Awkward stock photos

gigaton

New Member

« on: August 06, 2010, 15:37 »

#link

Like it says in the tin.

http://awkwardstockphotos.com/

What were the photographers thinking??! Shocked


	Ignore \| Logged

Blufish

« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2010, 15:46 »

#link

Some of those are just plain creepy. What gets me is they were accepted!


	Ignore \| Logged

gigaton

New Member

« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2010, 16:18 »

#link

I'd be more surprised if these are actually bought.

I mean if someone bought an image of a girl licking a rusty iron or a doctor with a pig mask I'd like to know just what the heck its going to be used for!


	Ignore \| Logged

ann

Premium Member

« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2010, 16:18 »

#link

Based on the watermarks, the blogger didn't pay for usage license, which I find annoying (whether or not it's legal). Some of the photos posted midway on August 5 look fine, certainly not worthy of being labelled as awkward.


« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 17:02 by ann »	Ignore \| Logged

donding

« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2010, 16:23 »

#link

Quote from: ann on August 06, 2010, 16:18

Based on the watermarks, the blogger didn't pay for usage license, which I find annoying (whether or not it's legal). The last 2 shown on August 5 look fine, certainly not worthy of being labelled as awkward.

If you click on the photo it takes you directly to the sales page of that particular photo so I'm not sure how that works with usage?


	Ignore \| Logged

ann

Premium Member

« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2010, 17:21 »

#link

Quote from: donding on August 06, 2010, 16:23

Quote from: ann on August 06, 2010, 16:18

If you click on the photo it takes you directly to the sales page of that particular photo so I'm not sure how that works with usage?

Interesting, I didn't try clicking on them.

I contribute to a blog where we post our own stockphotos clickable to one of the stock sites (SS, DT, ISP, F, 123rf...) they're sold on, and one or more of the sites (in a very friendly way, really) contacted our blog administrator that we each had to post the images with our own watermarks, not the stock site's watermark.


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2010, 17:34 »

#link

Actually, there are some great photos. Awkward, but great...among crappy ones.


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2010, 17:40 »

#link

Those are some funny photos! I like the commentary at Badstockart.com though. The comments add a lot


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2010, 15:34 »

#link

Once again, more bloggers hiding behind the "fair use" debacle. It's good that they are linking the photos to the stock sites to buy them from, but this whole "fair use" thing shouldn't exempt bloggers. I see everyone in their comments section ragging on istock and Getty for making them take them down. In my opinion, they should pay for the photos just like everybody else does.

I don't see adverts on the site now, but I am guessing that is coming next. In other words, they will get all their material for free (the images) and make money from the advertisers.

There were some pretty funny photos there. Some pretty bad ones too.


« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 15:39 by cclapper »	Ignore \| Logged

Suljo

« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2010, 19:52 »

#link

I think that while ago I see in Stokas and other sites TOS that you can use they small watermarked image in you jabbering or blogging within any cost!!!
Now flyby thru this site "author" says that iStock has too much patient and now they are angry about violating about copyright infringement and that it must be stopped?!?
what???


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2010, 03:08 »

#link

Quote from: Suljo on August 07, 2010, 19:52

I think that while ago I see in Stokas and other sites TOS that you can use they small watermarked image in you jabbering or blogging within any cost!!!

Wrong. the small watermarked images are so that designers can 'comp' them in a potential design to see how it would look, or to pitch to clients (however, some prefer not to pitch a watermarked image). At least that's on iStock. I haven't a clue about the others.


	Ignore \| Logged

djpadavona

« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2010, 03:42 »

#link

I love the stock market. No...I mean I REALLY love the stock market.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2010, 05:00 »

#link

A comp is never meant to be public: it's a mock-up just for the customer's eyes.
If the guy links the thumbs to the originals on the agency site, it can be considered as a promo or referral. In that case, he can't be blamed, imho.


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2010, 07:07 »

#link

Quote from: FD-regular on August 08, 2010, 05:00

A comp is never meant to be public: it's a mock-up just for the customer's eyes.
If the guy links the thumbs to the originals on the agency site, it can be considered as a promo or referral. In that case, he can't be blamed, imho.

That's fair, for now. Once there are adverts all over the page, that opinion will change for me.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2010, 08:10 »

#link

Quote from: lisafx on August 06, 2010, 17:40

Those are some funny photos! I like the commentary at Badstockart.com though. The comments add a lot

What a hoot, indeed (some comments).


	Ignore \| Logged

Artemis

« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2010, 12:55 »

#link

From badstockart.com:
NOTE: please don’t share photos from istockphoto.com – unless that is, you’ve paid for the license and are willing to give it to us. They gave us the old cease and desist email, which scared us deeply. We know, we know, we lost some classics there. We might buck up and pay for some of the funnier ones.

Looks like istock agreed Cathy


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2010, 14:50 »

#link

I started reading some of the comments at the end of the site. Bad mistake. I posted a few myself, but really it is kind of pointless. But it does show the level of ignorance out there regarding intellectual property. And some posts show just plain ignorance. Roll Eyes


« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 15:05 by cclapper »	Ignore \| Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock

sjlocke

« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2010, 19:26 »

#link

Gosh, the "I don't make money off of this" defense over and over again is annoying. As is the "but I'm giving you free advertising!" refrain.


	Ignore \| Logged

djpadavona

« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2010, 22:21 »

#link

Very true. It seems to be a generational thing, which makes me guess the blogger is in his 20s or younger. It's almost analogous to the belief that all sorts of media...movies, music cd's, etc should be free for the taking as long as someone is willing to post it on the net. There doesn't seem to be much respect for intellectual property or copyrights among younger people (said the grumpy 42 year old).

That said, the website was worth more than a few chuckles.

Do you think I could get an excited, erect stock market participant into the Vetta Collection?


« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 22:23 by djpadavona »	Ignore \| Logged

cardmaverick

« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2010, 01:49 »

#link

Quote from: cclapper on August 08, 2010, 14:50

I find this rather amusing. You should read "Against Intellectual Property". Most people who champion intellectual property tend to be equally "ignorant" about it.

Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2010, 06:46 »

#link

Quote from: cardmaverick on August 09, 2010, 01:49

I totally agree with you on IP laws being crap. And you are right, I am ignorant about a lot of the IP stuff, because to me it's a lot of legal smoke and mirrors.

Here is what I do know...I spent lots of money to create the images I have online, whether they are good or bad. I authorized the microsites to put up a watermarked thumbnail for display and to sell my images. They are my property and I should have the right to say who gets to use free copies and who doesn't. I don't need a bunch of attorneys telling me who should and shouldn't use them, or finding loopholes like "fair use" to give people the ability to use them for free. So if someone uses the images in a positive way, they should pay. If someone uses the images in a negative way, they are free? That doesn't even make sense.


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2010, 06:49 »

#link

Quote from: cardmaverick on August 09, 2010, 01:49

Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.

Now this is sort of an odd statement. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2010, 07:22 »

#link

Actually the guy is linking the thumbnails to the actual sales page. At least Dreamstime allows that, and you can even put your referral code on it. It's just another (but original) referral site. It would be totally different if he put up the thumbs without links.

The only thing you can argue about is defamation, but as the saying goes: bad publicity is better than no publicity. I have no problem with sarcasm at all, especially since the shooters clearly aimed for that effect in many of the shots. About half of the shots is not really awkward but more weird/unusual.

There is a market for it. I bet the posted shots will have additional sales.

PS - if you keep giving him attention he will rise in the charts and there will come a time you will be begging him to show your awkward shots (with the proper link of course). Tongue


« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 07:30 by FD-regular »	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2010, 08:05 »

#link

Quote from: FD-regular on August 09, 2010, 07:22

Actually the guy is linking the thumbnails to the actual sales page. At least Dreamstime allows that, and you can even put your referral code on it. It's just another (but original) referral site. It would be totally different if he put up the thumbs without links.

The only thing you can argue about is defamation, but as the saying goes: bad publicity is better than no publicity. I have no problem with sarcasm at all, especially since the shooter clearly aimed for that effect in many of the shots. About half of the shots is not really awkward but more weird/unusual.

There is a market for it. I bet the posted shots will have additional sales.

I bolded and italicized above: According to what I read, that's what he did do at first. He only changed them once he was outed.

Yes, it's a referral site, but the images are being used in a negative connotation. Do I think some of them are funny? You bet! Do I think he should be allowed to have the site? You bet. Does that mean I think he should be allowed to use the images on his website FOR FREE just because he is giving a referral? NO!

No one should be allowed to decide "bad publicity is better than no publicity" except the copyright holder. Great if the images sell because of the link. They STILL shouldn't be allowed to be used for free without the copyright holder's consent! If you think it's OK, that's your choice. Others may not think it's OK.

OK, pretty soon that dead horse animation is going to be posted so I am done.