MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Professional" site using all stolen watermarked images  (Read 9324 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 30, 2018, 07:54 »
+3
This "Professional" career advice site is using all stolen watermarked images. Some of mine there, check to see if any of yours are. All SS.

http://talentmatrix.co/


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2018, 09:15 »
0
lol, don't worry about it.

a) It's probably a placeholder. ANY professional (real) site would not get business if they had 'shutterstock' all watermarked over it.
b) If they ARE a real site trying to get busienss, they probably don't have the money anyways to pay for it - and it is advertising for you.
c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 09:53 by SuperPhoto »

« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2018, 09:12 »
+8
They're using the images.  Watermark or no, they're stolen.

Placeholders should not show up on a live site. 

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2018, 10:06 »
+9
c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.

But that doesn't mean you can use them on a public websites. They should be used to review the content or in mockups for clients... not live websites.

« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2018, 15:07 »
+3
They're using the images.  Watermark or no, they're stolen.

Placeholders should not show up on a live site.


Exactly. Once the site goes live, they are infringing copyrights.

namussi

« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2018, 21:47 »
+7
lol, don't worry about it.

a) It's probably a placeholder. ANY professional (real) site would not get business if they had 'shutterstock' all watermarked over it.
b) If they ARE a real site trying to get busienss, they probably don't have the money anyways to pay for it - and it is advertising for you.
c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.

Advertising?!!

Good grief.

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2018, 06:33 »
+4
I've noticed since the Google change in image search a lot more people are now going to the stock sites and stealing the images from there. I've  seen a lot more watermarks floating around. I've had a few arguments with people on Facebook...all of whom seem to believe that leaving the watermark on means the image is ok to steal because it's "fair use" or as long as they give the photographer credit it's perfectly legal. The most recent was Ricky Gervais...he stole an image from Alamy. And certainly he can afford to pay to license something.

« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2018, 08:33 »
+4
I've noticed since the Google change in image search a lot more people are now going to the stock sites and stealing the images from there. I've  seen a lot more watermarks floating around. I've had a few arguments with people on Facebook...all of whom seem to believe that leaving the watermark on means the image is ok to steal because it's "fair use" or as long as they give the photographer credit it's perfectly legal. The most recent was Ricky Gervais...he stole an image from Alamy. And certainly he can afford to pay to license something.

Even here people tout this fair use bull$hit as being ok to do. And no, I am not going to argue that its legal. There are a whole lot of things that are legal that are certainly not ethical. Why on earth would we have our images on sites to sell, if we were ok with this fair use crap? I am sure some lowlife attorney came up with that nonsense so he/she could use whatever images they wanted to.

If contributors dont stop publicizing and touting fair use as a legitimate thing, more and more watermarks are going to be showing. And I dont believe using watermarked images is any kind of advertising for me to sell more images. It is only advertising for people to grab and steal more images.  :( >:(

« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2018, 08:40 »
+6
lol, don't worry about it.

a) It's probably a placeholder. ANY professional (real) site would not get business if they had 'shutterstock' all watermarked over it.
b) If they ARE a real site trying to get busienss, they probably don't have the money anyways to pay for it - and it is advertising for you.
c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.

If you could PM me with your portfolio I'm sure I could put some free advertising your way.

« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2018, 11:16 »
0
Interesting comments.

Re: watermarks/"stolen"

Watermarks are designed to provide an incentive for people to actually purchase the 'real' image, free of watermarks. When selling images online, that is one effective way to make people decide to purchase. In a perfect world, you wouldn't have to watermark images, and people would just purchase it if they wanted to use it, but that's not how things work.

The images with watermarks were not "stolen", they were made publicly available in one or more stock sites, and someone simply decided to download the preview images, and include them on the site.

Re: advertising
It actually *is* free advertising - because if that company actually does get views/eyeballs - people will know to go to shutterstock
to purchase the image without the watermark. And to objowl - if you are sincere and it's not just a snide remark - and you could
actually get a significant people viewing my portfolio - I would be happy to send you my portfolio with watermarked images.
The majority of people don't like watermarked images, and some would actually purchase, which would make me very happy.

Re: fair use
As for the comments about "fair use", if people are actually making comments like that on facebook, they have no clue
what they are talking about. Fair use is usually applied to text or video, and it is usually a 'portion' of that text or video. (Not
images). "Fair use" means when you can take copyrighted content that is *not* watermarked - and incorporate it into other
content. And it is usually USA based (other countries may or may not observe that themselves). It is usually acceptable for purposes
of teaching/news reporting/critisism/research/etc.

If someone is talking about "fair use" for "watermarked images" - it makes no sense. Because the images are made publicly
available for the purpose of evaluating/previewing, with the hope that the desire to remove the watermark is incentive enough
to purchase the final content. (It's also why you get smaller previews too, for both images & video).

The only context in which fair use makes sense if someone was using 'unwatermarked' images. In that case - then fair use would
apply only if they had content/footage in which they were critisizing something, research/news/etc. If they were using it for
commercial purposes (i.e., to sell something online) - then fair use does *not* apply.

conclusion

Anyways, for the "watermarked" images - don't worry about it. There really isn't much you can do except drive yourself nuts
trying to chase after every person who uses a 'watermarked' image. Professional sites/etc do not use watermarked images -
because their is a stigma associated with that (i.e., it is a cheap site/unprofessional/etc). If I went to a website to purchase something, and then I saw watermarks plastered all over the images on their site - I wouldn't purchase from them, because I'd
figure it was some kid in his moms basement that spent 5 minutes putting together a website. I'd say most people would be
the same. And as for the watermarked images - it is indeed free advertising. Most people prefer non watermarked images - so
if they saw something they liked - they now know where to go purchase it free of watermarks.

Now if it was "unwatermarked" - AND the FULL image - and somehow someone was using those images, unlicensed (and you
could prove that) - then yes, those would be "stolen" images, and you would have recourse & means to do something about it.
And in that case, I would definitely recommend doing what you could to protect your copyrights/etc.

Shelma1

« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2018, 11:19 »
+4
Oh jeez. A copyright "expert" who feels it's OK to steal people's images but for some reason stays anonymous.

« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2018, 11:23 »
0
Oh jeez. A copyright "expert" who feels it's OK to steal people's images but for some reason stays anonymous.

No, you are wrong. It is not okay to steal someone's full/unwatermarked images. Please read what I wrote.

But when you upload and make available a *watermarked* image for the purpose of previewing, that is not stealing. You should read the license agreements you agree to when you sign up for stock image sites. It doesn't sound like you have.

« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2018, 12:07 »
+1

Re: advertising
It actually *is* free advertising - because if that company actually does get views/eyeballs - people will know to go to shutterstock
to purchase the image without the watermark. And to objowl - if you are sincere and it's not just a snide remark - and you could
actually get a significant people viewing my portfolio - I would be happy to send you my portfolio with watermarked images.
The majority of people don't like watermarked images, and some would actually purchase, which would make me very happy.


It was a snide remark, not just a snide remark, but an heartfelt snide remark.  I usually have a sneaking admiration for people who look at the world upside down, but you are just being silly.

Shelma1

« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2018, 12:09 »
+2
"What If I See a Watermarked Version of My Image on a Website?

Is your content hosted by an online service provider?

Online Service Providers

A service provider is a website, internet host or service that publishes or transmits content uploaded by users and/or customers. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protects service providers from becoming liable for the independent acts of their users. In order for service providers to benefit from this immunity, they need to promptly take down content after receiving notice of a claimed infringement.

Some examples of service providers include social media sites such as
Facebook.com, Twitter.com and Pinterest.com. Other examples include sites
where content may be uploaded, such as YouTube.com, or file sharing sites
such as rapidgator.net.  Some online marketplaces are also considered to be
service providers; for example, eBay.com, Amazon.com, and Etsy.com.
If a user has posted your watermarked content to a service provider, sending a takedown notice to that service provider should result in prompt removal of the image.

However, be aware that you must be sure that the use is unlicensed before sending a takedown notice, and you must comply with the requirements of sending a proper
takedown notice."

« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2018, 12:37 »
+1
lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.


Re: advertising
It actually *is* free advertising - because if that company actually does get views/eyeballs - people will know to go to shutterstock
to purchase the image without the watermark. And to objowl - if you are sincere and it's not just a snide remark - and you could
actually get a significant people viewing my portfolio - I would be happy to send you my portfolio with watermarked images.
The majority of people don't like watermarked images, and some would actually purchase, which would make me very happy.


It was a snide remark, not just a snide remark, but an heartfelt snide remark.  I usually have a sneaking admiration for people who look at the world upside down, but you are just being silly.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 12:41 by SuperPhoto »

Shelma1

« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2018, 12:55 »
+2
lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.


Re: advertising
It actually *is* free advertising - because if that company actually does get views/eyeballs - people will know to go to shutterstock
to purchase the image without the watermark. And to objowl - if you are sincere and it's not just a snide remark - and you could
actually get a significant people viewing my portfolio - I would be happy to send you my portfolio with watermarked images.
The majority of people don't like watermarked images, and some would actually purchase, which would make me very happy.


It was a snide remark, not just a snide remark, but an heartfelt snide remark.  I usually have a sneaking admiration for people who look at the world upside down, but you are just being silly.

Lol, you just ignored the info I posted from Shutterstock.

"You should read the license agreements you agree to when you sign up for stock image sites. It doesn't sound like you have."

« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2018, 14:29 »
+4
Watermarked images are provided for previewing/evaluation purposes only. But once a site goes live, watermarked images are then being used in the promotion of the goods and services that site is selling/promoting. That is copyright infringement. In other words, stolen images. The site owners were too cheap to buy the images legitimately, so they are using stolen watermarked ones. Why dont they just use gray boxes there as placeholders? The answer is because they have no qualms about stealing other peoples work and using it for self-promotion.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 14:37 by cathyslife »

« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2018, 14:35 »
+3
lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.


And yet you are calling people democrats when a) what does politics have to do with this discussion and b) you are calling them democrats because you think its a derogatory term. In essence, doing some of your own name calling. LOL. Clearly a hypocritical Trump supporter. Whatever THAT has to do with people stealing our images.  ::)

« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2018, 15:04 »
0
lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.


And yet you are calling people democrats when a) what does politics have to do with this discussion and b) you are calling them democrats because you think its a derogatory term. In essence, doing some of your own name calling. LOL. Clearly a hypocritical Trump supporter. Whatever THAT has to do with people stealing our images.  ::)

"Wrong"  ;)

« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2018, 15:11 »
0
I just buy the images even for mockups. With a sub it's literally like ... a buck or something and the credits roll over. Before the peak winter months I had so many * fotolia credits that I was just buying stuff to try out ideas.

A legal battle might not pay off in the end but, you could certainly put together a cease and desist and hope that it does some good. Doing nothing is almost certain to yield no result. They might just reply "Oh, we're planning on buying them but, we uploaded everything just to make sure the code was compatible with hosting" or "Hey *, we stole these fair and square" but, what's the harm in trying.

« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2018, 16:33 »
0
lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.


And yet you are calling people democrats when a) what does politics have to do with this discussion and b) you are calling them democrats because you think its a derogatory term. In essence, doing some of your own name calling. LOL. Clearly a hypocritical Trump supporter. Whatever THAT has to do with people stealing our images.  ::)

lol and how very quickly this gets off topic.

Bottom line. I guess its up to the OP. If he wants to chase after every single person using a 'watermarked' image - which - in the long run really only helps him (because the majority of people who see that, if they wanted the image, would likely purchase it, and as for the current people using it, most likely have no intention of ever purchasing it, especially if you try and force a DMCA notice on them which I believe they would have difficulty enforcing)... then that's his decision.

Better to focus on the people who do want his images, and figuring out how to expand that.

« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2018, 16:35 »
0
lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.


And yet you are calling people democrats when a) what does politics have to do with this discussion and b) you are calling them democrats because you think its a derogatory term. In essence, doing some of your own name calling. LOL. Clearly a hypocritical Trump supporter. Whatever THAT has to do with people stealing our images.  ::)

"Wrong"  ;)


LOL!  ;)

« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2018, 16:38 »
+1
lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.


And yet you are calling people democrats when a) what does politics have to do with this discussion and b) you are calling them democrats because you think its a derogatory term. In essence, doing some of your own name calling. LOL. Clearly a hypocritical Trump supporter. Whatever THAT has to do with people stealing our images.  ::)

lol and how very quickly this gets off topic.

Bottom line. I guess its up to the OP. If he wants to chase after every single person using a 'watermarked' image - which - in the long run really only helps him (because the majority of people who see that, if they wanted the image, would likely purchase it, and as for the current people using it, most likely have no intention of ever purchasing it, especially if you try and force a DMCA notice on them which I believe they would have difficulty enforcing)... then that's his decision.

Better to focus on the people who do want his images, and figuring out how to expand that.

It got off topic when you used the word democrat, which has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever.

If those were my images, for sure I would be sending a take-down notice. I dont go chasing after anything, but if I run across my images being used illegally, yep, I do something.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2018, 17:05 »
+2
lol, don't worry about it.

a) It's probably a placeholder. ANY professional (real) site would not get business if they had 'shutterstock' all watermarked over it.
b) If they ARE a real site trying to get busienss, they probably don't have the money anyways to pay for it - and it is advertising for you.
c) Also - asfaik, they aren't "stolen" either. Pretty much every stock site lets you download preview/watermarked images/video/etc.

a) don't know if it's a placeholder, doesn't matter, illegal use
b) No it's not advertising, it's stealing
c) Wrong, downloading a sample and using it are far different.

Can I have some of your best images to use on my website? I promise to mention your name if I ever make some money. Sorry can't afford to pay but you'll get exposure, views, and maybe credit.  ;D


namussi

« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2018, 20:47 »
+3
lol, you & shema must be democrats. someone disagrees with you and you resort to silly namecalling, instead of actually thinking about what is being said and addressing that.
]

Don't indulge in silly name calling, says troll whose response indulges in silly name calling


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6436 Views
Last post April 20, 2008, 06:18
by araminta
7 Replies
3141 Views
Last post April 07, 2012, 09:08
by ShadySue
25 Replies
15854 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by pixel86
40 Replies
6428 Views
Last post May 25, 2013, 03:57
by ShadySue
5 Replies
2726 Views
Last post May 29, 2018, 12:25
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results