wa state ag complaint - new - 54

7/28/2019 WA State AG Complaint - New - 54

1/31

Status

Amount Disputed

Actual Savings

Estimated Savings

Activities

Location

NAICS

Complainant

Number

Date

Name Contact Phone Toll Free Email

Getty Images605 5th Ave S Ste 400

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 925-6753 [email protected]

m

409692

5/31/2012

Respondent(s)

Complaint

Bellingham - Consumer Protection Division

Date Added Activity Type Activity

6/5/2012 Email to Respondent R First Letter to Respondent To:[email protected]

6/5/2012 Email to Complainant C First Letter to Consumer To:[email protected]

6/5/2012 Email from Complainant

541920-Photographic Services

Assignee Williams, David

$0.00

$1,175.00

$0.00

Code Practice

019 Inadequate Disclosure

023 Scare Tactics

316 Billing Issues

Practice(s)

Closed

Referral(s)

Name Contact Phone Contact Phone Email

409692

CatalystComplaint Cover Page

Name Phone Day Phone Evening Email

Gail SeymourPO Box 8381Delray Beach, FL 33482

(561) 499-0044 [email protected]

1 of 2409692


2/31

Date Added Activity Type Activity

6/21/2012 Email to Respondent R Second Letter to Respondent To:[email protected]

6/22/2012 Email from Respondent

6/22/2012 Email from Respondent

7/2/2012 Email to Complainant Csup Closing Unadjusted To:[email protected]

7/2/2012 Email to Respondent Rsup Closing Neutral To:[email protected]

7/2/2012 Resolution-UNADJUSTED



7/3/2012 Email to Complainant Csup Limits of AGO To: [email protected]/3/2012 Email from Complainant


7/5/2012 Email to Complainant (throughOutlook)



2 of 2409692


3/31

Csup Closing Unadjusted To: [email protected] GENERAL OF WASHINGTONConsumer Protection Division103 East Holly Street, Suite 308 Bellingham, WA 98225-4310 (360) 738-6187

July 2, 2012

Gail SeymourPO Box 8381Delray Beach, FL 33482

RE: Getty ImagesFile #: 409692

Dear Gail Seymour:

Our office has received a response from Getty Images regarding your complaint. A copy isattached.

We realize you may disagree with Getty Imagess position. However, our office does not havethe legal authority to force the parties to resolve their dispute. We regret that we are unable toprovide 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 actas a judge or arbitrator in individual disputes. If you would like to pursue the matter, you maywish to contact a private attorney.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. Your complaint will remain a part ofour public record of this firms business practices.

DAVID WILLIAMSComplaint AnalystConsumer Protection Division

(360) 738-6187Fax: (360) [email protected]

Enclosure

From: Copyright Compliance [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:12 AMTo: ATG MI Bellingham CRC; Copyright ComplianceSubject: RE: 409692 : A notice from the Washington State Attorney General'sOffice

RuthH 7/2/2012

409692


4/31

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:54 AMTo: ATG MI Bellingham CRCSubject: 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 notbacking down when it comes to their position. Thank you very much for your attempt to resolvethis on my behalf, but I'm not going to contact an attorney -- especiallly since I got them tolower their price to a lot less than an attorney would charge me to write a letter. I'm going to siton this and figure out what to do next. maybe I'll use my frequent flyer miles to take a vacationto the Pacific Northwest and take them to small claims court.

Thanks again, Gail Seymour :-)

AdaS 7/2/2012

409692


5/31

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:32 AMTo: ATG MI Bellingham CRCSubject: 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 andconfusing matter. Below is a simple story -- one that I wrote -- that pertains to, and willhopefully clarify my situation.Last week, a man was walking down the street carrying a small black umbrella. Your friendowns a gift shop. She mentioned to you in passing that a small black umbrella went missingfrom 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 yourshop a while back - "When she looked at your photo, taken on your cell phone, even though it was quite small and alittle fuzzy, and although the umbrella was closed, so that she couldnt make out the brand, theshape, or the overall size, she said, Yes, that looks like the same small black umbrella that I sellat my shop! No, actually, Im postive that its the same exact black umbrella that went missingfrom my store last year. So that man in your photo must be the thief!! Shortly thereafter, shedecided to phone the police.This is a silly little story, but since the situation at hand is also silly no, actually, its ridiculousto the point of being absurd -- its actually quite applicable in this instance. There was anordinary palm tree on the banner of my website, that looked quite similar to the top of a palmtree in one of their clients images. Getty matched them both, using some software that theyown, whereby the shape of the palm tree in my banner is similar to the shape of a different, yetquite similar looking palm tree, contained in an image in their photo bank, taken by one of theirclients, Nina Buesing Corvallo, using some relatively new (to them) technology, that they paid alot of money for (nine million dollars). Before the purchase of the technology, while they werestill leasing it, and after the time that they decided to purchase the company outright, which wastwo or three years ago, for a total of about ten years, Getty has made it a practice to use theimage recongnition technology day and night, according to them, to scour the Internet, in orderto re-capture their considerable investment and make a lot of money for themselves and theirclients, 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 fourand 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 theshape of a palm tree in one of their clients images (more or less), that is on their website, Gettyfigured that they could extort money from me by stating that the tree on my site is their client'swork, while demanding to get paid for the use of the entire image, even though only the top ofthe tree, which is probably not the same tree unless they can prove it -- was visible. You / theydont need to repeat the copyright law to me; or direct me to a copyright lawyer to understandthe law, since I am very familiar with it, especially since I am a record producer myself. Please

AdaS 7/3/2012

409692


6/31

let me continue What I asked Getty for most recently was NOT whether Nina Buesing Corvallos image isactually 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 ontheir website. Since there are lots of palm trees, and, similarly, millions of small black umbrellason the planet, and since the umbrella company in the example above probably made millions ofthe same black umbrellas over the years, and since there are probably even more small blackumbrellas, manufactured by many other manufacturers worldwide, whereby millions of peoplecarry small black umbrellas evry day, and since the photo of the man carrying the umbrella wasof low quality and low resolution, since it was taken on your cell phone -- which is similar tocomparing two low quality, low resolution JPGs of two palm trees, which is what Getty's imagerecognition software was comparing -- the shape -- and since the umbrella, per the exampleabove, 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 agrainy, low resolution JPG online, and a piece of paper containing a grainy black and whiteimage of a beach scene, with a tree and some chairs, proving that the palm tree in your clientsimage is / was the same tree as was in my banner, which they have not and obviously cannot, orthey would have done so by now. To repeat -- I am not asking Getty for proof, by way of acopyright application by Mrs. Corvallo to the US government; but rather, I asked Getty forproof, by way of some other form of concrete evidence, proving, without any question of adoubt, in the eyes of the law, that a tree that was in my banner is the same exact tree that wastaken by their client, which is on their companys web site.The reason that we are going round and round with this issue is because Getty has continued tocircumvent the truth. They cannot prove it; and although they have continued to attempt tointimidate me, by using words like large company which is how they get people like me to

pay them, even if theyre not guilty, Getty has never actually proven to me that I have everviolated their clients copyright, meaning that there is no basis whatsoever for their claim, or fortheir companys demand for payment.In conclusion, just because I might own a small black umbrella and although there is a verysimilar looking small black umbrella in some photo, that wouldn't automatically prove, withouta question of a doubt, that I am a thief. Nor would it prove, with any degree of certainty, that Ihave somehow broken the law. Nor would it justify anyone's demand for payment formerchandise, 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 notnine 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 droptheir claim, since the inquiry, in my opinion, went in the wrong direction, since the last time Iasked for "proof" it was for something other than a copyright document that may or may nothave 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, sothat the general public, who may be reading this email, is crystal clear about what is really goingon.Thanks and sincerely,

409692


7/31

Gail Seymour, MSA, Pres., GSPI dba Just Relax

409692


8/31


9/31


10/31


11/31


12/31


13/31


14/31


15/31


16/31


17/31


18/31


19/31


20/31


21/31

[5a]


22/31

[5a]


23/31


24/31


25/31


26/31


27/31


28/31


29/31


30/31


31/31

wa state ag complaint - new - 54

Documents