My stock images being sold in an art gallery without my permission

[StockMania]

OK.. so i need some advice or if you can steer me to an old thread that covers this i would be most greatfull... i did a reverse google search for one of my images and found an art gallery in Australia (i live in Africa) selling two of my images. I know this is illegal but i don't know what the best way is to deal with this? Any advice would be much appreciated. I am going to send them a 'ghost' email asking for the prices of the images and how i can go about buying it just to understand their business better... There are no prices published on their website... to say i am pissed off would be an understatement ...

[leaf]

Are they images you have for sale on a stock site?  Could they have purchased an extended license?

[Jo Ann Snover]

Are they images you have for sale on a stock site?  Could they have purchased an extended license?

If your images are for sale at some agencies (Fotolia is one) you wouldn't even have to buy an extended license - they allow API users to show works and then buy a license for each print sale (if and when they happen).

[ShadySue]

Are they images you have for sale on a stock site?  Could they have purchased an extended license?

If your images are for sale at some agencies (Fotolia is one) you wouldn't even have to buy an extended license - they allow API users to show works and then buy a license for each print sale (if and when they happen).

How could that ever be monitored?

[Pixart]

There might be some confusion.  At first I thought he meant the photos were printed and hanging on a gallery wall for sale already.  But I think he likely means they are displayed online and offered for purchase.  Sadly, this is becoming very common.  Supposedly they are allowed to display the image for sale, but only pay us once there is an actual transaction.  You would think this would be an EL sale, but I don't think so.

And we trust them to be honest and pay for it again when the next customer wants the same print.

[Jo Ann Snover]

Are they images you have for sale on a stock site?  Could they have purchased an extended license?

If your images are for sale at some agencies (Fotolia is one) you wouldn't even have to buy an extended license - they allow API users to show works and then buy a license for each print sale (if and when they happen).

How could that ever be monitored?

I didn't like the deal when Fotolia first allowed it many years ago and a number of us argued with them about it, but clearly lost.

[tickstock]

Shutterstock allows it on Bigstock with their API program as well:  https://www.bigstockphoto.com/partners/learn-more/

[photominer]

I saw some of mine for sale as actual wallpaper once. Can you imaging being surrounded by tomatoes everywhere you look (and not the country life, blend into the background of your kitchen kind either)? I didn't bother complaining because I'd likely end up paying for someone's therapy someday...

[cascoly]

I recently discovered my images being sold as $100 posters on art.com etc - they said they had 'licensed' them from bigstock.  BS says this is ok, as they just sell one print at a time, even though bigstock's licensing specifically says images cannot be resold as prints, posters, etc

[trek]

Hmmmm...  Seems my photos are at art.com too.  No mention of artist name either. 

[tickstock]

I recently discovered my images being sold as $100 posters on art.com etc - they said they had 'licensed' them from bigstock.  BS says this is ok, as they just sell one print at a time, even though bigstock's licensing specifically says images cannot be resold as prints, posters, etc

https://www.bigstockphoto.com/partners/learn-more/

[Jo Ann Snover]

I recently discovered my images being sold as $100 posters on art.com etc - they said they had 'licensed' them from bigstock.  BS says this is ok, as they just sell one print at a time, even though bigstock's licensing specifically says images cannot be resold as prints, posters, etc

They used to have an opt out (and I opted out as soon as I saw what royalty I received for one of these print sales). The real issue for me was that I sell  via FAA and make much more than the pittance BigStock was paying, so why undercut myself?

I left BigStock when they wouldn't let us opt out of their lowball subscription scheme, so my information may no longer be current. I think anyone who sells via any print on demand site directly would want to insist on an opt out from these deals.

[sweetgirll]

By the way,
 Bigstock also has a shop on Zazzle....or two shops..I dont' remember.
http://www.zazzle.com/boutiquey/

I recently discovered my images being sold as $100 posters on art.com etc - they said they had 'licensed' them from bigstock.  BS says this is ok, as they just sell one print at a time, even though bigstock's licensing specifically says images cannot be resold as prints, posters, etc

[Pixart]

And Caf� Press.  I opted out.  I am actually opting out of the whole show after my next payout, $3 or ten years.  Whichever comes first.

[cascoly]

Hmmmm...  Seems my photos are at art.com too.  No mention of artist name either.

my images were being listed & advertised on art.com under my 'cascoly' name!  they did remove them when I objected

I generally hadn't looked at partner sites but didn't realize bigstock was doing something so sleazy as to violate their own RF licensing terms!

1 more payout & I'm gone from BS

[lark]

I found 69 of my images in art.com and allposters. They told that the images were licensed from Fotolia. Fotolia told that allposters are their API partner. So according to them it is absolutely legal.

What is strange is that after my complaint allposters very quickly removed the portfolio. If they had the right to print why did they remove the portfolio?

Anyway I myself removed part of my porfolio from Fotolia.

[Mantis]

Even with the Adobe deal I am so happy I am not with FOTOLIA anymore.

[stockastic]

It's fascinating to see how these so-called "agencies" have lived up to our worst expectations.  Just a steady downhill slide with no bottom in sight.