Hi all,
I've been lurking around here for quite some time reading all the good info here. Anyway, it seems to me that ELI and Getty are in an arms race of sorts. As some people have recently posted quite a bit, Getty seems to be using satellite or secondary companies to keep the heat off the parent company (Picscout and their address gives them away) since it has had a lot of bad publicity and their settlement demand/extortion campaign seems to only keep going or has ramped up (darkest before dawn?). It reminds me of the show Whale Wars in how the Japanese whaling fleet (Getty) tried to keep the Sea Shepherds (ELI) away from the factory vessel so their campaign isn't shut down. The general public can be likened to the whales.
Plus, even though they want the payment sent to Seattle WA (their HQ address), the return address on the physical copy of the letter came from NY and the postage was paid in Wichita KS. That strikes me as weird. Not sure about similar stories about that...
What strikes me as odd is there are predatory pay-to-publish companies that behave this way with having a parent company and secondary and satellite companies that rip off independent authors as well as readers for overpricing books but they try to keep the heat off the parent company. Which isn't illegal either, but it's wrong. So that makes me wonder about the way Getty et al treats their photographers, and do they rip them off too?
I've recently been hit on my personal blog by Aurora Images which is or is owned by or is Getty images just recently (June 30 for the email--they had been sniffing about since January and February) despite I try my best to respect the law and have never had a problem in the past (like so many others). I know I don't have anything to worry about from what I have learned. The image was hotlinked (no copy = no infringement), it is used for fair use (an educational article about the epic failures in schools to deal with bullying--oh the irony) as it was a thumbnail with a caption about FAILURE, and it isn't the exact same image. The original and the derivative (I didn't create or copy) are in the public domain, and there are multiple derivatives. The one I hotlinked to is even found on Facebook. I took it down despite it all. Well maybe Aurora needs to send an extortion letter to Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg while they're at it. I found all that in about 5 minutes without a multi-million dollar Skynet and terminator factory at my disposal (like other mere mortals have already done here).
I've only received one notice so far. If they send a second (which they probably will) I will take more action. I won't tell the details as I know Getty and their minions reads these forums.
I know it's all BS and I have a plan of action, but it still pisses me off. I plan on writing a blog series soon on a different blog about all this copyright racket to do my part in spreading the word and tell other people about ELI.
What is particularly interesting about Aurora Photos as to say like iStock or Getty, Aurora doesn't give you pricing information for any of it images unless you sign up for an account (so they have your information), and it doesn't matter if it is royalty free or rights managed. They want your to sign up for you to even access any info whatsoever about the photographs. Everywhere else the photo is (and it's on 700 other sites) it is free and Aurora won't give you their price and it's not even the same thing I was hotlinked to. Similar photos range from $50 to $2. So the FMV is around $35. They want $610 for a free picture in the public domain which they probably snatched and stuck it on their RM (which it is now) section so they could go on their jihad. Something stinks.
Topic: Getty's Change in Tactics (Read 6912 times)