Agency Based Discussion > General - Top Sites
I see one of my photos on today newspaper but...
GeoPappas:
--- Quote from: snem on February 21, 2007, 04:53 ---This is the final answer from SS:
"... As the same image appears on a number of other microstock agencies (e.g., stockxpert.com, fotolia.com) we are unable to conclude that the photo in question was
downloaded from Shutterstock. ... "
very sad because I had only 2 downloads of that photo. I have wrote this to SS in my first complaint:
"The photo was used on the newspaper to comment a article from another
major italian financial newspaper "il Sole 24 ore": it was a research
over quality of life in italian cities and Siena results the winner. Well this research was
published the 18 of December on "il Sole 24 ore": so the same day
someone bought my photo of Siena from ShutterStock and published it on
our newspaper the day after. For this reason I don't think the photo
was bought at StockXpert the 11 of December, because the research
wasn't published yet."
But they seem don't matter about this. very sad :(
--- End quote ---
Why not just call the newspaper yourself and ask them where they got it.
CJPhoto:
--- Quote from: snem on February 21, 2007, 04:53 ---This is the final answer from SS:
"... As the same image appears on a number of other microstock agencies (e.g., stockxpert.com, fotolia.com) we are unable to conclude that the photo in question was
downloaded from Shutterstock. ... "
--- End quote ---
I would have thought they would know who their customers were. it was eitehr someone else who bought that one, or it was them. if it was them, they should follow up with the only defence being "we bought it from someone else" or " our circulation is less than 250,000".
I would follow up SS on this. Since SS doesn't offer exclusivity, it makes a mockery of their extended license as in most sitations, every photo on the site si potentially elsewhere. So they can never pursue a copywrite case??
I would also ask StockXpert who bought it from there as you are investigating potential copywrite infringement.
yingyang0:
--- Quote from: CJPhoto on February 21, 2007, 07:02 ---I would follow up SS on this. Since SS doesn't offer exclusivity, it makes a mockery of their extended license as in most sitations, every photo on the site si potentially elsewhere. So they can never pursue a copywrite case??
--- End quote ---
News flash: if your photos are on more than one site than the only one that can/would pursue a copyright infringement case would be the photographer. First, SS doesn't have access to the stats of other sites and doesn't know if the "infringer" bought an extended license somewhere else where it might be cheaper. Second, SS wouldn't make any real money from suing the newspaper, and would have to hire a law firm in Italy to sue. Not to mention that they would lose a customer.
Why are people saying "they" should do something. It is the photographer responsiblity to protect his/her phtos, so he/she should do something. Call the newspaper. Then follow up by sending a demand letter to the newspaper saying that they infringed on your copyright, and tell them how they can make you whole (e.x. buy an extended license).
CJPhoto:
Ok - agree in part but in this situation, SS should at least tell snem who it was that bought the image. This could eliminate the person or identify who Snem should contact.
If the agencies dont provide any information, we cant even start to pursue.
snem:
--- Quote from: yingyang0 on February 21, 2007, 08:45 ---
--- Quote from: CJPhoto on February 21, 2007, 07:02 ---I would follow up SS on this. Since SS doesn't offer exclusivity, it makes a mockery of their extended license as in most sitations, every photo on the site si potentially elsewhere. So they can never pursue a copywrite case??
--- End quote ---
News flash: if your photos are on more than one site than the only one that can/would pursue a copyright infringement case would be the photographer. First, SS doesn't have access to the stats of other sites and doesn't know if the "infringer" bought an extended license somewhere else where it might be cheaper. Second, SS wouldn't make any real money from suing the newspaper, and would have to hire a law firm in Italy to sue. Not to mention that they would lose a customer.
Why are people saying "they" should do something. It is the photographer responsiblity to protect his/her phtos, so he/she should do something. Call the newspaper. Then follow up by sending a demand letter to the newspaper saying that they infringed on your copyright, and tell them how they can make you whole (e.x. buy an extended license).
--- End quote ---
Yes... my responsibility too. Law in Italy works awful, especially in controversies like mine. Should I hire a lawyer for a 20$ EL? Surely he will ask me a minimum of 200 euros just to open the controversial: no refund. I think I will give up. Since my first upload I was conscious of such a problem could occur. Now I'm conscious that microstock's agencies have little power to defend its contributors.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version