pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is this legal?  (Read 8413 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 18, 2009, 18:37 »
0
Some sites like IS explicitly forbid the image use for logos.  Is this considered a logo?



Other examples here:
http://www.orkutfun.com/orkut-hindi-graphics/orkut-namaskaar-graphics.html


« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2009, 21:58 »
0
In this case, it's definetly not a logo. It is offered for private use at private websites.
In my opinion.

Bertold

« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2009, 07:58 »
0
I don't believe that it is a logo, but the site seems to be using the image in an improper manner.

Most licenses state that an image cannot be offered for redistribution, which is what this site seems to be doing.

They also seem to be giving the idea that the image is their creation.

Here are some statements from the website:

"Pimp your orkut & myspace profile with these great Namaskaar Graphics scraps glitter graphic codes."

"Copy and paste the code anywhere on your orkut / myspace profile or orkut / myspace comments! Even though it says it's for Orkut, you may use these on any personal blog."

« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2009, 10:07 »
0
I am a bit ignorant about what they consider a logo.  

I have the same sun image together with others making a colorful design at the header of a kindergarden website.  I assume that as a logo they would used in the school decoration, their stationery (letterhead), bulletins, mybe uniforms - usages I can't know if they are doing.  Just by having it as a header in their homepage, it isn't a logo, is it?

Likewise here, this design was done using my image, but it is not my image alone (therefore it is a derivative work).  It seems to me it is supposed to be used by members of an Orkut community - or is it general?  (Sorry, I have never used Orkut or MySpace, therefore my confusion.)

I wonder which site I could send this question to.  This image is not at IS, so I guess DT would be the choice.  They don't say that restriction in the terms of license, but it appears (sort of) in the FAQ.

Quote
May I use the images on business cards?
If the design of the business card is unique, meaning you don't sell the same design to different companies, you can use the images as long as the total number of cards (for all employees) doesn't exceed 500,000 copies. Note that the images cannot be used as part of a logo with any type of license that we provide, except for the SR-EL license (Sell the rights) which includes this usage.

PS: It's awful when we don't know who they purchased the image from....
« Last Edit: June 19, 2009, 10:10 by madelaide »

« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2009, 10:48 »
0
Most of the agencies don't allow an image to be redistributed:

The DT terms (http://www.dreamstime.com/terms) state the following:

"None of our images may be resold or redistributed by any means, or made available for redistribution or resale by a third party without Dreamstime's separate written consent."


"...you may not sell, license for use, or in any way distribute the image for reuse."

The FT terms (http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Agreements#3) state the following:

"... the Non-Exclusive Downloading Member acknowledges, agrees and warrants that he or she shall not...  allow a third party to download, extract or access the Image as a stand-alone file"

In my opinion, that is exactly what the site is doing.

« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2009, 11:16 »
0
It doesn't really look like a logo, but Geo is right. They are redistributing your artwork which is a big no-no. I might try contacting the person directly. Most times people don't realize what they're doing is wrong. Sometimes they do or they may not have even bought the file. Good Luck!

Also, I recognized the other illustration on the page as well. I'll have to find a link.

« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2009, 16:48 »
0
I will contact them.  I did not realize that this was distribution, I thought it was more something to be used by a group of friends.  Thank you.

PS: cthoman, I also saw that other cartoon sun in many places, including Photobucket.  In fact, those "logos" are hosted in Photobucket as well, although they are offered by orkutfun.com.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2009, 17:03 by madelaide »

« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2009, 20:39 »
0
I forgot to post about the site that is using the image as a logo, but apparently not a business logo, just a website header.  This is not considered a logo, right?

http://cms.upsalla.de/


« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2009, 08:23 »
0
sorry - I think I got the wrong thread...
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 21:12 by click_click »

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2009, 09:06 »
0
Some sites like IS explicitly forbid the image use for logos.  Is this considered a logo?



Other examples here:
http://www.orkutfun.com/orkut-hindi-graphics/orkut-namaskaar-graphics.html


Is the sun yours?
If so, I am not questioning the fact that they used your sun. 
What concerns me more is  the copyright they inserted. This makes it look like they are the copyright holder of this image, including your sun.
Is it legal for someone who buys the usage of your image , use it as a composite , montage or single,
add a few text, or logo,etc.. then paste a copyright . their copyright.
This new image now belong to that copyright?

« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2009, 12:57 »
0
Is it legal for someone who buys the usage of your image , use it as a composite , montage or single,
add a few text, or logo,etc.. then paste a copyright . their copyright.
This new image now belong to that copyright?

In a word, NO.

On most of the large stock sites, you own the copyright to your image no matter what.  The buyer is just purchasing a LICENSE to use the image.  They don't own the copyright nor can they claim copyright ownership.

This is similar to the way software is sold.  When someone buys Adobe Photoshop (or most other software products), they are only licensing the usage of the product.  They don't actually OWN the product.

But you need to be careful and make sure that you read the terms on any site that you contribute to.  Some sites will put in the terms that you are giving them the copyright when you submit an image to them.  There are also photo contests that do this.  So be careful and make sure that you read all of the "fine print".

« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2009, 13:34 »
0
I thought one could claim rights over the derivative work.  Not my sun, but that particular design made with my sun.

From IS:
"For clarity, you may not use the Content in products for resale, license or other distribution, unless (i) the proposed use is allowable under an Extended License which is available for the Content; or (ii) if the original Content has been fundamentally modified or transformed sufficiently that it constitutes an original work entitling the author or artist to copyright protection under applicable law, and where the primary value of such transformed or derivative work is not recognizable as the Content nor is the Content capable of being downloaded, extracted or accessed by a third party as a stand-alone file (satisfaction of these conditions will constitute the work as a Permitted Derivative Work for the purposes of this Agreement)."

Although it is subjective what it is "fundamentally modified or transformed".

« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2009, 14:12 »
0
am I the only one that sees a (VERY mild) Lucky Oliver watermark in the image? considering that watermark i'd say there's not much chance of it being legal.

« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2009, 14:31 »
0
You're right, B79!  So it is another instance of the stolen watermakred image from LO.  Oh, well.  I had a hope this was one of the legal buyers...  this is one of my best-sellers.

I have emailed them on Friday, saying they can not use the image that way and asking where they purchased it from.   ::)

This is one of the non-watermarked ones I found, it also has the Lucky Oliver on it (the L at left of the sun is the more visible):
http://youthffpc.googlepages.com/here2

Let's see what DT gets from these people.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 14:35 by madelaide »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2009, 14:50 »
0
You're right, B79!  So it is another instance of the stolen watermakred image from LO.  Oh, well.  I had a hope this was one of the legal buyers...  this is one of my best-sellers.

I have emailed them on Friday, saying they can not use the image that way and asking where they purchased it from.   ::)

This is one of the non-watermarked ones I found, it also has the Lucky Oliver on it (the L at left of the sun is the more visible):
http://youthffpc.googlepages.com/here2

Let's see what DT gets from these people.


I don't know about Lucky Oliver, but iStock always asks people not to contact the possible infringers themselves. By emailling them, you're alerting them and they might just take down the image. Mind you, iStock generally seem to just get the download money or issue a cease-and-desist as appropriate, they don't seem to take it further, but we - the 'public' - aren't told. (I'd think they'd be pleased to explain what they do, as reassurance to contributers and as a warning to possible future infringers.

« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2009, 15:02 »
0
Shady,

As I had not seen LO name on the photo and, unlike other images I found that were clearly from LO (discussed in another thread), I assumed it might be a legal buyer using it wrongly.  I could not ask one site complain with them if they had purchased it from another.

I have sent to DT the information about all other images with LO logo and those whose file names indicate they were an eidted version of the watermarked image, like the last one I've shown here. Although they said they would take it to their legal department, I don't know how far they will go on this issue, given that the images were not taken from them, although I sell it there too.

« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2009, 20:20 »
0
About another image, watermarked from IS, I wrote support and they contacted the infringent site (a site about stock market investments, by the way).  The site deleted the image.  This is the awful thing: people do something wrong, but they are not punished at all.  I don't see the advantage in contacting a site if this is the outcome.

Let's see what happens with the cases I sent to DT.


« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2009, 16:06 »
0
An update about this subject of copyright infringement after a few weeks. (I think it was on another thread, but I only found this)

I reported several instances of this cartoon sun to DT and they contacted the infractors - some or all, I can not know.  Some removed the image, some still have it (even with LO watermark).  I have just contacted these stubborn ones directly.  One is in MySpace and I keep getting an error when I try to post a copyright violation notice there (tried the form in FF and IE).  If someone can give me a link to the copyright violation report page at MySpace USA, I would appreciate (I can only access the BR site).

Another image reported to IS was also removed.  One reported to StockXpert (a BBC website!) was not removed yet.

Resulting sales - none.  One of the guys even prefered to use an ugly illustration he problably did himself (here).  It's sad that people get no punishment at all for copyright infringement, nor have the decency of at least removing the image.

I also reported two users at Flickr. One is the same infractor from MySpace, and his Flickr page has photos of many celebrities which are most certainly not his.

I have just reported two possible infractors to 123RF.  The images show no watermark, but they are the size of 123RF's thumbnails, and one is exactly the same size and with the same file name.  I also reported another watermarked image from StockXpert, now in a blog that must be from Croatia or somewhere near, given the language.

On the positive side, the Orkutfun website was apparently disabled, as the link reported here before is not working anymore. The logo is still at Photobucket and I will have to report it too. They are a big repository of copyrighted material...
« Last Edit: July 11, 2009, 16:08 by madelaide »

lisafx

« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2009, 16:24 »
0

I don't know about Lucky Oliver, but iStock always asks people not to contact the possible infringers themselves. By emailling them, you're alerting them and they might just take down the image. Mind you, iStock generally seem to just get the download money or issue a cease-and-desist as appropriate, they don't seem to take it further, but we - the 'public' - aren't told. (I'd think they'd be pleased to explain what they do, as reassurance to contributers and as a warning to possible future infringers.

From my experience istock doesn't do diddly about misuse of non-exclusive images, even when the user admits the images were bought from istock. 

