Author Topic: I just saw my image on tv ... (Read 6347 times)

Wisent · « **on:** April 21, 2008, 14:46 »

Hi,

It is being used in a book(full page) about a very popular tv show about dogs on one of the most popular channels in Belgium. The commercial showed a few pages of the book and one of them had my image on it.

I was very excited at first but then realised that the image has never been sold under the extended license.
I'm pretty sure this isn't legal but wanted your opinions before I start raising hell.

Any idea on how I should handle this?

Thanks,

Tommy

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-8604121-cute-puppy-looking-straight-into-the-camera.html

bittersweet · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2008, 15:09 »

What makes you think that this is not an allowed usage? I believe most royalty free licenses allow for usage in advertisements and editorial, up to a specified print run for some things, but not for others. You should look over the Shutterstock license before "raising hell".

Unless it is an item specifically being sold solely because of your lone image, it probably would not be considered a resold item. (I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "book") Again, your best bet is to closely review the license before doing anything.

Wisent · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2008, 15:16 »

I read the shutterstock license and as far as I understand it this isn't allowed under the standard license.

You can use an image up to 250.000 copies for promotional items, not for items that are for sale. But I could be wrong on this.

And your right, I don't won't to raise hell untill I am sure. That's why I wanted some other peoples opinions.

Thanks

Pixart · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2008, 15:31 »

Is the photo only for sale on SS? Or did they perhaps get it at BigStock?

My first book cover is coming out in the next few days and they purchased it at BigStock last fall. At BigStock, a customer has to pay more to put it on a coffee mug than on a book cover, because apparently the words are the main subject, and the photo means nothing on a book cover. Go figure. I believe that all the other sites it would have been an enhanced/extended sale.

I considered closing my account at BS over this. I don't think it's right. (Oh, the macro boys despise us for this kind of deal).

I was the recipient of a whopping $1. To make matters worse, it is a controversial subject (serial killers) and they asked me to sign a release. It cost me almost $2.00 to mail them a signature. (Misplaced my first 90 cent stamp!)

But, I'll still post in tear sheets when it's released to public!

leaf · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2008, 15:34 »

if the picture is just part of the content of the book to illustrate something then I am pretty sure it is within a regular license.

If it is a photo book where the buyer is buying the images and not the wording content then I believe an extended license is needed.

bittersweet · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2008, 15:40 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 21, 2008, 15:31

At BigStock, a customer has to pay more to put it on a coffee mug than on a book cover, because apparently the words are the main subject, and the photo means nothing on a book cover. Go figure. I believe that all the other sites it would have been an enhanced/extended sale.

Right. Most people don't buy a book to read solely because of its cover.

You might be surprised at "all the other sites". I can't speak for the others, but I know for a fact that at istock, usage on a book cover does not constitute an extended license (provided it does not exceed the maximum print run).

Good luck with whatever action you decide to take.

madelaide · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2008, 15:41 »

If you're exclusive, the agency may do the work for you. If not, I suppose things are much harder. First you have to find from where the person purchased your image. I suggest a gentle approach emailing the editor, questioning from where the image was purchased, maybe suggesting there must have been a mistake.

Leaf,

Reading DT's terms (not SS's): "If you use the images for printed materials, the number of copies must not exceed 500,000. " It doesn't seem this is limited to resale items.

Regards,
Adelaide

Wisent · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2008, 15:51 »

No, I don't have this image on BS. It is for sale at a couple others sites but as I stated before the TOS doesn't seem to allow this type of use on any of the sites under the standard lisence.

The image is used full page with only a little bit of text in the lower right corner. Its a book about how to choose which breed of dog to buy and how to raise it. I would have no problem with it if the image was used in a smaller size and with more text, but right know the image seems to be the main focus.

So no it is not an actual photo book, but the photo is a very important part of it.

I would show you the page but the only place to view it is on tv for about 0.5sec

This just doesn't feel right. If only 5% of the people who watch the show buy the book they will have made 1million euros(minus costs offcourse). My cut is 20cents for a full page spread.

I'm pretty sure it was bought through SS. I'll contact them and see how they feel about it. If I get an answer that is.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2008, 17:31 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 21, 2008, 15:31

My first book cover is coming out in the next few days and they purchased it at BigStock last fall. At BigStock, a customer has to pay more to put it on a coffee mug than on a book cover, because apparently the words are the main subject, and the photo means nothing on a book cover. Go figure. I believe that all the other sites it would have been an enhanced/extended sale.

italics in quote are mine.....

First off Pixart, Congrats on the cover!!! That is very cool!! Feels great, doesn't it? You go!!!

Second, [read with extreme sarcasm in your voice ] the words are the main subject??? the cover photo means nothing?

? Who's saying this that is obviously not from this planet??
What's the first thing that attracts one to a magazine or a book in the bookstore??? The cover art!! Give me a break!!!!!!! If the stinken cover photo/art isn't important, than why don't all books in Barnes and Nobles just have words on them saying "THIS IS A BOOK ABOUT DOGS"

. or maybe "DEPRESSED? READ THIS INSIDE", or "HOW-TO BUILDER'S GUIDE, WOOD CARVINGS (words only)" or better still, "HOPE YOU CAN READ, PICTURES AREN'T IMPORTANT, SO THERE AIN'T ANY IN HERE!"

I don't suffer that thinking with my publisher. They pay handsomely for six to a dozen pix in an article, ..they pay more if they want to use one on the cover. I've only been getting published for a little over a year now, but....... I never heard such thinking.

If there are others of you who are published in mags and books, what type of deal are you getting? Do I just have a generous publisher/editor/art director???

This just doesn't sound right, Pixart!!

=tom

madelaide · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2008, 20:48 »

Quote from: Wisent on April 21, 2008, 15:51

This just doesn't feel right. If only 5% of the people who watch the show buy the book they will have made 1million euros(minus costs offcourse). My cut is 20cents for a full page spread.

This is the downside of microstock. I once sold an image for a book, 1/4th page, US$60, but that was on RM license.

Regards,
Adelaide

yingyang0 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2008, 23:37 »

Quote from: Wisent on April 21, 2008, 15:16

I read the shutterstock license and as far as I understand it this isn't allowed under the standard license.

You can use an image up to 250.000 copies for promotional items, not for items that are for sale. But I could be wrong on this.

And your right, I don't won't to raise hell untill I am sure. That's why I wanted some other peoples opinions.

Thanks

You are wrong on this. Usage in a printed book is the common feature that is allowed in all standard licenses in microstock (at least the ones I've read). A book is not considered a promotional item. A promotional item is a promotional item (coffee mugs, mouse pads, keychains, etc.), i.e. the cheap stuff they give away to employees and people at trade shows.

If it was from SS then it would be covered in the standard license. The only difference between the extended license and the standard license at SS is the number of prints allowed (250K for standard, unlimited for extended). Actually the SS license allows for more uses than most of the other sites.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2008, 23:51 »

Quote from: Wisent on April 21, 2008, 15:51

No, I don't have this image on BS. It is for sale at a couple others sites but as I stated before the TOS doesn't seem to allow this type of use on any of the sites under the standard lisence.

This just doesn't feel right. If only 5% of the people who watch the show buy the book they will have made 1million euros(minus costs offcourse). My cut is 20cents for a full page spread.

As Madelaide said, that's microstock for you. Read the allowable uses more closely in SS's standard license.

"l)As part of editorial or advertising copy in magazines, newspapers, books, book covers, textbooks, editorials and directories provided that the print or manufacturing run(s) of such magazines, newspapers, books , book covers, textbooks, editorials and directories does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) copies in the aggregate;"

leaf · « **Reply #12 on:** April 22, 2008, 01:34 »

Quote from: Wisent on April 21, 2008, 15:51

This just doesn't feel right. If only 5% of the people who watch the show buy the book they will have made 1million euros(minus costs offcourse). My cut is 20cents for a full page spread.

Yep, as the others said, welcome to microstock

Would you feel better if the image was plastered on a 40 foot billboard on a nation wide advertising scheme

With microstock you can't look at the individual sale and say... wow.. no way - that is not worth it... because quite frankly it is NOT worth it when you look at it like that. You have to take all the images and average out all you have made and then ask.. was it worth it.

fotografer · « **Reply #13 on:** April 22, 2008, 01:48 »

Quote from: leaf on April 22, 2008, 01:34

With microstock you can't look at the individual sale and say... wow.. no way - that is not worth it... because quite frankly it is NOT worth it when you look at it like that. You have to take all the images and average out all you have made and then ask.. was it worth it.

Exactly it seems a lot more worthwhile if we think about how much we make on each photographic session rather than individual dls of one of the images.
If we don't like this sort of thing then we shouldn't be selling our images on microstock sites. Personally I get such a buzz out of seeing my images in print that it more than makes up for the low earnings on that particular download.

Wisent · « **Reply #14 on:** April 22, 2008, 02:58 »

Thanks for the explination Yingyang0. I understand it now.

I know microstock is a numbers game and you can't look at an individual sale but it still stings a bit. I guess its best just not to think about it to much. Microstock is still my passion and I will be going fulltime in three months. I just signed a contract to rent a 250m2 studio space.

Thanks everyone to take the time to help me out.

leaf · « **Reply #15 on:** April 22, 2008, 03:24 »

Quote from: Wisent on April 22, 2008, 02:58

I just signed a contract to rent a 250m2 studio space.

Wow! sounds great.

CCK · « **Reply #16 on:** April 22, 2008, 04:05 »

I saw one of my photos in a magazine 3 weeks ago, stating that the photo was bought from iStockphoto. I got something like $2 for the sale and immediately checked the iStock conditions of sale - the way I understand it, its legal as long as they don't distribute more than 250,000 copies of the magazine.

grp_photo · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2008, 03:05 »

Quote from: Wisent on April 22, 2008, 02:58

I just signed a contract to rent a 250m2 studio space.

Wow! But you don't need a 250m2 Studio for Microstock. If i read your post right you are from Belgium so the rent can't be too cheap. What other plans you have beside Microstock?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I just saw my image on tv ... (Read 6347 times)

Wisent

bittersweet

Wisent

Pixart

leaf

bittersweet

madelaide

Wisent

a.k.a.-tom

madelaide

yingyang0

yingyang0

leaf

fotografer

Wisent

leaf

CCK

grp_photo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors