MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Dreamframer on July 14, 2010, 18:11

Title: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on July 14, 2010, 18:11
Check it out

http://www.badstockart.com/ (http://www.badstockart.com/)
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: shiyali on July 14, 2010, 19:40
this is great, thanks. quite a few from getty images
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: donding on July 14, 2010, 19:44
I have never laughed so hard in all my life at the shoes....and the disabled.. :D At least I ended my day with a smile on my face.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: stormchaser on July 14, 2010, 20:22
Wonder how long the posting will last this time. I think they had a C&D order from Getty awhile back, Too lazy to look back in the blog.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: eppic on July 14, 2010, 22:23
Haha that's great!
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Graffoto on July 14, 2010, 22:52
Just like a 'B' movie... so bad that its good!  ;D
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Magnum on July 15, 2010, 00:46
Ha ha ha  awesome! I´ve been waiting for someone to do something like this.
It´s really needed.

I might have done something crazy bad myself sometimes, in the hunt for the perfect stockimage...

Anyone here recognize his/hers images?
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on July 15, 2010, 04:35
Actually, some of those images have fair number of downloads, which means they are not so bad. :)
But anyway, comments are hilarious.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Perry on July 15, 2010, 04:56
Most of them are really, really bad. But I actually think that a smaller portion of images (some of the well-executed artsy stuff) are actually quite good..
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: SIFD on July 15, 2010, 05:50


Anyone here recognize his/hers images?

I see one belongs to Lisafx,
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on July 15, 2010, 07:14


Anyone here recognize his/hers images?

I see one belongs to Lisafx,

I bet every portfolio on microstock has at least one image that could be commented in a funny and weird way.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: cathyslife on July 15, 2010, 07:24
I bet every portfolio on microstock has at least one image that could be commented in a funny and weird way.

I'm surprised none of mine are there.  ;)

And I think that Lisa meant hers to be funny. She has a great sense of humor.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: leaf on July 15, 2010, 07:27
I am surprised he doesn't have links to the stock sites and the original image.  What if I want to purchase the image?
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on July 15, 2010, 07:41
I am surprised he doesn't have links to the stock sites and the original image.  What if I want to purchase the image?

I think it's because he doesn't want other people to see that some of those images actually have downloads.
But if you use TinEye you will find almost all images he posted.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: tdoes on July 15, 2010, 08:03
LOL
Thanks for sharing!
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: cathyslife on July 15, 2010, 08:23
The image with the hand and the hands on the fingers...

clivia has had an image like that forever, hers is in her IS port since 7-24-05.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-718899-hands.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-718899-hands.php)

The guy that did this one on black posted his on 11-28-08. Purposeful copying, or just karmic coincidence?
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: anonymous on July 15, 2010, 08:32
I bet every portfolio on microstock has at least one image that could be commented in a funny and weird way.
I'm surprised none of mine are there.  ;)
...breathed a sigh of relief myself  ::)
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: mantonino on July 15, 2010, 09:04
Yes, sadly I have one on there - and he's right.  It was stupid! lol  But it sold a few times so hey, no worries.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: SIFD on July 15, 2010, 09:36
I wonder technically if he is allowed to use these watermarked images in this way? I wouldn't consider this as "promotional" to the sites nor photographers.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on July 15, 2010, 09:50
Yes, sadly I have one on there - and he's right.  It was stupid! lol  But it sold a few times so hey, no worries.

And sadly, there is none of mine....which only means my portfolio is so insignificant, lol.


@SIFD: I don't think it's illegal, but I would like to see his images if he is a photographer. :)
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: cathyslife on July 15, 2010, 10:05
I wonder technically if he is allowed to use these watermarked images in this way? I wouldn't consider this as "promotional" to the sites nor photographers.

No technically you are NOT allowed to post any images on your website that you have not purchased. Since there is a watermark, then they were not purchased and they could be served with a copyright infringement notice.

stormchaser said earlier in this thread:

Quote
Wonder how long the posting will last this time. I think they had a C&D order from Getty awhile back, Too lazy to look back in the blog.

Getty would have every right to do so.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: SIFD on July 15, 2010, 10:16
a while back i found some of my DT watermarked images on one site/blog, i wrote to DT and was told that the site/blog was consider as promotional to DT and it's ok!  :o


I wonder technically if he is allowed to use these watermarked images in this way? I wouldn't consider this as "promotional" to the sites nor photographers.

No technically you are NOT allowed to post any images on your website that you have not purchased. Since there is a watermark, then they were not purchased and they could be served with a copyright infringement notice.


Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: cathyslife on July 15, 2010, 10:48
On IS, if you opt into promotional uses and third party feed, your image will be used for promotional use for free. But I don't think they leave the watermark on.

See this thread:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/%27promotional-uses%27-explained/msg152352/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/%27promotional-uses%27-explained/msg152352/?topicseen#new)

You can opt out of alliances on DT, but I'm not sure that has anything to do with it. I can't believe any site would allow another site to use a watermarked image for free, claiming promotional use.

Unless I have missed something major in the terms, I don't see anywhere where that would be acceptable. If somebody has that in writing from the DT Terms and Conditions, please enlighten me because I just passed through them again and nowhere does it talk about letting others use your image for free, with a watermark, for promotional use.

If I were you I would email DT support and ask them to send you a link on their site Terms and Conditions showing where you agreed to that. Because to me, watermarked images on blogs means copyright infringement.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: michaeldb on July 15, 2010, 20:44
I wonder technically if he is allowed to use these watermarked images in this way? I wouldn't consider this as "promotional" to the sites nor photographers.

No technically you are NOT allowed to post any images on your website that you have not purchased. Since there is a watermark, then they were not purchased and they could be served with a copyright infringement notice.

stormchaser said earlier in this thread:

Quote
Wonder how long the posting will last this time. I think they had a C&D order from Getty awhile back, Too lazy to look back in the blog.

Getty would have every right to do so.
What this site is doing looks like 'fair use' to me. Reviewers and parodists have pretty broad rights, especially if they are not using an image for profit.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: cathyslife on July 16, 2010, 06:54
What this site is doing looks like 'fair use' to me. Reviewers and parodists have pretty broad rights, especially if they are not using an image for profit.

Can you please point me to the verbage in the, say, IS terms of use where it is acceptable to take a watermarked image and use it on your website? I have gone over the terms and conditions of the sites I upload to and do not EVER remember seeing anything about anybody using images for free on their website. If this is something new, I have missed it.

If you are correct, we will soon be having millions of reviewers and parodists who will be able to use our stock images for free.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on July 16, 2010, 07:08
I thought watermarked images are actually watermarked to prevent images from simple stealing. When you see watermarked image, you know it's downloaded without permission.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: mantonino on July 16, 2010, 08:42
Can you please point me to the verbage in the, say, IS terms of use where it is acceptable to take a watermarked image and use it on your website? I have gone over the terms and conditions of the sites I upload to and do not EVER remember seeing anything about anybody using images for free on their website. If this is something new, I have missed it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.)

The section of US law that deals with fair use is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.

Here's the exact text of the law:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Parody is recognized as a form of criticism and commentary. Here's how a parody might be considered, in light of the four factors above used to determine fair use:

   1. Purpose and character; commercial or educational -- noncommercial, educational, or newsworthy parodies are generally given more protection as fair use under this first factor. However, many commercial parodies have also been deemed to be fair use, as the Supreme Court has held that "a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character".[2]

   2. Nature of the work copyrighted -- this factor has been said to carry little weight in parody situations, "since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works".[2]

   3. Amount and substantiality -- with parodies, a fairly extensive use of the copyrighted work is permitted. Copying is considered in relation to parodic purpose -- a parodist can copy as much as is needed to "conjure up" the original. Even the "heart" of a work may be copied for parody, if it's the heart at which the parody is aimed.[2]

   4. Potential effect on the market -- it is understood that an effective parody "may be so good that the public can never take the original work seriously again".[3] Thus, with parodies, the possibility of destroying the market for the original work isn't measured. Instead, what's analyzed is the potential of the parody to fulfill the market demand of the original work. Since most parodies don't compete with the original works they are parodying, this factor is usually not an issue.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: cathyslife on July 16, 2010, 09:12
Thanks for posting that. Not terms that are included in any microstock's license when a photo is purchased...

So in essence, anytime somebody with a blog wants to use an image, they can just put it in there for free, with a watermark? Blogs are editorials, no?

I am glad that these fair use cases are being plastered all over the web now, though. No wonder everyone thinks they can use images for free.  ;)  THEY CAN!
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: lisafx on July 16, 2010, 09:19
Thanks for posting this site Ivan.  Great laugh! 

And yeah, that picture of my husband eating ice cream is really creepy.  He had me in stitches when we were doing that shoot!  ;D

BTW, also saw the one of Kelly Cline giving the finger.  One of my favorite Christmas images, LOL!
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: cathyslife on July 16, 2010, 10:05
BTW, also saw the one of Kelly Cline giving the finger.  One of my favorite Christmas images, LOL!

I thought I had seen that one before. She is in my CN.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: fullvalue on July 16, 2010, 11:00
Actually parody or no, they are using the website to make money.  Note Google ads down left column.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: lisafx on July 16, 2010, 13:34
Well, parody issue aside, this is one of the funniest websites I have seen.  This guy's commentary is absolutely hilarious!  Hubby and I have wasted a long time  browsing and laughing our heads off!!

Did anyone catch the clown lifting the imaginary barbell on P. 10, and the remarks about that?  Priceless!
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: cathyslife on July 16, 2010, 13:52
Did anyone catch the clown lifting the imaginary barbell on P. 10, and the remarks about that?  Priceless!

I saw the clown with the big giant feet in front of him...is that the one? I didn't notice an imaginary barbell. I will have to go back and look.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on July 16, 2010, 14:12
Well, parody issue aside, this is one of the funniest websites I have seen.  This guy's commentary is absolutely hilarious!  Hubby and I have wasted a long time  browsing and laughing our heads off!!

Did anyone catch the clown lifting the imaginary barbell on P. 10, and the remarks about that?  Priceless!

The guy who comments on photos is very talented I would say. He could pull-out almost any stock photo and comment it in a funny way. I was laughing so much on Cherry lady who scares children :D
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on July 16, 2010, 14:19
LOL, did you see the last picture on badstockart, haha, it's hilarious!
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on August 05, 2010, 10:01
Badstockart has to buy images for the blog from now on. This is what they posted last.

"Well kids, we finally received our first scary legal email from one of our favorite places to find the best stock photography garbage. We had to remove many of our classic favorites. It’s sad, we know. We’ll have to start licensing all of our junk from now on, like this junk here."
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: donding on August 05, 2010, 10:13
Badstockart has to buy images for the blog from now on. This is what they posted last.

"Well kids, we finally received our first scary legal email from one of our favorite places to find the best stock photography garbage. We had to remove many of our classic favorites. It’s sad, we know. We’ll have to start licensing all of our junk from now on, like this junk here."

Somebody didn't like having their picture on there... :D
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: Dreamframer on August 05, 2010, 10:14
:D
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: lisafx on August 05, 2010, 11:27

Somebody didn't like having their picture on there... :D

For real.  I didn't mind having mine on the site, but I am glad they will be licensing them from now on. 

If they are going to make fun of us we might as well get something out of it ;D
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: donding on August 05, 2010, 11:34

Somebody didn't like having their picture on there... :D

For real.  I didn't mind having mine on the site, but I am glad they will be licensing them from now on.  

If they are going to make fun of us we might as well get something out of it ;D

Your right Lisa....they should have been licensing them from the git go. I didn't realize that they weren't. I never payed attention to the watermark being there...lol. I'm rather surprised this didn't happen before now.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: cathyslife on August 05, 2010, 12:21
Badstockart has to buy images for the blog from now on. This is what they posted last.

"Well kids, we finally received our first scary legal email from one of our favorite places to find the best stock photography garbage. We had to remove many of our classic favorites. It’s sad, we know. We’ll have to start licensing all of our junk from now on, like this junk here."

Cool!

IMHO, the whole fair use thing is just a way for sites to get free stuff. I think it's ridiculous, when a person can get an image for $1 or $2. I am willing to wager badstockart makes money off of their site from the advertising...they can afford it. Call it the cost of doing business.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: FD on August 05, 2010, 12:42
Can we contribute there? I actually have some very bad stock.  :P
Bad publicity is better than no publicity.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: grp_photo on August 05, 2010, 14:21
loved it :-) hilarious site!
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: gbalex on August 16, 2010, 21:25
Thanks for posting this site Ivan.  Great laugh! 

And yeah, that picture of my husband eating ice cream is really creepy.  He had me in stitches when we were doing that shoot!  ;D

BTW, also saw the one of Kelly Cline giving the finger.  One of my favorite Christmas images, LOL!

I agree Kelly's image is a classic and badstockart is a scream.
Title: Re: Badstockart.com
Post by: RacePhoto on August 17, 2010, 00:41

What this site is doing looks like 'fair use' to me. Reviewers and parodists have pretty broad rights, especially if they are not using an image for profit.


Right!

Here's one more for the "Blue Collar Worker" search: (honest it was searching just for those three words)

(http://static2.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/9/1/5/large2/5197707.jpg)

No blue, no collar, not a worker?  ;D