When I found my image (purchased from istock, as the user admitted) being misused I contacted istock and they sent me a form letter telling me they would look into it.  That was months ago.  I have never heard back from them.

I had to pay for a lawyer to settle this for me.  I would never advise anyone who has had an istock image misused to wait for istock to do something about it.  Certainly not if they want the issue resolved.

« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2009, 17:10 »
0
Lisa,

IS had the image deleted from the infringing site, I can not complain.  I have read reports however of they not taking action in issues that do not affect them directly - money not cashed, that is.  Once they get the buyer's money, like in your case, and as long as the infringement is not in the license use (such as the buyer using the image for what should have been an EL, for instance) maybe then they don't bother at all.

I can not complain of DT either, as the reported image has not been stolen from them, but from LO, yet they tool action.

StockXpert however has been disappointing and I sent a second email.

But yes, it seems that there is no benefit from having the sites take action, except that maybe infractors may get more scared when a business, rather than an individual, contact them and perhaps threat them of taking this to court.

« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2009, 17:22 »
0
One thing to mention...  Just because an image is being used illegally or improperly on a web site, that doesn't necessarily mean that the people who own the site intentionally did wrongdoing...  Sadly, a lot of "web designers" steal images without the knowledge of their clients and use them.

The client only finds out later when they get a letter/message from the copyright owner or agency, and they do the right thing and immediately take it down.  In that case, the culprit you're after is the web designer, not the owner of the site.

lisafx

« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2009, 17:23 »
0
Very good outcomes Adelaide!  I am happy that both IS and DT dealt with your issue and resolved it :D

Maybe you are right and the nature of my issue was the reason they didn't want to be bothered in my case.  Could be that the "sensitive issues" area of the contract is too much of a murky gray area for them to bother with in the case of a non-exclusive.  

Too bad, though, because sensitive issues is the area where lots of us who shoot people feel most vulnerable and would most like our agents to provide aggressive protection.

« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2009, 18:32 »
0
One thing to mention...  Just because an image is being used illegally or improperly on a web site, that doesn't necessarily mean that the people who own the site intentionally did wrongdoing...  Sadly, a lot of "web designers" steal images without the knowledge of their clients and use them.

The client only finds out later when they get a letter/message from the copyright owner or agency, and they do the right thing and immediately take it down.  In that case, the culprit you're after is the web designer, not the owner of the site.

my daughter grabbed an image the other day for an assignment.  I was from an ad from a tourism site and I had to reference it. I pointed out that she had stolen the image, but its their tourism ad. But they dont own the image, the photographer owns the image, they bought a licence for them to use to it not for everyone else. Took a bit of explaining, and my kids a pretty aware of it all.  I could see exactly what you mean, people have no idea that are doing anything wrong.

« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2009, 18:44 »
0

my daughter grabbed an image the other day for an assignment.  I was from an ad from a tourism site and I had to reference it. I pointed out that she had stolen the image, but its their tourism ad. But they dont own the image, the photographer owns the image, they bought a licence for them to use to it not for everyone else. Took a bit of explaining, and my kids a pretty aware of it all.  I could see exactly what you mean, people have no idea that are doing anything wrong.

Great example Phil.  I used to work at an elementary school and one of the teachers there had been awarded with a Gov't GRANT for her work teaching Power Point to 3rd graders.  A big part of the curriculum she created was teaching these kids how to search for images and grab them to their computers to use in the presentations they made. 

This was a few years back.  Those kids are probably in high school or college and still grabbing pics from the web to use illegally.

Not that I am going to lose much sleep over what a bunch of third graders are doing, but it does bug me that their teacher got a fat government grant and was using it to teach kids how to steal images.

« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2009, 03:20 »
0
"Copy and paste the code anywhere on your orkut / myspace profile or orkut / myspace comments! Even though it says it's for Orkut, you may use these on any personal blog."

This quote is about a linked and embedded image which may or may not be classed as re-distrubution, as the physical image is not copied over but just rendered in real time in the browser, if it says copy and paste the code that is just linking to the image but it is not real re-distrubution, if it clearly had said "just download here" or "right mouse click and save picture as" then that would be illegal re-distrubution, if it is not part of a template which also requires a different licence, when the image is deleted from the server all links will die so it would not have been distributed!

Linking and embedding a licenced asset is a grey area due to RSS and other feeds, it is just like when members here link to an image for critque or finds and embeds a youtube video, it is not an action that could be called re-distribution as no actual physical asset is transferred and saved.

I have a family member that creates tags and scraps with Paintshop pro, she belongs to forums and groups and the users are very careful over copyright, as the sites will be taken down is anyone infringes. 

David  ;)
« Last Edit: July 12, 2009, 05:07 by Adeptris »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3729 Views
Last post January 13, 2009, 13:20
by stormchaser
19 Replies
6243 Views
Last post March 01, 2009, 16:26
by Adeptris
30 Replies
10517 Views
Last post January 07, 2010, 09:30
by LSD72
19 Replies
5894 Views
Last post March 02, 2010, 18:21
by cathyslife
29 Replies
8253 Views
Last post April 21, 2011, 17:09
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle