MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does no-one care about image abuse?  (Read 6481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« on: July 26, 2011, 12:29 »
0
I wrote to Alamy yesterday because I had a use last week in a UK newspaper website (at least).
Then I found the image being used in some sort of site that linked to the article in the newspaper's website.
So I wrote to ask if this was a legitimage usage - the linking site isn't linked to the newspaper.
The reply I got was:

" ...Please note that Alamy do not follow up usages in the following
situations:

1.         If an article has been linked to from another web site/ blog
article or forum/chat site.

2.         If an entire article including the image has been copied in a
web site/ blog article or forum/chat site.

This is because Alamy sold an image to a client, and another source copies this usage from the client without their permission. You are free to follow this up at your end contacting the website in question

No better than iStock, then.  :(


« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2011, 12:44 »
0
Well, it's not really what we pay them for... is it?

It sucks, no doubt. But If you find out about it you have all right to make a claim.

Alamy won't hire their lawyer for a couple grand to look into this matter and harass someone over $50 of licensing costs.

They leave that up to us...

Slovenian

« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2011, 12:45 »
0
No better than iStock, then.  :(


If you think so, then you're doing business with the wrong ppl ;)

FWIW I got the same kind of lame reply from 123RF just the other day (OK perhaps they are a bit better, but still the problem wasn't solved, I didn't get no settlement) :

My email: Hello,

I'd like to report a bunch of stolen images from your site, one of them is mine (3rd row) blabla.com . I'm anxiously waiting for your reply to see what course of action have you taken regarding my intellectual property. I hope I got this relation right, you at the 123RF as my agent taking care of such things.

Best regards,

Reply: Hi there,

We already sent a email to the website to request them to remove the image. but we cant guarantee that the website will take down the image because we are the copyright owner of the image. A take down email to the website is still under our power to do so,

But for a more effective method, you as the copyrighted owner could file a DMCA take down notice.

go to this link http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-send-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html , a guide on how to file a DMCA take down notice.

Thank you.

XXYY

Best regards, always!
Submissions & Review Team
for 123RF.com

« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2011, 12:58 »
0
That's all they can do.

In the end it's even free advertising for the agency and kind of for your images as well. I know it's lame that people actually use watermarked (I guess they were watermarked) pictures. It doesn't look professional and those people wouldn't pay for the images in the first place either.

You can sue the heck out of them but it sure won't be the agency throwing themselves into the fire to fight the battle for you/us.

Our intellectual property, our right to make claims.

Our agents are there to sell licenses, not to pursue copyright infringements...
If you want that, you have to pay someone on top of that to do that for you.

Slovenian

« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2011, 13:12 »
0
Wow, even 85% in some cases isn't enough. So on top of what, I should let them have the remaining of 15 (IS) - 50% (123RF)? It's not directed at you, just at the state of things. I guess we contributors really aren't the smartest bunch. Look at what they can do to us :o

« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2011, 13:41 »
0
Funny coincidence.

Yesterday morning I spent some time chasing up (or trying to) some images used in a "guest blog" in Scientific American online. Same sort of thing - the blog credits other blogs as the source of the images when those blogs are often doing the same thing. Even if the first person pays, I don't think that covers all the follow-on uses.

None of those were my images, but I have had something very similar happen with one of mine (licensed from iStock while I was exclusive).

Mother Earth News ran an article about dumping disposable plastic water bottles. The article used my image - which is great - and apparently lots of blogs picked this article up.

Via a Google image search on this I found this blog that reproduced the Mother Earth story and my picture - I can't know, but I assume they didn't pay for either (a credit is nice, but only if it comes with the cash)

Mark's Daily Apple does a blog post on choosing a safe water bottle and uses two of my images in it. No idea if those were paid for - they're both hosted on Photobucket, but that's where all the blog images are stored.

However that blog is picked up and used by CynergyCrossFit's blog, along with my images, now hosted on cynergtraining.com. Also on Wellsphere which uses the images linked back to the photobucket location.

Perhaps we just have to write some of this blog-copying as impossible to police. However Scientific American is a different matter IMO.

The fact that Scientific American (which does buy stock images and has used one of mine in the past) accepts a blog with images credited to other blog/online magazine sources and then just copies them to its servers, bothers me. The credits aren't even complete - for example the bottle with ingredients just links back to the magazine Blast, not to this page where the image actually appears. There, there is a credit to a Flickr which led me to the image here. This is a creative commons license that requires attribution, something the Scientific American blog didn't give.

The image that initially caught my eye was the bacteria cartoon. Perhaps someone knows who Don Smith is, but I couldn't find a source for that anywhere - tons of people using it, but no idea where it came from.

I think I'm going to contact Scientific American to complain even though none of these are my images. Just seems pretty shameful to be using these images improperly, blog, guest blog or in any other part of the publication.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2011, 14:20 »
0
DCMA is a US law, so can't see it applying outwith the States, though fine for USians, of course.
I'm pretty certain the plethora of my iStock pics that I've seen all over the place are one legitimate buyer then loads of copiers, 'proved' by them all being exactly the same crop and size, which isn't the crop or size the pics are on iStock. Too much of a coincidence.

« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2011, 14:22 »
0
No, I don't care about image abuse.

Sure, I wish it didn't happen.  I wish every case of someone stealing one of my images could be converted into a real sale.   But do I lose sleep over it?  No.  I consider it a reality and something one must have a stomach for if you expect to do much business in microstock.  

You can't expect agencies to police this.  I think 123's response is reasonable.  Think about it.  Someone goes to 123RF sees your watermarked image, copies it and puts it on a website.  It's the easiest form of theft there is, and there's virtually no way for 123RF to prevent it.  Do you expect 123RF to go to great lengths to prosecute these cases?  That's crazy.  And if you take it on yourself to go after the offender and find justice, you're wasting time.  That's time better spent generating new imagery.  

And someone else here said it... the silver lining is that other potential buyers of your image could see it and decide they want to legitimately buy it.  It probably doesn't happen that often, but it's possible.

I think the real danger here is making image theft the scapegoat to blame for why you're not making more money.  You're looking at returns that don't satisfy you and wondering why they're not higher.  Finding someone who has lifted one of your watermarked images suddenly becomes the answer!  If all those thieves weren't stealing your images, you'd be rich.  Don't waste your time and energy worrying about this.  Instead focus on improving your port with greater quality (marketable) and quantity.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2011, 14:28 by stockmarketer »

lisafx

« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2011, 14:34 »
0

No better than iStock, then.  :(

Not a lot better, I agree.  But Istock won't even follow up if you can prove that the image was bought from them.   :P

Slovenian

« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2011, 14:43 »
0
No, I don't care about image abuse.

Sure, I wish it didn't happen.  I wish every case of someone stealing one of my images could be converted into a real sale.   But do I lose sleep over it?  No.  I consider it a reality and something one must have a stomach for if you expect to do much business in microstock.  

Nor do I. It's a fact most ppl steal stuff of the internet. Music, games, movies, porn, you name it;). What I'd want is to be payed for that image. It doesn't matter if it was only a tiny XS sale. Agencies could, I think should really make sure images can't be DLed at all, buyers have lightboxes for the purpose of storing/choosing images.

You can't expect agencies to police this.  I think 123's response is reasonable.  Think about it.  Someone goes to 123RF sees your watermarked image, copies it and puts it on a website.  It's the easiest form of theft there is, and there's virtually no way for 123RF to prevent it.  Do you expect 123RF to go to great lengths to prosecute these cases?  That's crazy.  And if you take it on yourself to go after the offender and find justice, you're wasting time.  That's time better spent generating new imagery.  

Of course it would be a waste of time for me, that's why I wrote them that short email and didn't even bother following the link they sent me.

I think the real danger here is making image theft the scapegoat to blame for why you're not making more money.  You're looking at returns that don't satisfy you and wondering why they're not higher.  Finding someone who has lifted one of your watermarked images suddenly becomes the answer!  If all those thieves weren't stealing your images, you'd be rich.  Don't waste your time and energy worrying about this.  Instead focus on improving your port with greater quality (marketable) and quantity.

Don't you quit your day job Dr. Phil. ;) You suck at psychology either for feeling me up like that (trying to get the answers by making some absurd/blind thesis and measuring my response) or even worse, really being straightforward and thinking you know all of my reasons for sending that email and the whole story behind it.

KB

« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2011, 17:49 »
0
However that blog is picked up and used by CynergyCrossFit's blog, along with my images, now hosted on cynergtraining.com.

This seems fairly similar to a practice that is allowed under the iStock license: An image is sold to a company that writes syndicated web articles (typically for TV stations), and that article, along with the image, is then freely (and apparently legally) copied to 100s of its subscribed sites.

I don't like either practice, and wish they both were not allowed. But as long as the syndicated instance is allowed, I'm not sure how they could claim the other practice isn't.

« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2011, 19:23 »
0
The distinction I'd draw is that in the cases (I did a search to find the many forum threads over the years) mentioned as OK, there is a news service providing an article for a fee to subscribers. The licensed photo is a part of that article and the IS folks have said that the "reproduction" of the image as part of the article is akin to making copies of newspapers or brochures and allowed.

In the case where you have a blogger grabbing images from another blog, there's no service being offered, no fee being paid to use the "package" of article and image.

It seems that even if one reluctantly swallows the syndication usages, it shouldn't extend to any blogger who puts up a purchased image giving implicit permission to the world to copy the image.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2011, 19:48 by jsnover »

KB

« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2011, 19:35 »
0
Of course I agree, Jo Ann (typo I assume: "should not extend to any blogger ..."). But my feeling has always been that their analogy that it is similar to copying of newspapers or brochures is flawed, and they should not allow such uses without an EL. OTOH, if it's common practice across all microstock sites to do so, then I guess there isn't anything that IS could do itself.

Just another case where the supplier gets the short stick (to put it nicely).  >:(

« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2011, 19:53 »
0
Oops - corrected the typo.

I guess the bottom line is that I think some sort of extended license should be required if the article is to be syndicated. Perhaps it's a relatively low value EL (i.e. I get the idea that the lion's share of the value is created by the article, not the photos) compared to the right to sell the image on T shirts, but it should not be the same as a single use on a publication's own web site.

Then, for bloggers, they can buy the EL or make the people who want to copy their content license their own images (if they want to allow their article to be freely copied).

I did write to Scientific American - their usage didn't even get covered by the above - so I'll post here when/if I receive a reply from them.

« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2011, 04:29 »
0
The only thing that would make a difference would be if all the sites decided to hunt down and sue thieves and tell the world about it. If it entered the Internet mind that pinching pictures gets you sued there would probably be less theft and more sales. It might be worthwhile for the agencies but it involves significant cost for a speculative gain.

One-off efforts to chase offenders are pretty much a waste of time and effort that could be more productively spent shooting and uploading one more picture.

PS: Syndication is big business if it is being done professionally and would merit a full EL. A single sale to a magazine is not syndication, maybe a cheap "sub-license up to 10 copies" EL would do for that sort of use.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 04:33 by BaldricksTrousers »

Microbius

« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2011, 05:20 »
0
The only thing that would make a difference would be if all the sites decided to hunt down and sue thieves and tell the world about it. If it entered the Internet mind that pinching pictures gets you sued there would probably be less theft and more sales.
Like Getty have been doing, Gaw bless 'em!

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2011, 07:52 »
0
The only thing that would make a difference would be if all the sites decided to hunt down and sue thieves and tell the world about it. If it entered the Internet mind that pinching pictures gets you sued there would probably be less theft and more sales.
Like Getty have been doing, Gaw bless 'em!

Look what they achieved...


(nothin')


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Care for a Cup of Tea?

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
1901 Views
Last post October 25, 2007, 04:52
by Istock News
7 Replies
2914 Views
Last post January 11, 2008, 21:26
by a.k.a.-tom
8 Replies
2839 Views
Last post October 15, 2013, 16:45
by Ron
2 Replies
1601 Views
Last post November 18, 2013, 17:24
by ruxpriencdiam
9 Replies
3171 Views
Last post October 29, 2015, 19:25
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle