MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: helix7 on September 23, 2010, 08:12
-
Anyone catch this ongoing story floating around Twitter? Here's the original:
http://www.shoemoney.com/2010/09/22/istockphoto-sells-stolen-images-istock/ (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/ (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.
-
Still reading, but just thought I'd post that Tyler is the new social media guy there, I believe.
-
I don't buy it. The user here: http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2367353 (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.
-
Yeah this story seems fishy, and the artist has obviously produced similar work within a modeling program. It looks like a money grab to me.
-
Anyone catch this ongoing story floating around Twitter? Here's the original:
[url]http://www.shoemoney.com/2010/09/22/istockphoto-sells-stolen-images-istock/[/url] ([url]http://www.shoemoney.com/2010/09/22/istockphoto-sells-stolen-images-istock/[/url])
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: [url]http://www.shoemoney.com/2010/09/22/istockphoto-is-super-legit-not-istock/[/url] ([url]http://www.shoemoney.com/2010/09/22/istockphoto-is-super-legit-not-istock/[/url])
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!
-
Did my own search for "Mark Jahnon" in Google and I only pulled up this story and reprints of this story. I hope this blogger has more evidence than one unverified claim or he could have his own legal issues in the near future.
And if he has more evidence I'd be interested in seeing it. Plus I'd like to know more about "Mark Jahnon" Let's start with a link to some of "his work".
-
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.
but given the context it would be very strange why one of them would officially state he is an Istock employee while all the others do not...
-
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.
-
Handles poorly? You jest! Lol!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Apparently, I'm banned from commenting anymore. Nice. It's been two hours, and I'm still "posting too quickly".
Here's what I tried to post an hour ago.
That wasn't at all what I said. Don't put words in my mouth. The question is, essentially, who is "Mark Jahnon"? If this person has no work on the internet to be found, and the contributor of the image in question has thousands of similar images over several years uploaded, how are we supposed to blindly believe that he is the "real deal"? Let's see some of "Mark"'s 3d portfolio.
ps: If you want people to respond in a serious manner, you should change your posting delay to something more reasonable than whatever it is.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Interesting. The date on my one post has been modified to say "September 25th".
Hello, that's two days from now.
Yes, but that is post #13, afterall :o - LOL contagious technical glitch, or something :D
ETA: Boy, I was confused...you were taking about commenting at that blog.
-
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 ::)
-
Interesting. The date on my one post has been modified to say "September 25th".
Hello, that's two days from now.
I saw that... I thought, "Wow, Sean really IS superman!" :D
-
Hey Sean... all that self-cloning seems to have paid off! ;D
-
Interesting. The date on my one post has been modified to say "September 25th".
Hello, that's two days from now.
I saw that... I thought, "Wow, Sean really IS superman!" :D
...and his IS icon is so similar to a certain logo or two ;)
While lost in time, at that bloggers site, I did myself the mistake of looking at photo's of the 'rich and famous'...LOL - Oh my eyes - they'll never be the same. I'm sure, instead of spots, I'll forevermore be seeing bunny ears. No grass envy for the lush life ::)
-
I can't really say I know what was going on with the whole story, but it was an entertaining read this morning.
-
Very strange indeed. Is this an attempt of defamation?
Kind of the way I'm leaning. There's not much info on the supposed real artist, Mark Jahnon, which given that he's supposed to be a 3D artist and yet has no online portfolio or any online presence at all, seems odd. So all we've got is a blog post outlining one side of a story, followed by some unusual comment activity from iStock. Regardless of whether iStock is handling the response properly and using multiple screen names to defend the company, the original story doesn't seem to have much credibility and is equally (if not more) suspicious.
The unfortunate thing for istock, regardless of whether they own any fault in the matter, is that this is already going to affect them negatively. This is what current Google search results for "istockphoto" look like: http://phpninja.shoemoney.com/skitch//istockphoto_-_Google_Search-20100923-104743.jpg (http://phpninja.shoemoney.com/skitch//istockphoto_-_Google_Search-20100923-104743.jpg)
-
I find the comments attributed to "cutcaster" a bit surprising in that thread.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=Browse&Cache=b921cdd7df9022f2bc848702bdf0a7e3&page=2)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Exactly. It's all starting to look nonsensical. The blogger is remarkably quiet when asked for any details.
-
Exactly. It's all starting to look nonsensical. The blogger is remarkably quiet when asked for any details.
Exactly. His silence speaks volumes.
-
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.
-
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/ (http://www.shoemoney.com/disclaimer/)
-
Exactly. It's all starting to look nonsensical. The blogger is remarkably quiet when asked for any details.
Exactly. His silence speaks volumes.
I mean istock has been pretty quiet about it too. Tyler hasn't spoken up since all those comments got linked back to the IP address he was posting from. Does anyone have more info on whether this was real or a hoax or are we all just still guessing.
-
In reading that website's disclaimer I'm leaning toward the guy (shoemoney) just trying to drive traffic to his site:
[url]http://www.shoemoney.com/disclaimer/[/url] ([url]http://www.shoemoney.com/disclaimer/[/url])
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.
-
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 ;D
-
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.
-
Never heard of him. And I've heard of many, many blog gurus.
-
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.
-
Infamy, infamy.... they've all got it in for me....
-
I posted a reply on that site's thread, but it hasn't appeared yet. Does it have to be 'approved'?
-
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".
-
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 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23896127/Case-No-8-09cv441-Jeremy-Schoemaker-vs-David-Sullivan-d-b-a-Big-Blue-Dots#)