MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: News sites using my image without credit/pay  (Read 4736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 29, 2014, 03:48 »
0
Has anyone had experience in this...

There is a site that has used my image on their homepage (I assume they paid for it) as part of their 'look'.  They have gotten lots of traction lately and all the news sites are using that image in the news article and just grabbing it from the site itself instead of licensing it like they should.  Has anyone had experience in chasing infringements like this down?


« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2014, 05:10 »
+1
Wow, that was a big story last week.  I'm not sure if they can grab the image under "fair use" as representative of the site itself, since that is the subject of the story.  Would it be different if they grabbed a screen shot of the front page?  There are a lot of "non news" sites as well.

I'm not sure what to do with that one.

stocked

« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2014, 07:22 »
+1
They certainly gave the image away within their press release so Netropolitian are the ones to blame and the news-sites just used the image in good faith. It's also a good example why we should demand higher prices  these 0.38 downloads are joke and it's a double-joke considering this exclusive Facebook for the rich demand a 9000,- entrance fee but are too cheap to spend any money to create an exclusive image for their exclusive club.

« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2014, 07:31 »
0
i think that the credits required only in editorial uses of the imagens

Tror

« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2014, 07:40 »
0
Contact a lawyer immediately. You may find one who is in for a percentage of the amount demanded from the sued party. Chances of success should be about 80 - 90 % since the case is quite clear. Most likely the sued party will agree soon in the process to settle for a certain amount to avoid further trouble (by experience).

Another aspect is that some sites like SS restrict the maximum resolution you can use the images on the web - depending on where they got this image from obviously. I think shutterstocks limit was 1200 px on web usage and the one published on the original site was 1600px width. But please double check since I`m not sure .... neither can we know where it came from originally.

Finally I have to say that it should be the concern of the agency to protect our content. It is  their job. And they terribly fail on us.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2014, 07:43 by Tror »

« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2014, 08:20 »
+1
Contact a lawyer immediately. You may find one who is in for a percentage of the amount demanded from the sued party. Chances of success should be about 80 - 90 % since the case is quite clear. Most likely the sued party will agree soon in the process to settle for a certain amount to avoid further trouble (by experience).

Another aspect is that some sites like SS restrict the maximum resolution you can use the images on the web - depending on where they got this image from obviously. I think shutterstocks limit was 1200 px on web usage and the one published on the original site was 1600px width. But please double check since I`m not sure .... neither can we know where it came from originally.

Finally I have to say that it should be the concern of the agency to protect our content. It is  their job. And they terribly fail on us.
Shutterstock effectively got rid of the display size restriction:   "Uploading any Image to a web site at a resolution that exceeds the display resolution of the intended viewing device will be deemed to be an attempt to redistribute the Image."
From my understanding 8b in the restrictions might be relevant:  "8.Publicly display an Image: (a) as a standalone file in any digital format on the internet; or (b) in any digital format without imposing technical or written restrictions intended to prevent the use of such Images by third parties, unless the Image is incorporated into a design with text or other content, and the overlaid or embedded text or other such content covers an area of at least 33% of the display size of the Image. Unless expressly permitted by this agreement, no other person may use Images which you have licensed hereunder."

« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2014, 13:33 »
+1
They certainly gave the image away within their press release so Netropolitian are the ones to blame and the news-sites just used the image in good faith. It's also a good example why we should demand higher prices  these 0.38 downloads are joke and it's a double-joke considering this exclusive Facebook for the rich demand a 9000,- entrance fee but are too cheap to spend any money to create an exclusive image for their exclusive club.

Yeah, it would seem that if they are giving it away with their press release (I haven't seen the press release however) then the Netropolitian would be the party at fault.

« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2014, 16:38 »
+1
If they were to distribute the image with a press release, would an extended license cover such a use? If that's the case, then perhaps getting in touch with them to find out where they licensed it and whether they purchased an extended license might be a start (cheaper than getting a lawyer involved).

This seems like a parallel to something that happens a lot - someone purchases a license for an online article and then lots of other places pick the content up (with the photo) and "reprint" the article all over the place. It'd be nice if this type of "syndication rights" license was something all the agencies explicitly offered in the extended license uses

« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2014, 18:42 »
+4
Yes, IS never took up my suggestion that 'syndication' ( or as we call it, reselling your content ) shouldn't be allowed.

« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2014, 18:52 »
0
Oh, that is your picture? I remember that article. Well, they advertise they are for the super rich. I think I would consider talking to a lawyer who takes a percentage...

The more professional way is of course to speak with the client first. In an ideal situation they would pay a special license to cover press distribution and would even ask you to take the file off the market for a few months (and pay for that).

I am surprised they couldt even be bothered with a custom shoot for their project.

Not so super rich and elitist after all.

Ed

« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2014, 19:41 »
0
I have had this happen before.  I found 21 instances of infringements.  I contacted the folks at ImageRights.com and they stated I had no chance collecting on any of the infringements as most of them were outside of the U.S.

I know many won't like this but when it happened to me, in talking to a couple attorneys, the problem in many of these instances as I've discovered is if images are commercially available at that size for $5 and the maximum penalty is 10 times the market price, then your image is worth $50.  I don't know of a lawyer out there that will work an infringement case for less than $50.

Every case is different though so it may be worth talking with an attorney.

« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2014, 01:20 »
+1
Not so super rich and elitist after all.

if it was what it wants to be then it would never advertise. People would just know about it and invite each other.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2014, 21:04 »
0
If I wrote for a news service and create a story with a microstock RF image illustration, you say it's being re-sold? I'd say it's just syndication and distribution.

But if that was a different license based on how many places pick up the feed, Yes it would be a new license rate and be much better for covering how many uses are actually created.

It's not an EL because it's a small number. So someplace between standard license and EL?

Yes I'd like that if my images were being syndicated. As it is, (opinion) I don't think there's any misuse or grounds for anyone to claim infringement based on our contracts or the license terms from the agencies at this time.




Yes, IS never took up my suggestion that 'syndication' ( or as we call it, reselling your content ) shouldn't be allowed.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2014, 21:10 »
0
Yes, IS never took up my suggestion that 'syndication' ( or as we call it, reselling your content ) shouldn't be allowed.
If I wrote for a news service and create a story with a microstock RF image illustration, you say it's being re-sold? I'd say it's just syndication and distribution.
Syndication and distribution make it difficult to know how many aggregate copies are being made (if in print).

« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2014, 03:13 »
0
'syndication' ( or as we call it, reselling your content ) shouldn't be allowed.


I doubt that this is paid syndication. More likely those sites are running this as native advertising - i.e. pub styled to look like content. In which case is this really any different from any other ad use ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising

« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2014, 07:39 »
+2
'syndication' ( or as we call it, reselling your content ) shouldn't be allowed.


I doubt that this is paid syndication. More likely those sites are running this as native advertising - i.e. pub styled to look like content. In which case is this really any different from any other ad use ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising


Interesting point, but back then I was talking about News5 writes a story and adds an image, and then News 10 in another city and NewsX somewhere publishes the same story with image.  I have to assume that News5 gets something in return for their work, which I see as reselling my work as part of the content they are redistributing.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2014, 11:51 »
0
Interesting enough my latest sale on Alamy, RM says this:

Country: United Kingdom
Usage: Editorial
Media: Newspaper - national
Print run: up to 750,000
Placement: Inside and online
Image Size: 1/4 page
Start: 01 July 2014
End: 02 July 2014
One use in a single editorial or advertorial article used within print and /or web versions, with re-use of the article in other titles or web versions within the same newspaper group. Digital use includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article.


Looks like almost syndication, says "newspaper group" and archive rights. So basically forever online, unless they remove it.

Commission was less than an SS EL.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
4177 Views
Last post September 05, 2008, 16:00
by News Feed
0 Replies
4101 Views
Last post September 05, 2008, 19:30
by News Feed
0 Replies
3571 Views
Last post February 05, 2009, 11:30
by News Feed
0 Replies
3746 Views
Last post February 06, 2009, 03:00
by News Feed
2 Replies
5022 Views
Last post July 27, 2012, 08:01
by malamus

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors