pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How to recognize legal/illegal use?  (Read 17180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 21, 2011, 17:45 »
0
Some weeks ago I tried Google image search. First search - Bingo.

Here is my image at FT:

http://de.fotolia.com/id/22390470

Here are the search results:

1.
http://halwatishop.com/Arome-Caramel
Looking at file information in PS5: The file information is empty.
No (Digimarc) watermark found.
There are two of my caramel images used in this image. There is no copyright information given.
I can't recognize legal/illegal use.

2.
http://boralipbalm.com/main.sc
Looking at file information in PS5: The file information is empty.
No (Digimarc) watermark found.
There is no copyright information given.
Filename: 110_F_22390470_vkIc9s8aPe7lcpiJGdsXtCcb61eHBxux.jpg
Size of the image: ImageLength 74 pixels, ImageWidth: 110 pixels
This filename and imagesize one gets, when he views the search results for "toffee" at FT in Firefox, makes a right button click on the image and choses "image info". Then he gets a new Firefox window with the page info and graphics info, where he can download the image with the button "save as". He gets a file with that name, size and whithout file information, whithout fotolia watermarks and whithout Digimarc watermarks.
I think, this image is in illegal use.

3.
http://pixers.fr/papier-peint/chercher/togetherness
This company seems to use Fotolia's stock. I don't want to think about them now.

4.
http://fukuoka.shoplog.jp/worlddrive3/15354.html
I don't know, what this company deals with, handbags, caramel sweets, images? I'm not good in Japanese.
Looking at file information in PS5: The full file information is there (IPTC etc.).
No (Digimarc) watermark found.
Copyright information is given (ingwio - Fotolia).
I think it's a legal use (and hope I've got my commission).

5.
http://www.worlddrive.jp/15354.html
The same as no. 4.

6.
http://www.rydnails.eu/no/boutique-onglerie/soin-manucure (and some other pages of www.rydnails.eu)
Back to the north of Europe and in the homeland of Tyler Olson.
The file information is empty.
No (Digimarc) watermark found.
My caramel image is used in this image. There is no copyright information given.
I can't recognize legal/illegal use.

7....
Several sites of microstock agents (FT, SS, 123RF).

And here are my questions:

Why can't I see a Digimarc watermark (no. 4 and 5)?
Fotolia describes this feature http://blog.fotolia.com/de/2005/08/23/digimarc-schutz-fur-ihre-fotos/. It's in German, I couldn't find it in English. The company is still at the market: http://www.digimarc.com/DigimarcForImages/.

Have the buyers to put copyright information in the files, when they use our images in their images?

How do you recognize a legal/illegal use of your images?

What do the agents do to prevent illegal use?

What could we do to let the agents prevent illegal use?

Would a license ID for each download help recognizing legal/illegal use?
The images have IDs. If we had a license/download ID too, we could recognize images whithout legal licenses, we could find double uses on different websites and we could check the commissions.


PS:
I don't want to write a book, I want my images earn money. And I don't trust the agents. I asked FT about the legal/illegal use of my image two weeks ago - no answer so far.


« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2011, 18:09 »
0
The magic of RF - you don't know who licensed it for what use.

All you can look at is things like watermarks on images, or bigger sizes than allowed online.  Or anything else that explicitly goes against the license.

« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2011, 18:56 »
0
I don't bother as long as it's not on a product for resale or over 800 pixels width.

« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2011, 13:28 »
0
@sjlocke:

With an image ID and a license/download ID there is no need for me to know who licensed it for what use. License/download ID may be something like a timestamp (date and time of the download). Together with the image ID it's unique and anonymous.

If I find one of my images with those IDs on one website and I find this image and license IDs in my list of downloaded files, then usage mostly will be legal.
If I find more than one website using one of my images with identical IDs, it mostly will be illegal use (only one use can be legal). In this case I would fight against.
If I find one of my images without those IDs, it mostly will be illegal use. I would fight against.

Such an unique (and anonymous) license ID would give us control over legal/illegal use of our images in internet (and over agencies).

Watermarks may be fine things, but:
  • Visible watermarks (i.e. of FT) are deleted in a few seconds in Photoshop (content aware fill - a highlight of PS5, even for illegal use).
  • Invisible watermarks (i.e. Digimarc watermarks used by FT as declared in their blog) I didn't find. So I don't know, if they are used or not.
That's why I do not want to rely on watermarking.

« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2011, 13:42 »
0
AFAIK some agencies allow an image to be used many times - hence RF.

The buyer, a graphic/web designer can therefore use it for several clients.

Also your image may be used in composites and then the whole ID thing is out the window again...

In short, it ain't gonna happen with those IDs. It's wishful thinking which all of us would love to have...

Real world sucks.

« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2011, 15:17 »
0
@ click_click:
I don't bother as long as it's not on a product for resale or over 800 pixels width.

(Quote from http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/an-experiment-about-watermarked-images-in-use/)
...
Picscout has already established that 9 out of 10 images online are used without a license. Speaks volumes...

This shows that your commission could be about 9 times higher, if all illegal users would pay for the licenses.

A 9 times higher commission would make me happy - and I think all the other contributors too. But you don't bother?

Your other post I will reply later.

« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2011, 15:22 »
0
... A 9 times higher commission would make me happy - and I think all the other contributors too. But you don't bother?...

I do bother and I did recover damages in some cases.

Once you have your system running with a rate of 5 times higher (not necessarily 9) PM me and I will sign up without even knowing your name.

« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2011, 15:44 »
0
PS:
... I asked FT about the legal/illegal use of my image two weeks ago - no answer so far.

FT Germany answered today in German, therefore in short (and without comments):
The operator of the website is located in US. The operator could not be assigned to a member account on Fotolia. They will notify me once they receive feedback from US.
"... Please understand that Fotolia in the pricing of the microstock market is not able to check every image usage without specific cause. If you have any helpful hints that constitute an abuse, we take it gladly."

« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2011, 16:20 »
0
ingwio,

Maybe you are not clearly aware of the allowed uses of a RF license. From FT itself:

http://www.fotolia.com/Info/SizesAndUses

Quote
What does royalty free mean?

A royalty free license allows you to use an image, vector or video without restrictions on the time or number of uses, or the number of prints.


(actually I wasn't aware that FT imposes no print run restriction; most sites do, even if very lenient)

A buyer may purchase a license and reuse it several times for different projects and different clients. I believe FT will only really do something if the usage required an EL and it was never licensed so.

Digimarc is a paid service that adds an electronic signature to your image. I am not sure this will be retained if the image is modified, or copied and pasted inside an editor.

« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2011, 17:30 »
0
Once you have your system running with a rate of 5 times higher (not necessarily 9) PM me and I will sign up without even knowing your name.

It's not a system or a machine, it will be hard work for the contributors to convince the agencies.

The agencies would have to create a datafield "license ID" in their databases, which is filled when a legal download happens. Not just difficult (I think something like that already exists but not visible for the contributors). It has to be switched visible in the list of the downloads for the contributor.

The second thing is, that the image ID and the license ID have to be written in the image file information (IPTC etc.) before the image is downloaded legally.  I think that's no problem. In the image file information (IPTC) is a datafield "Copyright information". I.e. FT puts the contributors name in this datafield and adds "- Fotolia", when the file is downloaded legally. They are able to write other datas too.

I explained my idea and I want you - the distributors - to think about the idea and work on the project.

This idea has to be checked and has to be realized. There is a lot to do:
  • The work plan has to be made.
  • The agreements of the agencies have to be read.
  • The results have to be written down.
  • The suggestions for the agencies have to be made.
  • We will have to find an agencie for testing.
  • We will have to convince the agencies.
  • The posts in the forums of the agencies have to be made, to get their members too (most of them are not active at this site).
  • etc..............

This is a little like working in a union. But this "ad hoc union" would have a clear mission: Find tools for recognizing illegal use of our work.
This union could go to the agencies and say: "Let's all together earn more money." And that's because not only the contributors would earn more money, even the agencies would, by selling more licenses.

I think this is a better mission for a union than saying: "Give us higher commissions." (Look at: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-to-fight-against-lower-and-lower-commisions!/ and http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/new-commissions-at-fotolia/ and others.


PS:
@ click_click:
...
Real world sucks.

They suck our images illegally - we want to suck their money but legally.

« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2011, 17:57 »
0
@sjlocke:

With an image ID and a license/download ID there is no need for me to know who licensed it for what use. License/download ID may be something like a timestamp (date and time of the download). Together with the image ID it's unique and anonymous.

If I find one of my images with those IDs on one website and I find this image and license IDs in my list of downloaded files, then usage mostly will be legal.
If I find more than one website using one of my images with identical IDs, it mostly will be illegal use (only one use can be legal). In this case I would fight against.
If I find one of my images without those IDs, it mostly will be illegal use. I would fight against.

Such an unique (and anonymous) license ID would give us control over legal/illegal use of our images in internet (and over agencies).

Watermarks may be fine things, but:
  • Visible watermarks (i.e. of FT) are deleted in a few seconds in Photoshop (content aware fill - a highlight of PS5, even for illegal use).
  • Invisible watermarks (i.e. Digimarc watermarks used by FT as declared in their blog) I didn't find. So I don't know, if they are used or not.
That's why I do not want to rely on watermarking.

None of that would work.  Mostly because buyers are free to cut and slice and paste and modify the images into their own derivative works, both online and off.  There is no guarantee of any id remaining intact in any form.  So, basically, you are stuck with "if you see it somewhere, and it never sold, something funny is going on".

As mentioned repeatedly, more licenses allow (encourage) perpetual usage by a buyer for multiple clients.  You can license it once, see it on 10 different sites, and that could be just fine and dandy.

So, with RF, you are pretty much stuck with the obvious things, like I said, online bigger than X, a thumbnail with a watermark, etc.

red

« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2011, 18:03 »
0
Adding Exif/IPTC data is pointless. It can all be easily removed. This is just one program that will strip data from a photo, there are many others.

Batch Exif Tag Remover - ExifCleaner

ExifCleaner is a handy batch utility that lets you to erase/remove Exif tags, geotags, IPTC, Adobe XMP, and other photographic metadata from JPEG pictures. This protects your privacy, helps you to hide unneeded, undesirable or sometimes sensitive information about the image, photographer and location. Did you know that every digital photo produced with a modern camera or a smartphone contains it? Removing metadata saves disk space and server bandwidth, reduces download times that is especially evident on small-sized, or on a large amount of images. Exif cleaner can also be useful for photo professionals, to strip out Exif data in photomontage works.

« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2011, 18:15 »
0
madelaide,

thanks for your post.

I didn't read the different license agreements of all agencies. But I know that they are different, so it's hard work. And I do not want to do the work allone (have a look at my previous post.)

A buyer may reuse a license several times. But I think, a buyer who uses an image for a site of an owner in Japan will mostly not have a client in France or US. I think most images are used for one client.

With the license ID we can't recognize illegal paper prints at this time. But let's try the first step - let's catch illegal online users. As click_click said, a perhaps 5 times higher commission would be enough.

I believe the agencies will hardly do something, it's easier to cut commissions for the contributors. But let us convince them. License ID would give us - the contributors - a chance to recognize legal/illegal use of our work. Because of international laws mostly the contributor must fight against illegal usage of his work.

Because Digimarc is a paid service we would never get all agencies to pay for this service. License ID is a feature, the agencies can realize on their own. I don't know if Digimarc really works in all cases, so far I haven't seen a Digimarc watermark in practice.

Let's look foreward. Let's fight against illegal usage of our work.

« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2011, 18:27 »
0
Adding Exif/IPTC data is pointless. It can all be easily removed.
If image ID and license ID are removed the image looks like in illegal use. I would send a notice about that to the site owner.

« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2011, 18:56 »
0
Adding Exif/IPTC data is pointless. It can all be easily removed.
If image ID and license ID are removed the image looks like in illegal use. I would send a notice about that to the site owner.
Unless agreements said that EXIF data could not be removed, then it would not be illegal. PSP allows me to set if I want EXIF data saved or not when I edit an image. My default is not.

« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2011, 19:13 »
0
It cannot happen. Period. It can not!

For this to work you will have to work with ALL possible agencies in the world!

Please read this again: All - agencies - in - the - world!

Not even if all members on this forum would help we couldn't do it. Too much work!

You don't know who is submitting his/her images to which agency so it is important that every agency on this planet is working with this system.

Secondly, you are not going to pay money to the agency to make all necessary changes to their database and testing the system.

Do you really think the agencies do all that work for free? What are their benefits?

Are you going to share your lost revenue 50/50 with the agencies?

If 12,483 agencies in the world participate but iStock doesn't, then what?

Designers select, copy and paste parts and bits of pieces of our images. Tons of images are being manipulated that way and therefore lose the IDs. How do you prevent that? Prohibit the act of designing?

Come on, go shoot some pictures. It ain't gonna happen.

rubyroo

« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2011, 05:10 »
0
Surely some solution will have to come to light some time.  You would think that an ever-burgeoning economy in digital works (and potential taxes) would be interesting enough to attract the attention of governments.

I'm not a programmer or security expert, so maybe this completely redundant -  but I wonder if there might be some way to embed some sort of secure 'toggle' into the image data that will get switched off or on when a transaction takes place.

It wouldn't be enough to ensure that licencing rules are adhered to, but could be enough to ensure that the image has been legiitimately purchased.

As with everything, a clever hacker could undoubtedly deactivate such a thing - but it's the only possible method I can think of.

Forgive my ignorance is this is a stupid idea.

« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2011, 05:48 »
0
...
For this to work you will have to work with ALL possible agencies in the world!
Please read this again: All - agencies - in - the - world!
Not even if all members on this forum would help we couldn't do it. Too much work!
You don't know who is submitting his/her images to which agency so it is important that every agency on this planet is working with this system.
There is no need to get all agencies in the first step, but some of the top and middle tiers, especially the agencies I'm uploading to and the most of us distributors too. If one of the agencies makes the necessary changes, we could give them our new uploads. Others would follow us - and other agencies would follow, too (or they wouldn't get new uploads).
Quote
Secondly, you are not going to pay money to the agency to make all necessary changes to their database and testing the system.
Do you really think the agencies do all that work for free? What are their benefits?
Yes, I think they have to do it for free, because they would sell more licenses and get their commissions.
Quote
Are you going to share your lost revenue 50/50 with the agencies?
If the agencies would fight against illegal usage, they would sell licenses and the agency and the contributor get their commission. If I would have to fight against illegal use, there is no need to share the revenue with the agencies.
Quote
If 12,483 agencies in the world participate but iStock doesn't, then what?
If iStock wouldn't participate I wouldn't care, because I don't upload to them. If you would further upload to iStock, you would have to live with their decision.
Quote
Designers select, copy and paste parts and bits of pieces of our images. Tons of images are being manipulated that way and therefore lose the IDs. How do you prevent that? Prohibit the act of designing?
I don't want to prohibit the act of designing - I want to prohibit the act of using our images illegally without paying for our work. The designers want to be paid for their work too. I don't know how to prevent your described case at this time, it's part of working out the plan.

In the first step we will not find all images in all cases of illegal use. But let's begin to fight against illegal use.

In all examples of my entry post the owner of the sites try to make money with the help of the images. I think at least the half are in illegal use. Some are used in composits. If I can't see image ID and the license ID of my images in the image file information, I would write a notice about that to the owner of the site.

In the past music industry wasn't very successful in preventing illegal usage of music files. But there is a difference between music industry and microstock image industry. Most of illegal users of music files have downloaded them to hear the music alone or with their friends, not public. Most illegal users of images want to show them public, in paper prints or in the web - and in the web we have the chance to catch them worldwide.

Microstock images became an industry - there is no industry without politics. We have to work on politics - no one else will do this for us. But it's not a thing one can do alone.

Who is interested in working on that plan?

Who has some experience in international group working via web?


PS:
Quote
Come on, go shoot some pictures. It ain't gonna happen.
Yes, click_click, I want to shoot some pictures - for two or three hours a day. But I don't want to add up to 24 hours a day working for the illegal users - I do need my sleep really.

« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2011, 10:59 »
0
rubyroo,

many governments have made their work by creating (international) rules for copyright. I don't think they will do more for us. Please have a look at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright.

It's our turn to fight against illegal use of our work. That isn't a simple problem (look at the music industry).

Digimarc watermark could be a secure toggle, but I don't know if and how it works in practice. And it's a paid service.

The image ID of the agency together with the license ID, generated when an image is downloaded, would work like a "passport" for the legal license. If the image appears in web with the "passport" (the IDs are in the image file information), mostly it will be licensed (legal) use. If the image appears without "passport" you could send a notice about that to the site owner and he can show you the "passport" (by sending you the IDs). If he has no "passport", it could be illegal use. If he has lost the "passport" (i.e. by deleting the original downloaded files) he could find the IDs in the list of his downloaded files at his agency account. If he has no agency account, he will not use the image legally.

A hacker could delete the "passport" of the image. No problem, the owner of the site in which the image is used, has a look to the list of the downloaded files at his agency account. Then he can show you the "passport" of the image.

I don't think, that there are stupid ideas, when fighting against illegal use, except the idea to do nothing.

« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2011, 09:21 »
0
After I've telephoned with Fotolia I don't think that Digimarc watermarks are really practiced at Fotolia. I wrote them a notice.

« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2011, 10:02 »
0
I just received DT's newsletter with a link to a new feature:
New feature: Report misusage - DMCA notification (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_28308)

The thread shows how misuse could be handled by a microstock agency, but the problem is left: How to recognize misuse.


PS.:
I wonder how other agencies handle misuse. If they don't, I will know which agency gets my next uploads - exclusive.

RacePhoto

« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2011, 12:13 »
0
After I've telephoned with Fotolia I don't think that Digimarc watermarks are really practiced at Fotolia. I wrote them a notice.

I'm a little slow on this. Your images are only for sale on FT?

You plan of registering licenses, but hidden from the artists view, makes no sense. How does someone who sells on 25 agencies find out which one sold the image? Ask all of them to go through and see if they have a sale at XYZ site for that shot? Wed' have to check every use we find, then write to every agency and have them check for licenses?

Please explain.

« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2011, 12:37 »
0
I'm a little slow on this. Your images are only for sale on FT?

You plan of registering licenses, but hidden from the artists view, makes no sense. How does someone who sells on 25 agencies find out which one sold the image? Ask all of them to go through and see if they have a sale at XYZ site for that shot? Wed' have to check every use we find, then write to every agency and have them check for licenses?

Please explain.

I thought the OP meant that every image will have a license ID attached to the IPTC data of the file.

Each agency could have license IDs starting with the first three letters of their name followed by a 30-digit number.

Once you would find an image of yours online and check the IPTC (if it hasn't been stripped...) you could then match it up with other sites using that same image. If any of them have the identical license ID it would either mean that it was purchased by the same buyer but used multiple times or... and that's the idea of the OP, the file is stolen.

That's a lot of effort for a very low chance of making valid claims. The agencies would have to invest a lot of money and resources to implement that system and in the end it still has to be verified manually if two images may or may have not been used legally.

It's like treading water IMO.

« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2011, 14:05 »
0
You plan of registering licenses, but hidden from the artists view, makes no sense.

If an image is used with a purchased license, you can't use a visible watermark, because the image would be worthless for the buyer. So you have to use an invisible sign. This could be an invisible (Digimarc) watermark. My idea is to use a unified license ID in the image file information (IPTC data).

How does someone who sells on 25 agencies find out which one sold the image? Ask all of them to go through and see if they have a sale at XYZ site for that shot? Wed' have to check every use we find, then write to every agency and have them check for licenses?

When FT sells a license today, they put a copyright phrase (i.e.: "ingwio - fotolia") and the image ID of FT into the image file information. Please look at my example 4 in the opening post. I think other agencies handle it similar, I did not check this so far.

The copyright phrase and the image ID show you, which agency has sold a license for an image with a special ID, but it is not a unified sign for a purchased license. Worldwide everyone could copy the image and when you find it on a site, it looks like a purchased license. Only the agency could find out, whether it's a legal license purchased by the owner.

I do not want to find out whether an image is in legal usage. I want to find the images without a license and would like the owners of these sites to purchase a license or remove the image. I.e.: An image is sold 30 times and used 60 times on web. Today you can't find out on your own which one is in use without a purchased license. Only the agency would be able to check, but it's hard work, because they had to check each website on which the image is used. They would not do that. And users who haven't purchased a license don't say: Look, here is an image in illegal use.

Therefore we - the contributors - need to distinguish legal from illegal use and fight against illegal (non purchased) use. Therefore I started this thread.

I thought the OP meant that every image will have a license ID attached to the IPTC data of the file.

Each agency could have license IDs starting with the first three letters of their name followed by a 30-digit number.

Once you would find an image of yours online and check the IPTC (if it hasn't been stripped...) you could then match it up with other sites using that same image. If any of them have the identical license ID it would either mean that it was purchased by the same buyer but used multiple times or... and that's the idea of the OP, the file is stolen.

My idea is to use a unified sign in the image file information - like a passport. Then we can check and do the following:
  • The image has a passport and is only found once: Legal use, nothing to do.
  • The image has a passport and is found more than once: Maybe legal use, nothing to do. Maybe illegal use, send a notice to the agency (when exclusive image) or to the owners of the sites (when non-exclusive image).
  • The image has no passport: Maybe illegal use. Send a notice to the agency (when exclusive image)  or to the owner of the site (when non-exclusive image).

In my idea of a simple unified sign (passport) it should have the following elements: agency, image ID, license ID.

In the image file information (part IPTC-Status) of an image licensed by FT we find the following data already today:
datafield Copyright: artist and agency (i.e.: ingwio - fotolia)
datafield Source: image ID of the agency (i.e.:22390470)

This data is written into the image file information, when a purchased download occurs at FT. Only the license ID is missed.

In a simple way the license ID could be the timestamp for that moment the image with the purchased license is downloaded. This data you find already in the artist's list of sold files at at FT (and in the buyer's list of purchased files too). With the format string "yyyymmddhhmmss" and the download date/time 2011-08-24 02:39:54 pm you would get 20110824143954 for the license ID, which could be added in the datafield Source (i.e. 22390470-20110824143954).

The license ID isn't a new idea. The IPCT, "International Press Telecommunications Council" (http://www.iptc.org/site/Home/), defined and described the datafields of image file information. Especially for Adobe users is the "IPTC File Info panel in CS5 User Guide" (http://www.iptc.org/std/photometadata/documentation/IPTC-CS5-FileInfo-UserGuide_6.pdf), read pages 14-16, 22-25. Implementing this would be hard stuff for the agencies, therefore my idea of timestamp as a simple license ID.

That's a lot of effort for a very low chance of making valid claims. The agencies would have to invest a lot of money and resources to implement that system and in the end it still has to be verified manually if two images may or may have not been used legally.

It's like treading water IMO.

I can't see that the agencies would have to invest a lot of money and resources to implement the additional image ID as I described above. I.e. at FT it looks more like a little finger exercise for a programmer at the beginning of his career: formatting date/time of the purchased download and writing it to the image file information together with the image ID.

@ click_click:

Now I've read about your opinion why an image ID would not work.

But what about your answers to my other questions in the opening post?
  • Have the buyers to put copyright information in the files, when they use our images in their images?
  • How do you recognize a legal/illegal use of your images?
  • What do your agents do to prevent illegal use?
  • What do you do to let the agencies prevent illegal use?
  • What would you prefer instead of a license ID for recognizing legal/illegal use?

Your idea seems to be to produce more images instead of fighting against the illegal use of images.

This would be like drawing water out of a boat which has a big leak IMO.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 14:28 by ingwio »

« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2011, 14:20 »
0
Newspaper article about illegal downsloads of music, movies and books in the German "Frankfurter Allgemeine", FAZ.net (in German):

http://www.faz.net/artikel/C30350/illegale-downloads-verbaende-fordern-warnhinweise-30494082.html


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3874 Views
Last post June 19, 2008, 22:07
by a.k.a.-tom
6 Replies
3433 Views
Last post December 19, 2009, 08:01
by ljupco
6 Replies
3263 Views
Last post November 29, 2012, 11:25
by Sean Locke Photography
3 Replies
1770 Views
Last post October 11, 2015, 10:12
by sweetgirll
4 Replies
1162 Views
Last post April 01, 2018, 15:01
by MarcvsTvllivs

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors