Too all webmasters, do you recall this Getty traffic source?

[holysmokes]

I was looking in my google analytics and found this:

gettyunauth.application.gettywan.com / referral

1 visit so far, with no duration of time on my site.

I responded professionally to their first letter almost 3 weeks ago and have yet to hear anything on their end (mail, phone call, or spying wise) until today.

I wonder if this is an automated bot or someone 'human' from Getty going to my site.

ps...

Whats even more odd -- a referral only counts when someone clicks on 'my domain link' from a different website. How would I get a referral visitor from Getty if my site is no where posted on theirs?

Could it be two employees emailing each other with my url in it?

If you copy paste gettywan.com into the search bar it redirects to gettyimages.com

[holysmokes]

Yup,
looks like someone is emailing someone else about my site:

----

Here is what I found:

Gettywan.net is a domain controlled by three domain name servers at gettyimages.com. Two of them are on the same IP network. The primary name server is dns01.gettyimages.com. Incoming mail for gettywan.net is handled by one mail server also at gettyimages.com. We are missing the IP:s of one server: gettymail.gettyimages.com. gettywan.net has one IP number (216.169.248.35) , but no corresponding reverse pointer.

Getty1.net point to the same IP and also shares both name servers and mail servers. Imagebank.com, redferns.com, gettyimageslabs.net, energyfilm.net, fpgdirect.com and at least 27 other hosts point to the same IP and also shares name servers. Getteyone.com, getty.nl, michaelochsarchives.com, getty1.org, gettyimages.hu and at least one other host point to the same IP and also shares mail servers. Gettyimages.se, rights-ready.net, gettyimages.my, getyone.com, photodisk.ch and at least 124 other hosts point to the same IP. Picturequest.com, phototoday.com, blish.com, photobjects.net, fabulous-footage.com and at least 200 other hosts share name servers with this domain. Aerialfilm.com, farmstock.com, powerfootage.com, commercestock.com, thebestphotography.com and at least 200 other hosts share name servers under another name with this domain. Reportagebygettyimages.com, viewimages.com and gettyimages.com.au share mail servers with this domain.

----

Looks like my response letter may be in the works

[SoylentGreen]

All interesting info...

Just a minor addition, the "WAN" in "gettywan.com" probably refers to "Wide Area Network".

S.G.

[holysmokes]

Just received an email from Nancy @ Getty Images.

Second letter (email) is still demanding the fee, and says If I am unwilling to settle they reserve the right to pursue copyright infringement damages in court, which will included a much more substantial amount.

I have about 2 weeks from today to settle.

I will be sending my second letter sometime in the mail this week after finals...

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

This is just me, but I'm not keen of the idea of them sending letters via email ( or in any fashion actually) I would promptly add gettyimages.com to my blocked sender list and let the stuff bounce back to them...again this is just me..let them at least pay for friggin postage...

[SoylentGreen]

I'd have a hard time taking this very seriously if the method of communication is email.
Is Getty sending so many letters that they've decided to increase profits by saving postage..?

If the recipient doesn't respond to an email, Getty would have no proof that the intended recipient ever got the mail.  You'd have, "plausible denial".
Web servers often don't send a notice saying that a mail is undeliverable these days; there's no way for the sender to prove that the recipient received an email.

I wonder if they're using email because they do not know the home or business address of the alleged infringer?
If this is the case, you might consider "laying low" so to speak.
If they have no proof of where you reside, it would be difficult for them to make you "officially aware" of further developments.
If you're already difficult to find, you may also decide to return any letter mail from Getty as "undeliverable", and refuse courier/registered mail deliveries from Getty.

S.G.

[holysmokes]

Well,
Their original settlement letter was mailed to me via postage. I replied back by mailing them a letter.

The reply to my letter was via email.

I have marked it as spam, not sure if its the same as blocking so that they get an undeliverable reply.

I respectfully asked for a hand-written reply in my original reply letter since I took the time to write one myself. Seems they aren't taking it serious, they basically went to my website and went to the contact page!

I find it really disrespectful because the email on the contact page was sent to everyone in charge of reading them (its a customer support email). That's ridiculous!

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

This is one area I slightly disagree with the majority. I don't think you should have to lay low or hide. Trust me, if they want to find your mailing address, they can. I think you should choose to communicate in the manner you prefer. I choose e-mail because it was easier for me. I requested that they acknowledge receipt of my e-mail. I figured as long as I kept engaging the lawyer I was racking up their billable hours. Maybe it wouldn't break the stock company, but it would put more of a ding in their pocketbook then a stamp.

I also think it is a worthwhile pursuit to continue to require documentation, letters, request information, question facts -- all while ignoring their arbitrary "deadlines." These deadlines are basically meaningless anyway. But as long as you keep the issue in play (even when you get a severe "Final Notice") you can always say that you were making an effort to negotiate. Let them be the one's to stop communicating.

And by the way, marking an email as spam from your email client will not "bounce' it in the way that a blocked IP would anyway. But why should you have to spend time blocking them anyway? It all seems counter productive to me.

Anyway that's my measly 2ΒΆ.

[holysmokes]

I will reply asking for all documentation pertaining to the images rights and their 'business formula' used to assess penalty fees. They don't even break anything down, they just demand a lump sum off the top of their head.

Has anyone found anything about the photographers? I tried really hard to find them so I can write them a personal letter of apology. I would also love to find out if they are away of the situation and if they receive compensation from these 'extractions.'

[lucia]

I ran across something that could leave gettywan.com referrers when googling about the GettyImage issue.  This used to exist:
http://gettyunauth.application.gettywan.com/CaseView.aspx
(I'm getting no server errors now.)

I can't recall for sure, but I think it used to return a page the way this one now does:

https://stock.picscout.com/monitoring/getty/login.aspx

It may be that getty or picscout have tools that let authors surf themselves. I don't know what IP would be left in server logs with this.

I've been collecting together a list of good practices and I've been writing a script to automate implementation for people.  In the meantime, people who want to do things manually could try these four things:

http://rankexploits.com/protect/2011/12/four-steps-to-slow-down-image-scrapers/

Step 4 would be the one that would block the gettywan referrer because it contains 'getty'.  Unfortunately, after writing I realized I'm not entirely sure step 4 works.  I think it works but I need to figure out how to spoof referrers so I can verify. 

If you know how to edit or create an .htaccess file, the first step is quick and very useful.  It impedes crawling through images. It doesn't prevent it because the crawler could find other ways to crawl, but it impedes it. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Thanks for sharing this Lucia as well as your post, some good pointers there, perhaps a bit technical for some of the basic DIY's, but nothing their hosts can't help them with..

[lucia]

buddhapi
I'm partly writing to keep track of what I find.  I intend to write script that helps people implement things simply and also let them tailor things for their site.

[SoylentGreen]

Thanks, McFilms for your well-thought out comments.
I actually think that the majority would, in fact agree with you.

My thinking is based on considering all options, and doing everything possible to make it difficult for a troll to "harass" or "collect".
Some folks have blogs wherein their only contact info is an email, and I personally wouldn't answer a troll email.
In any case, I've found that troll emails go directly into the spam bin ("the pay or else" part probably triggers that).

While it's probably true that resources could be mustered that would ferret out almost anybody, even the likes of Getty couldn't be bothered to expend much effort to "find" somebody.
It's too costly and there are so many other softer targets.

Some may say that Getty could add the cost of finding somebody to the "demand", but even a court wouldn't enforce that unless Getty could prove that the person was avoiding them.

If I could avoid this level of harassment by not answering an email, then I wouldn't answer the mail.
Some may recall that an actual lawsuit was emailed to an alleged infringer in a multi-million dollar case; the intended recipient never responded, and it ended there.
But, in 99% of the situations where it's a business, or the writer's name and address are all over their site, I certainly agree with you.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

I think email is appropriate in some situations but if you intend to do legal CYA, not much compares to a good old-fashioned letter on letterhead even if you simply fax it.

Remember, how you present a message speaks to your credibility, not just the message itself.

If I am trying to let people know I am serious about getting a message, I will send mail via Certified Mail much like most law firms would.  However, in many cases, a good faxed letter on letterhead sends a  solid message too.

For email, email is strictly information exchange and not much posturing/positioning/raising peacock tails.  What can I say?  I have to raise my peacock tail once in a great while for greater effect.

Matthew