Can an image this size be taken from IS without a watermark?

madelaide

Premium Member

« on: July 28, 2010, 18:01 »

These twin pages:
http://www.mp3.com/users/BekkaLass/profile.php
http://www.movietome.com/users/BekkaLass/
have an image I sell only at IS:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1545135-portage-lake-alaska.php
and at SP.

The image is hosted at Photobucket, but given its small size (311x135), I suppose it is allowed. I don't see a sign in it that it had its watermarked removed (or it was a very well done job!). It was probably a legitimate purchase of an XS license, but I wonder if there is any unwatermarked preview or something from which this image may have been taken. Frankly, my experience with personal pages and blogs isn't very good...


	Ignore \| Logged

Vonkara

« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2010, 18:06 »

Quote from: madelaide on July 28, 2010, 18:01

It was probably a legitimate purchase of an XS license, but I wonder if there is any unwatermarked preview or something from which this image may have been taken. Frankly, my experience with personal pages and blogs isn't very good...

On Istock the previews have even more watemarks. But it's obvious that now anyone can take the image by making "save the image as" on his blog. And it might be easy to find this version of the image with Tineye...


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2010, 18:23 »

I found this through TinEye, in fact.


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2010, 18:47 »

Who knows, maybe someone bought your image on IS, and someone else saved it and used it in his blog...
Most people who make blogs are ordinary people who don't even think they should buy images instead of saving them from Internet. Having a blog is free, having an email address is free etc. People think nice images are free too. Why it's possible to save them so easily if they are not free?
People still look at me like I'm from Mars when I say that I'm selling images on Internet. They always ask same few questions:
What?? How?? To who?? Most people think that all images in magazines are taken especially for the magazine they hold in their hands at the moment.


	Ignore \| Logged

Suljo

« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2010, 18:59 »

Heh
After CS5 announcement with they wanabee make it good retouch tools (like too much upgraded healing brush in old CS2) it seams that we must to demand and ALARM our "big" MICRO STOcKa's vendors to upgrade they watermarks...
For me biggest concern is that print edition are in constant droppings and there are more and more and more and more wanabee craty blog writers which want free images. I think they tool is google images and as they search free links they think that images are free too, and if they find some copyright CS5 make it goo for them.


« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 19:02 by Suljo »	Ignore \| Logged

averil

« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2010, 02:16 »

I guess they think Photoshop CS5 is free too.


	Ignore \| Logged

lefty

« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2010, 11:02 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on July 28, 2010, 18:47

Yes, very good point.
One time a few years back at my old workplace I met a guy who was in the business of webpage design etc
so I expected him to be well informed about copyright images and IP issues. But he was not. He showed me his facebook or FLickr, I cannot remember, and lots of very impressive photos. I said wow those are very good, you should go into stock photography, you take good photos. He told me he is not a photographer, those are pictures he found on the internet and he put them in his photos section.
Naturally, when you put it in your website, people will think those are your own photos.


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2010, 15:17 »

Quote from: lefty on July 29, 2010, 11:02

...Naturally, when you put it in your website, people will think those are your own photos.

Unless he did it intentionally to deceive people, I don't see how anyone with even a little common sense would not know that is wrong. But as my sister-in-law just reminded me the other day, I do not suffer fools lightly. Roll Eyes


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2010, 15:28 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 29, 2010, 15:17

Quote from: lefty on July 29, 2010, 11:02

...Naturally, when you put it in your website, people will think those are your own photos.

I can assure you that the vast majority of people don't even question whether it's wrong, especially if you're not making any money off them (e.g. putting them on your personal website). I think many people would know it was wrong to pretend they were your own images though, but I certainly know that among many young people I come into contact with (I'm a teacher), lying and cheating (in whatever forms) don't have the same moral 'low ground' as they did when I was young.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2010, 16:21 »

All these free sites that offer people the chance to share end up being a repository of illegal material. It's not that (most) people want to claim copyright over them, but they want to share what they like with friends, so they download things and upload them to Flickr or whatever other sharing site they use.

It's a good thing in a way that Facebook and such are now so popular that most sites offer a button to share the content (text, photo, video, whatever), so these users don't have the need to download stuff and upload them to their page or blog. It is however probably a minority that use things this way. Many prefer to have the content in their HDs and place it wherever they want or use it. Who has never received a PPT of beautiful watermarked images?

Unfortunately, there is a culture that anything in the internet is free.


	Ignore \| Logged

mollypix

New Member

« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2010, 19:50 »

I recon thats a big plus for being exclusive at iStock. If an image is being illegally used iStock will investigate the issue. Not sure whether one use on a blog is worth investigating.
By looking at the image on PS and adjusting the levels, I dont see any unnatural pixel changes in the area where the logo was. So its probably been used from a download.


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2010, 05:54 »

Quote from: mollypix on July 30, 2010, 19:50

I recon thats a big plus for being exclusive at iStock. If an image is being illegally used iStock will investigate the issue. Not sure whether one use on a blog is worth investigating.
By looking at the image on PS and adjusting the levels, I dont see any unnatural pixel changes in the area where the logo was. So its probably been used from a download.

While it may be true that istock will investigate the issue if one is exclusive, I don't consider that a good enough reason to do go ex, but that's another conversation. I continue to see thousands and thousands of images being pirated with both istockphoto and Getty plastered across them, so at this point, I don't see where the agencies are making much headway either. And if IS or Getty does investigate and succeed at getting images pulled, I would think that ALL images would be pulled, whether one is exclusive or not.