Hi everybody,
I think the girl didn't brake the rules, but I would like to double check here. My image from Dreamstime:



is altered and it's selling as print on DeviantArt.



Should author buy an EL for this image or not?

Regards,
Ivan

Digital artists need material to create such work and often they don't make huge profits (if any at all) from prints - I would need more information about the girl before I got concerned - I actually enjoy to see art created this way and as long as she bought the image then I would have few issues.  Did she give you a credit for the photo?

I just checked her portfolio - she is using other images from Dreamtime and stating as such - can she then resell them I don't know - I hope so cause her work is really nice

I would contact Dreamstime before I do anything

Kone

No it's NOT ok - here is why:

Definition of copyright infringement by the U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html):

As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Just this in itself should explain clearly where you're at.

Furthermore if anyone remembers, the "fritzkocher" issue - he did the same exact thing and got banned from all the stock sites.

This is crystal clear but of course the artist who used your image (and others) will not agree with that.

I'd do everything to sue this thief *biting tongue*.

Good luck!

Whitechild, as long as we let people like her get away with stealing our images without paying the correct licenses for their own profits, with only a slap on the hand, will only open up the road for many other thieves to follow, I strongly believe that a lawsuit in this case is the only way to go, it seems to me that in this case you have to fight fire with fire...how many more of this type of incidents are we going to allowed to happened over and over, this type of disregard for other peoples rights got to be stopped. 

First off, Ivan, beautiful image!  Really stunning photo

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. 

Of course printing and selling the final product is not covered by the standard license, but would appear to be allowed under the P-EL license, as Cthoman said. 

Sounds to me more of a simple case of not understanding the license, rather than "theft".    If she was deliberately trying to be dishonest or underhanded she would not be stating that she got the images from DT. 

For several reasons, I believe  it is better to contact her directly, or else call Dreamstime and let them enforce the license.  For one thing, it is expensive to hire a lawyer to enforce your rights.  For another, this appears to be a misunderstanding more than deliberate abuse of your license. 

...are you saying I can buy an EL from you, altering %25 of your image and then sell it as my own on a print site???

Yes (sort of), or you could sell it as is without modifying. In either case you wouldn't own it, have any claim to copyright or be able to distribute the actual image, but you purchased the right to license it for retail print. Some EL's don't cover PODs. I don't think Shutterstock's does.

^^^Just another misunderstanding on his/her part, right Lisa?!!!

She has a RedBubble account too. I noticed that the work in question is not for sale there however.

I had this happen with one of my images a few years ago. I contacted the artist, who had never sold a print. He has paid for an image, but the contract was beyond his understanding!
Does it really upset you enough to go to great lengths to stop it?

DevianArt is basically hobbyists messing about with PS and enjoying the accolades of their fellow hobbyists isn't it? I can't imagine there's many, if any, people seriously trying to earn significant sums let alone a living from it. Let's face it, it is hard enough earning a living from conventional stock sales as it is and most DA work is not particularly commercially oriented and the site is not targetting stock buyers.

I think we are probably better off being grateful for the few sales we do get from DA members rather than hammering them with emails demanding to know whether they are complying with the intricacies of the license.

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.

DevianArt is basically hobbyists messing about with PS and enjoying the accolades of their fellow hobbyists isn't it? I can't imagine there's many, if any, people seriously trying to earn significant sums let alone a living from it. Let's face it, it is hard enough earning a living from conventional stock sales as it is and most DA work is not particularly commercially oriented and the site is not targetting stock buyers.

I think we are probably better off being grateful for the few sales we do get from DA members rather than hammering them with emails demanding to know whether they are complying with the intricacies of the license.

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.

I agree, especially with the last paragraph.  If someone uses one of your images improperly and it makes it really big you will probably become aware of it and be able to make a big settlement for the infringement.   However, if you shut down every infringing usage as quickly as possible there is no possibility of this happening and you may be cutting yourself out of a big payday.  After all if it doesn't sell any or only sells a few it probably is not hurting you anyway.

fred

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

I agree 100%
Why didn't she contact you? Maybe she forgot?

Kone

Quote from: lisafx on December 05, 2009, 16:47

...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.  

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

@ Digital66

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:

"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.

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... 

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?

Quote from: click_click on December 08, 2009, 00:32

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...  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

...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:

...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

...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.

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/

Ivan was indeed very generous and comprehensive.  Unfortunately a lot of people do not understand the license terms - or don't take the time to read them before buying. 

I also think the wording "royalty free" is often misunderstood.  FT site in Portuguese even translates it as "free of rights".  A lot of people search for "free photos" and end in "royalty free photos" results.  Of course, this doesn't apply in this case, as she purchase an image, she only didn't read or didn't bother to follow the license terms.  I've read people in Zazzle forum saying that EL prices are too high, so I'm sure many use images pucharsed with standard licenses only.

The reality of those sites (and I'm a RedBubble member) is that very few artists make any significant money. How often have I seen someone post 'Thanks to whoever bought a card (or a Tee)'? A dollar or two. Occasionally. There's no way these people would (or could) pay $100s for ELs. Of course they shouldn't be trying to sell their composites without an EL but most people here can understand the thrill of an occasional sale, even if it is a pittance.

Stealing is stealing, doesn't matter if they only made $1.00 or $1000.00. I'll use your logic the next time I go to the grocery store. "I don't have a job now and hardly make any money at all at microstock, so you won't mind if I just take this $2.00 candy bar, right?"

Not!

If they can't afford $100s for an EL, then they will need to use their creative talent and come up with their own way to get source material. Stealing from others is NOT the right thing to do.

I do realize some people are clueless about licenses, but we all know there are others that deliberately help themselves to whatever they can get, right or wrong.

Good for you! Well done!

I recommend everyone not to take things like this too lightly.

If the site owner (Deviantart in this case) is unwilling to help or plays ignorant you MUST take other ways to increase pressure on them.

Write a DMCA notice to the web hosting company explaining your case. Web hosting companies take copyright infringement very seriously and a site owner can be easily taken offline for such violations with their web host. So this would already help to gain some leverage.

Also mention that your legal advisor has been informed and is reviewing the case, considering a claim for lost royalties, damages and misrepresentation of copyright ownership.

Of course in every case you have to inform all stock agencies that sell this image. It's in their best interest to have that image taken down. Provide as much information as possible to them.

I wonder if it would be possible to have a lawyer work for us,...

I already thought about that a while ago. Anyone who is interested to work on something please PM me.

Even with an EL you shouldn't be able to sell stuff on Zazzle and the like.
From SS

Uses Prohibited by Both Licenses   Permitted Use?
         Print on Demand                   NO


and IS:

License restrictions
Here is what you cannot do with either a Standard or Extended license:

Prohibited uses for both Standard and Extended license
Online "print-on-demand" products