This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Number 409692 Date 5/31/2012 Status Assignee Actual Savings Amount Disputed Estimated Savings Closed Williams, David $0.00 $1,175.00 $0.00
Location Bellingham - Consumer Protection Division NAICS 541920-Photographic Services
Name Gail Seymour PO Box 8381 Delray Beach, FL 33482 Phone Day (561) 499-0044 Phone Evening Email email@example.com
Name Getty Images 605 5th Ave S Ste 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact Phone (206) 925-6753 Toll Free Email copyright.complian firstname.lastname@example.org m
Name Contact Phone Contact Phone Email
Code 019 023 316 Practice Inadequate Disclosure Scare Tactics Billing Issues
Date Added 6/5/2012 6/5/2012 6/5/2012 Activity Type Email to Respondent Email to Complainant Email from Complainant Activity R First Letter to Respondent To: email@example.com C First Letter to Consumer To: firstname.lastname@example.org
1 of 2
Date Added 6/21/2012 6/22/2012 6/22/2012 7/2/2012 7/2/2012 7/2/2012 7/2/2012 7/3/2012 7/3/2012 7/3/2012 7/5/2012 7/5/2012 7/5/2012 7/5/2012
Activity Type Email to Respondent Email from Respondent Email from Respondent Email to Complainant Email to Respondent Resolution-UNADJUSTED Email from Complainant Email from Complainant Email to Complainant Email from Complainant Email from Complainant Email to Complainant (through Outlook) Email from Complainant Email from Complainant
Activity R Second Letter to Respondent To: email@example.com
Csup Closing Unadjusted To: firstname.lastname@example.org Rsup Closing Neutral To: email@example.com
Csup Limits of AGO To: firstname.lastname@example.org
2 of 2
Csup Closing Unadjusted To: email@example.com ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Consumer Protection Division 103 East Holly Street, Suite 308 Bellingham, WA 98225-4310 (360) 738-6187 July 2, 2012 Gail Seymour PO Box 8381 Delray Beach, FL 33482 RE: Getty Images File #: 409692 Dear Gail Seymour: Our office has received a response from Getty Images regarding your complaint. A copy is attached. We realize you may disagree with Getty Images’s position. However, our office does not have the legal authority to force the parties to resolve their dispute. We regret that we are unable to provide further assistance to you in this situation. We do not have the legal authority to act as an attorney for private individuals, nor may we act as a judge or arbitrator in individual disputes. If you would like to pursue the matter, you may wish to contact a private attorney. We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. Your complaint will remain a part of our public record of this firm’s business practices. DAVID WILLIAMS Complaint Analyst Consumer Protection Division (360) 738-6187 Fax: (360) 738-6190 firstname.lastname@example.org Enclosure From: Copyright Compliance [mailto:Copyright.Compliance@gettyimages.com] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:12 AM To: ATG MI Bellingham CRC; Copyright Compliance Subject: RE: 409692 : A notice from the Washington State Attorney General'sOffice
From: Relax2sleep@aol.com [mailto:Relax2sleep@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:54 AM To: ATG MI Bellingham CRC Subject: Re: 409692 : A notice from the Washington State Attorney General's Office OK, so it looks like what you're telling me is that Getty got back to you, and that they're not backing down when it comes to their position. Thank you very much for your attempt to resolve this on my behalf, but I'm not going to contact an attorney -- especiallly since I got them to lower their price to a lot less than an attorney would charge me to write a letter. I'm going to sit on this and figure out what to do next. maybe I'll use my frequent flyer miles to take a vacation to the Pacific Northwest and take them to small claims court. Thanks again, Gail Seymour :-)
From: Relax2sleep@aol.com [mailto:Relax2sleep@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:32 AM To: ATG MI Bellingham CRC Subject: Re: 409692 : A notice from the Washington State Attorney General's Office Your office has actually (and unfortunatley) missed the mark. I know that this is a long and confusing matter. Below is a simple story -- one that I wrote -- that pertains to, and will hopefully clarify my situation. Last week, a man was walking down the street carrying a small black umbrella. Your friend owns a gift shop. She mentioned to you in passing that a small black umbrella “went missing from her store about six months ago." Yesterday, you saw a man walking down the street, carrying a small black umbrella. You took a photo of the man, who was carrying the umbrella, and showed it to her, asking, "Could this be the same umbrella that went missing from your shop a while back - " When she looked at your photo, taken on your cell phone, even though it was quite small and a little fuzzy, and although the umbrella was closed, so that she couldn’t make out the brand, the shape, or the overall size, she said, “Yes, that looks like the same small black umbrella that I sell at my shop! No, actually, I’m postive that it’s the same exact black umbrella that went missing from my store last year. So that man in your photo must be the thief!!” Shortly thereafter, she decided to phone the police. This is a silly little story, but since the situation at hand is also silly – no, actually, it’s ridiculous to the point of being absurd -- it’s actually quite applicable in this instance. There was an ordinary palm tree on the banner of my website, that looked quite similar to the top of a palm tree in one of their client’s images. Getty matched them both, using some software that they own, whereby the shape of the palm tree in my banner is similar to the shape of a different, yet quite similar looking palm tree, contained in an image in their photo bank, taken by one of their clients, Nina Buesing Corvallo, using some relatively new (to them) technology, that they paid a lot of money for (nine million dollars). Before the purchase of the technology, while they were still leasing it, and after the time that they decided to purchase the company outright, which was two or three years ago, for a total of about ten years, Getty has made it a practice to use the image recongnition technology day and night, according to them, to scour the Internet, in order to re-capture their considerable investment and make a lot of money for themselves and their clients, who they now lease their software to. Interestingly, since other similar simple images, namely a palm tree, which are offered by other stock photography agencies, cost between four and nine dollars to use, Getty's having charged me seventeen hundred dollars (initially) can only be accomplished in one way -- intimidation, which has been likened to extortion. EXTORTION: the act of securing money, favours, etc by intimidation or violence; blackmail. Fleecing, highway robery, overcharing. Having matched the shape of the top of a palm tree (more or less) that was on my website, to the shape of a palm tree in one of their client’s images (more or less), that is on their website, Getty figured that they could extort money from me by stating that the tree on my site is their client's work, while demanding to get paid for the use of the entire image, even though only the top of the tree, which is probably not the same tree – unless they can prove it -- was visible. You / they don’t need to repeat the copyright law to me; or direct me to a copyright lawyer to understand the law, since I am very familiar with it, especially since I am a record producer myself. Please
let me continue … What I asked Getty for most recently was NOT whether Nina Buesing Corvallo’s image is actually hers, but rather, but whether her tree is positivity the same exact tree as was in my banner on my website. I asked Getty to prove it to me, by sending me more than a black & white photocopy of their client's image on paper, and a link to her low resolution JPG image on their website. Since there are lots of palm trees, and, similarly, millions of small black umbrellas on the planet, and since the umbrella company in the example above probably made millions of the same black umbrellas over the years, and since there are probably even more small black umbrellas, manufactured by many other manufacturers worldwide, whereby millions of people carry small black umbrellas evry day, and since the photo of the man carrying the umbrella was of low quality and low resolution, since it was taken on your cell phone -- which is similar to comparing two low quality, low resolution JPGs of two palm trees, which is what Getty's image recognition software was comparing -- the shape -- and since the umbrella, per the example above, was closed, Getty has obviously jumped to conclusions. I asked Getty to prove to me, by way of a highly technical report, or something other than a grainy, low resolution JPG online, and a piece of paper containing a grainy black and white image of a beach scene, with a tree and some chairs, proving that the palm tree in your client’s image is / was the same tree as was in my banner, which they have not and obviously cannot, or they would have done so by now. To repeat -- I am not asking Getty for proof, by way of a copyright application by Mrs. Corvallo to the US government; but rather, I asked Getty for proof, by way of some other form of concrete evidence, proving, without any question of a doubt, in the eyes of the law, that a tree that was in my banner is the same exact tree that was taken by their client, which is on their company’s web site. The reason that we are going round and round with this issue is because Getty has continued to circumvent the truth. They cannot prove it; and although they have continued to attempt to intimidate me, by using words like “large company” – which is how they get people like me to pay them, even if they’re not guilty, Getty has never actually proven to me that I have ever violated their client’s copyright, meaning that there is no basis whatsoever for their claim, or for their company’s demand for payment. In conclusion, just because I might own a “small black umbrella” – and although there is a very similar looking small black umbrella in some photo, that wouldn't automatically prove, without a question of a doubt, that I am a thief. Nor would it prove, with any degree of certainty, that I have somehow broken the law. Nor would it justify anyone's demand for payment for merchandise, which was never reported as stolen. As in the case of the missing umbrella, I had the tree in question on my website for six years. Why wasn't it "noticed" until now - Any why a charge for seventeen hundred dollars and not nine dollars - Just the fact that Getty is grossly overcharging for something as common as an image of a palm becomes a matter of debate. Is that extortion This is a formal request for you to re-open your correspondence with them, asking them to drop their claim, since the inquiry, in my opinion, went in the wrong direction, since the last time I asked for "proof" it was for something other than a copyright document that may or may not have been in the possession of their client. I asked for proof that both images -- or both tree tops -- are one and the same. In closing, if nothing else, I will ask that you kindly include this correspondence in your files, so that the general public, who may be reading this email, is crystal clear about what is really going on. Thanks and sincerely,
Gail Seymour, MSA, Pres., GSPI dba Just Relax
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.