pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Need Help with Deviation of my Photo on DeviantArt  (Read 6391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 09, 2010, 16:00 »
0
I know this topic was just discussed within the last couple of months...I looked for the thread but just couldn't find it.

I found my best-selling image on DeviantArt, through Tineye search. You can see it here:

http://girafgiraf.deviantart.com/art/Personified-Corn-142763973

So they have taken my ear of corn image and put eyes and a mouth on it and now it is a derivative image. OK. If they bought the image with the correct license (I have my doubts about that), they can do what they have done with the proper license. If they did not purchase the image, of course they have not asked my permission to use it.

I believe, though, that they cannot offer this for download to other people whether they bought a license or not. Am I correct?

I also don't see how they can use my image and then post their copyright underneath the derivative. I emailed DeviantArt on this and they said that the copyright he posted under his derivative work only covers his changes (eyes and mouth). If that is true, that kind of sucks. At least I think he should be required to state that the ear of corn is my copyright.

I can see one more addition to my Advantages side of going exclusive. It's too difficult to track whether people have downloaded correct licenses when I am on so many sites.

Your help and opinions on this are much appreciated.

edit: I just found the other thread about this same topic here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/my-image-on-deviantart-is-this-ok/

This person doesn't seem to be selling his masterpiece, just letting others use it. So has he violated any of my copyright rights? Just asking for opinions.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 16:08 by cclapper »


« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2010, 18:59 »
0
Cathy I just reported the violation with my Deviantart account, pointing to your level 5 image on DT, and this thread. His deviation is totally crap and he probably got it from HeroTurko or so. So I did what I could.

He had 2 downloads today, so he is redistributing.

« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2010, 19:17 »
0
Cathy I just reported the violation with my Deviantart account, pointing to your level 5 image on DT, and this thread. His deviation is totally crap and he probably got it from HeroTurko or so. So I did what I could.

He had 2 downloads today, so he is redistributing.

Good idea!

I reported it too, and pointed to original image at Istock.

I hope they remove it soon.

« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2010, 15:09 »
0
 i really admire those of you who do find the time to locate thieves of your work.
even if i had the time, i don't even know how to begin to try to locate my works downloaded , never mind find a thief like that.

i think more publicity should be given BY THE STOCK SITES on exposing the thieves and /or sites that encourage such low-lives.

it's much like crime in the real world. you get caught, you get a slap in the wrist. you  get bail, you leave and you continue to do the same because the profit from crime pays more than the penalty society impedes upon criminals.

i know this is not 1st degree murder or embezzlement, but it certainly needs to me addressed by the stock agencies . 

another disadvantage of RF perharps? i am not a license expert, or any kind of expert for all that matters. maybe someone who is used to RM can tell me if this would not happen with RM?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 15:11 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2010, 15:18 »
0
The problem is that, when you contact the infractor or the site, he simply removes the image.  It's like if I steal you car, use it, then one day you catch me with it and I return the keys and leave.

« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2010, 15:28 »
0
The problem is that, when you contact the infractor or the site, he simply removes the image.  It's like if I steal you car, use it, then one day you catch me with it and I return the keys and leave.

yes, i understand.
which is why i think every contributor who discovers theft of your image, makes a big deal of it...
by writing to each site that carries your work of that image,
stipulate the offender, the offending site, and all relevant information to form a paper trail.
send it to each site's Support.

this would build an existing record (similar to a credit report or a criminal record , if you will)
which will or could be recalled in the future, should this thief be implicated on being a repeat offender.

build a paper trail. if you don't do it, no one else will.

m@m

« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2010, 15:42 »
0
The problem is that, when you contact the infractor or the site, he simply removes the image.  It's like if I steal you car, use it, then one day you catch me with it and I return the keys and leave.

Then maybe we should expose them on a list in this forum, something like the Most Wanted list you'll find in Federal government buildings, or bounce cheques you find regularly in some establishments, hey, if the sites don't take serious responsibilities for the repeated offenders among them, why not expose the thieve name or nickname and the site that allowed it to happen, maybe then sites will take stronger meassures against those kind of people...Tyler do you think something like that would be possible and legal to do on this forum?
I'm sure no site would like to find its name on a list like that.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 15:54 by m@m »

« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2010, 15:53 »
0
The problem is that, when you contact the infractor or the site, he simply removes the image.  It's like if I steal you car, use it, then one day you catch me with it and I return the keys and leave.

Then maybe we should expose them on a list in this forum, something like the Most Wanted list you'll find in Federal government buildings, or bounce cheques you find regularly in some establishments, hey, if the sites don't take serious responsibilities for the thieves among them, why not expose the thieve name or nickname and the site that allowed it to happen, maybe then sites will take stronger meassures against those kind of people...Tyler do you think something like that would be possible and legal to do on this forum?
I'm sure no site would like to find its name on a list like that.

i am not sure if we want to give them notoriety. criminals enjoy notoriety.
examples: jack the ripper, mad bomber, etc..

it's better to inform the stock agencies, so that they have records of their identity. inevitably, they will one day want to join say DT, IS,SS,etc.. to sell "their work".
the idea is to expose them where they will never work again; not to make them famous.

« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2010, 16:00 »
0
The problem is that, when you contact the infractor or the site, he simply removes the image.  It's like if I steal you car, use it, then one day you catch me with it and I return the keys and leave.

yes, i understand.
which is why i think every contributor who discovers theft of your image, makes a big deal of it...
by writing to each site that carries your work of that image,
stipulate the offender, the offending site, and all relevant information to form a paper trail.
send it to each site's Support.

this would build an existing record (similar to a credit report or a criminal record , if you will)
which will or could be recalled in the future, should this thief be implicated on being a repeat offender.

build a paper trail. if you don't do it, no one else will.


Excellent point dear Perseus, you just nailed the "moral" of the tale.
I got several images bought from dreamstime, usually all my digital paintings and matte paintings, and saw them used on deviantart offered in large size (1st infringement), or sold as prints (2nd infringement).

1st I decided not to sell my paintings as stock anymore and then I started to warn all the clients who were infringing the TOS... actually the most common reply from the was "I didn't know, I have never read the License's terms"... omg.  :o

Now I think I'd had better contacted the support of each agency and build real case against each one of them... maybe I could have gotten more than a "sorry, I'll take it down"  :-\

Anyway the DA user is redistributing the work, is not allowed to do so.

m@m

« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2010, 16:03 »
0
I don't know about that Perseus, for sure I would not like to be famous in that way, besides this list could be use as reference to the big sites, closing lots of doors for that type of people.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 16:05 by m@m »

« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2010, 16:16 »
0
Thanks for your help, folks.

Not sure whether it all is going to do any good. I don't see that he is reselling the image. He is only offering it for download to other people. I'm going to do some more investigating.

« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2010, 16:19 »
0
Thanks for your help, folks.

Not sure whether it all is going to do any good. I don't see that he is reselling the image. He is only offering it for download to other people. I'm going to do some more investigating.

to be honest the image is within the limits for being posted after purchasing the license, no more than 600x800 pixels... hmmm but I still think that the download option makes him infringing the license terms.

« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2010, 16:21 »
0
Thanks for your help, folks.

Not sure whether it all is going to do any good. I don't see that he is reselling the image. He is only offering it for download to other people. I'm going to do some more investigating.

edit: 2 of the 4 downloads are mine. I wanted to see what the size was (3x3" - 96ppi) and whether there were any tell-tale signs of the person using a thumbnail and PSing out the watermark. I don't see any, so it's possible they actually purchased the photo. I just don't believe they can offer it for download unless they bought the proper EL.

« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2010, 16:30 »
0
Thanks for your help, folks.

Not sure whether it all is going to do any good. I don't see that he is reselling the image. He is only offering it for download to other people. I'm going to do some more investigating.

hmm, i think i am going to leave this one to those who know more about reselling other people's creation.  i really think this is partly due to the licensing complexities or allowing someone to re-sell your work. not even sure if i like the sounds of it.  where the line to be drawn? too many loopholes ?

i will keep reading as i sure would like to hear some of the more experienced contributors here give us their insight to this. as we keep making it easier and cheaper to buy the rights to use our images,
i think this is opening a whole new can of worms, because now, it cost very little for some tom dick or harry to call himself / herself a "re-seller".

i won't qualify  the closing point, as i am totally in the dark in that field of this discussion.

« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2010, 17:01 »
0
reselling the image. He is only offering it for download to other people.
He is allowing downloads = redistribution. All agents exclude redistribution (free or for sale) from their RF license. Of course it won't help much but the alternative, doing nothing, is worse. We should support each other in these cases, especially since it only take a few clicks. If it would entail raising a Crusader army, walk to their offices and besiege them for 3 years, it should given some thoughts first.  :P

« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2010, 17:04 »
0
reselling the image. He is only offering it for download to other people.
He is allowing downloads = redistribution. All agents exclude redistribution (free or for sale) from their RF license. Of course it won't help much but the alternative, doing nothing, is worse. We should support each other in these cases, especially since it only take a few clicks. If it would entail raising a Crusader army, walk to their offices and besiege them for 3 years, it should given some thoughts first.  :P

well spoken FDa

« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2010, 18:21 »
0
edit: 2 of the 4 downloads are mine. I wanted to see what the size was (3x3" - 96ppi) and whether there were any tell-tale signs of the person using a thumbnail and PSing out the watermark. I don't see any, so it's possible they actually purchased the photo. I just don't believe they can offer it for download unless they bought the proper EL.

If you check out his gallery he has a section for 'Personalised Stuff' which includes your corn and 3 other images that he has drawn faces on. One of them is a cupcake which is owned by an Istock exclusive so presumably that's where he is sourcing his images.


« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2010, 19:25 »
0
I think all sites allow buyers to have images on websites up to 800x600 pix. These are however not meant to be downloaded, but then of course nothing stops someone from downloading an image.  But if the guy at DeviantArt offers the image for download, then I think it's an infringement.  It's also possible that his having uploaded the image at DeviantArt is against the site's policy (someone else's copyrighted material), unless he has chnaged the image significantly.

« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2010, 19:46 »
0
Quote
It's also possible that his having uploaded the image at DeviantArt is against the site's policy (someone else's copyrighted material), unless he has chnaged the image significantly.

He has not changed the image significantly. And it's my understanding that if they use someone elses

This is from the DeviantArt copyright policy, found at the bottom of the page:

What is Copyright Infringement?

To simplify this question, copyright infringement occurs when you do certain things with a creative work which someone else produced without first getting the proper permission.

Some examples of copyright infringement (this is only a partial listing) can include:

    * Placing a photograph or creative work online without proper permission.
    * Using a creative work commercially.
    * Adapting a creative work of one medium to another, such as making a book into a movie or a photograph into a painting.
    * Modifying or editing a creative work without proper permission.


How Can I Avoid Infringing on Someone's Copyright?

The best way to avoid infringing on the rights of another creative person is to use your skill, talent and imagination to create your own completely original work. When we use the word 'original' we don't mean that you must come up with an idea which hasn't been used before, when used in copyright matters "original" means that you created your work without referencing or deliberately copying anyone else's work during the process.

Ensure that all parts of your work, both visual and audio, are your own original creations. If you have used materials which are owned by other people or companies make certain that you have obtained proper permission or licensing for the use before you place your work online.

« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2010, 19:53 »
0
Quote
It's also possible that his having uploaded the image at DeviantArt is against the site's policy (someone else's copyrighted material), unless he has chnaged the image significantly.

He has not changed the image significantly. And it's my understanding that if they use someone elses

This is from the DeviantArt copyright policy, found at the bottom of the page:

What is Copyright Infringement?

To simplify this question, copyright infringement occurs when you do certain things with a creative work which someone else produced without first getting the proper permission.

Some examples of copyright infringement (this is only a partial listing) can include:

    * Placing a photograph or creative work online without proper permission.
    * Using a creative work commercially.
    * Adapting a creative work of one medium to another, such as making a book into a movie or a photograph into a painting.
    * Modifying or editing a creative work without proper permission.


How Can I Avoid Infringing on Someone's Copyright?

The best way to avoid infringing on the rights of another creative person is to use your skill, talent and imagination to create your own completely original work. When we use the word 'original' we don't mean that you must come up with an idea which hasn't been used before, when used in copyright matters "original" means that you created your work without referencing or deliberately copying anyone else's work during the process.

Ensure that all parts of your work, both visual and audio, are your own original creations. If you have used materials which are owned by other people or companies make certain that you have obtained proper permission or licensing for the use before you place your work online.

« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2010, 19:54 »
0
I'm taking this up a notch. I found an email for a person regarding copyright infringement in their own Copyright Policy, found at the bottom of the page.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2010, 20:00 »
0
It sounds like copyright infridgement in their own words. The photo wasn't changed to the point you wouldn't know it was the same image so I would say it is copyright infridgement by their own definition.

« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2010, 20:52 »
0
  It's also possible that his having uploaded the image at DeviantArt is against the site's policy (someone else's copyrighted material), unless he has chnaged the image significantly.

(catchphrase) "unless he has changed the image significantly."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
is that still not copyright infringment , though?

say, i took an Ansel Adams Moonrise Hernandez , or Richard Avedon's work of Twiggy, and CHANGED THE IMAGE SIGNIFICANTLY...
it is still stealing some IP, isn't it? 
Or else, someone could jolly well take Rembrandt Nightwatch , photoshop it over and presto, it's mine.

I remember reading somewhere that even if you did a silhouette , any proper stock agency will demand the unsilhouetted original  to prove the image was not stolen from another photographer, and you simply photoshop it into a silhouette.

unless you meant to say something else? Madelaide, please clarify.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2010, 20:57 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2010, 21:16 »
0
Perseus,

If I am not mistaken, all sites allow you to create "derivative work" from a purchased image and you have copyright over it. Of course, it's not just about getting an image and mirroring it.  The problem is how much change is necessary to consider it is a derivative work. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2930 Views
Last post April 17, 2009, 16:43
by madelaide
58 Replies
13815 Views
Last post January 26, 2010, 06:41
by Klauts
59 Replies
12416 Views
Last post October 28, 2010, 20:32
by jbarber873
9 Replies
3051 Views
Last post July 30, 2012, 12:47
by michaeldb
8 Replies
2628 Views
Last post January 23, 2015, 20:23
by Fuertegfx

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results