MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lots of travel images in high resolution (2048px) on Facebook  (Read 7064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 16, 2013, 19:39 »
+1
Hello folks,

I have found an image of mine being shared on Facebook in high resolution (2048px) by a travel agency https://www.facebook.com/ruefa

They have lots of high-quality high-resolution travel images being shared by hundreds of Facebook users. The images seem to have been bought legitimately by them, but they seem to not know or neglect the fact that they are not allowed to post images in this resolution on the web.

You might want to check if your images are affected too (if you bother at all)..


« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2013, 19:54 »
0
That is a big issue...naive buyers. Did you contact them?

« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2013, 05:25 »
0
Yes, I contacted them yesterday. Still waiting for an answer...
It might be helpful if more contributors would contact them. So if anybody's images are affected, please don't hesitate to contact that travel agency.  ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2013, 05:27 »
0
Yes, I contacted them yesterday. Still waiting for an answer...
It might be helpful if more contributors would contact them. So if anybody's images are affected, please don't hesitate to contact that travel agency.  ;)
Or, if you know the agency concerned, contact them first. Some agencies don't like direct contact with buyers.

« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2013, 05:51 »
0
Yes, I contacted them yesterday. Still waiting for an answer...
It might be helpful if more contributors would contact them. So if anybody's images are affected, please don't hesitate to contact that travel agency.  ;)
Or, if you know the agency concerned, contact them first. Some agencies don't like direct contact with buyers.
Unfortunately I don't know what agency they got my image from. It has been sold on SS, FT, DT, IS and some small ones. I think I will contact SS regarding this matter if I don't get any answer from the travel agency in the next days.

Poncke

« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2013, 12:14 »
0
The agency needs prove they bought of them.

« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2013, 20:16 »
+1
Today I got a long and VERY friendly reply from a representative of the travel agency.

It turns out they got the images from Thinkstock (in my case via IS). They double checked with Thinkstock whether a Facebook usage is allowed, and apparently Thinkstock was the only agency they could find, that was fine with images being shared on Facebook.

Regarding the maximum web usage size: I checked the Thinkstock license information http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/legal/license-information-details , but I wasn't able to find any info about the max web resolution. So now I'm not sure whether Thinkstock really allows a web usage in any resolution or whether the Istock rules apply (whatever they are.. I didn't check yet).

« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2013, 22:21 »
0
I'm curious, if Thibkstock does allow without resolution restrictions then I'll be I subscribing to the partner program...I only make pennies each time they are sold there anyway. I would think though that it isn't allowed at full resolution.

« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2013, 22:27 »
0
 :(
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 22:34 by dingles »

« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2013, 06:52 »
0
Today I got a long and VERY friendly reply from a representative of the travel agency.

It turns out they got the images from Thinkstock (in my case via IS). They double checked with Thinkstock whether a Facebook usage is allowed, and apparently Thinkstock was the only agency they could find, that was fine with images being shared on Facebook.

Regarding the maximum web usage size: I checked the Thinkstock license information http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/legal/license-information-details , but I wasn't able to find any info about the max web resolution. So now I'm not sure whether Thinkstock really allows a web usage in any resolution or whether the Istock rules apply (whatever they are.. I didn't check yet).


Another unbelievable stab in the back from Getty/IS. 

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2013, 07:06 »
0
I wonder how many buyers read the legalese or even absorb it. I notice it was revised last month - do they post the revisions to buyers?
There's still the unpoliceable rule that a buyer can only use a file while their subscription is active (though earlier uses can remain).
Licensee may not download more than the permitted number of downloads of Licensed Material authorised under the subscription plan purchased by Licensee. Licensee shall not stockpile, download or otherwise store Licensed Material not used during the Term for future use.
Relevant to the OP, I also couldn't find a size rule, but:
3.3 Licensee may not: ... (ii) make the Licensed Material available in a manner intended to allow or invite a third party to download, extract, redistribute or access the Licensed Material as a standalone file.. I'd say having them on a FB gallery which has no purpose other than to invite people to share the image and freely allows saving the photo out is breaching that rule.
I further notice that there is no link from an individual image page on TS to licensing information.
If I were you, I'd seek clarification from iS's CR, which will no doubt depend on which rep gets your ticket.

Added: As well as TS's T&C, FB's are also relevant, particularly:
Sharing Your Content and Information

2. You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

  • 1.   For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.[/i]

As they have not set any privacy settings, they have granted FB the above rights, which they have no right to do.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 08:35 by ShadySue »

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2013, 10:12 »
0
Glad you found something ShadySue. I looked and thought, where the heck does that license grant permission to use the images on a public site. (which also may include people downloading from that site)

I still don't see that right? Your point is the same.

Maybe someone else can understand how the license allows some person who downloaded the image, to re-use and redictribute it via Facebook. I can understand they can use it on their website and for promotion. But not re-distribution.

Or going back to the start, are they actually offering these as downloads. I didn't understand that part either? Sharing as part of a site, is not the same as offering for redistribution. Can someone sort this out?


ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2013, 10:31 »
0
Glad you found something ShadySue. I looked and thought, where the heck does that license grant permission to use the images on a public site. (which also may include people downloading from that site)
I still don't see that right? Your point is the same.

Sorry, should have posted the links.
The Thinkstock info is point 3.3 on this page:
http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/legal/license-information-details
The Facebook link is:
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms point 2.1.

« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2013, 13:33 »
0
It seems the whole Facebook vs. stock images license issue is a total mess...

Since recently FB offers users the possibility to print every shared photo e.g. on a coffee mug. Who knows what business models involving posted images they will come up in the future...

I will contact IS and ask them about the max web resolution for images sold via TS.
And I will tell the buyer that by posting professional high-resolution images to FB they are playing with fire, since if something goes wrong, FB and TS will make the buyer responsible.

« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2013, 19:07 »
0

I will contact IS and ask them about the max web resolution for images sold via TS.
And I will tell the buyer that by posting professional high-resolution images to FB they are playing with fire, since if something goes wrong, FB and TS will make the buyer responsible.
I have not bothered to review the contributor contracts prior to quoting you here but I seem to recall that by checking the 'I Agree' box with most agencies you completely indemnify them from and legal issues resulting from usage of your image (as long as you have been paid)

Just a thought.

« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2013, 19:13 »
0
I wonder how many buyers read the legalese or even absorb it.

I wonder how many contributors bother to read the 'contributor agreements' or even absorb it.

You know as well as I Sue that contracts are always going to favor the agency.  The only hope we have is to police our own images but even when we do find misuse there is still not a hell of a lot we can do about it except nag the agency to deal with it.

On another note, you seem to be up on the contracts Sue so perhaps I should put you on retainer for when I find my images abused  ;)

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2013, 21:16 »
0
I wasn't complaining, except that I looked and couldn't find what you did, so nice work.

I just remembered that the size could also be a problem. I hadn't thought of that. Isn't there a reproduction size limit for websites?

Yes Darren, but reading them changes nothing. Point is, if people read the contracts, but still sign up, I guess that reading them makes no difference?

My personal answer was drop all sites with mystery partners, which we can't track or control and don't know what they are doing. It may hurt my returns but with SS and IS and Alamy, I have a fairly good idea where things have been sold/licensed. If it was some of the other 25 places and their 100s of partners, we lose all control and tractability for our images. I'm not so desperate that I'll give up all rights for an 8 cent download from some anonymous partner.




Glad you found something ShadySue. I looked and thought, where the heck does that license grant permission to use the images on a public site. (which also may include people downloading from that site)
I still don't see that right? Your point is the same.

Sorry, should have posted the links.
The Thinkstock info is point 3.3 on this page:
http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/legal/license-information-details
The Facebook link is:
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms point 2.1.


ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2013, 01:20 »
0
On another note, you seem to be up on the contracts Sue so perhaps I should put you on retainer for when I find my images abused  ;)
HAhahahaha!
I just looked it up to see if I could find an answer for the OP, thereby was shocked, but sadly not surprised, to find that although iS has an official size limit, their 'partner' doesn't.  ::) :( >:(

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2013, 18:27 »
0
Oh good, here's one for consistency. Same images, sold in both places and two different licenses. Plus the cheaper one comes with more rights.

On another note, you seem to be up on the contracts Sue so perhaps I should put you on retainer for when I find my images abused  ;)
HAhahahaha!
I just looked it up to see if I could find an answer for the OP, thereby was shocked, but sadly not surprised, to find that although iS has an official size limit, their 'partner' doesn't.  ::) :( >:(

« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2013, 17:44 »
+1
Just received an answer from Istock to my ticket regarding the web size restrictions at TS:

Quote
Thanks for contacting us.

Please be advised that there is not a size restriction for online usage with the Agreement granted by Thinkstock.

Seems like a lot of usage rights for 28 cents...  >:( Maybe I should start thinking about dropping IS... 

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2013, 18:03 »
0
Just received an answer from Istock to my ticket regarding the web size restrictions at TS:

Quote
Thanks for contacting us.

Please be advised that there is not a size restriction for online usage with the Agreement granted by Thinkstock.

Seems like a lot of usage rights for 28 cents...  >:( Maybe I should start thinking about dropping IS...

I was just wondering today what the reply would be.
Yes, that's not good. Different agreement to iStock and easy to steal high res images disseminated legally (i.e. the website is within its rights to have them that size.)
Did you specify that they were freely inviting visitors to their site to download the images, which would seem contary to TS's T&C?

« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2013, 18:15 »
0
Actually in the IS ticket I did say that the images are freely available on Facebook for everybody to share and download. They didn't address that issue in their answer at all...

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2013, 18:30 »
+1
Actually in the IS ticket I did say that the images are freely available on Facebook for everybody to share and download. They didn't address that issue in their answer at all...
I've found it difficult to get an answer to two points in one ticket, even if the two issues are intertwined like in your case. :(

« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2013, 18:36 »
+1
I'm not sure what to do now... I don't think IS will change its agreement with TS just because some crappy independent contributor with a small port complains about it..

So just swallow the pill and live with fact that there is essentially no size restriction for online usage at all (no matter what agency the image was bought at, because you can never know whether it's from TS or not)? Or just drop IS and loose a decent amount of earnings?... Will have to think about it... :(

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2013, 19:02 »
0
 :( >:(

« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2013, 08:41 »
0
i'm surprised so many here are surprised.

the RF licence was a ripoff for photographers since day 1.

however, even when selling RM it's not much easier to protect your images unless you're ready to sue people all around the world.

RM is obsolete and anachronistic nowadays but RF is too much permissive, it's impossible to chase all the abusers let alone being paid back without investing a huge amount of time and money.

in plus, agencies dont move a finger as it wouldnt be profitable for them.

solutions ? none so far, unless the infringer is a rich publisher with deep pockets from a western country.

and i'm not surprised agencies are relaxed about buyers abusing the RF licence, they pushed RF as the "do what you want" licence to solve all the burocracy of RM and the buyers took it literally without realizing RF has in fact many limitations but if they became aware of this they would not buy RF in droves as they do now.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2182 Views
Last post September 17, 2008, 07:36
by leaf
3 Replies
3276 Views
Last post February 04, 2009, 21:41
by vonkara
7 Replies
5203 Views
Last post June 21, 2011, 13:11
by pixel86
3 Replies
1558 Views
Last post September 09, 2018, 09:51
by dragonblade
4 Replies
1557 Views
Last post September 09, 2018, 12:06
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results