take great exception to the statement you made about Oscar's Defense Letter Program how it creates a drawn out negotiation process.  How would your lawyer/judge friend know what goes on behind the scenes? He believes he knows but I can tell you that he would be wrong.  I am not going to elaborate why he is wrong simply because our enemies read this forum and some of the information we have is privileged.

I may not be a lawyer but I am a consultant to Oscar Michelen and reporter in extortion letter matters. I am the guy who originated the idea of creating a leveraged, legal representation system (defense letter program) that bypasses the traditional hourly billing/retainer system lawyers use.  I am the guy who first brought up the idea of fighting back against out-of-bound lawyers with complaints to State Bar system and the Attorney General system. I am the guy who started the idea of calling out and naming employees and lawyers that engage in extortion letters. I am the guy who tapped into Google as an essential ELI tool. I could thump my chest further by listing my other "accolades" but the point I am trying to make is that your lawyer/judge friend may have valuable insights and interpretations to offer but he doesn't know the scope of what we do and how we do it.  Many people don't know WHY we are so effective in what we do and that is part of the "ELI secret sauce" but I promise you not all of it is based on some brilliant, legal argument.  There are a few within ELI that know 90% of the "ELI Secret Sauce" but I would say only Oscar and I are the two people that collectively know the other 10%.  It is that last 10% that makes us different from everyone else.

We try to educate people not only WHAT to do but WHY to do it.  The WHY is important in getting people educated and becoming self-sufficient, not just pushing people into some consulting call or a defense letter program.  ELI does a LOT of teaching and educating which is why we now have a community of ELI volunteers who pass on the knowledge.

ELI doesn't engage in giving bad information or bad advice.  We are careful in the positions we take and qualifying the answers we give.  We also don't give "one answer fits everyone" because it doesn't.

What you shared is certainly valuable to consider but I have no problems stating to anyone that I disagree with the premises you stated to ignore Getty and McCormack.  They are ideas NOT applicable to many situations including the Getty and McCormack letters.

Without speaking for Oscar, who is our resident legal expert, I believe he would also strongly disagree with you for similar if not the same reasons I have given. Oscar is a litigator and one of his gifts is the power of persuasion. For your lawyer/judge friend to say that another judge would view any defending response by a potential defendant as some indication of guilt is only his opinion.  As far as I am concerned, it is bad advice and it makes me question his credibility and ability to be impartial as a judge.

If you wish to give more credibility to your lawyer/judge friend, you may want to consider sharing his name.  You say he was a judge.  Where and which court was he a judge in?  What kinds of cases did he hear?  How long was he a judge?  Until you do that, for the rest of us, you are quoting a nameless judge that appears to have a difficult time being impartial.  He has a bias that because some speaks out to defend himself that he must be in some way guilty.  That is ridiculous as far as I am concerned.

940

Getty Images Letter Forum / CNN gives Getty Images lots of free publicity on new online image-use policy

« on: March 07, 2014, 10:05:01 AM »

CNN.com is giving Getty a lot of free publicity on the new online image policy. 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/tech/social-media/getty-free-pictures/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

I am guessing there will be a stampede of ignorant people that will fall prey to this.  Fortunately for them, ELI will be here to help defend them if and when they start getting their own extortion letters for a technicality and improper use of the images.

941

Getty Images Letter Forum / Slate article on Getty Images dropping the Paywall.

« on: March 06, 2014, 02:18:35 PM »

More fodder to comment on.  This time by Slate.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/05/getty_images_drops_its_paywall_opens_up_photos_for_free.html

942

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Big Change at Getty -- Free Use

« on: March 06, 2014, 12:28:22 PM »

Canuckistan,

This is a very important find. Thank you for sharing.  My head nearly exploded when I read the article. I have many opinions, some that go beyond the scope of the article but extremely relevant to the issues at hand.

I find it interesting that there is not one user comment that informs or indicates that the Verge readership has any clue of Getty Images' smelly and moldy armpit operation called the  extortion letter campaign.  Getty has only reluctantly acknowledged the program exists only if it is called out on it but it is largely secretive and out of the PR light.

Getty reminds me of the big dinosaur publishing companies sitting in their ivory towers with huge overhead.  Their employess better get ready to move into industrial warehouses because their days of sitting in the ivory towers paying exorbitant commercial rents will soon be over.

