Screengrabs lack of credibility??

[maccaz]

I haven't been unlucky enough to receive a letter yet but I have done the stupid thing of using images from google images over a year ago ( the site was up 3 months before i realised my stupidity, the images have been down 10 months now and no letter )

Anyway, I was thinking the other day about this. Using firebug (web develpoment tool on firefox) you can change the content the colours, text size, sometimes content and also images on already live sites. So if a case reached court could the evidence of the screengrab really be seen to be legitimate if some one can change the look of the site and then take a screengrab? Just a thought…

Some basic tutorials on firebug:



http://www.ostraining.com/blog/coding/firebug-logos/

or just google 'replacing an image using firebug'

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

That could potentially throw a wrench into the works, I use firebug and it never even dawned on me that this could be used as part of a defense..

[Mulligan]

Shoot, using DreamWeaver I could phony up a screenshot to show a picture of my arse on Getty Images' home page. It would take about five minutes to do.

This is one reason I think the acceptance of one of Getty's and PicScount's fuzzy screenshots as proof of infringement that would hold up in court is problematic at best. 

[maccaz]

Definitely on to something here. Why should they be believed over you, when they are the ones breaching robots.txt files in most cases to gain access to a site and then take a screenshot which could easily be manipulated

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It would be upon the plaintiff to be able to prove, a simple demonstration to the judge, showing how easy it is would most likely make him think about it..thus weakening their case even more.

[Lettered]

This comes up in various forms here from time to time. I have to say that I disagree.  If it made it to court, I think you would undoubtedly be asked under oath at some point if indeed the picture in question was displayed on your website.  I'm pretty sure you can't plead the 5th since you wouldn't be admitting an actual crime.  So that leaves you with how comfortable you would be perjuring yourself in federal court.  Personally I wouldn't dream of doing it.  Nor would I recommend anyone else doing it. 
I know that no one is suggesting perjury ... and I don't think anyone here really would consider it (I hope), which is why I don't think there is much help from the strategy of insisting that they provide another form of proof besides the screenshot.  All they have to do is ask you under oath, and that is thier proof.
Their are too many other good defenses to use to waste time with this one IMO.

[SoylentGreen]

I wouldn't be too surprised if some "faked screen shots" came up at some point, from some copyright troll.
Look at Riddick; it has been reported several times that he was faking things; say that his image was used when it wasn't the same image, fake letters from lawyers, etc.
In the case of Getty and their ilk, there's probably quite a few actual infringements found daily.
They wouldn't have to even think of having to fake it.

It would be interesting if one could show on an Internet archive that the image in question wasn't on the alleged infringer's site, thereby showing that a screenshot was faked.
That would be one way of proving it.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Lettered has a very good point.. What it really boils down to, is not "if" there was an infringement, because in most cases by the letter of the law there probably has been, the real item in question is the amount they seek, how they come to this amount, and the methods by which they attempt to collect this amount.. I purchased my images, and had a license, if Getty had said to me, well we now own these images, please pay us a reasonable amount, I may have considered it at the time, just to make them go away, but there was no way in hell I was paying what they were asking for , for something I already purchased years prior.

BTW, it's not a good idea to ever lie /fib / stretch a story to a judge, trust me don't ever do it..

[SoylentGreen]

I quite agree with everyone here that lying about anything is a bad idea.
Most judges are quite experienced, and can ferret out the truth.

S.G.

[maccaz]

Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't suggesting that anybody lies in court at all.

It was more of a technique to make them provide more proof that you used it. Anything to make them work harder. I just think a grainy black and white screengrab isn't much evidence when it's easily forged. The same way 'they could' plant images on free screensaver sites etc and wait for you to use it and 2 years later WHAM you have a letter. We have seen this happen so between planted images and easily forged screengrabs, wouldn't most judges see through them?

But I do feel as some of the other trolls are entering the scene that they may stoop to the level of 'planting' images using firebug on very busy blogs where people lose track of the images used, changed etc. All it takes is some vulnerable person to convince themselves they used it a year ago and they have hit the jackpot

[lucia]

I think the fact that screenshots are easily faked is a good reason why people who receive getty letters should avoid volunteering information to Getty. By the same token, going forward it would be unwise to strongly rely on the assumption that all getty has is a screenshot. Getty may have used a third party archive (e.t. webcitens) to archive the page.  Even if they didn't get an archive like wecitens to archive in the past, they may now. 

[Mulligan]

I wouldn't want to try to build a defense solely on whether or not a Getty screenshot constitutes proof of infringement, but I would like to see the inner workings of the PicScout/Getty relationship thoroughly revealed.

Along the same line, what would happen if...

Getty presented in court their screenshot of page X showing image Y on Joe's website in March of 2011.

Joe then turns on his lap top and surfs to archive.org and shows the court page X of his website in March of 2011 and image Y is not there.

Does this constitute reasonable doubt that the image was ever on Joe's website at all?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

the inner working of the picscout /getty relationship are pretty clear, Getty owns them both! IT's troll feeding trolls, who then feed copyright attorney trolls, and collection agency trolls...

[lucia]

Joe then turns on his lap top and surfs to archive.org and shows the court page X of his website in March of 2011 and image Y is not there.

Does this constitute reasonable doubt that the image was ever on Joe's website at all?

If a third party archive not under Joe's control had archived Joe's  and their archive shows the image is not on the pages of Joe's site at the time Getty claims it was there I would think a judge would rule generally rule against Getty.  But your going to have to show the html does not have a link to an image that currently is not appearing because it happens to have been yanked.  The wayback archives html-- so that's what matters.

In court, Getty is going to have to show html anyway. Otherwise they can't demonstrate the image was hosted by the person they are suing.  Rulings in the US have deemed hotlinking not copyright violations. (This could change because the rulings aren't at the Supreme Court-- but the 9th court ruling says hotlinking is not a copyright violation.  So, Getty is going to have to make a case the image was hosted-- and that requires showing html. The screenshot is insufficient.)

[Lettered]

. . . Otherwise they can't demonstrate the image was hosted by the person they are suing . . .

I think that this would be easily accomplished by asking that person under oath (deposition or trial). In most cases where infringing pictures were used in a website design, anyway.  You might have a few that honestly don't know, but  even then, I think an "I don't know" answer would raise a few eyebrows to say the least.  If it was indeed hotlinked and you know it, thats another story . . . in which case I think it would become important that Getty could not prove otherwise.