MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Copyright infringement  (Read 9574 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 15, 2012, 10:35 »
0
Hello,
One of my images has been used without permission (or license) on a blog/political italian site.

The image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-lady-justice,-frankfurt-image10787473

The blog:
http://www.ideodromocasapound.org/?p=653

Normally, I wouldn't care to waste time on it, but this blog/political site is promoting fascist ideas, and I don't want my images used illegally with this intent.

What's the best course of action?

Thanks for your help.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 11:18 by Fran »


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2012, 10:42 »
0
It will depend totally on dreamstime's t&c, but I doubt if you'll have any redress. It's not as if that were a photo of a model made to look as though they were supporting the party.
I had one of my images used editorially by the BNP (fascist party) and I just had to accept it, though it was the one case I was glad they didn't credit me. (Ironically, the particular point they were making on the actual page using my image was a point I happened to agree with, which must be about the only one on their site.) Similarly, I've had safari photos used by hunting companies, which I hate, or other pictures purporting to be examples of a company's own commercial work (e.g. in their 'galleries'), which would be illegal in the UK, but apparently not elsewhere.
It's the downside of this business, but you either have to accept it or withdraw your images from sale.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 11:06 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2012, 10:51 »
0
Thanks, it's very clear. I'll contact Dreamstime and see what happens. As you say, if it comes to the worst, I will have to be happy they didn't credit me.

« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2012, 10:57 »
0
What's illegal about it?

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2012, 11:01 »
0
Thanks, it's very clear. I'll contact Dreamstime and see what happens. As you say, if it comes to the worst, I will have to be happy they didn't credit me.
It's not against DT's T&C:
Home > Terms and conditions   
Site Usage Agreement
Unauthorized Use
Without limitation, Images may not be used as a trademark or service mark (unless the appropriate extended license is being used), for any pornographic or unlawful purpose, to defame a person, to violate a person's right to privacy or publicity, to infringe upon any copyright, trade name, trademark, or service mark of any person/entity. Unauthorized use of these Images constitutes copyright infringement and shall entitle Dreamstime to exercise all rights and remedies under applicable copyright law, including an injunction preventing further use and monetary damages against all users and beneficiaries of the use of such Images. The foregoing is not a limiting statement of Dreamstime's rights or remedies in connection with any unauthorized use.
Credit Line Requirements
All images used within editorial context or related must be accompanied by a visible credit line. You are required to include a copyright notice and author/agency credit next to each image used within editorial purposes. The credit line format is specified on the Download page.

So it appears that all they did wrong was not credit you. I wouldn't push that!
I am sympathetic, but if the agencies don't forbid it, there's nothing you can do about it.

In no sense is it a copyright infringement.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 11:04 by ShadySue »

« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2012, 11:17 »
0
True, that if they really got a license (which in fact i doubt), right?

« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2012, 11:20 »
0
True, that if they really got a license (which in fact i doubt), right?

Why would you doubt it?

« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2012, 11:24 »
0
True, that if they really got a license (which in fact i doubt), right?

Why would you doubt it?

the picture on the blog has DT watermark

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2012, 11:26 »
0
True, that if they really got a license (which in fact i doubt), right?

Why would you doubt it?

the picture on the blog has DT watermark

Really? I don't see it (it has a lot of jpeg artifacting, unlike the original) ; but if so, ignore all I said above, which would only apply to purchased images.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 11:31 by ShadySue »

« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2012, 11:30 »
0
I didn't see a watermark, however that wouldn't matter.  I mean since you could just pin it on Pinterest (approved by the agencies) and embed it from there, ergo any watermarked image is essentially free game.

« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2012, 11:37 »
0
I didn't see a watermark, however that wouldn't matter.  I mean since you could just pin it on Pinterest (approved by the agencies) and embed it from there, ergo any watermarked image is essentially free game.

Do you think it's still worth a try or not?

« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2012, 13:46 »
0
I didn't see a watermark, however that wouldn't matter.  I mean since you could just pin it on Pinterest (approved by the agencies) and embed it from there, ergo any watermarked image is essentially free game.

Do you think it's still worth a try or not?

I think that if you wanted to contact the writer and explain that the image cannot be used with a watermark and provide a link to where they can purchase a license, they might purchase, or more likely, they might take it down. If they found it on pinterest, you are wasting your time asking DT to do anything about it as they have a pinterest account and are actively posting contributors watermarked images directly to pinterest.

ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2012, 14:31 »
0
I didn't see a watermark, however that wouldn't matter.  I mean since you could just pin it on Pinterest (approved by the agencies) and embed it from there, ergo any watermarked image is essentially free game.

Do you think it's still worth a try or not?
Without a watermark, it would be difficult to establish that it wasn't paid for. Even though it's got artefacting, maybe they bought it at a tiny size and uprezzed it badly.
I found one of mine on from iStock on a blog, and the text said somehting like, "I have no idea where this was taken, but it's really cool". My description on iStock is extremely detailed about where the photo was taken. But CS said that was not evidence that they had not paid for the use (and didn't seem inclined to check). Of course, it's hard to check when it could be that a designer who buys an image may have no connection with a site in which the image is used - but the site I referenced said at the top of the page something like, "Some photos taken on my cybertravels", so could be clue enough there.
This is why the RF model was ill thought-out, and, effectively, unsustainable. OK for a quick buck, but once a file has sold, the stable door is opened.
DT might be more helpful, but given they're also in bed with pinterest, it's doubtful.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 14:44 by ShadySue »

« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2012, 08:31 »
0
I'd complain to DreamStime right away. They should really do something about that. Dealing with such things is part of why we aren't paid 100% commission. They are suppose to take care of a lot of administrative tasks related to selling images in return for all the money they get from us.

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2012, 08:45 »
0
I'd complain to DreamStime right away. They should really do something about that.
About what?
Have we established that the image wasn't paid for?
Is it watermarked in some different, invisible but trackable way which is different from the watermark which is visible on the image on DT?

« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2012, 08:51 »
0
I'd complain to DreamStime right away. They should really do something about that.
About what?
Have we established that the image wasn't paid for?
Is it watermarked in some different, invisible but trackable way which is different from the watermark which is visible on the image on DT?
As far as I know, a standard license agreement would prohibit usage in political campaigns and in strong political contexts. Isn't that true..? :s

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2012, 08:54 »
0
They seem to have a different image of Lady Justice up there now:
http://www.ideodromocasapound.org/?p=653
This one GIS tells me is was used on the cover of Metallica's album 'Justice for all', though I haven't looked further to find the original source of the image.


ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2012, 08:56 »
0
I'd complain to DreamStime right away. They should really do something about that.
About what?
Have we established that the image wasn't paid for?
Is it watermarked in some different, invisible but trackable way which is different from the watermark which is visible on the image on DT?
As far as I know, a standard license agreement would prohibit usage in political campaigns and in strong political contexts. Isn't that true..? :s
No. It's usually only if you imply that a person is supporting a cause, and the agencies can wiggle out of that as in some cases it's subjective as to whether the person is just an image on the campaign poster/whatever, and not actually personally supporting the cause.
A quick check of DT's T&C, quoted above, wouldn't seem to prohibit this use to be used in this way, if legally bought.

« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2012, 08:58 »
0
Yes, they changed the image. It's unfortunate to see that they haven't understood the concept though (don't steal images).
Thanks everyone for your help, greatly appreciated.

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2012, 09:09 »
0
@Fran: I still don't understand why you were so sure they hadn't bought the image in the first place? I'm not saying whether they did or didn't, but without that visible DT watermark, is there some other way to know for sure?

« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2012, 09:15 »
0
@Fran: I still don't understand why you were so sure they hadn't bought the image in the first place? I'm not saying whether they did or didn't, but without that visible DT watermark, is there some other way to know for sure?

I wasn't 100% sure, let's say I know my fellow countrymen. The blog is quite famous in Italy to be fairly dodgy. It was an educated guess.

« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2012, 09:45 »
0
I repeat the previous picture had DT watermark ;D

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2012, 09:58 »
0
I repeat the previous picture had DT watermark ;D
OK, I'm not familiar with DT, so you'll need to help me. On DT, there's a big watermark down at the bottom right hand side.
On the site, that watermark was not visible when I looked.
Is there another, less obvious, DT watermark that I didn't notice? (Unless there's a screenshot somewhere, you can't point it out to me.) If so, that's a great idea - the trouble with any 'standard' watermark is that there are always going to be some photos its easy to clone it out of.

Perhaps, having somehow got wind of this thread, they stretched the image downwards to remove the watermark, perhaps causing the bad artifacting I noticed when I went back to look for the big watermark, which certainly wasn't there the second time I looked as I was looking specifically for it (and I doubt very much if I could have missed it the first time I looked.)

Maybe this thread was the reason they subsequently, 'coincidentally' switched to the other image?
Anyway, a good result for Fran either way.  :)

« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2012, 10:00 »
0
I repeat the previous picture had DT watermark ;D

OK, I'm not familiar with DT, so you'll need to help me. On DT, there's a big watermark down at the bottom right hand side.


and TOP (it has a round/circle shape around the picture)

« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 10:05 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2012, 10:13 »
0
Yes, they changed the image. It's unfortunate to see that they haven't understood the concept though (don't steal images).
Thanks everyone for your help, greatly appreciated.

They understand the concept totally. They just don't care. They don't want to pay even a small amount of money for the use, and there is no one who is enforcing it, not even the agencies. They took it down, I think that's about all you can hope for. Unfortunately.  :(

ShadySue

« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2012, 10:18 »
0
Thanks, Luisanto. I missed that totally.
@Fran: you must have thought my posts irrelevant, as I thought you hated the use, as I didn't see that it hadn't even been bought. Sorry.

Hey, maybe they'll get into even more trouble from Metallica, since the agencies don't tend to be too bothered.
Or maybe, if they're still following this thread, they'll get one of their own to take a photo they can legally use.
OTOH, a thieving fascist is even worse than a fascist.

antistock

« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2012, 12:15 »
0
fascists, communists, atheists, religious zealots ... who cares ? as long as they pay for the images.

at least in their site they don't have advertising banners and they don't sell anything, actually maybe they don't even allow comments .. hahaha fascists don't like opposing views i guess ? :)


« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2012, 18:32 »
0
I wouldn't expect DT to be particularly persistant in working to get a watermarked image removed.  I e-mailed them in early Nov. of 2011 about a blog that had one of my watermarked images from DT.  They promptly sent the blog owner a takedown notice but there was no response or takedown of the image.  After a few weeks I forwarded the information direct to Wordpress via their DMCA process.  Four days later, November 28th, I had a response from Wordpress that the image had been removed. 

Today, just over 8 months later, I got a form letter e-mail from DT telling me the image had either been taken down or properly licensed.  Kind of annoying that they just a catch-all form letter to say they are closing out the claim without actually noting the real outcome.

antistock

« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2012, 22:49 »
0
I wouldn't expect DT to be particularly persistant in working to get a watermarked image removed.  I e-mailed them in early Nov. of 2011 about a blog that had one of my watermarked images from DT.  They promptly sent the blog owner a takedown notice but there was no response or takedown of the image.  After a few weeks I forwarded the information direct to Wordpress via their DMCA process.  Four days later, November 28th, I had a response from Wordpress that the image had been removed. 

Today, just over 8 months later, I got a form letter e-mail from DT telling me the image had either been taken down or properly licensed.  Kind of annoying that they just a catch-all form letter to say they are closing out the claim without actually noting the real outcome.

and this sums pretty much why piracy is winning at all levels.
the risks are zero, and if caught they just take the images down, no money involved, no invoices to pay.

until there's a sort of "web police" and a justice system legislating on internet matters
we can forget about our rights.

« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2012, 22:57 »
0
Thanks, Luisanto. I missed that totally.
@Fran: you must have thought my posts irrelevant, as I thought you hated the use, as I didn't see that it hadn't even been bought. Sorry.

On the contrary, you gave me lots of info. Thanks!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
11907 Views
Last post September 08, 2009, 02:49
by cardmaverick
3 Replies
3316 Views
Last post May 26, 2010, 16:25
by litifeta
2 Replies
2303 Views
Last post June 28, 2011, 02:51
by RacePhoto
5 Replies
4336 Views
Last post December 02, 2011, 04:00
by sharpshot
21 Replies
5181 Views
Last post December 28, 2012, 08:02
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results