Getty Images C&D Letter w/ $1000 invoices - Page 2 - WickedFire - Affiliate Marketing Forum

Mahzkrieg · 10-01-2008, 12:41 PM

It's literally a scare tactic.

The only difference between this and me arbitrarily claiming that you owe me $1,000 is that they MAY take you to court if you are a serious infringer (like, selling their images).

Take the image down or modify it and claim it as any copyright exception (i can type out an explanation if you want). Most of all, do not correspond with them for the same reason you don't correspond with a Nigerian scammer. Don't let them know that they made contact with you. It's bait and quite literally the foundation of their business model.

Edwin · 10-01-2008, 03:19 PM

How do they identify the images in the first place?
In a automated fashion that is.

nachoninja · 10-01-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin

How do they identify the images in the first place?
In a automated fashion that is.

picscout

Edwin · 10-01-2008, 03:27 PM

Thanks!

subigo · 10-01-2008, 04:48 PM

I just found the e-mail they sent me after I told them to fuck off. I replied to this one with "fuck off" as well and they never bothered to write back:

Thank you for your email. However, we're not clear on which C&D letter
you so poignantly make reference to below. If you could provide a case
reference number or Case ID, we can try to help you understand the basis
of our claim that we may have against your company or client.

We take serious objection to the offensive language you use in your last
email. We are willing to help you understand our position and assist you
with any questions you may have, but sending the kinds of emails as you
have below is never productive.

We encourage you to reconsider your negativity and invite you to work
with us to figure out a solution to a problem that appears to be
bothering you.

Best regards,
License Compliance Team
Getty Images

Just goes to show that they not only use these scare tactics, they can't even keep track of who they send them to.

DewChugr · 10-02-2008, 05:04 PM

You could be getting screwed like this.

Quote:

Furthermore, companies like Getty buy out other companies and add their images to their database. Getty also acquires images from freebie sites, through buying them out, and adds those images to their database. If someone, three years ago, purchased images from a company, that got bought out by Getty, and didn't keep their receipt as proof of purchase, they may find themselves in court with Getty getting sued because they have a "Getty" image that they don't have a license for?! Or maybe the image was free, but now isn't?!

Are they finding these by searching through exif data? You could look at a the image they were referring to and see what's in the exif.

Myself, I have a script I wrote that monitors abusive traffic and either flags or bans the i.p. Aparently picscout ignores robots.txt files. I have a directory listed in the robots file that only has one file in it. This one file when visited adds the i.o. to the ban database automatically.

You could use something like this, although I'm not sure of the affect on performance if your site is really busy.

Oh, and if you block the wayback machine...

amanda11 · 10-02-2008, 07:26 PM

You show them who's the man, Subigo!

micfire · 10-03-2008, 04:18 AM

I find PicScout's Image Tracker quite fascinating if it actually does what it promises. For instance how can it match a picture if it has been resized, reshaped and recolored. And what's the error margin... I don't believe it can work very reliably so if you just modify your stolen pictures, you are pretty much safe. Basically it would have to match shapes in the picture and measure unique ratios between edges etc. But that still sounds like you would get a million false alerts per one generic image.

kblessinggr · 10-03-2008, 02:48 PM

Getty has also been a major pain in the ass for photographer's selling their work thru their service.

For example, there was a photographer who shot such and such image. A magazine pays for this image for use in their publications.

The photographer being proud that he was yet again published in another magazine decides to scan the page out of the magazine (ie: traditionally known as a 'tear' as we would literally tear the sheet out of the magazine and paste it into our book, or frame it) and post it online as part of his online portfolio.

Well Getty (keeping in mind this is this guy's own image, but sold thru getty to the magazine for their use), sends a letter demanding a takedown and payment from the photographer for unauthorized use of the image because the magazine had not paid for web-use and as such his usage of the scan on the web was copyright infrindgement and so forth. they didn't even bother to talk to the magazine just went straight after their supplier, ie: the photographer, that owned the image.

