Creonix Media Crooks

at 16:34 on 24 April 2006, Chris Gwynne wrote:

How old are you?

It lacks certain professionalism to air this in public at this stage and to create a {this site}sucks.com website don't you think. I'm not sure why you haven't conducted all of this in-house and recitfying it rather than taking it to a css design community with the hopes of.. I'm not sure.

at 16:38 on 24 April 2006, Danny wrote:

Well I have nothing to do with the company, i just know about it, and thought everyone should know!

at 16:39 on 24 April 2006, schnuck wrote:

well, true, ripped for sure, but rather an issue, if at all, for the forums. or even better, go here:

http://forums.pirated-sites.com/

or to similar sites.

at 16:40 on 24 April 2006, tedeh wrote:

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Or how was it?

at 16:49 on 24 April 2006, Jamie Harrop wrote:

Chris,

Thanks for your comment. From my name, I'm sure you can gather I am one of the owners of Equentity LLC.

This issue is being dealt with in-house, in the form of a cease and desist notice and the respective parties (Web host, Getty Images, and Press Advance) been notified.

The reason we brought this to the attention of the public via a number of forums we frequent, and, through a good friend, Danny, here at StyleGala, is because we would hate for somebody else to fall foul of these crooks because we didn't stand up and do our best to notify the public.

Creonixmediasucks.com was bought as a place for us to display the cease and desist, and serve as a place for us to point people to in the future should anybody ever consider using the services of this so called "company". I would like to go on and explain further, but the comments feature only allows so many characters. Please e-mail me or call me (Details found on our Web site) if you would like further explanation.

at 16:51 on 24 April 2006, Paul H. wrote:

Hello Chris,

I've made this public in select places for a few reasons. First, someone may have more information for us on this company, and we aim to garner that information. Second, CreonixMedia has a single search engine entry, and when 15-20 entries suddenly appear in search engines, all pointing out their crooked behavior, this will place a great deal of pressure on them on act in a way that is best for us and ultimately for themselves.

The reasoning behind the domains is so that these very pointed messages will not be overlooked in their traffic logs the next time they check them.

This is hardly about blowing off steam. I actually found it a bit humorous when it was brought to my attention. This is simply a calculated action that we believe will result in the speediest and most favorable reaction, and in the process, making a very bold statement about our tolerance level for this behavior within the industry.

at 16:54 on 24 April 2006, Paul H. wrote:

It appears between Jamie and I, we've discussed all of the reasons behind this. I hope this makes sense. It's about using technology to create the right reaction from them - that was my thinking all along. Jamie points out that this, in turn, is information that will be helpful for others.

at 17:02 on 24 April 2006, Eric wrote:

Wow, for ripping sites they sure know how to pick them (*cough*)

at 17:13 on 24 April 2006, jeff wrote:

i dont mind that you posted this here. let these people be humiliated in public, they deserve it... what a blatent rip off.

at 17:22 on 24 April 2006, Tjobbe wrote:

Hear, hear Jeff.

What a lazy approach to ripping a site though, they've truly done it with no care of being caught.

oh, by the way Eric, did you not read this:

Keep the comment relevant, constructive and be polite.

at 17:22 on 24 April 2006, Paul H wrote:

Just to clarify, I had no idea this was going to be posted here until Danny brought it to our attention. We selected a few choice locations and that was that, just enough to get it the exposure it needed.

We're not looking for anyone to spread this any more. I totally appreciate the gesture on Danny's part, but I there is no need for anyone else to do that same. I think Creonix Media will get the message, and will act properly.

at 18:15 on 24 April 2006, gmx wrote:

hmm - who knows, maybe behind Creonix Media & Equentity are the same guys just to get some more traffic to their poor site through this incident.

at 18:25 on 24 April 2006, Jamie Harrop wrote:

I can assure you, gmx, that we have no association with Creonix Media whatsoever.

To even consider that association makes me cringe. Again, I invite you to contact me personally via e-mail or phone if you are concerned that this may be the case.

at 18:31 on 24 April 2006, Michelle wrote:

gmx -- that is a great point... this whole thing seems really fishy to me.

The professional thing would have been to handle it completely in-house and not post it to "choice locations" on the internet. The xxxsucks.com domain also seems very immature to me. If this happened to me, I would have had my lawyer write a letter to the company and have things go through the proper channels.

at 18:51 on 24 April 2006, Nick wrote:

Why shouldn't this be posted in a public domain. The Internet is a PUBLIC domain so things like this should be brought to everyones attention.

I know Paul and Jamie and this is not a lame attempt at getting some traffic to their site. Their good hard work is what brings people to their website.

They also own and run equentitysucks.com maybe they registered the other domain before it got ripped too. Why stop at only ripping one site, might as well rip them all.

Its sad that people feel the need to do this, but its an everyday event.

at 18:52 on 24 April 2006, Jamie Harrop wrote:

Michelle,

The proper channels are been followed. A cease and desist is been faxed to Creonix Media, and the affected parties including their Web host, Getty Images (The Web site we legally purchased our stock photography from) and Press Advance (The company who we contracted to write and distribute our press release) have been notified.

I give you my word (which is all I can do) that we are in no way associated with Creonix Media.

Paul and I have given our reasons for why we made this public, all of which still stand. Personally, the one for me which rings most true is the fact that I would hate, and to an extent feel guilty, if somebody was fooled in to thinking Creonix Media were anything but crooks, after we kept quiet about them having stolen our intellectual property.

Once again, I invite you to contact me personally should you feel the need.

The only 'fishy' company here is Creonix Media.

at 19:39 on 24 April 2006, crybaby wrote:

both sites suck, the end.

at 19:47 on 24 April 2006, Paul H wrote:

"both sites suck, the end."

That's fine. Everyone has their preferences. But only one should exist, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. Period.

at 20:21 on 24 April 2006, Seth Aldridge wrote:

They both look like templates to me?

at 20:40 on 24 April 2006, jlactose wrote:

I think it's valid to post this. So they stole your site design, that happens alot, so they stole your content, that doesn't happen so much, so they stole your folder structure?! your LOGO?!

Having taken pretty much everything they claim to be their own from the original, they really leave themselves and the original creator at a standstill as far as competition, at least theoretically, is concerned. This affects business, and that's what it's all about. Do everything you can to get it resolved, make them pay otherwise.

at 20:50 on 24 April 2006, Jamie Harrop wrote:

Thanks for your support, jlactose.

Seth, I can guarantee our design is not a template. It was created over several months of meticulous refining by our designer and co-owner, Paul Riddick, with feedback from both Paul H and myself.

I understand how you may have thought it was a template, but I can confirm it is not. We went through several design phases to get to the one you see today. Some people love it, some people hate it. It's a personal preference, for sure. The fact we took so much time to come up with the design and content which you see today is one of the reasons why it is so frustrating for a company, a so called Web design company of all companies, to come along and rip it in an instant.

at 21:27 on 24 April 2006, Paul H wrote:

The legalities of this go beyond what we are able to do. The best we can do at this point is send the C&D by mail, send it via fax to both the NJ number (though a quick search shows it is a Maryland number - ?? ) and the Virgin Islands number, and hope that a) the numbers are legitimate, and b) someone isn't reading the C&D and just laughing at it.

I emailed the address associated with the site whois, and I'll try calling the phone number later this evening when it's morning in India. Those are the bounds of what we can do. Money is a concern. It would cost a considerable amount of money to even investigate full legal action, and we are hoping the "street justice" approach will have the same effect, without bringing in a lawyer.

Regardless, Getty Images should jump on this. We have proof of our image license. I PROMISE you Creonix will not! The image in question is 200158770-001, if you'd like to look it up on www.gettyimages.com

at 21:34 on 24 April 2006, rw wrote:

I like the creonix site better.

... kidding. best of luck with this. i do think the creonixmediasucks.com is a little juvenile though. perhaps ceaseanddesiscreonixmedia.com or something would have been just as effective in getting their attention?

regardless, while i understand this gets more attention in the "public news," it seems perhaps it would have been better received in the forums.

at 21:36 on 24 April 2006, rw wrote:

200158770-001 heheh ... well, now at least when they check their referrals from stylegala they can cover there asses on the images

at 21:40 on 24 April 2006, Paul H wrote:

"i do think the creonixmediasucks.com is a little juvenile though."

You're probably right. It's just the first thing that comes to mind when you think of an "anti-site." That URL is nothing more than a domain pointing to creonixmedia.net, easily removed/dismissed.

"regardless, while i understand this gets more attention in the "public news," it seems perhaps it would have been better received in the forums."

Again, we had no part in posting this here, and didn't even know it was going to be posted until after the fact. To be honest, I've never even visited StyleGala before. I don't know if site admins do this sort of thing, but they could probably attest to this by checking IPs.

If the site admins want to remove this article, by all means do so. I just feel compelled to type responses, now that a discussion is taking place.

at 21:43 on 24 April 2006, Paul H wrote:

"200158770-001 heheh ... well, now at least when they check their referrals from stylegala they can cover there asses on the images"

I thought of that, but they already know the image came from there, if they read the C&D. If they were to purchase a license now, it would be too little too late. Their site is already cached by Google and probably others. The dates don't lie - there's no way they can cover their asses on that one.

We can prove they stole from us, but the hard part is coming up with the money to defend ourselves. Getty can prove they stole from Getty, and they have the resources to do something about it. What they'll do, I don't know.

at 21:48 on 24 April 2006, Paul H wrote:

UPDATE: I unparked the {site}sucks.com domain. You guys are right. It's unnecessary. One domain is enough, and "sucks" does sound pretty juvenile.

Understand the decision to grab the "sucks" version was just because it's such a popular technique when confronted with issues like this, I figured it would grab attention. Apparently, it did, but not the right kind. Lesson learned :)

at 22:23 on 24 April 2006, Hilary wrote:

I know the ripping off of design is not nice for the people who designed it... but I would be more concerned for the people who would contact this crowd to buy a site, send them half the money up front, and end up being scammed..

Therefore, if this post helps people not to be fooled by these guys, it was the best move you could take. At least if someone researches them now they'll come across this and stay away hopefully...

at 00:07 on 25 April 2006, WH wrote:

This is the dumbest thread I think I've ever seen on Stylegala.

at 00:08 on 25 April 2006, Michelle wrote:

There are always three sides to every story. We are only hearing one side and that is what worries me. Before calling a company a bunch of "crooks" and ruining someone's reputation, I'd like to know the whole story and I don't think this was the proper forum to do it. Besides, what if Creonix had paid an outside firm to design it and they were the ones that "stole" the design? I guess it's this type of "mob mentality" that makes me nervous!

at 01:09 on 25 April 2006, Hilary wrote:

Well, I think its obvious that the company doesnt exist.. check the sites in their portfolio, meta author is set to the site not them.. if they are scamming people then people should be warned..

at 01:28 on 25 April 2006, Paul H wrote:

"I don't think this was the proper forum to do it."

I agree Michelle. Again, I feel compelled to respond to this, now that it is here, and I would be just as happy to see it get pulled.

"Besides, what if Creonix had paid an outside firm to design it and they were the ones that "stole" the design?"

This isn't just about design. That's only a small part of it. They are using about 2/3 of our client list and calling it their own! They are using our biographies as their own. They put their copyright on our materials, blessed it, and launched it.

Go ahead and seek out their side of the story. We know what belongs to us, and the answer is nearly everything on their site belongs to us.

I'm not concerned about whether someone else made the site for them or not. They chose to launch it with blatently stolen material, material they *must* have known was stolen, because they didn't write it. Regardless, they are responsible. That's *their* copyright symbol on *

at 00:35 on 26 April 2006, gmx wrote:

jlactose: I think it's valid to post this. So they stole your site design, that happens alot, so they stole your content, that doesn't happen so much, so they stole your folder structure?!

no, genious, it is not valid. post it to the forums here or somewhere else - but not to public news!!! what is so hard to understand this? there are people who have this news feed subscribed, for heaven's sake!

Jamie Harrop wrote:

I can assure you, gmx, that we have no association with Creonix Media whatsoever.

yeah, i am sure. in special when it comes to traffic.

Michelle wrote:

gmx -- that is a great point... this whole thing seems really fishy to me.

The professional thing would have been to handle it completely in-house and not post it to "choice locations" on the internet. The xxxsucks.com domain also seems very immature to me. If this happened to me, I would have had my lawyer write a letter to the company and have things go through the proper channels

EXACTLY! michelle seems to be

at 12:22 on 27 April 2006, Paul H wrote:

Creonix Media has been taken down. I spent the better part of the afternoon on the phone with GNAX, faxing documentation to them and emailing with their abuse department. Eventually, the information made it to Capital Web, the owners of the server on which Creonix was hosted, and if you look at the domain, it is now suspended.

I'll be interested to see if they attempt to reopen elsewhere, but I if they haven't learned by now, I don't know what to say.

Big thanks to GNAX for their assistance with this. I know one of the Transact Global (parent company) guys from my experience on WebHostingTalk.com, and he's a very stand-up person. It's nice to know he's not the exception.

Thanks for your support. To those of you who doubted, that's ok. We got what we wanted - the site taken down.

Again, we had no hand in this "news" item being posted. There was enough pressure from elsewhere to get the job done. But thanks anyway. This is sorted.

at 00:35 on 28 April 2006, gmx wrote:

gosh, thanks lord it is over. but just imagine everyone would post that kind of stuff in public news! and how fake does it sound? if i wanted forced traffic for my site i would probably do the same (if i was that ruthless). many thanks but please now move on.

p.s. would you mind to post your site stats before and after this post here on stylegala? or wold it reveal too much?

at 00:48 on 28 April 2006, Paul H wrote:

Not much to it. StyleGala was responsible for 46 visits. Like I said, it was never our intention to boost our traffic. It was entirely our intention to boost traffic to *their* site, so this would impat their stats and make them look at what we're saying. They would see we were not joking around.

But it was never our intention for this to be posted as news. Also like I said earlier, I'd never once visited StyleGala before this news item was posted, and I only visited because Danny told us he posted it. He thought he was doing us a favor. It was nice of him, but not necessary, and given the reaction from people, it was not the right place for this anyway. This discussion, the one in this news item, was forced on us, and we responded with whatever facts we could. Again, I don't blame you for thinking it was a stunt, but whether you believe me or not is besides the point. The offending site is down - mission accomplished.

Add a comment:

Keep the comment relevant, constructive and be polite.
A valid email address or URL to your site must be provided, or the comment might get deleted. Content seemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted. Avoid explicit language and words such as "sucks" and "ripoff". For more in-depth discussions use our forum. Email addresses are never displayed. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted - no need to use <p> or <br/>. Quotes & apostrophes are automatically converted to smart punctuation. Be careful when copying and pasting portions of entries or other comments. The following inline HTML elements may be used: <strong><em><pre><q><blockquote><code>. All other code will get removed before posting. Don't forget to close your tags.