myself against both Chloe Surdyk in addition to Getty Images. I find it insulting, distasteful, andrevealing of how the “License Compliance” division appears to work. The appearance of civility issimply that. An appearance.Because you do not consider this matter closed and my explanations are clearly insufficient, I will notwaste time in more explanations. For the moment, we will have to agree to disagree. In the meantime, Imust ask you to provide some information for me. I believe what I am asking is entirely reasonable and,as such, should not be difficult to provide. Instead of working in a cloud of mystery, secrecy, anduncertainty, I believe it is time to shed some light on this case. I am respectfully requesting the followinginformation:
You mention your manager. I would like to know the name of your manager and what his/her position is and the contact information. Additionally, I would also like to know the name and position of your manager’s superior and the contact information.
I would like to see a copy of the copyright registration and/or license of the image allegedly beinginfringed upon.
I would also like to see a copy of your license agreement with Martin Barraud on that specificimage where he has authorized you to take the actions that you have against me.
I would like to know if Martin Barraud of London has been contacted and informed on thespecifics of this particular case.
I would like a
of how you determined each of the four settlement figures andwhy they continue to differ over time. I would also like to know how it compares to the actualdamages and liability you have allegedly calculated.
I would like an explanation of why, if I considered paying a “settlement fee”, must this settlement be confidential. (As I said in my letter, I am professionally embarrassed but not to the degree I believe it must be kept confidential. What is the public not allowed to see? Is there somethinginappropriate that must be hidden?)
I would like an explanation of why this process must be settled “quickly”. You probably havehundreds of letters to deal with. I prefer take the amount of time necessary to do a proper investigation and get an explanation of where I stand.I feel that the information I have requested is both fair and reasonable.As I close out this letter, I would like to leave you with the following thoughts. By your own admission,you acknowledged my apology and prompt removal of the image. You acknowledge that it wasunintentional and do not believe this is a case of willful infringement. You claim that your actions are to be fair to your artists. But do you think we should take the step of asking Martin Barraud’s opinion?Perhaps he can assist in resolving this. If I offered a written apology and explanation of thecircumstances to Mr. Barraud in London and he accepted them, would that be sufficient to resolve this?You claim to want to settle this amicably. I want the same thing. You have it within your authority to doso quite easily but refuse to do so. As I had previously written, you are not dealing with a legal simpletonthat will simply roll over. Despite your best attempts to state your position, there are
two sides of a story. And because of the trickery, deceit, and dishonesty I have discovered that goes into your “settlement process”, I find what your company does to be coercive, extortionate, and distasteful. It is no