While it is completely legal to get a magazine, tear the sheet out and put it into a book. The act of scanning and posting online in itself puts a tricky twist to the whole copyright issue especially when it comes to Getty.

Getty also owns istockphoto.com so the same image could appear on both services, so what happens when you purchase the image from istockphoto.com for 5$ but getty claims its the image from the getty account as part of a 500$ CD package. Seems like they're so out-of-sync, and most of the time I don't think they can actually enforce their own claims. And feel they can scare people into settling (Remember the RIAA people, not a single conviction/suit was won in their favor, cuz everyone either ignored their threats or settled).

They don't even pay as good anymore since the surge of microstock sites shot up (great for designers though... provided you don't get accused of infringement, or try to go unique on an ad campaign, like how Met Life and Viagra ended up using the same ad cover one month :P cuz they went cheap and paid 5$ for an image on istock).

kblessinggr · 10-03-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nachoninja

picscout

I think they actually have a major client agreement with digimarc.

kblessinggr · 10-03-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micfire

I find PicScout's Image Tracker quite fascinating if it actually does what it promises. For instance how can it match a picture if it has been resized, reshaped and recolored. And what's the error margin... I don't believe it can work very reliably so if you just modify your stolen pictures, you are pretty much safe. Basically it would have to match shapes in the picture and measure unique ratios between edges etc. But that still sounds like you would get a million false alerts per one generic image.

:P It'll be much easier to do now with Photoshop CS4's content-aware resizing: (ie: resizing the aspect ratio, while it automatically rearranges and resizes the content within to appear natural).

Sonny Forelli · 10-30-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarveyJ

People, just because a domain can have whois guard means you're protected.

If you want to make sure they can't get to you personally, buy domains with a pre-purchased, disposable credit card, and do it from an internet cafe.

Any of the domains I want to use for dodgy crap, I do that with.
No link back to me, unless they're investigations department is so good that they track the time in which the credit card itself was purchased, and where from, and then go get the security footage from that 7-11.

anything like that should be done by driving to a residential neighborhood- and poaching open wifi access so it'll track back to some 70 year old grandmother in suburbia

jakecohen · 10-30-2008, 10:44 PM

Here's a letter a posted a few places. Feel free to send it to GettyImages and where ever else you can. I've got amazing hate letter writing skillz, I know

Quote:

FUCK GETTYIMAGES!
You have and are increasingly losing the respect of the entire community of web developers sending them letters asking them for $1000 to upwards $20,000 for a tiny image. Are you serious? We web developers who have gotten sent your threatening letters without even a C&D are going to ruin you. Do you understand my words?
GettyImages, you are extremely stupid starting this scam and now it is going to bite you in the rear and destroy the foundation of your company.
Although you may have thought it would be an easy way to get cash, the tide is roaring and more and more people are learning about your awful ways of doing business. You are basically making people hate your site, and I for one applaud your stupidity.
I honestly can’t believe how idiotic you are and I guarantee that you will not exist for much longer and that your profits will slowly and then more rapidly dive.
NOW LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION…!
Was it worth it to collect a few million from this scam but ruin the respect of your brand and company. Was it worth it to send thousands of potential and existing clients away with a stupid stunt that will flush away any users who once liked you.
NO, IT WASN’T WORTH IT. But you know what? It’s too late know and because of it your company is going to die miserably!

10-01-2008, 12:41 PM	#51 (permalink)
Mahzkrieg Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 402 iTrader: 1 / 100%	It's literally a scare tactic. The only difference between this and me arbitrarily claiming that you owe me $1,000 is that they MAY take you to court if you are a serious infringer (like, selling their images). Take the image down or modify it and claim it as any copyright exception (i can type out an explanation if you want). Most of all, do not correspond with them for the same reason you don't correspond with a Nigerian scammer. Don't let them know that they made contact with you. It's bait and quite literally the foundation of their business model. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

10-01-2008, 03:19 PM	#52 (permalink)
Edwin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 332 iTrader: 6 / 100%	How do they identify the images in the first place? In a automated fashion that is. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

10-01-2008, 03:27 PM	#54 (permalink)
Edwin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 332 iTrader: 6 / 100%	Thanks! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

10-01-2008, 04:48 PM	#55 (permalink)
subigo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Internetland Posts: 3,787 iTrader: 15 / 100%	I just found the e-mail they sent me after I told them to fuck off. I replied to this one with "fuck off" as well and they never bothered to write back: Thank you for your email. However, we're not clear on which C&D letter you so poignantly make reference to below. If you could provide a case reference number or Case ID, we can try to help you understand the basis of our claim that we may have against your company or client. We take serious objection to the offensive language you use in your last email. We are willing to help you understand our position and assist you with any questions you may have, but sending the kinds of emails as you have below is never productive. We encourage you to reconsider your negativity and invite you to work with us to figure out a solution to a problem that appears to be bothering you. Best regards, License Compliance Team Getty Images Just goes to show that they not only use these scare tactics, they can't even keep track of who they send them to. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ ZenSix Hosting - Shared hosting plans for $4.99/year.

10-02-2008, 07:26 PM	#57 (permalink)
amanda11 Hustle hard Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,441 iTrader: 0 / 0%	You show them who's the man, Subigo! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

10-03-2008, 04:18 AM	#58 (permalink)
micfire Spämmed Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 951 iTrader: 1 / 100%	I find PicScout's Image Tracker quite fascinating if it actually does what it promises. For instance how can it match a picture if it has been resized, reshaped and recolored. And what's the error margin... I don't believe it can work very reliably so if you just modify your stolen pictures, you are pretty much safe. Basically it would have to match shapes in the picture and measure unique ratios between edges etc. But that still sounds like you would get a million false alerts per one generic image. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

10-03-2008, 02:48 PM	#59 (permalink)
kblessinggr PedoBeard Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: G.R., Michigan Posts: 5,774 iTrader: 26 / 96%	Getty has also been a major pain in the ass for photographer's selling their work thru their service. For example, there was a photographer who shot such and such image. A magazine pays for this image for use in their publications. The photographer being proud that he was yet again published in another magazine decides to scan the page out of the magazine (ie: traditionally known as a 'tear' as we would literally tear the sheet out of the magazine and paste it into our book, or frame it) and post it online as part of his online portfolio. Well Getty (keeping in mind this is this guy's own image, but sold thru getty to the magazine for their use), sends a letter demanding a takedown and payment from the photographer for unauthorized use of the image because the magazine had not paid for web-use and as such his usage of the scan on the web was copyright infrindgement and so forth. they didn't even bother to talk to the magazine just went straight after their supplier, ie: the photographer, that owned the image. While it is completely legal to get a magazine, tear the sheet out and put it into a book. The act of scanning and posting online in itself puts a tricky twist to the whole copyright issue especially when it comes to Getty. Getty also owns istockphoto.com so the same image could appear on both services, so what happens when you purchase the image from istockphoto.com for 5$ but getty claims its the image from the getty account as part of a 500$ CD package. Seems like they're so out-of-sync, and most of the time I don't think they can actually enforce their own claims. And feel they can scare people into settling (Remember the RIAA people, not a single conviction/suit was won in their favor, cuz everyone either ignored their threats or settled). They don't even pay as good anymore since the surge of microstock sites shot up (great for designers though... provided you don't get accused of infringement, or try to go unique on an ad campaign, like how Met Life and Viagra ended up using the same ad cover one month :P cuz they went cheap and paid 5$ for an image on istock). Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ Twitter Facebook Blog IonVz - Managed VPS (starting at 34.99/month) and Shared (39.99/year) hosting. Directadmin only $10(non-recurring/one-time). We manage Nginx webservers. Why Nginx? I can Fix, Slice, Configure or Install your Site/Server

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode