MicrostockGroup

OK, just a little story about what you can run into as a microstock (or general stock) contributor these days.

I found one of my best sellers (created in 2005 and registered copyright on it) on Flickr as part of a composition which basically consisted out of 2 images (one of them being mine). Copyright is stated in the image naming the contributor in question and not me.

Mine was the background and an isolated object was slapped into the center of the image.

As I found my image I contacted the Flickr-member, asking to have it removed.

He replied with his opinion that as he created the image with Gimp which took him "several hours" it is his image. He further explained to me that he "got the two images from different sources". So he claims the image is his.

I then informed him of the US copyright law and what is considered copyright infringement together with a link to the web site of the US Copyright Office.

I originally also asked him to let me know where he purchased the license from. No answer there. He didn't even mention that topic.

Well, long story short I contacted Yahoo with my DMCA claim waiting for the outcome, which should be obvious.

Now as I just checked back on Flickr, I realized that there is also a Deviantart watermark on the image. So I'll be heading over there to let them know as well.

So basically you are angry because someone is using your image? Isn't that what (micro-)stock is all about? (if he did buy it as he should have done)

Oh and he claims he owns the copyright.

XXX

no

I'm having enough problems keeping my best seller off of the Google image search, ebay, Zazzle, Flickr etc. - So I'm not going to play into everyobdy's hands to produce a top seller without making an effort. Sorry.

Me, too. Clear violations. I am certain it will be taken down, but no other punishment will be given to the infringer, like having his account suspended. I hope flickr points him to their copyright policy, available at the bottom of their pages.

Honestly, I'm already happy if the image will be removed. I don't expect much anymore these days.

They didn't really make money off of it and just tried to polish their ego by submitting it to user driven image sites.

It just leaves a sour taste when people try to pass on the image for free claiming it's theirs, even if it's a composite.

Just link me to this xxxx head. I want to "spam" him a couple of messages. Maybe by kindly explaining him the obvious, he will understand

Btw I dislike Flick hobbyists

EXACTLY!

Yesterday, I also came across a forum where people "design" new DVD/BlueRay covers to "replace" the "originals".

A guy was looking for an image like mine with a few samples and asked for something in hires.

Some other dummy posted a link to my image hosted somewhere and said that this one is great because it's super high res.

Then the first dude replied that this was exaclty what he was looking for but he needed to make changes to make it fit.

So (get this) a Super-Moderator of the forum stepped in and uploaded a modified PSD-version so the OP could get it the way he needed it.

I expressed my concern to the moderators there and they weren't happy how this thread developed. I'm still waiting to hear back from them.

Well, maybe this is a way to "educate" the masses...monitoring some of these forums and doing exactly what you did, pointing out the legal ramifications.

I've done that at Zazzle a couple of times.

Oh, I forgot to say. I had similar problem with one artist from Deviant Art. Her work is always a derivate from stock images and her own images. She also sells those images. At least she always gives links to the artists who provided elements for the image.

lol
Ok, well, it's not exactly like this...always, but often it is.