MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Phadrea on May 03, 2013, 04:53
-
As some of you may be aware here last year I posted my image that was used in the movie poster "Looper". I have looked on IS, SS and Dreamstime (I am only on these three) and I cannot see one single large payment for an extended licence. I am now getting worried that my image could have been stolen and used without my permission, or just a standard download. As posters are for sale all over the net, posters reproduced all over the world in cinemas, I feel I have been diddled here. My photographer friend knows a lawyer and thinks I may have a case.
I will now contact the company behind this movie and try and find where they got this from.
-
yikes! good luck with this.
I think a very calm letter of enquiry to the production company of the movie is your first step.
although the idea of print runs with regard to movie posters is becoming obsolete?
-
Two separate issues.
Print run for the poster, depends on the agency but iS allows up to 499,999. Not sure how you could prove they'd used more than that. Also some agencies allow up to a million.
Posters for sale: need an EL from iS. (Are they being sold by the film company, or are they being ripped off too, by internet thieves?)
You'd need to check what's allowed at the three agencies and their partners, as it seems that partner sites like TS often sell for less but allow more rights. ::) >:(
Anyway, good luck with them answering your initial query about where they got the image. Without that info, you have nothing to go on.
-
I have contacted the media company responsible for the poster. Again, I need to know which agency sold my image because neither have been paid for EL.
-
You need to know which agency or partner sold the image so that you can check their requirements for ELs, which as you know vary widely, especially the partner sites.
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. :D
-
If it turns out you do need legal assistance you might start by looking at www.ImageRights.Com; (http://www.ImageRights.Com;) another option you to check out is www.PhotoAttorney.Com (http://www.PhotoAttorney.Com), the very helpful and educational blog operated by Carolyn Wright. When last I ckecked a short while ago, they offer a number of different plans, and you might find something that works for you. ImageRights have received many favourable comments in the Alamy forums (the old "Ask The Forum").. But it's good to be cautious - check your agencies, document your case, be polite, let your lawyers decide when a sterner tone is appropriate...
Good luck, and I hope you don't need a lawyer at all; I'm very curious to know how you progress, let us know as circumstances permit.
Regards
-
Thanks. I don't want to get into lawyers but I can easily prove its my image as I have the raw file encrypted with date etc. shouldn't be hard to prove.
-
Yes, definitely best to avoid lawyers if you can. I would also collect some samples of the offending poster - in whatever format is available; photograph it if you have to.
Regards
-
Well I heard nothing back from the company since my email almost a day ago.
-
.
-
If you contacted the company about this and have had no response yet, I'd bet that they are getting their legal department involved, especially since there is money involved. While you don't want to get an attorney involved, you might want to speak to one just to see what your options will be.
If you give a larger company any room, they will bury you in litigation and you will have lost any chance of getting what you should of had in the first place.
Good luck.
-
I can't see why they would have a leg to stand on, especially if the images was used unauthorized. Pretty black and white really. I can't afford a lawyer but a friend knows one that can give me free advise as he is is friend.
-
I can't see why they would have a leg to stand on, especially if the images was used unauthorized. Pretty black and white really. I can't afford a lawyer but a friend knows one that can give me free advise as he is is friend.
Well the use could well be covered under a standard license, in which case they are fine.
In a similar situation I just sent a polite email saying thank for using my work, just for my records could you let me know where you purchased the license and what the print run for the poster was.
In that case the company involved purchased an EL from IS, I got the impression just to cover themselves.
-
In that case the company involved purchased an EL from IS, I got the impression just to cover themselves.
That is exactly what istock had a large magazine do with one of my photos. The magazine is huge and their print run FAR exceeded what the standard license covered. I knew it was purchased from istock because there was a credit line in the fold. I had never received payment for an EL for that particular photo. Of course istock paid me the EL after I caught it, but I'm guessing that their standard negotiation with large clients is that they won't pay for an EL unless someone squawks. Or istock charges the client for the EL but never pays out to the contributor, unless they squawk.
Wonder how many ELs never get paid out because contributors never find their work? It was pure coincidence that I spotted this one, because this wasn't a magazine that I regularly bought.
By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL. ::)
-
By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL. ::)
No it's still 500,000.
I bet a lot of buyers never read the licence use pages so have no idea that they even need an EL. They probably think that RF means RF.
-
No idea how much an EL would pay on IS but we're talking $28 on SS and less on DT and lawyers charge how many hundreds an hour?
-
In that case the company involved purchased an EL from IS, I got the impression just to cover themselves.
That is exactly what istock had a large magazine do with one of my photos. The magazine is huge and their print run FAR exceeded what the standard license covered. I knew it was purchased from istock because there was a credit line in the fold. I had never received payment for an EL for that particular photo. Of course istock paid me the EL after I caught it, but I'm guessing that their standard negotiation with large clients is that they won't pay for an EL unless someone squawks. Or istock charges the client for the EL but never pays out to the contributor, unless they squawk.
Wonder how many ELs never get paid out because contributors never find their work? It was pure coincidence that I spotted this one, because this wasn't a magazine that I regularly bought.
By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL. ::)
If that was to be true, then that would be plain straight forward fraud. Although many companies try everything to make money, that would be the dumbest thing IS could do.
-
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 (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.
-
By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL. ::)
If that was to be true, then that would be plain straight forward fraud. Although many companies try everything to make money, that would be the dumbest thing IS could do.
It's not (currently/yet) true, but if they did change it how could it be fraud? I'm sure they have tight legalese which means they can change any usage details whenever and however they want.
The different agencies have different limits.
iS: 499,999
SS: 250,000
Ft: None, as far as I can see: "Fotolia hereby grants to the Non-Exclusive Downloading Member a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, non-transferable sublicense to use, reproduce or display the Work an unlimited number of times in the authorized media"
DT: 500,000, or 10,000 for free images
GI RF (AFAICS): unlimited
Alamy RF (AFAICS): unlimited
-
I think 500.000 posters is a lot, they might not have needed an EL.
What about the items for resale? I'm not about to search through all the t&c again.
-
By now, I am guessing istock has upped their print run quantity for standard licenses so they never have to pay out an EL. ::)
If that was to be true, then that would be plain straight forward fraud. Although many companies try everything to make money, that would be the dumbest thing IS could do.
It's not (currently/yet) true, but if they did change it how could it be fraud? I'm sure they have tight legalese which means they can change any usage details whenever and however they want.
The different agencies have different limits.
iS: 499,999
SS: 250,000
Ft: None, as far as I can see: "Fotolia hereby grants to the Non-Exclusive Downloading Member a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, non-transferable sublicense to use, reproduce or display the Work an unlimited number of times in the authorized media"
DT: 500,000, or 10,000 for free images
GI RF (AFAICS): unlimited
Alamy RF (AFAICS): unlimited
You removed all the text I replied to?! I responded to his whole comment not just the two last lines. He said IS was selling images for EL usage but would only report a standard licence to the contributors. Thats fraud where I live.
-
I think 500.000 posters is a lot, they might not have needed an EL.
What about the items for resale? I'm not about to search through all the t&c again.
The OP only mentions posters
-
@Ponke: Nowhere does the OP suggest that iS have been selling ELs and not telling the contributor. He said, in the OP: "I am now getting worried that my image could have been stolen and used without my permission, or just a standard download."
There was then a suggestion by cclapper that there might have been shady dealings by iStock, which, if true, would indeed be fraud, but there was no suggestion of that by the OP.
Without being a fangirl, I stick by my assertion that on all the sites, only a percentage of needed ELs are actually purchased, either because the buyer thinks they can get away with it without being caught, or more than likely they don't actually read the licence uses, which on most sites are very difficult to find. Any why would someone buying something labelled 'Royalty-free' imagine that in some cases, they have to pay for the royalties.
I have no proof of that; however, I have a folder full of in-uses and in well under 50% of my editorial in-uses there is no (c)iStock/contributor as is clearly set out in the Licence Use, and in considerably more, it says only (c) iStockphoto, which is untrue and not as set out in the Licence Use.
Re goods for sale (other post), the OP said: "posters are for sale all over the net" which is a separate, but related, issue (and a fairly complicated one, which probably would need legal advice).
-
Sue, I was responding to CD clappers argument I quoted him, not the OP. I responded to his whole comment, not the last two lines.
The OP mentions only posters in his opening comment and just added my thoughts on the 500k limits.
Everything I said is put out of context
-
The fraud theory is of course theoretically possible, and can't be totally dismissed. We have no way of knowing if any agency is paying the contributor their full dues, and in such an opaque system, defrauding contributors must be an attractive option for some.
However, I still think the fault is far more likely to be on the buyer's end, either out of malice or ignorance. Call me Pollyanna - but when I tried to update my GPS, I had to click 'I agree' to the terms and conditions, and when I clicked over to read them, there were pages and pages of small dense type. I have to admit, I skimmed the headers and clicked.
Further evidence that I doubt if many people read the legalese - on a consumer programme this week was a shady used car dealership, which had garnered many complaints, and was not responding to direct complaints, referring to their contract which said something like, "I am satisfied that this car is in good condition, and in the event of any problem, 'Shady Dealers' will not be responsible". (Not the exact words, but a reasonable paraphrase.)
That clause invalidates the contract on the dealer's side as it is illegal (in the UK, we cannot sign away legal rights, in general [though we can transfer copyright, I'm not sure how that fits in :o], but my point is that many people seemed to have signed that contract, then of course 'hadn't noticed that bit'.
-
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.
-
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)
[url]http://chartsbin.com/view/32k[/url] ([url]http://chartsbin.com/view/32k[/url])
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.
-
Its not even used as DVD cover.
http://www.dvdactive.com/images/news/screenshot/2012/10/looper2d.jpg (http://www.dvdactive.com/images/news/screenshot/2012/10/looper2d.jpg)
The door is the image from the OP
http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/looper-poster1.jpg (http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/looper-poster1.jpg)
-
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$.
-
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 $100.
But there certainly is a prevalent idea here on the internet that it's ok to steal. >:(
-
sorry guys but the OP sold that image as RF and now he get paid peanuts as he deserves.
if it was RM he could have got at least a few hundreds bucks, now he' done with maybe 2-3$.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
-
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.
-
Yeah, but the genie's out of the bottle and no manner of banging on about it will get it back in.
-
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 $200, that's what we should get. Period.
-
truth hurts ?
a hollywood movie poster for a film with Bruce Willis and he earned no more than 5$ 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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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 : 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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Still haven't heard ewt back from them. Should I be a bit more assertive ?
-
.
-
To be honest it's the principle of using my image for great gain.
-
Still haven't heard ewt back from them. Should I be a bit more assertive ?
You're in the middle of a public-holiday weekend in many countries. Your communication could take a week just to get to the right desk of a large corporation. You need to leave it at least a couple of weeks.
-
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.
Non US copyright owners are not required to register before bringing court action.
(Copyright registration is a scam. Copyright is protected internationally under the Berne Convention which is why most countries do not require or accommodate it).
-
To be honest it's the principle of using my image for great gain.
Looks like if sold from DT, that's what you opted for, unless someone finds that they do have a print run limit.
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Douglas Adams, H2G2
[quote from ponke]
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)
[url]http://chartsbin.com/view/32k[/url] ([url]http://chartsbin.com/view/32k[/url])
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.
[/quote]
I seldom go to the pictures, but as it happens I went last month.
They don't use just one poster. Outside right round the marquee is a row of many posters, however many are being shown at the time, repeated all round. Minimum of three posters, front, back and side.
Inside the cinema: one at the side telling you which cinema it's on in (in a multiplex). one above the ticket desk reminding you. One near the lift so that you know where to go. Two outside the actual cinema it's being showin in. One behind the sweet stall.
Not to mention reproductions in the cinema chain's magazine, which sometimes shows a still from a film, other times the poster, sometimes both.
So a major film will almost certainly have a print run of over 250,000 (EL needed from SS); may have a run of over 500,000 (EL needed at iS), but if sold from DT, you're screwed (unless someone discovers otherwise by means of great effort in searching out the info, which a buyer and court might consider 'unreasonable').
Still I say with the 'posters being sold all over the internet' it's a can of worms. Don't deal with that youself, but when you find out where it was sold, take it up with the agency, and don't hold your breath.
-
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Douglas Adams, H2G2]
Thats it, exactly! Great story, fits perfectly. :)
-
@ Sue, fair enough, but they also have more then one poster for the movie. And some posters are even only used in one country. A movie poster used in the USA is most of the times not the same poster as they use in Europe.
Point is, we dont know how many posters they printed and what not. As you say, if they tell the OP where they bought it, he should let the agency deal with it.
-
@ Sue, fair enough, but they also have more then one poster for the movie. And some posters are even only used in one country. A movie poster used in the USA is most of the times not the same poster as they use in Europe.
Absolutely true, I'd forgotten about that.
I should have remembered. I found (via GIS) an in-use on an audio book. I'd never heard of it, but took a screenshot anyway as I usually do and some time later my husband saw it and told me it's quite a well known book, apparently (Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury) - and by that time, the cover on the audio book had changed - and in fact has changed several times since.
-
well, may this story serve as a lesson to all the RF fans.
as for RM, it's not becoming a "small niche" as many here think, sales are relatively stable, it's the sale price that is lower compared to years ago, also because they do many Bulk deals, the ones who got fockd by micros were those shooting the sort of images that are now best seller in the micro RF agencies but for anything a bit more obscure RM is still the only option.
what's worrying is that even millionaire hollywood studios are using micro images and probably also micro videos and micro audio !
-
well, may this story serve as a lesson to all the RF fans.
as for RM, it's not becoming a "small niche" as many here think, sales are relatively stable, it's the sale price that is lower compared to years ago, also because they do many Bulk deals, the ones who got fockd by micros were those shooting the sort of images that are now best seller in the micro RF agencies but for anything a bit more obscure RM is still the only option.
what's worrying is that even millionaire hollywood studios are using micro images and probably also micro videos and micro audio !
I thought you said earlier you'd turned over a new leaf and weren't going to be the RM fanboy, especially here?
-
well they have still not replied.
-
well they have still not replied.
:( But it was a while ago...they might have to track down the transaction.
-
well they have still not replied.
From their perspective it would be for the agency they licensed it from to contact them if there is an issue with the use. They are a customer of the agency and not the artist. The whole point of agencies is to intermediate between artists and end users. If an end user licenses an image they are not going to be expecting to be contacted by the original artist. IMO this is a good example of why image exclusivity makes sense.
-
2nd email sent and again no response. Obviously they realize that they are perhaps in trouble and hoping I will go away.
-
2nd email sent and again no response. Obviously they realize that they are perhaps in trouble and hoping I will go away.
or they still haven't seen it, remember who you are trying to contact, its not a stock buddy ;D
-
I know, a company that makes posters. What makes them so special ?
-
2nd email sent and again no response. Obviously they realize that they are perhaps in trouble and hoping I will go away.
Maybe the office junior who answers emails has just deleted them.
-
.
-
When I contacted a company in a similar situation it took about 3 weeks for a response and it was a letter not an email, even though my question was emailed. Big companies take time to get a response together.
-
2nd email sent and again no response. Obviously they realize that they are perhaps in trouble and hoping I will go away.
If you dont know where they got it, they might not reply to you at all and keep you guessing. As long as you dont know where they got it, you cant take action. What you can do is write all the agencies and ask them if that company bought that image from them.
-
2nd email sent and again no response. Obviously they realize that they are perhaps in trouble and hoping I will go away.
Maybe the office junior who answers emails has just deleted them.
that or maybe they opened it and said oh man maybe next year, a week ain't much for a company, I do reply to an email in less than 1 day sometimes 10 minutes but some people are really busy, making a conspiration of everything ain't the solution
-
The best way to get a reply is to send a registered letter to the person(s) in question. This may help lead you to who designed it: Zachary Johnson - the director's cousin http://flavorwire.com/332530/behold-the-first-official-animated-gif-movie-poster (http://flavorwire.com/332530/behold-the-first-official-animated-gif-movie-poster) and his website is here: http://thezacharyjohnson.com/ (http://thezacharyjohnson.com/) Seems like this would all be done "in-house" to lower production costs.
My guess? They bought the image and didn't really think about extended license. Not sure if you're going to get your microstock supplier on your side since it's bad optics. They all need the business and are probably not going to raise a stink. I would talk to the guy who sold his image on the cover of Time magazine and see what he got in the end. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87339 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87339)
-
My guess? They bought the image and didn't really think about extended license. Not sure if you're going to get your microstock supplier on your side since it's bad optics. They all need the business and are probably not going to raise a stink. I would talk to the guy who sold his image on the cover of Time magazine and see what he got in the end. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87339[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87339[/url])
Time magazine played the 'ignorance' card a second time with an iS image by our own Stacey, and IIRC she eventually got the value of the EL she should have got.
-
2nd email sent and again no response. Obviously they realize that they are perhaps in trouble and hoping I will go away.
Several years ago, I was in a shop of a semi-upmarket UK chain.
In one of the cabinets I saw for sale shaving brushes with ivory handles.
It had been illegal to sell ivory in the UK for a number of years before that, unless it had a provenance dating it to before a certain date.
I looked at the assistant, who looked about 16 and realised there was no point taking the matter up with her, though she did assure me it was 'real ivory' when I asked.
I wrote to their head office, and didn't hear back. However, the next time I was in the shop, the offending articles weren't there. Way before phone cams, so I had no proof to take it up elsewhere.
Several months later, I got a letter back from their HO telling me I would be pleased to know that all of their ivory products were now (sic) faux-ivoire.
All this just to let you know how long these things can take.
-
I got a reply after sending the email again. They asked what image am I referring. I sent them the evidence. They have again gone silent. I wonder if they are stalling me.
-
they're reading the fine print in their license and wondering if they've breached it...
-
.
-
I think it would be considerably more than $28 looking at it being a movie poster. Still not heard back. Will get onto them again. I bet Bruce Willis wasn't messed about like this ;-)
-
I think it would be considerably more than $28 looking at it being a movie poster.
There is no EL at any of your possible agencies which has a special EL category for 'movie poster', as such, though 'goods for sale' is a different matter.
BTW, did you ever discover whether DT has an EL for large print runs?
-
.
-
I think it would be considerably more than $28 looking at it being a movie poster. Still not heard back. Will get onto them again. I bet Bruce Willis wasn't messed about like this ;-)
I think a regular EL would cover it.
You dont even know the print run and the agency that sold the license.
-
.
-
You are correct
-
After 2 reminder emails they are silent. This is taking the Micheal. Obviously they know they are in the wrong otherwise they would have explained.
-
.
-
Have you tried contacting your agencies?
You could write to each giving the date/s your image sold from them before the first date you saw it in use, and they should be able to help, and would tell you if an EL was needed.
I've read that iS tend to say to indies 'how do you know they bought it from us?', but they might help if your file had relatively few sales and you could give them a date range to check through.
Have no idea how the others react to this sort of issue, but now we can find out.
-
Have you tried contacting your agencies?
You could write to each giving the date/s your image sold from them before the first date you saw it in use, and they should be able to help, and would tell you if an EL was needed.
I've read that iS tend to say to indies 'how do you know they bought it from us?', but they might help if your file had relatively few sales and you could give them a date range to check through.
Have no idea how the others react to this sort of issue, but now we can find out.
Thats what I also suggested two pages ago.
-
I will now contact the company behind this movie and try and find where they got this from.
Presumably you contacted the agency behind the promotion of the movie rather than the actual producers? :)
And you politely identified yourself formally as the author of the original work which they had used ? And you politely asked where they had bought the image ?
And that's where it is at now ?
ETA: and hopefully at this point you have not even mentioned print runs or ELs or any of that.
-
Also - I don't think that basically calling them out on the Internet by naming the movie was a particularly bright idea. Since when / if they finally contact whoever they subcontracted and when they finally contact whoever they subcontracted etc (and this may take ages) ... it may well turn out that the whole thing is entirely legit.
-
Also - I don't think that basically calling them out on the Internet by naming the movie was a particularly bright idea. Since when / if they finally contact whoever they subcontracted and when they finally contact whoever they subcontracted etc (and this may take ages) ... it may well turn out that the whole thing is entirely legit.
You have obviously jumped to conclusions. No, I haven't contacted the movie producers, just the company who designed the poster based in London. They make A rated major movie posters which is why I am astounded at their unprofessional-ism and rudeness at not answering emails to a valid question. Finding out where they bought it from will be like finding a needle in a haystack and the microstock sites won't want to be bothered. Why should they ?
-
I will now contact the company behind this movie and try and find where they got this from.
ETA: and hopefully at this point you have not even mentioned print runs or ELs or any of that.
And why not ?
-
And why not ?
Because it implies a suspicion that they are in breach of a contract which is a lousy start to any conversation.
There is a good chance that they don't need an EL for a UK only poster. The DVD has a different cover image from what I can see. Also remember that they could always upgrade the licence if the poster was suddenly in huge demand.
You should expect to wait a long time for any sort of answer. It is not worth spending much time on for the sake of perhaps $20 or $30 but most likely $0. They will likely contact the agency if they think there is a potential problem. It will take even longer if the work was subcontracted.
They are a client of the agency. From their perspective you are just some random person who has emailed them out of the blue.
-
And why not ?
Because it implies a suspicion that they are in breach of a contract which is a lousy start to any conversation.
There is a good chance that they don't need an EL for a UK only poster. The DVD has a different cover image from what I can see. Also remember that they could always upgrade the licence if the poster was suddenly in huge demand.
You should expect to wait a long time for any sort of answer. It is not worth spending much time on for the sake of perhaps $20 or $30 but most likely $0. They will likely contact the agency if they think there is a potential problem. It will take even longer if the work was subcontracted.
They are a client of the agency. From their perspective you are just some random person who has emailed them out of the blue.
I disagree.
-
And why not ?
Because it implies a suspicion that they are in breach of a contract which is a lousy start to any conversation.
There is a good chance that they don't need an EL for a UK only poster. The DVD has a different cover image from what I can see. Also remember that they could always upgrade the licence if the poster was suddenly in huge demand.
You should expect to wait a long time for any sort of answer. It is not worth spending much time on for the sake of perhaps $20 or $30 but most likely $0. They will likely contact the agency if they think there is a potential problem. It will take even longer if the work was subcontracted.
They are a client of the agency. From their perspective you are just some random person who has emailed them out of the blue.
I disagree.
Aspp has a point tho, if you disagree or not.
-
Good grief __ I can't believe this thread is still popping up! And this is the second thread regarding one single image sale that may ... or may not .... have required an EL.
Ridiculous. Do you realise how many more images you could have produced and how much more they might have earned you had you not spent so much of your time pursuing this? Let it go and move on.
-
Good grief __ I can't believe this thread is still popping up! And this is the second thread regarding one single image sale that may ... or may not .... have required an EL.
Ridiculous. Do you realise how many more images you could have produced and how much more they might have earned you had you not spent so much of your time pursuing this? Let it go and move on.
Joe, I see where you are coming from but if we all let things go these companies would walk all over us.
-
Good grief __ I can't believe this thread is still popping up! And this is the second thread regarding one single image sale that may ... or may not .... have required an EL.
Ridiculous. Do you realise how many more images you could have produced and how much more they might have earned you had you not spent so much of your time pursuing this? Let it go and move on.
Gostwyck, with all due respect, OP can do whatever he/she pleases do to with their time pursuing their copyright. It's up to you participating/reading this thread or not. Ignore buttons are readily available all over this forum.
I have a similar situation with a poster printing company from Australia that receives the actual printed product from Italy who claims to have "purchased" my copyright from a microstock agency.
They might have just worded it wrong, they might have purchased the required EL, they might have NOT...
The agency in question is checking on it and I think there is nothing wrong asking questions if there is something suspicious going on. I'm not claiming they're guilty but as a German saying goes:
"Trust is good, control is better!"
-
Anyway they eventually got back to me so I will keep you posted.
-
I highly doubt the guys behind the movie stole your image. In fact they are very strict about the images they use, seems like one of the agencies gave them a special deal.
-
And that agency has not got back to me as promised nearly 2 weeks ago. They are taking the micky and I don't find it that amusing considering what they have done. They are obviously playing for time and hoping I would go away. If they were that sure and just in what they have done they would have said so in their first email. I have sent a reminder but if I hear nothing I will seek professional advice.
-
I found this over the weekend and thought of you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tony-juniper/spixs-macaw_b_1176844.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tony-juniper/spixs-macaw_b_1176844.html)
"So what now? I have been in touch with lawyers in London who advised me that I need to find legal representation in Los Angeles - the city where Twentieth Century Fox have their headquarters. This has not been easy, however. All the California firms so far contacted work for Twentieth Century Fox in some way or other, and therefore are unable to represent me because of their conflict of interest. So is there a firm in LA that is able to help? I am still looking."
>:( :( :'(
This geographic legal thing is a total scam.
-
^ I wonder what happened, that was over a year ago.
-
^ Tweeted 27th March 2013:
"... unlike 20th Century Fox who used my book 'Spix's Macaw' to make the 'Rio' film, they ask first!"
https://twitter.com/TonyJuniper/status/316853421938446336 (https://twitter.com/TonyJuniper/status/316853421938446336)
Can't find anything more recent (only a quick shuftie) about any legal case.
-
They got back to me and said they purchased it from Dreamstime and are contacting them for more info. Of all the stock sites it was the one which has terrible poor sales for me.
-
^^^ getting more interesting. Keep us posted.
-
DT ? Here the turning point comes...
-
They got back to me and said they purchased it from Dreamstime and are contacting them for more info. Of all the stock sites it was the one which has terrible poor sales for me.
So they didnt get the EL from DT then? Or do you have an EL sale on DT for the image?
-
They got back to me and said they purchased it from Dreamstime and are contacting them for more info. Of all the stock sites it was the one which has terrible poor sales for me.
So they didnt get the EL from DT then? Or do you have an EL sale on DT for the image?
Why would you need an EL for a movie poster? It's unlikely to be resold or have a print run more than 500K surely?
From DT's website;
"Using our regular RF license you CAN:
- illustrate websites
- decorate you home or office
- create advertising posters, flyers, postcards and any other promotional material of this type
- create unique interior designs
- illustrate books and CD covers and booklets
- illustrate magazine articles and covers or newspapers
- create wrappings for different products
- create posters for humanitarian campaigns or social campaigns
- create company presentations"
-
They got back to me and said they purchased it from Dreamstime and are contacting them for more info. Of all the stock sites it was the one which has terrible poor sales for me.
So they didnt get the EL from DT then? Or do you have an EL sale on DT for the image?
Why would you need an EL for a movie poster? It's unlikely to be resold or have a print run more than 500K surely?
From DT's website;
"Using our regular RF license you CAN:
- illustrate websites
- decorate you home or office
- create advertising posters, flyers, postcards and any other promotional material of this type
- create unique interior designs
- illustrate books and CD covers and booklets
- illustrate magazine articles and covers or newspapers
- create wrappings for different products
- create posters for humanitarian campaigns or social campaigns
- create company presentations"
I dont know, I am not on DT, but thanks for looking that up. Basically that closes the case. They didnt infringe the license they bought. Sums it up really. Big million dollar production Hollywood and they used a stock image for 5 dollar, within the use of the license. And loads of time wasted over nothing.
-
.
-
[url]http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Looper-Movie-Poster-Posters_i9200307_.htm?AID=96280778&ProductTarget=53105826463[/url] ([url]http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Looper-Movie-Poster-Posters_i9200307_.htm?AID=96280778&ProductTarget=53105826463[/url])
[url]http://www.moviepostershop.com/looper-movie-poster-2012/AB81405[/url] ([url]http://www.moviepostershop.com/looper-movie-poster-2012/AB81405[/url])
Someone is selling the poster.
Right, so you just kicked off the next round of chasing this around. Ding ding ding - Resale. :)
-
.
-
I wasnt going to wade through 5 pages to see what was said. But the OP has no longer beef with the production company but with poster resellers I might think. Those might not even be related to the production company. Good luck sorted that mess out.
-
They got back to me and said they purchased it from Dreamstime and are contacting them for more info. Of all the stock sites it was the one which has terrible poor sales for me.
So they didnt get the EL from DT then? Or do you have an EL sale on DT for the image?
Why would you need an EL for a movie poster? It's unlikely to be resold or have a print run more than 500K surely?
From DT's website;
"Using our regular RF license you CAN:
- illustrate websites
- decorate you home or office
- create advertising posters, flyers, postcards and any other promotional material of this type
- create unique interior designs
- illustrate books and CD covers and booklets
- illustrate magazine articles and covers or newspapers
- create wrappings for different products
- create posters for humanitarian campaigns or social campaigns
- create company presentations"
Case closed... :-\
-
They got back to me and said they purchased it from Dreamstime and are contacting them for more info. Of all the stock sites it was the one which has terrible poor sales for me.
So they didnt get the EL from DT then? Or do you have an EL sale on DT for the image?
Why would you need an EL for a movie poster? It's unlikely to be resold or have a print run more than 500K surely?
From DT's website;
"Using our regular RF license you CAN:
- illustrate websites
- decorate you home or office
- create advertising posters, flyers, postcards and any other promotional material of this type
- create unique interior designs
- illustrate books and CD covers and booklets
- illustrate magazine articles and covers or newspapers
- create wrappings for different products
- create posters for humanitarian campaigns or social campaigns
- create company presentations"
Case closed... :-\
No that says create, not sell
-
They got back to me and said they purchased it from Dreamstime and are contacting them for more info. Of all the stock sites it was the one which has terrible poor sales for me.
So they didnt get the EL from DT then? Or do you have an EL sale on DT for the image?
Why would you need an EL for a movie poster? It's unlikely to be resold or have a print run more than 500K surely?
From DT's website;
"Using our regular RF license you CAN:
- illustrate websites
- decorate you home or office
- create advertising posters, flyers, postcards and any other promotional material of this type
- create unique interior designs
- illustrate books and CD covers and booklets
- illustrate magazine articles and covers or newspapers
- create wrappings for different products
- create posters for humanitarian campaigns or social campaigns
- create company presentations"
Case closed... :-\
Absolutely not !!!
-
Are the resellers related to the production company? Is the production company selling the posters? I might have missed that, but the links Tickstock posted dont seem to be related to the hollywood company.
-
I got this back from the poster production company:
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you,
I have attached the confirmation of purchase and spoken to Dreamstime who we purchased this image from who confirmed that you have been paid by them for the use of this image,
If you have any further queries please let me know,
-
Now you have to decide, after checking the DT T&C if you want to contact DT re the sales of the poster. Make sure you check the T&C very carefully. DT are probably not very happy that you contacted a big company directly and possibly (inferring from some posts above) in a semi-accusatory way.
Very impressed that they got back to you so quickly, even though it didn't seem like it to you at the time.
-
But he said it wasnt about being paid, it was about reselling?
This thread is so confusing.
If its about getting paid, you are chasing dimes, if its about reselling, you need check the license and report it to DT.
If its a principle thing now, then you might end up finding yourself in a lot more trouble then you bargained for.
-
What do you mean by trouble Ron ?
-
Trouble...i think he means with DT, like sue mentioned above. They dont want to be bothered tracking things down, but shame on you for questioning their authority. A$$hats. Also did the poster company tell you the print run? Sometimes the difference between standard and el is that quantity. I dont know dts terms any more...been gone from there for awhile now. Maybe it doesnt matter. Hope you get some sort of satisfaction, even if it is only a principle.
-
What do you mean by trouble Ron ?
If you are stirring the pot to much, and DT doesnt like it, you might get your account suspended or whatever. What if that company says, we dont like your contributors chasing us, we go shopping somewhere else. Dont know, be careful. You dont even know for sure if you have a case.
-
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.
-
Fair enough. Hope you get it resolved.
-
Seems to me that...
1. Your time could be MUCH better spent just focusing on creating new content.
2. Many people here told you that the usage was most likely covered by a regular license, yet you pressed on making noise with the customer, DT and the ms community over nothing.
3. If I ran DT I would see this as extremely unprofessional behavior and I would sanction you. You contacted the customer implying they did something wrong, when they were perfectly in the clear. I would be hesitant to buy from DT again for fear one of its contributors would come after me later questioning my legitimate use of an image. So not cool, man.
4. What's next, you're going to go after every third party poster reseller or eBayer who is offering the poster for sale? For god's sake, let it go.
When I jumped into microstock, I had to swallow the fact that sometimes my work will be used in ways the license doesn't allow, or worse yet, outright stolen. I can try to monitor every usage and go after people I think are infringing, or I can keep my nose to the grindstone. I don't have to like the misuse or theft, but I know I will not move forward if I keep looking back.
-
Seems to me that...
1. Your time could be MUCH better spent just focusing on creating new content.
2. Many people here told you that the usage was most likely covered by a regular license, yet you pressed on making noise with the customer, DT and the ms community over nothing.
3. If I ran DT I would see this as extremely unprofessional behavior and I would sanction you. You contacted the customer implying they did something wrong, when they were perfectly in the clear. I would be hesitant to buy from DT again for fear one of its contributors would come after me later questioning my legitimate use of an image. So not cool, man.
4. What's next, you're going to go after every third party poster reseller or eBayer who is offering the poster for sale? For god's sake, let it go.
When I jumped into microstock, I had to swallow the fact that sometimes my work will be used in ways the license doesn't allow, or worse yet, outright stolen. I can try to monitor every usage and go after people I think are infringing, or I can keep my nose to the grindstone. I don't have to like the misuse or theft, but I know I will not move forward if I keep looking back.
Well said. Almost every business suffers from some degree of 'shrinkage' as it is called. The loss of stock and/or property, most of it usually stolen by the business's own employees, is almost unavoidable without taking impractical measures that would cost the business more than the loss it is intended to prevent. Unfortunately it is part of the business ... of being in business.
You are best moving on and utilising your time & energy to create new content.
-
Seems to me that...
1. Your time could be MUCH better spent just focusing on creating new content.
2. Many people here told you that the usage was most likely covered by a regular license, yet you pressed on making noise with the customer, DT and the ms community over nothing.
3. If I ran DT I would see this as extremely unprofessional behavior and I would sanction you. You contacted the customer implying they did something wrong, when they were perfectly in the clear. I would be hesitant to buy from DT again for fear one of its contributors would come after me later questioning my legitimate use of an image. So not cool, man.
4. What's next, you're going to go after every third party poster reseller or eBayer who is offering the poster for sale? For god's sake, let it go.
Agree 100%! We really should all read and understand the usages allowed in the various agency licenses. If you aren't comfortable with the allowable usages, then you should probably just keep your images locked away on your hard drive where they'll be safe.
This turns out to be really much ado about nothing.
Well said. Almost every business suffers from some degree of 'shrinkage' as it is called. The loss of stock and/or property, most of it usually stolen by the business's own employees, is almost unavoidable without taking impractical measures that would cost the business more than the loss it is intended to prevent. Unfortunately it is part of the business ... of being in business.
You are best moving on and utilising your time & energy to create new content.
True^^! Not to mention that in this case, it wasn't even a case of "shrinkage" or misuse. The image was properly licensed and paid for.
I am absolutely baffled by the attitude of "how dare they purchase and use one of my images" on display here. Mind-boggling.
-
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.
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. :D 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.
-
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.
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. :D 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.
-
No disrespect, how are you losing a lot of money? You got paid and the company is not abusing the license. The resellers are not ever going to pay you, all you can do is send a DMCA to have it taken down.
I am really confused as to what the problem is. There were two issues, the poster distributed by the company, and the resale of the posters.
The first one is no longer an issue, as they are using the poster within the license. The second one is a problem, but its not related to the company that bought the image.
Correct me if I am wrong. I am genuinely lost.
-
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. ;)
-
I hear what you are saying, and he should get paid for whatever he should be paid for. But the movie company paid for the license and the use is within the license. The reseller is a different thing altogether unless its the same movie company.
The question is, is the movie company the post reseller the same company or different companies. And then he also needs to find out if the movie company passed the image of their mock up on to the poster reseller.
Maybe he just needs to report it all to DT and let them handle it.
I think nobody disagrees here that he should get his fair share, but it has become so confusing now that people think it was resolved when DT confirmed the movie company bought the license.
-
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.
-
Its not unfamiliar at all. It has become a very confusing thread, and you are the only one who can clear it up.
-
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.
-
It was confusing to me.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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.
Did what? They did nothing wrong with the poster, and that was the general advice you got here.
Please keep us updated with your progress on the goods for sale, though. There is clearly an issue with that under the DT T&C:
"Web templates, greeting cards or postcards especially designed for sale, similar print-on-demand services, canvas, t-shirts, mugs, calendars, postcards, mouse pads or any other items incorporating the image in an essential manner, intended to be sold are considered redistribution (if the image is used in an essential manner). The use of Dreamstime.com images for these purposes under the regular Royalty Free license is not permitted." though DT could wriggle out of that under how they choose to define "incorporating the image in an essential matter'. You may find that they have a different definition than you or I would have - but I have no experience of DT. Please get that investigated. I see it as a real issue.
-
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'?
-
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'?
Yes, I'd let it go. If I wanted to invest the time and effort into chasing down a retroactive EL, what would it get me? $20? $30? My time is MUCH more valuable than that.
But you'll say "it's not the money, it's the principle!" As I've said before, we knew the risks when we signed up. I'm a microstocker first, artist second (or third or fourth).
I sell probably 500 or so downloads across the various sites every weekday. By the odds, I'm certain I've been "wronged" multiple times, with my images on items for commercial use, high volume, etc. without a proper EL. But even if I spotted something fishy, I would just smile and move along. I have a daily quota to hit, and if I miss it because I want to chase down a $30 EL or fight for the "principle," then I'm a bad business person.
-
somebody is jealous, giving SM a minus for having 500 downloads a day ;D
-
somebody is jealous, giving SM a minus for having 500 downloads a day ;D
That's ok. I'll give you a plus for fessing up to it. ;)
-
somebody is jealous, giving SM a minus for having 500 downloads a day ;D
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.
-
somebody is jealous, giving SM a minus for having 500 downloads a day ;D
That's ok. I'll give you a plus for fessing up to it. ;)
I have googled that one, I am not confessing anything, it wasn't me
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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. ::)
-
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.
I do it for a second income, but I agree with the pros here, somewhat.
-
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 (http://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.
-
I do it for a second income too, and that money has significance in my life just like anyone else's whether they are part or full-time. Money pays bills. Hobbyist, part-timer or full-timer, if the money were not important, people would be posting for fun on flickr. Why worry about rejections and going through inspections if the money is not important? Hobbyist or not has nothing to do with right and wrong.
-
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 : [url=http://www.infringersite.com/page.htm]www.infringersite.com/page.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.infringersite.com/page.htm[/url]). 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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Sooooooooo how was I to know which microstock site sold my image to the company without, er, asking them? Why would that offend ? I did explain to them. There is no damage done. Get over it. I rely on my income as part of my business so yes, I will fight every penny if being ripped off. You may not care which is fine. BTW-DT never got back to me since I contacted them a few days ago.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yaaaay, you've done us all a service. :-)
-
Nobody said the reselling was ok, but congratulations. Perseverance rewarded, maybe.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yep. Sometimes doing the right thing pi$$e$ some people off. You have to do what YOU think is right and let the rest go. I hope it works out well for you.
-
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.
Aren't you just changing your story to match the new facts that have emerged? According to your OP you have been chasing this issue since last year, because you saw your image on a movie poster, however it was only on 5th June that Tickstock found that the poster was for resale. The use of your image in a movie poster, without resale, was indeed covered by the basic license purchased from DT.
-
Aren't you just changing your story to match the new facts that have emerged? According to your OP you have been chasing this issue since last year, because you saw your image on a movie poster, however it was only on 5th June that Tickstock found that the poster was for resale. The use of your image in a movie poster, without resale, was indeed covered by the basic license purchased from DT.
The OP does also mention his concern that movie posters are offered for resale.
-
Aren't you just changing your story to match the new facts that have emerged? According to your OP you have been chasing this issue since last year, because you saw your image on a movie poster, however it was only on 5th June that Tickstock found that the poster was for resale. The use of your image in a movie poster, without resale, was indeed covered by the basic license purchased from DT.
The OP does also mention his concern that movie posters are offered for resale.
Clearly, from the OP on 3rd May, "As posters are for sale all over the net ..."
-
He didnt even know if the movie company was selling the images. He only went after them and not the resellers. Its still beyond my how he approached the whole thing. Shouldnt you first find out if the people selling the poster are related to the movie company before hounding them down?
-
He didnt even know if the movie company was selling the images. He only went after them and not the resellers. Its still beyond my how he approached the whole thing. Shouldnt you first find out if the people selling the poster are related to the movie company before hounding them down?
Like I am being hounded down here ? Come on, Dreamstime advised I put the contact of the poster company down as the contact on the form because they are the ones who bought the image.
-
You are not being hounded, people just disagree with your approach on the situation.
-
.
-
Dreamstime sent me this regarding poster sales. You see, I was right to chase this
This image was not purchased for this usage and the usage in this way was not something we were made aware of.
We will have to check with our client that they know the image is being used in this way as it could be being sold illegally. We will either pay the extended license or have the image removed from the website once we have received instruction from our client.
-
Well I decided to contact DT as it has been months since I heard from them regarding the outcome. I have still not received any extended licence so this is the reply I got today. To be honest I think DT have handled this abysmally considering they are supposed to be knowledgeable of this kind of issue.
Do you think it is worth me perusing this legally ?
The main purpose of the reporting tool is to signal the copyright
infringement issue and try to convince the infringing party to either
purchase the appropriate license or remove the content from their end.
While many of these reports have been successful and the content was removed, we are aware that there may be cases in which the infringing party ignores our messages or decides to keep the content as it is.
We can try at this point to re-send the same report to the hosting
domain. You can find the contact address for the hosting domain using
tools such as whois.net or whois.com
Also, as rightful copyright owner of the file, we encourage you to
contact them from your end as well and to seek legal counsel. We can
assist you with any additional info required should you decide to
pursue your claim further.
-
At first glance, it looks like they are dealing with two entirely different questions. Isn't the 2nd answer a canned response that they give when you use the "reporting tool". This isn't a take-down notice, this is a clear violation of the license and it seemed that they grasped that in the July post. I would follow up again.
-
Some experience from my side (happened to me twice in The Netherlands),
Write a polite letter to the publisher of the poster and explain that you are the copyright owner concerning the material they use.
kindly ask them to help you out with some data, like:
- where they bought the license
- what they paid for it
- what license they bought
- end so on.
Explain them you might be mistaken and that you might have overlooked some information.
If they do not show a reaction, call them and ask for the responsible person for information
If you are shouted about, you know the case smells like swiss cheese and look for help.
give them a chance to buy the proper license (and put some time limits and proof for the reaction)
or let them remove all copies.
Going to court is allways an option and can be done whenever you think you are not taken serious. Don't forget it is expensive
Don't forget they are a copyrightowner themselfes and hate bootlegs and illegal bluerays, dvd's and
-
Well I decided to contact DT as it has been months since I heard from them regarding the outcome. I have still not received any extended licence so this is the reply I got today. To be honest I think DT have handled this abysmally considering they are supposed to be knowledgeable of this kind of issue.
Do you think it is worth me perusing this legally ?
The main purpose of the reporting tool is to signal the copyright
infringement issue and try to convince the infringing party to either
purchase the appropriate license or remove the content from their end.
While many of these reports have been successful and the content was removed, we are aware that there may be cases in which the infringing party ignores our messages or decides to keep the content as it is.
We can try at this point to re-send the same report to the hosting
domain. You can find the contact address for the hosting domain using
tools such as whois.net or whois.com
Also, as rightful copyright owner of the file, we encourage you to
contact them from your end as well and to seek legal counsel. We can
assist you with any additional info required should you decide to
pursue your claim further.
As Pixart said, that is a canned reply from DT which doesn't match the issue. Your issue isn't online use, that's totally irrelevant. Your issue was movie posters.
It seems to me that micros (and even Alamy RM) are extremely reluctant to commit time and energy to chasing down infringements.
However, you need to get back to DT saying that their answer doesn't relate to your particular issue and try to prompt at least a relevant response, which might be helpful in identifying exactly who you should be pursuing.
-
How many companies are going to pay for legal help for a little measly contributor? (not intended in a bad way toward the OP, but referring to us artists collectively)
At the end of the day all any company cares about is the bottom line at the end of the quarter/year, and the less expenses they rack up, the easier it is to turn a profit. Unless their are extenuating circumstances, I'm sure their bean counters weigh the potential expenses vs potential returns, and usually come to the same conclusion every time - it is not worth it.
The best scenario would be to have the offender take down the contraban - everyone is happy, no court costs for the company, artist gets a measure of releif, and the offender gets off easy.
-
It's all very complex and as I am pretty green in this area (hence why I come here and appreciate your help) I don't want to be taken for a ride without knowing it. If it's all legal and above board I am happy but I don't want anyone making money out of my work that isn't rightfully theirs to sell.
I have a sent a polite message to these people too;
http://www.allposters.co.uk/-sp/Looper-Movie-Poster-Posters_i9200308_.htm?AID=1586766026&ProductTarget=51023071856&AutoTargetLabel=price10to20&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=PLA&GCID=C15100x057&srccode=cii_18 (http://www.allposters.co.uk/-sp/Looper-Movie-Poster-Posters_i9200308_.htm?AID=1586766026&ProductTarget=51023071856&AutoTargetLabel=price10to20&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=PLA&GCID=C15100x057&srccode=cii_18)
The guy selling on Amazon has taken his down a few months ago and it still isn't available.
-
This is the reply I have just received from DT
I have checked this issue with the legal department. The image is used
as part of the background so it is not essential manner. It is a movie
poster so the license I initially confirmed as required, the standard
Royalty free license is ok to use.
The only thing is that they need to observe the allowed number of
total copies - 500,000.
Again, the image is not used in essential manner, it is used as part
of the background.
-
Oh. :(
I had something like this when I found an image which had never had an EL (for resale) used on the cover of a game. iStock said my photo was only part of the packaging, so didn't require an EL (goods for resale).
Ha, good for the buyer: the box consisted of several iStock images (which are also used as cards in the game) with some text relating to the game.
What really beggars belief is that they didn't tell you that in the first place. Game over, end of.
-
.
-
It took them 8 months to come up with that answer ?!!
Unbeleivable!
-
It took them 8 months to come up with that answer ?!!
Unbeleivable!
I know. Oh well, at least its put to bed now. :-X
-
There you go, big multi million dollar Hollywood production only needs to spend 2 dollar on an image for their movie poster.
-
I feel bad for the poster companies that are just selling posters. They had no idea of how it was purchased. I feel I should mail them (the other is on Amazon) and tell them to carry on ?
This is the reply I had from the last poster company I emailed
We have received your inquiry below. We take seriously the intellectual property rights of others. We obtain our products from vendors that represent to us that they are fully authorized to sell us their products and we are fully authorized to re-sell them. Please know that we obtain the poster in question from Pop Culture Graphics. Due to the concern raised in your email, we are ceasing sales of this poster.
I just feel bad they are stopping the sales. What will it achieve ? Nothing.
-
It took them 8 months to come up with that answer ?!!
Unbeleivable!
I know. Oh well, at least its put to bed now. :-X
Why oh why did I just know you couldn't leave it be? I'm looking forward, if that's the word, to another 8 pages on this!
-
It took them 8 months to come up with that answer ?!!
Unbeleivable!
I know. Oh well, at least its put to bed now. :-X
Why oh why did I just know you couldn't leave it be? I'm looking forward, if that's the word, to another 8 pages on this!
To be fair I am not pushing it anymore. If you read my last post correctly you will see that I am simply asking if I should let the people who are selling the poster get on with their business because there is no point in stopping them earn a living.
-
If you read my last post correctly you will see that I am simply asking if I should let the people who are selling the poster get on with their business because there is no point in stopping them earn a living.
Them stopping selling the poster almost certainly had nothing anything to do with you contacting them.
It costs money to list items for sale - that means losing money if the poster is not selling. The movie is no longer current and it is very unlikely that anyone wants a poster. Also IIRC that poster was for the short British release only.