How they find you

[AZRealtor]

I'm just so happy to have found this forum and hope I can get some assistance with my particular situation.  But, I also want to contribute.

How does Getty find the offending photos?  I wondered about that in view of the fact that probably the majority of photos have been renamed, have been altered, have no ID# that matches the ID# Getty provides, etc.  I doubt very much that they have spiders or robots of their own that can find obscure photos based on the criteria above.  Impossible.  I doubt they employ people to randomly look at websites alphabetically.  How then?

It came to me that it was only after I began purchasing photos from them, that I came under their guns.  I've also read some anecdotal posts around the internet that others had noticed something similar.  That, having bought photos from Getty, suddenly they were attacked.  I tend to believe that.  After all, only people who own, manage, create websites buy photos.  And so, Getty (or, as I've read they claim here, a "third party") gets specific identifying via tracking cookies, IP tracking, referring IP, to find out where the purchased photos are going, and start looking around their members' websites or websites their members design, etc., for unlicensed photos. And, they find them, apparently.

The only problem with this is that they are violating their own Privacy Policy which very clearly outlines what they can and cannot do with information that they collect on members, mostly limited to offering you more photos to buy, incentives, specials, OR tailoring ads aimed at you according to what preferences they've discovered you may have based on your web habits at the time you visit their site.  What it does NOT permit them to do is give your personal information to a third party, or permit their own employees to use it in ways OTHER than as set forth in their Privacy Policy.

So, they are not permitted to use the information they collect on you to go snooping.  Definitely not.  I am convinced that they're doing this.  I have no idea how this information could be used in The Crusade, but attorneys are very good at thinking through systems and finding something worth pursuing.

[Oscar Michelen]

My understanding is that the program they use, Picscout, scours the web looking for websites that contain digital images.. Using complicated and elaborate algorithms, they then compare the image to the Getty catalog until they find a match. That match is sent to Getty which then uses the data to print out their form demand letters.

[Statik]

FYI, I just emailed PicScout to ask if they offer a free or inexpensive, self-scan service that would allow a web developer to scan their own website voluntarily, and remove infringing images, without PicScout reporting back to the copyright holder. I'm awaiting a response.

Rod

[Oscar Michelen]

Good luck with that! Keep us posted.

[Lettered]

Statik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FYI, I just emailed PicScout to ask if they offer
> a free or inexpensive, self-scan service that
> would allow a web developer to scan their own
> website voluntarily, and remove infringing images,
> without PicScout reporting back to the copyright
> holder. I'm awaiting a response.
>
> Rod


Their site talks about a beta product that might be functionally similar to what you are talking about.  It looks like a Firefox addon that supllies copyright info on images showing up in your browser as you browse the net.  Thats what it looks like from the description to me.  Personally I dont have enough confidence in their company to install their software on my machine (I would be always be wondering what the software is REALLY doing).  I also have no way of knowing if Getty allows them to use their images in the database associated with this product. Info here:

http://www.picscout.com/solutions/image-exchange-addon.html

As for me, I continue to take the easy and cheap way out.  I invested in a good camera and now take my own pictures.

I score it:
Canon 2
Getty 1
Pro Photographers 0
Consumer 0

(at least Getty isnt at top)

[Oscar Michelen]

As always, Lettered, great info.  We have long been advocating taking your own photos for your sites.  Even hiring a professional photographer to take some shots for you (get a release as to the ownership) is cheaper than facing these claims or having to worry about it.

[Statik]

Here is the response:

Rod:
Thank you for your interest in PicScout. In regards to your following question of do we offer a "service that allows a website to be scanned voluntarily, without reporting to the copyright holders...". At this time we do not offer that type of service. Our focus right now is using our image recognition technology to make sure "Every Image Gets Its Credit" where we can inform users, buyers at the point of experience who owns or is the licensor of the image(s). I would be glad to discuss those services with you.

Please let me know and we can schedule a call.

Thank you again for contacting PicScout.

Jeff Downey, Director of Sales
PicScout

Ph. 415-508-3697
Email: jeff.downey@picscout.com



Jeff Downey
Director, Sales
& Business Development
PicScout, Ltd.
"Every Image Gets Its Credit"

Cell +1 312-735-6681 O +1 415-874-3222 jeff.downey@picscout.com

And then I replied:

Thank you for your response.
 
I am not in the position to invest in your services at this time. My primary motive in contacting you is to discover a service like your own that allows current website owners who may have copyright infringing images on their websites without their knowledge to discover and correct these issues quickly. I'm sure you are aware that many of your advertised clients are contacting website owners with infringing images on their sites with invoices for the use of those images. The trouble with this is that many website owners had no knowledge that the images were infringing. They purchased image collections, purchased or used free web templates or contracted the design of their websites. Many of those took pains to ensure that their designs were not infringing only to find out that their proofs had been falsified.
 
I see a empty market for you to apply your technology to. Presently there is no method for website owners to independently verify that their websites contain infringing images. Even if they attempt to search the Internet for full images, the chances of them finding a modified image, possibly copyrighted with anyone of the major image sources, let alone the numerous independent photographers, is basically impossible. So there are a large number of website owners with possibly infringing images who have no way to find out if they have them or not. Their only options are to remove the entire unverified design, which may be perfectly legal, or hope that picscout doesn't visit them.
 
I realize that your company's revenues from such a service might not reach the magnitude of your 'take' from your client company's 'invoices', but your public perception might improve. This is also good for the artists. Individuals who want to ensure "Every Image Gets Its Credit" can discover which images belong where, who to give credit to and who to support. They also have the choice of which images to use. Some owners, given the choice, would not be using images that are infringing. However, they don't have that choice. They were told they aren't infringing, but then they find out differently. I'm sure that many legitimate business people would be glad to pay a reasonable fee to have an existing, or a proposed, website scanned by your service.Then they have the option of approaching the image rights holder to license the image, or removing the image.
 
I'm asking you to seriously consider the benefits to both your company, and the general populace of offering such a service.
 
Sincerely,
 
Rod Naugler

Not sure if we'll gain anything, but I'm sure we'll gain nothing if we don't try.

Rod

[Matthew Chan]

And to add to what Oscar said, using government photos is also a good option.  Having said that, the stock photo industry has been so menacing that even knowledgeable folks like Oscar and I won't use stock photos unless it is under extreme circumstances.  I have since invested in my own nice camera and I use creativity to make shots work.  Or to use a custom-designed graphic in lieu of a photo.

The thing is the stock photo industry probably won't get it until it is way too late.

MatthewC

Oscar Michelen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As always, Lettered, great info.  We have long
> been advocating taking your own photos for your
> sites.  Even hiring a professional photographer to
> take some shots for you (get a release as to the
> ownership) is cheaper than facing these claims or
> having to worry about it.