MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Photography Discussion => Topic started by: WebSubstance on September 04, 2012, 09:56
-
This photographer has a business as a pet photographer and he is using one my pet stock photo to represent his business:
http://bestdallasheadshotportraits.blogspot.com/2012/02/dallas-pet-photographer-portraits-dog.html (http://bestdallasheadshotportraits.blogspot.com/2012/02/dallas-pet-photographer-portraits-dog.html)
I'm just going to laugh at him and share this with you ::)
-
I had the same problem with a wedding photographer. He downloaded one of my wedding photos and put it on his website in his portfolio section. I emailed him several times and he eventually removed it. Crazy people!
-
Same here : a US photographer uses one of my boudoir portraits to sell boudoir photography. It's on her home page. I can only say : if your "best photo" is not even your own photo, then your customers are going to be pretty disappointed ...
-
It happens all the time with food stock shots. They appear on the menus and websites of restaurants, hotels, pubs, takeaway shops, etc, presumeably to illustrate the quality of food available.
In the UK it is not necessarily legal either (I guess depending on how the image is used) but I'm not going to complain about it as without such uses I wouldn't have much of a market for my work.
-
It happens all the time with food stock shots. They appear on the menus and websites of restaurants, hotels, pubs, takeaway shops, etc, presumeably to illustrate the quality of food available.
But would you typically ever choose to eat in the sort of places which have pictures of food on the menu ?
-
Michael, your pet photographs are the best!
As far as the portrait photographers using stock images, I think a lot of us have had that experience. Using it in their advertising and/or website is not a violation of license terms as long as they don't specifically state "I took this picture". It may be a violation of "truth in advertising" laws, but that's a separate issue.
They had better be able to produce images similarly good or their clients are going to be really disappointed though.
-
Thanks everyone.
It's not the first time that I witness this either. I am just pointing my finger to a guy with no self-esteem. I guess I should be flattered that he rather pick my photo to represent his business.
I have seen someone using a 123rf watermark picture of a baby portrait in a photographer's blog and asking for feedback about "his" picture. It was actually one of my pictures. So there were a bunch of replies back and forth with other photographers giving tips on how to improve the photo. Comments like: "the picture could be sharper". I couldn't believe that none bother to notice the 123rf watermark and realizing that this was a stock photos. I felt sorry for the whole group and close the browser :)
-
Could it not be he is not allowed to use photos of his actual clients? Missing property release? Just guessing.
But it happens a lot indeed and I agree with Lisa that this is bad advertising ethics.
How does it work when the site says copyright 2012 at the bottom, does that mean he claims copyright to the photos as well, or just the site?
-
Could it not be he is not allowed to use photos of his actual clients? Missing property release? Just guessing.
Property release is probably unnecessary, as 'incidental use' of a prop or clothing logo etc is no actual problem. Stock agencies are nervous of that in case an end-user would crop down an image so that the protected thing was the main subject of an image.
It would be up to the photographer to ask the actual clients to allow use of their images for his/her own publicity. And if just starting up, they could hire models (or use family or friends, if available/willing) to get started.
Like I said before, it's now a case of educating clients to do web image checks for that sort of thing. Easy with a website, more difficult with photos on show in a studio (phone cam could come in useful here!).
Slainte
Liz
-
Thank you for your thoughts Liz. I learn something new everyday.
-
I remembered reading the "Dana Dawes" fiasco where she was offering groupons but didn't use any of her own photos in the ads (and couldn't possibly fulfill 1700 orders either). It got a lot of press at the time. Here is a blog about it http://photographerscam.blogspot.ca/2010/09/dana-dawes-photography-groupon-fiasco.html (http://photographerscam.blogspot.ca/2010/09/dana-dawes-photography-groupon-fiasco.html)
-
There's a Glasgow photographer who pops up regularly on my Groupon. I visited his site, which as well as being 'all over the place' has at least half of the photos apparently taken from various agencies. Unless they are all his and he has different IDs at all of the agencies, which is theoretically possible, except the apparent real names don't match either.
-
It happens all the time with food stock shots. They appear on the menus and websites of restaurants, hotels, pubs, takeaway shops, etc, presumeably to illustrate the quality of food available.
In the UK it is not necessarily legal either (I guess depending on how the image is used) but I'm not going to complain about it as without such uses I wouldn't have much of a market for my work.
ROFL.
-
It happens all the time with food stock shots. They appear on the menus and websites of restaurants, hotels, pubs, takeaway shops, etc, presumeably to illustrate the quality of food available.
In the UK it is not necessarily legal either (I guess depending on how the image is used) but I'm not going to complain about it as without such uses I wouldn't have much of a market for my work.
ROFL.
What a revelation. I never really thought about that regarding food photography - LOL.