Getty's may have a solution but probably not interested in using it.

[Northcon5]

I am brand new to this forum - wish I found it earlier but I had a thought which may have been discussed earlier but here we go.

I have been told that Getty's uses bots to troll sites looking for their images. (and)
These trolls can find images with missing file/ownership info which seems to be the case with the image found on my site.

If the above is true,

Then obviously they have the ability or the technology to end almost all unintentional use of copyrighted images by allowing users to submit an image to be "tested" before using. Or having a voluntary testing of a site or batch of images.

Does this sound feasable or am I missing something? (Other than the reason Getty's wouldn't want to solve this problem)

[lucia]

It's feasible. Tineye already lets you insert a link or upload and image and it tell you what matches at the web.  A fairly similar program could be set up at getty to let people find matches in the getty images collection.   

I don't think it's fair to assume Getty is not interested in this. Picscout, owned by Getty has  created a browser extension that helps those browsing the web find who might own the license to an image. I installed it just to see if it changed the useragent when I browsed (it doesn't). Then I uninstalled because I figure there a good chance it's sort of spyware created to help getty find even more violations!   I haven't fully tested it but you can find it here:
http://www.picscout.com/imageexchange/

[Northcon5]

Thanks - just tried it out and it works pretty good... it did seem to show images that must be embedded within the site or something (I have a joomla site) so I am assuming these are part of the original template as I have never seen them before.

I will still hold somewhat to the idea that Getty's isn't "really" that anxious to solve this issue - the app, while can be used as a tool to check your site, is really being promoted as a way to purchase images and not as a way to ensure your own site is in compliance. As you noted, it may also be a tool for Getty's to flag images to go after.

I am glad to see this technology/software is available though - however I will be removing it promptly - I too don't trust Getty's or anything they are associated with at this point.

[lucia]

Of course they are going to suggest you use it to buy images. They are a business after all; trying to get people to buy their product is fair enough.

You could also use the tools to discover they are for sale at Getty not buy it and look elsewhere.  I'm sure that's not what Getty prefers and you really can't expect them to print ads suggesting you do this. But you could.
 

[Northcon5]

Thank you for stating the obvious. Of course they are a business looking to make money. I'm a free market guy and I have no problem with that. What I am saying is that these Image Sellers could help unintended use of unidentified image files thru this type of software. Instead they send out threatening letters with extortionist tactics. Sorry if I don't share your view of Getty's. I have no problem with companies trying to make a profit but Getty's has made a new industry out of bullying people. Which is why I won't use the software they provide for fear that they would use this against you in a "gotcha" scheme. Sorry if I can't give them the benefit of the doubt.

[lucia]

Sorry if I don't share your view of Getty's

Make no mistake: I do not have a favorable view of Getty's letters. I just don't think it's fair to

Which is why I won't use the software they provide for fear that they would use this against you in a "gotcha" scheme.

As you recall, when I first told you about the software, I told you I had uninstalled because I'm concerned it might report back to Getty and help them find people to whom they will send letters. 

Sorry if I can't give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm merely pointing out that Picscout has created software that could facilitate discovering an images you want to use is contained in a stock-photo companies licensed collection. You could use it that way. I imagine some web theme designers will use it that way. 

Heck, I may eventually install the thing to make sure images aren't in the getty collection should I ever be in a position where I want increase the likelyhood that getty even claims to have a license.  But I don't expect Picscout to write paragraphs explaining how you can use their tool to determine the image is for sale so as to avoid images that are for sale!   You can do this-- bloggers can explain it.  It will be explained!

[Bekka]

I found it most interesting that when I received my letter back in July 2011, we did a search and the image in question did not show up on Masterfile's site.  However, since correspondence back and forth, it now does.  It seems to me that some stock photo companies may block these image finders from their own sites, thus creating a more lucrative pool of potential "letter receivers."  These images should show up on the respective sites that sell or license them, but a lot do not.

[SoylentGreen]

This reminds me of the movie "Minority Report" and the "Department of Precrime".

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2007/08/precrime.jpg

There used to be a spoof "Precrime" website.  When you went there, you'd hear a bunch of little kids say, "Get PreCrime!!  It Works!!"

Lol.

S.G.

[lucia]

Bekka--
That may be. Also, if I remember the ads correctly, Picscouts business plan is to distribute the browser add-ons for free. But they charge stock photo companies to include their images in the pool the browser add-on will list.  So, we would end up with this situation:

* Company A takes out a contract with picscout. They pay picscout $$. You install the add-on, browse around looking for images. You find it at "free wallpapers.com".  You discover company A sells the license to theimage image. You still like it-- so you pay for a license. Company A makes money; you are ok on the copyright issue.

* Company B does not take out a contract  with picscout. They pay picscout 0.  You install the add-on,you install the add-on, browse around looking for images. You find it at "free wallpapers.com".Now, even though you look at the tool, you do not discover company B sells the license. You do...what? Anyway, company B does not make money on the license. Maybe you use the image-- maybe you don't.

But generally, unless one has a gripe with company A, buying a license and paying for it could be a very wise course of action. If you don't like company A, look around and find someone who sells a license for a reasonable fee.  Then keep evidence of your license.

I think in the longer term  licenses for these things are going to be had rather inexpensively. Very few images are sufficiently distinctive to induce people to pay $800 / year for a rights managed image. Lots of people want nice $20 images  to use in blog templates, storefronts etc.. 

[Bekka]

I agree.  The only images in my opinion that someone would "lease" for a specific time would be "once in a lifetime shots," such as 9-11, moon landing, etc.  The photo that was on my site put there by a third party was a girl on the phone.  It is as generic as they come.  MF has it as rights managed and leases it for around $700 to $1100 depending on time and size.  I would love to see how many people have actually paid for that one! 

[Bekka]

S.G.

Too funny!  You know what they say, "nice guys finish last."  Actually that should be the new logo for the US Senate.  Look at all the years they have been doing "insider trading."  They sent Martha Stewart to prison for doing the same thing.  If voting to stop insider trading within the senate is not an admission of guilt, I don't know what is?  They should all be serving prison sentences!  No wonder these crooks support the new business model of the stock photo industry.
 
Thanks for sharing.
Bekka