MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
I don't think you have to quote the entire post every time...  :P
True  :-[
I'll snip.
2
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock Custom is born
« Last post by Pauws99 on Today at 04:54 »
Well, I've just signed up and they're reviewing my application. 

At least they're trying to stay competitive by innovating...whether it will pay well is another matter altogether but at this stage it's insane to believe that only Microstock is the way forward.
I'm not sure buying other companies is particularly innovative but might be worth applying I guess. FWIW I believe SS want to move away from "straight" Microstock as its not a particularly profitable field.
3
Stocksy / Re: Call To Artists is Open!
« Last post by MxR on Today at 04:50 »
The stocksy idea is cool and the project is fair, i think is the more friendly agency.

Part of this sucess secret is sell macro quality images at 1/4 price, great curation, real exclusivity and different style....(plainpicture cheaper style, stocksy didnt discover the hipsters)

People are earning good money there, but finally, what sells is lyfestyle images. Is ever the same history, "rare" images for be aproved, "stocky" images one time you are in. Worker smiling with crossed arms sell more than that hipster,s back in the forest.

All images i see here in this post arent enough unique or god for be in. Yes, i will apply but my images arent enough "unique" for be in.

 

4
Newbie Discussion / Re: Stockphotos for composing?
« Last post by Catakitkat on Today at 04:47 »

Is it legal to buy a stockphoto, using this photo for a photoshop-composing and upload this version on a stockphotoagency?

The licence is a royalty free.


No, it is not legal. There are some CC0 license sites where you can find free images to use for your compositions. However, except for NASA, I wouldn't recommend such sites because even there some people upload files taken from other authors. And you never know what you get.

I have found Iselee's images on some of these sites, and this just an example.
5
I don't think you have to quote the entire post every time...  :P
6
I've just had discussion with a shop owner on Etsy and she claims that Getty agreed with the resale of modified files purchased with Extended Licence. If this is truth, then perhaps Getty is to blame in this case.

What does 'modified' mean?

I got a similar mail from the owner of the etsy shop that sold my image (and was taken down after my complaint) Here's what she wrote and my reply regarding "modification":

Quote from: etsy_shop_owner
Hello Oliver,


When I started my shop on Etsy I had a lengthy conversation with iStock.
...
iStock informed me that I can use any image on iStock as long as:
1. It comes specifically from the Essentials collection.
2. It is purchased under the extended license.
3. The image is modified and that I have the Photoshop files to show how it was modified.

I was told that as long as all three of the conditions above are met, I can sell my modified art file as a digital product on Etsy and can also use the art as print-on-demand art for selling on print-on-demand websites.


Amy Peterson

My reply:
"Hi Amy,
you might have purchased an EL for my work on stock and I believe you that you acted in good faith, when you put that file on etsy.
But let me explain why you are still infringing on my intellectual property:
... ... This goes to show, that you didnt modify my image in a way that makes it a standalone work. Actually, as far as I remember, you just cropped it and made it a tad brighter. This is not enough to offer digital downloads, neither by the TOS of istock nor by etsys Intellectual Property Policy. If it was legal, it could easily destroy istock's business as well as the businesses of thousands of photographers.
...

Have you contacted iS about this? Interesting to hear what they have to say.
7


Quote from: etsy_shop_owner
Hello Oliver,



My name is Amy and I am from Hello Gorgeous Wall Art on Etsy. I received a notice from Etsy on September 20th that a claim has been filed against me that states I am infringing on your intellectual property by selling digital art using a photograph unauthorized by you.

I am writing in response to your claim. I have legally purchased and licensed the photograph from iStock under the appropriate enhanced license and I am in full legal compliance to sell my file on Etsy.



http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/grand-canary-beach-aerial-view-gm497549897-41841904



When I started my shop on Etsy I had a lengthy conversation with iStock. I told them I was interested in selling digital art on Etsy and asked them specifically which imagery can I use to create my files and which ones cant I use. I specifically asked them how can I use the imagery and how am I not allowed to use it. I asked if I can sell my created files that include imagery on Etsy or on any print-on-demand website. I asked that if I am, in fact, allowed to sell them on print-on-demand websites, what do I need to adhere to regarding using any imagery to create my files. And lastly, I asked how can I be assured I am not going to breach any license agreement or find myself in any legal claims made by the original artists or photographers.



iStock informed me that I can use any image on iStock as long as:

1. It comes specifically from the Essentials collection.
2. It is purchased under the extended license.
3. The image is modified and that I have the Photoshop files to show how it was modified.

I was told that as long as all three of the conditions above are met, I can sell my modified art file as a digital product on Etsy and can also use the art as print-on-demand art for selling on print-on-demand websites.

The original image I purchased in reference to your claim is from the Essentials collection, I purchased it under the enhanced license, and I have modified it to create a my new file. I have met all three conditions listed above and I am legally in compliance.



It states very clearly in the Content License Agreement Section 4c that no image can be resold as a standalone file (meaning just the content file itself, separate from the project or end use). It was explained to me that standalone means just the purchased file itself, that I cannot purchase the file, even if under the extended license, and resell it as is, untouched. They clearly stated that as long as I change the original image and modify it in a new file (a project), it is no longer the original standalone file. They added that as long as I have the Photoshop file to show that the original image is modified, then I am legally allowed to sell my file.



I do not use, purchase, or sell images from a site called Dreamstime and I had never heard of that website until now.

After consulting with my legal council regarding this claim, we are confident that this claim made against me on Etsy will be retracted as soon as possible.

And further, that you inform your representative that his assumptions are incorrect and may possibly damage my reputation and business.

And I assume that he will further post a retraction on the Micro Site Group forum where he originally mis-stated that I do not have the legal right to sell my image.


Amy Peterson


My reply:
"Hi Amy,

you might have purchased an EL for my work on stock and I believe you that you acted in good faith, when you put that file on etsy.
But let me explain why you are still infringing on my intellectual property:

I sell Extended Licenses of this file quite often on dreamstime, since it is offered as physical wall art by major companies like Bed, Bath and Beyond and others. They purchase an EL for every canvas print they sell.
Now, dreamstime has a reverse search feature (like google images), so I can see where my images are in use. This is how I found my image in your etsy shop. This goes to show, that you didnt modify my image in a way that makes it a standalone work. Actually, as far as I remember, you just cropped it and made it a tad brighter. This is not enough to offer digital downloads, neither by the TOS of istock nor by etsys Intellectual Property Policy. If it was legal, it could easily destroy istock's business as well as the businesses of thousands of photographers.

Rest assured, if you continue to sell my file I can and will inform every single photographer whose works you are selling and in an instant youll receive tons of DMCA complaints and your shop will be closed faster than you can spell copyright

Regards

Oliver"



These people are really playing with fire. She had a lengthy conversation with iStock? I wonder if she could produce the record (e.g. emails) of this "conversation" so everyone could see what was really written, and the name of the person that she "conversed with".

Those people should realize that if in breach taking down a shop would be the least of their financial problems. How about compensation plus punitive damages?

BTW the link doesn't work.
8
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock Custom is born
« Last post by Brasilnut on Today at 03:53 »
Well, I've just signed up and they're reviewing my application. 

At least they're trying to stay competitive by innovating...whether it will pay well is another matter altogether but at this stage it's insane to believe that only Microstock is the way forward.
9
You did the right thing. Why should shops on Etsy benefit financially from your hard work. It's not like they have even left the comfort of their home to get to a special location to get the shot. I like how she threatens you with big talk about talking to her lawyer!

All these frauds are doing is reselling digital files and watching the money roll in. The top seller is making $1000 a day!

The reason they only sell digital files is because it's so easy for their buyers to pop down to Walmart and get a print made. A print which is dirt cheap. Sending a physical print is a lot of trouble.

Let me state there are tons of these shops on Etsy reselling digital files from micro agencies. Someone high up in Shutterstock and Istock needs to take action because it's costing them millions of dollars in lost revenue.

All these shops need to be exposed. Why should they get away with it while hard working photographers struggle.




I've just had discussion with a shop owner on Etsy and she claims that Getty agreed with the resale of modified files purchased with Extended Licence. If this is truth, then perhaps Getty is to blame in this case.


What does 'modified' mean?


I got a similar mail from the owner of the etsy shop that sold my image (and was taken down after my complaint) Here's what she wrote and my reply regarding "modification":

Quote from: etsy_shop_owner
Hello Oliver,



My name is Amy and I am from Hello Gorgeous Wall Art on Etsy. I received a notice from Etsy on September 20th that a claim has been filed against me that states I am infringing on your intellectual property by selling digital art using a photograph unauthorized by you.

I am writing in response to your claim. I have legally purchased and licensed the photograph from iStock under the appropriate enhanced license and I am in full legal compliance to sell my file on Etsy.



http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/grand-canary-beach-aerial-view-gm497549897-41841904



When I started my shop on Etsy I had a lengthy conversation with iStock. I told them I was interested in selling digital art on Etsy and asked them specifically which imagery can I use to create my files and which ones cant I use. I specifically asked them how can I use the imagery and how am I not allowed to use it. I asked if I can sell my created files that include imagery on Etsy or on any print-on-demand website. I asked that if I am, in fact, allowed to sell them on print-on-demand websites, what do I need to adhere to regarding using any imagery to create my files. And lastly, I asked how can I be assured I am not going to breach any license agreement or find myself in any legal claims made by the original artists or photographers.



iStock informed me that I can use any image on iStock as long as:

1. It comes specifically from the Essentials collection.
2. It is purchased under the extended license.
3. The image is modified and that I have the Photoshop files to show how it was modified.

I was told that as long as all three of the conditions above are met, I can sell my modified art file as a digital product on Etsy and can also use the art as print-on-demand art for selling on print-on-demand websites.

The original image I purchased in reference to your claim is from the Essentials collection, I purchased it under the enhanced license, and I have modified it to create a my new file. I have met all three conditions listed above and I am legally in compliance.



It states very clearly in the Content License Agreement Section 4c that no image can be resold as a standalone file (meaning just the content file itself, separate from the project or end use). It was explained to me that standalone means just the purchased file itself, that I cannot purchase the file, even if under the extended license, and resell it as is, untouched. They clearly stated that as long as I change the original image and modify it in a new file (a project), it is no longer the original standalone file. They added that as long as I have the Photoshop file to show that the original image is modified, then I am legally allowed to sell my file.



I do not use, purchase, or sell images from a site called Dreamstime and I had never heard of that website until now.

After consulting with my legal council regarding this claim, we are confident that this claim made against me on Etsy will be retracted as soon as possible.

And further, that you inform your representative that his assumptions are incorrect and may possibly damage my reputation and business.

And I assume that he will further post a retraction on the Micro Site Group forum where he originally mis-stated that I do not have the legal right to sell my image.


Amy Peterson


My reply:
"Hi Amy,

you might have purchased an EL for my work on stock and I believe you that you acted in good faith, when you put that file on etsy.
But let me explain why you are still infringing on my intellectual property:

I sell Extended Licenses of this file quite often on dreamstime, since it is offered as physical wall art by major companies like Bed, Bath and Beyond and others. They purchase an EL for every canvas print they sell.
Now, dreamstime has a reverse search feature (like google images), so I can see where my images are in use. This is how I found my image in your etsy shop. This goes to show, that you didnt modify my image in a way that makes it a standalone work. Actually, as far as I remember, you just cropped it and made it a tad brighter. This is not enough to offer digital downloads, neither by the TOS of istock nor by etsys Intellectual Property Policy. If it was legal, it could easily destroy istock's business as well as the businesses of thousands of photographers.

Rest assured, if you continue to sell my file I can and will inform every single photographer whose works you are selling and in an instant youll receive tons of DMCA complaints and your shop will be closed faster than you can spell copyright

Regards

Oliver"

10
General - Stock Video / Re: Confused about file size
« Last post by unnonimus on Today at 03:03 »
use sendthisfile.com
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors