Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class Action - Here's The Cause of Action

« on: September 21, 2011, 05:27:26 PM »

We have confirmed that Picscout is cloaked or mimics a user. Also suspect that this site and some of its users are employees and agents of the Image Trolls. Things will be heating up shortly.

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class Action - Here's The Cause of Action

« on: September 03, 2011, 01:33:14 PM »

Interesting. I would be very keen in seeing a copy of the image you have, if you still have it. The PicScout Bot is crawling and indexing all the images on a site which are binary or compiled. The typical user can't read or modify these files using an application because they are compiled. The binary contains a signature tag that is text which is then compared to the libraries the troll has on file for the image using basic algorithms. This practice has been going at least since 1992 to "tag" code to prove who owns it - I know because we have been doing it since 1995. The early search engines - Lycos, JumpStation, Alta Vista, Excite, Infoseek, Web Crawler, etc. have been crawling with bots since the early 90s. The major troll put its site online in 2000 and was using this signature file along with copyright notification and later, watermarks (See archive.org). Image hijacking began in 1996-97 so it is plausible that the image you have or had contained a signature. One thing you brought up in another post is also very interesting. If trolls are "concealing" and/or "disguising" their bots as user agents, and not announcing themselves, that is computer fraud and is - criminal. We will dig into this next week. Thanks for the feedback.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Class Action - Here's The Cause of Action

« on: September 03, 2011, 12:11:06 PM »

Yes. That is exactly what they are doing. They could easily include the copyright information, name of troll company, etc. However, they do not. But they do embed the meta-based text ID string so they can find the image later. We feel this incorporates the elements of and violates the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Act of several states. Very nasty for them. If filed, my guess is they would settle very quickly before discovery got too far down the road and exposed them.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A purely hypothetical question

« on: September 03, 2011, 11:59:19 AM »

I will take a look at it next week. We identify and block hundreds of bots and have never seen one that we couldn't identify as such. That doesn't mean it is not possible. There are just so many client-side factors that make it difficult to mask a bot because search engine click fraud software has become very sophisticated due to the class actions against the search engines about six years ago.

5

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A purely hypothetical question

« on: September 02, 2011, 05:42:47 PM »

PicScout bot or any bot can be blocked regardless of the IP address. You have to have Administrator access on Windows or Root on Unix. In any case, you block the bot by user agent and a number of other filters. We do it all the time to control TQ or traffic quality on some of our servers. Might be able to post some generic code but you have to have systems administrators customize it for your particular environment. Problem is if your site is part of a content display network and you are an ad sharing affiliate this works if the bot comes to your site first because it can't "crawl" to the ad. However, if it goes to the ad origin website first it could potentially, depending on timing, end up on your site via the backdoor so to speak.

6

Getty Images Letter Forum / Class Action - Here's The Cause of Action

« on: September 02, 2011, 04:10:34 PM »

Reason no one has taken up a class action yet is because it "appears" Image Copyright Extortionists (ICS) have not broken any laws. However, the technical community who deals with crawlers, bots and the indexing process knows exactly what the ICS are doing. They, for example, allow the search engine(s) bot(s) to crawl and index their images. However, they don't allow it to include the copyright or watermark properties. So the unsuspecting conduct an image search  on a search engine for example of a type of image like houses, babies, etc. The thumbnail images appear in the search engines for example. The unsuspecting don't see a copyright or watermark so they right click it and save the image thinking it is free and in the public domain. Then they upload and use it on their web site. Now, if you look at the thumbnail image properties, you will not see the word "ICS Company Name".."Copyright".."Watermark"... Why? Because it was deliberately omitted, or in other words blocked by the ICS. However, what you will see is a meta-based text ID string that is embedded in the image that "calls" back to an ICS when the ICS bot used to spider the web in search for its images runs across it. Then ICS compiles the list of sites and sends $1200 demand letters where if they just sold the image they generally receive between $10 and $300. ICS could include the copyright text and watermark when crawled by the search engines so those properties displayed, just like they include their meta-based text ID string used to pull a "gotcha"... The cause of action is Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices for a start.....  BTW, we have found the attorneys who are very interested now that we have pointed this out to them......