Images from RSS - Getty images letter

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Two thoughts:

1.) If PicScout software is unable too look at the page and provide the URI of the image, it's some pretty craptastic software. But the fact that these letters are going out on sites that use RSS feeds and don't even host the image shows, once again, that the stock companies have little interest in stopping the source of infringement and a great deal of interest in hitting up the individuals and small businesses they suspect are most likely to roll over.

2.) @Dieselfish I just want to remind you that MF has only shared with you the one day they detected the image. But I have read previously that there are usually at least two visits to the site a number of days apart. (I only bring this up so you can double check your assumptions.)

[SoylentGreen]

PicScout makes multiple scans over a few days.
In addition, it appears that a human in the local office of trolls looks at the site manually; this may also happen more than once (I suspect that this may be more automated in some cases these days).
PicScout does accurately record the URL's of the images in question.
I have proof of these facts.

I'm not sure why the URL is "blurry" in the case mentioned here.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

So they know the image is not hosted at the site, yet they send the letter anyway? Presumably they are aware that the site hosting the RSS feed is not responsible for this. Is this not fraud? Don't Lucia and Dieselfish have some recourse?

[dieselfish]

@mcfilms In my case they generated a screenshot of the page containing the image.  The screenshot they sent in the initial letter shows the URL of the page - not the URL of the image.  The image could have been framed in and reside on another server.  From server stats, I can see when they generated the screenshot (a ping from Toronto) though I'm not sure what to look for to see when the software went through.  I remember someone stating in a different post that the ping comes from a country other than the US and Canada.  So... at least in my case, the initial letter only shows the URL of the page containing the image.   

[lucia]

mcfilms

So they know the image is not hosted at the site, yet they send the letter anyway? Presumably they are aware that the site hosting the RSS feed is not responsible for this. Is this not fraud? Don't Lucia and Dieselfish have some recourse?

If they had inspected the html when taking the screen shot which they should do, they would have known.  After I told them it was not hosted on my server, they should have known.  If they understand Perfect 10 says including <img src="http:not_my_domain.com/the_image.jpg"> makes the image visible to a visitor but is not considerd "displaying a copy" under US copyright law and they agree that case would hold up in other circuits,  then I consider what they are doing to be fraud.  I don't know if a judge would agree.   

If it were possible to take them to court over this, it's possible their defense would be to observe the 9th circuit is not the Supreme Court and state their belief that if they were to pursue this to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule otherwise.  Who knows?

dieslefish
@mcfilms In my case they generated a screenshot of the page containing the image.  The screenshot they sent in the initial letter shows the URL of the page - not the URL of the image.

In my case, they provided scaled down screenshot of a portion of the page and the url of the homepage of my site.  Their text did not provide a url of the actual page involved in the dispute.  Had the screenshot not been shrunken down, I might have been able to read the uri in the screenshot, but shrinking the screenshot made it impossible to read the uri.

From server stats, I can see when they generated the screenshot (a ping from Toronto)
Interesting. I'm getting lots of attempts to rapidly load all images at my blog from various places in Toronto. These include servers claiming to be from the Canadian government, and prisons in Canada.   We may need to share IPs.

I'm not sure what to look for to see when the software went through

In principle, the user agent might tell you.  In practice, this can be spoofed and I have reason to believe it is.  But I am seeing odd useragents.  I'd say more but dreamhost is down so I can't check to give examples.

Also, even if you know the useragent, that doesn't necessarily tell you what image they used. I suppose they could look at a page in a browser and then have some other image analysis software might fetch the image from the browser cache. The server wouldn't detect the image analysis software footprint.

[SoylentGreen]

Yes, they send the extortion letter anyway.  I think that many people have paid settlements to the likes of Getty because they don't know much about the law or related issues.  It's sad, really.

It's made quite clear in US law that a Web "hotlink" is not an "infringement".  So it's a valid reason not to pay a claim, and it's also a winning court defense, with valid precedent.

My personal opinion is that while this is indeed fraudulent, it would be difficult to pin it down under "criminal" statutes.
You know, something that one could "call the police" over.

The difficulty with pursuing it in civil court is that it would difficult to show "damages".
While annoying, it's hard to show how one suffered "financially".  Unless you paid, then found out that you needn't have.

What would probably work is a "class action".
That way, it could be shown that there's a formal program in place at Getty that misleads people in to paying (and not just a clerical error).
Several people could submit affidavits as to what occured.  People could also testify that Getty has been made aware if the law on many occasions.
The "damages" would be payments made under false pretences, legal fees incurred, duress and emotional suffering.
Attempted collection activities could also be brought into the mix, which cause plenty of stress and anxiety.

S.G.

[lucia]

mcfilms--
So far, we have mikedrag and me getting letters for hotlinks.  I suspect we aren't the only ones.  Now if we could find a few more people including some who paid, that might be useful.