Author Topic: Non-EL DT Images on Canvas Selling @ Reckonize-Art.com (Read 7189 times)

Karimala · « **on:** December 17, 2010, 17:25 »

I found a photo of mine being sold as canvas art on a site called Reckonize-Art.com. As you can see, the URL to my photo has DT's in it and the photo's ID number.

http://www.reckonize-art.com/reckonnect/products/dreamstime_1494571.htm

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-bodie-car-image1494571

I have never sold an extended license on this photo that would allow such a usage, and I cannot find it written anywhere that Reckonize-Art.com is affiliated with DT. The company is selling all kinds of DT images on canvas.

I already contacted Dreamstime about my photo, but wanted to let folks at MSG know as well.

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2010, 17:35 »

Thanks for the heads up. Nice image!

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2010, 17:54 »

Nice find. I'd say you have caught them red-handed.

I notice that on some images 'dreamstime' is actually part of the identification number ... and on some others it is 'Fotolia'.

It'll be interesting to see what action DT takes in this case. In similar circumstances Shutterstock has insisted and obtained the cost of an EL plus a 'fine' and passed it on to the photographers before they were even aware of the misuse. It's happened to me on a couple of occasions.

qwerty · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2010, 18:18 »

there are also some istock photos on there

KB · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2010, 18:27 »

I recall a few years ago a similar situation, and the upshot was they could do that, but they were required to purchase a new copy of the image for each sale. There was nothing against the licensing (it was DT or FT, I don't remember which) that prevented this. The defense of this practice was that it is no different at all from a buyer purchasing one of our images and then going to a photo shop to get an expensive print made of it.

arquiplay77 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2010, 18:38 »

Couldn´t it be that they buy the image whenever they sell it, i think they are just ofering the print and frame, the photo is bought as the final costumer wish and i suposse would need a purchase for every print they sell, when they sell it. I´m just guessing off course.

madelaide · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2010, 18:40 »

Hmm, aren't agreements between stock agencies and such sites. There was a German one once discussed here, I don't remember if with DT or FT.

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2010, 18:42 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 17, 2010, 18:40

Hmm, aren't agreements between stock agencies and such sites. There was a German one once discussed here, I don't remember if with DT or FT.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was FT. And yes, we get an XL sale for every one of these prints made.

If that's the deal with DT, then that would be fine with me. Hopefully the OP will hear back from DT about whether they have this sort of partnership.

If not, then an EL should have been purchased.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** December 18, 2010, 01:05 »

Yes, the problem is they are offering this for sale, but until they are sold, the image is just on display. In other words they get free use of it for marketing, no watermark, until someone makes a purchase.

It makes me wonder who tracks the actual sales?

Is the conclusion then, when something is sold, we would somehow get a XL sale. (not me, because I don't sell on DT anymore) But for anyone who does? Not an EL, because it's just one print?

Karimala · « **Reply #9 on:** December 18, 2010, 04:04 »

Gotta love TinEye!

I hadn't noticed the images from other sites. It will definitely be interesting to see what DT has to say and I'll be sure to share their response.

Fred · « **Reply #10 on:** December 18, 2010, 06:17 »

Quote from: KB on December 17, 2010, 18:27

I recall a few years ago a similar situation, and the upshot was they could do that, but they were required to purchase a new copy of the image for each sale. There was nothing against the licensing (it was DT or FT, I don't remember which) that prevented this. The defense of this practice was that it is no different at all from a buyer purchasing one of our images and then going to a photo shop to get an expensive print made of it.

That was FT with Bilderking. This is probably the same kind of deal but DT needs to let us know.

fred

fullvalue · « **Reply #11 on:** December 18, 2010, 06:46 »

If they wait until after the print purchase to license the image isn't that "print on demand" which requires an EL or is forbidden outright?

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2010, 09:23 »

Quote from: Fred on December 18, 2010, 06:17

Quote from: KB on December 17, 2010, 18:27
I recall a few years ago a similar situation, and the upshot was they could do that, but they were required to purchase a new copy of the image for each sale. There was nothing against the licensing (it was DT or FT, I don't remember which) that prevented this. The defense of this practice was that it is no different at all from a buyer purchasing one of our images and then going to a photo shop to get an expensive print made of it.

That was FT with Bilderking. This is probably the same kind of deal but DT needs to let us know.

I checked DT and they announced such a partnership in Oct '09
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18853
but withdrew this two months later:
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_19735

So it doesn't seem to be a DT partnership, unless it was unannounced. I also saw an image referred to as from istock. And images are just a few, so it doesn't seem like an API stuff. I do think now it looks fishy.

gostwyck · « **Reply #13 on:** December 18, 2010, 09:45 »

The contact address appears to be a private apartment on a south London town's high street. Their 'About Us' speil is as follows;

"Reckonnect is part of the Reckonize Art group of imaging and photography companies, a small team of photographers and graphic designers based in South London who mainly carry out work on a commission basis, but are actively engaged in imaging and pop-art, as well as photography."

My guess is that it is one bloke operating from home mainly trying to sell his own photos (from the similarity in style and poor exposure of so many of them) and supplementing them with a few others from stock agencies. He appears to be open and honest about his address and phone number so he is probably operating out of ignorance of what he can and cannot do with a standard license.

Karimala · « **Reply #14 on:** December 21, 2010, 16:27 »

I heard back from DT and they kept it short and sweet:

Quote

Thank you for contacting us.
We are checking into this and will get it resolved.

If they were in any way affiliated, I would think DT would have said so. Hopefully they let me know what they find out.

donding · « **Reply #15 on:** December 21, 2010, 16:57 »

This one is from StockXpert....

seems like they have quite a variety from all the stock sites. Really makes me question them.

lisafx · « **Reply #16 on:** December 21, 2010, 19:20 »

Quote from: Karimala on December 21, 2010, 16:27

I heard back from DT and they kept it short and sweet:

Quote
Thank you for contacting us.
We are checking into this and will get it resolved.

If they were in any way affiliated, I would think DT would have said so. Hopefully they let me know what they find out.

Thanks for the update Karimala

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Non-EL DT Images on Canvas Selling @ Reckonize-Art.com (Read 7189 times)

Karimala

cathyslife

gostwyck

qwerty

KB

arquiplay77

madelaide

lisafx

RacePhoto

Karimala

Fred

fullvalue

madelaide

gostwyck

Karimala

donding

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors