I have never been bothered too much with misuse of my images, mainly because there is no way of knowing where an image was bought and under what license. Its sheer impossible to find out if its misuse or not. I am bothered by sites that just sell complete stolen libraries.

I have sent a DMCA once, to a website that was selling my my image but it had a shutterstock watermark on it.

The other time I contacted a blogger that was using a watermarked image and solved it directly with her.

I'm in the other camp. I say if you think your work is being misused, you HAVE EVERY RIGHT to question who, what, when and how. And even it you did ask DT first, chances are they wouldn't have been helpful.

Quote

Like it would be much of a loss for me. DT are terrible sales for me. You get a few every blue moon when the Loch Ness monster is seen with Elvis riding on it's back just as Saturn is aligned with Venus.

That made me LOL.  I am a big believer in principles and if I am being used, abused or refused, I go for it.

Every now and again I spend an hour or so tracking down bloggers using my watermarked images. I don't think it's any more a waste of time than sitting here reading and responding on this forum. In fact, THAT might even be a little more productive in some instances.

Absolutley. Most people here being so flippantly dismissive would be a bit different if it was their shot used and the possibility of losing a lot of money. It's easy to say its no big deal when you are talking about someone else's work. I am frankly quite shocked at
The reaction of folk here considering we are all photographers.

But Herg is getting reamed just because he's asking the questions. He's being told if he doesn't want to license his images, he should pull his photos and leave. And that he's wasting his time, like anyone has the right to tell him how he should spend his time.

Contributors are getting screwed over every day. He has every right to ask questions, and if he doesn't feel he got the correct amount for the usage of that photo, he should keep asking questions until he's satisfied. Every single one of the rest of you would do exactly the same if the principle were important enough to you.

Sounds like a whole lot of people have given in. Maybe that's why the agencies just continue to rake in millions and contributors continue to get ripped off. Look at the number of people uploading to istock again. That's what I find incredible. If what Herg is doing is a waste of time, then there's a whole lot of you wasting your freakin life away. 

But Herg is getting reamed just because he's asking the questions. He's being told if he doesn't want to license his images, he should pull his photos and leave. And that he's wasting his time, like anyone has the right to tell him how he should spend his time.

Contributors are getting screwed over every day. He has every right to ask questions, and if he doesn't feel he got the correct amount for the usage of that photo, he should keep asking questions until he's satisfied. Every single one of the rest of you would do exactly the same if the principle were important enough to you.

Sounds like a whole lot of people have given in. Maybe that's why the agencies just continue to rake in millions and contributors continue to get ripped off. Look at the number of people uploading to istock again. That's what I find incredible. If what Herg is doing is a waste of time, then there's a whole lot of you wasting your freakin life away. 

Thank you Cathy. You hit the nail on the head. I am only asking questions as it's an issue unfamiliar to most of us.

It's not confusing. From the OP, he had two issues:
The posters used to promote the image.
Sale of these posters online.

The first he has now clarified, the image was bought from DT and is legitimate.
The 'resale' issue has yet to be cleared up, and I hope the OP will follow this up via DT instead of barging in himself.

Just to add a layer of confusion myself, someone more versed in legal issues than myself might know what it's called when someone announces themselves to be delighted with something, then later finds legal issues. I.e. the OP posted months ago professing himself very happy that his image was being used as a movie poster. In such cases, the original delight can go against any later legal complaints, though in this case the delight was about the use in the poster, not the reselling of same.

Ultimately the thing that matters to me is the black eye we all take when one of us does something unprofessional.  Put yourself in the customer's shoes.  The designer bought an image through DT and used it appropriately, within the terms of the license.  Then months later a person claiming to be the creator of the image seeks you out wanting to know how you obtained the image and what type of license you bought.  This would put a sour taste in my mouth about using microstock again in the future.  Will every image creator hunt me down and demand answers?  I don't need that kid of aggravation.

