MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: Smithore on April 21, 2011, 01:59
-
A French photograph write an article against microstock and give links to find microstock pictures at large size in google.
******* admin note*******
These links head to Google, and Google has just saved links to where the images are found. Some of those links from Google may lead to malicious websites ... clicking on the links below shouldn't be a problem but follow the image links onto the websites at your own risk!
************************
example:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=995&site=search&tbs=isz%3Alt%2Cislt%3Axga&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%22corporate%22+istock&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq= (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=995&site=search&tbs=isz%3Alt%2Cislt%3Axga&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%22corporate%22+istock&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=995&site=search&tbs=isz%3Alt%2Cislt%3Axga&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%22corporate%22+fotolia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq= (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=995&site=search&tbs=isz%3Alt%2Cislt%3Axga&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%22corporate%22+fotolia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=)
He is using pictures search and filtering from large size...
You can try with different keywords like "woman" "people" "nature" etc. it's working, sometimes you can find 6mp pictures.
-
this is old news and you sell licences anyway, not hires files. At least now you can see how poorly done most of these shots are. : }
-
:D
-
I don't understand, this is not to worry? ???
Agencies do not allow images to be used in websites larger than 800pix, am I wrong?
-
Quite disturbing. I found many high quality shots from Yuri etc. this way.
I had no idea it was that easy...
Online resolution should be less than 800 pixels.
-
Quite disturbing. I found many high quality shots from Yuri etc. this way.
I had no idea it was that easy...
Online resolution should be less than 800 pixels.
It seems to always be a losing battle doesn't it?
-
This is mostyl not image sleut, just one of the many wonders of RF licencing. Checked a few links, seems to me most of these hires (semi hires in my book) are up there simply out of neglectance from web designers, who instead of actually resizing the pic in photoshop, just let the browser resize it. They probably are in a severe rush, as most graphic designers. They buy a decent size and keep using it for anything they need. There you go, RF. IS and the rest probably (wisely) elect not to go on harassing 1000s of costumers about this, which wouldn't achieve anything except pissing them off.
-
This is mostyl not image sleut, just one of the many wonders of RF licencing. Checked a few links, seems to me most of these hires (semi hires in my book) are up there simply out of neglectance from web designers, who instead of actually resizing the pic in photoshop, just let the browser resize it. They probably are in a severe rush, as most graphic designers. They buy a decent size and keep using it for anything they need. There you go, RF. IS and the rest probably (wisely) elect not to go on harassing 1000s of costumers about this, which wouldn't achieve anything except pissing them off.
It's not the point whether the listed images have been licensed or not (hopefully they are...).
It's about the fact that anyone who can use Google... ::) can get a hold of high resolution files.
No need to be familiar with peer-to-peer networks or file hosting services like rapidshare and the like, just plain old Google.
I'd suggest that the agencies should strip all EXIF and IPTC as well as any commonly used identifiers such as format and/or image ID from the file name. At least this way the images wouldn't show up in such image searches.
-
I once reported to Fotolia a site using an image of mine (found thanks to TinEye) as a background, and it was something like 1000pix wide. They said they were sending this to their legal department or whatever, needless to say, nothing happened.
Also IS, I once repoted wateramarked images used in a blod, one as a background. Those were thumbnails, of course, but nevertheless, nothing happened.
It is even sadder when we see that sites don't take any action.
-
Don't click on those links - they're scams and will try to start a fake 'virus' scan on your system.
-
I clicked on them and got a perfectly normal google search.
ETA . Ah I just read the admin note.
-
And when agencies strip the EXIF and IPTC them people complain that the author and source are removed and the images become orphans. Hmm, seems like a no win, whatever they do, someone will find a reason why it's wrong? ???
This is mostyl not image sleut, just one of the many wonders of RF licencing. Checked a few links, seems to me most of these hires (semi hires in my book) are up there simply out of neglectance from web designers, who instead of actually resizing the pic in photoshop, just let the browser resize it. They probably are in a severe rush, as most graphic designers. They buy a decent size and keep using it for anything they need. There you go, RF. IS and the rest probably (wisely) elect not to go on harassing 1000s of costumers about this, which wouldn't achieve anything except pissing them off.
It's not the point whether the listed images have been licensed or not (hopefully they are...).
It's about the fact that anyone who can use Google... ::) can get a hold of high resolution files.
No need to be familiar with peer-to-peer networks or file hosting services like rapidshare and the like, just plain old Google.
I'd suggest that the agencies should strip all EXIF and IPTC as well as any commonly used identifiers such as format and/or image ID from the file name. At least this way the images wouldn't show up in such image searches.
-
This is mostyl not image sleut, just one of the many wonders of RF licencing. Checked a few links, seems to me most of these hires (semi hires in my book) are up there simply out of neglectance from web designers, who instead of actually resizing the pic in photoshop, just let the browser resize it. They probably are in a severe rush, as most graphic designers. They buy a decent size and keep using it for anything they need. There you go, RF. IS and the rest probably (wisely) elect not to go on harassing 1000s of costumers about this, which wouldn't achieve anything except pissing them off.
It's not the point whether the listed images have been licensed or not (hopefully they are...).
It's about the fact that anyone who can use Google... ::) can get a hold of high resolution files.
No need to be familiar with peer-to-peer networks or file hosting services like rapidshare and the like, just plain old Google.
I'd suggest that the agencies should strip all EXIF and IPTC as well as any commonly used identifiers such as format and/or image ID from the file name. At least this way the images wouldn't show up in such image searches.
It is a piont, because thats one of the reasons they will up there like this forever. Using p2p or filesharing is just about as common nowledge as google btw.
-
I clicked on them and got a perfectly normal google search.
ETA . Ah I just read the admin note.
I got the Google page, but then clicked on one of the images. Some variant of the usual 'your system may be infected' cr@p popped up and a fake progress bar started advancing. Forewarned, people...
-
I clicked on them and got a perfectly normal google search.
ETA . Ah I just read the admin note.
I got the Google page, but then clicked on one of the images. Some variant of the usual 'your system may be infected' cr@p popped up and a fake progress bar started advancing. Forewarned, people...
Thanks
-
I've just been there. It does indeed appear as there may be malware there.
oldsalt19
-
I clicked on them and got a perfectly normal google search.
ETA . Ah I just read the admin note.
I got the Google page, but then clicked on one of the images. Some variant of the usual 'your system may be infected' cr@p popped up and a fake progress bar started advancing. Forewarned, people...
I also got that on one of the images. I just closed it out and when I got through doing my thing on the net I ran AVG...nothing of course but that is probably because I didn't click the warning link.