Getty and Picscout

[Moe Hacken]

Jerry makes a great point. You could also bring this to Getty's/iStock's attention as well if you choose to contact them. You've been a loyal customer with a history of purchasing their products at their asking price, and this is how they reward you?

Outrageous. 

[stinger]

I agree with Jerry and Moe.  Let them know that straddling two businesses - licensing of photos and trolling - is bad for both.  If they can't decide which business they are in, they SHOULD lose good customers like you.

[SoylentGreen]

Some people have tried that before.
They don't really care if you were a loyal customer or not.
They'll keep coming after you.

I think that ELI's own McFilms was one of their customers.  Perhaps, he'll chime chime in here....

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Yes and SG is absolutely right, they did not care. In particular, the collection agency didn't care. But even the sales representative at IStockPhoto was not motivated to help in the least.

But I am not suggesting that you use this to try and get them off your back. I am saying if all the people that had any business dealings with iStock and/or Getty made it abundantly clear that they would not be doing business with them in the future, it may affect change. Ten people complaining to the sales department won't have much impact. But when it climbs close to 100 people I can just about guarantee that they will at least re-evaluate their business.

I just had another client this week that kept talking about getting their footage from iStock. I explained what happened to me, showed them some public domain resources, and told them if they wanted to license microstock they should use a company that doesn't threaten to sue their customers, like Pond5.com.

[cloVSgetty]

Some update.

After searching our website, we realize that there is a file name : dev, that was used when the site was build and there it is (the image getty complain about), but this site was hidden.  The purpose was to test it before it went live.  When we decide to go live, we did not then use this image, instead, we bought all images from istockphoto and then put the site on air.  Is it possible that picscout grab the image from the dev file ??  Should we erase this file (dev) ?

Well, as the action we will take, after taking to a lawyer in Montreal, Quebec.  She advised to first write to NCS IP Solution, asking them firmly to stop writing or communicating with us.  There is a law here in Quebec, saying that if you do not have your enterprise on quebec ground or a permit you are not allow to ask for any amount of money.  This letter will also say that we will be in contact only with Getty images and if they do not respect that, it will be consider harassment.

Then to write to Getty Image, with a copy of letter address to NCS IP solution. As for the content, she advise to be polite and less is the better. I am writing this letter which basically give the chronological events, then says that we are very unhappy the way they treat the situation, that we provided the proof they ask for, that instead of replying to us, they send us NCS IP solution.  I also write that I know now that Istockphoto pertain to getty and that we found this is a strange way to treat their customers, that we should not do any other business with them in the future. I also mention : why buy all images but one ?  As a small enterprise, their accusations cost me time, money and stress.  That with this letter, we consider the matter closed. Also, we value our reputation and if we should defend it, we will do so.

Any feed back, thanks,

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Picscout rummages thru every directory on your server, unless the directory is password protected, everything in their eyes is fair game..you could try to tell them to show you a way that the public could access this image thru the navigation on the site, but they will probably have some lame excuse...

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

This kind of thing is what I was asking about referring to in your previous thread when I was asking about the possibility of a placeholder image being used before the site went live. It looks like that this is what this may be.

If it were me I would remove the image and let Getty know that this was a placeholder image left by the developer before the site went live and has never been viewed by anyone so there are no damages. I would remind them that their CEO Mr. Klein has publicly stated on video that he is fine with people taking and using their images up to the point that they are actually used to make money. Since this is a placeholder image and was never live no one ever saw it nor was it ever used for your business. I would basically tell Getty that they can pound sand. Again this is just my opinion and you must decide what's best for you.

I have a question, in the screen capture along with the date, was this about the time that your website was being developed or went live? If so this may have been a placeholder image before your website even went live and that's what this is a picture of. I'm not sure if this applies to your situation but I'm just trying to think of ways that Getty might have a screen capture of an image that has never been on your website. I know that a few others have stated that the image they received a letter over was for a placeholder image on a website that had not gone live yet.

This is an interesting case and please keep us posted as to what happens with it.