Jump to content

Blogger goes ape over agency “extortion� letter


Recommended Posts

Copywriting expert and blogger, Ryan Healy has posted about what he feels are extortionary tactics used by a traditional stock agency to claim damages from images used on websites unlawfully.

 

His blog: http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/.

 

As a copywriting professional, Healy paints a compelling picture of how he used a RM stock image unlawfully by mistake, why he feels he has been treated unfairly by the agency and why he further feels the agency is charging too much to settle the matter.

 

In the comments section of his blog, I tried to play the role of the agency's “advocate†– pointing out why they would and could not share his views on the unlawful use of one of their photographer's images.

 

My comment was met, perhaps predictably, with a fair amount of disdain from Healy and at least one reader who frequents his blog.

 

The name of the agency and more info is mentioned in a blog on my Durban Photographer site here: http://www.durbanphotographer.com/blogger-goes-ape-over-getty-extortion-letter/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just replied as well, although with a bit more of an open mind.

 

Barry - a copy writer and a copyrighter are two different things.

 

Yeah, I saw that after I went to his blog. He writes copy for ads and such. He's not a legal "copyrighter" or whatever.

My bad I missed that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is more to this than meets the eye initially. I do feel he has been a bit stitched up by the person that worked on his website.

 

It is a bit like hiring someone to pave your drive and six months later you get done because they used stolen paving slabs and they are on your driveway so you're going to get done.

 

As the guy says, he is a customer of IS so he knows about this stuff, even if only the basics so I do doubt if he would knowingly let this happen.

 

My wife always says I try to see the best in people so maybe I am wrong, but that is my opinion reading through everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the short discussion on there about hiding their activity behind Go-Daddy. Oops. Got caught. Go stealth. It tells me quite a bit about the ethics of those involved. Would a totally legit business man entertain something like that or just help make things right? He could help go after the guy that stole the image but instead he's gonna "crawfish" away from the whole thing as fast as he can. A clean name with no damages is what he's looking for. Its cya hiding behind some sort of internet crusade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the short discussion on there about hiding their activity behind Go-Daddy. Oops. Got caught. Go stealth. It tells me quite a bit about the ethics of those involved. Would a totally legit business man entertain something like that or just help make things right? He could help go after the guy that stole the image but instead he's gonna "crawfish" away from the whole thing as fast as he can. A clean name with no damages is what he's looking for. Its cya hiding behind some sort of internet crusade.

 

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wherever I looked microstockers discussing, Getty was the big villain. Suddenly it's cool. Interesting.

 

 

Saying they are doing something right is a complete endorsement? Never dealt with them... never commented on them before but I'm still wondering what logic you used to come up with the idea behind your post. Or are you just trolling?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wherever I looked microstockers discussing, Getty was the big villain. Suddenly it's cool. Interesting.

 

 

Saying they are doing something right is a complete endorsement? Never dealt with them... never commented on them before but I'm still wondering what logic you used to come up with the idea behind your post. Or are you just trolling?

 

That's nonsense because because it's endorsement of their attitude which is generic (as always), they have the same attitude towards contributors etc, all the 'little people'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wherever I looked microstockers discussing, Getty was the big villain. Suddenly it's cool. Interesting.

 

 

Saying they are doing something right is a complete endorsement? Never dealt with them... never commented on them before but I'm still wondering what logic you used to come up with the idea behind your post. Or are you just trolling?

 

That's nonsense because because it's endorsement of their attitude which is generic (as always), they have the same attitude towards contributors etc, all the 'little people'.

 

Its an endorsement of "their generic attitude"? Wow, how did you tie that into all of this? Please enlighten me further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets extrapolate a little here. Suppose I say that BigTimeStockGiantWharehouse is helping out their contributors... all contributors everywhere for that matter, by using their vast resources to go after copyright infringers.... photo thieves. Does that speak to the fact that BigTimeStockGiantWharehouse exploits its submitters? Does it speak to the fact that BigTimeStockGiantWharehouse uses highly unethical business practices? Do they? I don't know. Would I object if they did? Yes. Is this the case when they go after thieves? No. I am commenting on the practice of large companies to police up the industry and provide a benefit for all contributors everywhere. Those are not hard logical concepts to grasp, in my book. You could replace the word "BigTimeStockGiantWharehouse" with any other stock agency in the world and the whole thing would still hold water.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wherever I looked microstockers discussing, Getty was the big villain. Suddenly it's cool. Interesting.

 

 

Saying they are doing something right is a complete endorsement? Never dealt with them... never commented on them before but I'm still wondering what logic you used to come up with the idea behind your post. Or are you just trolling?

 

That's nonsense because because it's endorsement of their attitude which is generic (as always), they have the same attitude towards contributors etc, all the 'little people'.

 

Its an endorsement of "their generic attitude"? Wow, how did you tie that into all of this? Please enlighten me further.

 

That's like asking further explnataion for why 1+1=2. Spare me this nonsense please.

 

I would understand and completely side with the whole thing if was a photographer going up against a blogger, and not large predatory company that tends to just talk down to and screeeow everyone who's not them. If that's still complicated for you, I don't know what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...