Author Topic: New stock agency - FAA / Pixels.com (Read 38318 times)

sweetgirll · « **Reply #150 on:** March 24, 2014, 18:14 »

Lots of
celebrities paintings....

fineartamerica.com/art/all/celebrities/all

some like to walk a fine line....

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #151 on:** March 24, 2014, 18:18 »

Quote from: sweetgirll on March 24, 2014, 18:14

Lots of
celebrities paintings....

fineartamerica.com/art/all/celebrities/all

some like to walk a fine line....

Seriously, how do they get away with this?
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/jack-nicholson-andrzej-szczerski.html
http://www.amazon.com/SD6664-Nicholson-Cigar-Legendary-POSTER/dp/B00CRAL6K4

luissantos84 · « **Reply #152 on:** March 24, 2014, 18:21 »

its fine copied art

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #153 on:** March 24, 2014, 18:26 »

Yes I tried to tiptoe through that point on FAA and basically saw that people were told to Shut Up and called names and attacked and accused of just being jealous, trying to ruin it for others, who were making money.

Plus the moderator ended it with (paraphrased but close), "If you aren't an attorney you can't have an opinion on this." Thread locked.

Now talk about lack of open discussion or willingness to understand the liability and the law.

My only opinion on the whole mess is this. Someday someone will come and there will be a big lawsuit and FAA will stop protecting these people, for the commissions and start looking out for the rights of the personal likeness and original artists who are being copied, in some cases, just run through a filter.

Yes some - very few - are real paintings, most are just photoshop alterations.

I don't want to be a party to that suit when the Shmutz hits the fan.

Quote from: sweetgirll on March 24, 2014, 18:14

Lots of
celebrities paintings....

fineartamerica.com/art/all/celebrities/all

some like to walk a fine line....

stockastic · « **Reply #154 on:** March 24, 2014, 18:41 »

FAA has lots of that sort of thing. Many people just re-sell well-known paintings by past masters:

http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/rembrandt/all

Also a number of people make money simply by selling NASA photos. All of this has been questioned many times on the FAA forum and the response is "mind your own business". If you check the Recent Sales page now and then you'll see that these things make FAA a lot of money. Apparently it's all quite legal.

I think they should put the idea of selling stock on the back burner. Then turn off the burner. And after a few days, sell the stove.

Meanwhile people are continuing to post about disappearing images, and getting no response:

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1807822

LesPalenik · « **Reply #155 on:** March 24, 2014, 22:01 »

Also several "artists" re-selling celebrity portraits. Look up just Audrey Hepburn - you'll find over 100 listings and many of them are identical copies. And I mean COPIES.

Everytime, one of these pictures gets sold, the listing "artist" receives from others dozens of congratulations and encouraging comments, such as - great work, amazing photography, nice image, awesome capture, even - Really like this one, good composition and processing, can see why it sold.

I pointed this infraction twice to FAA through direct emails and on their forums. Only once I received a reply to my email stating that it is not allowed to post any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. BUT - it is each artist's responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.

In the meantime, new copies of existing portraits are being added and sold.

Rinderart · « **Reply #156 on:** March 24, 2014, 23:43 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on March 24, 2014, 22:01

Also several "artists" re-selling celebrity portraits. Look up just Audrey Hepburn - you'll find over 100 listings and many of them are identical copies. And I mean COPIES.

Everytime, one of these pictures gets sold, the listing "artist" receives from others dozens of congratulations and encouraging comments, such as - great work, amazing photography, nice image, awesome capture, even - Really like this one, good composition and processing, can see why it sold.

I pointed this infraction twice to FAA through direct emails and on their forums. Only once I received a reply to my email stating that it is not allowed to post any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. BUT - it is each artist's responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.

In the meantime, new copies of existing portraits are being added and sold.

The very reason , I closed my account 7 Months ago. It is mind blowing the amount of theft in the name of art goes on there. shameful And should be stopped.

Some punk kid Finds a picture, does a filter and sells it. Unbelievable and puts a stain on real artists and the original Photographers...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #157 on:** March 25, 2014, 00:23 »

Quote from: LesPalenik on March 24, 2014, 22:01

Also several "artists" re-selling celebrity portraits. Look up just Audrey Hepburn - you'll find over 100 listings and many of them are identical copies. And I mean COPIES.

Everytime, one of these pictures gets sold, the listing "artist" receives from others dozens of congratulations and encouraging comments, such as - great work, amazing photography, nice image, awesome capture, even - Really like this one, good composition and processing, can see why it sold.

I pointed this infraction twice to FAA through direct emails and on their forums. Only once I received a reply to my email stating that it is not allowed to post any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. BUT - it is each artist's responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.

In the meantime, new copies of existing portraits are being added and sold.

Really? I did exactly the same about the same actress - I even gave them the name of the photographer and the studio and a link to a place stating whose copyright they were and that they were not for resale or commercial use.

It seems clear that they have no intention at all of protecting any of their amateur artists against action for violation of copyright, they reckon they've got a get-out for themselves with their position that it's up to the artists to get necessary permissions. They can argue that they haven't done anything wrong, it's the artist who has violated the uploading agreement. Whether a court would swallow a defence of willful ignorance I have no idea, but as far as FAA is concerned, it isn't at risk and turning a blind eye to flagrant violations is the best policy.

A lot of the Rembrandts are from the Bridgeman Art Library, which has a licensing deal with the museums that own the works, so there's nothing wrong with that. I suppose that's a help for FAA because they could point to them as an example of the fact that some people do have proper rights to selling other people's work/property.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #158 on:** March 25, 2014, 00:57 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 25, 2014, 00:23

Quote from: LesPalenik on March 24, 2014, 22:01
Also several "artists" re-selling celebrity portraits. Look up just Audrey Hepburn - you'll find over 100 listings and many of them are identical copies. And I mean COPIES.

Everytime, one of these pictures gets sold, the listing "artist" receives from others dozens of congratulations and encouraging comments, such as - great work, amazing photography, nice image, awesome capture, even - Really like this one, good composition and processing, can see why it sold.

I pointed this infraction twice to FAA through direct emails and on their forums. Only once I received a reply to my email stating that it is not allowed to post any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. BUT - it is each artist's responsibility to make sure they have the permission and rights for uploading work to the site.

In the meantime, new copies of existing portraits are being added and sold.

Really? I did exactly the same about the same actress - I even gave them the name of the photographer and the studio and a link to a place stating whose copyright they were and that they were not for resale or commercial use.

It seems clear that they have no intention at all of protecting any of their amateur artists against action for violation of copyright, they reckon they've got a get-out for themselves with their position that it's up to the artists to get necessary permissions. They can argue that they haven't done anything wrong, it's the artist who has violated the uploading agreement. Whether a court would swallow a defence of willful ignorance I have no idea, but as far as FAA is concerned, it isn't at risk and turning a blind eye to flagrant violations is the best policy.

A lot of the Rembrandts are from the Bridgeman Art Library, which has a licensing deal with the museums that own the works, so there's nothing wrong with that. I suppose that's a help for FAA because they could point to them as an example of the fact that some people do have proper rights to selling other people's work/property.

And that's just the two of us. I wonder how many such infractions were reported by other photographers and ignored, thus sanctioning the blatant copies.

OM · « **Reply #159 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:09 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 24, 2014, 18:41

FAA has lots of that sort of thing. Many people just re-sell well-known paintings by past masters:

http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/rembrandt/all

Also a number of people make money simply by selling NASA photos. All of this has been questioned many times on the FAA forum and the response is "mind your own business". If you check the Recent Sales page now and then you'll see that these things make FAA a lot of money. Apparently it's all quite legal.

I think they should put the idea of selling stock on the back burner. Then turn off the burner. And after a few days, sell the stove.

Meanwhile people are continuing to post about disappearing images, and getting no response:

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1807822

Most of the Old Masters appear to be at the Bridgeman Library:

http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/the-masters.html

Edit: I see that Les pointed that out already.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #160 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:23 »

Here is Ansel Adams selling prints on FAA

ShadySue · « **Reply #161 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:35 »

Quote from: DF_Studios on March 25, 2014, 06:23

Here is Ansel Adams selling prints on FAA: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/aspens-northern-new-mexico-ansel-adams.html

Black and White photography from the great Ansel Adams
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/fasgallerycom.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=237637

It may be that that gallery has rights http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/fasgallerycom.html(or maybe they don't)
Nevertheless, it emphasises Sean's 'inaccuracy' when he emphasised, twice, that FAA represents the work of living artists.

ShadySue · « **Reply #162 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:37 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 25, 2014, 00:23

It seems clear that they have no intention at all of protecting any of their amateur artists against action for violation of copyright, they reckon they've got a get-out for themselves with their position that it's up to the artists to get necessary permissions. They can argue that they haven't done anything wrong, it's the artist who has violated the uploading agreement. Whether a court would swallow a defence of willful ignorance I have no idea, but as far as FAA is concerned, it isn't at risk and turning a blind eye to flagrant violations is the best policy.

