pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Illegal sale ??  (Read 2359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 10, 2017, 03:14 »
0
I found from a page, bought bought a photo of me over getty, and offer now for sale. They have no license to do that. 19 days ago I opened a ticket, and until now no answer from getty. Is that the cooperation with the photographers ???


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2017, 03:56 »
+1
Sorry, I'm not sure what your issue is.
Do you mean:
1. Getty is selling your photo without your permission, i.e. you didnt  upload it there, iStock or any agency which distributes there? If so, send them a DMCA.

2. You are selling the file via Getty or one of its suppliers but don't see the payment? If so, are you aware that that if a file sells for example on the 1st June, you wont know about it until June's figures are published around the 20th July.

3. (And I now think this is the most likely): are you exclusive to Getty or iStock but see your file being sold by a non-Getty site? If so, have you checked that the site isn't an iStock 'partner' site? There are several, but the only one I can remember is Spiderpics.  Maybe others can list some more. On some of these sites, they don't sell your photos directly. If you click on an image on their site, you are redirected to iStock to make the purchase. It might be a clue if there is an iStock/Getty watermark on the thumbnail.

If it's none of these issues, can you try to explain again. I do have lots of sympathy for those having to post here in other than their native language.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2017, 07:52 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2017, 09:33 »
0
I am not exclusive, i selling the photo, http://www.gettyimages.com/license/510686584 at Getty, and the payment is earned: 0.80 USD. But now they offer it on their side for sale. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/travel/20170129_Austria_beyond_Vienna_and_Salzburg__The_locals__favorites.html

I think it is not a partner site, and the photo is This image is for editorial use only.

« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2017, 10:26 »
+1
Looks like the newspaper is trying to sell prints without an extended license.   

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2017, 11:05 »
+1
Isn't it always illegal to to resell images for print on demand, extended license or not? You should demand the newspaper to take down the image (send a DMCA) and take this up with a lawyer if they refuse to buy an extended license. They're clearly infringing your copyright and the terms of the standard license.

Edit: correction - it's not illegal to resell the photo on a printed product if they have an extended license, which I'm assuming they don't have.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2017, 11:08 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2017, 12:14 »
0
Where do you see they are reselling it? All I see is an article? 

EDIT: Ok, I see it.

« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2017, 12:27 »
+2
It is possible (not likely) that Getty has some sort of deal in their licensing with this client to permit this use. However, assuming that the newspaper just slaps a "buy photo" button on everything without paying attention to whether it's a staff photographer or stock photo, the terms of your artist supply agreement require you to let iStock decide how to pursue infringements (see 10(c))

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.aspx?article_id=4872

It stinks that response is slow, but if you decide to contact the paper yourself, be aware that Getty might find you in breach of your agreement if they find out about it. I doubt that they actually sold any, so the "fix" is just to have them remove the "Buy Photo" button from your image.

« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2017, 07:38 »
0
They're clearly infringing my copyright and the terms of the standard license.

And getty does nothing.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2017, 08:49 »
0
They're clearly infringing my copyright and the terms of the standard license.

And getty does nothing.

It may be that your support ticket was unclear, like your OP.
It may be that they are taking weeks to answer, which can happen  :( >:(
OTOH, I haven't had any replies from CE (compliance enforcement) in the past few years, but eventually the infringement disappears. Still, I do get replies from Support telling me my concern has been forwarded to CE.

I did a bit of clicking in that site.
They don't always have the buy button. e.g. not for this iS photo:
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/personal-best/the-most-helpful-healthy-eating-tool-accurately-evaluating-how-hungry-you-are-20170711.html
On one page, they have two photos identified as by staff togs, one has the button, one doesn't.  ::)

iS should either get the button removed from your page, or in the event that philly has some sort of arrangement with them to purchase the EL in the event of a sale, they should explain that to you (I've heard of that happening, though it sounds pretty dodgy [impossible to police] to me). However with no link on the other iS pic, it seems very unlikely that would be the case.

Take out a new support ticket.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2017, 09:19 by ShadySue »

« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2017, 12:10 »
0
I made a new ticket 2 hours ago.

Hello!
It's over 2 weeks ago when I send the reference to illegal image usage. (Ticket: CS0192474 )

My pictures are resold by a customer, Here is the photo in my content, http://www.gettyimages.com/license/510686584, And here the site where it is sold. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/travel/20170129_Austria_beyond_Vienna_and_Salzburg__The_locals__favorites.html The customer has no rights for resale.
They're clearly infringing my copyright and the terms of the standard license.

Do not you want to do anything?
Or do I have to call a lawyer?


« Last Edit: July 11, 2017, 12:13 by luftklick »

« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2017, 12:19 »
+2
They're clearly infringing my copyright and the terms of the standard license.
...

I understand your frustration, but just to clarify, I don't think the newspaper's actions are infringing your copyright. They are probably infringing the licensing terms under which they obtained a copy of your image, but that's not the same thing.

Also, offering the image for sale as a print isn't the same thing as selling it as a print. Some other agencies (Fotolia used to, not sure if they still do) permitted print sites to offer Fotolia images and then purchase a license for each print sale.

Nothing you could recover from this would pay for the expense of hiring a lawyer.

« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2017, 01:23 »
+1
Hello Ann,
Thank you for your understanding.
I can not work with such partners.
No answer, no opinion, no help. Thank you Getty, for the cooperation. I will stop uploading, and do not recommend this company.

« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2017, 11:17 »
0
Hello Ann,
Thank you for your understanding.
I can not work with such partners.
No answer, no opinion, no help. Thank you Getty, for the cooperation. I will stop uploading, and do not recommend this company.

Sorry about your understandable frustration. Perhaps you should look at it from the point of view of benefits vs expenses. Copyright breaches will occur regardless of the company[ies] you will choose to work with. Microstock industry as a whole deals in volume and agencies are not particularly interested in pursuing every single copyright leak, mostly because it's not economically viable. As I am writing this probably there is a dozen of people all over the globe removing watermarks from your or my images. If you spend enormous amount of time looking for and fighting those breaches instead of creating content, you will only find a tip of the iceberg that is not going to affect your sales anyway. I would simply write it off and move on.

« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2017, 14:28 »
+2
At one time iStock said they wouldn't bother with following up complaints like this from non-exclusive contributors because they could not tell if the file had been licensed from somewhere else on different terms.

I could see their point, but it wasn't a very contributor friendly approach.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2017, 14:42 »
+1
At one time iStock said they wouldn't bother with following up complaints like this from non-exclusive contributors because they could not tell if the file had been licensed from somewhere else on different terms.

I could see their point, but it wasn't a very contributor friendly approach.
Not contributor friendly, but often might they have had to use resources chasing up files licensed from elsewhere.
Still, as exclusives were mostly (not me, as it happens) selling through various channels before becoming exclusive, that was a bit moot.

I'm not sure they're bothering with most exclusive infringements either nowadays, from what I'm reading.

« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2017, 00:42 »
+2
So, they have closed my second ticket.
Justification: duplicate from the first ticket.
Tickets can close, but they can not answer.
Very nice, Getty! >:(

« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2017, 05:06 »
0

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2017, 08:29 »
+1
Not for a moment defending them, but it was quite possibly an unforeseen circumstance of the micro model that the agencies can't afford to chase up abuses. Plus Getty needs every penny they can screw out of iS.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3041 Views
Last post December 19, 2009, 08:01
by ljupco
6 Replies
2963 Views
Last post May 31, 2011, 13:55
by WarrenPrice
8 Replies
1678 Views
Last post October 02, 2012, 17:41
by kikkerdirk
9 Replies
2818 Views
Last post October 23, 2015, 12:25
by Donna_Martin
Illegal Characters

Started by Uncle Pete Shutterstock.com

0 Replies
468 Views
Last post March 14, 2015, 13:40
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors