Anyone catch this ongoing story floating around Twitter? Here's the original:

http://www.shoemoney.com/2010/09/22/istockphoto-sells-stolen-images-istock/

Apparently this guy bought an image at iStock, and then received a DMCA takedown notice for the image claiming that iStock never even had the right to sell the image, and that the iStock "contributor" stole the image and uploaded it as their own. Then iStock claims to have removed the image, but haven't (as of the last time I checked), and then this strange blog comment discussion ensues in which it looks like an iStock employee creates multiple screen names and defends the company masquerading as several different people. At least that's the story. What's true or not is still uncertain.

A follow up was posted last night: http://www.shoemoney.com/2010/09/22/istockphoto-is-super-legit-not-istock/

It's all very strange. I find it hard to believe iStock wouldn't have quickly responded to a report that an image was stolen, and even more strange that they would deny having ever received a report of the image but then create these multiple fictitious screen names to defend the company. Not sure what to make of it all.

I don't buy it.  The user here: http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2367353 has many other images using the same mouse, and in the same style.  He has an large enough portfolio on IS, and even more on other sites.  All 3d renders in a similar style.  I doubt he somehow downloaded the entire works of Mark Jahnon, without him knowing, just to post them online on every MS site.  BTW, Mark Jahnon is no where to be found on Google.

My bet, is he downloaded it from IS or somewhere, and believes he has exclusive rights to the image.  Or something like that.

Anyone catch this ongoing story floating around Twitter? Here's the original:

http://www.shoemoney.com/2010/09/22/istockphoto-sells-stolen-images-istock/

Apparently this guy bought an image at iStock, and then received a DMCA takedown notice for the image claiming that iStock never even had the right to sell the image, and that the iStock "contributor" stole the image and uploaded it as their own. Then iStock claims to have removed the image, but haven't (as of the last time I checked), and then this strange blog comment discussion ensues in which it looks like an iStock employee creates multiple screen names and defends the company masquerading as several different people. At least that's the story. What's true or not is still uncertain.

A follow up was posted last night: http://www.shoemoney.com/2010/09/22/istockphoto-is-super-legit-not-istock/

It's all very strange. I find it hard to believe iStock wouldn't have quickly responded to a report that an image was stolen, and even more strange that they would deny having ever received a report of the image but then create these multiple fictitious screen names to defend the company. Not sure what to make of it all.

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!

if several istock employees were posting from the same office they would have the same IP address. 

if several istock employees were posting from the same office they would have the same IP address. 

I did an WHOIS on the IP and it appears to be coming from Istock.  Even if those posts were by multiple employees - it's still not good, IMO.  But, it's not as bad as if it was one person posing as others.  In any event, in my opinion, that was handled poorly - including the actions of the complaintant.

Very strange. Out of character for istock, if they had ben really contacted. Istock policy is first take down image or whole portfolio, investigate, and reins-taurate then the image if aprropiate (last example: what happened with this exclusive inspector, and this even wasn't a copyright problem). The photographer, Mark J. hasn't said a word... except , allegedly,  to the "claimer"). I can be wrong, but I can't avoid smelling funny things, and not from istock part.

Proof?  I see an allegation no proof.

IStock had one person officially responding to the accusation any other employees, if any, might have been acting of their own accord.

Much as we love to hate IStock these days, even they are entitled to be innocent until proven guilty.  Oh, and let's not forget the illustrator who this blogger is also maligning.  

Very strange indeed. Is this an attempt of defamation?

Interesting.  The date on my one post has been modified to say "September 25th".

Hello, that's two days from now.

The site had some database issues earlier this morning.  I had some problems accessing the site.  That might be the issue because all your posts on this thread I can see are dated today.

Now, if you really are responding two days before someone is posting then I'm inclined to agree you're posting too fast.    But I'm impressed by your clairvoyance.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 23, 2010, 10:50

Interesting.  The date on my one post has been modified to say "September 25th".

Hello, that's two days from now.

The site had some database issues earlier this morning.  I had some problems accessing the site.  That might be the issue because all your posts on this thread I can see are dated today.

Now, if you really are responding two days before someone is posting then I'm inclined to agree you're posting too fast.    But I'm impressed by your clairvoyance.

hmmm... time travel... um never mind 

Hey Sean... all that self-cloning seems to have paid off! 

I can't really say I know what was going on with the whole story, but it was an entertaining read this morning.

I find the comments attributed to "cutcaster" a bit surprising in that thread.