Author Topic: I see one of my photos on today newspaper but... (Read 17260 times)

snem · « **on:** December 19, 2006, 15:08 »

but they didn't give me an extended licence! The newspaper claims more than 700000 prints. I've noticed the photo was bought at SS by subscription and my royalty was standard 0.25$. What do you suggest me to do now?

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2006, 15:11 »

good question and good point!
here is a quote from shutterstock terms of service

Quote

d)
In CD or DVD cover art, magazines, newspapers, books, , book covers, textbooks, editorials provided that the manufacturing or print run of such CDs or DVDs, magazines, newspapers, etc. does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) copies in the aggregate;

so obviously they have overstepped their bounds. I would contact shutterstock and hope for the best. They SHOULD contact the newspaper.

litifeta · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2006, 16:14 »

I spent 2 hours in a book shop the other day and was amazed at how many fiction books use stock images. Less than 10% credit the photographer.

Not sure what the sales are like in your country, but in Australia, a best seller can be lucky to sell 25,000 copies

kkart · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2006, 16:28 »

ya kinda sad, there should be a standing rule the photog gets credited

snem · « **Reply #4 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

GeoPappas · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2007, 06:16 »

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

Why not just call the newspaper yourself and ask them where they got it.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2007, 07:02 »

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. ... "

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 · « **Reply #7 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??

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 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2007, 09:17 »

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 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:30 »

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??

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).

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.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2007, 07:06 »

Hi Snem,

why don't you contact the newspaper. Maybe they did it on accident and are not aware of the limits of the license. I know the world is full of cheaters, but once in while you might meet someone who is honest or repents when convicted

leaf · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2007, 13:43 »

i think people are generally honest, or want to be honest and if you called the newspaper they would probably want to make it right. if not for the image allready used, probably for future images. Companies and businesses don't generally like getting negative repore so I imagine they would work at making things right.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2007, 14:11 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on February 21, 2007, 09:17

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.

I'm failing to see why you "can't even start to pursue". The only way this situation comes up is when the photographer knows that the photo was misused and he/she also knows who misused it. The newspaper is who you would go after, and you don't need SS to tell you that. If there is a middle-man selling the photo to the newspaper then the newspaper will tell you that when you call.

I also don't understand why snem thinks he needs a lawyer to contact the newspaper. The majority of the time getting a lawyer involved only makes a situation more difficult to solve. Just give the newspaper a call. I don't know what the phone rates in italy are but I get the call would cost a lot less than a lawyer.

@snem - it's not that they don't have the power to defend their contributors, but the cost/benefit analysis doesn't normally sway in favor of the photographer. Especially when a US company (SS) would have to go to Italy to pursue this. Giving up is not the answer, just make the phone call and see what happens.

KiwiRob · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2007, 11:04 »

it's this kind of crap that is making me very seriously think about dropping all sites and going exclusive with istock. Istock protect their users and their images, more so if you are exclusive. I seriously don't think shutterstock and a lot of the other sites have the money to evn attempt to tackle this kind of blatent missuse of images.

maunger · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2007, 12:25 »

Quote from: KiwiRob on February 27, 2007, 11:04

it's this kind of crap that is making me very seriously think about dropping all sites and going exclusive with istock. Istock protect their users and their images, more so if you are exclusive. I seriously don't think shutterstock and a lot of the other sites have the money to evn attempt to tackle this kind of blatent missuse of images.

That is way open for debate IMHO - just ask the person who's old man image was used on a 'racy' site and IS said it was acceptable use.

leaf · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2007, 12:49 »

yeah, that old man image immediatly came to mind.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2007, 13:29 »

Quote from: leaf on February 27, 2007, 12:49

yeah, that old man image immediatly came to mind.

I was thinking about the same image when it was mentioned that IS would protect their users. Just goes to show you that they probably should have done something in that case. If that image came immediately to mind for three of us, imagine how many others remember that case as well?

KiwiRob · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2007, 15:13 »

never heard of it.

leaf · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2007, 16:58 »

check out

This Thread

for that old man image used in an indecent manner incident.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2007, 18:59 »

Quote from: KiwiRob on February 27, 2007, 11:04

it's this kind of crap that is making me very seriously think about dropping all sites and going exclusive with istock. Istock protect their users and their images, more so if you are exclusive...

They would have done the same thing SS did. If you don't believe me ask iStock yourself. When you photo is available on several sites none of the site are likely to do anything, it's just not worth it for them.

Yes your protect will increase, but I'm not sure by how much. Most likely they'll contact the buy and try to get them to buy the extended license, but I doubt they would sue anyone even if it is for an exclusive's photo.

KiwiRob · « **Reply #20 on:** February 28, 2007, 07:15 »

Quote from: leaf on February 27, 2007, 16:58

check out

This Thread

for that old man image used in an indecent manner incident.

Quite frankly I don't see what the photographer had to complain about, you can't see any tit, I certainly don't find it offensive in any way. I don't see the person in the image being degraded. However had it been a child then I could see it being a problem.

digiology · « **Reply #21 on:** February 28, 2007, 13:32 »

I did not see anything wrong with it either. Until I took a second look and noticed a tray of what looks to be dildo's being brought in through the curtain. Now thats just creepy.

Anyways, snem's original post started me thinking about a previous topic about the same image being downloaded at multiple sites on the same day. Do you think buyers can avoid purchasing an EL by doing this? Pretty weird it happens to all of us and too often to be a coincidence.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2007, 14:11 »

Quote from: digiology on February 28, 2007, 13:32

Do you think buyers can avoid purchasing an EL by doing this? Pretty weird it happens to all of us and too often to be a coincidence.

Most Extended Licenses are created to allow a buyer to "resell" the image thru various means (mousepads, t-shirts, mugs, etc). So purchasing multiple images from various sites wouldn't help with this cause.

digiology · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2007, 14:43 »

I was thinking more in terms of maximum run lengths. If you have a limit of 250,000 yet you purchase the same image from three different sites are you then allowed to run 750,000? $:-\$

GeoPappas · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2007, 14:47 »

Quote from: digiology on February 28, 2007, 14:43

I was thinking more in terms of maximum run lengths. If you have a limit of 250,000 yet you purchase the same image from three different sites are you then allowed to run 750,000? $:-\$

If a buyer wanted a higher run rate, then they should just purchase the image from Fotolia or LuckyOliver (which both offer unlimited run rates).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I see one of my photos on today newspaper but... (Read 17260 times)

snem

leaf

litifeta

kkart

snem

GeoPappas

CJPhoto

yingyang0

CJPhoto

snem

Freezingpictures

leaf

yingyang0

KiwiRob

maunger

leaf

GeoPappas

KiwiRob

leaf

yingyang0

KiwiRob

digiology

GeoPappas

digiology

GeoPappas

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors