MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My shot used for movie poster-Legal advice needed  (Read 28034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Poncke v2

« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2013, 06:44 »
0
Thats absolutely plausible, I wasnt detesting that theory. I always felt that its way too easy for buyers to buy SL and go EL with the image.


« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2013, 07:25 »
0
Think of it 500.000 posters. Thats a heck of a lot. In how many theaters did Looper run? How many video stores did sell the DVD?

Number of cinema screens in the major countries: 149,676 ( I am sure it didnt run in all 149k theatres)

http://chartsbin.com/view/32k

That leaves another 350,000 posters for video stores and other purposes.

I think 500.000 posters is a lot, they might not have needed an EL.



Even though the Op mentioned poster, it does not mean that's the end of print runs.  Think of DVD covers alone.  Probably more than 500k in and of itself.

Poncke v2

« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2013, 07:35 »
+1
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 07:37 by Poncke v2 »

« Reply #28 on: May 05, 2013, 07:47 »
-7
sorry guys but the OP sold that image as RF and now he get paid peanuts as he deserves.

if it was RM he could have got at least a few hundreds bucks, now he' done with maybe 2-3$.


« Reply #29 on: May 05, 2013, 07:56 »
+4
sorry guys but the OP sold that image as RF and now he get paid peanuts as he deserves.

if it was RM he could have got at least a few hundreds bucks, now he' done with maybe 2-3$.

No, if he deserved to get paid for an EL because of the usage, then he deserved and still deserves to get paid for it. Do you imagine that Getty doesn't rip anybody off, just because you sell images with them RM? Ripping people off has nothing to do with the sales model. By your logic, Walmart "deserves" to get ripped off because they sell cheap crap. That's not the way it works. Stealing is stealing and it's wrong whether it's $1 or $100.

But there certainly is a prevalent idea here on the internet that it's ok to steal.  >:(

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2013, 08:32 »
0
sorry guys but the OP sold that image as RF and now he get paid peanuts as he deserves.

if it was RM he could have got at least a few hundreds bucks, now he' done with maybe 2-3$.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2013, 08:47 »
-6
truth hurts ?

a hollywood movie poster for a film with Bruce Willis and he earned no more than 5$ net, that's the very end of the story.

as usual, RF is the worst possible licence for photographers and the best one for agencies and buyers.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 08:50 by Xanox »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2013, 09:18 »
+3
Yeah, but the genie's out of the bottle and no manner of banging on about it will get it back in.

« Reply #33 on: May 05, 2013, 10:41 »
+3
truth hurts ?

a hollywood movie poster for a film with Bruce Willis and he earned no more than 5$ net, that's the very end of the story.

as usual, RF is the worst possible licence for photographers and the best one for agencies and buyers.

We all know that going in. We also know what we are supposed to get paid for licenses. Whether it's 50 cents or $200, that's what we should get. Period.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2013, 11:10 »
0
truth hurts ?

a hollywood movie poster for a film with Bruce Willis and he earned no more than 5$ net, that's the very end of the story.

as usual, RF is the worst possible licence for photographers and the best one for agencies and buyers.

We all know that going in. We also know what we are supposed to get paid for licenses. Whether it's 50 cents or $200, that's what we should get. Period.

How many sites make it clear to the buyer that there are uses for which the standard RF licence doesn't cover the use?
Royalty-free as a term implies that the use is free of royalties.
iS makes some effort to show the buyer, right under the price/credit values of each image, that there may be a need for an extended licence, but I certainly haven't found any more ELs since that feature was introduced.
On the other sites, and only because I was specifically looking up the info, I had to go in via the FAQ.[1]

But this is not a normal way of buying things.
You don't buy a T-shirt and expect to have to pay more if you wear it over a certain number of times, or wear it if you're going for an interview or appearing in a stage play and it's essential for the character's 'look'.
So how is a buyer meant to know they might need an extended licence on e.g. SS?

[1] I have no idea if SS, Ft, DT, or even iS actually make it very clear to people who sign up as a buyers that some uses need ELs? Even if they did, how likely is someone to remember it if originally they were wanting a 'standard' use, but five days, weeks, months, years later they need an EL use? What's the chance they'll remember the note they could ignore when they signed up? What if it's a company and someone else is using the company account and never saw the note how likely is someone to remember to tell the new person about the EL rules, especially if it's not a graphics company, but just a small company where the office junior sometimes has to make flyers (I bumped into a former pupil who has to do exactly that from time to time, and 'does the website).
Even then, it looks as though a site has reneged on the term 'Royalty-free'. "Well, yeah, it's 'royalty free', but only so far". So actually the term could be causing a lot of the trouble, combined with the fact that the companies seem to go out of their way to avoid buyers finding out that they should buy them for certain uses.

(Plus there are doubtless some buyers who are just 'at it'.)

ADDED: just noticed that on a file's 'home page' on SS, there is just a 'standard licence' JPEG and an 'enhanced licence' for a TIFF. Absolutey giving the idea that if you don't want a tiff, a standard licence will be just fine.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 10:21 by ShadySue »

« Reply #35 on: May 05, 2013, 12:50 »
+1
@ShadySue : for decades buyers had no problem buying images as RM and clearly stating which usage they were bought for, if for news, textbooks, covers, inside page, advertising, whatever.

If the new wave of cheap as-s buyers can't even find the time to select a box "Extended Licence" the agencies should do some more effort to make it prominent in the checkout process but of course they don't give a sh-it as they see microstock just as an automated no frills high-volume business, in other words "sell and forget".

So that once an RF image is sold we the photographers have no way to know even in which continent it has been sold and for what industry it will be used, it could be for a depliant of a minimarket of for a poster of the next hollywood blockbuster, we don't know and even if we do it's up to you to sue the infringer and waste thousands of dollars in lawyers to recoup what exactly .. the judge could pretty much say the pictures' market price is 10$ so you'll be refunded 100 or 200$ and thanks for all the chips.

no agency apart Getty or Corbis will send the dogs to chase the infringers.


« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 13:00 by Xanox »

« Reply #36 on: May 05, 2013, 12:56 »
0
moreover, most of these micro RF images arent even registered at the USPTO so your chances of billing the infringer for a lot of money are zero.

there was a girl in the Alamy forum chasing dozens of infringers using her lawyers, she registered all her photos to USPTO, she also tried ImageRights, as far as she said the average she recoup was around 2-300$ per image.

by the way, ImageRights doesnt even move a finger if the potential payback is less than 350$ per photo.

so, just FYI that's the situation.

Poncke v2

« Reply #37 on: May 05, 2013, 13:18 »
+3
All the OP wants is getting paid for an EL if thats the case. Your whole rant on RM is great but this is a microstock forum. We all know RF and RM. The OP is indicating he only got paid for a standard licence, he just wants to get paid whatever the EL cost. And what good is it if we all let this go, as you say, in terms of educating the buyers? If we all do as you, know one will ever learn the difference in licences.

This is a big Hollywood production, and they obviously use micro libraries to find artwork. They also fully understand copyright etc, as they wouldnt want their movies downloaded for free either. So if they made a mistake of purchasing the wrong licence, and they are made aware of it, it might just benefit the next photographer whose artwork they choose to licence. And knowing they have big budgets they might as well be happy to pay for an EL.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: May 05, 2013, 13:27 »
-1
@ShadySue : for decades buyers had no problem buying images as RM and clearly stating which usage they were bought for, if for news, textbooks, covers, inside page, advertising, whatever.

Yeah, that was then; this is now.

shudderstok

« Reply #39 on: May 05, 2013, 21:59 »
0
this is what happens when you upload to multiple agencies some of which are subscription based, there is no way to tell who bought your image and how it is used.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #40 on: May 05, 2013, 22:05 »
0
sorry guys but the OP sold that image as RF and now he get paid peanuts as he deserves.

if it was RM he could have got at least a few hundreds bucks, now he' done with maybe 2-3$.
but they buyers weren't shopping RM, were they?

what's scary is that this "new wave" of cheapo buyers may well have been a hollywood studio!

« Reply #41 on: May 05, 2013, 23:04 »
+6
this is what happens when you upload to multiple agencies some of which are subscription based, there is no way to tell who bought your image and how it is used.

Gosh, really? That's a bit like saying "there's no point in opening a shop because people (mainly your own staff) will probably steal from it".

We all know and accept the risks of doing business in microstock. It could be worse though __ if you were exclusive to one agency then Getty could just be giving your stuff way for virtually nothing in their 'Google Drive' deal. Good eh?


Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2013, 02:25 »
0
this is what happens when you upload to multiple agencies some of which are subscription based, there is no way to tell who bought your image and how it is used.

Gosh, really? That's a bit like saying "there's no point in opening a shop because people (mainly your own staff) will probably steal from it".

We all know and accept the risks of doing business in microstock. It could be worse though __ if you were exclusive to one agency then Getty could just be giving your stuff way for virtually nothing in their 'Google Drive' deal. Good eh?

Exactly.

Poncke v2

« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2013, 04:52 »
-2
this is what happens when you upload to multiple agencies some of which are subscription based, there is no way to tell who bought your image and how it is used.
You are preaching to the choir

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: May 06, 2013, 05:36 »
0
We all know and accept the risks of doing business in microstock. It could be worse though __ if you were exclusive to one agency then Getty could just be giving your stuff way for virtually nothing in their 'Google Drive' deal. Good eh?
"Thus far" (IIRC) they didn't give their RM material to that deal, though.

« Reply #45 on: May 06, 2013, 07:37 »
0
We all know and accept the risks of doing business in microstock. It could be worse though __ if you were exclusive to one agency then Getty could just be giving your stuff way for virtually nothing in their 'Google Drive' deal. Good eh?
"Thus far" (IIRC) they didn't give their RM material to that deal, though.


So i guess that makes it ok.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #46 on: May 06, 2013, 07:47 »
+2
We all know and accept the risks of doing business in microstock. It could be worse though __ if you were exclusive to one agency then Getty could just be giving your stuff way for virtually nothing in their 'Google Drive' deal. Good eh?
"Thus far" (IIRC) they didn't give their RM material to that deal, though.


So i guess that makes it ok.

Who said that?

Xanox was talking about the undoubted advantages in being able to trace RM images.
then
Shudder spoke of the problems of tracing uses of RF sales from sub sites.
then
Gostwyk said that even exclusivity didn't protect people from Getty's shady deal
but, in the progress of the thread,
I pointed out that RM sales weren't (so far) included.

I didn't express any value judgment of the Getty/Google deal.

FWIW, I agree with the merits of the RM model vs RF, but the genie can't be pushed back in. The RM community shot themselves in the foot by being ridiculously elitist, and targetting such a small sector or the potential market. What did they ever do to cater for low-budget buyers? So now big budget buyers buy micro, at least some of the time, and macro prices are falling rapdily (by unpublished deals), except for some niche markets.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #47 on: May 06, 2013, 13:11 »
0
Still haven't heard ewt back from them. Should I be a bit more assertive ?

« Reply #48 on: May 06, 2013, 13:13 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:57 by Audi 5000 »

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #49 on: May 06, 2013, 14:17 »
+1
To be honest it's the principle of using my image for great gain.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3750 Views
Last post September 03, 2006, 20:41
by yupgp
11 Replies
6851 Views
Last post January 24, 2008, 05:31
by ljupco
1 Replies
3683 Views
Last post February 24, 2012, 18:02
by clickinchic
46 Replies
7743 Views
Last post December 17, 2012, 20:23
by Simplyphotos
1 Replies
1918 Views
Last post April 18, 2018, 04:56
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle