MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The Sierra Club and Watermarked images.  (Read 3889 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 22, 2009, 17:20 »
0
Happened across The Sierra Clubs website today and noticed both a watermarked picture from IStock and one from Fotosearch...Do big organizations like The Seirra Club really steal images or do you think they just don't know any better or possibly IS and Fotosearch just let them use watermarked images?  I am under the impression watermarked images are for comp usage only...what do you think?

http://rmc.sierraclub.org/rfg/index.shtml  (Its at the bottom of the page - the recycle symbol.  You can barely see it, but the IS watermark is there.)

http://rmc.sierraclub.org/rfg/Committee.htm   This ones pretty evident.



« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2009, 18:49 »
0
I can't see it in the recycle sign!  :o

Indeed, they should know what they are doing, unless a teenager is doing their webdesign.

« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2009, 19:09 »
0
There are many adults who haven't a clue either.

« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2009, 19:12 »
0

« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2009, 19:23 »
0
There are many adults who haven't a clue either.

My comment is that a teen might worry less about the consequences of using illegal material, even knowing this is not allowed. 

batman

« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2009, 20:15 »
0
the problem is that word "royalty free".  i read a consumer magazine where they discuss about how you can download movies and music "legally" and "royalty free".
quote: while there's a widespread assumption that all that is pirated material, nothing can be further from the truth. (unquote).
 then it goes on to say how "certain sites distribute untold gigabytes of high quality ROYALTY FREE audio".

if you were an amateur, you would now assume anything ROYALTY FREE is legal for you to download to use.

mind you, this article is not written in a blog by "some careless teenager", but in a well known consumer magazine that features photography, tv, printers, lenses, studio lighting,etc. thus, this is some "media expert" who contributes to this magazine on a regular basis.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 20:19 by batman »

« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2009, 21:11 »
0
batman,

I think the term "royalty free" is very misleading and to many people it translates simply as "free".

At Shutterpoint we can see how people got to our images, and often I see searches for "free subject photos", and Google et al send them to anything with "royalty free subject photos".

FT BR/PT/SP translated "royalty free" as "free of rights".  :-\

« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2009, 21:41 »
0
Indeed, they should know what they are doing, unless a teenager is doing their webdesign.

Might be.  It's just a local chapter page.

« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2009, 10:09 »
0
Indeed, they should know what they are doing, unless a teenager is doing their webdesign.

Might be.  It's just a local chapter page.

And local chapters tend to utilize volunteers to maintain their websites who might not know anything more than simple desktop publishing. 

« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2009, 10:18 »
0
Before I started selling my images I thought that Royalty Free meant that they were free.

« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2009, 11:34 »
0
Hard to believe they didn't know.  What did they think the prices were all about when they clicked on the image?  Why do they think it has that ugly watermark?

fred

« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2009, 16:26 »
0
Some people don't mind.  I found a company in UK using a watermarked image of mine, I emailed them and they still have the image online.  It is from LO, so reporting to the site isn't a solution.  DT once said they would take care of such cases even if they were not stolen from them - I should ask them.

« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2009, 17:36 »
0
Hard to believe they didn't know.  What did they think the prices were all about when they clicked on the image?  Why do they think it has that ugly watermark?

fred

Exactly.  The prices on the images make it quite clear that you have to purchase them.

« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2009, 09:55 »
0
it could be they believe it is ok to use the photo without paying for it as long as they leave the watermark in place -- and that you only have to pay if you want a clean image.  This think is not without precedent.  There are may software programs available for free or reduced prices IF you leave the advertising in place, but for a small amount you can get a copy with no advertising.  This forum is another example -- don't like the ads, join as a premium member and they're gone.

OM

« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2009, 18:30 »
0
Image is not particularly well protected, is it. At least they haven't tried to remove the watermark
!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3873 Views
Last post October 11, 2008, 16:56
by RGebbiePhoto
0 Replies
1580 Views
Last post May 26, 2009, 11:41
by eppic
8 Replies
3475 Views
Last post January 24, 2011, 07:16
by cathyslife
9 Replies
3589 Views
Last post March 30, 2011, 13:22
by Blufish
5 Replies
3100 Views
Last post August 01, 2011, 16:19
by madelaide

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results