Hacker blog discussing picscout.

[lucia]

The following post discusses  a response to a Getty Letter from a blogger who keeps track of his logs and looks at them:

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/627-A-Victory-for-Fair-Use.html

It appears picscout may be using user agents like
http://ops.picscout.com/QcApp/Classification/Index/371842247

So, blocking 'picscout' in .htaccess or some other way would be wise.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

very well written post, and well played on his part.

[stinger]

Great find Lucia.  This guy's approach is the ideal resource for a "How to deal with Getty's Trolling Activities" post or even the basis for a book or white paper on the subject.

[fighting_masterfile]

Love what he did!  Lots of great information to be had there

[lucia]

stinger,
Bear in mind that worked for him because his use was fair use.  His position was very strong. Also, he does understand copyright law and knew who to reach out to.

People who did violate copyright in someway need to understand they aren't as well positioned as he was. 

One of the difficulty with Getty Letter recipients is that people getting letters fall in a huge range going from those who didn't even copy to some who really were violating both in spirit and practice. Sometimes the latter don't really understand copyright-- but they did violate.  The legal issue in those cases tend to be: How much would a judge award? Often not enough to make it worth Getty's while to file a case. Will Getty have their ownership/ contractual documents well organized? It appears often they don't have documentation that lets them win a case.  And so on.  Be we all know that sometimes Getty Images does have traceable documentation, and a violator so flagrant no one can get behind him comes along. (Wasn't there a group that made web pages for Veterenarians?)

So: On the one hand, we need people to understand that Getty sends out letters willy-nilly with -- apparently-- little checking. Accusations are sometimes beyond tenuous. On the other hand: some people did violate. How feisty you can be does depends somewhat on how strong or weak their case is.

[stinger]

Lucia, I am not saying that he provides a blanket way for everyone to handle a Getty violation.  I agree that some people are guilty, some are not, some who are guilty will get away with it because it is not worth pursuing, and some who are not guilty will pay Getty out of fear.

What I like is that he exposes how Getty's program works.  Knowing that is the first step to plotting a strategy for how to deal with your particular situation.  Heck, their are many attorneys, who are not in the digital image field but get asked for their opinion of what someone should do with their Getty letter.  This roadmap of how Getty works would be very helpful to these attorneys in discussing potential strategies and options for their clients.

He also exposes the fact that Getty's program is automated and accuses people before humans even look at the case.  Seeing how their program works would make it a lot easier for a judge or bar association to consider that Getty's operation may be tantamount to extortion.  The defense of "I am strongly advocating on behalf of my client (Getty) doesn't really fly when this guy proves that no humans looked at the offense until after they received a response to their troll letter.

[lucia]

What I like is that he exposes how Getty's program works.  Knowing that is the first step to plotting a strategy for how to deal with your particular situation.  Heck, their are many attorneys, who are not in the digital image field but get asked for their opinion of what someone should do with their Getty letter.  This roadmap of how Getty works would be very helpful to these attorneys in discussing potential strategies and options for their clients.

Agreed.

He also exposes the fact that Getty's program is automated and accuses people before humans even look at the case.  Seeing how their program works would make it a lot easier for a judge or bar association to consider that Getty's operation may be tantamount to extortion.  The defense of "I am strongly advocating on behalf of my client (Getty) doesn't really fly when this guy proves that no humans looked at the offense until after they received a response to their troll letter.

I was very happy to see he had server logs and looked at them. I don't store mine for very long, so I couldn't conveniently do that when I got my letter.

I also noticed that his images were hotlinked. I think they were hotlinked from a googleusercontent.whatever account the blogger controls, so Perfect 10 v Amazon (google?) probably wouldn't protect him. But I can't help wondering if the bot still doesn't examine where the images are hosted.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

He did a great job, this was a great find Lucia!

[Oscar Michelen]

Lucia Great find and your comments in your subsequent posts are well-stated. This model will not work for all but it certainly sets out a gret deal of info.