MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: WebSubstance on March 27, 2014, 20:14
-
http://www.cafepress.ca/profile/phodographer (http://www.cafepress.ca/profile/phodographer)
http://www.cafepress.ca/dd/73958727 (http://www.cafepress.ca/dd/73958727)
and others
In her bio: "In the last 20 years I've photographed many pets, and love creating products with their images."
Liar liar pants on fire.
First, is this legal? If not, What's the best way to deal with this con artist? Should I contact cafepress directly?
Thanks,
Michael
-
no doubt he is a liar...!
have you sold any Extended License of those pictures?
-
Directly deal with Cafepress. Let Cafepress ask this person to explain why he is selling your content. But before you do that, you must have all the proofs to establish it is your content which is being sold there and you still own copyrights.
-
.
-
.
-
Tickstock, I just voted your posts up again. We may not like it but certain licences from certain sites do allow this use.
Check where the images in question have sold from and whether or not you have had EL sales. You could politely ask the Cafepress seller to provide you with sight of the licences, then you will know for sure whether or not they are working within the terms.
-
Will CafePress actually respond? All I hear about them is that it's a lousy company that could care less about contributors, and is on the ropes financially.
-
Doesn't the fotolia extended license allow this kind of use? Also the person selling the work doesn't seem to be saying that she took all of the pictures just that she has taken many photos of pets.
Thanks for the heads up. I just opted out of CS extended licenses.
-
Reselling the images like this on POD sites may be allowed by some stock sites extended license, but him/her claiming to be the photographer (and thus copyright holder) would not be.
-
.
-
I agree that she doesn't explicitly claim all the copyright of the pictures but reading this
"In the last 20 years I've photographed many pets, and love creating products with their images. "
kind of imply that she is creating products with the photos that she took.
I'll verify if these photos had extended sales at fotolia.
thanks for your feedback
-
.
-
Yea, looks like she is being tricky with the wording. Unethical at least.
-
Yea, looks like she is being tricky with the wording. Unethical at least.
Like wedding photographers using stock images to 'illustrate' their business, implying but not stating they took the photos.
Again, this would be very much 'pushing the line' in the UK.
In the ASA:
"The likely effect of a marketing communication is generally considered from the point of view of the average consumer whom it reaches or to whom it is addressed. The average consumer is assumed to be reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect.
In some circumstances, a marketing communication may be considered from the point of view of the average member of a specific group:
If it is directed to a particular audience group, the marketing communication will be considered from the point of view of the average member of that group. "
and later:
"Marketing communications are misleading if they
are likely to deceive consumers and
are likely to cause consumers to take transactional decisions that they would not otherwise have taken."
http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/Appendix-1-The-CPRs-and-BPRs.aspx (http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/Appendix-1-The-CPRs-and-BPRs.aspx)
In my experience, almost no-one has ever heard of stock photography, other than Reuters etc. When I warned my friend (previous thread) about the possibility of putative wedding photographers using stock photos on their websites and other collateral, she, her husband and the bride-to-be were utterly astonished, never having throught of the possibility. All three are university graduates, which begs the question of what would consitute "reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect". Sounds a bit woolly to be legal.
-
.
-
Add Bigstockphoto to the list of places that allow print on demand with an EL.
Add BS to the list of agencies I have cancelled out of EL's.
I only have 99 images with them and have not submitted to them since seeing their pitiful payment schedule as I don't want to give their parent company any bad ideas that it is acceptable.
-
Here is the link in case someone else needs to know:
http://help.bigstockphoto.com/hc/en-us/articles/200304015-How-can-I-add-or-remove-the-Extended-License-option-to-my-approved-images- (http://help.bigstockphoto.com/hc/en-us/articles/200304015-How-can-I-add-or-remove-the-Extended-License-option-to-my-approved-images-)
-
I too have had issues with Liars on Café Press saying they took (and were selling) My Dog photos of Fifi the Bichon Frise.
Café Press did take care of the issue.
Contact them directly
I hate Thieves and Liars!
May they all boil in hot guano for all eternity (along with a few select other people whom we wont mention here)
-
Thank you, I contacted cafe press.