lol, don't worry about it.

a) It's probably a placeholder. ANY professional (real) site would not get business if they had 'shutterstock' all watermarked over it.
b) If they ARE a real site trying to get busienss, they probably don't have the money anyways to pay for it - and it is advertising for you.
c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.

c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.

But that doesn't mean you can use them on a public websites. They should be used to review the content or in mockups for clients... not live websites.

lol, don't worry about it.

a) It's probably a placeholder. ANY professional (real) site would not get business if they had 'shutterstock' all watermarked over it.
b) If they ARE a real site trying to get busienss, they probably don't have the money anyways to pay for it - and it is advertising for you.
c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.

Advertising?!!

Good grief.

I've noticed since the Google change in image search a lot more people are now going to the stock sites and stealing the images from there. I've  seen a lot more watermarks floating around. I've had a few arguments with people on Facebook...all of whom seem to believe that leaving the watermark on means the image is ok to steal because it's "fair use" or as long as they give the photographer credit it's perfectly legal. The most recent was Ricky Gervais...he stole an image from Alamy. And certainly he can afford to pay to license something.

Even here people tout this �fair use� bull$hit as being ok to do. And no, I am not going to argue that it�s �legal�. There are a whole lot of things that are �legal� that are certainly not ethical. Why on earth would we have our images on sites to sell, if we were ok with this �fair use� crap? I am sure some lowlife attorney came up with that nonsense so he/she could use whatever images they wanted to.

If contributors don�t stop publicizing and touting �fair use� as a legitimate thing, more and more watermarks are going to be showing. And I don�t believe using watermarked images is any kind of advertising for me to sell more images. It is only advertising for people to grab and steal more images. 

Interesting comments.

Re: watermarks/"stolen"

Watermarks are designed to provide an incentive for people to actually purchase the 'real' image, free of watermarks. When selling images online, that is one effective way to make people decide to purchase. In a perfect world, you wouldn't have to watermark images, and people would just purchase it if they wanted to use it, but that's not how things work.

The images with watermarks were not "stolen", they were made publicly available in one or more stock sites, and someone simply decided to download the preview images, and include them on the site.

Re: advertising
It actually *is* free advertising - because if that company actually does get views/eyeballs - people will know to go to shutterstock
to purchase the image without the watermark. And to objowl - if you are sincere and it's not just a snide remark - and you could
actually get a significant people viewing my portfolio - I would be happy to send you my portfolio with watermarked images.
The majority of people don't like watermarked images, and some would actually purchase, which would make me very happy.

Re: fair use
As for the comments about "fair use", if people are actually making comments like that on facebook, they have no clue
what they are talking about. Fair use is usually applied to text or video, and it is usually a 'portion' of that text or video. (Not
images). "Fair use" means when you can take copyrighted content that is *not* watermarked - and incorporate it into other
content. And it is usually USA based (other countries may or may not observe that themselves). It is usually acceptable for purposes
of teaching/news reporting/critisism/research/etc.

If someone is talking about "fair use" for "watermarked images" - it makes no sense. Because the images are made publicly
available for the purpose of evaluating/previewing, with the hope that the desire to remove the watermark is incentive enough
to purchase the final content. (It's also why you get smaller previews too, for both images & video).

The only context in which fair use makes sense if someone was using 'unwatermarked' images. In that case - then fair use would
apply only if they had content/footage in which they were critisizing something, research/news/etc. If they were using it for
commercial purposes (i.e., to sell something online) - then fair use does *not* apply.

conclusion

Anyways, for the "watermarked" images - don't worry about it. There really isn't much you can do except drive yourself nuts
trying to chase after every person who uses a 'watermarked' image. Professional sites/etc do not use watermarked images -
because their is a stigma associated with that (i.e., it is a cheap site/unprofessional/etc). If I went to a website to purchase something, and then I saw watermarks plastered all over the images on their site - I wouldn't purchase from them, because I'd
figure it was some kid in his moms basement that spent 5 minutes putting together a website. I'd say most people would be
the same. And as for the watermarked images - it is indeed free advertising. Most people prefer non watermarked images - so
if they saw something they liked - they now know where to go purchase it free of watermarks.

Now if it was "unwatermarked" - AND the FULL image - and somehow someone was using those images, unlicensed (and you
could prove that) - then yes, those would be "stolen" images, and you would have recourse & means to do something about it.
And in that case, I would definitely recommend doing what you could to protect your copyrights/etc.

Oh jeez. A copyright "expert" who feels it's OK to steal people's images but for some reason stays anonymous.

No, you are wrong. It is not okay to steal someone's full/unwatermarked images. Please read what I wrote.

But when you upload and make available a *watermarked* image for the purpose of previewing, that is not stealing. You should read the license agreements you agree to when you sign up for stock image sites. It doesn't sound like you have.

"What If I See a Watermarked Version of My Image on a Website?

Is your content hosted by an online service provider?

Online Service Providers

A �service provider� is a website, internet host or service that publishes or transmits content uploaded by users and/or customers. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (�DMCA�) protects service providers from becoming liable for the independent acts of their users. In order for service providers to benefit from this immunity, they need to promptly take down content after receiving notice of a claimed infringement.

Some examples of service providers include social media sites such as
Facebook.com, Twitter.com and Pinterest.com. Other examples include sites
where content may be uploaded, such as YouTube.com, or file sharing sites
such as rapidgator.net.  Some online marketplaces are also considered to be
service providers; for example, eBay.com, Amazon.com, and Etsy.com.
If a user has posted your watermarked content to a service provider, sending a takedown notice to that service provider should result in prompt removal of the image.

However, be aware that you must be sure that the use is unlicensed before sending a takedown notice, and you must comply with the requirements of sending a proper
takedown notice."

lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.

Quote from: obj owl on April 02, 2018, 12:07

Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 02, 2018, 11:16

Re: advertising
It actually *is* free advertising - because if that company actually does get views/eyeballs - people will know to go to shutterstock
to purchase the image without the watermark. And to objowl - if you are sincere and it's not just a snide remark - and you could
actually get a significant people viewing my portfolio - I would be happy to send you my portfolio with watermarked images.
The majority of people don't like watermarked images, and some would actually purchase, which would make me very happy.

It was a snide remark, not just a snide remark, but an heartfelt snide remark.  I usually have a sneaking admiration for people who look at the world upside down, but you are just being silly.

Lol, you just ignored the info I posted from Shutterstock.

"You should read the license agreements you agree to when you sign up for stock image sites. It doesn't sound like you have."

lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.

And yet you are calling people democrats when a) what does politics have to do with this discussion and b) you are calling them democrats because you think it�s a derogatory term. In essence, doing some of your own name calling. LOL. Clearly a hypocritical Trump supporter. Whatever THAT has to do with people stealing our images. 

I just buy the images even for mockups. With a sub it's literally like ... a buck or something and the credits roll over. Before the peak winter months I had so many * fotolia credits that I was just buying stuff to try out ideas.

A legal battle might not pay off in the end but, you could certainly put together a cease and desist and hope that it does some good. Doing nothing is almost certain to yield no result. They might just reply "Oh, we're planning on buying them but, we uploaded everything just to make sure the code was compatible with hosting" or "Hey *, we stole these fair and square" but, what's the harm in trying.

Quote from: cathyslife on April 02, 2018, 14:35

Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 02, 2018, 12:37

lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.

And yet you are calling people democrats when a) what does politics have to do with this discussion and b) you are calling them democrats because you think it�s a derogatory term. In essence, doing some of your own name calling. LOL. Clearly a hypocritical Trump supporter. Whatever THAT has to do with people stealing our images. 

"Wrong" 

LOL! 

lol, don't worry about it.

a) It's probably a placeholder. ANY professional (real) site would not get business if they had 'shutterstock' all watermarked over it.
b) If they ARE a real site trying to get busienss, they probably don't have the money anyways to pay for it - and it is advertising for you.
c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.

a) don't know if it's a placeholder, doesn't matter, illegal use
b) No it's not advertising, it's stealing
c) Wrong, downloading a sample and using it are far different.

Can I have some of your best images to use on my website? I promise to mention your name if I ever make some money. Sorry can't afford to pay but you'll get exposure, views, and maybe credit. 

If you had a watermark in my images on your site, I would be perfectly fine with that.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on March 30, 2018, 09:15

lol, don't worry about it.

a) It's probably a placeholder. ANY professional (real) site would not get business if they had 'shutterstock' all watermarked over it.
b) If they ARE a real site trying to get busienss, they probably don't have the money anyways to pay for it - and it is advertising for you.
c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.

a) don't know if it's a placeholder, doesn't matter, illegal use
b) No it's not advertising, it's stealing
c) Wrong, downloading a sample and using it are far different.

Can I have some of your best images to use on my website? I promise to mention your name if I ever make some money. Sorry can't afford to pay but you'll get exposure, views, and maybe credit. 

I'm trying to say though - unless the site to the end user explicitly states "preview images may not be used on websites" (which I have not seen from the license agreements I've reviewed), there's not really any enforceability. And even if that was written - it doesn't necessarily mean that it is enforceable, simply because there is the understanding that a preview is an 'evaluation' (incentive to get someone to purchase the full version). As for DMCA notices, it is supposed to apply to full copyrighted content.

It's like say having a bag of cookies for sale in costco, and getting mad at costco because they are giving out free samples to 'non-paying' customers. Sure, some will never have an intention of buying that brand of cookies whatsoever. But others, they think, mm these are good cookies, and then buy them, maybe even buy a few and tell some friends.

I guess to each his own. If you want to get upset because someone is using watermarked content on their site, then go ahead and get upset and chase after every single person doing that. I feel time would be better spent creating new content and looking for paying customers, but - it's your choice.

Lol yeah... Okay. And your point?

It doesn't explicitly say the materials "cannot be used on websites". And for the site in question - they could simply argue it is preview/evaluation site. Companies actually do create mock up sites not intended for public use (but due to the nature of the internet, can be indexed in search engines and be discovered). Secondly, since a user can easily download the *preview* images without actually accepting the license agreement (you don't need to create an account in order to have access to those images), those 'rules' created by shutterstock are not technically enforceable under that license agreement.

Anyways, some people are going to believe what they want to believe, no matter what is presented to them. If someone wants to waste their energy getting all worked up on this, I guess that is their choice. I guess you can't see that, and can't see the bigger picture, so I am not going to discuss this any more. Go ahead and chase after people using preview images if you want.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 03, 2018, 09:15

I'm trying to say though - unless the site to the end user explicitly states "preview images may not be used on websites" (which I have not seen from the license agreements I've reviewed), there's not really any enforceability.

Here's what I found after 3 seconds spent searching, it's for Shutterstock footage:

"A FOOTAGE COMP LICENSE grants you the right to use watermarked, low resolution Footage as a comp (the "Comp Footage") solely in test, sample, comp, or rough cut evaluation materials. Footage Comp Licenses do not permit you to display or distribute to the public or incorporated into any final materials any such Footage. Comp Footage can be edited, but you may not remove or alter the Shutterstock watermark."

I mean, OF COURSE previews are not allowed in final materials. It's just so obvious I can't even believe you question it.

I'm trying to say though - unless the site to the end user explicitly states "preview images may not be used on websites" (which I have not seen from the license agreements I've reviewed), there's not really any enforceability. And even if that was written - it doesn't necessarily mean that it is enforceable, simply because there is the understanding that a preview is an 'evaluation' (incentive to get someone to purchase the full version). As for DMCA notices, it is supposed to apply to full copyrighted content.

It's like say having a bag of cookies for sale in costco, and getting mad at costco because they are giving out free samples to 'non-paying' customers. Sure, some will never have an intention of buying that brand of cookies whatsoever. But others, they think, mm these are good cookies, and then buy them, maybe even buy a few and tell some friends.

I guess to each his own. If you want to get upset because someone is using watermarked content on their site, then go ahead and get upset and chase after every single person doing that. I feel time would be better spent creating new content and looking for paying customers, but - it's your choice.

Now that you've given your permission to use your watermarked images, tell us who you are so we can use them.

Pretty sure that about 60% images on the web are stolen.

SuperPhoto, I'm going to give you the benefit of a very small doubt, and suppose you are thinking the images are hotlinked.

There is one instance where I don't mind if someone uses my images without buying them, and that is hotlinking to the thumbnail in a forum.  If they are not using it to make money, but just trying to illustrate their comment, that use is a sort of advertising.  The hotlink will give someone a way to find the site I am selling the image on, if they want to buy it.

Otherwise, thieves can die in a fire.

It's like say having a bag of cookies for sale in costco, and getting mad at costco because they are giving out free samples to 'non-paying' customers. Sure, some will never have an intention of buying that brand of cookies whatsoever. But others, they think, mm these are good cookies, and then buy them, maybe even buy a few and tell some friends.

More often than not that's a vendor of the product. But, since Microstock is Costco ... snag me up half a pallet of marijuana pictures.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 03, 2018, 09:15

I'm trying to say though - unless the site to the end user explicitly states "preview images may not be used on websites" (which I have not seen from the license agreements I've reviewed), there's not really any enforceability. And even if that was written - it doesn't necessarily mean that it is enforceable, simply because there is the understanding that a preview is an 'evaluation' (incentive to get someone to purchase the full version). As for DMCA notices, it is supposed to apply to full copyrighted content.

It's like say having a bag of cookies for sale in costco, and getting mad at costco because they are giving out free samples to 'non-paying' customers. Sure, some will never have an intention of buying that brand of cookies whatsoever. But others, they think, mm these are good cookies, and then buy them, maybe even buy a few and tell some friends.

I guess to each his own. If you want to get upset because someone is using watermarked content on their site, then go ahead and get upset and chase after every single person doing that. I feel time would be better spent creating new content and looking for paying customers, but - it's your choice.

Now that you've given your permission to use your watermarked images, tell us who you are so we can use them.

This!

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 04, 2018, 13:55

I pay for the hosting and the bandwidth has limits. I don't like it when someone steals my paid bandwidth for their cheap site or for a blog. I don't believe you should either.

Oh, but it's so much fun to switch pictures on them when they do that.

There are "free coloring pages" sites that regularly hotlink to the thumbnails on unseengallery.com.  When they do, I redirect my page to a duplicate, and replace the image they're linking to with lemonparty or tubgirl.

LOL Bahahah. That's the best idea I've ever heard.

I'm scared to google those to find out what they are.

I made that mistake. I didn't see the images, but the descriptions were bad enough.

Cease and desist or PAY for your work.  Would you not pay them for their work? Would they work for you without their pay?