ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on July 17, 2012, 10:39:53 PM
-
Just thought everyone would like to know there is a brand-new website focused on "stopping" Getty Images: StopGettyImages.com. It was formed on June 23, 2012. Almost exactly 4 years after ELI was launched on June 20, 2008.
The person who launched the website has done so anonymously and largely recommends many of the ideas developed and spearheaded by ELI. There are some nuggets which deviate from ELI recommendations.
SGI (StopGettyImages.com) website and recommendations differ from ELI in a few ways.
1. SGI is a bit more pleasing to the eye with its graphics and images use. Nice touch. It is obviously focused on Getty Images exclusively while ELI has evolved to take on the much broader stock photo industry and other copyright extortionists like Linda Ellis.
2. SGI recommends complaining to King County District Attorney Dan Satterberg. Obviously, that is a very localized complaint and directed to someone who primarily deals with criminal matters, not civil matters (which is what copyright infringements primarily are). I don't think this will be particular effective because that office is not obligated to publicize complaints it receives but if you have gone through the effort of writing a complaint to the Washington State Bar and the Attorney General's office, it is a simple matter of making an additional photocopy and paying extra postage to send the complaint.
http://www.stopgettyimages.com/send_getty_images_complaint_to_district_attorney.htm
3. SGI recommends complaining to the BBB. I have mixed feelings of the BBB as they are largely staffed by powerless and spineless employees whose primary interest is in collecting membership fees. I would use the BBB as a free option but I don't have a lot of respect for the organization. But it can't hurt. I certainly wouldn't endorse or recommend them. Getting their stamp of approval means nothing to me. They have everyone brainwashed that having their logo on your website and storefront is a big deal. I don't think it is. Old-fashion integrity, transparency, authenticity, and straight talk goes a long way in the physical and online world. Not once has Oscar or I even considered getting the BBB's stamp of approval.
4. There is a form letter response both an eform version and PDF version.
http://fs8.formsite.com/gettyimages/form1/index.html
http://www.stopgettyimages.com/Getty%20Online%20Response.pdf
The letter is written using more technical and legal jargon than I recommend or prefer. The problem I see is that form letters don't really carry a lot of gravitas and anyone with some degree of insight can see through most form letters. They are used as a lazy way to deal with a problem. The threat and consequences towards the end of the letter is a nice touch ONLY if the person sending the letter can actually carry through on the threats. I don't believe in making threats that you cannot carry through because your credibility is shot if you can't follow through on it.
Many people have adopted the response letter I wrote from 4 years ago but Getty mocks those who use my letter as a basis simply because people copy many of my phrases and sentences verbatim. That isn't too smart or originatl. I don't really care if they do copy my words and sentences but it makes the person who explicitly copy my words and sentences look like idiots in front of the Getty collection clerks and shows that the person responding really don't have it in them to write something they actually mean. My circumstances and situation cannot possibly match up exactly to another letter recipients. Hence, copying words and sentences without the same context sounds odd and out of place.
I don't believe using a form letter will stop them. I do believe writing an original response letter with some teeth will.
5. It's too bad that the person who created the website has not identified themselves. But that person has done more than most other people by putting together and organizing helpful information. Everyone serves in their own way.
6. I wondered if SGI would acknowledge ELI in anyway and they have in one instance. I am quoted on the effectiveness of the ELI-developed strategy of attacking Timothy McCormack and the change that we caused without using courts and the legal system.
http://www.stopgettyimages.com/attorney_timothy_b_mccormack.htm
7. I am not really convinced that you can really "stop" Getty Images or any other stock photo extortion business from sending the letters unless you take very aggressive, non-legal measures. However, I do believe you can make a strong stand and be done with the matter even without their approval. I don't believe in asking for approval. You do your research, state your position, cover your bases, and then make your stand. If you do that effectively, they MIGHT stop.
SGI is obviously a very young website with a slightly different view on things. It appears to want to help serve the public at large. I believe it has been influenced by ELI's presence and the information found on the ELI Forums. But that's ok. You can never have too many websites fighting copyright extortionists. It will be interesting to see how SGI evolves going forward.
