MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Badstockart.com  (Read 13244 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 14, 2010, 18:11 »
0


« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2010, 19:40 »
0
this is great, thanks. quite a few from getty images

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2010, 19:44 »
0
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.

« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2010, 20:22 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2010, 22:23 »
0
Haha that's great!

« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2010, 22:52 »
0
Just like a 'B' movie... so bad that its good!  ;D

« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2010, 00:46 »
0
Ha ha ha  awesome! Ive been waiting for someone to do something like this.
Its really needed.

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

Anyone here recognize his/hers images?

« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2010, 04:35 »
0
Actually, some of those images have fair number of downloads, which means they are not so bad. :)
But anyway, comments are hilarious.

« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2010, 04:56 »
0
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..

« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2010, 05:50 »
0


Anyone here recognize his/hers images?

I see one belongs to Lisafx,

« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2010, 07:14 »
0


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.

« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2010, 07:24 »
0
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.

« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2010, 07:27 »
0
I am surprised he doesn't have links to the stock sites and the original image.  What if I want to purchase the image?

« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2010, 07:41 »
0
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.

« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2010, 08:03 »
0
LOL
Thanks for sharing!

« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2010, 08:23 »
0
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

The guy that did this one on black posted his on 11-28-08. Purposeful copying, or just karmic coincidence?

« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2010, 08:32 »
0
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  ::)


« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2010, 09:04 »
0
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.

« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2010, 09:36 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 09:47 by SIFD »

« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2010, 09:50 »
0
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. :)

« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2010, 10:05 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 10:08 by cclapper »

« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2010, 10:16 »
0
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.



« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2010, 10:48 »
0
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

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.

« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2010, 20:44 »
0
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.

« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2010, 06:54 »
0
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.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors