@Robert,
It kind of boggles the mind doesn't it, not only does it sound to me as if Getty is admitting we take photographs and sell them that we have no idea who they belong to but also the fact that it appears they are trying to sell you protection from their own images. It reminds me of the line that Getty puts in all of their responses to complaint letters that says just because you find an image through an Internet search does not mean the image is copyright free. You would not think that a $4 billion company could get this way operating in this manner and this might be part of the reason why they are so protective of their contributor agreements so that you don't see what a raw deal the artists are probably getting from Getty.
@Mulligan,
Thank you for the kind words. I agree with you that this information could be quite useful in this is the purpose of sharing a few of the Nuggets from my Getty packet. I seriously doubt I shall ever hear from Getty or anyone representing Getty again but should they choose to start back up again there is much much more this in my packet which is ready to go out at a moments notice and be delivered directly into the hands of heads of agencies and committees capable of using it. Also should Getty suffer a major lapse in judgment and decide to take me to court I am also prepared to go Aloha on them with a countersuit in which they will have to answer a lot of uncomfortable questions.
@Peeved,
Trying to cart me off under the pretense of rehab eh? I think you have just blown your cover and you are a Getty mole trying to silence me

seriously though, thank you for the kind words they are much appreciated