somebody is jealous, giving SM a minus for having 500 downloads a day

somebody is jealous, giving SM a minus for having 500 downloads a day

It wasn't me, I didn't mark his post because he explained his opinion.
However, IMO, if he spots "something fishy", but "would just smile and move along" he's letting them off with it and doing all of us a big disservice.

However, IMO, if he spots "something fishy", but "would just smile and move along" he's letting them off with it and doing all of us a big disservice.

A disservice was done to all of us in this case.  Someone spotted what he was sure was a misuse, decided he had to shake down a customer, and it turned out he was wrong, making the whole microstock community look bad.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 15:15

However, IMO, if he spots "something fishy", but "would just smile and move along" he's letting them off with it and doing all of us a big disservice.

A disservice was done to all of us in this case.  Someone spotted what he was sure was a misuse, decided he had to shake down a customer, and it turned out he was wrong, making the whole microstock community look bad.

I think we're seeing an obvious divide in opinion between those who do microstock for a living and those who do it as a hobby.

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 17, 2013, 15:23

Quote from: stockmarketer on June 17, 2013, 15:19

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 15:15

However, IMO, if he spots "something fishy", but "would just smile and move along" he's letting them off with it and doing all of us a big disservice.

A disservice was done to all of us in this case.  Someone spotted what he was sure was a misuse, decided he had to shake down a customer, and it turned out he was wrong, making the whole microstock community look bad.

I will have to disagree on that one because the buyer haven't got the proper license, they are selling the poster, when you are selling you do need an EL, no?

They arent selling the posters, presumably another entity is. Thats the confusing part. Nobody knows. But apparently its not confusing to some. From what I understand, the movie company worked within the license

Way back in post 5 in this thread, I said, "Hey, if the internet sales are illegal, you and the film company can together go after the thieves. I bet they can afford more experienced/expensive lawyers."
The problem was that the OP needed to know which company the film company licensed the images from so that he knew who to take it up with. If it were me, I'd give DT the chance, now that he knows the film company bought the pic they used from them, to follow up and investigate the company which is selling the posters. Has the film company sanctioned these sales, or has the selling company stolen the poster from the film company, which is what I meant in my quote above.
I really think our agents/distributors have to earn their huge percentage, and this is one of the things they should be doing for us. Yeah, nice theory. 

I've heard of pros (one Alamy poster in particular) who chase after schoolkids blogs using watermarked images - demanding big money, not just asking them to take it down. And chases after abusers in countries where I - and she - has to research to find out what language the site is written in far less who to address a complaint to.
I wouldn't chase after a child for damages, but I certainly would be after a commercial entity.
I guess everyone has their own level of acceptance.

I was going to say, how much time does it take to write Support a note saying, "Image #xxxxx used here : www.infringersite.com/page.htm. Watermarked image/editorial used in commerical context/images for resale - no EL/whatever.
About the same time as writing a forum post saying you wouldn't waste your time doing it.
But there is that extra layer of 'where from?' for indies.

Same as people who count photos and say, "you aren't serious enough because you don't have #### images". It's not how many, it's how many downloads and meeting the market demands.

Hobbyist or not has nothing to do with right and wrong.

... write Support a note saying, "Image #xxxxx used here : www.infringersite.com/page.htm. Watermarked image/editorial used in commercial context/images for resale - no EL

Best advise on this thread. (Right before - the agency license was correct and enjoy the 50c from DT) I'm sure the subs I get on SS are used for some interesting projects and I still get my flat rate. It's Microstock.

That makes three good points now. All of the above. Right and wrong matters (no matter what level one is), license terms are what they are (live with it or go do something else) and we should behave like professionals. That last one would mean NOT hassling buyers, but at the same time chasing abuse and mis-use.

Somewhere in this is a lesson in selling RF on Microstock. Not like it's some mystery just solved, that someone can download and license something for some pretty big use - legally - and we get paid spare change. That's the way it is.

Personally I don't search for use and abuse, it's too much of a waste of time. Sorry but we are the bottom feeders in the photo food chain and have almost no rights. When we do, it's difficult to prosecute or collect because the laws are complex and expensive. If I saw a sub on a billboard or a book cover I might ask, but after that.

If it's up on Micro, your photo has left home and gone into the wild world of the Internet.  Kiss it goodbye and wish it well on it's journey.

Quote from: cclapper on June 17, 2013, 17:43

Hobbyist or not has nothing to do with right and wrong.

Soooo ... every time we see an image of ours in use, in your view, we are supposed to hassle the user as to where they bought it and what license they purchased, just to determine it was 'proper'?

It's not a question of 'right and wrong'. It's a question of professionalism.

Quote from: gostwyck on June 17, 2013, 18:46

Quote from: cclapper on June 17, 2013, 17:43

Hobbyist or not has nothing to do with right and wrong.

Soooo ... every time we see an image of ours in use, in your view, we are supposed to hassle the user as to where they bought it and what license they purchased, just to determine it was 'proper'?

It's not a question of 'right and wrong'. It's a question of professionalism.

Soooo ... every time one happens to see one of our images in a use which needs an EL but none was received, or any other misuse or abuse, a 'professional' just "smiles and moves on".
Well, there's a Thieves' Charter.

But there simply wasn't a need for an EL in the usage originally flagged by the OP. Therefore his actions in challenging the purchaser was both unprofessional and damaging to both DT and our industry.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 19:23

Quote from: gostwyck on June 17, 2013, 18:46

Quote from: cclapper on June 17, 2013, 17:43

Hobbyist or not has nothing to do with right and wrong.

Soooo ... every time we see an image of ours in use, in your view, we are supposed to hassle the user as to where they bought it and what license they purchased, just to determine it was 'proper'?

It's not a question of 'right and wrong'. It's a question of professionalism.

Soooo ... every time one happens to see one of our images in a use which needs an EL but none was received, or any other misuse or abuse, a 'professional' just "smiles and moves on".
Well, there's a Thieves' Charter.

But there simply wasn't a need for an EL in the usage originally flagged by the OP. Therefore his actions in challenging the purchaser was both unprofessional and damaging to both DT and our industry.

As an indie, he had to contact the film company to find out where the image came from so that he can now pursue  the items for resale issue via DT.

I'm not sure what the option is for indies, other than, as you say, just letting misusers off with it to do it again.  That's a very high price for independence, and would have the side-effect of damaging all of us. (I understand the poster use was fine, but the reselling almost certainly isn't.)

Well DT have got back and said the licencee for the use of the image in the design is above board BUT the poster sales are not. They have asked me to file a form so they can chase the sellers. There you go. I knew it was wrong.

Thanks you for the persistence.  Well done.

Nobody said the reselling was ok, but congratulations. Perseverance rewarded, maybe.

Quote from: Herg on June 20, 2013, 14:30

Well DT have got back and said the licencee for the use of the image in the design is above board BUT the poster sales are not. They have asked me to file a form so they can chase the sellers. There you go. I knew it was wrong.

Awesome! Thank you for your principles and not giving up.

Despite the criticism here for perusing it.