ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: SoylentGreen on July 04, 2012, 05:56:12 PM
-
Just a small tidbit here. But, it fits in nicely with the recent Picscout herp-a-derp.
"I remembered PicScout and the ImageExhange plug-in and thought that would be a great tool we could use to find copyright infringements. So off I went and loaded my plug-in and just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, it did! Those thieving little scammers at Pinterest have gone and fiddled with their code again, this time to avoid any infringements being picked up by PicScout, which is now owned by Getty."
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/pinterest-getty-picscout-interesting!/
Anyone else heard anything about this?
S.G.
-
That is interesting, thanks for the posting this SG :)
-
Thanks...
Wonder if it's intentional, or just an error on certain platforms?
https://getsatisfaction.com/picscout/topics/image_exchanged_doesnt_work_on_pinterest
S.G.
-
Here's an article about the Pinterest/Getty battle which I find amusing. Even though the article tends to understate Getty's trolling practices, they do throw Getty CEO Jonathan Klein's doublespeak in his face, a topic that was covered on ELI some time ago:
http://www.webpronews.com/the-pinterestgetty-images-battle-2012-06
Those words must taste real good with butthurt hot sauce now that Pinterest is forcing Klein to make good on them.
-
I bet Klein wishes he never gave that interview about now. :) :)
-
The image exchange tools still uses IPs near values like "72.26.211.132" and they continue to leave a blank referrer and user agent. All Pinterest has to do is block connections from that IP range and/or those that leave no user agent.
-
Thanks...
Wonder if it's intentional, or just an error on certain platforms?
https://getsatisfaction.com/picscout/topics/image_exchanged_doesnt_work_on_pinterest
S.G.
S.G., this is quite interesting. I'm not sure why PicScout would be having troubles with ImageExchange trolling Pinterest on different browsers, but there's all kinds of other nuances to this exchange between PicScout and their Image Exchange users.
It seems like the angry copyright birds are getting impatient with PicScout. This one guy wants more and faster results. He doesn't want to click so much to find infringements on Pinterest. I wonder if he intends to hire someone to "scare" the Pinterest grandmas — and make a few bucks at it.
The other articles you linked to also feature a lot of content providers who are clearly angry about flagrant infringement of their property. While I completely sympathize with them, I don't care much for their talk about "scaring" people into compliance. It sounds like they're getting close to the "Carner Complex", whereupon extortion is a valid method of "getting satisfaction" against those they perceive as "image thieves." And, of course, there's money to be made "scaring" people.
I also find most of the claims that people are "making money" from their images to be delusional. Aloha Plastic Surgery clearly didn't make squat from an innocent infringement, yet HAN/VKT are demanding thousands in court. Carner left the forum before telling us how they arrived at the absurd figures they're demanding. I don't think they can show even one example of VKT getting paid so much for his wallpaper stock photos.
I figure they'll have to explain that sometime in the near future — under oath. Can't wait to read about it.
-
Most of these photogs are amateurs or semi-amateurs that want to get on the demand letter bandwagon.
They have this idea that they'll find infringements, write letters, and the checks for $1000 to $2000 dollars will arrive in the mailbox every couple days.
Most of these people will never properly register their work, and without a sales history of the image in question, it's probably a worthless picture.
Also, this is probably the worst possible to to get into trolling. The enormous backlash began a long time ago.
Hell, even if they get a bullshit lawyer like McCormack, people will still tell them to piss off. Get haircut and get a real job.
S.G.
-
Right on, S.G. They're so lazy they won't even right-click for potential victims. ???
They want to set ImageExchange on auto-troll and sit back to wait for checks to come in!
-
ImageExchange doesn't auto-troll. I think those photographers are hoping to do this:
1) Installing the add-on to their browser.
2) Browsing pinterest peronsally.
3) waiting to see if image show up as registered.
4) Maybe manually leaving an obnoxious comment and/or reporting the images to whoever does license those images.
This is very labor intensive. But I guess those photographers are motivated to do it.
Unfortunately for them, evidently add-on isn't reporting which images are managed at Pinterest. It's very easy to block the add-on by IP, hostname or by the fact that it leaves no user agent. I checked by right clicking and that still brings something with the same IP, host name and lack of user agent.
Pinterest may be blocking those sorts of connections. It's very easy to do. (And if the photographers are leaving obnoxious comments, they may be motivated to block for that reason.)
-
ImageExchange doesn't auto-troll.
Not yet! Maybe I shouldn't give them ideas. You know they probably read this forum.
-
Moe--
Picscout does auto troll. But ImageExchange, the browser add-on made by Picscout, does not 'auto-troll'. Bear in mind: Whatever ImageExchange finds is reported back to Picscout. So, Picscout has two ways to "troll":
1) Motivated humans install tool and visit sites. Given the way ImageExchange functions, these people's browsers report back to Picscout and presumably Picscout and do whatever it wants with the information.
2) Picscout sends out its auto-bot.
If you want to block Picscout from your site, you need to both
a) block ImageExchange from working (this is easy) and
b) block the Picscout auto-bot. (This is harder.)
-
Yes, Lucia's correct.
ImageExchange is used manually.
I guess that it's intended as a cheaper solution for individuals.
Picscout is only economical for very large-scale operations consisting of thousands of photos.
I doubt that people will get "ideas" from reading postings here about "ImageExchange". People are already aware of it.
But, I do keep my thoughts to myself as to how people will troll in the near future. lol
S.G.
-
SG--
I don't flatter myself in thinking Picscout, idee or others haven't already thought of ideas I can think of. I suspect that unless google images keeps them off, one of the things they is send their bot to google images. That's what I'd do.
Since I avoid copyright violations, that's ok by me. If they go to google images and look at thumbnails google has cached, they aren't burning my cpu.
That said, some people who don't think they are going to get traffic from google images anyway might want to block the google image bot from their site. This is separate from the ordinary google bot. (Consult an SEO specialist before blocking anything google though!)
-
lucia and S.G., thanks for clarifying the distinction between PicScout auto-trolling for corporations and ImageExchange manual trolling for physical persons.
lucia, thanks to your great advice, I've blocked out ImageExchange and I think I've got PicScout blocked, although I do worry about blocking a larger range than is necessary. I've read that PicScout's ISP will assign them different IP number blocks on request, which makes them a little more squirrelly than average, but I'm willing to adapt to their shape shifting as necessary on principle.
Speaking of principle, the best idea is to avoid copyright violations but we've seen that even using best practices, one can still end up infringing a copyright innocently or by way of a third-party such as Getty or iStock. Then it's up to the copyright owner to be decent about it or attempt to troll for ridiculous money.
By the way, I wouldn't flatter PicScout or anyone else by thinking you, myself or anyone else in this forum can't think of something they haven't thought of. I'm always very impressed with the ideas that this group comes up with.