Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - brianjclark

Pages: [1] 2
1
The Bezeq International IPs now appear to start "192."   

That's a nice touch to anyone thinking that's ur local internal network (192.168 etc etc.)

2
Over time there seems to be a gradual trickle of bots poking about. Some tell the truth and say who they are while others quite clearly try to cover their tracks and make out they are Mozilla browsers. I have looked up the IPs to some of there and they resolve to things that quite clearly are not browsers, as there are no ways to link to the "booby traps" on my sites with a normal browser.

Remains an interesting subject!

## Banned IPs
Deny from 220.181.108.158
# baiduspider-220-181-108-158.crawl.baidu.com

Deny from 94.242.198.110
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko Firefox/11.0)
# on 2013-07-03 (Wed) 02:38:11 IP: 94.242.198.110 (static-198-110.softronics.ch)

Deny from 27.45.240.84
# Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729))
# on 2013-07-03 (Wed) 06:33:30 IP: 27.45.240.84 (27.45.240.84) <-- China Unicom Guangdong Province Network

Deny from 27.45.240.82
# Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729))
# on 2013-07-07 (Sun) 12:45:13 IP: 27.45.240.82 (27.45.240.82) <-- China Unicom Guangdong Province Network

Deny from 175.42.90.137
# Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729))
# on 2013-07-09 (Tue) 06:29:28 IP: 175.42.90.137 (175.42.90.137) <-- China Unicom Fujian Province Network

Deny from 76.94.95.83
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0)
# on 2013-07-11 (Thu) 18:52:09 IP: 76.94.95.83 (cpe-76-94-95-83.socal.res.rr.com) <-- Road Runner / Time Warner Cable

Deny from 183.234.49.109
# Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729))
# on 2013-07-13 (Sat) 09:59:59 IP: 183.234.49.109 (183.234.49.109) <-- China Mobile communications corporation

Deny from 14.211.88.3
# Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729))
# on 2013-07-13 (Sat) 14:32:40 IP: 14.211.88.3 (14.211.88.3) <-- CHINANET Guangdong province network

Deny from 50.19.165.99
# Agent: Test Spider 0.2)
# on 2013-07-14 (Sun) 01:25:24 IP: 50.19.165.99 (ec2-50-19-165-99.compute-1.amazonaws.com)

Deny from 188.143.234.127
# Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1))
# on 2013-07-08 (Mon) 13:29:20 IP: 188.143.234.127 (188.143.234.127) <-- ToussaintDesaulniers-net

Deny from 192.114.71.13
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0)
# on 2013-07-10 (Wed) 17:40:51 IP: 192.114.71.13 (bzq-114-71-13.static.bezeqint.net) <-- Bastards

Deny from 89.75.96.207
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/27.0.1453.94 Safari/537.36)
# on 2013-07-11 (Thu) 08:39:09 IP: 89.75.96.207 (89-75-96-207.dynamic.chello.pl) <-- PL-UPC-20060222 in Warsaw

Deny from 5.10.83.73
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; AhrefsBot/5.0; +http://ahrefs.com/robot/))
# on 2013-07-14 (Sun) 05:41:12 IP: 5.10.83.73 (5.10.83.73-static.reverse.softlayer.com) <-- Ahrefs Pte Ltd Singapore

Deny from 188.143.234.127
# Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1))
# on 2013-07-08 (Mon) 13:29:20 IP: 188.143.234.127 (188.143.234.127)<-- ToussaintDesaulniers-net

Deny from 192.114.71.13
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0)
# on 2013-07-10 (Wed) 17:40:51 IP: 192.114.71.13 (bzq-114-71-13.static.bezeqint.net)  <-- Bastards

Deny from 89.75.96.207
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/27.0.1453.94 Safari/537.36)
# on 2013-07-11 (Thu) 08:39:09 IP: 89.75.96.207 (89-75-96-207.dynamic.chello.pl) <-- PL-UPC-20060222 in Warsaw

Deny from 5.10.83.73
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; AhrefsBot/5.0; +http://ahrefs.com/robot/))
# on 2013-07-14 (Sun) 05:41:12 IP: 5.10.83.73 (5.10.83.73-static.reverse.softlayer.com) <-- Ahrefs Pte Ltd Singapore

Deny from 37.59.202.77
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0.1)
# on 2013-07-07 (Sun) 14:08:04 IP: 37.59.202.77 (37.59.202.77) <-- Str Miron Costin, Brasov, France

Deny from 207.189.121.44
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100721 Firefox/3.6.8)
# on 2013-07-08 (Mon) 01:31:17 IP: 207.189.121.44 (207.189.121.44) <-- VIAWEST-NETBLOCK-207.189.96.0/19

Deny from 5.135.47.74
# Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.0b7pre) Gecko/20100921 Firefox/4.0b7pre)
# on 2013-07-08 (Mon) 11:00:01 IP: 5.135.47.74 (5.135.47.74) <-- 2 rue Kellermann, France

--- end ---

3
Like most things, that $20 million is an investment. I wonder how long they plan to recoup that?

I guess only they will know the "numbers" but its interesting to speculate.

4
Don't forget if they have sent you a snapshot of your website showing the image, they have also infringed your copyright for content, design and layout.

Now that's a copyright infringement and I'd bet you could prove how much they benefitted from it! (exactly the amount they are trying to extort). I'm sure everybodys terms and conditions state no copying, storage, reproduction or exploitation for gain!

So you are dragged over hot coals for an image accidentally obtained by mistake but they purposefully and with full intent and flagrancy took a copy of your website and infringed it.

Oh my days!

Snapshots, screen captures and like would NOT constitute copyright infringement, and I would noteven go there and mention this, it's been discussed many times in the forums..

I have been through quite a lot of the forums but haven't yet found the ones you specifically mention - the forums have become quite extensive and I'm only just on the scene!

I'm guessing you are meaning this comes under fair use. Did you mean any more by "I would not even go there". Are you foreseeing pitfalls in even mentioning it?

5
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Image used was part of our Portfolio
« on: July 02, 2013, 06:38:53 PM »
I would expect them to claim it is, as you "stand to make money or benefit from it".

They will probably also pursue the customer of yours as well claiming he is benefiting from it too.

If its any consolation, I just think of that pine tree shaped air freshener they got sued over.  Poetic justice...

6
Hmm I have just read some blogs that say TinEye has been known to report back its findings to PicScout. Wonder if they are using one and the same image back end to do the comparison!?

I don't suppose there are too many places you would want to store the results of 2.9 billion image comparisons! lol . Must be huge!

7
Getty Images Letter Forum / Website Infringement
« on: June 30, 2013, 07:25:57 PM »
Does anybody know the legal standpoint on Getty sending a COPY of your website to you printed out. Is that not copying and distribution of copyright material, or have they created a little get out clause somewhere?

:?

8
No comment = no copyright. whoops :)

9
Well it did resolve back to Google, but maybe they were going by what the robot.txt said a few hours ago. I can understand they might want to cache it etc.

"The IP 66.249.75.237 (crawl-66-249-75-237.googlebot.com) has been blocked for an invalid access attempt to a file, directory, or a scanning attempt."

I think I can let them off maybe once or twice and take them back out of my block list ;)

10
There is a good bit on this forum about using your htaccess and basically saying to the bots "don't go to these areas please". If they ignore your warning you ban them!

http://forums.eukhost.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=87709

Just applied it to all my sites plus the little addition of emailing me when one is banned. Within 20 seconds of putting it in place, blinkin Googlebot came along, completely disregarded the robots.txt file and got itself banned. Well there ya go :(

11
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A friend of ELI
« on: June 29, 2013, 08:13:49 PM »
As DvG is a photographer could I ask if there are any precautions that photographers can take to help identify images as to their owners etc.

Without wanting to make it sound like its the photographers fault, because its not, a lot of the trouble seems to be an image has no "address" of where it has come from or "id" or "catalogue" number that tells you who owns it. I can accept that someone must own it - even if its Public Domain or Creative Commons, but there seems no way to absolutely guarantee a source?!

It seems to always end up a them against us battle on here with photographers on one side and web developers on the other. Photographers are pissed off because they are losing out on income and web developers just want to know who they should pay?  If you knew an image cost $600 before you bought it you might decide not to. You might decide its the best image you've ever seen and pay $1000 but without knowing its part of a catalogue and who owns it you can't make that informed decision.

Maybe Google/Yahoo and the like should build in a cross check of known libraries and stock then label the result as such. Then nobody would be able to claim they didn't know, everyone would get money that was deserved and we'd never get another illegal, threatening letter.

Or am I missing the point and this is all generating too much revenue for images that wouldn't have sold anyway because the price was too high?

:/ hmmm

12
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: A friend of ELI
« on: June 29, 2013, 07:59:42 PM »
Now is it just me or does 25k for six photographs sound a damn good hourly rate?!

I know photography isn't about getting up early one morning, driving out somewhere and taking a couple of pot-shots at the passing wildlife, but maybe we should all put cameras on our Christmas list :|


13
How have they not been shut down yet?! Are the "establishments" making that much money out of them they leave them alone?

Blimey it really does sound like racketeering, protection and underhand dealings :)

14
A photographer that isn't on the fringe and is honest. See they do exist lol.

Anyway I've just found a great little addon for Firefox called TinEye, there is also a site at www.tineye.com and basically it lets you check an image to see where else it appears on the internet. That way you can see if an image you picked up really is part of someones collection or really is PD/CCommons etc.

Well at least you have a better idea of its status this way. The firefox extention lets you hover over a picture and check it.

I just stuck a typical file in and it popped back with.

"Searched over 2.9892 billion images in 0.008 seconds." and the results. So thats one tool against getting sued/copyright theft. Because really we are looking to avoid both!


15
Just emailed him mine and also John Baron MP. Just in case the "not in my constituency" card makes a difference :)

Pages: [1] 2
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.