Intrepid Network Concepts, Inc.

1639 Bradley Park Drive PMB 110 Columbus, Georgia 31904
Matthew S. Chan President (706) 565-5090 (888)696-3441 FAX

June 21, 2008 Getty Images 601 N. 34th Street Seattle, WA 98103 Reference #: 4930098 Case #: 867947 Dear Getty Images: This letter is in response to the letter your company sent regarding an allegedly infringing image on our website banner. You have brought to our attention that an image in our web banner actually belongs to a professional artist/photographer named Martin Barraud and does not belong in the public domain. First, I thank you for bringing this very important information to my attention. I am treating your letter with the highest regard and attention. As President, I have personally taken upon myself to write this letter to you. This matter is not being delegated to anyone. This is a very serious situation and demands my full and prompt attention. Second, I cannot apologize enough for this unfortunate circumstance. It would be an understatement to say that this letter was quite shocking to me especially when you consider that we, as book and audio publishers, tremendously value copyrights and intellectual property rights. Third, because we are book and audio publishers, this incident is tremendously embarrassing to me as the publisher for my company especially when we take such care in the books and audio titles we produce. We fell victim to unscrupulous web graphic designers in India. Despite the fact that this is very embarrassing, I also understand that the only way to peacefully resolve a problem is to acknowledge your issues and your concerns. Better for me to be personally and professionally embarrassed than to have this matter be unnecessarily blown out of proportion. Fourth, I can assure you that the use of the image was very much unintentional, unauthorized, unsanctioned, and quite frankly countermanded my instructions to use only public domain images. Fifth, I want you to know that within 2 hours of my receiving this letter on June 16, 2008, immediate actions were taken to resolve this situation. I stripped away all web banner images from every web page from our website. I made two attempts to call your office to establish initial verbal communications. However, because of no answer, I personally left a voice message with the reference and case numbers. And of course, I began writing this lengthy letter. Sixth, I conducted an internal investigation with aggressive information-gathering efforts to clarify how and why this has happened. The short version is that I contracted the creation of this web banner (among four others) through the elance.com website some time ago. The contracted firm based in India had a website named DigiAvenues.com (now defunct) that sold web banners. As we guided the creative

1

process in approving the web banner styles we preferred, we were in no way associated with the acquisition or selection of individual elements for the banners including the allegedly infringed image. The web banners were presented to us “as a whole” which we either liked or did not like as the various revisions came through. We were never informed as to where the images came from. In the U.S., it is common for graphic designers to inform their clients if they use non-public domain images. Clearly, that practice does not appear to happen in India. It has become clear that every web banner we had them design for my company has now become suspect and we will be discarding all of them. Because they have gone out of business, there is no way of my knowing which images came from public domain and which ones were not. Clearly, we will be incurring a substantial cost in both time and money to correct this. We may also have to temporarily shut down some websites to make these corrections. While none of this is directly related to you, I am conveying to you the seriousness of which I am treating this entire matter. In fact, I am quite angry with them as I write this. I am angry with the dishonest Indian contractors we hired to do this work. Essentially, we have wasted our time and money with this unscrupulous vendor while taking a hit on our credibility and reputation. We will clearly incur a financial cost to once again hire someone to ensure that all of their “creative” work has been totally eliminated from our various websites. In closing out this portion of the letter, you can be assured we have entirely deleted the allegedly infringing files from our web hosting server and will no longer be using them in any way. At this point of the letter, I would like to focus on the tone and Settlement Demand portion of your letter. While I most certainly understand and respect your need and right to protect your copyrights, there is generally a more cordial and professional way to do this. Generally speaking, it is common business courtesy and practice to first issue a Cease and Desist letter allowing the alleged infringer the opportunity to correct the situation before threatening them. In this case, either remove the copyrighted material or pay a reasonable fee for the license. Having researched the gettyimages.com website for the very first time, I have discovered that the alleged infringing image is offered for $49. The fact that you have “offered” a settlement fee of $1,300.00 is extortionistic. In my conversation with Chloe, she offered an $800-something amount. That too is extortionistic. In any case, I do not want that image even if it were given “for free”. I did not order or select that image to use. It was simply presented to us within the banner as one of several design elements. I wanted an overall professional and pleasing web banner that fit our color scheme, not necessarily any image of any bird. There is nothing special about that bird image, it was simply one that was inappropriately selected by the unscrupulous graphic designers from India. Please understand that I am bringing this issue up to put your Settlement Demand in perspective. This allegedly infringing image was one small element of a greater whole that was greatly changed and modified. The low-resolution web banner was placed in a low-volume website for decorative purposes, not marketing purposes. I understand that you contend because the image was in our banner, the photographer lost money and we should pay for the usage of it. What I am telling you is that photographer would never have earned any money from me because it was one I would never have ordered on my own. In fact, I have no particular interest in birds as a theme. It simply was one element of a greater whole.

2

I assert we did not order web images from the Indian graphic designers. We wanted and ordered a web banner which happened to have a “stolen” image component within it. We would have been fine with a stylistic and creative banner with no images whatsoever if it had been presented to us. I would like to point out that when criminal behavior happens, everyone in society loses. There are no winners. Our company have taken a loss and will take further loss to requisition and replace all our web banners with something that is “certifiably” authentic, self-created, and/or licensed. As such, it is unreasonable for you to expect someone to take a double loss so that Getty can “win”. I promise you we are losing even if without your so-called “settlement fee”. Without meaning to be condescending, any reasonable business person can see that. For your company to assert an outrageous and extortionistic “settlement fee” in such unfortunate circumstances is highly distasteful and disturbing. This action breeds much bad feelings and kills any goodwill your letter recipients may have had towards your company. Remember, I am an independent publisher and author. I am also a member the Independent Publishers Book Association which in its membership has many artists, designers, and other creative talent. My company sells our publications to the National Association of Realtors which is one of the largest business associations in the world. I am also an avid supporter of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). I frequently deal with legal issues and collection issues in my other business of Property Management. I am not listing these things to brag. The point I am trying to make here is I am a very involved businessman and aware of the issues. I am not a legal simpleton as some of the letter recipients might be. I would like to share an analogy with you to illustrate one of my points with a scenario that frequently happens in the “real world”. Pawn shops often buy DVD players and Video tape players (VCRs) both knowingly and unknowingly for resale. There are clear laws that pawn shops should not buy suspected stolen goods. But it happens anyway whether a pawn shop owner is honest or dishonest. They sell those stolen players to an unsuspecting customer and they in turn “use” it to play movies in their homes thinking they are the rightful owners of the players. However, one day, law enforcement tracks down the stolen players to the unsuspecting customer’s home, the police will confiscate the stolen players and return it to the rightful owner, no matter what the condition is. When that happens, the unsuspecting customer clearly incurs a loss. They get no refund or reimbursement from anyone unless the pawn shop voluntarily chooses to refund the money which isn’t likely. The rightful owner that had their players returned to them does not then go to the unsuspecting customer and insist they pay for any physical damages or rental fees for using the players. They also do not sue them. Why not? Because the unsuspecting customer did not know nor did they have intent. And when it is confirmed that it is stolen merchandise, it is returned. Plus, it is simply bad form. I fully understand my argument does not exactly match infringement and copyright issues but it does the job. I also understand the argument that if Getty Images did not take more aggressive steps towards everyone, there would be more piracy and infringements. However, the flaw in your argument is that you are going after everyone, guilty or not guilty. You are implying that the ends justify the means. And you are basing it on your company’s sensibilities and sense of right and wrong. But you are not the judge, society and the courts are. This is one important reason why the ACLU exists. Even in a time of war, the Bush Administration is learning that the American public will not tolerate such actions of bypassing due process and trampling over civil liberties and rights. The end does not justify the means. In your efforts to “protect the

3

photographers” and your company, Getty Images wants to steamroll over the legal and civil rights of others without due process? You will presume guilt over innocence for every letter you send out? This is highly inappropriate and unconscionable. Anyone with any dignity or self-respect would not tolerate this. I have the good fortune in my personal and business life to have had a good education and business experience. Otherwise, I would not have been able to write this letter in detail to explain my thoughts to you. But I pity others who are not able to communicate their positions and stand up for their rights. As I mentioned, I am a publisher and I am also engaged in intellectual property with copyright issues. In my other business of Property Management, I have been to court many times over the years as a plaintiff and occasionally as a defendant. I have both hired attorneys and represented myself. As such, I have my own arguments and a sense of right and wrong. Just as you seem to be aggressively pursuing your position in this matter, I am just as aggressive in defending my position. Further, if I am aggressively provoked enough, you can be sure I will not simply defend this, I would take more proactive measures. With this letter, I trust it will not come to anything more severe. I cannot speak for anyone else except myself. There may be many people who intentionally steal and use licensed images. I am not one of them. Forgive me but I don’t accept your presumption of our financial responsibility of your so-called “losses” given these specific circumstances. As I said, everyone loses when criminal behavior happens. I am already taking a loss without the “settlement fee”. What makes your position more entitled for restitution and reparation than mine? Anyone with common sense can see and understand this. I believe if any judge were to hear this case and evaluate the overall context, intent, and actual damages (if any) your company incurred, it would strongly weigh in my company’s favor. At this point, I could go on endlessly explaining my position and you may still disagree. I have done my research on Getty Images. There is widespread information on the extortionistic tactics Getty Images uses in these matters. In this regard, we are prepared. Without getting into any specific statements, I just want to say I will not “roll over”. I respect your company. I respect your opinions. I thank you for bringing the alleged infringement to my attention. I promptly deleted the entire web banner off the web server. I called your offices and left a message. I had a cordial conversation with Chloe. I respectfully disagreed with her. And finally, you have received this long letter with my best explanations I can give with assurances that this matter is closed. We have further work and expenses to incur to replace the “work” we paid for but must now destroy. This whole ordeal has already been frustrating and maddening. But all of us have to move on. It is my hope that we can both move forward from this unfortunate circumstance peacefully. In closing, with this written reply, I consider this unfortunate matter and circumstance resolved and closed. Thank you for your time, attention, and consideration of my explanations. Respectfully,

Matthew Chan President/Publisher

4