Author Topic: NOT AT ALL (Misuse in high places?!) (Read 3980 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** January 15, 2020, 11:15 »

Sorry, that was me stupidly passing on a link without engaging brain.

Is there I way I can delete the thread?
~~Let's hope this is just a simple error and they forgot to replace e a placeholder when they sent the page live:~~
https://news.clickhole.com/incredibly-frustrating-a-watermark-has-appeared-over-m-1840658087

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2020, 14:12 »

Looks to me like clickhole thought they should be able to use images free. So they decided to make a joke (not very funny) about it. Cheap greedy
people.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2020, 15:28 »

Quote from: pixel86 on January 15, 2020, 14:12

Looks to me like clickhole thought they should be able to use images free. So they decided to make a joke (not very funny) about it. Cheap greedy
people.

Oh!

trek · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2020, 16:44 »

disorderly · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2020, 18:25 »

Quote from: pixel86 on January 15, 2020, 14:12

Looks to me like clickhole thought they should be able to use images free. So they decided to make a joke (not very funny) about it. Cheap greedy
people.

I don't believe that. Clickhole is a humor site, a low rent version of The Onion. I suspect someone there saw a photo with watermark and thought it would make an amusing article. I didn't laugh, but I suspect that was their intent.

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** January 15, 2020, 20:21 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 15, 2020, 18:25

Quote from: pixel86 on January 15, 2020, 14:12
Looks to me like clickhole thought they should be able to use images free. So they decided to make a joke (not very funny) about it. Cheap greedy
people.

I don't believe that. Clickhole is a humor site, a low rent version of The Onion. I suspect someone there saw a photo with watermark and thought it would make an amusing article. I didn't laugh, but I suspect that was their intent.

But they are still using a watermarked image in their blog, right? To illustrate their not funny blog? 🙄 Just because they think it’s funny, guess that means it’s ok to use watermarked images.

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2020, 20:31 »

Quote from: pixel86 on January 15, 2020, 20:21

Quote from: disorderly on January 15, 2020, 18:25
Quote from: pixel86 on January 15, 2020, 14:12
Looks to me like clickhole thought they should be able to use images free. So they decided to make a joke (not very funny) about it. Cheap greedy
people.

I don't believe that. Clickhole is a humor site, a low rent version of The Onion. I suspect someone there saw a photo with watermark and thought it would make an amusing article. I didn't laugh, but I suspect that was their intent.

But they are still using a watermarked image in their blog, right? To illustrate their not funny blog? 🙄 Just because they think it’s funny, guess that means it’s ok to use watermarked images.

But now that I'm looking on my computer, I see that it isn't an actual watermarked image, as it would be on iStock (iS doesn't engrave the watermarks into the rock, there would be more than one watermark).
I think you're right, they are just making a point rather than pointing out an actual misuse, which I stupidly picked up on. They may well have paid for the image, although arguably satire doesn't require them to.
I think this was the original iS photo, which they have trimmed a bit.
https://www.istockphoto.com/gb/photo/mount-rushmore-rapid-city-south-dakota-gm1126952302-296868683
Sorry, had my chain yanked but should have checked.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #7 on:** January 16, 2020, 09:26 »

Great article and very funny commentary. Somehow I think the target was Getty and their licensing grabs for public domain images?

Thanks for finding it Sue.

Astrantia · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2020, 11:22 »

Although this isn´t april 1st I find that article quite funny.
It reminds me of all the obejects I am (as a photographer) are not allowed to phtograph because some brand or architect or whatsoever holds the rights on that object (like Eiffeltower at night, Sydney opera house, german ICE trains, etc etc).

So the point is somebody (iStock) now holds the rights on Mt. Rusmore. Good point.

georgep7 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 16, 2020, 16:19 »

Not a native speaker I waited to see what others comment so, yes it was a good humorous article!

(plus some advertising out of nowhere for istock I guess. This is the internet of today after all...)

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2020, 17:55 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 15, 2020, 18:25

Quote from: pixel86 on January 15, 2020, 14:12
Looks to me like clickhole thought they should be able to use images free. So they decided to make a joke (not very funny) about it. Cheap greedy
people.

I don't believe that. Clickhole is a humor site, a low rent version of The Onion. I suspect someone there saw a photo with watermark and thought it would make an amusing article. I didn't laugh, but I suspect that was their intent.

I didn’t laugh either, I thought it was stupid. Wonder if the copyright holder thought it was funny.

Astrantia · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2020, 15:36 »

Quote from: pixel86 on January 16, 2020, 17:55

Quote from: disorderly on January 15, 2020, 18:25

I didn’t laugh either, I thought it was stupid. Wonder if the copyright holder thought it was funny.

So whtat´s the problem when you sell your picture to a humorous page and they make a funny joke of it?
As a stock photographer you never know what will happen with your sold pics and in what context they will be used.

cathyslife · « **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2020, 16:04 »

Quote from: Astrantia on January 17, 2020, 15:36

Quote from: pixel86 on January 16, 2020, 17:55
Quote from: disorderly on January 15, 2020, 18:25

I didn’t laugh either, I thought it was stupid. Wonder if the copyright holder thought it was funny.

So whtat´s the problem when you sell your picture to a humorous page and they make a funny joke of it?
As a stock photographer you never know what will happen with your sold pics and in what context they will be used.

Ugh. Quoting isn’t working correctly. 🤔😯

The key word is “sell.” If someone pays for the correct license, there’s no problem in what they use it for. That’s microstock. For someone to take a watermarked “free” image, use it on a page that they likely make money from, and make fun of it... Using that BS “fair use” excuse, is still wrong to me. But hey, that’s just me. YMMV.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** January 17, 2020, 16:20 »

Quote from: pixel86 on January 17, 2020, 16:04

The key word is “sell.” If someone pays for the correct license, there’s no problem in what they use it for. That’s microstock. For someone to take a watermarked “free” image, use it on a page that they likely make money from, and make fun of it... Using that BS “fair use” excuse, is still wrong to me. But hey, that’s just me. YMMV.

[/quote]
It's not an iStock watermarked image. It has a larger version of the iS watermark engraved into the rock. You can see from the link to what is possibly the original file that iS's watermark is smaller, but repeated across the file.
https://www.istockphoto.com/gb/photo/mount-rushmore-rapid-city-south-dakota-gm1126952302-296868683
They may or may not have paid for the file; I have no idea but they are surely innocent unless proven guilty.

cathyslife · « **Reply #14 on:** January 17, 2020, 20:38 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 17, 2020, 16:20

Quote from: pixel86 on January 17, 2020, 16:04
The key word is “sell.” If someone pays for the correct license, there’s no problem in what they use it for. That’s microstock. For someone to take a watermarked “free” image, use it on a page that they likely make money from, and make fun of it... Using that BS “fair use” excuse, is still wrong to me. But hey, that’s just me. YMMV.

It's not an iStock watermarked image. It has a larger version of the iS watermark engraved into the rock. You can see from the link to what is possibly the original file that iS's watermark is smaller, but repeated across the file.
https://www.istockphoto.com/gb/photo/mount-rushmore-rapid-city-south-dakota-gm1126952302-296868683
They may or may not have paid for the file; I have no idea but they are surely innocent unless proven guilty.

Where did I say it was an istock image? And you are right, they may have paid for the image. Again, IMO, stupid.

Astrantia · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2020, 06:37 »

As long as the copyright holder (photographer) himself does not tell us the pic was misused without buying a license I assume the license was paid for and there is no misuse.

As we all (hopefully) understood this is NOT an iStock image but a plain picture (hopefully bought) which later on was altered with a watermark assuming it was an iStock picture.
And buyers have the right to alter pictures as we all know....

georgep7 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2020, 07:05 »

is actually the main subject the "copyright holder's" opinion?
At first I thought it was a grey istock ad under the humorous tab.
Double sided knife: The article will be discussed. People will say "misuse! copyright holder!"
Mission accomplished:

Why pay for that? Get the (our for US people) national symbols for free! duh!

"mount rushmore images free"

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=933&tbm=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNTD7U4D-eeYp8tbnZb1tLxp443a8w%3A1579348766000&sa=1&ei=HfMiXsbbPIHHwQLcgKyQBA&q=mount+rushmore+images+free&oq=mount+rushmore+free+&gs_l=img.3.0.0i8i30j0i24l2.6388.7362..9461...2.0..0.580.1998.0j6j5-2......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i67j0.sqqoCDUzBl8#imgrc=_

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2020, 14:08 »

Much ado about nothing and wasted anger. It doesn't matter if they stood there and took the image, or they licensed it or they somehow found one, removed the watermarks and used it. Although there's no support for the last as the iStock watermark is a fake?

Parodies, by their nature, typically make use of other works: music, art, corporate logos, advertisements, etc. Obviously, the creators and owners of copyrighted works are unlikely to grant permission for their works to be used in a parody.

However, American society recognizes the cultural value of parody as a form of criticism and commentary, so the use of such copyrighted works for purposes of parody is often considered "fair use", and is thus perfectly legal.

The section of US law that deals with fair use is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

It's parody, protected free speech, there's no violation.

And I still think it's funny because the joke is that... OK I should NOT need to explain a joke, parody, ironic humor or sarcasm.

I don't need permission or a license to use this image or the name Barney:

Don't even need to credit Fox or Rex, but there it is, a graphic rejection from a modern Microstock agency.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: NOT AT ALL (Misuse in high places?!) (Read 3980 times)

ShadySue

cathyslife

ShadySue

trek

disorderly

cathyslife

ShadySue

Uncle Pete

Astrantia

georgep7

cathyslife

Astrantia

cathyslife

ShadySue

cathyslife

Astrantia

georgep7

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors