pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My image on DeviantArt. Is this OK?  (Read 13815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2009, 22:55 »
0
In the event that one of them produces a masterpiece which actually ends up on posters/calendars/whatever, and it includes microstock-sourced elements, then it might be worth taking action. Until then you are probably better off expending the time & energy into producing more stock than chasing the tails of these hobbyists.

DING DING DING, wrong! If you don't protect your rights and your work, you could lose the right to challenge someone later. Just by doing what you suggest, your work may become public domain.

Lets say the girl floating in the pond in front of the waterfall (nice work she does by the way) becomes the cover of a magazine, and the artist gets paid $2000. Is the original work copyrighted and protected?  You decide to take action. Sorry, too late. You have 90 days from the discovery to protect yourself. On her side, the fact that you did see the image and did nothing could be construed as meaning you didn't care to challenge the use, giving tacit approval. The messages on the forum are now documentation for the defense.

While I don't believe that suing someone or causing a big stink is the answer, at the very least a cease and desist letter would be in order to show that you made an effort to protect your ownership.

Sorry, but doing nothing is doing something, and it hurts you if there is any future infringement action.
 


lisafx

« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2009, 10:48 »
0
...Your image is a substantial part of her artwork, but she did include other elements to make a derivative work.  Which is allowed in the standard microstock license. ...

Lisa,
I really would love to hear everyone's opinion about this statement.

Could you elaborate what this exactly means?


Honestly, a thorough reading of any of the licensing terms on the websites would reveal that creating derivative works for financial gain (in advertising, for example) is one of the main reasons microstock is purchased.

From Dreamstime's RF License Agreement:  The high-resolution images that you download under the regular Royalty Free (RF) license may be used to make fine art prints, on a web site, in a magazine, newspaper, book or booklet, flyer, or any other advertising and promotional material, in either printed or electronic media, as long as the item in which the image appears does not contradict any of the restrictions below.

and...

If you use the images for printed materials, the number of copies must not exceed 500,000. You may modify the images in any way required for reproduction, or include them in your own personal creations.

Buying the high-resolution image (purchasing the license) does not transfer the copyright. You may not claim that the image is your own and you may not sell, license for use, or in any way distribute the image for reuse.


Does that illuminate it for you?   Plain English translation is that you CAN incorporate the images in your own designs or finished products but you CAN'T claim copyright of the elements of the design that are not your creation.  

The above is from the regular RF license.  It does not give the right to sell print on demand.  For that you would need the following EL:

Print Usage (P-EL):
Physical Items for Resale: includes the right to use the photos for t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, mugs, mousepads, posters, calendars, framed artwork that is to be sold to other customers for a maximum amount of 10,000 copies (applies as a total of each type of usage). If this amount is exceeded you need to acquire this license once again. The new license will provide you with the standard amount of copies.
This is an additional license to the rights included within the regular Royalty-Free license. Note that the other restrictions still apply.


Rather than arguing endlessly in this forum, how about actually reading the license terms on the site where she bought the image?  

And FWIW quoting the Contributor licensing terms from SS is not relevant to the discussion unless she is attempting to resell her derivative work as stock.  Which it doesn't appear she is.

Let me repeat:  Clearly she went beyond the bounds of the regular RF license.  I just think the efforts to tar and feather her are way over the top.  

Sounds like Whitechild handled it very well by keeping a calm head and working it out with her in a reasonable way.  
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 11:02 by lisafx »

« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2009, 11:04 »
0
Rather than arguing endlessly in this forum, how about actually reading the license terms on the site where she bought the image?
Wait, you mean we are supposed to actually read the licensing agreements before we sell our images on sites? ;D

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2009, 12:59 »
0
Unless Phatpuppy changed it.... I dont see it for sale. Left side "Print not enabled". Looks like it was used in association with the Poem.

http://phatpuppy.deviantart.com/art/Drowning-Lessons-123820703

Noodles

« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2009, 16:15 »
0

Let me repeat:  Clearly she went beyond the bounds of the regular RF license.  I just think the efforts to tar and feather her are way over the top.  

Sounds like Whitechild handled it very well by keeping a calm head and working it out with her in a reasonable way.  


Well said.

« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2009, 23:57 »
0
@ Digital66

Quote
Come on! She is clearly stealing and using stock images to make some money.

Whitechild,  Did she buy en EL? Did she ask you for permission to use your work?  At http://www.redbubble.com/groups/redbubble/forums/posts/search?q=stock+photo&commit=Search+the+Forums she says: "I always send personal notes to photographers seeking their permission to use their stock images."

So, if she did not ask for your permission, she is just a liar. She is stealing stock photos.

She is clearly using this work to make money, not just to show "her art" .  At  http://s304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/ayed2/Boodi/?action=view&current=Drowning_Lessons_by_phatpuppy.jpg people can buy prints, mugs, playing cards, etc of this image


Thanks for that!

I cannot apply the same rules/opinion to all "artists" out there that use our images but I might remind you that the lovely lady who ripped my best seller and offered it on Zazzle, flat out lied to me when I asked if she made any sales.

After identifying myself as the copyright owner of the image in question she replied:

Quote
"Oh, I'm so sorry. I didn't know the image was yours. I removed it from my gallery. Thank god I never sold any items with that design on it."


How many of you would just accept this an move on? I bet some and nobody gets hurt but I wrote to Zazzle and asked them about it.

Big surprise she did have sales. The commission was not paid out yet therefore I claimed the royalties and guess what - I got them. My design, my copyright - MY MONEY!

Can I explain it any easier?

Just because people tell you one thing doesn't mean they are telling you the truth.

« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2009, 00:32 »
0
And here we go again.

I just identified 4 more sellers on Zazzle distributing my image.

I guess we all have not the slightest clue how many times our stuff has been sold without our knowledge...  :-X


RacePhoto

« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2009, 02:17 »
0
And here we go again.

I just identified 4 more sellers on Zazzle distributing my image.

I guess we all have not the slightest clue how many times our stuff has been sold without our knowledge...  :-X



I hate to ask this question, but in her defense and others, if they buy an EL can they use it for derivative works, compositions and resell them as creative art? All above was assuming that it was not allowed, but what if it is? This question needs to be answered before the rest of the discussion. Is this kind of use legal and allowed?

« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2009, 02:41 »
0

Let me repeat:  Clearly she went beyond the bounds of the regular RF license.  I just think the efforts to tar and feather her are way over the top.  

Sounds like Whitechild handled it very well by keeping a calm head and working it out with her in a reasonable way.  


Well said.

my thoughts exactly.  Nice post Lisa and it I agree, you seem to have stated things correctly.

« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2009, 02:43 »
0
And here we go again.

I just identified 4 more sellers on Zazzle distributing my image.

I guess we all have not the slightest clue how many times our stuff has been sold without our knowledge...  :-X



I hate to ask this question, but in her defense and others, if they buy an EL can they use it for derivative works, compositions and resell them as creative art? All above was assuming that it was not allowed, but what if it is? This question needs to be answered before the rest of the discussion. Is this kind of use legal and allowed?


Yes, if someone buys an EL, they can then sell that image (as a derivative work or in it's original form) on a poster, mug, tshirt etc (also called print on demand) at places like zazzle or cafe press.  What they CANNOT do is sell the image file itself.

That was this part of the licensing terms
Print Usage (P-EL):
Physical Items for Resale: includes the right to use the photos for t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, mugs, mousepads, posters, calendars, framed artwork that is to be sold to other customers for a maximum amount of 10,000 copies (applies as a total of each type of usage). If this amount is exceeded you need to acquire this license once again. The new license will provide you with the standard amount of copies.
This is an additional license to the rights included within the regular Royalty-Free license. Note that the other restrictions still apply.

« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2009, 02:47 »
0
Unless Phatpuppy changed it.... I dont see it for sale. Left side "Print not enabled". Looks like it was used in association with the Poem.

http://phatpuppy.deviantart.com/art/Drowning-Lessons-123820703


On photobucket it is for sale on products
http://s304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/ayed2/Boodi/?action=view&current=Drowning_Lessons_by_phatpuppy.jpg

RacePhoto

« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2009, 02:53 »
0
I don't want to be a nag and I'm not defending, but it's not clear if this is in violation or not? Framed Artwork?  ??? Or am I reading this wrong?

Does this say I can buy an EL and sell the photos framed (giving proper credit of course) 10,000 times?

Can I license a photo, alter it, make changes and create a derived work, saying something like "Copyright (artist) based original work by (photographer)?

modified the message while Leaf was answering below.


That was this part of the licensing terms
Print Usage (P-EL):
Physical Items for Resale: includes the right to use the photos for t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, mugs, mousepads, posters, calendars, framed artwork that is to be sold to other customers for a maximum amount of 10,000 copies (applies as a total of each type of usage). If this amount is exceeded you need to acquire this license once again. The new license will provide you with the standard amount of copies.
This is an additional license to the rights included within the regular Royalty-Free license. Note that the other restrictions still apply.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 03:04 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2009, 02:59 »
0
yes, that is right.

« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2009, 04:46 »
0
As I still wait for the answer from Dreamstime I can only inform you guys that her image is for sale, but she is only advertising it through DeviantArt. That's why it says that no prints are available. She is selling images on DA when someone contacts her.

As Lisa said, I'm trying to work this out with her, but I still want Dreamstime to give me correct answer about licenses. Lisa quoted important things about licenses from Dreamstime, and I understand that one can buy an image for RF license to print it in less than 500 000 copies, but can someone buy an image, and resell it to someone else who will print it...in unknown numbers o copies? I mean, where is the point where this thing loses it's control?

I'll at least ask her to credit me for the photo...... but let's wait for DT answer first.



lisafx

« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2009, 12:54 »
0

As Lisa said, I'm trying to work this out with her, but I still want Dreamstime to give me correct answer about licenses. Lisa quoted important things about licenses from Dreamstime, and I understand that one can buy an image for RF license to print it in less than 500 000 copies, but can someone buy an image, and resell it to someone else who will print it...in unknown numbers o copies? I mean, where is the point where this thing loses it's control?


Whitechild, IMO you are right to go straight to Dreamstime for clarification.  

My understanding of the P-EL license terms posted by myself and by Tyler (thanks Tyler!) is that they can only sell objects, prints, etc. with the image on them.  They CANNOT resell the image file to someone else for any purpose, including reprinting it.  

That would require them to have the copyright, which they definitely don't get with the P-EL license.  Only way for them to get the copyright would be to buy it from you and would probably cost them a bundle of cash (in the hundreds or thousands), if you were willing to sell it them at all.

You are absolutely right that giving them permission to resell the file on a regular EL license would result in total loss of control and make your copyright worthless.

We could use some lawyers around here to help out with the fine print!  :)
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 13:07 by lisafx »

« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2009, 16:34 »
0
In my understanding, she may print the file, but she can not sell prints witthout an EL.  She can even print thousands of copies and give them away, but she can not sell a single one.

« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2009, 18:57 »
0
Ok guys,
First, I wanna thank you for following this topic!
I got a reply from Dreamstime, and they say they will contact DA to kindly ask the artist to either remove the artwork from selling, or to buy an EL. I exchanged few emails with the artist, and she said that she removed the artwork from all sites. I think she was pretty upset about all this, and I'm sorry if she thinks I'm a monster... I offered her some kind of collaboration in the future. She can tell me what she needs, and I can try to make it, and she could use it if she likes it. Images I would send her won't be on sale anywhere on internet.. I don't know if she will be interested, but that's the least I could do, because I'm sure she didn't do this on purpose. Obviously she didn't pay much attention on license stuff...

lisafx

« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2009, 19:03 »
0
Ok guys,
First, I wanna thank you for following this topic!
I got a reply from Dreamstime, and they say they will contact DA to kindly ask the artist to either remove the artwork from selling, or to buy an EL. I exchanged few emails with the artist, and she said that she removed the artwork from all sites. I think she was pretty upset about all this, and I'm sorry if she thinks I'm a monster... I offered her some kind of collaboration in the future. She can tell me what she needs, and I can try to make it, and she could use it if she likes it. Images I would send her won't be on sale anywhere on internet.. I don't know if she will be interested, but that's the least I could do, because I'm sure she didn't do this on purpose. Obviously she didn't pay much attention on license stuff...


Thanks for the update Ivan. 

You are a really nice guy! IMO you have been MORE than generous with her, offering to create content for her.  She should not be upset.  She should be apologetic. 

Better yet, she should simply pay for her mistake and buy the EL.  It is the only fair thing for her to do.  If she chooses to remove the image instead, after already using it beyond the license, then I would say she doesn't deserve any further of your consideration.


« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2009, 19:08 »
0
Out of interest Ivan how did you discover the use of your work in this way?

« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2009, 19:20 »
0
Lisa,
She removed the image instead of paying for EL. She already apologized before, so it's good enough for me. I provided her with few informations about licenses and I guess she understands it better now. She told me that she usually don't do that, and she bought maybe just a few images this way.
So, I hope we have at least one more artist who understands more about licensing and copyright. I must say she was very kind, and understanding.

Gostwyck,
I found the image using Tineye. If you use Firefox there is an add-on that you can install, and you can search any kind of images easily.

m@m

« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2009, 21:28 »
0
Whitechild, my hat off to you, you ARE a very nice man, not many of us (specially myself) would have being as generous and understanding on a similar situation, I guess maybe we should all learn something from you...you just remind me is not all about money, business and lawsuits...peace bud! :-X

PS: You and the family have a great soon to come holiday.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 22:14 by m@m »

« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2009, 22:41 »
0
My tongue's bleeding from biting on it. I have to say something.

Ivan, it's a good character trade to give EVERYONE the benefit of the doubt. Not many people still do this in this day and age!!!

I would like to add my 2 cents on this one though.

There are a couple of "red flags" in the statements she made:

Given the fact that her "artwork" looks pretty decent in a technical aspect I assume this wouldn't have been her first composition that she made based on other artist's images. So we can assume this wouldn't be the first case of license breach.

THEREFORE, I find her statement:
Quote
...She told me that she usually don't do that, and she bought maybe just a few images this way. ...

a bit suspicious.

First off, what do you guys think what a violator would say to you after identifying yourself as the copyright owner?
Do you think he/she would actually respond: "Yes, I know this image is copyrighted and I do NOT have a valid license to do this." OR "I'm so sorry - I had no idea that I'm not allowed to do that".

Now I don't know if the second half of this quote above is your interpretation Ivan, or if she actually said that but either way I've heard this sentence one too many times from people who lied to me.

Nonetheless the expression:
Quote
...and she bought maybe just a few images this way...
already implies that she IS using other peoples' images besides yours.

You were just one who found out about it!

In many cases such behavior and statements show that a license breach has been committed before BUT was never discovered.

Ivan, after all this I would like to know why you think or why you are afraid of that she thinks that
Quote
...I think she was pretty upset about all this, and I'm sorry if she thinks I'm a monster...

You and a monster??? I think you are not a monster. You kindly asked what . is going on and after the fact that she removed the image instead of purchasing a valid EL is very, very strange AND commonly known as an "admission of guilt". This should be the last thing for you to worry about whether she thinks that you are a monster...

If she as an artist is doing this all the time (buying images for her artwork) but refuses to pay you in a way that you deserve AND you are offering her content for future projects you are the most generous man (well maybe second most generous...) that ever walked the earth.

You've done it your way and things worked out to some extend - although you should have gotten an EL in the first place...

I would have done it differently just based on my previous experiences with violators that DO KNOW that it is illegal but try ANYTHING to get out of it. The internet and the digital use of imagery make it very difficult to gather proof of such criminal intent as it would be up to you to bring forth proof of violation. In such cases it usually works the way: "Innocent until proven guilty". So the phrase: "Ohhh, I didn't know..." is the first step for them to get out, followed by removing the content (without paying a license and regardless if any sales already occurred!!!!).

While this may have been totally innocent, I know that this is not the classic case.






« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 22:45 by click_click »

« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2009, 22:41 »
0
Sorry double post.

« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2009, 00:16 »
0
Guys thank you for kind words!

I told her that photographers look every day for their own images on internet, and one reason for this is to check if someone didn't abused their images. I also told her that I am active member of few stock photography forums and that every now and then people find their images abused in some way. I also provided her with this link (some of you will remember this case) http://openartforum.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/60/


« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2009, 01:16 »
0
Interesting article. I'd never seen that. It's always amazing to me that some illustrators don't understand that you are supposed to shoot your own reference photos. And if you don't, then it better not look anything like the reference you used. I suppose copyright abuse will just get worse. I was shocked by this post at Shutterstock:

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=74163

It's the same pose used by a dozen different contributors. Maybe, it's from a public domain reference, but it makes you wonder.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3981 Views
Last post January 30, 2009, 02:17
by sharply_done
23 Replies
6390 Views
Last post January 10, 2010, 21:16
by madelaide
59 Replies
12416 Views
Last post October 28, 2010, 20:32
by jbarber873
9 Replies
3051 Views
Last post July 30, 2012, 12:47
by michaeldb
8 Replies
2628 Views
Last post January 23, 2015, 20:23
by Fuertegfx

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results