MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: Pilens on September 21, 2011, 00:16
-
Hello,
I just came across this Flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/64710715@N06/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/64710715@N06/) :o
Check it out. You'll find that most photos are from various Microstock sites but mainly Dreamstime and Shutterstock. I found 3 of my images, which have been sold by subscription at Dreamstime the same day they were posted in this photostream. >:(
Do you think this usage is covered by Dreamstime/Shutterstock RF license terms? Is it OK to post images on Flickr that aren't your own? ???
I am not sure, so I'd like to hear what you more experienced microstockers think about this.
-
you can only post your own work on Flickr, contact Flickr and the account will be removed.
-
All those photos can be downloaded at their original size FOR FREE... wow... no comment.
-
That's a co-incidence. I just came on here to post about the same subject. Using Google image search on my best selling microstock image I found it on the photostream on Flickr of a major UK educational establishment -with no watermark or copyright reference to myself. As a test I was able to download it at "original size" (in this case 1000 x 669px) meaning that anyone could download and use it for web use for free. I was going to ask here if there was any way this could be allowed under any license from an agency before contacting Flickr or the organisation posting it.
Rather concerning that the image already had over 100 views!
Guess I have some emailing to do. Regards, David.
-
I just write a thread on DT regarding this subject (with link and examples)....
-
checking several of these out at full res makes me regret that I take great care for producing sharp, clean and clear stuf... : /
-
checking several of these out at full res makes me regret that I take great care for producing sharp, clean and clear stuf... : /
You've cetainly got a point there. One I clicked on at random from the Dreamstime collection is blurry and has really bad CA. That would never have been accepted at iStock even when I started there. Actually it was so bad, I wondered if the poster had bought a small size from DT and uprezzed it, but even uprezzing say 20% isn't usually that bad, nor does it introduce CA.
Astonished that the poster would actually leave the Dreamstime name and number as the caption. Do you think it's possible that it's their own image and they imagine that people will eschew downloading it for free from Flickr and go and buy it from DT?
If they've stolen it, they're a stupid thief, and if it's their own, they're crazy.
-
checking several of these out at full res makes me regret that I take great care for producing sharp, clean and clear stuf... : /
You've cetainly got a point there. One I clicked on at random from the Dreamstime collection is blurry and has really bad CA. That would never have been accepted at iStock even when I started there. Actually it was so bad, I wondered if the poster had bought a small size from DT and uprezzed it, but even uprezzing say 20% isn't usually that bad, nor does it introduce CA.
Astonished that the poster would actually leave the Dreamstime name and number as the caption. Do you think it's possible that it's their own image and they imagine that people will eschew downloading it for free from Flickr and go and buy it from DT?
If they've stolen it, they're a stupid theif, and if it's their own, they're crazy.
It's just someone who doesn't have a clue about whats what. Maybe 'confused' too. I don't think these were purchased, theres too many, probably got them from a rapidshare or torrent package.
-
Search DT on Flickr and you get 5307 hits. One I randomly hit on has 'you can purchase this at DT no XXX' in the description, but is screen-grabbable at 1024x685 with no watermark.
Search 'iStock' and there are 15,553 hits (including a lot of screenshots of layouts)
iStockphoto: 20,359 results
(loads of these are legit, e.g. a photostream of backstage photos at a lypse)
Fotolia: 5,366
Alamy: 13,069
(Clicked on one of these. Pic available at 900x600 no watermark and they hoped people would buy it from Alamy)
Getty: 562,401 results
(loads of these things like the Getty Cafe etc) Also includes the Flickr images licensed under the Getty scheme, but again, I just saw one copiable (no watermark) at 1024x683 'available from Getty'.
I thought you weren't allowed to link to an agency (other than the Getty scheme) in the description, you could only mention agencies on your profile?
-
Thanks for all your opinions.
I contacted both DT and Flickr with the same question if this would constitute a violation of license terms (DT)/service terms (Flickr). Both came back not answering my question at all but giving instructions on how to report such violations. Not at all too helpful. In any case, I did that and will wait and see what happens. It seems to me, though, that starting that thread on DT message board (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_28838 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_28838)) had most impact in getting their attention... ;D
I'll keep you posted.
-
New files are being uploaded.
This image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64710715@N06/6172136499/#in/photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/64710715@N06/6172136499/#in/photostream)
.....downloadable there at 4000 x 3778, free of charge.
-
I just sent an email to [email protected], per their copyright/IP policy page at the bottom of the photostream.
I haven't found any of my own images, but then I haven't waded through all 109 pages of images yet.
-
Here is some more if you wanna freak yourself out:
http://www.hqwalls.com.ua/girls_010.html (http://www.hqwalls.com.ua/girls_010.html)
http://down.chinavisual.com/stuff/c10/ (http://down.chinavisual.com/stuff/c10/)
and about 164984098408709 other
-
That's a co-incidence. I just came on here to post about the same subject. Using Google image search on my best selling microstock image I found it on the photostream on Flickr of a major UK educational establishment -with no watermark or copyright reference to myself. As a test I was able to download it at "original size" (in this case 1000 x 669px) meaning that anyone could download and use it for web use for free. I was going to ask here if there was any way this could be allowed under any license from an agency before contacting Flickr or the organisation posting it.
Rather concerning that the image already had over 100 views!
Guess I have some emailing to do. Regards, David.
As an update, I heard back from the Yahoo legal team within a few hours. They didn't feel there was an infringement and suggested I contacted the poster myself asking for it to be removed. They did say to get back to them if that didn't work. I guess their response was because I didn't claim the image had been pirated or stolen and I had pointed out that it had probaly been licensed from an agency. Where that leaves the Flickr policy of only posting your own images I'm not sure. I assume that policy is aimed at individuals to prevent them stealing other peoples work. In my case the poster was a business and would, reasonably, have images they didn't take personally (e.g. commissioned photography).
Anyway, more luck with the business concerned. Returned my email within minutes and confirmed they were taking it off Flickr. Seems they have a whole load of images purchased in the past from agencies but the current person didn't realise the licence limitations on them. Happy ending? Well it would be but I'm still seeing my image several days later. Supposing it will take a bit of time for the page to update on Flickr. Regards, David.
-
I just sent an email to [email protected], per their copyright/IP policy page at the bottom of the photostream.
I haven't found any of my own images, but then I haven't waded through all 109 pages of images yet.
Here's the answer I got back:
Yahoo! asks that anyone who detects what appears to be a copyright
violation on the Yahoo! network to report the violation to those persons
who can claim rights in the work rather than to Yahoo!. In this way, the
rightful persons can evaluate the use and determine whether to assert a
claim against the poster of the content and alert Yahoo! of the
infringement.
So even when people track down what appears to be infringement and gives them a heads up, Yahoo doesn't want to hear about it unless it's actually YOUR own photos. <sigh>
-
As an update, I heard back from the Yahoo legal team within a few hours. They didn't feel there was an infringement and suggested I contacted the poster myself asking for it to be removed. They did say to get back to them if that didn't work. I guess their response was because I didn't claim the image had been pirated or stolen and I had pointed out that it had probaly been licensed from an agency. Where that leaves the Flickr policy of only posting your own images I'm not sure. I assume that policy is aimed at individuals to prevent them stealing other peoples work. In my case the poster was a business and would, reasonably, have images they didn't take personally (e.g. commissioned photography).
Anyway, more luck with the business concerned. Returned my email within minutes and confirmed they were taking it off Flickr. Seems they have a whole load of images purchased in the past from agencies but the current person didn't realise the licence limitations on them. Happy ending? Well it would be but I'm still seeing my image several days later. Supposing it will take a bit of time for the page to update on Flickr. Regards, David.
But even if the image were properly licensed from an agency, a. I don't think licenses allow a person to post those large, high resolution images, and b. under no circumstances or licenses from any agency is a person allowed to let other people re-download that high resolution image. That's re-distributing which constitutes copyright infringement.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html)
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
-
But even if the image were properly licensed from an agency, a. I don't think licenses allow a person to post those large, high resolution images, and b. under no circumstances or licenses from any agency is a person allowed to let other people re-download that high resolution image. That's re-distributing which constitutes copyright infringement.
[url]http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html[/url] ([url]http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html[/url])
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Exactly right. The problem here was the person dealing with this companies photo content wasn't the one that had originally licensed them and wasn't aware of the limitations. The frightening thing is that a similar situation could arise anywhere that buys our images. Regards, David.
-
Anyway, more luck with the business concerned. Returned my email within minutes and confirmed they were taking it off Flickr. Seems they have a whole load of images purchased in the past from agencies but the current person didn't realise the licence limitations on them. Happy ending? Well it would be but I'm still seeing my image several days later. Supposing it will take a bit of time for the page to update on Flickr. Regards, David.
When I've deleted a photo from my Flickr stream, the deletion has been instant.
-
Anyway, more luck with the business concerned. Returned my email within minutes and confirmed they were taking it off Flickr. Seems they have a whole load of images purchased in the past from agencies but the current person didn't realise the licence limitations on them. Happy ending? Well it would be but I'm still seeing my image several days later. Supposing it will take a bit of time for the page to update on Flickr. Regards, David.
When I've deleted a photo from my Flickr stream, the deletion has been instant.
Thanks Sue, I didn't know that. Have just emailed them (the business) again pointing out that it is still there. Kind regards, David.
ETA -They got it off right away. I can stop worrying about it now!
-
Anyway, more luck with the business concerned. Returned my email within minutes and confirmed they were taking it off Flickr. Seems they have a whole load of images purchased in the past from agencies but the current person didn't realise the licence limitations on them. Happy ending? Well it would be but I'm still seeing my image several days later. Supposing it will take a bit of time for the page to update on Flickr. Regards, David.
When I've deleted a photo from my Flickr stream, the deletion has been instant.
Thanks Sue, I didn't know that. Have just emailed them (the business) again pointing out that it is still there. Kind regards, David.
ETA -They got it off right away. I can stop worrying about it now!
:D
If you use Google Image Search, you'll find loads more to worry about. ;)
-
Well, all the images appear to be there still but now downsized to 1024 x ....
The DT license states:
"For Web use, you must not use the image at a width exceeding 800 pixels unless it is included in your site's design. If the image is part of a design and manipulated accordingly, the image width can be higher than 800 pixels."
At least downloading has been disabled. But you can still get a very decent up-res from a screen capture.
And the Flickr license for each image is still in the photostream owner's name, not the original artist's.
-
Even if downsized, people are not authorized to upload other people's material at Flickr.
-
Even if downsized, people are not authorized to upload other people's material at Flickr.
Seems to be a rule which is as well policed as iStock's rule saying people using a file editorially must credit the author/iStockphoto.
-
SUCCESS!!!
:D :D :D Most of those images have now disappeared from that Flickr site. It's beyond me why there are still at least 3 images from DT/SS. In any case, I think this is a very satisfying outcome. Thousand thanks to everyone who helped making DT/Flickr do something about this.
@lthn: I guess most microstockers know there's not a chance in making everyone play it fair. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try in cases like this where there is a chance, obviously...
Have a great week everyone!
-
Good outcome! Well done. ;D