I was and still am happy that my image was chosen but I didn't know then what I know now. They paid $3.47 for the use in posters, reproductions etc. I had to ask the designers where they got the image from because I could find no info from the various stock sites. How was I to find out?  If we don't speak up against this kind of blatant exploration we will continue to be ripped off.

I thought you had established that $3.47 wasn't a (legal) rip-off, that's the 'proper' amount for that usage according to DT's T&C, which you agreed to when you signed up. It could have been even less on TS or SS.

Are you still pursuing the online sales, which I always felt was where your real issue was likely to be, but I'm not fully au fait with DT's T&Cs.

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 16, 2013, 08:09

Ultimately the thing that matters to me is the black eye we all take when one of us does something unprofessional.  Put yourself in the customer's shoes.  The designer bought an image through DT and used it appropriately, within the terms of the license.  Then months later a person claiming to be the creator of the image seeks you out wanting to know how you obtained the image and what type of license you bought.  This would put a sour taste in my mouth about using microstock again in the future.  Will every image creator hunt me down and demand answers?  I don't need that kid of aggravation.

You call it unprofessional, i call it due diligence. If you (or any one of us) saw one of our images on the cover of Time, i will bet that we would ALL be checking to see where it was bought and if we got paid correctly for it. And if nothing showed up, questions would certainly be asked. Thats just good business, as far as i can see. The only time i have seen herg ask a question is when he couldnt see a correct sale for his image. I think you are being a tad dramatic with your "will every image creator hunt me down?" You seem to forget that herg OWNS the image and has a right to ask questions. But bless your heart for trusting that the agencies are looking out for you.

But he did have sales on the image, including sales that cover the license.  He just didnt know what agency sold the image. I would not have questioned the sale considering it was purchased within the license of one of the agencies.

The resale is another issue though, as I have already mentioned before.

.

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 16, 2013, 15:01

Reaching out to the customer after the sale and demanding to know where the image was purchased and what type of license it was is unprofessional, no two ways around it.  The agency looks bad, the contributor looks bad, and all of us are damaged.  You placed your bet on the customer being in the wrong, and you (along with Dreamstime and all of microstock along with you) ended up looking foolish.  Thanks.

Well, since this comment, and Tickstock's agreeing with it have gotten some -1's  my +1's to both posts aren't visible.  Just wanted you to know I wholeheartedly agree. 

Some people have WAY too much time on their hands.

And I have just given a positive to you but you I unfortunately can't get rid of the other to my mind undeserved negative.

Quote from: fotografer on June 16, 2013, 18:17

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2013, 16:34

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 16, 2013, 15:01

Reaching out to the customer after the sale and demanding to know where the image was purchased and what type of license it was is unprofessional, no two ways around it.  The agency looks bad, the contributor looks bad, and all of us are damaged.  You placed your bet on the customer being in the wrong, and you (along with Dreamstime and all of microstock along with you) ended up looking foolish.  Thanks.

Well, since this comment, and Tickstock's agreeing with it have gotten some -1's  my +1's to both posts aren't visible.  Just wanted you to know I wholeheartedly agree. 

Some people have WAY too much time on their hands.

And I have just given a positive to you but you I unfortunately can't get rid of the other to my mind undeserved negative.

I can! Stockmarketer and Lisa are absolutely correct.

Does the OP imagine that Yuri, Sean and other top microstockers go through this absurd rigmarole every time that they spot one of their own images in action? Or do they spent their valuable time creating great new content instead?

If someone did this with one of your images Joe can you honestly say you would let it go ? No, I don't think so. Again, it's easy to be flippant when it isn't your own image.

Reaching out to the customer after the sale and demanding to know where the image was purchased and what type of license it was is unprofessional, no two ways around it.  The agency looks bad, the contributor looks bad, and all of us are damaged.  You placed your bet on the customer being in the wrong, and you (along with Dreamstime and all of microstock along with you) ended up looking foolish.  Thanks.

Assuming you're indie, if you found one of your images being use for resale, and you see it was sold from more than one agency, but there is no EL, would you just 'let it go'?