Photographers like writers/authors are going to have to get off their asses and start learning "the business" and become entrepreneurial if they want to continue being in "the business" vs. being a hobbyist.  Depending on Getty Image and their ilk is going to be suicide for most photographers because most of the sales earned will go to keeping Getty's rent paid, lights on, and Klein's minions on payroll.  There will be very little left, if any, going to the photographer.

And like everyone else here, I feel Getty cannot be trusted.  They have not earned their trust. They have lived on the cachet of their name from 10-20 years ago.  It is clear that the Getty name means very little now and very few care about them.  And they have done very little to earn any fans.  In fact, they have gone out of their way to literally create enemies by the thousands each and every year.

Getty and Timmy wonder why ELI has so much influence.  That is because we publicly make a stand against them with authority and credibility.  Getty has successfully seeded the Internet population with haters, enemies, and people who will go out of their way to NOT be their customer. From a karma point of view, they have thousands of people looking to see them put out of business.

Klein and their equity partners don't really care about photography anymore.  It is just a money machine for them because there is nowhere to go if Getty goes out of business. Most of the upper management will be unemployable. 

Ironically, people who truly care about photography and the business will be outsiders. I hate to admit it but I honestly do believe people like Carolyn Wright of Photo Attorney do care but certainly not Masterfile that she now represents. The problem with Carolyn is she leads with her lawyer hat vs. being innovative and taking what she knows with law and business and doing something radically different.

Anyhow, I have to cut this post short but I will be back to revisit.

I buried this in my other thread but it's big enough news for its own post:

The world's largest photo service just made its pictures free to use http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use

The article explores some issues around embedding, but one wonders if this is the end of the era of Extortion!

943

Getty Images Letter Forum / Oscar is not Matthew's Daddy

« on: March 02, 2014, 09:14:47 PM »

For years, cry-baby extortion lawyers (and I mean that quite literally in a few cases) and their ilk continue to send their written or emailed complaints to Oscar regarding ELI website matters although he doesn't own ELI. It should be obvious to even the casual reader that I started and run ELI.  And yet, nearly every complaint that I hear about goes to Oscar. They do so because they feel that Oscar will handle matters quietly and discreetly.  After all, it's the lawyerly way and I frequently defer to Oscar if I can.  And yet, Oscar is not my daddy.

The problem is, I am not a lawyer, not even close.  I am outspoken publisher, blogger, writer, and Internet broadcaster. And last year, I was blindsided by a lawsuit relating to ELI.  I can't even mention the name of plaintiff without taking a legal risk.  And yet through a strange set of circumstances, I still can't but I am patiently waiting.  I supposedly live in the U.S. where Freedom of Speech is supposedly the law of the land.

ELI has always worked best by being transparent and open. Unfortunately, because I now have enemies that are looking to "put me into the ground" I've had to engage in LESS transparency, become more secretive and guarded, and withhold information I normally wouldn't with the ELI community and ELI readership. I even put myself into exile for nearly a year.  Well, I want everyone to know I don't like any of this one bit.

In the last few weeks, there have been more ELI drama that I have not shared and I am tired of the secrecy. You can thank my many enemies for that.  They know who they are and they have done plenty.  However, some of my enemies began their shenanigans years ago and I am considering going back into my email archive and revealing more of what I know. Over time, I've been compelled to share LESS information. My enemies actively read ELI and they take what is written piecemeal, entirely out of context, and try to club me, Oscar, and ELI with it.  They remind me of religious fanatics that take one verse from the Bible out of context and club you with it.

Everyone needs to know that my enemies are NOT YOUR FRIENDS. They will do everything they can do put me, ELI, and the entire ELI community out of existence. If they do that, you know what happens next?  They will come after YOU, the extortion letter victim, the innocent infringer.

They will legally threaten and bully you and force you to spend thousands of dollars to try to defend yourself. They will issue propaganda telling only one side of the story without anyone speaking for YOUR side, the innocent infringer. They will try to guilt and criminalize your behavior over a small transactional matter.

None of us who work or contribute to ELI are full-timers.  We do it as time permits and yes, we do ask for monies for ELI Premium Services but that only covers a very small portion of what the ELI volunteer and community gives.  Did you know most of the ELI Support team get ZERO dollars? IN fact, they contribute personal or business resources to help out whether it is time, web hosting, money, editing services, moral support, legal services, etc.  But they do it out of gratitude, friendship, community, camaraderie, and a sense of justice.

I didn't say that to solicit for more money (at least for now). If I do solicit money, I will tell you why and I will do it directly and for what purpose. I am pointing out that despite the fact that there are 2 faces on the website banner (mine and Oscar), ELI has grown to a far larger group of volunteers. Some have revealed themselves, others prefer completely anonymity. We respect and work with all who want to work and stand with us.

ELI enemies are alive and well. It has gotten nasty and personal. They have become emboldened especially since I went into self-imposed exile last year. But it wasn't enough.  The attacks continued. And I took a big legal bullet in trying to help out a $100,000 extortion letter victim.  Yes, you read that right.  That is not a typo.  It is a 6-figure extortion letter from an alleged poet utilizing an ambulance-chasing law firm in the Atlanta area.  I took a big legal and expensive bullet on a PERSONAL level.  Yes, I made a few dumb mistakes along the way (I am mature enough to admit that) but the mistakes were not made on MY BEHALF.  It was on behalf of an extortion letter victim and others similar to him.

This rant is pretext of a new "Gripes and Complaints" page specifically to deal with the criticism that there has been no formal mechanism to file complaints about ELI.  Well, there is now.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/gripes-and-complaints-about-eli/

I have more announcements to make in the weeks and months to come. So stay tuned. I am done being Mr. Nice Guy and I am going to remind everyone that Oscar is not my daddy. The days of "secretly" crying to him are over.

944

Getty Images Letter Forum / Copyright Compliance Specialist Ad at Glassdoor.com

« on: March 02, 2014, 02:13:52 PM »

What a goldmine of information.  I have so much to say but can't do it right now.  In the meantime, get yourself a Glassdoor account and read this ad over.  Simply magnificent.

http://www.glassdoor.com/job-listing/copyright-compliance-specialist-JV_IC1150505_KO0,31_IE7793.htm?jl=896542973&paoIdKey=MA==

The biggest thing that jumped out at me is that the position reports to VP Operation of Picscout.  I guess they will start getting the mud credit for doing the Getty dirty work. Or perhaps this position is for the smaller Picscout clients.

Many elements of this ad substantiates what I have suspected and been saying for years and I will be detailing what I was right about.

945

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A win for the little guy

« on: March 02, 2014, 01:57:20 PM »

The Getty Images employees have nothing to be proud about. They are working at a dying company within a dying industry.  The reason Getty continues to exist is because of the propping up by the other diminish big media companies who are dumb enough to pay exorbitant amounts for a single story and the fact Getty bought up most of the major stock photo companies trying to become this monopoly.

Glassdoor.com has reports from ex-Getty employees how miserable it is to work on the inside.  I just did a reassessment of the Getty Corporate Counsel team and the majority of the people in their current positions only had it since 2010.  Of special note, 2012 was a special year full of inhouse promotions for the Corporate Counsel team.

There is no question that no one in the Corporate Counsel department will rarely ever show their faces in media.  A couple years ago, someone inside Getty slinked over to Oscar to ask me remove from ELI the name of the girl who worked my case.  I still have that email somewhere of who asked did this favor for the girl. I removed the girl's name only because my girl was respectful to me and she quickly left me alone when I pushed back.  Had she continued to ride me like Getty does with everyone else or forwarded my case to NCS or Timmy, her name would NEVER have come down as the person who worked my case.  She did ultimately leave Getty so I felt a little sympathy for her.  I wonder how the girl feels for being the Getty point person partially responsible for me deciding to launch ELI?

Bottom line, I have a good idea the command and organizational structure of the Corporate Counsel department. When I get time, I will post that information.

Isn't Getty glad that Timmy forced me out of exile?  I had to go check my information sources and look into the the heart of the dragon called Corporate Counsel of Getty Images?

I am very sure these boobs sit around in weekly meetings trying to find new ways to scare and contact victims into paying.  But ELI almost always gets wind of it because unhappy victims know where to report the information to.