Wow, that was a big story last week.  I'm not sure if they can grab the image under "fair use" as representative of the site itself, since that is the subject of the story.  Would it be different if they grabbed a screen shot of the front page?  There are a lot of "non news" sites as well.

I'm not sure what to do with that one.

i think that the credits required only in editorial uses of the imagens

Contact a lawyer immediately. You may find one who is in for a percentage of the amount demanded from the sued party. Chances of success should be about 80 - 90 % since the case is quite clear. Most likely the sued party will agree soon in the process to settle for a certain amount to avoid further trouble (by experience).

Another aspect is that some sites like SS restrict the maximum resolution you can use the images on the web - depending on where they got this image from obviously. I think shutterstocks limit was 1200 px on web usage and the one published on the original site was 1600px width. But please double check since I`m not sure .... neither can we know where it came from originally.

Finally I have to say that it should be the concern of the agency to protect our content. It is  their job. And they terribly fail on us.

Shutterstock effectively got rid of the display size restriction:   "Uploading any Image to a web site at a resolution that exceeds the display resolution of the intended viewing device will be deemed to be an attempt to redistribute the Image."
From my understanding 8b in the restrictions might be relevant:  "8.Publicly display an Image: (a) as a standalone file in any digital format on the internet; or (b) in any digital format without imposing technical or written restrictions intended to prevent the use of such Images by third parties, unless the Image is incorporated into a design with text or other content, and the overlaid or embedded text or other such content covers an area of at least 33% of the display size of the Image. Unless expressly permitted by this agreement, no other person may use Images which you have licensed hereunder."

If they were to distribute the image with a press release, would an extended license cover such a use? If that's the case, then perhaps getting in touch with them to find out where they licensed it and whether they purchased an extended license might be a start (cheaper than getting a lawyer involved).

This seems like a parallel to something that happens a lot - someone purchases a license for an online article and then lots of other places pick the content up (with the photo) and "reprint" the article all over the place. It'd be nice if this type of "syndication rights" license was something all the agencies explicitly offered in the extended license uses

Oh, that is your picture? I remember that article. Well, they advertise they are for the super rich. I think I would consider talking to a lawyer who takes a percentage...

The more professional way is of course to speak with the client first. In an ideal situation they would pay a special license to cover press distribution and would even ask you to take the file off the market for a few months (and pay for that).

I am surprised they could�t even be bothered with a custom shoot for their project.

Not so super rich and elitist after all.

Not so super rich and elitist after all.

if it was what it wants to be then it would never advertise. People would just know about it and invite each other.

Yes, IS never took up my suggestion that 'syndication' ( or as we call it, reselling your content ) shouldn't be allowed.

If I wrote for a news service and create a story with a microstock RF image illustration, you say it's being re-sold? I'd say it's just syndication and distribution.

Syndication and distribution make it difficult to know how many aggregate copies are being made (if in print).

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 29, 2014, 18:42

'syndication' ( or as we call it, reselling your content ) shouldn't be allowed.

I doubt that this is paid syndication. More likely those sites are running this as native advertising - i.e. pub styled to look like content. In which case is this really any different from any other ad use ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising

Interesting point, but back then I was talking about News5 writes a story and adds an image, and then News 10 in another city and NewsX somewhere publishes the same story with image.  I have to assume that News5 gets something in return for their work, which I see as reselling my work as part of the content they are redistributing.