Author Topic: copyright infringement?my photo was used as wallpaper on a brand new mobilephone (Read 9829 times)

fotomania_17 · « **on:** January 03, 2017, 11:42 »

hello
i need some advice about copyright infringements. one of my photo was used as a wallpaper on a brand new mobile phone which was produced by a very well known and famous company all over the world.( i am not writing the brand for now).
now anyone who writes mobile phone's name and wallpaper og google he/she can download my photo from a lot of websites.
this photo was only available on istock and it wasnt sold with an extended licence. it has only has regular downloads.
also similar image with a model was available on istock, shutterstock, FT and DT. it was sold with a model on shutterstock with single and other download.
questions are, is it legal to use it as a wallpaper on a mobile phone which is sold all over the world? i think it must not be legal.
and can it be used as wallpaper deleting the model and chancing the image and use it as wallpaper?
i wrote to istock and they didnt help me. their answer was short like that "As we have no way to confirm that this file has been attained from our site, since you are a non-exclusive contributor, unfortunately we cannot contact this party on your behalf. and bla bla"
i also send mail to shutterstock and they didnt respond.
is there anyone has a similar issue and what can you advice me? do i have to contact with the company via e mail or send them a mail with national post office?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #1 on:** January 03, 2017, 12:48 »

You need to get a lawyer.

obj owl · « **Reply #2 on:** January 03, 2017, 13:00 »

Not really worth your time, trouble and expense in most cases. If you can't put up with the stress don't sell Royalty Free, because when they out in the wild you will not get any involvement from the agencies, unless you upset one of their buyers.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 03, 2017, 13:11 »

Its at least worth writing to the organisation concerned I would think. I don't think we should just roll over and take any infringement. If they are a reputable company you may be able to reach some amicable agreement...they may have been misled on the source. You may not but its only a few emails at the start.

hellou · « **Reply #4 on:** January 03, 2017, 13:22 »

I think its completely legal and ok. Why would the company need to buy a extended licence? But who knows

LDV81 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 03, 2017, 13:35 »

Step 1. Make a list of all the places where they could have licensed this photo. If I understand you correctly, it would be only IS.
Step 2. Find the texts of regular and extended license agreements on these sites and analyze the licence terms.

Some licensing agreements have examples of what is allowed and what is not. I don't want to go to the istock site for you, because that site makes me want to puke.
And I don't want to puke right now, because I just ate dinner and drank some wine. Cheers and good luck.

noodle · « **Reply #6 on:** January 03, 2017, 13:39 »

Quote from: LDV81 on January 03, 2017, 13:35

Step 1. Make a list of all the places they could have licensed this photo. If I understand you correctly, it would be only IS.
Step 2. Find the texts of regular and extended license agreements on these sites and analyze the licence terms.

Some licensing agreements have examples of what is allowed and what is not. I don't want to go to the istock site for you, because that site makes me want to puke.
And I don't want to puke right now, because I just ate dinner and drank some wine. Cheers and good luck.

You sir just won the internet. 👌

Shelma1 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 03, 2017, 13:45 »

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/huge-copyright-infregement-what-would-you-do/50/

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** January 03, 2017, 13:47 »

Quote from: hellou on January 03, 2017, 13:22

I think its completely legal and ok. Why would the company need to buy a extended licence? But who knows

I'm assuming that it is really the phone's wallpaper. (I had a file which was used on adverts for a phone looking as though it was the wallpaper, but I don't think it was on the real phone - however, the file had had an EL quite a bit before I saw the adverts, so I let it be). If so, it might need an EL for "Products for Resale" and/or "Unlimited Reproduction / Print Runs" (over 500k, which could be quite likely for worldwide sales of a popular model).
However, I had a file which was used as a card in an educational game - I saw it on an online photo of the game in use - and it had never had an EL, but was told that it was an 'incidental' to the product for sale, and only the box cover photo would need an EL (not sure how the standard/EL descriptions could be interpreted that way, but it does seem like they absolutely don't want to upset buyers.)

Pauws99 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 03, 2017, 13:50 »

Quote from: LDV81 on January 03, 2017, 13:35

Step 1. Make a list of all the places they could have licensed this photo. If I understand you correctly, it would be only IS.
Step 2. Find the texts of regular and extended license agreements on these sites and analyze the licence terms.

Some licensing agreements have examples of what is allowed and what is not. I don't want to go to the istock site for you, because that site makes me want to puke.
And I don't want to puke right now, because I just ate dinner and drank some wine. Cheers and good luck.

Helpful and positive post was beginning to forget what they looked like!

hellou · « **Reply #10 on:** January 03, 2017, 13:54 »

Oh yes you are right. Products for Resale is not. It´s not the main reason to buy the phone because of the wallpaper

BUT, for unlimited reproduction (+500k) they have to buy a extended. You are right.

fotomania_17 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 03, 2017, 14:57 »

Quote from: hellou on January 03, 2017, 13:54

Oh yes you are right. Products for Resale is not. It´s not the main reason to buy the phone because of the wallpaper
BUT, for unlimited reproduction (+500k) they have to buy a extended. You are right.

they use it on the official site and introduction video of phone and thousands of commercials. its obviously can be seen everywhere

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** January 03, 2017, 15:51 »

Quote from: fotomania_17 on January 03, 2017, 14:57

they use it on the official site and introduction video of phone and thousands of commercials. its obviously can be seen everywhere

None of that would necessarily trigger the need for an EL.
http://www.istockphoto.com/gb/help/licenses

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #13 on:** January 04, 2017, 00:10 »

So if I make a book, I'd only need an EL for the cover photo, not the images inside? That's the only thing that's been putting me off whipping up my exciting book "The Holy Grail of Meat: A Quest for the Perfect Crackling... and Other Adventures in Pork."

tickstock · « **Reply #14 on:** January 04, 2017, 02:04 »

Quote from: fotomania_17 on January 03, 2017, 14:57

Quote from: hellou on January 03, 2017, 13:54
Oh yes you are right. Products for Resale is not. It´s not the main reason to buy the phone because of the wallpaper
BUT, for unlimited reproduction (+500k) they have to buy a extended. You are right.

they use it on the official site and introduction video of phone and thousands of commercials. its obviously can be seen everywhere

I've had an image put up on a website before. Hundreds of millions of people could have viewed it right? If they refreshed the site a few times it might be in the billions, that's what you signed up for. Read the terms you agreed to. The 500,000 is for a print run.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 04, 2017, 03:44 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on January 04, 2017, 00:10

So if I make a book, I'd only need an EL for the cover photo, not the images inside? That's the only thing that's been putting me off whipping up my exciting book "The Holy Grail of Meat: A Quest for the Perfect Crackling... and Other Adventures in Pork."

You crowdsourcing it? put me down for a slice! Whether it would sell enough to justify an EL im not sure. You might want to ask David Cameron he may want a chapter about stuffing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate

click_click · « **Reply #16 on:** January 04, 2017, 04:07 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on January 04, 2017, 00:10

So if I make a book, I'd only need an EL for the cover photo, not the images inside? That's the only thing that's been putting me off whipping up my exciting book "The Holy Grail of Meat: A Quest for the Perfect Crackling... and Other Adventures in Pork."

I've seen a bunch of my images on book covers, CD covers etc. and never received an EL. First it depends which agency licensed the image and the usage terms regarding the print run size. Some licenses allow tens or hundreds of thousands of prints with a regular RF license.

To run after an EL payout will quickly become not worth your time. Time is better spent creating more great content.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #17 on:** January 04, 2017, 05:06 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 04, 2017, 03:44

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on January 04, 2017, 00:10
So if I make a book, I'd only need an EL for the cover photo, not the images inside? That's the only thing that's been putting me off whipping up my exciting book "The Holy Grail of Meat: A Quest for the Perfect Crackling... and Other Adventures in Pork."
You crowdsourcing it? put me down for a slice! Whether it would sell enough to justify an EL im not sure. You might want to ask David Cameron he may want a chapter about stuffing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate

I started the first chapter in 2014. Will get crackling on the rest. I discovered the secret, hired a food technologist to verify my discovery, and I think the world is ready for it. It's the kind of whimsical/comedy gift you'd get for a loved one who loves crispy pig skin.

Dumc · « **Reply #18 on:** January 04, 2017, 05:39 »

I love animals. Pork is my favourite.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** January 04, 2017, 05:54 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on January 04, 2017, 00:10

So if I make a book, I'd only need an EL for the cover photo, not the images inside? That's the only thing that's been putting me off whipping up my exciting book "The Holy Grail of Meat: A Quest for the Perfect Crackling... and Other Adventures in Pork."

No. If the print run is over 500k, you need an EL inside or cover. I don't think you need an EL for a cover for smaller print runs (talking iS specifically).

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2017, 06:10 »

If I'm shifting more than 500k units, then an EL will be the least of my worries... it'll be which studio to sell the film rights to!

ravens · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2017, 07:09 »

Doesn't Electronic Template use require EL ?

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** January 04, 2017, 14:48 »

Quote from: ravens on January 04, 2017, 07:09

Doesn't Electronic Template use require EL ?

"Digital templates for resale
Electronic templates for resale: website template, brochure design template, e-greeting cards, etc. (Add a Products for resale license)"

DallasP · « **Reply #23 on:** January 05, 2017, 00:51 »

I'd just contact the company and try to get an EL out of them. There's no use wasting much time or resources trying to battle those big brands ... at the very least you get "exposure" and at best you get the cost of the license that I'd imagine they thought they were getting to begin with.

At least, I can hope that this world has some decency left and that they would try to be honest :/ it's an odd world though.

tickstock · « **Reply #24 on:** January 05, 2017, 01:49 »

Quote from: DallasP on January 05, 2017, 00:51

I'd just contact the company and try to get an EL out of them. There's no use wasting much time or resources trying to battle those big brands ... at the very least you get "exposure" and at best you get the cost of the license that I'd imagine they thought they were getting to begin with.

At least, I can hope that this world has some decency left and that they would try to be honest :/ it's an odd world though.

Which part of the license did they violate? I haven't found it and I don't see any post on here pointing to it. Trying to "get an EL out of them" for using the image legally is crazy and very unprofessional.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 05, 2017, 02:16 »

Quote from: tickstock on January 05, 2017, 01:49

Quote from: DallasP on January 05, 2017, 00:51
I'd just contact the company and try to get an EL out of them. There's no use wasting much time or resources trying to battle those big brands ... at the very least you get "exposure" and at best you get the cost of the license that I'd imagine they thought they were getting to begin with.

At least, I can hope that this world has some decency left and that they would try to be honest :/ it's an odd world though.
Which part of the license did they violate? I haven't found it and I don't see any post on here pointing to it. Trying to "get an EL out of them" for using the image legally is crazy and very unprofessional.

Yes you don't know so I don't see the harm in contacting them and asking them the terms they purchased the image under

tickstock · « **Reply #26 on:** January 05, 2017, 02:20 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 05, 2017, 02:16

Quote from: tickstock on January 05, 2017, 01:49
Quote from: DallasP on January 05, 2017, 00:51
I'd just contact the company and try to get an EL out of them. There's no use wasting much time or resources trying to battle those big brands ... at the very least you get "exposure" and at best you get the cost of the license that I'd imagine they thought they were getting to begin with.

At least, I can hope that this world has some decency left and that they would try to be honest :/ it's an odd world though.
Which part of the license did they violate? I haven't found it and I don't see any post on here pointing to it. Trying to "get an EL out of them" for using the image legally is crazy and very unprofessional.
Yes you don't know so I don't see the harm in contacting them and asking them the terms they purchased the image under

Seriously? What's the harm in accusing a buyer of doing something they could be sued for without any evidence or reason? You'll be very busy annoying a lot of companies if you go after every site that probably purchased a license and is using it correctly but you don't have proof they did. Which sites even require an EL for this kind of use?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 05, 2017, 02:30 »

You can be polite about it as I say you and I don't know the facts I haven't checked the licence it may have been purchased under nor exactly how it has been used in detail. So I don't know whether he has a case or not.

tickstock · « **Reply #28 on:** January 05, 2017, 02:34 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 05, 2017, 02:30

You can be polite about it as I say you and I don't know the facts I haven't checked the licence it may have been purchased under nor exactly how it has been used in detail. So I don't know whether he has a case or not.

The first step should be to research the terms. They said it was from iStock. If you haven't even checked the license why would you recommend harassing a company?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 05, 2017, 02:40 »

I don't disagree with that...maybe I should have said research the terms of licencing if you are still concerned contact them. You have a very low threshold of what you consider "harassing" I don't consider asking a question harassing...not our call anyway

tickstock · « **Reply #30 on:** January 05, 2017, 02:47 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 05, 2017, 02:40

I don't disagree with that...maybe I should have said research the terms of licencing if you are still concerned contact them. You have a very low threshold of what you consider "harassing" I don't consider asking a question harassing...not our call anyway

That's also bad advice. Besides making them talk to their lawyers, marketers, and the stock photo agency you are probably violating the terms of agreement with the agency who licensed the image.
This is what Shutterstock's terms are:
"In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action."

Pauws99 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 05, 2017, 02:52 »

OK so if we think an image has been misused we just lie back and take it ...fine

tickstock · « **Reply #32 on:** January 05, 2017, 02:54 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 05, 2017, 02:52

OK so if we think an image has been misused we just lie back and take it ...fine

You can do what you want but bothering a company makes us all look unprofessional and could result in your account being terminated, but hey do what you want.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 05, 2017, 03:06 »

i also send mail to shutterstock and they didnt respond."

Thats the unprofessional bit

tickstock · « **Reply #34 on:** January 05, 2017, 03:14 »

Your issues with Shutterstock aren't relevant. It's against the terms you agreed with to bother buyers and if they are using the image legally (which it appears they are) then you make us all look bad.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #35 on:** January 05, 2017, 03:37 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 05, 2017, 02:40

I don't consider asking a question harassing...not our call anyway

Depends on the question. If I'm in a club and I ask a lady "what's that lump in your dress.. do you have a penis?" it might not go down very well.

The point is, no matter how politely you phrase it, you're probably still going to come across as insinuating that they might not have the rights to use your image. I mean, why would you contact them in the first place if you weren't... are you conducting a survey on license usage?

Plus, if you're asking the question when you don't even know whether they can't or can't use it... what's the point. Why would a buyer have to, or want to, explain to you the licensing terms of a site where you sell your content?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 05, 2017, 03:45 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on January 05, 2017, 03:37

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 05, 2017, 02:40
I don't consider asking a question harassing...not our call anyway

Depends on the question. If I'm in a club and I ask a lady "what's that lump in your dress.. do you have a penis?" it might not go down very well.

The point is, no matter how politely you phrase it, you're probably still going to come across as insinuating that they might not have the rights to use your image. I mean, why would you contact them in the first place if you weren't... are you conducting a survey on license usage?

Plus, if you're asking the question when you don't even know whether they can't or can't use it... what's the point. Why would a buyer have to, or want to, explain to you the licensing terms of a site where you sell your content?

They could simply tell you from what site it was purchased and under what license. I suppose its a sad fact in this industry that we don't actually know where any of our images are sold and what for we have to trust the stock agencies maybe I'm being naive but if for example I saw one of my images on the front of your block buster million selling pork book and I had only sold it for a few cents I'd want it checked out.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 05, 2017, 03:53 »

Quote from: tickstock on January 05, 2017, 03:14

Your issues with Shutterstock aren't relevant. It's against the terms you agreed with to bother buyers and if they are using the image legally (which it appears they are) then you make us all look bad.

Yes but the nub is you say it APPEARS to be being used legally some people don't agree without knowing more theres really no definitive answer. You were correct when you said the guy needs to check exactly what the terms of licencing are. Probably the best course if he is still not happy is to pursue with the agencies. But if they don't provide answers its not really very satisfactory. I guess thats the business we are in.

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** January 05, 2017, 05:56 »

The OP knows the terms they were bought under, as he knows the file was bought from iS.
He also said he contacted iS and they said they wouldn't take it any further as he isn't exclusive .

I posted the link to iS's licence information in reply #12, though like everything iS, it's not "interpretation-free'.
IS have in the past said that contributors should not be contacting buyers and that they would take a dim view of any so doing.

I'm not saying the present case is clearly an abuse of the licensing terms - it seems to me to fall into the "grey area" unless you can establish the aggregate print run of all the paper publications which ran the advert. (Also, probably, your photo in their photo could also have been used in print articles reviewing the phone).

Possibly if the OP confirmed that the file was bought from iS by a pleasant enquiry to the buyer, iS would then take action, based on their reply, "As we have no way to confirm that this file has been attained" (!) "from our site, since you are a non-exclusive contributor"

tickstock · « **Reply #39 on:** January 05, 2017, 10:44 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 05, 2017, 05:56

The OP knows the terms they were bought under, as he knows the file was bought from iS.
He also said he contacted iS and they said they wouldn't take it any further as he isn't exclusive .

I posted the link to iS's licence information in reply #12, though like everything iS, it's not "interpretation-free'.
IS have in the past said that contributors should not be contacting buyers and that they would take a dim view of any so doing.

I'm not saying the present case is clearly an abuse of the licensing terms - it seems to me to fall into the "grey area" unless you can establish the aggregate print run of all the paper publications which ran the advert. (Also, probably, your photo in their photo could also have been used in print articles reviewing the phone).

Possibly if the OP confirmed that the file was bought from iS by a pleasant enquiry to the buyer, iS would then take action, based on their reply, "As we have no way to confirm that this file has been attained" (!) "from our site, since you are a non-exclusive contributor"

I don't see anything about a print run from the OP. He says it's used as a wallpaper on a phone and in thousands of TV ads.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** January 05, 2017, 10:57 »

Quote from: tickstock on January 05, 2017, 10:44

Quote from: ShadySue on January 05, 2017, 05:56
The OP knows the terms they were bought under, as he knows the file was bought from iS.
He also said he contacted iS and they said they wouldn't take it any further as he isn't exclusive .

I posted the link to iS's licence information in reply #12, though like everything iS, it's not "interpretation-free'.
IS have in the past said that contributors should not be contacting buyers and that they would take a dim view of any so doing.

I'm not saying the present case is clearly an abuse of the licensing terms - it seems to me to fall into the "grey area" unless you can establish the aggregate print run of all the paper publications which ran the advert. (Also, probably, your photo in their photo could also have been used in print articles reviewing the phone).

Possibly if the OP confirmed that the file was bought from iS by a pleasant enquiry to the buyer, iS would then take action, based on their reply, "As we have no way to confirm that this file has been attained" (!) "from our site, since you are a non-exclusive contributor"
I don't see anything about a print run from the OP. He says it's used as a wallpaper on a phone and in thousands of TV ads.

That's why I said, "unless you can establish".
Still, with mobile phones, I'm guessing there could easily be print runs. Adverts in papers/magazines and also catalogues in outlets like phone shops etc. Certainly in the UK, there are many paper catalogues related to tech. Also I regularly get unsolicited print flyers through my letterbox offering phone (etc) deals, often with pics of the latest phone models to choose from.
The problem might be establishing that there were over 1/2 million prints made, though I'd imagine if any of the above were found, it would be that size of print run even in the UK, far less the US. If I'm getting unsolicited, unaddressed flyers posted through the door, I'd imagine so are most people.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: copyright infringement?my photo was used as wallpaper on a brand new mobilephone (Read 9829 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors