Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 21:40

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print

Topic: Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?  

(Read 1637 times)
Pixart


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« on: May 18, 2010, 21:51 »



From Amazon.com


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
suwanneeredhead


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2010, 21:57 »

OMG!  ROFL!!!

Stolen?! Hijacked straight from the site?

THAT IS TOO FUNNY!


Ignore | Logged


Pheby



« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2010, 23:01 »

How embarassing. Such a renowned publishing house. They are so concious of their reputation that it is (or at least used to be) their policy not to give away or sell with a discount faulty copies to their employees (as most other book publishers do), because they don't want members of the public to see faulty copies of their books. It can only be a mistake. Can you use a comp file at that size? Don't suppose so. I've seen istock watermarks in magazines before, but then a few pages later the same image without a watermark. That's why I'm wondering.


Ignore | Logged


thomasw

Dreamstime Gauge
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2010, 23:22 »

It is even on the publisher's site!!!!

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521886499

Thought it might have just been an Amazon thing Huh


Ignore | Logged


cascoly

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2010, 11:52 »

esp'ly funny consider the title!

but i can imagine at least one innocent but sloppy way this could happen - they probably used a comp for early versions while the book was in production, then no one noticed when it wasnt replaced in final version.  i doubt amazon spends much time, if any, looking at publishers' images

s


Ignore | Logged


Zeus


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2010, 12:21 »

It's time to pull out a dusty old guillotine, sharpen and grease 'er up and put it to work. Either someone bought it and used the mock up download and forgot to replace it with the real thing or simply didn't pay for it. Either way the punishment should be the same.


Ignore | Logged


cclapper
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2010, 12:44 »

OMG, that is too incredible. I am going to have to say that this is definitely a case to pursue. Not only should you have gotten paid for the high rez image, but depending on the print run, you might have been entitled to an EL.


Ignore | Logged


stockastic


« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2010, 12:53 »

Hilarious.

Pathetic.


Either or both.


Ignore | Logged


Microbius
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2010, 13:47 »

I'm thinking the actual book doesn't have the watermark on it.
The publisher probably forwarded an older pdf for the image and "look inside" feature on Amazon.
It's definitely worth checking out, but if this (or similar) is the case then no crime has been committed as the extended license would have been purchased for the actual book. I can't believe a major publishing house would have missed such an obvious error on their proofs.


Ignore | Logged


Microbius
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2010, 13:50 »

yep, found this: http://crookedtimber.org/category/archives/political-economy/ doesn't look photoshopped clean

ETA and here http://www.henryfarrell.net/trust/poltrust.jpg
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 13:51 by Microbius »

Ignore | Logged


cclapper
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2010, 15:15 »

Well, good if the actual book was published correctly. Hope you got the proper EL for it. But I still cannot fathom anyone allowing something to be published anywhere with a comp image. To me, that is a major faux pas and someone's a-- should be in a sling. Mistake or not, by allowing that image to be published online is a copyright infringement and the owner should file complaints immediately. And Amazon, of all people, should know better than to let that go on their site. IMHbadassO.   Cheesy


Ignore | Logged


Digital66


« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2010, 15:23 »

WHAT?  OMG!  I don't even understand why am I laughing.  Are they stupid or what?


Ignore | Logged


madelaide
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2010, 15:45 »

Hope you got the proper EL for it.
I don't think an EL is required, unless the print run is very high (>500k?).


Ignore | Logged


Microbius
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2010, 15:52 »

Well, good if the actual book was published correctly. Hope you got the proper EL for it. But I still cannot fathom anyone allowing something to be published anywhere with a comp image. To me, that is a major faux pas and someone's a-- should be in a sling. Mistake or not, by allowing that image to be published online is a copyright infringement and the owner should file complaints immediately. And Amazon, of all people, should know better than to let that go on their site. IMHbadassO.   Cheesy

Nope, no copyright infringement has taken place if they have bought the license. It's just a bit embarrassing for them. Not really sure why you are baying for blood if this is the case ?


Ignore | Logged


Dreamframer



« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2010, 18:42 »

omg, to laugh or to cry?


Ignore | Logged


Freedom


« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2010, 19:40 »

It's likely the graphic designer sent the sample to the publisher and publisher furnished the sample to the websites, without noticing the IS watermark. I can't imagine the hard copies could be printed with the small web site sample.


Ignore | Logged


madelaide
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2010, 20:55 »

without noticing the IS watermark.

Wow, are they blind?   Grin


Ignore | Logged


Freedom


« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2010, 21:13 »

without noticing the IS watermark.

Wow, are they blind?   Grin

Have you ever failed to notice things? Not everyone knows the existence of the stock photo business, particularly if you are not a graphic designer or someone familiar with the image industry.


Ignore | Logged


PaulieWalnuts


iStock Gauge
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2010, 21:26 »

This has gotta be a draft version. I doubt this is on the actual book.


Ignore | Logged


Microstock InsiderEnvateo Photo Tools
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
What is wrong with this picture?
Photo Critique
bbettina 8 1739 Last post March 15, 2007, 19:44
by eyetrigger
what is wrong!
123RF
stokfoto 11 1997 Last post September 06, 2007, 17:20
by ozbandit
StockXpert, something wrong here?
StockXpert.com
PaulieWalnuts 18 2954 Last post November 15, 2007, 12:54
by PaulieWalnuts
hm.... something must be wrong...
StockXpert.com
Peter 17 3315 Last post March 07, 2010, 15:24
by borg
What's wrong with LO??
LuckyOliver.com
tiero 4 1797 Last post April 03, 2008, 12:48
by 3pod

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc