MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Misuse of downloaded image, help!  (Read 5977 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 07, 2008, 22:49 »
0
I uploaded an image on 7/31/2007: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3898325

An extended license was sold for: $12.13 on     
Sunday August 26, 2007, 04:30 PM


So I Googled my name, and a link came up:

http://www.lightgate-imagery.com/Scenica/

I never saw that site before, nor has anyone downloaded this image from any other stock site I have uploaded it too. No idea what to do... Also if you visit their homepage, this image is in the popular buys section. As well as far as I understood the agreement on IstockPhoto, extended license does not allow this... any ideas? or advice.... or similar experiences??


« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2008, 00:02 »
0
Looks to me like this site is not operating above board. Go here to contact the Contributor Relations people at IS.

I PM'd kosmikkreeper and rinder to let them know they're in there, too. I'd mail Ansel Adams, but he's dead. (grin)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 00:16 by sharply_done »

« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2008, 00:58 »
0
Aw thank you :) I am just worried how much money this person made of me :(

« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2008, 01:24 »
0
the link to your image doesn't work anymore so they must have taken it down.

« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2008, 01:40 »
0
It's still up, on the second page when you follow the link.
They sell prints (on canvas or fine art paper) of your picture, so I thought that's allowed with an extended license?

« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2008, 02:07 »
0
Does seem strange that there is an Ansel Adams photo there.  I wonder how much an EL for that one would cost :)

« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2008, 02:12 »
0
It's still up, on the second page when you follow the link.
They sell prints (on canvas or fine art paper) of your picture, so I thought that's allowed with an extended license?

Under the same impression here. I think there is an extended license for selling prints, t-shirts, coffee mugs, calanders etc..

« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2008, 04:17 »
0
I think these people have come up before on istock - they buy the correct extended licence for prints (if they are the one's I'm thinking of) and are legit.

Here's the thread on it:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=63570&page=1
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 04:22 by Susan S. »

« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2008, 04:49 »
0
So is selling that Ansel Adams print legit?

« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2008, 06:39 »
0
What I don't like with them is that they show a large-size preview without any watermarks!

BTW, found another iStocker here: http://www.lightgate-imagery.com/Scenica/Running+Ahead.html

« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2008, 09:39 »
0
I think these people have come up before on istock - they buy the correct extended licence for prints (if they are the one's I'm thinking of) and are legit.

Here's the thread on it:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=63570&page=1


Is it really legit to resell images though? If it is then there is a hole in the agreement with iS.

tan510jomast

« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2008, 09:50 »
0
 ???
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 20:17 by tan510jomast »

« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2008, 10:09 »
0
There's one by Laurin Rinder on there too - page 2 of "metro."

bittersweet

« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2008, 10:20 »
0
I think these people have come up before on istock - they buy the correct extended licence for prints (if they are the one's I'm thinking of) and are legit.

Here's the thread on it:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=63570&page=1


Is it really legit to resell images though? If it is then there is a hole in the agreement with iS.


They are not reselling images. They are reselling prints. If they purchased an extended license that allows for "items for resale" then, yeah, they have done all that is required of them.

« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2008, 10:26 »
0
I think these people have come up before on istock - they buy the correct extended licence for prints (if they are the one's I'm thinking of) and are legit.

Here's the thread on it:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=63570&page=1


Is it really legit to resell images though? If it is then there is a hole in the agreement with iS.


I do not believe they are selling the image - as such - they sell artwork that uses the image.  The IS thread that was posted is pretty clear that this is what an EL is for so that should not be a problem as long as they purchase an EL.  I'd let Ansel Adams work out his problems with the site on his own - not a real fan of copyrights attaching much past the life of the artist. 

What you might want to look at is what kind of protection is required by the EL holder.  The large, unwatermarked thumbnails could be a problem, but it would depend on what the EL holder's responsbility for protecting the work is.

fred

« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2008, 11:24 »
0
It's a wonder to me if this site is actually making substantial amount of money ?

If so that gives me an idea....Sell your own images directly to! If someone can make money selling your images.
it just stands to reason you might be able to do the same thing...no?

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2008, 11:46 »
0
Hi everyone,

This is Jonas from Lightgate Imagery.

As far as I have understood the Extended License allows items for resale. I have mailed most of the photographers and had this discussion on the iStock-site before and I don't think there should be any problem.

I also think that i am allowed to have a preview of the image as large as the ones i'm using:

Quote
online or electronic publications, including web pages to a maximum of 800 x 600 pixels;


newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php [nonactive]

I'm considering removing Ansel Adams image because I've had some comments that they are copyrighted but as far as I have understood they belong to Public Domain. At lest most of them. But i don't like people believing that I'm a thief.

Quote
Public Domain. Additional source description and credit info:

Records of the National Park Service.
(79-AAG-1)
Ansel Adams (19021984)
"The Tetons--Snake River" Wyoming, 1942. Vintage signed print. National Archives: Unrestricted.


It's on Flickr as well: newbielink:http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/274983381/ [nonactive]

Regards,
Jonas


« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2008, 11:51 »
0
Just another reason not to sell images of this caliber on microstock!

grp_photo

« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2008, 11:53 »
0
Just another reason not to sell images of this caliber on microstock!
Actually Ansel Adams invented Microstock or was it the Zonesystem ??? Sometimes i confusing things  ;D

bittersweet

« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2008, 12:18 »
0
But i don't like people believing that I'm a thief.

No worries, Jonas. Anyone here who has bothered to actually read the licensing agreements that are being issued realizes that you have operated within the terms set forth.

I can't believe people are constantly posting threads like this without bothering to have a clue what they've agreed to by allowing extended licensing on their images. Also, the allowed web size is part of the standard license and is clearly stated.

Please people, at least attempt to check your facts before bashing your customers!

« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2008, 12:32 »
0

Please people, at least attempt to check your facts before bashing your customers!


I'd hardly call the original post 'bashing your customer'.

Eugenef wrote:

Also if you visit their homepage, this image is in the popular buys section. As well as far as I understood the agreement on IstockPhoto, extended license does not allow this... any ideas? or advice.... or similar experiences??

which is simply asking for advice.

The trouble is that there is an awful lot of image theft going on. I have found a number of my images that have been clearly stolen. Someone had one of my best selling images of a bunch of mistletoe on her site as though it was her own. Admittedly she wasn't selling it (but giving it away) and another site was using the same image as part of freebie images that could be used on MySpace/Facebook pages.

Nowadays it can be difficult to know if an image is being used legally or not, what with the number of agencies that may carry the same image, and their differing licensing options.

And a month or so ago there was another thread about some petty crook in London who clearly was stealing images and flogging them off as his own.

Seems to me to be fair enough to pose the question and get it sorted (as here).


« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 12:35 by Bateleur »

« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2008, 12:42 »
0
Hi everyone,

This is Jonas from Lightgate Imagery.

As far as I have understood the Extended License allows items for resale. I have mailed most of the photographers and had this discussion on the iStock-site before and I don't think there should be any problem.
...

Although you have correctly purchased an extended license to resell the imagery, I suspect you are in violation of the following clause of the IS license agreement, which prohibits use for on-demand services such as yours:

Section 4(a)2
4. Standard License Prohibitions
(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are Prohibited Uses and you may not:
2. use or display the Content on websites or other venues designed to induce or involving the sale, license or other distribution of on demand products, including postcards, mugs, t-shirts, posters and other items (this includes custom designed websites, as well as sites such as www.cafepress.com);



bittersweet

« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2008, 14:37 »
0
Section 4(a)2
4. Standard License Prohibitions


Those statements are in reference to the standard license. The extended license states:

Quote
Items for Resale - Limited Run
Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a) of the Standard License Prohibitions prohibiting the use or display of the Content in items for resale, you shall be entitled with respect to this specific Content to produce the following items for resale, license, or other distribution:

up to 100,000 postcards, greeting cards or other cards, stationery, stickers, and paper products,
up to 10,000 posters, calendars or other similar publications, mugs or mousepads,
or up to 2,000 t-shirts, sweatshirts, or other apparel, games, toys, entertainment goods, framed or mounted artwork
in or on which the Content is used or displayed (the "Resale Merchandise"), provided that:

the right to produce the Resale Merchandise in no way grants any right to you or any recipient of the Resale Merchandise in any intellectual property or other rights to the Content;
you agree to indemnify the iStockphoto Parties from any cost, liability, damages or expense incurred by any of them relating to or in connection with any of the Resale Merchandise;
any production of Resale Merchandise in excess of the allowed run size is prohibited and requires the Content to be purchased separately;
all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses.

bittersweet

« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2008, 14:40 »
0

Please people, at least attempt to check your facts before bashing your customers!


I'd hardly call the original post 'bashing your customer'.

Eugenef wrote:

Also if you visit their homepage, this image is in the popular buys section. As well as far as I understood the agreement on IstockPhoto, extended license does not allow this... any ideas? or advice.... or similar experiences??

which is simply asking for advice.

The trouble is that there is an awful lot of image theft going on. I have found a number of my images that have been clearly stolen. Someone had one of my best selling images of a bunch of mistletoe on her site as though it was her own. Admittedly she wasn't selling it (but giving it away) and another site was using the same image as part of freebie images that could be used on MySpace/Facebook pages.

Nowadays it can be difficult to know if an image is being used legally or not, what with the number of agencies that may carry the same image, and their differing licensing options.

And a month or so ago there was another thread about some petty crook in London who clearly was stealing images and flogging them off as his own.

Seems to me to be fair enough to pose the question and get it sorted (as here).




The title sounds a bit more accusatory than just posing a question, especially in light of the OP being aware that there was an extended license purchased.

« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2008, 16:03 »
0
Section 4(a)2
4. Standard License Prohibitions


Those statements are in reference to the standard license. The extended license states:

Quote
Items for Resale - Limited Run
Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a) of the Standard License Prohibitions prohibiting the use or display of the Content in items for resale, you shall be entitled with respect to this specific Content to produce the following items for resale, license, or other distribution:

up to 100,000 postcards, greeting cards or other cards, stationery, stickers, and paper products,
up to 10,000 posters, calendars or other similar publications, mugs or mousepads,
or up to 2,000 t-shirts, sweatshirts, or other apparel, games, toys, entertainment goods, framed or mounted artwork
in or on which the Content is used or displayed (the "Resale Merchandise"), provided that:

the right to produce the Resale Merchandise in no way grants any right to you or any recipient of the Resale Merchandise in any intellectual property or other rights to the Content;
you agree to indemnify the iStockphoto Parties from any cost, liability, damages or expense incurred by any of them relating to or in connection with any of the Resale Merchandise;
any production of Resale Merchandise in excess of the allowed run size is prohibited and requires the Content to be purchased separately;
all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses.

The issue here, I believe, is that the image is being used in a print-on-demand environment, which clearly violates the standard licensing agreement. The extended license does not modify the standard license in this regard, and thus its terms still apply - just read the last part of the clause (which I highlighted).
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 16:06 by sharply_done »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
1814 Views
Last post March 30, 2007, 16:31
by photoshow
5 Replies
1034 Views
Last post January 07, 2012, 03:58
by Uncle Pete
3 Replies
620 Views
Last post February 07, 2013, 14:35
by estike
4 Replies
330 Views
Last post September 01, 2013, 11:54
by Kerioak~Christine
1 Replies
208 Views
Last post January 25, 2014, 19:47
by ruxpriencdiam

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors