MicrostockGroup

Thanks for posting Jsnover

This looks mostly like a collection of photos for local community events. Why do you suppose this person would post multiple copies of other peoples Fotolia images here? I don't get it.

Some people use Flickr to host their images.

Judging by the sheer lack of searchable metadata in those shots, I wouldn't really assume they are out to share the images with the world.

As opposed to the exact same images being hosted on the buyers website - equal size, equally downloadable with still no searchable metadata? Copyright is full of holes, like a leaky boat getting ready to sink.

^^ That's not true. They don't offer the images for download. The fact that they can be downloaded does not mean anything in this context. If you use it for you project on website, then it also can be downloaded. They marked those images as copyrighted on Flickr meaning that not them but anyone downloading them from Flickr and using them commits the crime, not them.

In other words if they are using the Flickr account as storage or sharing vehicle (between say project group members), it is not violation of any rules. Except that it sounds pretty stupid.

I don't think that's true. If they are allowing the images to be shared by multiple members, they would have needed to purchase an appropriate seat license for that and right off the top of my head, I am not sure which sites offer that license. And there is NO existing license on any of the sites, that I know of, that allows one person to purchase a web-sized image, post it on their site, and allow others to "share" it. Whether there is a download button there or not. That's called re-distribution and copyright infringement. They are allowed to purchase the image, post it on their site for their own personal use, period.

And if they did purchase the correct license, they should have kept the copyright information of the contributor intact or given them credit. I'm not sure this is a requirement, but...

And I have a feeling that this is what most people do when we complain to flickr/yahoo. They set their collection to private. But if they are allowing contacts, friends, whoever to download, without having purchased the correct license, they are still re-distributing and it is a copyright violation. And shame on flickr/yahoo if they are allowing people to do that.

WRONG!!!

If it is copyrighted that means that the person who posted the image has to have the copyright for it. They cannot post it without the proper license and even with the license (purchased from the agency) they have to state the name of the copyrighter (or photographer). I doubt anybody licensed the images for Flickr so they can't post any of our images. That means that they can't use Flicker to store our images (that they have purchased from agencies) even if they put our names underneath the image.


Kone

Ok, you are probably right.

Once you release images onto the web - copyright laws or not - you're giving up control over it.

Get over it.

Photographers and Agencies need a reality pill and more creativity about how to monetize their work. Most people pursuing stuff like this are wasting time and money better spent elsewhere. As a side note, I suggest brushing up on arguments in favor of abolishing IP. Like I said earlier, there's a TON of problems with it, and most everyone in the stock photo business seems to be clueless about it. Once you better understand the issues with IP laws, you start to think in newer more innovative ways - which is why I suggest studying it. Will it challenge your world view? Hell yeah, so just suck it up. I went in a skeptic, and came out with a smile on my face because of the new avenues I discovered.

IP = Intellectual Property

Did you see the Light too, brother? I'm currently looking into Buddhism. 

I could probably type a book from what I learned, but in a nutshell many of our problems are stemming from the Agency level and how they have chosen to setup their business models - so it would be harder for a regular photographer to do anything about it.

Here's what I think is the most important thing to consider:

* You can only reliably sell the things you can control.

Example: Yes, you can sell stock shots in an IP free world, but only for "X" amount of time reliably because at some point there is a competitor who rises up, and there will also be copying of products you sold off and willfully lost control over. A good example of how this can be put into action would be LookStat.com - They do NOT offer a downloadable version of their tools - it's all online. Effectively, assuming they ever sell their image tracking services, your really paying to log into their site, and then use the tools. They would have a harder and harder time trying make money off selling the program the traditional way because of copying/hacking that always happens over time. Paying for online access to tools is certainly a frontier business model that could work as Internet speeds become faster and faster. They could offer a far more expensive traditional install disc, but only 6-12 months after releasing the online access version first, for less money. Now thats the future of software releases. Imagine having access to a super computer running Photoshop or some other intense program over a super high speed web connection. It's futuristc alright... but it illustrates my point - you can only reliably sell what you can control. By the way, I do NOT consider government threats of force a good, or even moral, way to reliably control you're images. Just look around you on the web - even with the current system (government threats), intellectual products are being taken left and right and very few people are ever successfully pursued legally and punished. So CLEARLY it's a failure.

Again, I could go on and on. Lastly, I think you should start looking for a way to get more assignment work, but really think about what you are selling people on - it's your unique skills, personality, customer service, customization of an image, etc... Anyone can take a photo, so thats not enough. If you want to stay in stock, which I believe has a place in the market even if IP laws vanished, you really need to stay on top of emerging needs, markets, niches, etc...