Author Topic: My shot used for movie poster-Legal advice needed (Read 33534 times)

cathyslife · « **Reply #175 on:** June 21, 2013, 05:05 »

Quote from: Herg on June 21, 2013, 03:22

Quote from: cclapper on June 20, 2013, 17:29
Quote from: Herg on June 20, 2013, 14:30
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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #176 on:** June 21, 2013, 07:50 »

Quote from: Herg on June 20, 2013, 14:30

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.

Daevid · « **Reply #177 on:** June 21, 2013, 08:25 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 21, 2013, 07:50

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #178 on:** June 21, 2013, 08:31 »

Quote from: Daevid on June 21, 2013, 08:25

Quote from: gostwyck on June 21, 2013, 07:50
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 ..."

Ron · « **Reply #179 on:** June 21, 2013, 11:30 »

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?

Phadrea · « **Reply #180 on:** June 25, 2013, 02:12 »

Quote from: Ron on June 21, 2013, 11:30

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.

Ron · « **Reply #181 on:** June 25, 2013, 07:13 »

You are not being hounded, people just disagree with your approach on the situation.

ShadySue · « **Reply #182 on:** June 25, 2013, 07:17 »

Phadrea · « **Reply #183 on:** July 01, 2013, 03:35 »

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.

Phadrea · « **Reply #184 on:** December 17, 2013, 04:05 »

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.

Pixart · « **Reply #185 on:** December 17, 2013, 14:26 »

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.

ignard · « **Reply #186 on:** December 17, 2013, 16:27 »

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

ShadySue · « **Reply #187 on:** December 17, 2013, 16:33 »

Quote from: Herg on December 17, 2013, 04:05

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.

noodle · « **Reply #188 on:** December 17, 2013, 17:43 »

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.

Phadrea · « **Reply #189 on:** December 18, 2013, 05:54 »

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

The guy selling on Amazon has taken his down a few months ago and it still isn't available.

Phadrea · « **Reply #190 on:** December 20, 2013, 09:19 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #191 on:** December 20, 2013, 09:54 »

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #192 on:** December 20, 2013, 09:56 »

noodle · « **Reply #193 on:** December 20, 2013, 11:16 »

It took them 8 months to come up with that answer ?!!
Unbeleivable!

Phadrea · « **Reply #194 on:** December 20, 2013, 11:28 »

Quote from: noodle on December 20, 2013, 11:16

It took them 8 months to come up with that answer ?!!
Unbeleivable!

I know. Oh well, at least its put to bed now.

Ron · « **Reply #195 on:** December 20, 2013, 15:00 »

There you go, big multi million dollar Hollywood production only needs to spend 2 dollar on an image for their movie poster.

Phadrea · « **Reply #196 on:** December 20, 2013, 20:40 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #197 on:** December 20, 2013, 21:22 »

Quote from: Herg on December 20, 2013, 11:28

Quote from: noodle on December 20, 2013, 11:16
It took them 8 months to come up with that answer ?!!
Unbeleivable!

I know. Oh well, at least its put to bed now.

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!

Phadrea · « **Reply #198 on:** December 21, 2013, 06:25 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 20, 2013, 21:22

Quote from: Herg on December 20, 2013, 11:28
Quote from: noodle on December 20, 2013, 11:16
It took them 8 months to come up with that answer ?!!
Unbeleivable!

I know. Oh well, at least its put to bed now.

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.

bunhill · « **Reply #199 on:** December 21, 2013, 06:40 »

Quote from: Herg on December 21, 2013, 06:25

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: My shot used for movie poster-Legal advice needed (Read 33534 times)

cathyslife

gostwyck

Daevid

ShadySue

Ron

Phadrea

Ron

ShadySue

Phadrea

Phadrea

Pixart

ignard

ShadySue

noodle

Phadrea

Phadrea

ShadySue

tickstock

noodle

Phadrea

Ron

Phadrea

gostwyck

Phadrea

bunhill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors