Some of those are just plain creepy. What gets me is they were accepted!

Based on the watermarks, the blogger didn't pay for usage license, which I find annoying (whether or not it's legal). Some of the photos posted midway on August 5 look fine, certainly not worthy of being labelled as awkward.

Quote from: ann on August 06, 2010, 16:18

Based on the watermarks, the blogger didn't pay for usage license, which I find annoying (whether or not it's legal). The last 2 shown on August 5 look fine, certainly not worthy of being labelled as awkward.

If you click on the photo it takes you directly to the sales page of that particular photo so I'm not sure how that works with usage?

Interesting, I didn't try clicking on them.

I contribute to a blog where we post our own stockphotos clickable to one of the stock sites (SS, DT, ISP, F, 123rf...) they're sold on, and one or more of the sites (in a very friendly way, really) contacted our blog administrator that we each had to post the images with our own watermarks, not the stock site's watermark.

Those are some funny photos!  I like the commentary at Badstockart.com though.  The comments add a lot

I think that while ago I see in Stokas and other sites TOS that you can use they small watermarked image in you jabbering or blogging within any cost!!!
Now flyby thru this site "author" says that iStock has too much patient and now they are angry about violating about copyright infringement and that it must be stopped?!?
what???

I love the stock market.  No...I mean I REALLY love the stock market.

A comp is never meant to be public: it's a mock-up just for the customer's eyes.
If the guy links the thumbs to the originals on the agency site, it can be considered as a promo or referral. In that case, he can't be blamed, imho.

That's fair, for now. Once there are adverts all over the page, that opinion will change for me.

From badstockart.com:
NOTE: please don�t share photos from istockphoto.com � unless that is, you�ve paid for the license and are willing to give it to us. They gave us the old cease and desist email, which scared us deeply. We know, we know, we lost some classics there. We might buck up and pay for some of the funnier ones.

Looks like istock agreed Cathy

Gosh, the "I don't make money off of this" defense over and over again is annoying.  As is the "but I'm giving you free advertising!" refrain.

I started reading some of the comments at the end of the site. Bad mistake. I posted a few myself, but really it is kind of pointless. But it does show the level of ignorance out there regarding intellectual property. And some posts show just plain ignorance.  

I find this rather amusing. You should read "Against Intellectual Property". Most people who champion intellectual property tend to be equally "ignorant" about it.

Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.

Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.

Now this is sort of an odd statement.  Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more.

Actually the guy is linking the thumbnails to the actual sales page. At least Dreamstime allows that, and you can even put your referral code on it. It's just another (but original) referral site. It would be totally different if he put up the thumbs without links.

The only thing you can argue about is defamation, but as the saying goes: bad publicity is better than no publicity. I have no problem with sarcasm at all, especially since the shooter clearly aimed for that effect in many of the shots. About half of the shots is not really awkward but more weird/unusual.

There is a market for it. I bet the posted shots will have additional sales.

I bolded and italicized above: According to what I read, that's what he did do at first. He only changed them once he was outed.

Yes, it's a referral site, but the images are being used in a negative connotation. Do I think some of them are funny? You bet! Do I think he should be allowed to have the site? You bet. Does that mean I think he should be allowed to use the images on his website FOR FREE just because he is giving a referral? NO!

No one should be allowed to decide "bad publicity is better than no publicity" except the copyright holder. Great if the images sell because of the link. They STILL shouldn't be allowed to be used for free without the copyright holder's consent! If you think it's OK, that's your choice. Others may not think it's OK.

OK, pretty soon that dead horse animation is going to be posted so I am done.