MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Magnum on July 04, 2009, 05:13
-
C R A P
http://www.downturk.info/stock_images/ (http://www.downturk.info/stock_images/)
-
If that is a pirate site then the legitimate stock agencies being shown in the Google Ads should immediately notified so that they can block that site from making money off them.
-
If that is a pirate site then the legitimate stock agencies being shown in the Google Ads should immediately notified so that they can block that site from making money off them.
SS and Dt notified.
-
I think anyone in the creative industry needs to find themselves a new search engine.
A company who's moto is "don't be evil" this week was exposed as not paying their illustrators and also seem to be the main way all these (mainly Turkish) sites get money from their stolen images. If they are getting these images via credit card fraud (as seems to be the case from all the times we get money clawed back) does this also count as helping them launder money?
Edit: holy molly-- the Google Ads seem to have finally been removed from Hero Turko, might they finally be listening over at Google HQ?! we've got to hope that Design Bazaar will be next.
-
This is called collateral loss. In the reality nobody cares about my image offered free by these pirate sites.
Points of view:
- the pirate site: offers anything (pictures, music, movies, 3d models, etc) to promote the file sharing/download sites. Please give a try to download the stock photos from those pirate sites and you will quickly realize that if you want to download the whole content you need to pay a few bucks. A lot of contributors automatically mean a lot of bucks
- the agency: can't do anything in the reality since they don't hold the copyright of the image being distributed, they only sell the license to use it. The copyright holder remains the photographer. In one pack of images how many contributors are there? How small is the amount of loss per photographer in the eyes of the agency?
- users of the image: they use your photos for free because if they need to buy it, they don't do, they use another images instead. The real buyer really needs the usage license so he doesn't allow risks and he will buy the license from an agency.
- photographers: be happy if you find your photos there, the pirates really need to bring attention so they will pick only the cream. Also the only one who can fight back is the photographer since the copyright owner is the photographer itself.
-
I see what u mean. Itīs the old piratebay discussion.
You can also see it this way. they stole your car because if they need to buy it, they don't do, they steal another car instead;)
-
That's a different issue, what I'm taking about is the ad agencies, the biggest being google ads but adbrite are also culprits of this, claim that displaying ads on sites that distribute content illegally is expressly against their terms, but don't do anything about it when the terms are blatantly infringed.
Also, I don't think you have taken into account that the Microstock market largely serves smaller outfits or individuals who are not entirely savvy about licensing matters. Many/ most visitors to these sites do not realise that there is anything untoward going on. Hero Turko for one leads visitors to believe that he is the creator and/ or copyright holder of the work on offer by displaying comments thanking him for creating the work, advising on the legality of using it on different projects etc.
This is a major difference from other industries, if I download a movie, I know I am doing something wrong!
-
This is a major difference from other industries, if I download a movie, I know I am doing something wrong!
I can assure you that many teenagers think it's OK, and further that downloading and using anything from the Internet is OK. Even when our Computing Dept made all the kids do projects to research the law on use of files from the internet, and getting them to make posters to display over the school about it, they still didn't really believe it (even those who did the research!).
-
I can assure you that many teenagers think it's OK
Not only teenagers but Microsoft itself.
Thanks to a new plug in for Microsoft office, OffiSync, it has become child play to easily rip an image found with Google Image and include it into a presentation or word document.
Who Needs (paid) Clip Art? OffiSync 2.0 Integrates Google Image Search Into Microsoft Office. Read here (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/29/who-needs-clip-art-offisync-20-integrates-google-image-search-into-microsoft-office/).
That's very fine to me. I'm going to promote my stock port with a banner "Who needs to pay for Windows? Download it here for free [insert RapidShare link]".
With the proper copyright warnings, of course. ;D
-
Oh wow, bloody hell that's depressing. I can understand the kids not understanding, popular culture has led all of them to believe they have an entitlement to anything they want, but Microsoft, OMG
Edit: hang on is that Microsoft or a third party plugin? can't quite figure it out.
-
Edit: hang on is that Microsoft or a third party plugin? can't quite figure it out.
Microsoft.
-
Edit: hang on is that Microsoft or a third party plugin? can't quite figure it out.
Third party Plug-In for Office, using Google Docs to store the documents.
Search for web content or images and import them into your documents and presentations in one click.
Here: (Bringing the power of Google to Office, watch the video there is an option when selecting images for 'usage rights')
http://www.offisync.com/ (http://www.offisync.com/)
Here:
http://offisync.blogspot.com/ (http://offisync.blogspot.com/)
David ;D
-
Who Needs (paid) Clip Art? OffiSync 2.0 Integrates Google Image Search Into Microsoft Office. Read here ([url]http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/29/who-needs-clip-art-offisync-20-integrates-google-image-search-into-microsoft-office/[/url]).
On their behalf, according to your link:
When you choose to import and image or piece of text, a popup appears reminding you that the content may be subject to copyright.
So it's clearer than Google Images itself. And it says there is an option to filter according to usage rights. It seems no user can claim not knowing they were doing something wrong, if they ignore the copyright warnings.
Not that this make such a tool more edible... But have you heard about a software to remove watermarks? It is in all respectable shareware sites.
-
When you choose to import and image or piece of text, a popup appears reminding you that the content may be subject to copyright.
It may have been the intention when they wrote the web pages, but I have watched the video twice and at no point when copying text and graphics from others web pages was there a pop-up dialog, or with the google images, there is an option to filter by usage rights, but they are just options that you have to set, not a pre-set default that only returns usable images, and one of them is reusable commercial, default is 'Ignore Licences'.
Flickr had problems a while back with thier API, it allowed their user private restricted images to be returned by the API search, after complaints they changed the API to stop this, lets hope Google address the same issue.
As artists we understand the benefit of thumbnails being created for the Google search engines use, but this type of 3rd party use where the plug-in copies and inserts images into a presentation, may violate the terms of Google's tools, and the authors and artists copyright.
A recent similar example in our industry is where SS and IS have stopped 3rd party products loggin in and returning data via their API.
David ;)
-
This is a major difference from other industries, if I download a movie, I know I am doing something wrong!
I can assure you that many teenagers think it's OK, and further that downloading and using anything from the Internet is OK. Even when our Computing Dept made all the kids do projects to research the law on use of files from the internet, and getting them to make posters to display over the school about it, they still didn't really believe it (even those who did the research!).
you need to convince teachers that it is wrong. my wife is a teacher and I often amazed at what they do, tell the kids something is plagarism, cant copy text from each other or off the web, instant fail. then the teacher stands and photocopies an entire book, copy the promo dvds and software they get sent and straight to google images and doesnt see they are doing anything wrong.
My wife tries to tell the other teachers to at least go to sxc.hu etc but it falls on deaf ears. A number of other teachers were amazed last week when she actually bought an image from DT last week for a brochure, it was a whole $4. "didnt know you could get them for that price" etc.
-
If that is a pirate site then the legitimate stock agencies being shown in the Google Ads should immediately notified so that they can block that site from making money off them.
SS and Dt notified.
do the stock agencies do anything about it?
-
On their behalf, according to your link:
When you choose to import and image or piece of text, a popup appears reminding you that the content may be subject to copyright.
"May", sure. Or "may not". Google puts that on its image harvesting pages too. Is there any provision on Google Images that states the copyright status of every image? No, since their robots can't read all the specifics around an image on a page. They just track the image, sometimes private images deep in a website, and put the deeplink online. The only way images can be "protected" this way is by adding a watermark.
The plugin makes image thievery very easy, unnoticeable and almost by default. I repeat my question: can I put a link to a fully activated Windows install on Rapidshare with just a pop-up that installing it "may" entice copyright infringement?
In any civilized law system, there is a clause that whoever is facilitating theft hugely is an accessory or an accomplice. Put the bacon next to the cat, tell it sternly not the eat the bacon, then go away for 10 minutes, come back and find it eaten anyways - would you blame the cat?
-
This Plug-in looks like it is outside of the intended usage for Google Images
From the Google Images FAQ:
Are there any copyright restrictions associated with the images?
The images identified by the Google Image Search service may be protected by copyrights. Although you can locate and access the images through our service, we cannot grant you any rights to use them for any purpose other than viewing them on the web. Accordingly, if you would like to use any images you have found through our service, we advise you to contact the site owner to obtain the requisite permissions.
If they cannot grant rights and only allow web viewing, then they should not allow their tools to be used in a way that is outside of that concept.
The offisync software can be used for online document storage and syncronisation, but there is a cost, the website is registered through and hosted by GoDaddy, to use the Plug-in you need a Google Apps account, this costs $50 per user per year, so it will have very limited appeal to users that would 'rip' an image, but that does not take away any copyrighted content Issues.
when I tested Google Images and the advanced filters, there was no options for selecting licences so there is a puzzle, if Google Images do not have a licence filter how does the plug-in
David
-
There are tons of sites and blogs like this. Just type in google "stock images, rapidshare" and you will get tons of results like http://8888ddl.com/media/?p=17994 (http://8888ddl.com/media/?p=17994) which contains 700MB of stock images.
-
There are tons of sites and blogs like this. Just type in google "stock images, rapidshare" and you will get tons of results like [url]http://8888ddl.com/media/?p=17994[/url] ([url]http://8888ddl.com/media/?p=17994[/url]) which contains 700MB of stock images.
Sure and you can find all Windows versions (pre-activated), CS4 and other things there too. You just need the guide site for the links. They keep being deleted but an hour later they are back online. It's a cat and mouse game.
-
Yeah...
-
"May", sure. Or "may not". Google puts that on its image harvesting pages too. Is there any provision on Google Images that states the copyright status of every image? No, since their robots can't read all the specifics around an image on a page. They just track the image, sometimes private images deep in a website, and put the deeplink online. The only way images can be "protected" this way is by adding a watermark.
It is not illegal to make a search. Those images are online. If there is an alert about copyright, it is better than nothing. If you visit a site where an image of yours is legally used, is there any notice that this is a copyrighted image? Normally not. A lot of people will assume there is nothing wrong about using that image. There is a lot of ignorance about copyright, especially on the Internet.
I think this is quite different than putting something online deliberately for sharing, like in rapidshare. Possibly 99% of rapidshare users (uploaders/downloaders) know very well they are doing something illegal.