MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Toxi on December 14, 2018, 08:29
-
Hello!
I found, that my photo was used by one of major smartphone producer (think they sold about 300mio) as standart wallpaper (they deliver new phones with photo inside).
This phone never was sold with extended or premier license at shutterstock.
What do you think? Is there reason to try get smth from this producer?
-
Hello!
I found, that my photo was used by one of major smartphone producer (think they sold about 300mio) as standart wallpaper (they deliver new phones with photo inside).
This phone never was sold with extended or premier license at shutterstock.
What do you think? Is there reason to try get smth from this producer?
Yes!
-
Yes!
[/quote]
What? How much? :)
-
Maybe check if your work hasn't been copied or stolen by another contributor on different websites, he could have sold it to this company as his own work.
-
Maybe check if your work hasn't been copied or stolen by another contributor on different websites, he could have sold it to this company as his own work.
no, nothing like this. I checked
-
Maybe check if your work hasn't been copied or stolen by another contributor on different websites, he could have sold it to this company as his own work.
no, nothing like this. I checked
I imagine that if your picture is going to be in thousands of phones it's kind of reselling. You should contact shutterstock and the company?
Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk
-
Maybe check if your work hasn't been copied or stolen by another contributor on different websites, he could have sold it to this company as his own work.
no, nothing like this. I checked
I imagine that if your picture is going to be in thousands of phones it's kind of reselling. You should contact shutterstock and the company?
Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk
It’s not reselling. Nobody is buying the phone for wallpaper. However it could be over the usage limit.
-
I found something similar with one of my images a few years ago. I sent the company a very polite email saying "thank you for licensing my work for use, please give me the details of the license purchased for my records".
I got an extended license sale from IS a couple of days later and a letter in the post saying they licensed it from there.
Not saying this was the best way to handle it, but it's what I did. It was a bit easier for me because it was a printed product, clearly selling in excess of what a standard license would allow.
-
I found something similar with one of my images a few years ago. I sent the company a very polite email saying "thank you for licensing my work for use, please give me the details of the license purchased for my records".
I got an extended license sale from IS a couple of days later and a letter in the post saying they licensed it from there.
Not saying this was the best way to handle it, but it's what I did. It was a bit easier for me because it was a printed product, clearly selling in excess of what a standard license would allow.
It's kind of the same with videos. For example, one time private use vs an ad that many people can see.
-
It’s not reselling. Nobody is buying the phone for wallpaper. However it could be over the usage limit.
it's not reselling, but same time they give access to the digital copy of file to millions of phone buyers.
-
I found something similar with one of my images a few years ago. I sent the company a very polite email saying "thank you for licensing my work for use, please give me the details of the license purchased for my records".
I got an extended license sale from IS a couple of days later and a letter in the post saying they licensed it from there.
Not saying this was the best way to handle it, but it's what I did. It was a bit easier for me because it was a printed product, clearly selling in excess of what a standard license would allow.
my opinion, that it isn't right - first - to use, and only after - to pay for license.
Same time i think, that in my case extended license is not enough.
-
It’s not reselling. Nobody is buying the phone for wallpaper. However it could be over the usage limit.
it's not reselling, but same time they give access to the digital copy of file to millions of phone buyers.
Not really. It's not that different from a book cover.
-
It’s not reselling. Nobody is buying the phone for wallpaper. However it could be over the usage limit.
it's not reselling, but same time they give access to the digital copy of file to millions of phone buyers.
And online versions of magazines and newspapers which have licensed photos make digital copies of our files available to the entire internet. It's no different unless there are limits on the number of impressions.
The buyer of the phone can look at the image as often as they want but can't use it in a blog without licensing it (or at least should do that to avoid copyright infringement).