Intrepid Network Concepts, Inc.

1639 Bradley Park Drive PMB 110 Columbus, Georgia 31904

Matthew S. Chan President (706) 565-5090 (888)696-3441 FAX

July 16, 2008 Getty Images 601 N. 34th Street Seattle, WA 98103 Reference #: 4930098 Case #: 867947 Dear Ms. Surdyk: I am writing in response to your letter dated July 3, 2008. There are issues within the letter I wish to address. Because we fundamentally disagree at a very deep and core level, I will keep my statements brief. As you suggested, I have already taken it upon myself to consult with a well-established attorney that is more than familiar with copyright and intellectual property. That has been quite helpful to me. I respectfully disagree that lack of intent is not relevant to copyright law. Intent absolutely affects actions and outcomes. I also respectfully disagree that I am liable based on a dollar figure you determine. To date, I have been presented with no less than four settlement figures of which no one has clearly explained the formulas of how those numbers have been determined. As such, I am distrustful of you and your company. The credibility of your settlement offers is very low. The figures appear quite arbitrary and speculative. I find it disturbing and dishonest that if I had simply complied with the initial letter vs. contesting the matter further, I would have been taken. Essentially, I view it as your company running a scam on me and other people. It both disturbs and angers me how many other letter recipients may have been taken because they did not have the foresight, insight, intelligence, or writing ability to pursue and inquire further. They simply paid when the settlement could have been lower. Or will you claim I am a special case worthy of the $500.00 offer but no one else is? I would also like to point out you and your companys insistence to place the infringement and liability upon me as an individual when the website, where the alleged infringement occurred, was clearly owned by a well-established, fully compliant Georgia corporation of good standing for well over 10 years. I have worked in the capacity as an Officer and President of that corporation for the same amount of time. The letter you received was clearly printed on corporate letterhead and that portion was clearly and intentionally disregarded. I prefer to be correctly addressed in writing as such, not condescendingly, as if I were an uninformed layman. Even if there were personal liability as an Officer and President of a Corporation, I would prefer to be addressed as such if for no other reason out of professional courtesy and respect. I do not address you, Chloe, in such an unprofessional manner in my letter. I recognize you and your efforts as an employee of Getty Images, not Chloe Surdyk, the individual. Perhaps I need to be defending

myself against both Chloe Surdyk in addition to Getty Images. I find it insulting, distasteful, and revealing of how the License Compliance division appears to work. The appearance of civility is simply that. An appearance. Because you do not consider this matter closed and my explanations are clearly insufficient, I will not waste time in more explanations. For the moment, we will have to agree to disagree. In the meantime, I must 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, and uncertainty, I believe it is time to shed some light on this case. I am respectfully requesting the following information:

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 managers superior and the contact information. I would like to see a copy of the copyright registration and/or license of the image allegedly being infringed upon. I would also like to see a copy of your license agreement with Martin Barraud on that specific image 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 the specifics of this particular case. I would like a precise formula of how you determined each of the four settlement figures and why they continue to differ over time. I would also like to know how it compares to the actual damages 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 something inappropriate that must be hidden?) I would like an explanation of why this process must be settled quickly. You probably have hundreds 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 was unintentional 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 Barrauds opinion? Perhaps he can assist in resolving this. If I offered a written apology and explanation of the circumstances 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 do so quite easily but refuse to do so. As I had previously written, you are not dealing with a legal simpleton that will simply roll over. Despite your best attempts to state your position, there are always 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

surprise that that your company has generated an incredible amount of negative karma and negative public opinion from so many people in the Internet community. Despite my personal feelings, I will continue to maintain a civil and professional tone through this communication process. Since you do not want nor consider this matter closed, I patiently await the information I have requested. Thank you. Respectfully,

Matthew Chan President