I would be interested in getting everyone's reactions to SGI.
-
Interesting info and analysis.
Whomever created it definitely did lots of research on ELI; I recognize many themes and conclusions.
I think that projects like this are cathartic to some; it's a method of taking back some power.
S.G.
-
The person who launched the website has done so anonymously and largely recommends many of the ideas developed and spearheaded by ELI. There are some nuggets which deviate from ELI recommendations.
Based on the reading and the adorable animal pictures and references, I'd bet that this person is a veterinarian. Agree, there are some deviations with regard to ELI.
SGI is a bit more pleasing to the eye with its graphics and images use. Nice touch. It is obviously focused on Getty Images exclusively while ELI has evolved to take on the much broader stock photo industry and other copyright extortionists like Linda Ellis.
Agree, I personally like the graphics and images used as well as the nice touch regarding the animals. Easy navigating and reading.
I don't believe using a form letter will stop them. I do believe writing an original response letter with some teeth will.
Totally agree with regard to not using a form letter.
But that person has done more than most other people by putting together and organizing helpful information. Everyone serves in their own way.
Agree with this too. "Everyone serves in their own way". The more info out there the better in my opinion.
I wondered if SGI would acknowledge ELI in anyway and they have in one instance. I am quoted on the effectiveness of the ELI-developed strategy of attacking Timothy McCormack and the change that we caused without using courts and the legal system.
http://www.stopgettyimages.com/attorney_timothy_b_mccormack.htm
I thought this was a nice touch "image" included.
I am not really convinced that you can really "stop" Getty Images or any other stock photo extortion business from sending the letters unless you take very aggressive, non-legal measures. However, I do believe you can make a strong stand and be done with the matter even without their approval. I don't believe in asking for approval. You do your research, state your position, cover your bases, and then make your stand. If you do that effectively, they MIGHT stop.
TOTALLY agree on this one!
SGI is obviously a very young website with a slightly different view on things. It appears to want to help serve the public at large. I believe it has been influenced by ELI's presence and the information found on the ELI Forums. But that's ok. You can never have too many websites fighting copyright extortionists. It will be interesting to see how SGI evolves going forward.
Personally, I think this is nice complement to ELI and all its contributors.
-
I forgot to mention that I chuckled at the "Timothy McCormack" button.
Guess that his momma can finally be proud of him.
S.G.
-
"A Pubic Information Site Where You Can Take Action To Stop"
I suppose they meant "Public"...
-
"A Pubic Information Site Where You Can Take Action To Stop"
I suppose they meant "Public"...
LOL!!!!!! Good catch PuzzleGuy!
;D ;D
-
"pubic"? lol.
http://www.justsaypictures.com/images/pubic-hare-1nba.jpg
S.G.
-
The background image could be found in several free wallpaper websites. At least it's not a picture of Hawaii. :P
I would advise them to be careful with any image they use on their website, since Getty would love to catch them in the act. I guess the watermark images are not real Getty catalog images.
The design is very user-friendly for an information site. A forum is a bit different and that's why most of them are rather austere in appearance.
The action links are a great idea. Having them on the sidebar as "sticky" items is good too. They're literally putting the tools at their visitors' fingertips as they tell them how and why they should use them.
I think it's nicely done in general, but the specific comments made in this thread are all valid. Especially the one about the pubic information site.
Matthew, did they ask to use your quote at the bottom of this page?
http://www.stopgettyimages.com/attorney_timothy_b_mccormack.htm
Whether they did or not, they sure took a page from your book there. Imitation is definitely a form of flattery.
-
I took the website as a compliment to the ELI Community.
It is either cathartic or a form of payback. Or it might be their response to "holes" not well filled or met with ELI.
As the ringleader of ELI, I have certainly gone through many stages of "emotions" as to its purpose of existence. I must admit it has been a nice way to vent and get payback while getting paid and gaining some notoriety along the way.
Interesting info and analysis.
Whomever created it definitely did lots of research on ELI; I recognize many themes and conclusions.
I think that projects like this are cathartic to some; it's a method of taking back some power.
S.G.
-
I wasn't asked but I generally don't mind as long as people don't misquote me or quote me in a way that is out of context.
The quote seemed to be respectful and entirely in context of what it was used for. Given this, I am fine with it.
Matthew, did they ask to use your quote at the bottom of this page?
http://www.stopgettyimages.com/attorney_timothy_b_mccormack.htm
Whether they did or not, they sure took a page from your book there. Imitation is definitely a form of flattery.
-
Just a few things to add here, that have not been addressed.
I can say with certainty that Peeved was very close in her vet assumption. I can't say the owner is a vet , but I can say that the owner develops web-sites for vets.
I have a list of names, domain and emails, but will not post them publicly..
I suspect the creator of this site is not concerned with the use of the images, as they would probably be covered by fair use, by having the pubic service statement, and it is clear this is not a commercial site, bundle that with the fact the domain is registered in Switzerland, would make it difficult at best for getty to pursue him/her. As you recall the domain righthaven.com was auctioned off and now live in the same country simply because of their laws regarding copyright..
All in all I think a good amount of the info was gleaned from ELI in one way shape or form, but it is nice to see another site pop up dealing with Getty.
-
That's exactly what I was thinking Matt and Robert. Let a thousand sites sail. The more information out there about extortionist practices and trolling the better. I only wish this web developer would participate on here too. Would be nice to get more back-and-forth and link building going.
Good catch on the "pubic" typo. Hope they fix that soon. SG's Hare pic was the funniest, cringe-worthy pic I've seen all week.
-
Well since you mentioned it Jerry, I'll put out a little teaser...there will be yet another site coming soon, that will be supportive of ELI, complete with lots of link backs. ELI will continue to be at the forefront of "information" and discussion, as this new site will mainly focus on generating content in the way of naming and shaming...within reason naturally, cause I'm a reasonable kinda guy..Hopefully by weeks end there will be a follow up thread to this, and I hope the ELI community will assist in this endeavor.
That's exactly what I was thinking Matt and Robert. Let a thousand sites sail. The more information out there about extortionist practices and trolling the better. I only wish this web developer would participate on here too. Would be nice to get more back-and-forth and link building going.
Good catch on the "pubic" typo. Hope they fix that soon. SG's Hare pic was the funniest, cringe-worthy pic I've seen all week.
-
I find that it's interesting that the site references "TinEye" and not Picscout.
S.G.
-
As did I, I'll venture to guess that will change when his servers start getting hammered by that friggin bad bot.
I find that it's interesting that the site references "TinEye" and not Picscout.
S.G.
-
I assumed TinEye because it's a free service the average Joe may have stumbled upon. Not much chance of that with Picscout
-
I did find it interesting that there's no mention of PicScout, only TinEye. Maybe this was how the "evidence" was gathered for the infringement they were accused of, or maybe Getty is trying to hide the PicScout hand and pretend a human used TinEye to find the infringement. I wish they'd give us more background on their case. Maybe they have, who knows.
I also found it interesting that the image Getty sent the claim for was not shown on the screen capture, as can be seen in the sample letter. Sloppy at best; I would call this plain incompetence on Getty's part. See the sample here:
http://www.stopgettyimages.com/Getty%20Images%20Report%20Data.pdf
It may have even been a "false positive" that TinEye or PicScout incorrectly flagged as an example of infringement, followed up by robotic humans sending form letters and emails.
This makes the letter seem more like a scam or a joke than a legitimate claim.
Not that it's a legitimate claim anyway, but one would think Getty would be trying to do a better job of making their extortion letter come off as frightening instead of silly.
If this was a false positive, they need to work on proofreading and quality control. Who the heck's reading these before they go out? Look alive people, you're about to get a new boss!
-
I don't think that there's any "Tineye" conspiracy.
I simply think that the author of the site missed that in his/her research.
"Occam's Razor" and all that.
S.G.
-
I got home late this evening and have been working on another post I was getting ready to make and just checked in. It looks like I've missed a lot today. To the creator of this site I want to say thank you! We need more people to step up and do things like this to help get the word out that Getty is not some all-powerful entity and you can't fight them.
I think the site looks great and I wish the creator much success!