MicrostockGroup

In this case, it's definetly not a logo. It is offered for private use at private websites.
In my opinion.

Bertold

I am a bit ignorant about what they consider a logo.  

I have the same sun image together with others making a colorful design at the header of a kindergarden website.  I assume that as a logo they would used in the school decoration, their stationery (letterhead), bulletins, mybe uniforms - usages I can't know if they are doing.  Just by having it as a header in their homepage, it isn't a logo, is it?

Likewise here, this design was done using my image, but it is not my image alone (therefore it is a derivative work).  It seems to me it is supposed to be used by members of an Orkut community - or is it general?  (Sorry, I have never used Orkut or MySpace, therefore my confusion.)

I wonder which site I could send this question to.  This image is not at IS, so I guess DT would be the choice.  They don't say that restriction in the terms of license, but it appears (sort of) in the FAQ.


PS: It's awful when we don't know who they purchased the image from....

It doesn't really look like a logo, but Geo is right. They are redistributing your artwork which is a big no-no. I might try contacting the person directly. Most times people don't realize what they're doing is wrong. Sometimes they do or they may not have even bought the file. Good Luck!

Also, I recognized the other illustration on the page as well. I'll have to find a link.

I forgot to post about the site that is using the image as a logo, but apparently not a business logo, just a website header.  This is not considered a logo, right?

http://cms.upsalla.de/

Is the sun yours?
If so, I am not questioning the fact that they used your sun. 
What concerns me more is  the copyright they inserted. This makes it look like they are the copyright holder of this image, including your sun.
Is it legal for someone who buys the usage of your image , use it as a composite , montage or single,
add a few text, or logo,etc.. then paste a copyright . their copyright.
This new image now belong to that copyright?

I thought one could claim rights over the derivative work.  Not my sun, but that particular design made with my sun.

From IS:
"For clarity, you may not use the Content in products for resale, license or other distribution, unless (i) the proposed use is allowable under an Extended License which is available for the Content; or (ii) if the original Content has been fundamentally modified or transformed sufficiently that it constitutes an original work entitling the author or artist to copyright protection under applicable law, and where the primary value of such transformed or derivative work is not recognizable as the Content nor is the Content capable of being downloaded, extracted or accessed by a third party as a stand-alone file (satisfaction of these conditions will constitute the work as a “Permitted Derivative Work” for the purposes of this Agreement)."

Although it is subjective what it is "fundamentally modified or transformed".

You're right, B79!  So it is another instance of the stolen watermakred image from LO.  Oh, well.  I had a hope this was one of the legal buyers...  this is one of my best-sellers.

I have emailed them on Friday, saying they can not use the image that way and asking where they purchased it from.  

This is one of the non-watermarked ones I found, it also has the Lucky Oliver on it (the L at left of the sun is the more visible):
http://youthffpc.googlepages.com/here2

Let's see what DT gets from these people.

Shady,

As I had not seen LO name on the photo and, unlike other images I found that were clearly from LO (discussed in another thread), I assumed it might be a legal buyer using it wrongly.  I could not ask one site complain with them if they had purchased it from another.

I have sent to DT the information about all other images with LO logo and those whose file names indicate they were an eidted version of the watermarked image, like the last one I've shown here. Although they said they would take it to their legal department, I don't know how far they will go on this issue, given that the images were not taken from them, although I sell it there too.

An update about this subject of copyright infringement after a few weeks. (I think it was on another thread, but I only found this)

I reported several instances of this cartoon sun to DT and they contacted the infractors - some or all, I can not know.  Some removed the image, some still have it (even with LO watermark).  I have just contacted these stubborn ones directly.  One is in MySpace and I keep getting an error when I try to post a copyright violation notice there (tried the form in FF and IE).  If someone can give me a link to the copyright violation report page at MySpace USA, I would appreciate (I can only access the BR site).

Another image reported to IS was also removed.  One reported to StockXpert (a BBC website!) was not removed yet.

Resulting sales - none.  One of the guys even prefered to use an ugly illustration he problably did himself (here).  It's sad that people get no punishment at all for copyright infringement, nor have the decency of at least removing the image.

I also reported two users at Flickr. One is the same infractor from MySpace, and his Flickr page has photos of many celebrities which are most certainly not his.

I have just reported two possible infractors to 123RF.  The images show no watermark, but they are the size of 123RF's thumbnails, and one is exactly the same size and with the same file name.  I also reported another watermarked image from StockXpert, now in a blog that must be from Croatia or somewhere near, given the language.

On the positive side, the Orkutfun website was apparently disabled, as the link reported here before is not working anymore. The logo is still at Photobucket and I will have to report it too. They are a big repository of copyrighted material...

Lisa,

IS had the image deleted from the infringing site, I can not complain.  I have read reports however of they not taking action in issues that do not affect them directly - money not cashed, that is.  Once they get the buyer's money, like in your case, and as long as the infringement is not in the license use (such as the buyer using the image for what should have been an EL, for instance) maybe then they don't bother at all.

I can not complain of DT either, as the reported image has not been stolen from them, but from LO, yet they tool action.

StockXpert however has been disappointing and I sent a second email.

But yes, it seems that there is no benefit from having the sites take action, except that maybe infractors may get more scared when a business, rather than an individual, contact them and perhaps threat them of taking this to court.

Very good outcomes Adelaide!  I am happy that both IS and DT dealt with your issue and resolved it

Maybe you are right and the nature of my issue was the reason they didn't want to be bothered in my case.  Could be that the "sensitive issues" area of the contract is too much of a murky gray area for them to bother with in the case of a non-exclusive.  

Too bad, though, because sensitive issues is the area where lots of us who shoot people feel most vulnerable and would most like our agents to provide aggressive protection.

Great example Phil.  I used to work at an elementary school and one of the teachers there had been awarded with a Gov't GRANT for her work teaching Power Point to 3rd graders.  A big part of the curriculum she created was teaching these kids how to search for images and grab them to their computers to use in the presentations they made. 

This was a few years back.  Those kids are probably in high school or college and still grabbing pics from the web to use illegally.

Not that I am going to lose much sleep over what a bunch of third graders are doing, but it does bug me that their teacher got a fat government grant and was using it to teach kids how to steal images.