Author Topic: iStock in strange image ownership controversy (Read 14637 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #25 on:** September 23, 2010, 14:00 »

My instincts tell me to believe Istock over some little-known blogger who names an unsearchable digital artist. Istock have far more to lose if they were to get this sort of thing wrong.

If you were intent on generating bad publicity then I doubt it would take too long to mock up the IP address page. I note the blogger refers to "one of our interns" who apparently discovered the IP issue. Does a blogger who appears to be writing just a few blogs per week really need several 'interns' to assist him?

The image and the port is still for sale and Istock claim to have not received any direct contact from either injured party. Clearly they can't produce any supporting evidence if they simply don't have any.

On the other hand I haven't seen any real evidence from the blogger such as a copy of his receipt, link to the original image or artist, Istock support ticket number, etc, etc.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #26 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:11 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 23, 2010, 09:55

I can't see getting so fired up about the way the replies came when no one seems to have addressed the bigger issue. iStock says they have no record of any request to take down that file. From anyone.

I didn't see that getting an answer from the complainant. And nothing at all coming up in Google is very unusual. So beyond the fact that the blogger says he got in touch with this Mark person, do we know anything about him or his portfolio at all?

Something odd about the whole thing, isn't it? First he writes a blog about a DMCA notice, then claims IS hasn't answered, and then a few people writing from the IS server come to the front, not all positive by the way, and the artist in question appears to be a phantom, but his works are all still on IS for sale? Hey I love a good mystery. Thanks!

In case anyone wants the shortcut to the address 74.113.152.17 ownership, without having to do the searching and typing.

http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=74.113.152.17?showDetails=true&showARIN=fal

Strange covers it just fine.

Edit: for anyone looking for the image, it's 11740680 and still there. Which would make sense if the original artist isn't this Mark person and the story is somehow flawed.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11740680-computer-mouse.php

01-18-10 © ali noubigh

Odd he has this same graphic design in other images of his.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=Browse&Cache=b921cdd7df9022f2bc848702bdf0a7e3&page=2

johngriffin · « **Reply #27 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:48 »

I wrote that comment on that thread bc I thought it was idiotic that they got apparently caught writing posts from the same IP address. What I found to be odd, deceiving and heavy handed was the fact that someone from istocks ip address used fake names and emails to defend istock and got totally BUSTED. hahaha.

I will be interested to see how this story plays out.

gostwyck · « **Reply #28 on:** September 23, 2010, 15:52 »

Quote from: johngriffin on September 23, 2010, 15:48

What I found to be odd, deceiving and heavy handed was the fact that someone from istocks ip address used fake names and emails to defend istock and got totally BUSTED. hahaha.

We don't know that. That info has come from an individual who has yet to post any credible evidence of his claims.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #29 on:** September 23, 2010, 16:01 »

Exactly. It's all starting to look nonsensical. The blogger is remarkably quiet when asked for any details.

loop · « **Reply #30 on:** September 23, 2010, 16:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 23, 2010, 16:01

Exactly. It's all starting to look nonsensical. The blogger is remarkably quiet when asked for any details.

Exactly. His silence speaks volumes.

madelaide · « **Reply #31 on:** September 23, 2010, 16:24 »

I don't really like to take IS's side

, but given all you said (I didn't read all the blog comments), this looks like some trap, maybe some contributor trying a revenge due to the recent changes.

nicolesy · « **Reply #32 on:** September 23, 2010, 19:02 »

In reading that website's disclaimer I'm leaning toward the guy (shoemoney) just trying to drive traffic to his site:

http://www.shoemoney.com/disclaimer/

helix7 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 23, 2010, 21:56 »

Quote from: nicolesy on September 23, 2010, 19:02

In reading that website's disclaimer I'm leaning toward the guy (shoemoney) just trying to drive traffic to his site:

http://www.shoemoney.com/disclaimer/

Wow. Sounds like he'd do anything for a buck. Which in this case shouldn't rule out creating a fictitious story about stolen images and an imaginary artist named Mark.

Microbius · « **Reply #35 on:** September 24, 2010, 02:59 »

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on September 23, 2010, 08:48

The part of this that is really bizarre is all the blog comments using different names and emails but which are seemingly coming from the same IP as the IS staffer. I hope that is not how their PR guy thinks is a reasonable way that things should ever be dealt with. Still shaking my head in disbelief!

I think that guy might be on this forum too

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #36 on:** September 24, 2010, 11:59 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2010, 14:00

My instincts tell me to believe Istock over some little-known blogger who names an unsearchable digital artist.

That little-known blogger is the "Yuri" of internet marketing and social networking. Use that info how you want; it all sounds a little half-@ssed to me.

loop · « **Reply #37 on:** September 24, 2010, 12:24 »

Never heard of him. And I've heard of many, many blog gurus.

gostwyck · « **Reply #38 on:** September 24, 2010, 12:46 »

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on September 24, 2010, 11:59

That little-known blogger is the "Yuri" of internet marketing and social networking. Use that info how you want; it all sounds a little half-@ssed to me.

His 'fame' is for his ability to generate traffic and advertising revenue __ not for his ability to investigate and report news stories.

rubyroo · « **Reply #39 on:** September 24, 2010, 13:00 »

Infamy, infamy.... they've all got it in for me....

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** September 25, 2010, 05:52 »

I posted a reply on that site's thread, but it hasn't appeared yet. Does it have to be 'approved'?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #41 on:** September 25, 2010, 07:09 »

Yep. Maybe my "post from the future" will come of date today

. Obviously, no more replies from this nutjob, so we can only assume the whole thing was a screw up on his part. Or "Mark".

gbalex · « **Reply #42 on:** September 25, 2010, 09:58 »

I will not jump to any conclusions either way. So far I have not found anything really negative about Jeremy Schoemaker. It seems he is well respected in his field and I am trying to understand what he would gain by making this all up.

It looks like he is fairly successful why would he jeopardize that by making up stories, it look like he is also serious about protecting his brand.

Case No. 8:09cv441 - Jeremy Schoemaker vs. David Sullivan d/b/a Big Blue Dots

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock in strange image ownership controversy (Read 14637 times)

gostwyck

RacePhoto

johngriffin

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

loop

madelaide

nicolesy

johngriffin

helix7

Microbius

No Longer Cares

loop

gostwyck

rubyroo

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

gbalex

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors