Author Topic: DT wants to go after infringement (Read 3151 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **on:** April 13, 2022, 10:02 »

… except they’re (mostly) non-exclusive, so … ?
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220405005677/en/

pancaketom · « **Reply #1 on:** April 13, 2022, 13:21 »

Maybe they are only going after exclusive content (which they do have) or they employ some sort of digital watermark - which wouldn't be hard to do at least for un-compressed images but they would have had to start doing this from the beginning which I doubt they did do or they would have been going after infringers earlier. In any case going after non-exclusive images that have been out in the wild for ages would be pretty hard. Although they do have a record of all the refunded image sales, so maybe they can go after them if they are still in use. If I had an illegal use I'd just say I bought it from Lucky Oliver or something like that.

In my very limited searching for my own images it seems like sometimes there was a legitimate use - often with a weird crop, and then a heap of copies of that very same crop - often in blogs that were not in English. I don't see them collecting much from those places even at under a dollar.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2022, 13:22 »

I hadn't seen that. There's a little more on the topic in this article and if the whole thing can be automated (including a person replying that they licensed the image from XYZ agency) then possibly this might work reasonably well? If the contributor is notified (again automatic process would be ideal) that the alleged infringer claims they licensed the image from ABC agency, it would also allow for liars to be outed too.

If DT got an answer about one of my images there that the alleged infringer licensed the image from Deposit Photos, I could easily identify that as false as I've never submitted there. Not all images are at all agencies for various reasons, and sometimes there might be zero downloads from the agency an infringer claimed they licensed it from.

Worth a try anyway, IMO

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2022/04/05/dreamstime-launches-licenseguard-to-track-copyright-infringements/

BTW, love the name of this publication

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2022, 14:10 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on April 13, 2022, 13:22

BTW, love the name of this publication

I bet they copied that from somewhere...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2022, 15:46 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 13, 2022, 14:10

I bet they copied that from somewhere...

ouatedeP · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2022, 17:01 »

issue will be if infringer don't know which agency they actually stole image from. If they stole it from a licensed use, they probably don't know the origin. If they pay they will now have a licence, but what makes it valid?

Legit client downloads image available across all MS from SS
Organisation "steals" image and makes a use it
DT comes in, says do you have a license? No, bad bad person, here we can issue you one.

OK fine, i'll be honest, here is money.

Is this valid license? What if SS gets in game later, and has a way of knowing it was Their original download that was stolen....

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2022, 22:10 »

Quote from: ouatedeP on April 13, 2022, 17:01

...Is this valid license? What if SS gets in game later, and has a way of knowing it was Their original download that was stolen....

I think the license from DT is valid, regardless of where the original download came from, assuming DT has the image in their collection (which they would have to for this even to occur). The ex-infringer, now DT customer, can tell anyone questioning their use that they have a valid license from DT to use the image. Which they do.

And given that SS can't be bothered to pursue thefts when we point them out to them (until nagged and hassled via social media), I doubt this will occur in practice. If it doesn't make their stock price go up, SS will pay no attention

pancaketom · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2022, 01:38 »

I think as long as they charge something more than regular use and especially more than subs prices this is probably a good idea (and pay the artist enough), otherwise any user could just figure IF they get caught they can just buy a license, so why bother up front.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #8 on:** April 14, 2022, 08:55 »

I would have thought that non-exclusive RF makes going after infringers more or less impossible.
I do know a photographer who’s entire business model seems to be to aggressively go after infringement- though the death of RM has put paid to that.