Hi,

I found one of my images was used in a blog and also used as a images composite for the blog banner.

I tried to save the images and checked the iptc data, there is nothing there to indicate where it is downloaded.

Are buyers from stock agencies are allowed to strip off the info?

If buyers are supposed to keep the info in the file, i will send a mail to the blog owner.

I think using as a blog banner need an extended license right?

I think using as a blog banner need an extended license right?

Wrong

Hi,
I found one of my images was used in a blog and also used as a images composite for the blog banner.
I tried to save the images and checked the iptc data, there is nothing there to indicate where it is downloaded.
Are buyers from stock agencies are allowed to strip off the info?
If buyers are supposed to keep the info in the file, i will send a mail to the blog owner.
I think using as a blog banner need an extended license right?

There is certainly no requirement from iStock that they must keep the iptc data. I have no idea about other sites. I've also read that some agencies strip all that data before it goes on sale their site, but I can't confirm that.
No EL needed for an blog banner from iStock. H*ck, you don't even need an EL for a book cover unless it's a print run of over 1/2 million. Again, YOU need to check the licence regulations on the site/s you sell it on.

It can be difficult to know whether a file has been legally purchased, but if you start questioning them and they have legally bought it, they will be hacked off. How would you feel if someone came into your house and asked you for proof that you bought your table.

Sometimes it is obvious, but then you really know.

Slainte
Liz

i think in alamy, the buyers should not alter the iptc data in the images, that includes file number..alamy info and copyrighted.

i found that images without any info..so it seems there is nothing i can do.

sometimes the images will be available without watermark..so it seems people can just download and reuse it?

If one person has legally bought your file and put it on their website, other people can and do lift them and use them on their own sites.

In two instances, I found the same image on two different private blogs citing the site they'd got the picture from (which had probably bought the pic). That was very obvious that they hadn't bought it, and both aplogised and removed my pic in a very short time. Another I found was on a kid's site of 'awesome photos of nature', and it was obvious he hadn't bought it because his caption was something like, "I've no idea where this is, but it's wayyy cool" and my description on iStock gives the exact location. I didn't really object to his usage, but of course others could steal it from there, though as he'd either upsized it or something it was horribly artifacty, even for Joe Public.
If you use GIS, you'll go mad finding usages, and trying to work out which are legitimate and which aren't. Now I just contact CR if it's really obvious or if it's an editorial being used commercially. It can take weeks or months to get it sorted out via CR.
If you sell the same image from multiple sites, you have the added problem of knowing which site sold the image in the first place (unless you find it with the site's watermark). Note that even if watermarked it might be a 'genuine mistake', i.e. the designer has comped a design and uploaded it for approval but hasn't made the page private, or they forgot to switch in the bought image (apparently that has happened in the past.)

here is a posting about micro's stripping out the metadata.

http://blog.picniche.com/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/

I do agree that copyright info should be saved. If unaltered (slightly altered?) images are put on the web they should contain our copyright info along with a unique code showing that the image was purchased legally so we could all go after people using images illegally.  

This would be very nice.  As it stands now, there's no way to tell.  

@ the OP: There's an innate element of risk in selling RF through the micros.  It's not for everyone.  Once you decide to do it, you just have to accept you will not always know where an image is bought, nor where every bought image will be used.

I agree with Liz - writing and challenging people when you find your image in use (unless it's clearly misused or stolen) is a good way to lose buyers.

this is from alamy license agreement, i will assume it means the info in the files are not allowed to be removed..even with their watermark copy, the detailed info is there.


Copyright issues

No ownership or copyright in any Image shall pass to you by the issue of the Licence. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, if any Image is reproduced by you for editorial purposes (i.e., for any non-promotional purpose) you must include the credit line "(Photographer�s or Agency�s name)/Alamy", or any other credit line specified by Alamy. If a credit line is omitted then an additional fee equal to thirty percent (30%) of the original amount invoiced attributable to the Image in question shall be payable by you.

Alamy�s copyright notice and image identification reference which appear in the Image file must remain with your digital copy of the Image at all times. You will retain the copyright notice, the name of Alamy and the respective artist, the respective RF Image reference and any other information or metadata that is embedded in the electronic file that comprises any Image which you have downloaded from the Website or otherwise received from Alamy. Failure to maintain the integrity of the copyright information will constitute a breach of this Agreement.

Quote from: mtkang on October 20, 2011, 09:56

i think in alamy, the buyers should not alter the iptc data in the images, that includes file number..alamy info and copyrighted.

i found that images without any info..so it seems there is nothing i can do.

sometimes the images will be available without watermark..so it seems people can just download and reuse it?

Is that just for altering or changing the data? For instance, they don't want you putting your name into the copyright line. I can't imagine them actually requiring you to keep the data. It just doesn't seem feasible. What if you make a collage with several artists? Whose data do you use?

I also didn't realize that you knew exactly where the file was purchased from. In that case yes, if it breaches the relevant license agreement get in touch with the agency.

The alamy license requires a credit if the image is used for editorial purposes. If someone puts your image with other material into the blog banner, that's not editorial - it's essentially promo or decoration for the blog.

About the only thing that would be a no-no is someone claiming copyright in the derivative work made from (in part) your image. Otherwise, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I do agree that copyright info should be saved. If unaltered (slightly altered?) images are put on the web they should contain our copyright info along with a unique code showing that the image was purchased legally so we could all go after people using images illegally. 

Many of the suspected bogus uses I have found from my limited image searches it looks like a whole bunch of people ripped off one other web page. (this is based on repeated odd cropping). I suppose you could track that down if there were embedded codes in it, but you would want to be able to go after all but the original buyer.


The other large source of likely bogus uses I have seen are ones with the watermark or a poorly photoshop-removed watermark. Those are pretty easy to tell where it came from if you can read the watermark.

For a popular image selling on multiple sites, you have to assume that it is a legitimate use even if it might not be.