I doubt very much if they, as FAA, are legally protected.
They have been told numerous times of violations and have chosen to do nothing about it.
That's been recorded on here several times, so even if they expunge their own discussion boards, it's recorded.
Is Joe Infringed more likely to go after small-time-copier-Suzy or multi-million Sean?

DF_Studios · « **Reply #163 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:42 »

Some stuff is vintage and public domain but adding a watercolor filter to Ansel Adams and then selling it as an Ansel Adams is just disgusting.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #164 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:51 »

Amazon is taking a smart approach. Their beta fine art section only accepts art via galleries (who do the vetting).

DF_Studios · « **Reply #165 on:** March 25, 2014, 07:05 »

With all of the rampant copyright violations on FAA why would any one sell digital files though their licensing program?

It would be like throwing raw meat to a pack of wild dogs!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #166 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:13 »

its fine art guys, everything is allowed besides eating other artists eyes

its a joke people, why the minus?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #167 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:48 »

Quote from: DF_Studios on March 25, 2014, 07:05

With all of the rampant copyright violations on FAA why would any one sell digital files though their licensing program?

It would be like throwing raw meat to a pack of wild dogs!

I'm not for one second defending all the bad behavior that goes on at FAA, but you could say the same about most of the stock agencies.

We have had numerous examples of thieves uploading work that wasn't theirs or was a composite of a little bit of theirs and something they bought from another contributor and then used in violation of the license terms. I continue to sell my work in spite of the imperfections in handling thieves.

I haven't always been thrilled with the rather low energy or slow response the agencies have made to reports about violations, but for the most part they do at least acknowledge their responsibilities. The concern about FAA is that, like Fiverr, they want to suggest that these violations aren't their issue.

etienjones · « **Reply #168 on:** March 25, 2014, 12:41 »

Quote from: DF_Studios on March 25, 2014, 06:23

Here is Ansel Adams selling prints on FAA: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/aspens-northern-new-mexico-ansel-adams.html

Black and White photography from the great Ansel Adams
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/fasgallerycom.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=237637

What a perversion to a great Photographer

luissantos84 · « **Reply #169 on:** March 25, 2014, 12:53 »

from what I gathered a few months ago the Extended License at FT allows this, its called derivative work which can be sold on other sites like Zazzle, Cafepress, FAA, etc

perhaps the same happens with other agencies extended licenses

if we think closely and if they really bought the extended license its the same as selling a mouse pad or a print on a market somewhere, only difference is selling on the internet instead

sweetgirll · « **Reply #170 on:** March 25, 2014, 13:01 »

So called fan art

According to what I have read on the internet fan art has many implications, one is copyright of the photographer, film maker, and other is right of publicity of the celebrity...

I remember was Cafepress in the past who actually made some licensing deals getting special permission for the store owners to create fan art, I remember seeing some from movies and shows.

Zazzle doesn't allow paintings of celebs, not even keywords that are trademarked, etc.

DF_Studios · « **Reply #171 on:** March 25, 2014, 13:06 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #172 on:** March 25, 2014, 13:53 »

Quote from: DF_Studios on March 25, 2014, 07:05

With all of the rampant copyright violations on FAA why would any one sell digital files though their licensing program?

It would be like throwing raw meat to a pack of wild dogs!

I'm not so sure about that - I suspect FAA would be the last place they would think of getting "inspiration" from - and they could only get screen-shot sizes, anyway. Stock photos out in the wild are far more likely to get picked up, but mostly they probably prefer something famous with a proven record in print sales.

Ron · « **Reply #173 on:** March 25, 2014, 14:26 »

Quote from: DF_Studios on March 25, 2014, 13:06

This guy Floyd sells it in a gallery called "Ansel Adams" with the following description:

"Black and White photography from the great Ansel Adams"

He has a few Edward S Curtis mixed in this gallery also. The ironic thing is the guy is currently trying to lead a forum discussion on how he knows how to stop image theft. In another thread recently he spout about his expertise of removing watermarks.

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1809451

He's a total douche.

stockastic · « **Reply #174 on:** March 25, 2014, 14:27 »

I've seen the discussions on FAA and I'm pretty sure they have adequate legal cover for all of this stuff - as totally lame as it may be. Really, they should say they offer the work not of "living artists" but of "living sellers".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New stock agency - FAA / Pixels.com (Read 38318 times)

sweetgirll

Sean Locke Photography

luissantos84

Uncle Pete

stockastic

LesPalenik

Rinderart

BaldricksTrousers

LesPalenik

OM

DF_Studios

ShadySue

ShadySue

DF_Studios

DF_Studios

DF_Studios

luissantos84

Jo Ann Snover

etienjones

luissantos84

sweetgirll

DF_Studios

BaldricksTrousers

Ron

stockastic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors