Greg Troy

To: Subject: Bonnie.comery@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov Complaint Number: 763541

Yea/i, We Do That
3023 Ash Court Mason, Ohio 45040-1400 Gregory A. Troy Owner October 1, 2012 RE: Complaint Number 763541

Dear Bonnie Comery, Thank you very much for your assistance with my recent consumer complaint against Getty Images and for keeping this complaint as part of your permanent record. As I have stated before I was not and am not asking the office of the Ohio Attorney General to act as my personal representative and I understand that you keep the complaints on file to look for a pattern that may require your attention. However, I would like to add a follow-up in response to Getty's reply to my complaint to be added to your file pointing out a few glaring omissions that Getty has consistently refused to address that when added up in my opinion do raise a valid defense in my case and show that what Getty is doing qualifies as an extortion scheme. I would first like to address the issue of Getty refusing to provide me with the reasonable request of proof of ownership of this image. Getty states that they cannot provide me with proof of this image due to confidentiality agreements between themselves and their artists yet back in May of this year before Getty had ever mentioned to me anything about the confidentiality agreement my lawyer sent Getty a letter stating we were still trying to resolve this but that the proof must be sent and if need be we would both be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement not to disclose or discuss any information in the proof sent except with Getty for the purpose of trying to resolve the claim to which Getty's response was they would not send us the proof not because of a confidentiality agreement but because it would take too much time and cost too much money. You may view a copy of this letter and Getty's reply here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914493/l-5-Letter-From-Lawyer-to-Gettv-05-23-12 http://www.scribd.com/doc/103914498/l-7-Response-From-Gettv-to-Lavwer-06-13-12 I would also like to point out that Getty currently has a $12 million class action lawsuit filed against them in Israel for sending settlement demand letters to people claiming exclusive rights when they do not. Getty also had sued a company called Advernet for the use of 35 of their images in their website(s) which Getty actually won the case by default in November of last year. When the court reviewed the evidence that had been submitted prior to the default ruling the court ruled that of the $21,875 Getty was suing for they were entitled to nothing as there were issues with every single image that precluded Getty from collecting damages, in short Getty did not have the rights to the images that they claimed. In light of these two recent cases and Getty's

history I feel that my request of proof is more than reasonable. If you would like to see the pertinent documents in the Getty V Advernet case they may be found here: http://www.scribd.com/my document collections/3777307

I would also like to point out that my initial letter in response to Getty's demand letter I provided Getty proof and screenshots of where I found the image showing that the owner of this website has placed his name and a title on the image making it appear he owns it and offering it in a public directory. At the time I am sending you this email the image is still there as I had originally found it. The owner of the website's name is Greg Mankiss and you can see that in his public picture gallery the image in question titled Greg Mankiss - dog days of summer: http://www.gregzweb.com/gallery/v/Public+Folder/?g2 page=4 Since I made Getty aware of this six months ago on April 11 can only come to one of three conclusions. First, that Mr. Mankiss if contacted by Getty has refused to remove the image which I do not find likely. Second, that Mr. Mankiss actually owns the image as he makes it appear which again makes my request for proof more than reasonable. Finally, and this in my opinion seems to be the case, since Getty has been aware of this image since at least April 1 when I let them know where I obtained it yet has not required the image to be removed they are turning a blind eye since every time someone takes the image believing it is free they can turn around and try to collect $875 or more from them. The reasons why I contacted you about the conduct of Getty Images as I stated in my original complaint is that in my opinion what this company is doing is tantamount to legalized extortion. Even if Getty does hold the exclusive rights as they claim to this image why they would continue to insist upon damages of $875 to what is clearly a de minimis case. Also when someone like myself states they are willing to discuss and negotiate with them yet all they have to do is send proof of their claim they refuse at every step in the process and threaten legal actions if payment is not sent. As a business owner myself I could never get away with giving my customer an invoice and then turning around and telling them when they ask me to prove and justify the amount on my invoice that I refuse to provide it and will only do so when I sue you. So in conclusion if you look at the facts:

1) Getty currently has a class-action lawsuit filed against them for this behavior. 2) Even though Getty won a major case by default they received no monies due to issues with every one of 35 images they were suing over and they did not have the rights that they claimed. 3) Getty refuses to provide proof of claim even when the letter recipient states they are willing to negotiate and offers to sign a confidentiality agreement to obtain said proof. 4) Getty tries to instill fear of an eminent lawsuit by the tone of their demand letters and rush the recipients by setting an artificial deadline of 14 days to receive payment, trying to prevent them from going online and seeing how Getty operates. 5) Threatening to escalate to their legal Department if payment is not received while still refusing to provide any proof whatsoever of their claim.

In my opinion if you take all of these facts together this meets the definition of an extortion scheme. Getty has chosen to send out these letters and use this as a business model for profit rather than trying to protect the intellectual property rights of their artists as they claim. In an article back in 2009 in the Los Angeles times Getty states even back then that they send out approximately 42,000 of these letters every year and I'm sure the number has steadily increased since then. The article may be read here: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/13/business/fi-lazarusl3 Again I thank you for your time and help with this matter and hope you wilt continue to keep an eye for complaints against this company, if I can be any further assistance to you or provide any further information please do not hesitate to contact me by phone, email or through postal mail and I will be more than happy to assist in any way I can.

Regards,

Yeah, We Do That. Remodeling Service (513) 544-7069 www.yeahwedothat.biz

ACCREDITED BUSINESS