How can you tell if you have Getty Images on your site?

[gotlemons]

Hi Everyone,

I'm new to the forum. I'm actually coming here because a friend has been sent a Getty letter. I curious to know how someone could tell if they have a Getty image on their site? Is there such a tool out there to "test" the images?

I'd actually like to be proactive about this and remove any that may be present.

D

[stinger]

Since Getty doesn't put any identifying information or watermarks in their images, one can never be entirely sure.  Even if you did web searches on every image on your site and found no connections to Getty, that does not mean that Getty won't sign an agreement a month down the road with a photographer and then come after you for your past use.

Your best bet is to use only images you have a license for (that you can produce on demand) or images you have taken yourself.

[lucia]

I think the question is: How can you tell without self reporting to Getty.

One way that's likely to help you discover many (if not all) getty images is to install Picscout (Getty's) image exchange. http://picscout.com/imageexchange/home If you download this free add on, you can browse every page of your site it will load your images and compares images on your site to the ones in picscout customers catalogs.  When operating properly, the add on opens a sidebar and loads the image in the sidbar. It's a little slow-- but you can step through your site this way.

I don't know if every or even most of the images in Getty's catalog are detectable using this agent, but you can at least find the ones that can be detected by the Picscout agent. Then you can take them down.

The obvious flaw with this method is that if you do it, we don't know whether Getty will then send a human out to look at your site.  The other obvious flaw is that you don't know what happens if a getty image is detected but it's not participating in getty's 'imageshare' program. Maybe Getty records that but doesn't show it in your sidebar.

(BTW: some of the false positives are hilarious!)   

I would advise that if you use this too, you do it at a time when you can very quickly remove any true positives from your site and remove them right away.  By right away, I mean: if you find on on "page X", remove it before checking "page X+1". Also, block access to the wayback before you do this. 

This is a bit paranoid, but we don't know what Picscout/Getty is going to do with information.

After you check your site, and remove any suspicious images you find, I advise de-activating the add on. No point in helping Picscout/Getty find more violations at other people's site.  Well... I guess unless there is no point unless someone is a  super-mega enemy you hope to have Getty pester; but even then surfing through their site isn't guaranteed to get Getty after them. And it's not very nice. (Also, having the tool active makes surfing slower. So, it's silly to keep it on when you aren't actively using it.)

By the way, I'd be happy to provide people with images that result in hilarious false positives.

[lucia]

hmmm... I activated the add on and used it at getty images. On many pages I get nothing.

My idea that you could find GettyImages images using the tool seems sub-optimal. I'm sure you can find some-- but clearly not all or even most!

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

This is totally the Getty Image "style." They say, "Here's a tool that you can use to discover if images on your site are represented by Getty Images." And then the tool doesn't work for most images.

I actually see this as a potential defense for an extortion letter victim. Here's how: A letter recipient could use the tool to run through his or her site. If it doesn't report any matches (or at least the images that Getty claims are theirs) they could then point out that the very tool Getty provides did not discover the images. It's not copyright abandonment, but it does appear that images are made available as "honeypot" traps to generate more extortion letter victims.

I would be very interested to learn if a current letter recipient gets a PicScout match for an image in question.

[SoylentGreen]

Good point by McFilms.
If their application says that you're "clean", that could be a problem for Getty.
Of course, there's probably verbage in the license agreement that says that Getty's not responsible for false results.

Anyway, I admire those who had the guts to install this malware turd.
I'd set up a sandbox and try it... but that seems like a lot of work.

S.G.

[lucia]

I installed so I look at my user logs after using it.  I got a few people to visit:
http://theknittingfiend.com/unban/unbanRequest.php

The images are auto-generated and have new titles each time. If someone with IP1 visits with the agent installed the following happens:

* I see the hits to IP1 for the page and each image.
* Immediately after, I see hits from a consistent IP range (the IP≠IP1). These show no  user agent and no referrer (and should be blocked from looking at images. )


72.26.211.157 - - [14/Jun/2012:08:26:38 -0700] "GET /unban/CaptchaSecurityImages.php?decrypt=1&code=PZs4Pd5KhokEPFHw9TdedaxgtBLi4ejeZD3IXlIThBM%3D&now=1339687596&angle=10 HTTP/1.1" 200 4506 "-" "-"

What this suggests is that the browser detects that an image loaded, the URL is sent back to Picscout, then Picscout comes and loads the images, analyszes it, and then sends images that "match".  (Some matches are hilarious.)    Given this pattern, for now, you can block Picscout by blocking things from the IP range and also by blocking things that leave no referrer and no user agent.

Everything should leave a user agent. Seriously!  Providing no user agent probably lets Picscout avoid two things they don't want to do. These are  lying (i.e. spoofing or giving a fake user agent) or leaving a referrer that says "I'm picscout".  I think you have suggested the former may be illegal.  In contrast saying "I'm picscout" would be legal, but easy to block.  I don't let things visit with blank user agents.  Everything visiting is using an agent of some sort. Tell me or you can't visit! 

Of course ,they may eventually change what they do.  It's also possible that even now they do additional things-- like have the browser send the image to them somehow. But right now, it looks like the add on sends the url of the image, not the image itself.

[Moe Hacken]

False positives could be amusing unless they generate real extortion letters that cause heart attacks and suicidal episodes.

False positives could be a very strong form of defense. If I were taken to court based on PicScout's "evidence", I would subpoena their little fannies for every benchmark they have regarding the accuracy of their hackbots. Why does everyone accept PicScout's "evidence" as fact without any challenge? All kinds of technological trapping devices have been challenged. Radar guns and stoplight cameras come to mind from what I've seen in the state of California.

Not to mention the very real civil rights question about illegal search and seizure of the evidence without probable cause.

This has been discussed before and I'm frankly frustrated that PicScout continues to get a free pass even in this community.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Picscout gets no free pass from me!, they were hammering my boxes on a continual basis, thus stealing and sucking my bandwidth, and disguising the user-agent to boot, If i did this and rummaged thru getty's server and got caught, they would certainly come after me...I strongly suggest to go to any lenghts to block them, even if it means contacting your web host, just tell them to look at the logs, if they care about their business, then take measures to prevent picscout from getting in.

[lucia]

Moe--
Picscout doesn't get a pass from me either.

But the false positive issue merely shows that Picscout needs to send a human. I don't think anyone has gotten a letter with the sort of hilarious false positive's I've seen. I'd take a screen shot and show you, but that requires taking a screenshot that includes the actual RM or RF images, and I don't want the hassle of getty arriving if I display those. I know I *might* be able to argue fair use since the purpose would be precisely to show how the imagesearch tool works... but I don't want to go to court just to show you what I mean. 

[Moe Hacken]

I understand Lucia. If you post a screenshot, "fair use" would only work as a defense. It's really not worth that much trouble to make your point, and I believe you anyway.

The way I see it, PicScout is similar to a digital gill net. Someone has to go through and make sure anything they pick up is worth going after. We've discussed the considerations that appear to take place in the troll meeting rooms. For example, going after people or businesses that fall into a fiscal "sweet spot" — not too small so they can pay, not too big so they won't be inclined to fight back. Surely the results they get from PicScout are carefully vetted and "risk-analyzed" to get maximum returns for minimum effort on their part.

My problem with PicScout is the same problem I have with Google's StreetView spying. It's an intrusion and an invasion of privacy. I understand that at this time the law does not prohibit either practice. What I'm saying is that the law needs to change to protect us from this kind of aggressive, intrusive and in the case of PicScout, even damaging surveillance.

The "blame-the-victim" argument doesn't work for me. Of course it's dumb to have an open wireless network running out of your house. It's also dumb to leave your car on the curb with the keys in the ignition and to offer giant "comp images" without as much as a watermark, but the law still protects your property in either of those cases.

How much effort should the property owner be responsible for when it comes to protecting their property and not relying on the power of the state to do so after the infringement has occurred? You're having to spend lots of time figuring out how to block these attacks and we all know you're hardly a newbie at this game.

[Oscar Michelen]

To respond to gotlemons' original question, the best answer IMO was posted by stinger. Keep a record of the images you purchase for you website; only buy images from reputable sources that will provide you with a written license or receipt;; only use the images in the way that they were licensed; use only images you take yourself. All of the foregoing should keep you Getty-Letter-free.