Yeah, We Do That.

3023 Ash Court Mason, Ohio 45040-1400 Gregory A. Troy Owner (513) 544-7069

July 18, 2012 The Washington State Better Business Bureau PO Box 1000 DuPont, WA 98327 RE: Getty Images BBB Case# 22350913 Main Office Getty images 601 N. 34th St. Seattle, WA 98103 1-800-972-4170 D. Bieker and Copyright Compliance Team
Getty Images th 605 5 Ave South Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104

1-206-925-5000

Dear Sir/Madam.: This is my response to Getty's reply on July 31, 2012 to my complaint filed against them with the Better Business Bureau of Washington state case number 22350913.

This is the standard Getty form letter that they use to respond to the attorney general's office or anyone that files a complaint with any agency. As Getty typically does they have ignored the specific points that I made in my complaint which further lends credence and proof that Mr. Douglas Bieker and Getty Images are not acting in good faith and that this is nothing more than an extortion scheme.

I will go over the points that they have ignored, skipped and overlooked and dissect each one to show that I have acted in good faith and try to settle this matter amicably while Getty still chooses to ignore my reasonable requests of providing proof of their claim.

First, Getty claims that I stated that this was a free image found on a Internet search and that the ability the view an image via Google, Yahoo or other Internet search does not mean the image is not subject to copyright. I agree with the statement 100% but what Getty is ignoring and I have provided proof and screenshots to you as well as Getty that this was not found over a Google, Yahoo or Internet search. This image was found on an actual website owned by a Greg Mankiss in which he has several image galleries one of which is labeled public in which this image was located. Not only was this image located in this folder, the image was titled Greg Mankiss dog days of summer. Mr. Mankiss has put his name and the title on this picture giving it the appearance that this is his work and he is offering it for free in a public folder. Getty is well aware of this and as of the writing of this letter the image still appears on his website as I have described. The folder in which this image resides not only says public but underneath it says that the owner is Greg (meaning Greg Mankiss). I firmly respect copyright, copyright law and the protection of artists intellectual property and that is why I went out of my way attempting to find an image that had no copyright attached to it.

Second, as to questioning the copyright status of the image I am fully aware that copyright exists from the moment the images taken. I am questioning as to whether Getty truly has the exclusive rights that they claim. That copyright exists from the moment the image taken belongs to the artist and the artist must give Getty the right to pursue claim on their image. I am only asking that Getty show me this signed agreement transferring rights to Getty along with all other information pertaining to the copyright of this image, sales history showing this image sales history along with the formula used to arrive at the outrageous figure of $875..

Which brings me to my third point, Getty claims that they cannot provide this proof because a confidentiality agreement exists between Getty and its contributor. It is interesting that Getty brings this confidentiality agreement up as they are well aware of and have a copy of a letter from my lawyer stating that we would be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement that would bind us not to discuss or disclose or reveal anything contained in the proof I have requested except with Getty for the process of negotiating a settlement. When copyright compliance specialist Douglas Bieker received this letter from my lawyer in his response he stated that he still could not provide us with the proof I requested because and I quote to provide this information beforehand would take additional time as well as additional costs. So Getty is telling the Better Business Bureau that they cannot provide me with the reasonable proof I have requested because of a confidentiality agreement yet neglects t and o mention that this is not an issue but sounds much better than to say it takes too much time and cost to click print and place a stamp on it. As to providing an affidavit that would mean very little to me, as I stated in my original complaint which also was completely ignored and overlooked Getty is currently facing a $12 million lawsuit in Israel claiming Getty is sending these demand letters on images they do not have the right to claim damages on. So again I feel my request for Getty to provide proof is valid and reasonable.

My fourth point, Getty has also completely ignored in their response the issue I brought up of the Getty v Advernet case which I provided you a copy of the final ruling. In this case Getty when after Advernet for using 35 images. Getty won this case by default as I believe Advernet went bankrupt defending themselves. Even though Getty won this case by default the court looked at all the evidence presented and ruled that there were issues with every single one of the 35 images that precluded Getty from receiving any monies they were suing for. So again, in light of the fact that a federal district court has ruled that Getty did not have the right to collect on some of their images makes my request for proof reasonable and valid.

So in closing I would like to do a brief review of the facts and lack thereof in Getty's response. 1) In the response Getty claims I said I found this image as free through an Internet search engine such as Google or Yahoo. This is a lie as I have provided in my original letters and screen captures to you and Getty showing exactly where I found this image and to date Getty has not proven to me that Mr. Mankiss does not own this image. I am certainly not trying to get Mr. Mankiss in trouble but a valid question would be since Getty has known about this for over four months why have they not sent him a cease-and-desist letter if they own rights to this image? I can think of two reasons right away one, they do not own rights to this image or two and more likely the fact that this image appears to be owned by Mr. Mankiss and offered for free is generating income for Getty through their extortion letters. 2) Getty tells the BBB they cannot provide me with the reasonable proof requested due to confidentiality agreements yet they tell my lawyer the reason they cannot provide me with proof is due to time and cost after we offered to sign a confidentiality agreement to release the information. Getty is again being misleading to the BBB and by neglecting to reveal all of the information they are not acting in good faith and lying to you. 3) In their response to the BBB Getty conveniently overlooks and omits addressing valid and legitimate concerns as to the fact that this global company currently has one class-action lawsuit filed against it for sending these demand letters when they do not have the right to as well as the fact that a US federal district court has refused to award Getty damages for the same reason. So by refusing to respond to, ignoring and glossing over this information again Getty Images is being dishonest with the BBB and not acting in good faith. So when you correct Gettys statements as to how I acquired the image, the issue of confidentiality as a reason not to provide me with proof of claim and conveniently overlooking Getty's legal track record when it comes to making claims on their images I would most strongly and vehemently disagree that I have not raised any valid defenses to their claim. Again, I believe that this shows Getty images and Douglas Bieker are lying as well as being deceitful and dishonest not only with all of the letter recipients like myself but with the BBB as well. Since they refuse to provide proof yet continue to insist upon payment of outrageous sums and threaten legal action I feel this meets the definition of extortion and unethical business practices. Also since they have omitted addressing valid concerns, defenses and lied to the BBB I again feel that the BBB should review their grade of C and not only consider downgrading it but issuing an alert about this company's business practices to all of the BBB accredited businesses in the

nation. I have received these alerts from the BBB in the past when dishonest and disreputable companies have been operating in my area and have greatly appreciated the warning.

Again if there is any further information I can provide to you or anything else I can do to assist you please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me.

Respectfully,

Gregory Troy