Here's the site I ran into while checking where my photos can be found (via images.google) http://pixers.pl/obrazy-i-plakaty/szukaj/biegacz . They have a ton of my stuff there and they certainly didn't buy ELs for all of them

My guess is: they're a Fotolia partner using their API.

It's from Fotolia - the file IDs are identical.

Shutterstock does not allow such uses as POD's or wallpapers as do the other sites.

It's all in the terms of use for each license.

There's an English version of the site if you go to the bottom of the page. They are not selling wallpapers (as in computer screens or mobile phones) but wall murals/posters -for peoples homes/offices etc. All my images there are correctly credited to me (it's Fotalia for sure btw). I'm guessing this would work on the basis that if somebody buys one of my images for their home, I get a payment at FT. There's actually quite an entertaining feature where if you click on one of your images it gets added to the room set photos at the top -so you can see how it would look on the wall. Well, I found it entertaining anyway -but I should probaly get out more  Regards, David. 

There was a lot of discussion about this sort of use a few years back when it first came up. I'm still not thrilled that the store doesn't have to buy any sort of license at all to show the images in their web store, but as far as notion that the print sellers are making hundreds or thousands, that's just not what's happening.

They charge for the print or wallpaper, but they have costs for paper, ink, amortizing whatever printing equipment they buy, staff and shipping in addition to the cost for the image. In theory, with this print on demand setup, if they sell a second print they must buy a second license, but I doubt the agency ever polices this.

If I recall, Fotolia's argument was that the purchaser of the print could buy a license to the image and then take that to get the wallpaper or print made, so why shouldn't it be OK for the shop to make the purchase on the buyer's behalf. There is certainly a logic to that you can't argue with given a royalty free license.

The "hundreds of $$$" that these partners are asking for are covering material, labor and other overhead plus profit to offer the products. I'm sure they are not becoming instant millionaires with this business.

but they have costs for paper, ink, amortizing whatever printing equipment they buy, staff and shipping in addition to the cost for the image.

How many here have ever worked in the retail industry?

I bet very few!

I worked in retail a long time ago - but what's your point? If you have some additional insight to offer, then please offer it. Otherwise, what does asking about our employment background do to shed any light on the issue?

Asking about background employment shows if you know and understand how retail works because most of all the long time photogs have never worked in the retail industry yet they try to justify the illegal use of their works by saying that the people selling their images dont make any money off of them when that is pure BS.

My Uncle and Cousin were in the Printing business (wholesale) that they owned and operated until my Uncle retired after some 40+ years of working as a printer and they could print anything there was for pennies in any size they wanted on any material the frames were where a little more cost comes in but not much at all especially when you have a framer lined up that works with you.

These people doing this do this to make money and do it quite well.

They buy their supplies at  the lowest cost to them that they can and no how much they need to run off in order to make their profit.

And once they have the file they paid for from Fotolia or whoever do you really think they will only run off one print? Comon get real!

I myself have been in retail all my life and they have one thing in mind and that is how to turn the most profit off of their merchandise that they can with the least expense being generated.

The thought of these people only making a small profit off of our work is why so many dont care about how their images are used or what they are sold for or as.

One of those image in that link is selling for a 30x20 for 84.21, the total cost of materials and expenses to produce the print is lucky if it runs them 20.00 the rest is pure profit.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on July 22, 2012, 16:50

The thought of these people only making a small profit off of our work is why so many dont care about how their images are used or what they are sold for or as.

I get what you're saying, but like the rest of us, you've chosen to market your images RF via microstock images.

Yes understood and that is why i only have 6 images over on Fotolia and should probably remove them all from there as well as dump quite a few other sites as well.

just got to this "store" and searched here in MSG to see if there was a topic and YAY, sad website and sad license terms from FT