MicrostockGroup

I know this topic was just discussed within the last couple of months...I looked for the thread but just couldn't find it.

I found my best-selling image on DeviantArt, through Tineye search. You can see it here:

http://girafgiraf.deviantart.com/art/Personified-Corn-142763973

So they have taken my ear of corn image and put eyes and a mouth on it and now it is a derivative image. OK. If they bought the image with the correct license (I have my doubts about that), they can do what they have done with the proper license. If they did not purchase the image, of course they have not asked my permission to use it.

I believe, though, that they cannot offer this for download to other people whether they bought a license or not. Am I correct?

I also don't see how they can use my image and then post their copyright underneath the derivative. I emailed DeviantArt on this and they said that the copyright he posted under his derivative work only covers his changes (eyes and mouth). If that is true, that kind of sucks. At least I think he should be required to state that the ear of corn is my copyright.

I can see one more addition to my Advantages side of going exclusive. It's too difficult to track whether people have downloaded correct licenses when I am on so many sites.

Your help and opinions on this are much appreciated.

edit: I just found the other thread about this same topic here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/my-image-on-deviantart-is-this-ok/

This person doesn't seem to be selling his masterpiece, just letting others use it. So has he violated any of my copyright rights? Just asking for opinions.

Good idea!

I reported it too, and pointed to original image at Istock.

I hope they remove it soon.

The problem is that, when you contact the infractor or the site, he simply removes the image.  It's like if I steal you car, use it, then one day you catch me with it and I return the keys and leave.

Then maybe we should expose them on a list in this forum, something like the Most Wanted list you'll find in Federal government buildings, or bounce cheques you find regularly in some establishments, hey, if the sites don't take serious responsibilities for the repeated offenders among them, why not expose the thieve name or nickname and the site that allowed it to happen, maybe then sites will take stronger meassures against those kind of people...Tyler do you think something like that would be possible and legal to do on this forum?
I'm sure no site would like to find its name on a list like that.

Excellent point dear Perseus, you just nailed the "moral" of the tale.
I got several images bought from dreamstime, usually all my digital paintings and matte paintings, and saw them used on deviantart offered in large size (1st infringement), or sold as prints (2nd infringement).

1st I decided not to sell my paintings as stock anymore and then I started to warn all the clients who were infringing the TOS... actually the most common reply from the was "I didn't know, I have never read the License's terms"... omg.  

Now I think I'd had better contacted the support of each agency and build real case against each one of them... maybe I could have gotten more than a "sorry, I'll take it down"  

Anyway the DA user is redistributing the work, is not allowed to do so.

Thanks for your help, folks.

Not sure whether it all is going to do any good. I don't see that he is reselling the image. He is only offering it for download to other people. I'm going to do some more investigating.

edit: 2 of the 4 downloads are mine. I wanted to see what the size was (3x3" - 96ppi) and whether there were any tell-tale signs of the person using a thumbnail and PSing out the watermark. I don't see any, so it's possible they actually purchased the photo. I just don't believe they can offer it for download unless they bought the proper EL.

He is allowing downloads = redistribution. All agents exclude redistribution (free or for sale) from their RF license. Of course it won't help much but the alternative, doing nothing, is worse. We should support each other in these cases, especially since it only take a few clicks. If it would entail raising a Crusader army, walk to their offices and besiege them for 3 years, it should given some thoughts first. 

If you check out his gallery he has a section for 'Personalised Stuff' which includes your corn and 3 other images that he has drawn faces on. One of them is a cupcake which is owned by an Istock exclusive so presumably that's where he is sourcing his images.

He has not changed the image significantly. And it's my understanding that if they use someone elses

This is from the DeviantArt copyright policy, found at the bottom of the page:

What is Copyright Infringement?

To simplify this question, copyright infringement occurs when you do certain things with a creative work which someone else produced without first getting the proper permission.

Some examples of copyright infringement (this is only a partial listing) can include:

    * Placing a photograph or creative work online without proper permission.
    * Using a creative work commercially.
    * Adapting a creative work of one medium to another, such as making a book into a movie or a photograph into a painting.
    * Modifying or editing a creative work without proper permission.


How Can I Avoid Infringing on Someone's Copyright?

The best way to avoid infringing on the rights of another creative person is to use your skill, talent and imagination to create your own completely original work. When we use the word 'original' we don't mean that you must come up with an idea which hasn't been used before, when used in copyright matters "original" means that you created your work without referencing or deliberately copying anyone else's work during the process.

Ensure that all parts of your work, both visual and audio, are your own original creations. If you have used materials which are owned by other people or companies make certain that you have obtained proper permission or licensing for the use before you place your work online.

I'm taking this up a notch. I found an email for a person regarding copyright infringement in their own Copyright Policy, found at the bottom of the page.

(catchphrase) "unless he has changed the image significantly."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
is that still not copyright infringment , though?

say, i took an Ansel Adams Moonrise Hernandez , or Richard Avedon's work of Twiggy, and CHANGED THE IMAGE SIGNIFICANTLY...
it is still stealing some IP, isn't it? 
Or else, someone could jolly well take Rembrandt Nightwatch , photoshop it over and presto, it's mine.

I remember reading somewhere that even if you did a silhouette , any proper stock agency will demand the unsilhouetted original  to prove the image was not stolen from another photographer, and you simply photoshop it into a silhouette.

unless you meant to say something else? Madelaide, please clarify.