Author Topic: how is it possible? Borrowed elements used in stock photos. (Read 34198 times)

fujiko · « **Reply #50 on:** December 29, 2012, 05:09 »

To me, this is very similar to when a buyer uses the image in a Zazzle or other third party POD service and it ends on a single issue that I think is time the agencies make a clear statement on the licenses and if an agency doesn't I suggest nobody uploads to it.

It's all about the right to re-license the license. Can a buyer re-license a license to a third party? Does the agency make it clear in the license that it's not allowed to re-license? There are some agencies whose license agreement is ambiguous and allows for re-license depending on the interpretation, and this is very bad for contributors.

If the answer from the agency is not clear, then it's a trouble agency. This business is all about licenses and if a buyer can re-license to third parties the contributors are doomed.

Defend your rights and don't upload to agencies with ambiguous license agreements that can be interpreted to allow room for this kind of usage and re-licensing. This issue is even more dangerous than royalty cuts, discounts or anything else.

Microbius · « **Reply #51 on:** December 29, 2012, 05:11 »

Quote from: fotografer on December 29, 2012, 04:50

Quote from: Microbius on December 29, 2012, 04:48
I caught someone selling a template on GR that was basically one of my vectors with a bit of text on top of it.
When I complained about it it turned out they could buy an EL from GR and do that. Of course I made sure I changed my settings to stop EL sales right away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Envato had equally dodgy ELs in place PhotoDune as they do on GR.
What is GR? Is it Graphic Leftovers?

Sorry, GraphicRiver Envato's site for selling vectors (the graphics equivalent of PhotoDune)

fotografer · « **Reply #52 on:** December 29, 2012, 05:16 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 29, 2012, 05:11

Quote from: fotografer on December 29, 2012, 04:50
Quote from: Microbius on December 29, 2012, 04:48
I caught someone selling a template on GR that was basically one of my vectors with a bit of text on top of it.
When I complained about it it turned out they could buy an EL from GR and do that. Of course I made sure I changed my settings to stop EL sales right away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Envato had equally dodgy ELs in place PhotoDune as they do on GR.
What is GR? Is it Graphic Leftovers?
Sorry, GraphicRiver Envato's site for selling vectors (the graphics equivalent of PhotoDune)

Of course, thanks. I just wondered if I needed to go in and disable ELs at Graphic Leftovers.

Microbius · « **Reply #53 on:** December 29, 2012, 05:27 »

No complaint about GraphicLeftovers. In fact they seem super switched on to protecting artist's work and copyright issues (check out some of their blog articles e.g. http://graphicleftovers.com/blog/fan-art-vs-copyright-infringement-legal/)

GraphicRiver on the other hand have been caught out selling templates featuring blatantly copyright infringing content many times, as well as having artists work featured in their news letters traced from photos they don't have the rights to. All in all a bit "confused" about all that copyright stuff.

So polar opposites really, shame they have similar names!

cidepix · « **Reply #54 on:** December 29, 2012, 05:55 »

Quote from: CD123 on December 29, 2012, 04:37

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:34
Quote from: CD123 on December 29, 2012, 04:21
Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:03
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..

they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..

this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..

Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?

I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime?
Are you refering to this statement "photodune's ELs kind of do".
Incorporating pictures into projects (like an advertisement) is not the same as selling the combined image, is it?

technically it's the same thing.. foreground is the main image, background only contributes to the "larger" photo as envato words it..

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #55 on:** December 29, 2012, 08:11 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:34

Quote from: CD123 on December 29, 2012, 04:21
Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:03
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..

they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..

this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..

Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?

I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime?

No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.

cidepix · « **Reply #56 on:** December 29, 2012, 08:34 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 29, 2012, 08:11

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:34
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime?

No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.

yeah right

then explain these:
http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy

http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy

See the "photo is included" line.. he claims to have purchased the EL so he can sell the brochure with the photo in it.. which of them are more prominent? the blurred backgrounds mentioned in this thread, or the girl image in these brochures?

Microbius · « **Reply #57 on:** December 29, 2012, 08:37 »

Have a read of this:
http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/375/70/extended-license-usage-examples

"Licensing: Extended License Usage Examples
.....
The following examples are acceptable uses of files "purchased" (i.e. licensed) using the Extended License:
….....
Here are some more examples, using the three categories of permitted uses in paragraph (c) of the extended license.

You may license, sublicense, sell, resell, or redistribute the Work or offer to do any of these things (together referred to Resale) in the following circumstances:

(i) the Work is incorporated into a larger work you have created.
…......
Using individual graphical elements as a piece of a larger project:......

(iii) you use the Work alone as a Limited Re-Purposing, but only if: (A) you first obtain the permission of the author of the Work (by contacting the author through the marketplace contact system); and (B) the Resale of the second work is only made on an Envato marketplace. A Limited Re-Purposing means that you use the Work alone and modify it for Re-sale as a tool, template, or stock item, or with source files.
…..."

Tell me that if the license doesn't allow it, it doesn't at least open things up for misreading the terms!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #58 on:** December 29, 2012, 09:02 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 08:34

Quote from: sjlocke on December 29, 2012, 08:11
Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:34
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime?

No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.

yeah right

then explain these:
http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy

http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy

See the "photo is included" line.. he claims to have purchased the EL so he can sell the brochure with the photo in it.. which of them are more prominent? the blurred backgrounds mentioned in this thread, or the girl image in these brochures?

Templates are allowed under a license for resale of electronic items. That is not the same as being able to license something as stock, yourself.

fotografer · « **Reply #59 on:** December 29, 2012, 09:04 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 08:34

Quote from: sjlocke on December 29, 2012, 08:11
Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:34
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime?

No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.

yeah right

then explain these:
http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy

http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy

See the "photo is included" line.. he claims to have purchased the EL so he can sell the brochure with the photo in it.. which of them are more prominent? the blurred backgrounds mentioned in this thread, or the girl image in these brochures?

That's not the same thing at all. One thing is selling a stock image and the other a product that uses a stock image-
ETA oops Sean beat me to it.

cidepix · « **Reply #60 on:** December 29, 2012, 09:25 »

I know the difference.. for me it is technically and ethically the same thing as I mentioned before.. the templates actually violate copyright more imo because:

1- the image can be extracted from the layers of the template
2- they both collect royalties
3- template stock is no different from photo stock imo.. it just feels as wrong as the subject of this thread to me..

Quote from: sjlocke on December 29, 2012, 09:02

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 08:34
Quote from: sjlocke on December 29, 2012, 08:11
Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:34
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime?

No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.

yeah right

then explain these:
http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy

http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy

See the "photo is included" line.. he claims to have purchased the EL so he can sell the brochure with the photo in it.. which of them are more prominent? the blurred backgrounds mentioned in this thread, or the girl image in these brochures?

Templates are allowed under a license for resale of electronic items. That is not the same as being able to license something as stock, yourself.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #61 on:** December 29, 2012, 10:03 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 09:25

I know the difference.. for me it is technically and ethically the same thing as I mentioned before.. the templates actually violate copyright more imo because:

1- the image can be extracted from the layers of the template
2- they both collect royalties
3- template stock is no different from photo stock imo.. it just feels as wrong as the subject of this thread to me..

It isn't technically (or ethically?) the same thing.

1. Which has nothing to do with the rights granted by the license for the template and for the stock image.
2. Uh, yes, when you sell a product that uses elements you have been granted (paid for) the rights for, you do get paid.
3. template stock allows you to use the content as a product - a brochure, a website, etc. So, it is different.

Maui · « **Reply #62 on:** December 29, 2012, 11:12 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 29, 2012, 08:37

Have a read of this:
http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/375/70/extended-license-usage-examples

"Licensing: Extended License Usage Examples
.....
The following examples are acceptable uses of files "purchased" (i.e. licensed) using the Extended License:
….....
Here are some more examples, using the three categories of permitted uses in paragraph (c) of the extended license.

You may license, sublicense, sell, resell, or redistribute the Work or offer to do any of these things (together referred to Resale) in the following circumstances:

(i) the Work is incorporated into a larger work you have created.

The last sentence clearly allows that photos may be incorporated as backgrounds in a larger work.

Microbius · « **Reply #63 on:** December 29, 2012, 11:21 »

Yes it is very ambiguous and open to abuse, "larger work" could mean a composite photo.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #64 on:** December 29, 2012, 11:45 »

No, it's pretty clear that "larger work" means part of something bigger than what itself was, from the examples. A slider into a video player or whatever.

In fact, one of the terms specifically mentions stock, and manipulation of images, and that is this:
"(iii) you use the Work alone as a Limited Re-Purposing, but only if: (A) you first obtain the permission of the author of the Work (by contacting the author through the marketplace contact system); and (B) the Resale of the second work is only made on an Envato marketplace. A Limited Re-Purposing means that you use the Work alone and modify it for Re-sale as a tool, template, or stock item, or with source files.

Converting one item to another of the same or similar type:
Converting an HTML template to a WordPress theme.
Converting a WordPress theme to a Drupal theme.
Converting a photo to an isolated object.
Converting a Flash photo gallery into a Javascript photo gallery.
Changing the color, font, positioning, or size of the original item."

fujiko · « **Reply #65 on:** December 29, 2012, 11:51 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 29, 2012, 08:37

Have a read of this:
http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/375/70/extended-license-usage-examples

"Licensing: Extended License Usage Examples
.....
The following examples are acceptable uses of files "purchased" (i.e. licensed) using the Extended License:
….....
Here are some more examples, using the three categories of permitted uses in paragraph (c) of the extended license.

You may license, sublicense, sell, resell, or redistribute the Work or offer to do any of these things (together referred to Resale) in the following circumstances:

(i) the Work is incorporated into a larger work you have created.
…......
Using individual graphical elements as a piece of a larger project:......

(iii) you use the Work alone as a Limited Re-Purposing, but only if: (A) you first obtain the permission of the author of the Work (by contacting the author through the marketplace contact system); and (B) the Resale of the second work is only made on an Envato marketplace. A Limited Re-Purposing means that you use the Work alone and modify it for Re-sale as a tool, template, or stock item, or with source files.
…..."

Tell me that if the license doesn't allow it, it doesn't at least open things up for misreading the terms!

WOW!
I never thought I would read a license like this one. Some time ago I was wondering about joining envato, now I am sure I'll never join if the license allows this kind of broad rights to sublicensing and redistribution.

I can't understand how anyone would allow their content to be licensed this way. Anyone who does is selling licenses to the competition.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #66 on:** December 29, 2012, 12:06 »

It doesn't. It's the same as most any other Electronic Items for Resale EL.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #67 on:** December 29, 2012, 12:29 »

I don't mind there being licenses that grant extensive rights, but I do believe the price should be higher the more rights are granted.

If someone wanted to create an extended license to permit backgrounds, I might consider it if I were a photographer who couldn't do composites to save her life. As I can, and I use my own photos the way this person uses other people's, I wouldn't want to.

The big problem with Envato's EL is the price is ridiculous. A secondary problem is that they don't seem to be very eager - they've had to be pushed - to enforce copyright when it's sellers on their own other marketplaces that are the violators. I think that's because the bulk of their money comes from those guys, not PhotoDune.

But back to the main point. When we upload to reputable sites, they require us to state that we own the copyright to what we upload. Even if Envato allows people to sell things that include other people's work, it doesn't allow them to claim copyright for it when it includes someone else's copyrighted work.

So I think the lousy Envato EL is a red herring - even if that's where this guy bought the backgrounds, he can't claim copyright to the result so his port should come down from FT, SS and anywhere else he's uploaded the work.

I think this scale of violation probably deserves a total ban rather than removal of the offending works and a promise to do better next time

fujiko · « **Reply #68 on:** December 29, 2012, 12:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 29, 2012, 12:06

It doesn't. It's the same as most any other Electronic Items for Resale EL.

It allows sublicensing, shutterstock EL and istock EL don't allow sublicensing.

Maybe I am too restrictive in my interpretation and I am just fighting a lost cause. I believe there is a huge difference between being able to sell a product made with EL content and being able to sublicense the product to third parties and grant them additional licensing and sublicensing rights on the EL content which can result in additional licenses granted to buyers and even more licenses if a buyer gets an EL on the derived work. It just makes no sense to me to allow sublicensing on EL.

OM · « **Reply #69 on:** December 30, 2012, 19:16 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 27, 2012, 07:53

Quote from: stockmarketer on December 27, 2012, 07:37
Wow, look at his stuff on Fotolia. It's all based on 3-credit pricing. He must sell a LOT there as well.

If he wasn't such a thief, I would actually feel sorry for this guy. He seems to have good skills, and he clearly makes a lot of money in microstock, and if justice is served, his whole world is about to come crashing down.

I wonder if he supports a family from this income. He's about to lose it all. Very sad. I'm very curious to see how this plays out.

How did he get 3-credit pricing on FT? He's only at Silver rank. I wonder if he's tried to claim that those images are exclusive to FT (which they are not).

He thinks he's clever. His 'exclusivity' at FT, allowing him to charge 3 credits, appears to be based on similar but not identical shots to SS, Dreamstime etc. All the bread shots on FT have a different mill background to those on SS....OP's first post has Greek windmills whereas at FT he has Dutch ones (@Kinderdijk). Uses a different name too. Very well spotted Vitamine.

vtaeed · « **Reply #70 on:** December 31, 2012, 00:46 »

Hello all. It's Vahid here from the Envato marketplaces and I wanted to respond to your questions about the PhotoDune extended license terms.

Our extended licenses do allow the buyer to incorporate a PhotoDune item into a larger electronic item that they'll be selling, but as explained in our Knowledge Base, it needs to be of a larger scope and different nature to the photo. Thanks, sjlocke and fotografer for pointing this out. As like other microstock agencies which have a type of extended license allowing use of an item in electronic items for sale, the buyer can use a PhotoDune item under the EL in a larger digital project. Because the second project needs to be different in nature, the chain of potential use in items for re-sale (ie stock) ends very quickly and can't go on infinitely. Furthermore, buyers should not extract the work and use it stand alone.

The examples posted by the OP would be considered a limited repurposing under our extended licenses, which requires the consent of the original author.

To be clear, a buyer can never claim copyright in the item they've licensed. Also, the references to 'sub-licensing' in our licenses are only in the context of the use in a larger project or in a 'limited repurposing' (with the first author's consent).

We're tackling the project of improving our licensing in phases to make it more manageable. We know that our licenses aren't easy to understand and we're soon going to re-launch our licenses with new wording and FAQs. We've also taken on the feedback from many photographers that on the point of their work being used in larger projects for re-sale, pricing is their main concern. We recognise that there are different types of uses under the extended license, and that a 'one price fits all uses' approach to our extended licenses isn't optimal for authors and buyers alike. Although our upcoming wording changes won't address this particular feedback, we're going to consider whether and how to tackle this in future phases.

I hope this clarifies this and let me know what other feedback you have.

vtaeed · « **Reply #71 on:** December 31, 2012, 01:06 »

Forgot to say a big Happy New Year to everyone on MSG! :-)

cidepix · « **Reply #72 on:** December 31, 2012, 09:51 »

Quote from: vtaeed on December 31, 2012, 01:06

Forgot to say a big Happy New Year to everyone on MSG! :-)

Thanks Vahid..

I have criticized envato for many things this past year including:

- your vector pricing
- graphicriver's abysmally slow upload process which is only rivalled by istockphoto
- your EL licensing terms and pricing as well as complicated wording of some sections

BUT; there is one thing I can't praise enough about envato: It is your willingness to listen to feedback and make neccessary adjustments. This is a great trait the owners have and it can not be bought with money..

I sometimes so blatantly criticize you guys.. Most of the times, you don't deserve responses as harsh. I confess that I do that on purpose, because I know it's worth my time and I trust someone at envato will be reading and as a result "will at least" consider improvements..

Apart from the issues I listed above, graphicriver is a great marketplace in my opinion and once those issues are sorted, it has the potential to be a flawless site..

Thanks again for dropping by and happy new year to you as well..

THP Creative · « **Reply #73 on:** December 31, 2012, 20:44 »

Thanks for chiming in on this vtaeed, great to often see Envato admins dropping by MSG.

sharpshot · « **Reply #74 on:** January 01, 2013, 06:55 »

I did opt in to Photodune EL's for the past few months, just to see if I would get any. I didn't get any and have opted out again. I don't understand how SS can outsell every site so much with EL's at a reasonable price? All the other sites are losing money on this. Buyers are obviously willing to pay $100 for an EL but only one site is doing it properly.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: how is it possible? Borrowed elements used in stock photos. (Read 34198 times)

fujiko

Microbius

fotografer

Microbius

cidepix

Sean Locke Photography

cidepix

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

fotografer

cidepix

Sean Locke Photography

Maui

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

fujiko

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

fujiko

OM

vtaeed

vtaeed

cidepix

THP Creative

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors