MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Envato => Topic started by: Microbius on January 19, 2012, 04:32
-
I got the latest Envato Mail (Issue 44) which had a link to an article about flyer designers. I can't remember the last time I saw so many copyright violations!!!! This makes the site look really amateur and unprofessional.
Did Marvel or Fox give their permission for this for example?
http://graphicriver.net/item/doom-flyer-template/265517 (http://graphicriver.net/item/doom-flyer-template/265517)
-
I don't know about the use of the IronMan figure in the preview image, but it's not (or at least it should not be) included in the layered PSD you're going to download if you buy it.
In the page is specified "photo not included in the download".
On evanto marketplaces I often see pics from Pixar and Fox movies used only in the preview. But I don't know if it's legal or not. I suppose it is... since they are not selling those images.
-
No it isn't legal at all. Not by any stretch. They are using the work to advertise their products, they can no more do that with a flyer than they could use image to promote a car without paying the photographer or IP owner.
It's really lame that a site we're meant to trust to protect our copyright has that stuff going on under their noses.
Especially when you contrast it to how careful most of the other sites are about their collections. Especially the established players like IStock.
-
...... I suppose it is... since they are not selling those images.
...and this is what I mean. They are giving the impression that it is okay. I mean they are selling licenses to use images and blatantly ignoring the theft on their own site, so surely they must know what they are doing right? surely it is okay to just steal our stock photos and use them right?
-
I don't know about the use of the IronMan figure in the preview image, but it's not (or at least it should not be) included in the layered PSD you're going to download if you buy it.
In the page is specified "photo not included in the download".
On evanto marketplaces I often see pics from Pixar and Fox movies used only in the preview. But I don't know if it's legal or not. I suppose it is... since they are not selling those images.
Well, you can't even use them in the previews if they are not paid for!
I have no idea if pixar, fox or other companies are compensated for their copyrights.. If not, it is illegal..
-
Wow...there's a lawsuit waiting to happen, that's for sure. Can't imagine Chris Rock or Scarlett Johanssen would appreciate having their likenesses being used to sell templates, nor that they gave Envato/the designers permission to use their likenesses for blatantly commercial purposes. Without a model release, such images can only be used for editorial purposes...that's it.
From what I can tell at a quick glance, Envato is based out of Australia. I'm not familiar with their copyright laws, but here in the US, it is a violation of copyright laws for artists to use another artist's copyrighted work or a trademark in any promotional material, even when promoting our portfolios. For example, say I have a photo of a home interior that contains a painting someone else created. While I can show the photo as part of my portfolio, I cannot use it to promote my work without obtaining a property release. The copyright holder of the painting can sue me for copyright infringement.
-
I've looked through the site and it's going on allover the designs for websites as well.
A lot of them use our stock photos too, and it is a fair bet that the designers won't be paying for those either if they think it's okay to use movie posters, stills and the like.
I am really surprised that this is going on so blatantly on a stock site.
-
Posted this info in another thread, but thought I should also post it here...
Envato is not within the letter of the law, at least not here in the US. For an Online Service Provider, like YouTube, to be protected from copyright violations, they must be a registered OSP with the US Copyright Office. They are not registered.
http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/e_agents.html (http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/e_agents.html)
-
personally i think it is alright, the intention is clear enough. It is just showing how it can looks like, and didn't claim the rights of the image or sell it for profits.
-
Really? You don't understand anything about what we are doing here then.
They are using the images to make their designs look good. There isn't a more direct commercial marketing use.
Why do you think people buy our work from stock sites?!? It's exactly so they can use them (mostly) to advertise their goods and services.
The designers in this example are in fact doing that in a far more direct way than most buyers who, for example will show a happy family photo to sell washing powder.
Here the image is actually integrated with the product in the ad.
If you don't have a problem with this then why are you selling your work? why not just give it away?
-
It must be ok as since yesterday I KNOW that this is art, and when you sell art, there is no copyright!
-
lol, I had to search out the thread to work out what you meant.
Yeah, starting to feel like the lunatics are running the asylum, sites making a living by selling IP while not bothering to keep their own house in order.
-
At least for its own protection, Red Bubble is registered with the US Copyright Office as an OSP, so they can't be sued...but the artists involved sure can!
-
Hi everyone, the issue here is actually more complex than it initially appears. Considering Envato's marketplaces involve outside sellers (authors), it adds another layer of complexity where authors are also responsible for copyright violations they commit. (I am not speaking on behalf of Envato in this legal area as that is not what I do for them. I am simply attempting to point out an additional variable involved in copyright for the Envato marketplaces.)
If I'm not mistaken, Envato has had their legal counsel take a look at this before (I don't know for sure as I was not involved in it) but this has been brought up with Envato's upper level management and legal counsel. The appropriate Envato staff will respond soon with an official explanation for the situation.
Thanks for your patience and understanding while this is sorted out everyone!
-
Errr, no it isn't an "additional level of complexitity". What is being discussed is the exact issue that that you point out.
Some Envato authors violating copyright while Envato takes no interest at all in doing anything about it, even though we are supposed to be trusting the site with our IP.
The tacit support is so obvious it actually misleads people into thinking that these authors' actions are legal and acceptable. Just read some of the posts in this thread. I am sure that the majority of violators on the site also fall into this group. It is happening so blatantly, and Envato is so clearly accepting of it that it seems it must be okay.
This sort of thing would be unthinkable on any of the other stock sites out there.
I find it disappointing in the extreme that you have gone to legal council in the past to find out if you can "get away with it" rather than bothering to try and educate your authors about the right way to treat other artists property.
-
Microbius, While the item you originally linked has been removed, I ran across this one
http://graphicriver.net/item/advance-comics-publication-bundle/1180517?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown (http://graphicriver.net/item/advance-comics-publication-bundle/1180517?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown)
Hmmm, and 10 sales. Because this infringes this infringes on Marvel Comics and the John Lennon estate, I wonder if commissions will be withdrawn from he seller's account?
From the Graphic River TOS http://graphicriver.net/wiki/support/legal-terms/legal-user-terms-and-conditions/ (http://graphicriver.net/wiki/support/legal-terms/legal-user-terms-and-conditions/)
We respect the intellectual property rights of others, and require that those people who use the Sites, or the services or features made available on or through the Sites, do the same.
I call BS here. Look down the page. Sean Connery, MTV. What a load of crap.
-
Amateur site! my initial upload was a zip-file comp, lucky for me the files were somewhat corrupt and some had dissapeared, thank *! because later when I looked at their stuff in my fields, Industry, engineering and technology with people, jeez! what a load of rubbish I found in their search.
-
Microbius, While the item you originally linked has been removed, I ran across this one
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/advance-comics-publication-bundle/1180517?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/advance-comics-publication-bundle/1180517?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown[/url])
Hmmm, and 10 sales. Because this infringes this infringes on Marvel Comics and the John Lennon estate, I wonder if commissions will be withdrawn from he seller's account?
From the Graphic River TOS [url]http://graphicriver.net/wiki/support/legal-terms/legal-user-terms-and-conditions/[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/wiki/support/legal-terms/legal-user-terms-and-conditions/[/url])
We respect the intellectual property rights of others, and require that those people who use the Sites, or the services or features made available on or through the Sites, do the same.
I call BS here. Look down the page. Sean Connery, MTV. What a load of crap.
Wow, pretty much every item in that guy's portfolio is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Famous celebrity portraits and even a promo image from Starcraft.
We respect the intellectual property rights of others....... Pretty ballsy statement. You've got to admire the nerve. So when a reviewer sees an image of Spiderman, Batman and Superman used to promote a template above a photo of John Lennon they are thinking what when the let it on the site?
and not forgetting:
http://graphicriver.net/item/legacy-posterflyer-template/148335?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles (http://graphicriver.net/item/legacy-posterflyer-template/148335?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles)
Top three selling flyer template AKA Tron poster.
-
Wow +1. They need to change attitude and sort this out quick.
-
The magazine templates are horrendous. This wedding mag is chalk full of celebrities...
http://graphicriver.net/item/24-pages-wedding-magazine-version-one/1321832?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ciolca (http://graphicriver.net/item/24-pages-wedding-magazine-version-one/1321832?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ciolca)
-
This template even contains Getty logo on cover page. :o
http://graphicriver.net/item/32-pages-sports-magazine-version-three/1028881?WT.ac=portfolio_item&WT.seg_1=portfolio_item&WT.z_author=ciolca (http://graphicriver.net/item/32-pages-sports-magazine-version-three/1028881?WT.ac=portfolio_item&WT.seg_1=portfolio_item&WT.z_author=ciolca)
edit: ...all images are previews - Getty, Mediafax...
-
Wow.
Like I said before, Envato is seriously vulnerable to a lawsuit here in the US, because they aren't registered for protection with the US Copyright Office. If they aren't registered, they can be sued right along with the artist and any buyer who doesn't remove the material prior to commercial usage. They need to get with their lawyers ASAP before Getty et al catch wind of this, because Getty doesn't play nice when it comes to copyright infringement.
Scary that I, as a novice, know more about what Envato is supposed to do for protection than they do.
-
I wonder if they claw back the paid out royalties of (any contributor or) those who sold hundreds of their templates using 3rd party copyrighted material and achieved higher rankings/better benefits because of that.
It should be considered a breach of the contributor/usage terms and therefore they should get punished for blatantly uploading copyright protected material.
What gets me most is that these "products" are still reviewed by an Envato employee who:
1. Should have been trained in what is allowed and what isn't in terms of copyright
2. Regardless of #1 still doesn't care about Getty Images watermarks used for a commercial product. That's a no-brainer.
-
2. Regardless of #1 still doesn't care about Getty Images watermarks used for a commercial product. That's a no-brainer.
Yeah Getty has a big problem with watermarked stuff being used for comps that go live on the web and they have a team of venomous henchmen that hunt people like this down. Link:
http://cliffordmillerlaw.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/the-getty-images-rip-off-you-copyright-the-law/ (http://cliffordmillerlaw.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/the-getty-images-rip-off-you-copyright-the-law/)
A friend of mine who is a graphic designer got caught up in this (not this particular reference, but the Getty scam as a whole) - she used a comp image of a muffin or something - client posted to the web in a sort of hidden folder and forgot about it - Getty mafia found it. It's still bouncing back and forth amongst lawyers. Getty wants something like $2000 for use of the comp image, Boy they would have a small gold mine on graphicriver.
-
Oh dear:
http://graphicriver.net/item/power-posterflyer-template/149732?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles (http://graphicriver.net/item/power-posterflyer-template/149732?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles)
It's not so much the obvious ones like the one here and the Getty example that bother me. Its how many of our stock photos appear on the templates generally, and the fact that with this culture on the site where obvious violations are ignored, it promotes the idea that it is fine (and legal) to use other people's images to promote your templates without permission or paying.
You can bet that none/ very few of these lower profile images have actually been paid for.
-
Oh dear:
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/power-posterflyer-template/149732?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/power-posterflyer-template/149732?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles[/url])
It's not so much the obvious ones like the one here and the Getty example that bother me. Its how many of our stock photos appear on the templates generally, and the fact that with this culture on the site where obvious violations are ignored, it promotes the idea that it is fine (and legal) to use other people's images to promote your templates without permission or paying.
You can bet that none/ very few of these lower profile images have actually been paid for.
And these guys have massive download numbers :o
To be fair, despite the illegal use of other people's photographs, some designs are really good. I wonder though how much of those are ripped off from other designers... ???
-
UNBELIEVABLE :o
-
http://graphicriver.net/item/nightclub-flyerposter-vol-4/162762?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=indieground (http://graphicriver.net/item/nightclub-flyerposter-vol-4/162762?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=indieground)
http://graphicriver.net/item/indie-flyerposter-vol-7/239815?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=indieground (http://graphicriver.net/item/indie-flyerposter-vol-7/239815?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=indieground)
http://graphicriver.net/item/comic-book-creation-kit/708592?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=erengoksel (http://graphicriver.net/item/comic-book-creation-kit/708592?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=erengoksel)
and from the best selling author on the site:
http://themeforest.net/item/classica-minimalistic-wordpress-portfolio-theme/155672?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=OrmanClark (http://themeforest.net/item/classica-minimalistic-wordpress-portfolio-theme/155672?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=OrmanClark)
and
http://themeforest.net/item/gridlocked-minimalistic-wordpress-portfolio-theme/245947?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=OrmanClark (http://themeforest.net/item/gridlocked-minimalistic-wordpress-portfolio-theme/245947?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=OrmanClark)
-
Hi Folks,
Thanks for bringing up the question of copyrighted assets in preview images. It's very clear that we should do more to educate our contributor community about licensing. I've just had a meeting with our CEO and legal counsel to work out how we can best do this.
It seems that images shown in some of the previews mentioned have most likely not been licensed properly. I've let our support team know, and the items will be removed from the site and the relevant contributors will be contacted.
For clarity, our policy on the marketplaces is that contributors are responsible for appropriately licensing images (and other assets) to be used in both previews and items for sale. We have provided a free asset library for some time for contributors to use, though it's fairly limited. And of course licensing stock photography appropriately is also a common and acceptable way to demonstrate previews.
When we are made aware of any item that is infringing someone else's copyright, we act to take down the item and notify the contributor.
When an contributor uploads an item for sale they must agree/assert that it is their own work or they have an appropriate license:
"Any images, sounds, video, code, flash, or other assets that are not my own work, have been appropriately licensed for use in the file preview or main download. Other than these items, this work is entirely my own and I have full rights to sell it on ThemeForest."
On our upload instructions and pages we provide links to documentation like this article "What images, videos, code or music can I use in my items?" http://wiki.envato.com/selling/tips-selling/what-images-videos-illustrations-or-music-can-i-use-in-my-items/ (http://wiki.envato.com/selling/tips-selling/what-images-videos-illustrations-or-music-can-i-use-in-my-items/)
Misuse of other people's IP is not the intention of our marketplaces at all.
There's a lot to do to improve the marketplaces, so I'm grateful that the community pushes for action on important issues like this one.
I know some of you have already referred to our T&Cs regarding how seriously we take intellectual property, and want to assure you that you will see actions that back up our intent of respecting the intellectual property of others.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, we will be looking to see how best we can address the wider issue and educate contributors to keep their items clean and clear. I think we can do more to encourage them to use our asset library, creative-commons licensed photos, and of course licensed stock photography in particular.
In my experience a big push with the contributors yields good results. Most contributors want to do the right thing, and have most likely failed to understand the issues involved.
If you have any questions, please let me know. I'll add this thread to email notifications so I hear about any subsequent posts.
Thanks
-
Thank you for taking the time to reply and for taking the issue seriously (though obviously it would have been better if this had been the case from the outset, which given the attitude of reviewers to letting clearly infringing content through to the site it has not been)
As the stance of Envato on this has now changed, please inform your authors of where you now stand. Previous warnings in the context of the general attitude of staff and contributors on the site have unsurprisingly not been taken seriously. Had I read your terms on this then looked at the content on the site I would think it was in the same category as disclaimers on Megaupload and the like, issued at best with a wink and a nod.
An email and announcement on the forums asking authors to go through their portfolios and make sure all images used in previews are correctly licensed for commercial use would be a good start. Without concrete action any statement seems as laughable as the one in your terms and conditions.
ETA, just clicked back on some of the links I posted, some of the ones with celebrity photos have been featured on the site. You need to educate your staff as well as your authors, top to bottom
-
Thanks Microbius - completely agree with your sentiment particularly about "concrete action".
This forum response was only one of several outcomes following on our meeting. Over the next couple of days we'll be investigating the complaints listed here and in parallel also be working on educating our community through several different avenues.
-
Out of curiosity I would like to know how contributors of infringing products are being "educated" or "dealt with" beacuse of their wrongdoing?
I'm referring to contributors that uploaded dozens of designs (in each of their portfolio) using (most likely) unlicensed content, achieving huge numbers of sales.
I don't know one stock photo agency that would not ban the contributors in question because they obviously and blatantly broke the contributors terms.
Not to mention that the reviewers also didn't do their job of understanding that for example no one except Marvel Comics can publish their content. This is an issue on multiple levels.
Being a new Envato contributor, I feel like it is a hit and miss to find and weed out infringing contributors (only being discovered by reports of others). Otherwise, they will keep on selling with a big marketing boost from illegally obtained/used content.
I have no clue, while all stock photo agencies (now) require model and property releases (even for public buildings, tattoo artists etc.) when Envato just massively waves through Hollywood content without any documentation/proof of rights for redistribution. Looks like don't ask don't tell to me.
I don't want to sound like a kid whose lolly has been taken away but I can't shake off the feeling that this is a big deal.
-
I am hoping that they will at least ask for verification of where stock photos were purchased with the corresponding image numbers so it can be followed up in case of a dispute (in much the same way as IStock asks for source files for illustrations)
I would advise anyone that spots their photos being used to contact the authors in question and ask them where they purchased the license from and check your sales!
In these sorts of cases I go for an email thanking them for purchasing my content and asking, just for my records, if they could specify where and when they purchased the license from.
I do have some sympathy for the authors, I have zero sympathy for the site, because their attitude has totally mislead their authors. I mean this isn't like a site that can hide behind not knowing it was going on. EVERY FILE HAS PASSED THROUGH THE HANDS OF A REVIEWER!!!
Many have additionally been included in news letters, picked out to be featured, even linked to from this forum by Envato staff to boast about their sales all while blatant IP theft was going on.
Disgusting.
I just hope that the response from the site now is strong enough to make up for it.
-
Wow +1. They need to change attitude and sort this out quick.
Apparently not
http://graphicriver.net/item/advance-comics-publication-bundle/1180517?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown (http://graphicriver.net/item/advance-comics-publication-bundle/1180517?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown)
Still for sale at this writing.
-
Oh dear:
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/power-posterflyer-template/149732?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/power-posterflyer-template/149732?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles[/url])
It's not so much the obvious ones like the one here and the Getty example that bother me. Its how many of our stock photos appear on the templates generally, and the fact that with this culture on the site where obvious violations are ignored, it promotes the idea that it is fine (and legal) to use other people's images to promote your templates without permission or paying.
You can bet that none/ very few of these lower profile images have actually been paid for.
And these guys have massive download numbers :o
To be fair, despite the illegal use of other people's photographs, some designs are really good. I wonder though how much of those are ripped off from other designers... ???
I agree that some of the designs are very good. But if you look at the portfolios of some of the top flyer designers on the site some have basically the same designs repeated many times with the main differentiation being which celebrity photo or movie poster they have used in that specific file. That's how much of the "selling" is being done by other artists' hard work.
e.g. http://graphicriver.net/user/sevenstyles (http://graphicriver.net/user/sevenstyles)
-
Despite the reassurances of meetings with the CEO and attorneys, sure seems like Envato is continuing to play with fire. All it would take is someone notifying Marvel or a movie studio about the massive amount of infringements, and next thing you know a huge lawsuit is filed that would eventually bankrupt the company.
-
http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/an-appeal-to-gr-authors/58116?page=1 (http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/an-appeal-to-gr-authors/58116?page=1)
Just seen that another member has now bought the same thing up on their forum. Again with very disappointing lack of clarification from the site and a misinformed moderator muddying the water:
Quote
"The responsibility of copyrighted materials within items is left up to the individual author, the movie companies / vodka companies would need to send in a DMCA .
A lot of stock is only used for preview purposes anyway and not being ‘sold’."
The issue isn't the resale of the images, it is the commercial use of them without license or permission.
ETA also, in the end is the content posted by authors? or is it actually posted by reviewers?
-
[url]http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/an-appeal-to-gr-authors/58116?page=1[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/an-appeal-to-gr-authors/58116?page=1[/url])
Just seen that another member has now bought the same thing up on their forum. Again with very disappointing lack of clarification from the site and a misinformed moderator muddying the water:
Quote
"The responsibility of copyrighted materials within items is left up to the individual author, the movie companies / vodka companies would need to send in a DMCA .
A lot of stock is only used for preview purposes anyway and not being ‘sold’."
The issue isn't the resale of the images, it is the commercial use of them without license or permission.
ETA also, in the end is the content posted by authors? or is it actually posted by reviewers?
That's horse hockey (envato's statement) and everyone with a professional publishing background knows it.
-
I've only just started reading their forums and it's really depressing. Seems like they have a lot of kids over there that think any kind of image theft is fine and with no guidance from the site it's just like watching ping pong between them and the more serious designers that know their copyright and IP law.
Another quote from their MOD:
"A thread like this appears every few months, with the same arguments and responses…"
Welll duh, why not have a member of staff that knows what they are talking about actually state You need a commercial license to use other people's images in your previews
It's like it's all just a matter of opinion. I know that's a general problem with the internet, everyone chimes in irrespective of their ignorance but you'd hope that a stock site would clarify it for their artists.
It seems increasingly likely that the statement Envato made on here is total BS.
ETA that post also goes to show just how long they have known about it and that their reviewers are still not exercising due diligence. They keep saying it's like YouTube etc. but again, YouTube has the (lame) excuse that they can't possibly know what is being posted due to the massive volume. On Envato they know exactly what is going up on the site because every upload is reviewed and ultimately posted by a reviewer (company employee)
Double ETA someone needs to reference this thread on their thread so authors can at least get to read the official statement from Envato staff posted here (that they have never bothered to post when the issues are raised on their own site)
-
Welll duh, why not have a member of staff that knows what they are talking about actually state You need a commercial license to use other people's images in your previews
Because they're making small gobs of money with them. Yeah the little productions are slick, but they sure would be using other people's images and characters. Get a camera, shoot the images yourself, then call yourself an "Artist". Of course the real trick would be shooting an image of John Lennon.
I'm not a member there and if I was I would post his over there. Image misuse, or in this case downright flagrant theft of intellectual property, simply annoys me. Signs of true amateurs.
And the Youtube excuse, yeah that's a lot of crap too and that doesn't wash anymore.
-
Ok Im new here but here is what I have found
It all started when I was looking at a new poster that had been submitted by HypeDesignStudios here is the poster in question http://graphicriver.net/item/burlesque-flyer-template/788568 (http://graphicriver.net/item/burlesque-flyer-template/788568) . In the description at the bottom you will see he tells the users where he got his stock images from "Any stock images used in this design can be found at: www.officialpsds.com (http://www.officialpsds.com) " Now I have used Offical Psd's in the past for my own personal work but this site is not a creditable source for stock imagery as it is a resource site that allows illegal content to be uploaded even though it has disclaimers saying otherwise (cut out images of anyone famous can also be found on this site and I highly doubt that is is the original author of the picture putting it up). Doing a quick google image search or tineye will clearly point this out. Here is the cut out file of cards on OP http://officialpsds.com/Flying-Cards2-PSD29258.html (http://officialpsds.com/Flying-Cards2-PSD29258.html) and here is the tineye http://www.tineye.com/search/9506406ca19147a7ea7f84a82c7a3cd3362a5abc/ (http://www.tineye.com/search/9506406ca19147a7ea7f84a82c7a3cd3362a5abc/) you will clearly see that the cards were against a different background until they were cut out and yet again I highly doubt that the author on OP is the owner of the original file.
So then I noticed on OP that I had seen a lot of the images in GR items one author being Sevenstyles so I started doing trace backs on the images used within his files and there was one that stood out form the rest. http://graphicriver.net/item/control-flyer-template/397428 (http://graphicriver.net/item/control-flyer-template/397428) in this file there is a diamond skull used with a diamond crown which can be found here on OP http://officialpsds.com/Diamond-Skull-PSD31994.html (http://officialpsds.com/Diamond-Skull-PSD31994.html) the skull is by damien hirst and by doing a Google search on the image we will notice that the skull with the crown doesn't appear anywhere besides OP.
Here is another Poster by sevenstyles http://graphicriver.net/item/tranquil-flyer-template/405226 (http://graphicriver.net/item/tranquil-flyer-template/405226) the fruit can easily be tracked back to OP
pineapple
Official psd's: http://officialpsds.com/Tasty-Pineapple-HQ-IMG-PSD63703.html (http://officialpsds.com/Tasty-Pineapple-HQ-IMG-PSD63703.html)
original source: http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-5798739/stock-photo-annanas (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-5798739/stock-photo-annanas)
kiwi
Official psd's: http://officialpsds.com/Cocktail-PSD28366.html (http://officialpsds.com/Cocktail-PSD28366.html)
original source: http://mailfor.deviantart.com/art/FreshCok-18352642 (http://mailfor.deviantart.com/art/FreshCok-18352642)
Strawberry
Official psd's: http://officialpsds.com/Strawberry-PSD51853.html (http://officialpsds.com/Strawberry-PSD51853.html)
original source: http://smurffette.deviantart.com/art/strawberry-3-49929686 (http://smurffette.deviantart.com/art/strawberry-3-49929686)
And another poster http://graphicriver.net/item/kingdom-flyer-template/713776 (http://graphicriver.net/item/kingdom-flyer-template/713776)
Crown
Official psd's: http://officialpsds.com/Crown-PSD59837.html (http://officialpsds.com/Crown-PSD59837.html)
original source: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-15300034/stock-photo-a-king-s-golden-crown-on-a-white-background-includes-clipping-path.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-15300034/stock-photo-a-king-s-golden-crown-on-a-white-background-includes-clipping-path.html)
money falling
Official psd's: http://officialpsds.com/Money-Falling-PSD59600.html (http://officialpsds.com/Money-Falling-PSD59600.html)
original source: google search (http://www.google.ie/search?q=stock+image&hl=en&tbs=sbi:AMhZZivYorrx3VNk5TzG8fXuEy6Y3o7ob7uVpBkrjloVQhnTwUpQpMUdiEv0S6YYTNK6vAE29mWG6QE3ehPlS8yDV-jGInh5agq85AeTb2_1BQ9t82Oc50TJFM72g1VtHS4L9bAe42LrW7Lq6O-zHDUJHoh5MHW3EL3bMaIF7N_1P6uEHMWHEBNcoqNgrs-12wH3yXZAVlI4LGPVJkDcqwVxZ0YLwoyXDecxsRciaZsYYgLouo43aD9_1zGHaIuB43j3n0aPvIRrt3NShwE8VEFntcGWAztVi8tgJlEvlccvtKaBb5c-hD8W_168miccVH3UDKFJhiBpXN2t_1D8L-V_1N7vWc74bKIgyWhJpeGV15qlIOxKAFCAzQIDjRoJDCQ-K6XczI4vuosyuN1RaXiWVX2f4IVqGfvjyhetq198PG8j8LWXGKV2Tr0Gp-VsTnocWVYPlRoWyQxtiaguqEMMXfcMkgoPS1GCgLFBWdz81L3o6WTwpLw0YdxKWzcTrgAvk84VzGTmqgKfGfFoms6hSNF7RYQS0GLdfBg-YGI-SGSS5SzCctCvYil1XJFqJxQ0zukibABBmr_1C2qc4MeY7Pvgrr5zBJaiXc55QMnk8h2dipM4gz3P0j7SzyGKLheXWmX4-fR7awm8yRkQeEyh9eTgsXtQogtidYH7-4zOWPDsRS4n42vGznozOXf2BStONtfwnuIdYwiOQTM8R2YdfZfloC-jY7FCJhqyLyQOBmvvQSbqIrdAkzUIn6v9fCn7YFo83ItVASHrz5AvJPsI_1l7AqVcfgzFmlG9tbiU6Isqw9zUOUxBYGkc3j6s82wP1g5imGfeD2mZ7R7Ld1B4Eoj1TjFMCq4yq_1lU8S_1JhNPI6G69nmU_1NsNrftrA4QuWF_1Zc1xKncLWgLUHW6QUdAKkX7wo5aZGi_1987P_14MFi9iZvbO_1gM8JD_1WGCwYs6EhQBhw993YNCrdZixpbedtIo77R4-mk_1TPUz-ALq9nCOLgkGQAKYQ2vyQbG2N6okKasn26-BRX5OUvUZNLNTmFxqi0gtO3QLc8Eky1C3UJmBQS2RhvszQEaqUNKTd_1IZ4V_1Z7dTjeNCDY2xjPuFwo46kpM7syFmKQZoWRvIHpbyyd0sSNLMz-uTRZ7jEuz8d-c4qV1wf_19xSlDQpVYpyBmuCAdEHJGujIKAlG1TuRYBNqCmwIgwao-a2wx9Tyz1tW_1MnCwIgQ_16ILJajYryoOdQ4dOvQ6Iu4xTXacNDQwUBfIupYN3IOHKKPixxu4WM6IVqrGNpcYwleAH3A4hy2nrJViSvOUbMORXL7Efvlhq13-LbuCj9norQQvkv7F6BpSu66x-UqCa7Fx-FFJXhM0JQfyhTG0ng6d0bzxuCA&prmd=imvns&ei=3yfWTquxHoWBhQeS9ulP&start=0&sa=N&biw=1440&bih=785)
Speaker (colour changed)
Official psd's: http://officialpsds.com/speaker-2-PSD42324.html (http://officialpsds.com/speaker-2-PSD42324.html)
original source: google search (http://www.google.ie/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitMfoOGhFhTq8tFHysjfnnBvHuUtkFXmfqUod9Cc1B643brCYy_1mXAGZxZeNk_1SZ3oKuWbynRfHPaud5RCmxT8Z_1lwa7yAFjs3uTkLeJJpzEeUf5GLrj4zbkeTTPL1Q38UHkypjRm-OpvbXme_1n31tvv9m3nSE6PecC9bSYeWanDwGMz2qd-zhkcPeahAMSEyr2OihzhJhDaOoUcKMGtaEBoZATnzuK_1UUOqziBuRMIjzfbthWHSy3GBJknvKAZEzjo1JA2Q53QDxaB4iO84A8AZgvhlJmu7x-6RUOJxc8wzgX8yBD3PkgVFCUNU-RM5dmz6X74QgBKHNUoH55k4pPaiuxsGpNlfuUIOIHIjSZYzkw1Oab-53RnWdpgxGeo17KkP1JQwws98UI9I3zBcn2oICu7xhI9Ejuf28UWkPXjvzDbU0EwFlWPVBnZEpcSH6I4aLwQnK2PcZuEdcxdKrSB9UrJhBzS6OT7-arQcrhGmIDwCUK1AtxsqJhE3HLmqL5ygPZPC9Qxnvc1_1iR3djN3jON8dqrR4vHzMY9Ltr_12q8gPlYVYnBKyayB1bW646hJMkgtv2XFG7fU_19D1MqnPnDhqSE0X2t49QJZxlKnMkNQem4c8DeW7jAZuWuvoF8ktrY0BYvYfBjGpOfTH7bBpLu3gAQ585-UO7ke-zY_1W6O8GeE2FIoZL2TSVu_1eArnk7imy_1Ui38vUH90YQr3GR7RtGhORxEj5qGaIlI8v0NI_1g6MblG13SuM2iW3velSF32w3Yb98B62z5nOYeORr1mkeSr7Ysub1LEAaToAZLvGWnPEf1a8gQLfy3Odgqw13qCfCjGiB8LrWOOYXhspqdglDEIssMz028G-66o2SnGK5S-H0OcD4Vjtus9IYbewsqg3ZP2uDBoSOufpY8UP59vHSgufqbH13KzsiJpsL5-u5Tas1xl-MrGgmcxytDAJ7u_1jNCwfxPps0w9rLdkLhwgbEfZOJyj6I7Jq-gnA3g-ozn5WEmxVy7VCDCIlGxRfYCTVi8Zq7mDmsi2HxBq2A70c-G7ZIIrWD1aPoHhGJuAVS9YUlOk&hl=en&biw=1440&bih=785&site=search&sa=X&ei=7ijWTpfLB4KJhQfV6P1d&ved=0CDkQ9Q8)
One more poster http://graphicriver.net/item/metalheartflyer-template/717703 (http://graphicriver.net/item/metalheartflyer-template/717703)
Car
Official psd's: http://officialpsds.com/Black-car-stock2167.html (http://officialpsds.com/Black-car-stock2167.html)
original source: google search (http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&biw=1440&bih=785&tbs=sbi%3AAMhZZisppkGn0yCuM76VftU6Q9yU3YKUQ6b_1aieD-h70GwvgZHLt4ypfiMk9gOzwqXn0sjPWjTTV7985x0dpyDT8CpmdpaSW03DZMRfq7yBO0hxB7csqDKZbX210rSoGG8uiM_1eawWTAFwO34bkLbqKLX6F8wzlRgCJpWFFAqrCX8VA6P8MINr5JmNq9HRE_1yMg_1_1MbKFJB5Ej-e-ldgOhTipGzolFjrDHAlJT7j0SQJrSN6vSir-OXnZBfK8ePelHoy_15mVdLwNWqXZUjFMTfC_1e81k1ogFXAfYc5Rg-o9JbfJlYkMmMbbvoJegib_175ZEf5En-tSZQH4pODqolJoeert0jpH8p66OJNQZRQrRuAc5PYnktaOFVgJP87K79_11hQjXGunigJEGktJGT-tJ2yjllG2NWFBId8ZKC8jhkCLfDDSVPTaF0xIqBf0euRqVlqEDOvjFwUpPuqlJHxoyWSabAeUbjkyUgdSeCZbUvorwq4aYpQ8D1jIwlH-IrTJg6nf_1TgPEaubuNN-2GWeWyRy4Mkgqbo1RqMNQzk3QbkjleDLvsSt1A5g1Iw9BOZ4Ko3cCp9_1VaKVO3RlISDPF4qcdYQMA-GbI1arMcXdC4I-UVVsKyKvmuAQ-srY5giT2tqX4CX5FCqwGWyRH9lLKNdejMZG5hZhlzkg1f0BZt1gtLXg5jqBInP4J2fN9GB-z0bpV0KPH2EENUkTNpzqwCS8Gy1UDwZv6-m1Cqc9Asr8b3Jo8fo2EgJLaC4zPDJOOoYMkJKyVFMqjwX_1xAc1PlARAsPoqXtUneKvVzQlzVcCPAM98jETQgy9ZblRUYdBfmgVtXr1Tv5OlQmLZrknLLaymsgQkENmvvqlR1NOphdnRA-i6xhXd3bk1klcztNXFAV9gXUAW22B9erIcDJ2cDRfZqt_1O7nOP4JHbdRl1ged4pg_10UqqYrepq08ZjD77Os6OYmwiLCqaLgfWXFI4dY36YLM164oZJpkc6Q52Zce6x3OBvIrEBvZ1vzX9Ak1qvEnRm7G7oZqCqzZqlP05hlc8TrrtNGx-6-vdfoW4yY-KAr9BSqSDDRAdh2GpdBUzyTiw8f1wstMnItLT1dSqcql9Vw52ttRN-OBp5SNWCF42bKDnV_1AOQuy8cEbk-70B_1553GzFXYMbkmLOOqfAGcPwDctz_1MOTyzeiJVZ3G8LBsC5PXrlneS5UHv3kS3dUHkBFxstpxdH3Ewmd5vVLIiW1W9FyMtxhQjrP4uslWr3j8QooIU7uWGpmoPnLfG05KeAoI--B0oAp7R2fQRqJGDrc71TXwIRh4Wp_1TDDhpDk-Ch8qav5OA-f7LmqYlxCBE9eTVAmxaGiRkIdxel-AvANGtn5SHONUeQ&q=stock+image&oq=stock+image&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=8587l10305l0l10735l11l11l0l2l2l0l183l1237l1.8l9l0)
All images in Sevenstyles posters can be tracked on Official Psd's site.
Trust me there are many more and it is not just limited to this 2 authors. I have used stock images in my own files and link back to any images that are used as is stated by a creative commons licence and I see it a little unfair that some authors do not do this. I think that a link to where the image was purchased/ gotten from should be included in the submission to the reviewer to prevent this from happening and in the long run avoid GR or Evanto getting into trouble for copyright infringement (this is something I would not like to see happen). Also that Offical Psd's is not used a stock site for GR or any other Envato marketplace. I also understand that some of the images above are not on stock sites but the fact of the matter is there is also no licence/extended licence or proof of permission granted to use them, just because an image is on the net does not make it public domain as someone somewhere created it.
poster http://graphicriver.net/item/alienkiller-flyer-template/482601 (http://graphicriver.net/item/alienkiller-flyer-template/482601)
op:http://officialpsds.com/SWORDS-PSD24880.html
tineye: http://www.warhammeronline.com/conceptart/conceptArt_2007.php (http://www.warhammeronline.com/conceptart/conceptArt_2007.php)
It is the first sword in the image that is used in the poster which is concept art from Warhammer online http://www.warhammeronline.com/conceptart/conceptArt_2007.php (http://www.warhammeronline.com/conceptart/conceptArt_2007.php) I noticed this instantly
There are more and more users using Official PSD
here is another http://graphicriver.net/item/tropical-summer-madness-party-flyer-poster/950164 (http://graphicriver.net/item/tropical-summer-madness-party-flyer-poster/950164)
and this guy http://graphicriver.net/item/sylvester-2012-party-flyer-template/946342 (http://graphicriver.net/item/sylvester-2012-party-flyer-template/946342)
I would also question is the image of the bottle of Smirnoff in the download?
and finally can someone tell me how this got in http://graphicriver.net/item/gangsters-in-black-mixtape-or-flyer-template/931457?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=HypeDesignStudios (http://graphicriver.net/item/gangsters-in-black-mixtape-or-flyer-template/931457?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=HypeDesignStudios)
-
Thanks for taking the time to post here. As I have said before, sad that Envato is going down the line where they will be in the same category as officialpsds.com A shady site that exploits loopholes to sell illegal content, rather than as a site that truly cares about protecting the work of the design and art community. Very sad.
We can only hope that they adopt best practice rather than just trying to cover their a**
They need to take a look at how the market leading sites do it. IStock, Dreamstime etc. demand proof of your source files for illustrations. All the other legit stock sites will investigate any possible copyright infringements, not just wait for DMCAs from owners.
I guess maybe their lawyers have realized that when you repeatedly pass blatant infringements to go up on the site via a review team that you train, a little tickbox isn't going to save you.
-
I also noticed that any items that have been included in this thread have be removed from GR or put into Soft Disable
like this link from above http://graphicriver.net/item/power-posterflyer-template/149732?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles (http://graphicriver.net/item/power-posterflyer-template/149732?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=sevenstyles)
but the item is also included in this bundle
http://graphicriver.net/item/power-flyer-bundle/224512 (http://graphicriver.net/item/power-flyer-bundle/224512)
so should this be removed also?
infact if you ask me most of the offending authors work should be removed as most uses iconic/famous images to promote and sell.
-
Reading that thread on Envato looks like they are finally pulling all the files!
I like to think this thread had something to do with it, but more likely the fact that Getty employees and those of other companies infringed read this forum had more to do with it than anything we regular peons said.
-
I would believe that this forum had a lot to do with it.
I think on the GR forums it is just seen as authors moaning and not professionals giving head strong advice on best practice and law.
-
Well done, Cook.
What y'all are reporting about the forums is simply amazing. Envato is 100% not protected by the DMCA, as I mentioned in a previous post. I've been meeting with several copyright attorneys for a month now discussing these very types of issues, and what I'm saying is absolutely true. Ain't just another internet opinion on my end. All of these companies with images being infringed upon are based in the US, and can and will sue under the US Copyright Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act, because Envato and its various websites have failed to register as an Interim Designated Agent authorized by the Copyright Office to accept notification of copyright infringements without further liability. Without this registration in place, they do not qualify for the limitations of liability guaranteed in the US Copyright Act.
Copyright Act Section 512(c) states:
(2) Designated agent. — The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3) [my note: a DMCA notice], by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:
(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.
(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.
It's this section which protects agents like Shutterstock or YouTube or Google or iStock or Getty. They are all registered. Envato is not. http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/e_agents.html (http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/e_agents.html)
-
Certainly good news they are finally pulling files.
-
Some authors are a little confused to what is going on
http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/soft-disable/58233?page=1#523883 (http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/soft-disable/58233?page=1#523883)
-
I would believe that this forum had a lot to do with it.
MSG rocks! (http://forum.realityfanforum.com/Smileys/classic/beerbang.gif)
Scroll down to Matu's post where he says he stumbled upon this thread...
http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/an-appeal-to-gr-authors/58116?page=5 (http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/an-appeal-to-gr-authors/58116?page=5)
And this quote on page 6:
The thread which Matu has quoted from includes many people saying things like ‘look at how this file is breaking copyright’ etc. EVERY SINGLE LINK they put on there now links to a dead page, i.e. the item has been temporarily disabled (including some from the top author here). These aren’t from a few shady authors either – files pulled include Orman Clarks best selling WP theme and work by SevenStyles.
Thank you, Envato, for listening to us.
-
....or to Getty/ Sony's Lawyers, either way, good that they have been pulled.
Also good for the artists who have had work pulled as it protects them too
-
http://graphicriver.net/item/hdr-legendary-image-action/721586?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown (http://graphicriver.net/item/hdr-legendary-image-action/721586?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown)
in fact
http://graphicriver.net/user/mrcharlesbrown/portfolio?sort_by=sales_count&page=1 (http://graphicriver.net/user/mrcharlesbrown/portfolio?sort_by=sales_count&page=1)
no comment
-
....or to Getty/ Sony's Lawyers, either way, good that they have been pulled.
Also good for the artists who have had work pulled as it protects them too
Very true, because they most certainly are not protected from liability.
-
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/hdr-legendary-image-action/721586?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/hdr-legendary-image-action/721586?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=mrcharlesbrown[/url])
in fact
[url]http://graphicriver.net/user/mrcharlesbrown/portfolio?sort_by=sales_count&page=1[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/user/mrcharlesbrown/portfolio?sort_by=sales_count&page=1[/url])
no comment
We could do this all day long. It's hard to fathom just how many infringed images are on Graphic River.
-
Their reviews should spend some time each day going through files/authors portfolios and soft disabling them until proof of licence or a change in image is carried out.
-
Only spotted those treats because the guy is asking on their forum why another one of his files reported here has disappeared.
Credit to them they finally seem to be taking some action now, I'm hoping they aren't going to sit and wait for every example to be reported individually.
-
I don't see how at this point Envato can get a hold of this problem.
They would have to disable all content and review everything from scratch to make sure they are "clean".
It's "unfair" to shutdown the contributors mentioned here first (although they illegally used the content, I know) but then others who fly under the radar can still sell their products with illegal content just because no one reports it?
That's not how it should be dealt with.
Envato made a huge mistake. They should take responsibility and man up to get their collection sorted out.
-
Well i would start with an announcement telling authors to clean up their files. I would also explain exactly what that means in terms of acceptable sources of images and what constitutes a license or permission from the copyright holder.
What wouldn't be fair is for all the examples where Morgan Freeman or Harry Potter are used get stopped or taken down while those using our stock images are let in because they are more anonymous and we don't all have the resources to hire attorneys to have them removed.
-
Well i would start with an announcement telling authors to clean up their files. I would also explain exactly what that means in terms of acceptable sources of images and what constitutes a license or permission from the copyright holder.
What wouldn't be fair is for all the examples where Morgan Freeman or Harry Potter are used get stopped or taken down while those using our stock images are let in because they are more anonymous and we don't all have the resources to hire attorneys to have them removed.
Yes I agree with that
Any images I have used I have brought extended licences and/or have expressed permission to use them from the author and I produce these at anytime if asked to do so.
-
Ahem.....
http://graphicriver.net/item/alternative-flyerposter-bundle-vol-1012/792961?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=indieground (http://graphicriver.net/item/alternative-flyerposter-bundle-vol-1012/792961?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=indieground)
Or alternatively when one item is spotted start by checking the author's whole portfolio, everyone who has chimed in so far regarding files being disabled seems to have lots of other violations in their port.
And you can bet that if they are casually using celeb photos they are also not paying for all this stock images in their ports.
-
An easy solution would be requiring that license agreements or property releases are uploaded along with the images, just like we have to do with model and property releases. Such proof protects the naive contributor from getting himself in hot water. I don't think simple source references is enough protection, unless the images are in the public domain.
Another solution is to allow only Photo Dune images and those from whichever subsidiary is selling illustrations. Envato could offer these images at a reduced rate to make them affordable for the purpose of previews, and we would receive a small in-house sublicensing fee. Envato could also provide the option for buyers to purchase the entire package, template and images included. Win-win for both template designers and stock artists.
-
yes I agree all stock images used if not your own should be subject to the same treatment
http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/soft-disable/58233 (http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/soft-disable/58233)
indieground SAYS
Ok so I guess i must change my item’s preview.. awesome :(
indieground is not happy
but this should have been thought through before it was done and Envato should have answered the question ages ago since it has been asked a million times on the forum if authors were allowed to do this or not.... and was never cleared up (not that it need to be as it is common sense if you understand the law)
-
I don't think he's realised yet that he's going to have to change all his preview images :(
-
Well i would start with an announcement telling authors to clean up their files. I would also explain exactly what that means in terms of acceptable sources of images and what constitutes a license or permission from the copyright holder.
What wouldn't be fair is for all the examples where Morgan Freeman or Harry Potter are used get stopped or taken down while those using our stock images are let in because they are more anonymous and we don't all have the resources to hire attorneys to have them removed.
If I understand you correctly, you are afraid that low profile violators (using our stock imagery - insteadd of Harry Potter etc.) might get away for the moment while other are getting taken down?
If so, then it assures what I just wrote, that everything should be taken down NOW and everything needs to be reviewed along with appropriate licenses/authorizations by the original copyright holders.
Doing this hit and miss thing where only reported products get removed is not helping the situation.
-
I agree that would be the ideal. Problem is there is no way they will do it.
Too much income lost and bad PR.
-
I agree that would be the ideal. Problem is there is no way they will do it.
Too much income lost and bad PR.
Of course! However, Envato can be lucky that this won't hit the news as that would be bad enough PR for them.
-
I can't get GR to load... anyone else?
-
Works fine for me
-
GR is working for me. Just found a pizza delivery flyer with a stock photo where the designer claims it's free.
The pizza image is a free provided image which is a smart object therefore is easily replaceable.
All the other images are included
http://graphicriver.net/item/pizza-delivery-door-hanger/1359404?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ciolca (http://graphicriver.net/item/pizza-delivery-door-hanger/1359404?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ciolca)
Then I visited his personal website and wouldn't you know, up pops a template with Getty watermarked images. :::sigh:::
http://catalinciolca.ro/Portfolio/Print_Templates/Pages/32_Pages_Hair%26Nail_Magazine.html (http://catalinciolca.ro/Portfolio/Print_Templates/Pages/32_Pages_Hair%26Nail_Magazine.html)
Makes you wonder if the pizza stock photo is actually "free."
-
Fine for me also
indieground SAYS
I think that if a reviewer approves your file it means that it’s ok with envato guidelines.. If someone puts an illegal image in the download zip, the rieviewer will immediately reject the file.. so if they left you put an image in the preview until today it means that also the reviewers thought it was ok.. right? So I think that if there are so many illegal images it’s both responsability of authors and envato staff.. I’m going to change the previews of my posters, if it’s the right thing to do.. no problems on that. but I think it’s not fair that some files has been disableb without any email or notice..
-
I'm very late in catching up with this thread, but just had a read - and checked out that wretched site official PSDs that's mentioned in many of the Graphic River items as where people can go to get photos to use after they purchase the template. They're no better than the many sites that offer stolen images from the stock agencies.
I think it's heartening that so many of the links in this thread are now to content that's been pulled - that's a start.
However, I think Envato needs to be much, much stricter on what it permits in the wording of template descriptions, as well as in the use of preview images that haven't been properly licensed. In particular, it should not permit any reference to shady sites that offer stolen content - like Official PSDs. MSG has a feature that automatically replaces obscenities in posts - perhaps Envato can do something similar with references to file sharing sites.
As long as the image isn't included in the template, Graphic River sellers could license a small image from PhotoDune - the prices are dirt cheap :) - no need to include unlicensed/improperly licensed content.
Thanks to Microbius for bringing this up
-
Our pizza guy has more...even his magazine covers section header is a clear editorial shot featuring Redbook and Marie Claire magazines. http://graphicriver.net/collections/1278379-magazine-covers (http://graphicriver.net/collections/1278379-magazine-covers)
Katy Perry image... http://graphicriver.net/item/4-modern-magazine-covers/575692 (http://graphicriver.net/item/4-modern-magazine-covers/575692)
REM and Kings of Leon... http://graphicriver.net/item/4-modern-magazine-covers-take-two/610094 (http://graphicriver.net/item/4-modern-magazine-covers-take-two/610094)
-
No this one still amazes me
http://graphicriver.net/item/gangsters-in-black-mixtape-or-flyer-template/931457 (http://graphicriver.net/item/gangsters-in-black-mixtape-or-flyer-template/931457)
Original
http://trendsupdates.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/ovaliamib.jpg (http://trendsupdates.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/ovaliamib.jpg)
How that got in is beyond me
-
Holy cow...the pizza guy is actually an art director for a Romanian magazine and comes with recommendations from the editor of the Romanian version of Harper's Bazaar. Now that's someone you would think would know better. :o
-
http://graphicriver.net/item/mall-cinema-program-flyer/1369553 (http://graphicriver.net/item/mall-cinema-program-flyer/1369553)
All photos are provided, including the movie posters
Unbelievable.
-
Isn't this that Puffy Diddy Do Daddy guy?
http://graphicriver.net/item/players-club-flyer-template/797602 (http://graphicriver.net/item/players-club-flyer-template/797602)
Sorry I don't follow popular music that much.
When it comes to a case like this, it's not even the issue of using a stock photo. Things like Rights to Publicity and endorsement come into play, especially if a buyer was uneducated and actually used that image.
Envato may as well just shut the house down, because almost everything people have pointed to is ripe for pending lawsuit.
-
Envato may as well just shut the house down, because almost everything people have pointed to is ripe for pending lawsuit.
This is my biggest concern (as a GR author), these copyright violations all come from 2 categories - Print templates (mostly flyers) and Add-ons (mostly Photoshop actions).
I almost exclusively publish web elements, where everything is made from scratch in Photoshop so there is never any issue of copyright, so solutions like this would really hurt me. Would my items be disabled until I can somehow prove that I own the textures, patterns and effects that I use in my work, will I then need to do it in every piece of new work? I feel it is enough to declare the work as my own (with no proof given), and then I take responsibility if someone accuses me of stealing their assets.
Authors need to be better educated (someone hit the nail on the head when they said that many authors are teenagers and amateurs), reviewers need to be better educated (it's a remote team and clearly some training has been missed) and certain sections need to be gone through and have items soft-disabled until the authors can sort out the files. Anything more drastic would be a disaster. After all this issue spreads to themeforest too, where literally hundreds of themes use images from TV/films in their demo templates (particularly Pixar films) - and TF is the big money earner.
It's all a bit of a nightmare really.
P.S. Hello :)
-
Speaking ThemeForest - isn't it Yuri's image? I'm sure that someone paid for EL.
http://themeforest.net/item/rttheme-9-business-theme-5-in-1-for-wordpress/full_screen_preview/101242 (http://themeforest.net/item/rttheme-9-business-theme-5-in-1-for-wordpress/full_screen_preview/101242)
-
did a Tineye on it http://www.tineye.com/search/ce7e2cdfd86cf9c832b4529686d709707b5bbe69/ (http://www.tineye.com/search/ce7e2cdfd86cf9c832b4529686d709707b5bbe69/)
but they may or may not have or own a licence
-
did a Tineye on it [url]http://www.tineye.com/search/ce7e2cdfd86cf9c832b4529686d709707b5bbe69/[/url] ([url]http://www.tineye.com/search/ce7e2cdfd86cf9c832b4529686d709707b5bbe69/[/url])
but they may or may not have or own a licence
I know. But after reading this thread it's unfortunately somehow difficult to believe that any of Envato contributors pays for licence.
-
well I can say I do but I know what you mean
-
Envato may as well just shut the house down, because almost everything people have pointed to is ripe for pending lawsuit.
This is my biggest concern (as a GR author), these copyright violations all come from 2 categories - Print templates (mostly flyers) and Add-ons (mostly Photoshop actions).
I almost exclusively publish web elements, where everything is made from scratch in Photoshop so there is never any issue of copyright, so solutions like this would really hurt me. Would my items be disabled until I can somehow prove that I own the textures, patterns and effects that I use in my work, will I then need to do it in every piece of new work? I feel it is enough to declare the work as my own (with no proof given), and then I take responsibility if someone accuses me of stealing their assets.
Authors need to be better educated (someone hit the nail on the head when they said that many authors are teenagers and amateurs), reviewers need to be better educated (it's a remote team and clearly some training has been missed) and certain sections need to be gone through and have items soft-disabled until the authors can sort out the files. Anything more drastic would be a disaster. After all this issue spreads to themeforest too, where literally hundreds of themes use images from TV/films in their demo templates (particularly Pixar films) - and TF is the big money earner.
It's all a bit of a nightmare really.
P.S. Hello :)
Welcome PixelBuffet! I was hoping you'd hop on over here. Your posts at GR have been right on target.
Unfortunately, it does seem like the only solution at this point is to disable at least the two sections you mention. There's just too many infringing images. I wouldn't even suggest that, if Envato had fulfilled the legal requirements necessary to protect itself from a gigantic lawsuit. They need to file the necessary paperwork with the US Copyright Office ASAP, because the Eyes of Getty do watch this forum...and as I've said before, they do not play nice. They typically demand damages of $1000-2000 per image.
Hopefully for your sake, and the sake of other artists who aren't using infringed images, they can work through the products quickly and don't have to take down those sections.
We have to submit proof of copyright ownership on certain items to the stock agencies. For instance, if we create a vector that's a cut-out of a person, we either have to submit the source file or provide a link for proof that the source image is ours. But general backgrounds, textures, and the other things you describe don't require proof. The agencies trust the artists to provide them with legal material, and when it's discovered that an infringement has occurred, they remove the image and terminate the offending "artist's" account. That's how it should work at GR and TF, and soon hopefully will so designers like yourself don't get caught in a messy situation like this one.
-
Envato may as well just shut the house down, because almost everything people have pointed to is ripe for pending lawsuit.
This is my biggest concern (as a GR author), these copyright violations all come from 2 categories - Print templates (mostly flyers) and Add-ons (mostly Photoshop actions).
I almost exclusively publish web elements, where everything is made from scratch in Photoshop so there is never any issue of copyright, so solutions like this would really hurt me...... It's all a bit of a nightmare really.
While that's quite understandable in your case, it doesn't excuse the agent. Ultimately they are responsible for this. Asking contributors to police themselves though is quite the joke. They will do one or two, or all of the following:
Ignore the agent
Play dumb and claim they didn't get the notice
Keep doing it anyway
You would think that if people are of legal age to enter into a contract with the agent they would understand the rules, but they don't and in many cases especially in the 18 yr old bracket as mentioned, don't even read the TOS agreement. Good luck to you whatever happens.
-
That's a no-brainer for graphic designers living in their parent's basement to upload "Iron Man" templates and rake in the cash as long the agent does not enforce any copyright issues.
Some templates sold many hundreds of times, there is some serious cash moving here.
I'm completely stunned that not one of the big copyright holders ever had them fined. How could an infringement on such a large scale go on for so long without a major take down wave.
Sure, we don't know how many works have been previously taken down by Envato but judging from what is still live on their site it appears that they simply do not take this very seriously.
-
We have to submit proof of copyright ownership on certain items to the stock agencies. For instance, if we create a vector that's a cut-out of a person, we either have to submit the source file or provide a link for proof that the source image is ours. But general backgrounds, textures, and the other things you describe don't require proof. The agencies trust the artists to provide them with legal material, and when it's discovered that an infringement has occurred, they remove the image and terminate the offending "artist's" account.
Wow, now I feel naive too! I always knew where I was with copyright infringement, but had no idea other sites took so many more steps to ensure their contributors stayed within it! This really is quite sloppy from Envato then.
It is going to be interesting to see how Envato respond to this. They don't normally ignore us on the forums, so I suspect no one is quite sure what to say until they figure out an official stance on this (and how they are going to sort it all out).
One thing I would say though is that they've always ethically been a good company, Collis especially has always aimed for much more than just making money. They've grown very fast in only a few years and seem to have spread the key staff quite thin with all the marketplaces and other projects. Not much of an excuse, but I thought I'd try to put a good word in ;)
...having said that, I just noticed a flyer with Madonna on it just got accept in the last few hours. ::)
-
I love PSDTuts and really hope this mess doesn't hurt Envato. I just got approved over at Photo Dune myself and want to see them succeed. Years ago I tried to convince LuckyOliver to expand into fonts, templates, and logos, but they weren't built for that kind of vision. Envato has the ability to become an industry leader, but they have got to get this stuff sorted out so a lawsuit doesn't destroy them.
-
Wow, now I feel naive too! I always knew where I was with copyright infringement, but had no idea other sites took so many more steps to ensure their contributors stayed within it! This really is quite sloppy from Envato then.
It is going to be interesting to see how Envato respond to this. They don't normally ignore us on the forums, so I suspect no one is quite sure what to say until they figure out an official stance on this (and how they are going to sort it all out).
One thing I would say though is that they've always ethically been a good company, Collis especially has always aimed for much more than just making money. They've grown very fast in only a few years and seem to have spread the key staff quite thin with all the marketplaces and other projects. Not much of an excuse, but I thought I'd try to put a good word in ;)
...having said that, I just noticed a flyer with Madonna on it just got accept in the last few hours. ::)
It's great to see long standing Envato members come here and join the discussion! It really helps a lot and most importantly EVERYONE if we keep exchanging our experiences.
The classic microstock agencies like iStock, Shutterstock, Dreamstime etc. do impose strict guidelines what is acceptable and what isn't (in terms of copyright).
In photography it's quite obvious that you need a model release from a person you take a picture to use that photo in a commercial way.
However, in other areas of design (web design, graphic design etc.) the "artists" or designers often use content that has already been created to accelerate their designing process. In general nothing wrong with that. And as long as the designer ensures that all used design elements allow commercial use, everything is fine.
In general though, also trying to be a "true" artist, the goal is to create all content yourself. That will be much more satisfying once you see sales but also you can consider it an insurance of not getting sued.
It is obvious that using photos of celebrities or world famous brands is going to boost ANY design but in almost all cases none of those celebrities or major brands would provide you with a written permission to use it for your personal, financial gain - simply because it is their intellectual property ( I don't mean you personally - I mean the reader who used unauthorized content before). And the reason why they want to protect it, is to ensure that they keep the $$$ rolling in order to produce future products, services etc. That's their business. So basically, many Envato contributors, have used other highly professional work to sell their product and that is just illegal.
There is a British show called "Peep Show". I don't remember the exact episode episode but Jez and Super Hans talk about producing a song and are about to rip off someone elses music when Jez says:
"You know, sometimes it's really hard to come up with your own stuff".
I hope this sums it up.
-
There is a British show called "Peep Show". I don't remember the exact episode episode but Jez and Super Hans talk about producing a song and are about to rip off someone elses music when Jez says:
"You know, sometimes it's really hard to come up with your own stuff".
:D
Not long ago I was reading about how rap and hip-hop music had to change dramatically, because it simply became too expensive to license all the samples they wanted to use. They had to get creative, which IMO improved the entire genre.
-
Here is the bit I'm talking about - start listening closely at 0:45 until the end and you know what I mean:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toXV2eBBwEI[/youtube]
-
OMG...that's just awesome!!! :D :D :D :D :D
-
This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
If this isn't irony, then I don't know what is! :D
-
I love the idea that the music was what he'd been thinking of and the other guy doing it was ripping him off :)
-
I love the idea that the music was what he'd been thinking of and the other guy doing it was ripping him off :)
The writers of this show (or at least for that season) did a great job! They often hit it spot on. Hilarious stuff.
-
This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
If this isn't irony, then I don't know what is! :D
Yeah, another example of enforcing intellectual property. Don't know why we in America can watch BBC stuff. I can't stream stuff straight from their web site but on youtube it works. Weird.
-
I don't see how at this point Envato can get a hold of this problem.
They would have to disable all content and review everything from scratch to make sure they are "clean".
It's "un....
.....ith.
Envato made a huge mistake. They should take responsibility and man up to get their collection sorted out.
I will be OK if they are willing and know what to do especially now when they have so much reviewers in action while peek of uploading is reached out.
Few years ago BigStock go through all they files and edit bad keywords one by one when they had collection of 1 or 2 million images and do it in one week or two.
(isnt all Envato collection similar size as BigStok few years ago even half smaller because of rapid growth of PhotoDune which is lets say clean of copyright)
They biggest problem is they old products on they other sites.
P.S.
So Envato spit in your hands and rub them. Fasten reviewers to their chairs and connect them to an infusion or whatever.
In one week I want all to be clear of nasty naughty stuff...
Cmon Envato you can do it...
-
Hi all,
Just stopping in to let you know that we've posted up on our community blog about this issue http://notes.envato.com/general/use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/ (http://notes.envato.com/general/use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/), and across all our forums in response to the issues raised in this thread.
We have also updated some of our wiki information to be clearer and more specific in case there was any misunderstanding.
Most of the items from earlier in the thread (I'm not certain exactly, but I think the first two pages) have been reviewed and where appropriate disabled. Newer links that have been posted about will be looked into shortly, I believe the team is just about to do a pass through these forum posts.
Thanks! ... and on a sidenote, that big beat manifesto was hilarious :D
-
Hey Collis,
I can't see any mention of what you will do if authors don't update their files? Many authors are now semi-inactive, just enjoying the passive income they've built up, will they even know about this announcement?
Are there any plans to go through the site and re-review, or are you leaving it to the authors to sort their own work out?
Last question, to take a file approved yesterday:
http://graphicriver.net/item/endless-party-flyer-template/1434134 (http://graphicriver.net/item/endless-party-flyer-template/1434134)
Now I don't think this includes images from film, TV or celebrities - but it does include some images which might not be licensed. Will there be any changes in the review process so people have a bit more confidence in us, or is that being left to the authors too?
My concern is that if it is just left to authors, then opinions like this (which seems entirely justified at the moment):
But after reading this thread it's unfortunately somehow difficult to believe that any of Envato contributors pays for licence.
...wont go away, and that makes me sad - because I'm proud to be an exclusive Envato author.
-
Statement seems to indicate very little change in policy and new uploads demonstrate that what is happening is "more of the same".
The only change in policy seems to be "we may stop blatant infringements at review". Other than that just CYA with DMCA policy etc.
The only thing that will have a real impact would be to ask authors to specify in their descriptions where they purchased the images from (along with educating authors about legit sources). This would also help buyers wanting to license the same images for use with the templates.
Otherwise authors will still just assume sites like the Photoshop one are a perfectly legitimate source for images.
Even better limit authors to Photodune and your own legit free sources then you can keep track, levels the playing field too.
ETA if you do this I'm sure a lot of photogs will give permission for free use in previews as it will mean more sales to customers wanting to recreate the same flyer etc.
-
Even better limit authors to Photodune and your own legit free sources then you can keep track, levels the playing field too.
ETA if you do this I'm sure a lot of photogs will give permission for free use in previews as it will mean more sales to customers wanting to recreate the same flyer etc.
Good idea. There is no reason why Envato should support officialpsds dot com or other sites by linking to their site if PhotoDune sell images as well. Not mentioning that officalpsds is full of stolen images.
-
Yes I agree using Photodune would be the best practice for stock as you reviewers can quickly check what licence you own to use the stock image and Envato would be promoting one of its own marketing places.
-
Hey Collis,
I can't see any mention of what you will do if authors don't update their files? Many authors are now semi-inactive, just enjoying the passive income they've built up, will they even know about this announcement?
Are there any plans to go through the site and re-review, or are you leaving it to the authors to sort their own work out?
Last question, to take a file approved yesterday:
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/endless-party-flyer-template/1434134[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/endless-party-flyer-template/1434134[/url])
Now I don't think this includes images from film, TV or celebrities - but it does include some images which might not be licensed. Will there be any changes in the review process so people have a bit more confidence in us, or is that being left to the authors too?
My concern is that if it is just left to authors, then opinions like this (which seems entirely justified at the moment):
But after reading this thread it's unfortunately somehow difficult to believe that any of Envato contributors pays for licence.
...wont go away, and that makes me sad - because I'm proud to be an exclusive Envato author.
Hi Pixelbuffet!
Nice to see some long-time Envato authors out here on Microstockgroup - it's a really interesting forum!
Because of our approach to the marketplaces, our policy remains very much that authors are responsible for their work, that we always respond to DMCA takedown notices and do our best to educate authors on their obligations and responsibilities. I'll give some thought to the scenario you mentioned however and raise it with the team.
With respect to reviewers, as I mentioned in the Notes post, we've asked the review team to use more of their discretion in reviewing items. This means for instance they might reject an item with a blatantly obvious photo of a celebrity. However it relies on the reviewer knowing and recognising that celebrity, so is not meant to be a prevention, and does not mean authors should rely on this in any way.
Changes to reviewer policies take a little while to take effect as there are many reviewers working on the marketplaces. So it may be a few days before such rejections start appearing.
The example you gave is a really good illustration of the rabbit hole that we'd end up going down in order to try to vet every asset used on every item that comes into the marketplaces. This is essentially why it is the author's responsibility as the seller to only upload items that are properly licensed.
I know you mentioned wanting others to have confidence in us. I totally agree, and I do honestly believe that our authors by and large are doing the right thing. And where they might not be, that more education will make the difference.
We have put a lot of time and energy in the past into drawing up materials to help authors understand their obligations, but I feel we can do more to draw attention to them. And that's something we're going to be working on.
Thank you for being proud to be an Envato author. And by the way, I like the rebrand from philmo! The little plate icon is awesome!! Though I did always like the old pm logo as well :-) I really need to update my icon on the marketplaces, it's past due!
-
... With respect to reviewers, as I mentioned in the Notes post, we've asked the review team to use more of their discretion in reviewing items. This means for instance they might reject an item with a blatantly obvious photo of a celebrity. However it relies on the reviewer knowing and recognizing that celebrity, so is not meant to be a prevention, and does not mean authors should rely on this in any way.
I appreciate you coming back to this forum to inform everyone about the current situation at Envato!
I'm not quite sure if your legal department has verified what you are posting here but to me (and I'm NOT a lawyer - however a long time contributor to other agencies) this statement appears not thoroughly advised by a professional.
The sole purpose of model and property releases is to ensure that the contributor has the right to publish the images. That's why ALL Envato contributors should provide a release or other authorizing document that explains their rights to publish that content. Otherwise there is no way to make sure that ANY photo that is included in a template/flyer/Envato product is used legally.
This does sound terrifying to your whole business operations as Envato has many thousands of products in the marketplace that have been submitted/reviewed and passed without releases.
Every single one of them could be a lawsuit waiting to happen. As we have a saying around here:
"I would be sh!tting bricks right now!".
Furthermore, and I don't know if this was already mentioned before:
Why would Envato allow the use of a product preview that does NOT represent of what is actually in the file sold?
This is really misleading.
Envato may be standing in a legal gray zone here with that strategy but to me this doesn't look professional at all to let/allow blatant copyright infringement happen on the front page just because it's written in the description that the illegally used photos are not included.
If they are not included - why are they shown then? I hope you understand my point here.
Envato is not innocent here and I simply cannot suger code this: Using images of Disney and other brands without being recognized during the review process makes me wonder what the reviewers are actually paid for.
By now, as you have mentioned, the infringements of the first 2 pages of this thread have been reviewed/removed from the marketplace. How long is this "clean up" process supposed to last until Envato can provide a transparent and properly licensed product?
-
Excellent points and questions Click.
Yeah, Disney no one to fool with. They go after grandmothers who sell Minnie Mouse dolls at flea markets.
The images are being used by those who don't care to create or legally procure their own in order to increased Perceived Value, which of course can be sometime much different than the actual value.
-
Hey click_click,
No worries at all! I've been enjoying interacting on Microstockgroup, though I don't have nearly as much time to do so as I'd like!
To be clear, relevant photographs on PhotoDune do require releases. Model and property releases are a distinct issue from copyright issues however.
With copyright, it's important to understand that the DMCA process exists to help sites like ours function without drowning under the weight of checking for every possible copyright issue.
Another question you raised was around why include images and assets in previews that aren't in the final file sold. The simple reason is to demonstrate the products.
A crude analogy is that when you buy a blender from the mall, there will be a picture on the front showing the blender with a bunch of food in it. But you don't expect the food to actually be sold with the blender.
I know that's a bit silly, but it's the same principle. Flyer templates for example will often be shown with multiple different image compositions to demonstrate how the end user would place their own images in.
Anyhow hope those answers help explain a bit more!
Thanks!
-
... A crude analogy is that when you buy a blender from the mall, there will be a picture on the front showing the blender with a bunch of food in it. But you don't expect the food to actually be sold with the blender. ...
OK, now you are comparing apples and oranges (nu pun intended).
While the blender manufacturer adds the fruit into the blender when the product images are being taken, P.Diddy wasn't aware that his face was used on an Envato flyer.
Those are two completely different things.
First of all, it wasn't the same photographer who published the flyer and who took the portrait shoot of P.Diddy, which would have been the shortest stretch of why someone would use a photo in their own flyer.
Secondly, I'm quite confident to assume that Envato never received a model release from P.Diddy ...
Here is another "comparison" if you like them so much:
Just because a celebrity is lending their face for let's say a car commercial, I as a buyer of course don't expect to purchase the celebrity along with the car.
However, the celebrity GOT PAID to promote the car.
How can you/Envato not understand that if you are in this thing for profit, using photos and logos of major brands and people, that this requires the consent of the copyright owners in question.
Oh and here another one. Let's talk about Photodune shall we?
Let's say I took a photo of a business office interior. According your analogy, I would be allowed, to use one of Yuri's images (one with a smiling, pretty model) that I could isolate and incorporate into my shot of the business office to demonstrate who the product CAN look like?
Then the buyer downloads the photo to discover that the model is gone and they only got the office background?
Is this how we photographers are supposed to increase our sales at Envato? Using other people's work to make our stuff look better?
Remember, I used the example of taking one of Yuri's models, which of course is totally illegal. However, as you said, Envato reviewers cannot know every brand and every celebrity and therefore have to use their best judgement. How is that supposed to work in the future if Envato does not enforce model and property releases for content that has to be released?
I feel like I'm running around on a Turkish bazaar, where they sell Benetton and Lacoste shirts for $3 a piece.
-
I don't have time to continue this argument, but as it seems to be having zero impact there isn't any point anyway.
Asking reviewers to stop only the files where celebrities or films have been obviously infringed shows again it is not that you care that people are stealing IP on the site, but care that you might be sued by a big studio. It does nothing to protect photographers who are having stockphotos stolen.
I am really disappointed to see that there have been no real changes to procedure. I am not surprised as it has been made clear that it has come up may times on your forums with no results. And as many of the clearest infringing files were top sellers and featured in news letters and the like it's pretty obvious what the attitude of the site is.
No one is asking for a 100% guarantee, but some kind of over-site for a collection that you curate would be in order. Again, every other stock site that sells graphic elements asks for verification links or files and closes accounts when violations occur.
But then again, they would never have been in a position where their top selling files clearly breach copyright as they actually do care about copyright rather than just paying lip service (or at least see the hypocrisy of selling licences for image use while turning a blind eye to theft on their own sites).
Are we to believe that:
A. You and your staff had never seen the flyers on the site that prominently featured the Tron Poster and the Iron Man Poster or the Web template that prominently featured various animated films even though they are top selling files from featured authors and featured in collections and emails newsletters or
B. That you saw them but didn't realise that that was a copyright violation? Or
C. that you saw them but loved raking in money from their sales so much you didn't care?
I won't answer the question for you but I think the answer is clear.
Given that this was your attitude a couple of days ago a massive cultural shift overnight (ever?) cannot be expected.
Sufficed to say I would never consider purchasing a file form one of your sites for a client, as I cannot have any confidence that I would not end up being sued for use of stolen IP.
My attitude has changed from “I really hope that you get the site sorted out” to “I really hope you get sued so you finally learn a lesson”
-
Sufficed to say I would never consider purchasing a file form one of your sites for a client, as I cannot have any confidence that I would not end up being sued for use of stolen IP.
My attitude has changed from “I really hope that you get the site sorted out” to “I really hope you get sued so you finally learn a lesson”
Plenty of examples at http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php) that show how Getty Images loves to sue innocent people who buy templates containing stolen images.
This part is stunning:
Model and property releases are a distinct issue from copyright issues however.
With copyright, it's important to understand that the DMCA process exists to help sites like ours function without drowning under the weight of checking for every possible copyright issue.
I get the impression Envato thinks we're amateurs instead of the law-abiding professionals that we are. It's just ridiculous. Proper releases, especially property releases, exist to ensure copyrights and trademarks aren't being violated for commercial purposes. And DMCA notices often come with hefty bills attached and threats of legal action. In fact, I just sent one myself to another company for failing to remove my portfolio in a timely manner. They owe me almost $9,000 in license fees for using my images without my permission after our contract was terminated.
When I was a reviewer at LuckyOliver, we were ALWAYS on the lookout for stolen images. ALWAYS!!!!!! The last thing we wanted was for our company or customers to be sued for copyright infringement. No one cared how much extra time it took to investigate a possible stolen image or whether an image required a property release. The most important part of our job was protecting the rights of IP owners.
I find it remarkable that a company, which has an amazing win-win solution with PhotoDune right there at its fingertips, won't utilize our suggestions for solutions. It's very frustrating. I guess they just don't care that a ticking time bomb can and will explode at any moment.
We've given plenty of warnings and all we've gotten in return are pathetic excuses and half-measures. Microbius' last sentence are my sentiments exactly.
-
Model and property releases are a distinct issue from copyright issues however.
Yes too bad they don't know the distinction.
The impression I get from the Envato people through all this is that "Hey, we're just going to keep doing it." That's pretty pompous. Well they won't have such a casual attitude when Getty comes knocking.
-
This thread has reminded me of Lady Gaga one year old copyright issue. It's OT at the moment but it could change one fine day.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/18/lady-gaga-demands-copyright-to-photos-taken-at-her-concert/ (http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/18/lady-gaga-demands-copyright-to-photos-taken-at-her-concert/)
-
This thread has reminded me of Lady Gaga one year old copyright issue. It's OT at the moment but it could change one fine day.
[url]http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/18/lady-gaga-demands-copyright-to-photos-taken-at-her-concert/[/url] ([url]http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/18/lady-gaga-demands-copyright-to-photos-taken-at-her-concert/[/url])
Yes I heard about this in the news when it was going around. There are pics of her on there. She's feisty I hear ;-)
-
This thread has reminded me of Lady Gaga one year old copyright issue. It's OT at the moment but it could change one fine day.
[url]http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/18/lady-gaga-demands-copyright-to-photos-taken-at-her-concert/[/url] ([url]http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/18/lady-gaga-demands-copyright-to-photos-taken-at-her-concert/[/url])
Yes I heard about this in the news when it was going around. There are pics of her on there. She's feisty I hear ;-)
Betcha Beyonce is, too. Found a portfolio using both her name and photo on more than a dozen templates.
-
Hey guys, back with a few more comments!
@click_click:
I think perhaps I should have been clearer in answering your prior question. I was explaining why an image might be used to illustrate a flyer usage, even though the image is not included in the download.
The answer is that it helps the buyer understand usage scenarios for what they are purchasing. But nonetheless the image being used to show these usage scenarios *should* be licensed correctly, I was by no means saying that a photo of P.Diddy would be suitable!
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my last message.
@microbius:
I really appreciate you taking the time to give your feedback, so please don't think that there's no point!
I understand you don't feel we are doing enough. We are certainly going to be doing more to educate authors. Community education has gone a long way on other author issues, and I have faith that our community of authors will respond, and in fact already are responding, well to this.
Anyhow, again I appreciate all the feedback you've given in the thread, and its highlighted an area that we are going to work on more in future.
@karimala:
Hey karimala, I think perhaps I've somehow given the wrong impression. By no means do I think that the photographers on Microstockgroup are amateurs or not law-abiding professionals. If there is one thing I've learnt over the years its that photographers are, on the whole, very well informed on the law! My father-in-law is a long practising photographer who gave me a lot of help with this stuff when I was a freelance graphic designer some years ago.
As with my comments above to microbius, I'm sorry you feel frustrated by my responses. I do believe that the tack we are taking will result in our author community being more informed of their obligations and responsibilities, and is the right approach for our marketplaces.
---
Alright guys, again thank you for all the feedback. I do believe that by and large our authors are doing the right thing, and with some more work we'll make sure they all are informed and help bring new authors similarly up to speed.
Thanks
-
@ collis
From all blindness above I see that the only option for us Dune authors is to take withdrawal option more often before Envatos account runs dry in upcoming sues.
man
look at my post on 4th page
ORDER/COMMAND to you reviewers or inspectors to go through all marketplace items and put all possible "gray" infrigment items on soft rejections.
When authors edit and update they items and "gray" preview files with appropriate releases and new previews then you approved they items for sale again.
I dont know what is so hard you to understand what you authors are doing in way of presenting they work but I know for sure if I do what they do and submit this kind of work to other stock places Ill be immediately kick from this sites without any warnings to change or disable file or something. While your copyright behavior is less rigorous than on the various "rapid, mega, share" pirate sites!!!
Is Envato stock company or share company?
-
And yet, it continues
http://graphicriver.net/item/ultimate-flyer-template/1023337?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ARphotography (http://graphicriver.net/item/ultimate-flyer-template/1023337?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ARphotography)
-
And yet, it continues
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/ultimate-flyer-template/1023337?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ARphotography[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/ultimate-flyer-template/1023337?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ARphotography[/url])
Oh yeh...found that guy the other day. His entire portfolio is filled with Beyonce pics.
-
Kylie
http://graphicriver.net/item/aphrodite-love-valentine-party-flyer/1409958?WT.ac=search_thumb&WT.seg_1=search_thumb&WT.z_author=mucahitgayiran (http://graphicriver.net/item/aphrodite-love-valentine-party-flyer/1409958?WT.ac=search_thumb&WT.seg_1=search_thumb&WT.z_author=mucahitgayiran)
-
Kylie
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/aphrodite-love-valentine-party-flyer/1409958?WT.ac=search_thumb&WT.seg_1=search_thumb&WT.z_author=mucahitgayiran[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/aphrodite-love-valentine-party-flyer/1409958?WT.ac=search_thumb&WT.seg_1=search_thumb&WT.z_author=mucahitgayiran[/url])
I especially like this part in the file details
Created 27 January 12
-
<sarcasm>
Come on, cut PD some slack. They just applied the new restrictions a few days ago.
And not everyone knows Kylie Minogue. Can you really consider her a VIP or celebrity? She's only sold 63+ million records worldwide... :P
</sarcasm>
-
<sarcasm>
And not everyone knows Kylie Minogue. Can you really consider her a VIP or celebrity?
Oh so she's like Snookie then : :D
-
has anyone tipped off any of the copyright holders?
I would think some of these stars would love to see their photo's being used...
I just wish they would of used some of mine!!!!
-
Even better limit authors to Photodune and your own legit free sources then you can keep track, levels the playing field too.
ETA if you do this I'm sure a lot of photogs will give permission for free use in previews as it will mean more sales to customers wanting to recreate the same flyer etc.
I have been following this thread with interest, as I had just signed up to be a contributer with PhotoDune. I did notice on a thread in their forums that the Member TOS already allows use of watermarked Photodune images on previews as long as a link back is provided. I hadn't seen it mentioned here before, but maybe this is already common knowledge. Personally, I am OK with that for my images, but I thought I would post for others who missed it in the TOS.
From the Member TOS (http://photodune.net/legal/membership (http://photodune.net/legal/membership)):
You agree and acknowledge that an Envato affiliate can use your watermarked previews in their promotion of the Sites. No compensation is due or payable for such uses of your preview.
You agree that a Seller may use a watermarked preview of your Product in a preview of another Product without requiring permission from you, without violating your copyright and without providing monetary compensation to you. The Seller must credit such usage by providing a link to your Product.
-
Yep they made that change I think as a response to this issue. Their MOD went through on the relevant thread on their forum inserting the fact that they had changed the terms meaning other authors could use your work free of charge as long as it's watermarked.
I assumed they would have let contributors know?
Did they not send out an email or anything telling contributors?
I saw it as a positive change as long a contributors were informed.
ETA: e.g. here
http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/important-use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/58291?page=2 (http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/important-use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/58291?page=2)
"EDIT By Jordan_M: It’s actually a new part of our terms of use that authors can use watermarked photos from PhotoDune as part of their previews without prior permission from the author."
-
And what about Getty? Beyonce? Modonna, The others? Last time I looked at the new incoming there things had not changed. This "created 7 Feb
http://graphicriver.net/item/24-pages-wedding-magazine-version-two/1538579?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ciolca (http://graphicriver.net/item/24-pages-wedding-magazine-version-two/1538579?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ciolca)
-
And what about Getty? Beyonce? Modonna, The others? Last time I looked at the new incoming there things had not changed. This "created 7 Feb
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/24-pages-wedding-magazine-version-two/1538579?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ciolca[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/24-pages-wedding-magazine-version-two/1538579?WT.ac=category_thumb&WT.seg_1=category_thumb&WT.z_author=ciolca[/url])
If I remember well - this one was removed and is back online.
http://graphicriver.net/item/32-pages-sports-magazine-version-three/1028881?WT.ac=portfolio_item&WT.seg_1=portfolio_item&WT.z_author=ciolca (http://graphicriver.net/item/32-pages-sports-magazine-version-three/1028881?WT.ac=portfolio_item&WT.seg_1=portfolio_item&WT.z_author=ciolca)
Someone probably came to conclusion that it is legal to use Getty watermarked images.
-
Yep they made that change I think as a response to this issue. Their MOD went through on the relevant thread on their forum inserting the fact that they had changed the terms meaning other authors could use your work free of charge as long as it's watermarked.
I assumed they would have let contributors know?
Did they not send out an email or anything telling contributors?
I saw it as a positive change as long a contributors were informed.
ETA: e.g. here
[url]http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/important-use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/58291?page=2[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/important-use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/58291?page=2[/url])
"EDIT By Jordan_M: It’s actually a new part of our terms of use that authors can use watermarked photos from PhotoDune as part of their previews without prior permission from the author."
Hey Microbius,
Actually 'new' is a relative term in this context. This part of our terms and conditions has been in there since 2010, so everyone joining PhotoDune would have been agreeing to this when they joined. Our marketplaces date back to 2006 however, so there are lots of authors on the other marketplaces for whom this would be new - as it applies not just to photos used in previews, but for instance audio using in VideoHive previews (which is a common usage).
Hope that clarifies!
-
Yep they made that change I think as a response to this issue. Their MOD went through on the relevant thread on their forum inserting the fact that they had changed the terms meaning other authors could use your work free of charge as long as it's watermarked.
I assumed they would have let contributors know?
Did they not send out an email or anything telling contributors?
I saw it as a positive change as long a contributors were informed.
ETA: e.g. here
[url]http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/important-use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/58291?page=2[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/forums/thread/important-use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/58291?page=2[/url])
"EDIT By Jordan_M: It’s actually a new part of our terms of use that authors can use watermarked photos from PhotoDune as part of their previews without prior permission from the author."
Hey Microbius,
Actually 'new' is a relative term in this context. This part of our terms and conditions has been in there since 2010, so everyone joining PhotoDune would have been agreeing to this when they joined. Our marketplaces date back to 2006 however, so there are lots of authors on the other marketplaces for whom this would be new - as it applies not just to photos used in previews, but for instance audio using in VideoHive previews (which is a common usage).
Hope that clarifies!
So the Getty stuff is ok then?
-
Hey Stormchaser,
With respect to the item mentioned above with watermarked Getty imagery in it, one of our staff has been in touch with the author. The author sent through documentation from a Getty sub-distributor allowing that preview usage of those watermarked photos. Although it's not our intent to provide a full legal review of asset usage, we considered this documentation. In addition, we haven't received a DMCA takedown notice. So the item has been reinstated on the site.
By the way, this is distinct from use of watermarked items from one Envato marketplace in another Envato marketplace item. I wouldn't want anyone to think that Getty images can be used without Getty's permission even if watermarked!!
-
One other Copyright problem even you provide it here at
http://notes.envato.com/general/use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/ (http://notes.envato.com/general/use-of-assets-in-previews-on-envato-marketplaces/)
and one guy who shows some kind awareness post:
Dany Duchaine on the 2nd February
Well, I have to say I talked to fast. I went on PhotoDune and these guys are TALENTED. Bought 30+ images and filled my new theme with them :
http://synapse.danyduchaine.com/ (http://synapse.danyduchaine.com/)
Quite satisfied with the result and I will continue to buy stuff from PD. It make my theme look better and I’m happy to contribute to the success of these authors.
And that 50% was pretty darn cool Will it come back soon?
Its not clear that he bought EL for this theme.
Why is this important?
Because even if he bought this 30+ images as he said (its not clear in what license)
If he dont buy EL (which is misserable low) for this images for his new theme which link is above, he violate rules because he is reseller of our images even he sell this theme just twice (and our images are in hands of two different buyers and we image authors are payed just once). It is the same if I buy somebody image and put it to round circle and sale ... and resale it again and again?!
I dont want comment you other "old" designers in this note who in darkest mist dont understand whats wrong with you original post on Evanto even it was so soft in copyright explanations. What about "you other designers" which are inactive.
You didnt answer my questions before in this thread. Only I can see was swaying answers in soft diplomatic Beatles "Let it be" style.
I While you theme raiders prefer Rolling Stones "Let it bleed" version on our "Dune" stuff.
---------------
As I see from you post on Envato I can buy any theme and replace celebrity images (what images and what is copyright) and insert my own images and resell it like (MY THEME) again to someone else, and constantly talk about that I dont sell themes (copyright of code), only arrangement of my images in that matrix...
even if I buy EL for theme if that exist on this marketplace I dont check this...
------------------
Consider it an assumption that the trick you set as whole Envato marketplace. Too much crossings too cheap EL everybody/most selling others stuff even if all of them are fair to buy cheap EL licence most of them avoid even no clue about basic copyright.
--------------------
-
I have to admit that Suljo is correct.
Collis, we cannot tell you how to run your company (or the company you work for) but it's quite obvious that a lot of people still do not understand the licensing terms in the Envato Marketplace.
The extended images license explicitly states that the image can be used in web templates, therefore a regular license cannot be used in a web template which is for sale again.
As Suljo suspects I also have my doubts that this contributor (mentioned above) has actually spent $800+ for the images in his theme upfront for EL licenses. I do stand corrected if he did and I apologize if that may be the case.
If it does take posters on this forum to inspire Envato how to make their contributors aware of this issue I have a couple of ideas:
Everybody's account will be on lock-down (everybody, mine as well). Nobody can access their dashboard or anything else unless they complete a step by step tutorial on how copyright works and how Envato content can and cannot be used in resold products.
Give the contributors real life examples of how images can be properly licensed and that watermarked images are simply illegal. The legalese text is hard to understand for many contributors (foreigners especially), so real life examples would be a great way to showcase allowed and illegal uses. That would help a lot to make everyone understand.