Got Nancy Monsons' e-mail reply. How much is court?

[jbigfoot]

Greg, always glad to see a fellow Ohioan prevail! I read a good portion of your journey. I'm still going to have to think this one through. Whatever I decide, I'm sure it will involve letting others know about GI's tactics.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Glad to see you will join in the fight.  Please keep us posted as to what you decide and how it goes.

[jbigfoot]

Will do.

I thought about this all weekend. I kept feeling like there was something I was missing...something so obvious it's right in front of me. Then it finally hit me: the picture GI licenses is a sleeping polar bear and the image they busted me on is that sleeping polar bear with two added penguin characters. So...how do I know that the person who added those penguins didn't own the rights to the original picture and have the right to distribute it?

[jbigfoot]

BTW, I recall reading in a post that somebody was working on buying Getty Images. What is this company that would want to buy a basket of rattlesnakes?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Pic-Scout can detect even a small portion of an image even if items are added, removed or just a tiny portion of a picture is taken and used in another picture.

Getty was sold to the Carlyle Group last year.

[jbigfoot]

Pic-Scout can detect even a small portion of an image even if items are added, removed or just a tiny portion of a picture is taken and used in another picture.

I did a TinEye search and got over a thousand hits on my wayward image, in several derivatives. I find it ironic that the one image that DIDN'T come up was the original Geeezer photo upon which mine is based!

I replied to Nancy's letter, challenging their right to ownership, speculating that the person who added the penguins and cymbals perhaps purchased the original licensed picture.

Getty was sold to the Carlyle Group last year.
[/quote]

Has there been any sign that they're going to change these policies?

BTW, I found Nancy's profile on Facebook. She doesn't have any pictures posted but I found a couple of shots of what could be her female blood relatives. Not bad looking! Maybe I'll ask her out after this is settled.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I think you should share Nancy's profile link, she deserves any attention we can give her!

[jbigfoot]

I think you should share Nancy's profile link, she deserves any attention we can give her!

https://www.facebook.com/nancy.monson.98

Note that she makes mention of the Seattle weather.

Got another reply from her today, where she -- nicely and without additional or repeated threats -- explained why Getty owns the rights to the derivative image. Reading between the lines, it seems that GI is going after commercial sites and giving blog-type sites a pass. Little by little, their business model is becoming clearer.

I've decided to let them drag my ass into court, if this is what they really want to do. I'm building a file showing how this image is being offered as Creative Commons, and in one instance somebody else put their name on it. But none of my searches have found a single mention of the original creator (Wayne Bilenduke) or GI.

[Oscar Michelen]

I really would not engage her anymore than necessary, you will not convince her of the error of her employer's ways.

[jbigfoot]

I really would not engage her anymore than necessary, you will not convince her of the error of her employer's ways.

I'm not. I have no intention of contacting her (or harassing her) on FB or anywhere else. I'll keep this in the ring.

Some people call it 'divine justice' and others call it 'karma'. Either way, it has a way of sneaking up on you.