Quote from: tickstock on January 05, 2017, 01:49

Quote from: DallasP on January 05, 2017, 00:51

I'd just contact the company and try to get an EL out of them. There's no use wasting much time or resources trying to battle those big brands ... at the very least you get "exposure" and at best you get the cost of the license that I'd imagine they thought they were getting to begin with.

At least, I can hope that this world has some decency left and that they would try to be honest :/ it's an odd world though.

Which part of the license did they violate?  I haven't found it and I don't see any post on here pointing to it.  Trying to "get an EL out of them" for using the image legally is crazy and very unprofessional.

Yes you don't know so I don't see the harm in contacting them and asking them the terms they purchased the image under

Seriously?  What's the harm in accusing a buyer of doing something they could be sued for without any evidence or reason?   You'll be very busy annoying a lot of companies if you go after every site that probably purchased a license and is using it correctly but you don't have proof they did.   Which sites even require an EL for this kind of use?

You can be polite about it as I say you and I don't know the facts I haven't checked the licence it may have been purchased under nor exactly how it has been used in detail. So I don't know whether he has a case or not.

The first step should be to research the terms.  They said it was from iStock.  If you haven't even checked the license why would you recommend harassing a company?

I don't disagree with that...maybe I should have said research the terms of licencing if you are still concerned contact them. You have a very low threshold of what you consider "harassing" I don't consider asking a question harassing...not our call anyway

That's also bad advice.  Besides making them talk to their lawyers, marketers, and the stock photo agency you are probably violating the terms of agreement with the agency who licensed the image. 
This is what Shutterstock's terms are:
"In the event that you believe Content has been misused, you shall take no action without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action."

OK so if we think an image has been misused we just lie back and take it ...fine

You can do what you want but bothering a company makes us all look unprofessional and could result in your account being terminated, but hey do what you want.

Your issues with Shutterstock aren't relevant.  It's against the terms you agreed with to bother buyers and if they are using the image legally (which it appears they are) then you make us all look bad.

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 05, 2017, 02:40

I don't consider asking a question harassing...not our call anyway

Depends on the question. If I'm in a club and I ask a lady "what's that lump in your dress.. do you have a penis?" it might not go down very well.

The point is, no matter how politely you phrase it, you're probably still going to come across as insinuating that they might not have the rights to use your image. I mean, why would you contact them in the first place if you weren't... are you conducting a survey on license usage?

Plus, if you're asking the question when you don't even know whether they can't or can't use it... what's the point. Why would a buyer have to, or want to, explain to you the licensing terms of a site where you sell your content?

They could simply tell you from what site it was purchased and under what license. I suppose its a sad fact in this industry that we don't actually know where any of our images are sold and what for we have to trust the stock agencies maybe I'm being naive but if for example I saw one of my images on the front of your block buster  million selling pork book and I had only sold it for a few cents I'd want it checked out.

The OP knows the terms they were bought under, as he knows the file was bought from iS.
He also said he contacted iS and they said they wouldn't take it any further as he isn't exclusive .

I posted the link to iS's licence information in reply #12, though like everything iS, it's not "interpretation-free'.
IS have in the past said that contributors should not be contacting buyers and that they would take a dim view of any so doing.

I'm not saying the present case is clearly an  abuse of the licensing terms - it seems to  me to fall into the "grey area" unless you can establish the aggregate print run of all the paper publications which ran the advert. (Also, probably, your photo in their photo could also have been used in print articles reviewing the phone).

Possibly if the OP confirmed that the file was bought from iS by a pleasant enquiry to the buyer, iS would then take action, based on their reply, "As we have no way to confirm that this file has been attained" (!) "from our site, since you are a non-exclusive contributor"

Quote from: ShadySue on January 05, 2017, 05:56

The OP knows the terms they were bought under, as he knows the file was bought from iS.
He also said he contacted iS and they said they wouldn't take it any further as he isn't exclusive .

I posted the link to iS's licence information in reply #12, though like everything iS, it's not "interpretation-free'.
IS have in the past said that contributors should not be contacting buyers and that they would take a dim view of any so doing.

I'm not saying the present case is clearly an  abuse of the licensing terms - it seems to  me to fall into the "grey area" unless you can establish the aggregate print run of all the paper publications which ran the advert. (Also, probably, your photo in their photo could also have been used in print articles reviewing the phone).

Possibly if the OP confirmed that the file was bought from iS by a pleasant enquiry to the buyer, iS would then take action, based on their reply, "As we have no way to confirm that this file has been attained" (!) "from our site, since you are a non-exclusive contributor"

I don't see anything about a print run from the OP.   He says it's used as a wallpaper on a phone and in thousands of TV ads.

That's why I said, "unless you can establish".
Still, with mobile phones, I'm guessing there could easily be print runs. Adverts in papers/magazines and also catalogues in outlets like phone shops etc. Certainly in the UK, there are many paper catalogues related to tech. Also I regularly get unsolicited print flyers through my letterbox offering phone (etc) deals, often with pics of the latest phone models to choose from.
The problem might be establishing that there were over 1/2 million prints made, though I'd imagine if any of the above were found, it would be that size of print run even in the UK, far less the US. If I'm getting unsolicited, unaddressed flyers posted through the door, I'd imagine so are most people.