Author Topic: Photobucket (Read 7929 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** September 19, 2011, 15:07 »

I'e just found one of my (very) few Vettas on Photobucket, under someone else's name, though not directly claiming to be photographed by her. It seems anyone is invited to download the pic or share it on a gazillion of social meda, many of which I haven't heard of. AFAICS, the image is available at c600x400.
There's no watermark on it, so it may be that she has bought the original, or it may be she's copied it from a legitmate buyer.
Even assuming she is a genuine buyer, is that allowed?
(I checked and each of her images I clicked on seems to be 'all over the web'. I also found it a bit disconcerting that clicking on my pic on her page didn't turn up iStockphoto in the first few pages, unlike TinEye, and in fact nor did clicking on the pic in my iStock port.)

rimglow · « **Reply #1 on:** September 19, 2011, 15:32 »

I did a quick search for my most stolen image and found it there. (Guava) I uploaded a medium res version for my photography portfolio about 10 years ago without any watermarks on pBase. I didn't know any better. It has been stolen so many times over the years I've given up on tracing every thief.

cathyslife · « **Reply #2 on:** September 19, 2011, 15:41 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 19, 2011, 15:07

I'e just found one of my (very) few Vettas on Photobucket, under someone else's name, though not directly claiming to be photographed by her. It seems anyone is invited to download the pic or share it on a gazillion of social meda, many of which I haven't heard of. AFAICS, the image is available at c600x400.
There's no watermark on it, so it may be that she has bought the original, or it may be she's copied it from a legitmate buyer.
Even assuming she is a genuine buyer, is that allowed?
(I checked and each of her images I clicked on seems to be 'all over the web'. I also found it a bit disconcerting that clicking on my pic on her page didn't turn up iStockphoto in the first few pages, unlike TinEye, and in fact nor did clicking on the pic in my iStock port.)

Welcome to the club (I am sorry to say).

There is no license that allows for re-distribution, but apparently uploaders to flickr, photobucket, picasa or some of the other sites don't know enough to disable the downloading feature. Yes, anyone can snag an image from the web using screenshot, and in your case, it looks like the image available is only 600x400, but there are MANY hi rez images being re-distributed this exact way.

I can only suggest sending a note to Photobucket saying your image is being infringed upon.

Sadstock · « **Reply #3 on:** September 19, 2011, 15:46 »

As an Istock exclusive, they will go to such hosting sites and get such images taken down for you. When I was an exclusive, I asked them to address images posted on Flickr and they were all promptly taken down.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** September 19, 2011, 16:11 »

Quote from: Sadstock on September 19, 2011, 15:46

As an Istock exclusive, they will go to such hosting sites and get such images taken down for you. When I was an exclusive, I asked them to address images posted on Flickr and they were all promptly taken down.

When you say 'they' and 'them', do you mean iStock?
I've had nothing except an acknowledgement for the pics I notified to CR the week Google Image Search was launched. That's quite a while now - a couple of months?

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** September 19, 2011, 16:21 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 19, 2011, 16:11

Quote from: Sadstock on September 19, 2011, 15:46
As an Istock exclusive, they will go to such hosting sites and get such images taken down for you. When I was an exclusive, I asked them to address images posted on Flickr and they were all promptly taken down.
When you say 'they' and 'them', do you mean iStock?
I've had nothing except an acknowledgement for the pics I notified to CR the week Google Image Search was launched. That's quite a while now - a couple of months?

There was a time when istock would even help non-exclusives. I know, because they helped me with a takedown. But that was ages ago. Sad to hear they don't help exclusives anymore, either.

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** September 19, 2011, 18:18 »

Quote from: cclapper on September 19, 2011, 16:21

Quote from: ShadySue on September 19, 2011, 16:11
Quote from: Sadstock on September 19, 2011, 15:46
As an Istock exclusive, they will go to such hosting sites and get such images taken down for you. When I was an exclusive, I asked them to address images posted on Flickr and they were all promptly taken down.
When you say 'they' and 'them', do you mean iStock?
I've had nothing except an acknowledgement for the pics I notified to CR the week Google Image Search was launched. That's quite a while now - a couple of months?

There was a time when istock would even help non-exclusives. I know, because they helped me with a takedown. But that was ages ago. Sad to hear they don't help exclusives anymore, either.

They didn't say they wouldn't help. Indeed, they speficially said on the forum that we had to contact them and not contact infringers directly. It's just that they don't seem to have the will or personpower to deal quickly with the no-doubt huge numbers that were found via Google Image Search. Huh, my 'clawed back' 5% should be paying for that.

I've just found a watermarked image of mine on a different site, and have contacted them about that.
If it's definite that even a legitimate buyer can't distribute files that way - and why should they? I have everything locked on Flickr and big watermarks and non-Stock pics there, I'll take out another Support ticket. Always best to have only one issue per ticket anyway.

Sadstock · « **Reply #7 on:** September 19, 2011, 19:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 19, 2011, 16:11

Quote from: Sadstock on September 19, 2011, 15:46
As an Istock exclusive, they will go to such hosting sites and get such images taken down for you. When I was an exclusive, I asked them to address images posted on Flickr and they were all promptly taken down.
When you say 'they' and 'them', do you mean iStock?
I've had nothing except an acknowledgement for the pics I notified to CR the week Google Image Search was launched. That's quite a while now - a couple of months?

--------------------------------------------
Sorry, yes I mean Istock. I think they got crushed the week Google Image Search was launched. Maybe send it to them again? Or it could be one more thing at Istock that has broken.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** September 20, 2011, 07:38 »

OK, I've written to Photobucket asking them to take the picture down.
Side note: I've written to istock's CR about some watermarked 'in uses', also a couple of editorial used in Commercial, and have contacted an admin on an editorial photo use that I think but am not 'certain' might be considered 'commercial'.
Thanks all.

rimglow · « **Reply #9 on:** September 20, 2011, 08:11 »

I found over 30 postings of 5 of my photos. I emailed Photobucket, and after instructing me on how to properly fill out the request form, they took them all down. It took almost 2 hours to find them all.

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2011, 09:34 »

It's great that sites are cooperating, and perhaps that can be considered a small step forward, but the damage has been done. How many other people have already downloaded the image for free? How much $$ in sales must all contributors be losing per year because of this? There just isn't any financial punishment going on for the thieves.

It would be like someone being able to walk into a store and leave with a candy bar, or a coat, or a pair of shoes and not getting punished for it. It's great if that person can get away with it (which the image thieves all are), but most times the person gets caught and gets punished. Even when the image thieves DO get caught, they are getting away with it.

<sigh>

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2011, 10:05 »

I wonder why iStock isn't 'found' when clicking on Google Image Search. It's as though they've opted out. The only one of my pics that I clicked on in the 'using' site that I found on iStock was one I'd referenced in a forum thread. Not one other was 'reverse-found' on iStock.
That means even those trying to be diligent won't have any means of knowing something is an iStock pic. E.g. when I was a teacher and one of my image sources was CC on Flickr, latterly inter alia I did a TinEye search to make sure it wasn't a stock image.
Again looking at my Google Image Search results, it's very obvious that files are being copied, quite possibly from legitimate buyers many times over. (Like I said before, it's obvious by the sizes used, because the chance that several buyers would opt to crop an image to a certain size or proportion (not the sizes directly available from istock) is miniscule, as is even the chance that the same designer/buyer would put the same size and crop of the same image on different client's websites.
From what I see of my images, this 'lifting' is prevalent throughout the blogosphere.

cathyslife · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2011, 11:09 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 20, 2011, 10:05

I wonder why iStock isn't 'found' when clicking on Google Image Search. It's as though they've opted out. The only one of my pics that I clicked on in the 'using' site that I found on iStock was one I'd referenced in a forum thread. Not one other was 'reverse-found' on iStock.
That means even those trying to be diligent won't have any means of knowing something is an iStock pic. E.g. when I was a teacher and one of my image sources was CC on Flickr, latterly inter alia I did a TinEye search to make sure it wasn't a stock image.
Again looking at my Google Image Search results, it's very obvious that files are being copied, quite possibly from legitimate buyers many times over. (Like I said before, it's obvious by the sizes used, because the chance that several buyers would opt to crop an image to a certain size or proportion (not the sizes directly available from istock) is miniscule, as is even the chance that the same designer/buyer would put the same size and crop of the same image on different client's websites.
From what I see of my images, this 'lifting' is prevalent throughout the blogosphere.

I've noticed the same thing about istock images in Google searches. My images that were there used to come up first all the time. Since I don't have any more images there, it makes sense MINE aren't showing, but I notice NO ONE'S are showing, like you mentioned.

I have no doubt that the amount of stolen images increasing rapidly on the net will be in direct proportion to the decreasing of sales on the agency sites.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** September 23, 2011, 09:02 »

Over the stipulated 48 hours later, I got another auto-email from Photobucket to say they have 'a large number of tickets to deal with at the moment'.
I've copied in CE@istock.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #14 on:** September 26, 2011, 13:06 »

Quote from: cclapper on September 20, 2011, 09:34

It's great that sites are cooperating, and perhaps that can be considered a small step forward, but the damage has been done. How many other people have already downloaded the image for free? How much $$ in sales must all contributors be losing per year because of this? There just isn't any financial punishment going on for the thieves.

It would be like someone being able to walk into a store and leave with a candy bar, or a coat, or a pair of shoes and not getting punished for it. It's great if that person can get away with it (which the image thieves all are), but most times the person gets caught and gets punished. Even when the image thieves DO get caught, they are getting away with it.

<sigh>

And why do WE have to do all the policing and get nothing in return for that effort.

Yes the shoplifting comparison is a good one. When someone gets caught heading out of the store, they don't pay for anything, they just return it and walk away. They use and steal our work and when they get caught, all that happens is they remove it from the website and it's over.

There needs to be some penalty for stealing images or the whole search and remove efforts are fruitless and never ending.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photobucket (Read 7929 times)

ShadySue

rimglow

cathyslife

Sadstock

ShadySue

cathyslife

ShadySue

Sadstock

ShadySue

rimglow

cathyslife

ShadySue

cathyslife

ShadySue

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors