Yeah, We Do That.

3023 Ash Court Mason, Ohio 45040-1400 Gregory A. Troy Owner (513) 544-7069

August 6, 2012

Taylor N. Bolin Office of the Attorney General 800 5th Ave. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA. 98104-3188
RE: Getty Images Main Office Getty images 601 N. 34th St. Seattle, WA 98103 1-800-972-4170 D. Bieker and Copyright Compliance Team Getty Images 605 5th Ave South Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 1-206-925-5000

Dear Taylor N. Bolin:

Thank you for your letter dated August 2, 2012. While I understand that you are closing this complaint I would like the opportunity to make some follow-up comments and point out errors as well as outright lies that Getty has provided to the Attorney General's Office. This is a standard form letter response that Getty has prepared. In my case I have seen this letter already in response to a complaint filed with the Washington state Better Business Bureau. I know it is the same letter as they have the name of my company incorrect as well as a typo for their demand amount. In their reply they state they are demanding $8750 when in actuality it is only $875.

I also understand that you may not act as my legal representative nor was this in anyway my intent when corresponding with you. Well before I mailed you my packet of information I had already retained my own legal counsel and I am considering my own options as far as legal action against Getty Images.

I will go over the points that Getty Images has ignored, skipped and overlooked in their response and dissect each one to show that I have acted in good faith and try to settle this matter amicably while Getty still chooses to ignore my reasonable requests of providing proof of their claim. And I still contend that Getty's actions meet the definition of an extortion scam.

First, Getty claims that I stated that this was a free image found on an Internet search and that the ability the view an image via Google, Yahoo or other Internet search does not mean the image is not subject to copyright. I agree 100% about images found through search engine queries may be subject to copyright but what Getty is ignoring and I have provided proof and screenshots to you as well as Getty that this was not found over a Google, Yahoo or Internet search. This image was found on an actual website owned by a Greg Mankiss in which he has several image galleries one of which is labeled public in which this image was located. Not only was this image located in this folder, the image was titled Greg Mankiss dog days of summer. Mr. Mankiss has put his name and the title on this picture giving it the appearance that this is his work and he is offering it for free in a public folder. Getty is well aware of this and as of the writing of this letter the image still appears on his website as I have described. The folder in which this image resides not only says public but underneath it says that the owner is Greg (meaning Greg Mankiss). I firmly respect copyright, copyright law and the protection of artists intellectual property and that is why I went out of my way attempting to find an image that had no copyright attached to it.

Second, as to questioning the copyright status of the image I am fully aware that copyright exists from the moment the images taken. I am questioning as to whether Getty truly has the exclusive rights that they claim. That copyright exists from the moment the image taken belongs to the artist and the artist must give Getty the right to pursue claim on their image. I am only asking that Getty show me this signed agreement transferring rights to Getty along with all other information pertaining to the copyright of this image, sales history showing this image sales history along with the formula used to arrive at the outrageous figure of $875.

Which brings me to my third point, Getty claims that they cannot provide this proof because a confidentiality agreement exists between Getty and its contributor. It is interesting that Getty brings this confidentiality agreement up as they are well aware of and have a copy of a letter from my lawyer stating that we would be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement that would bind us not to discuss, disclose or reveal anything contained in the proof I have requested except with Getty for the process of negotiating a settlement. When copyright compliance specialist Douglas Bieker received this letter from my lawyer in his response he stated that he still could not provide us with the proof I requested because and I quote

to provide this information beforehand would take additional time as well as additional costs. So Getty is telling the the Attorney General that they cannot provide me with the reasonable proof I have requested because of a confidentiality agreement yet neglects t and o mention that this is not an issue but sounds much better than to say it takes too much time and cost to click print and place a stamp on it. As to providing an affidavit that would mean very little to me, as I stated in my original complaint which also was completely ignored and overlooked Getty is currently facing a $12 million lawsuit in Israel claiming Getty is sending these demand letters on images they do not have the right to claim damages on. So again I feel my request for Getty to provide proof is valid and reasonable.

My fourth point, Getty has also completely ignored in their response the issue I brought up of the Getty v Advernet case which I provided you a copy of the final ruling. In this case Getty whet after Advernet for using 35 images. Getty won this case by default as I believe Advernet went bankrupt defending themselves. Even though Getty won this case by default the court looked at all the evidence presented and ruled that there were issues with every single one of the 35 images that precluded Getty from receiving any monies they were suing for. So again, in light of the fact that a federal district court has ruled that Getty did not have the right to collect on some of their images makes my request for proof reasonable and valid.

So in closing I would like to do a brief review of the facts and lack thereof in Getty's response. 1) In the response Getty claims I said I found this image as free through an Internet search engine such as Google or Yahoo. This is a lie as I have provided in my original letters and screen captures to you and Getty showing exactly where I found this image and to date Getty has not proven to me that Mr. Mankiss does not own this image. I am certainly not trying to get Mr. Mankiss in trouble but a valid question would be since Getty has known about this for over four months now why have they not sent him a cease-and-desist letter if they own rights to this image? I can think of two reasons right away. One, they do not own rights to this image or second and more likely the fact that this image appears to be owned by Mr. Mankiss and offered for free is generating income for Getty through their extortion letters so they are fine with leaving it there is a bait trap. 2) Getty tells the Attorney General they cannot provide me with the reasonable proof requested due to confidentiality agreements yet they tell my lawyer the reason they cannot provide me with proof is due to time and cost after we offered to sign a confidentiality agreement to release the information. Getty is again being misleading to the Attorney General and by neglecting to reveal all of the information they are not acting in good faith and lying to you. 3) In their response to the Attorney General, Getty conveniently overlooks and omits addressing valid and legitimate concerns as to the fact that this global company currently has one classaction lawsuit filed against it for sending these demand letters when they do not have the right to as well as the fact that a US federal district court has refused to award Getty damages for the same reason. So by refusing to respond to, ignoring and glossing over this information again Getty Images is being dishonest with the Attorney Generals office and not acting in good faith.

So when you correct Gettys statements as to how I acquired the image, the issue of confidentiality as a reason not to provide me with proof of claim and conveniently overlooking Getty's legal track record when it comes to making claims on their images I would most strongly and vehemently disagree that I have not raised any valid defenses to their claim. Again, I believe that this shows Getty images and Douglas Bieker are lying as well as being deceitful and dishonest not only with all of the letter recipients like myself but with the Attorney Generals office as well. Since they refuse to provide proof yet continue to insist upon payment of outrageous sums and threaten legal action I feel this meets the definition of extortion and unethical business practices. Also since they have omitted addressing valid concerns, defenses and lied to the Attorney General I again feel you should consider investigating this company. I am also aware that to date there are at least 57 other complaints against this company for the same thing filed with your office.

Again if there is any further information I can provide to you or anything else I can do to assist you please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me.

Respectfully,

Gregory Troy