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.pdfIt 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!
Topic: Review of StopGettyImages.com (Read 10244 times)