Author Topic: Pirated istock images ? (Read 46064 times)

macrosaur · « **Reply #75 on:** March 28, 2010, 13:21 »

Quote from: cdwheatley on March 28, 2010, 09:52

Well, if the stock sites aren't doing anything about this ,than maybe it is pointless. How can you stop it? I went through the first 10 pages and found a bunch of my images, not about to start emailing everyone, would take forever. They would probably just show me the finger anyway. Best solution is to protect your future and don't sell Subs, or live with it ,because it's not going to stop unless the sites get involved. Not even sure if that will help.

you CAN stop it.

once you throw the spam out what do we have ? 20-30 big sites with tons of links
and dozens of well known and less known "storage sites", then you have 10 or 20
torrent "trackers" sites with the same stuff shared on BitTorrent.

all together it's maybe 100 sites and if you shut them down they're gone forever,
and don't tell me about china or india, these guys are all hosted in EU or US.

agencies are not moving a finger because they can't even know for sure
how much is the damage done, and they also know that sueing teenagers
sharing pirated photos will cost them more than what they can eventually
gain.

macrosaur · « **Reply #76 on:** March 28, 2010, 13:26 »

Quote from: cdwheatley on March 28, 2010, 09:52

Well, if the stock sites aren't doing anything about this ,than maybe it is pointless. How can you stop it? I went through the first 10 pages and found a bunch of my images, not about to start emailing everyone, would take forever. They would probably just show me the finger anyway. Best solution is to protect your future and don't sell Subs, or live with it ,because it's not going to stop unless the sites get involved. Not even sure if that will help.

never say never.

in another photo blog, where i've got banned because of other silly reasons, i spoke with the
guy who shot the images on istock that got notorious for the "BNP scandal" in UK months ago,
and he said that all he did was sending an email to iStock.

macrosaur · « **Reply #77 on:** March 28, 2010, 13:27 »

Subs are certainly to blame, i can't see any other way for the leechers to grab 1000s of images
from stocks and it can't be a random occurrance that most of the images come from Shutterstock.

macrosaur · « **Reply #78 on:** March 28, 2010, 13:29 »

DMCA notices will lead you nowhere.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #79 on:** March 28, 2010, 13:41 »

Yes, they keep stealing and uploading new images every day. But this is just one website.
Do we agree to search internet every day and report it to rapidshare, megauplaod and others everyday about things like this? We shouldn't stop after shutting down these links today.

cthoman · « **Reply #80 on:** March 28, 2010, 13:52 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 28, 2010, 13:27

Subs are certainly to blame, i can't see any other way for the leechers to grab 1000s of images
from stocks and it can't be a random occurrance that most of the images come from Shutterstock.

I would assume they come from a variety of sources. Saying it is all subs seems short sited. Employees can swipe their company's purchased stock images and style guide images. Credit card fraud probably contributes as well. I assume some of these people use file sharing and just keep accumulating files from a variety of sources. They may not have purchased any of them.

Phil · « **Reply #81 on:** March 28, 2010, 15:12 »

some more

http://www.heroturko.org/
http://www.gfxtra.com/
http://www.trsohbet.com/
http://www.downeu.com/
http://www.downturk.info/
http://downloadbox.org/

all over 100k hits a day, the top one 230k which is more than bigstock gets

all them are linking to the same stuff. I always wondered how hard it would be to run a spider like thing trawling through their pages finding everything with http://rapidshare/... etc (most are text not links) for each of the main sites and send a list to rapidshare here's 50000 copyright infringements please take down

sam100 · « **Reply #82 on:** March 28, 2010, 16:51 »

Quote from: Phil on March 28, 2010, 15:12

some more

http://www.heroturko.org/
http://www.gfxtra.com/
http://www.trsohbet.com/
http://www.downeu.com/
http://www.downturk.info/
http://downloadbox.org/

all over 100k hits a day, the top one 230k which is more than bigstock gets

all them are linking to the same stuff. I always wondered how hard it would be to run a spider like thing trawling through their pages finding everything with http://rapidshare/... etc (most are text not links) for each of the main sites and send a list to rapidshare here's 50000 copyright infringements please take down

Spiders don't search in zip or rar files... or am i wrong.?.

Patrick.

Phil · « **Reply #83 on:** March 28, 2010, 17:24 »

the sites list links (although looking through it is often not actual link, just a line of text) to the zip/rar files so I wondered if soemthing that read the text would be able to extract all the links from each page

cdwheatley · « **Reply #84 on:** March 28, 2010, 18:01 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 28, 2010, 13:27

Subs are certainly to blame, i can't see any other way for the leechers to grab 1000s of images
from stocks and it can't be a random occurrance that most of the images come from Shutterstock.

Agree, It doesn't make sense to me that someone would pay $25.00 PPD for an XXL size and then give it away for free. Yes, there is Istock content on there as well as other sites, but I bet the bulk of it comes from subs. If Sean was submitting to SS, his stuff would be all over that site. Like I said, I found a bunch of my images on the first ten pages, I'm not about to go though 800 pages and send emails. It's totally out of control. The movie "300" comes to mind. How many sites are there like this?

madelaide · « **Reply #85 on:** March 28, 2010, 19:49 »

A friend of mine send me dozens of links everyday to movie and music CDs/DVDs and software, in rapidshare and such. I've told him about the IP disrespect, but he doesn't care. My colleagues at work often talk about the latest video download they got.

Phil · « **Reply #86 on:** March 29, 2010, 00:16 »

Quote from: cdwheatley on March 28, 2010, 18:01

Quote from: macrosaur on March 28, 2010, 13:27
Subs are certainly to blame, i can't see any other way for the leechers to grab 1000s of images
from stocks and it can't be a random occurrance that most of the images come from Shutterstock.

Agree, It doesn't make sense to me that someone would pay $25.00 PPD for an XXL size and then give it away for free. Yes, there is Istock content on there as well as other sites, but I bet the bulk of it comes from subs. If Sean was submitting to SS, his stuff would be all over that site. Like I said, I found a bunch of my images on the first ten pages, I'm not about to go though 800 pages and send emails. It's totally out of control. The movie "300" comes to mind. How many sites are there like this?

there is plenty of macro RF, Macro RF Cd's and even some rights managed images there (and 000's of istock). I think it would be more employer has paid, not the person uploading it.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #87 on:** March 29, 2010, 00:26 »

Many of these are probably stolen using trojan viruses and stealing other peoples usernames and password, stealing credit cards information and that sort of things. How many times we heard here about hijacked accounts.
But again, they can buy more images on subs websites, of course.

macrosaur · « **Reply #88 on:** March 29, 2010, 09:13 »

the big question remains ... how should we react ? and will Getty or iStock move a finger
against these sites or just say thank you for the feedback and good bye ?

they always knew there's a ton of pirated image packs on the net, it can't be a shocking news for them.

on the other side, if the agencies are really "representing" us it would be fair to expect
a bold move from their legal department and especially from Getty.

did anyone wrote already to iStock and Getty ?
any news ? any reply received ?

cathyslife · « **Reply #89 on:** March 29, 2010, 10:22 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 29, 2010, 09:13

the big question remains ... how should we react ? and will Getty or iStock move a finger
against these sites or just say thank you for the feedback and good bye ?

did anyone wrote already to iStock and Getty ?
any news ? any reply received ?

It's irrelevant whether anyone or 500 other people did or not. Did you? And when i say "you", I mean every single person on this forum who is a contributor to ANY stock site.

click_click · « **Reply #90 on:** March 29, 2010, 12:32 »

I haven't read every single post here and don't know for sure if this was addressed:

The agencies sell images on our behalf. We don't sell. They do. We authorize them to do so.

So whose job is it to go after people who got a hold of these images and then offer them for free? Us?

Yes it is infringing our copyright but, again, we're the ones working for free (doing the research) in favor of the agencies. Once we see our images for free we let the agencies know so they can take action (or not - since it is out copyright), but they are the ones possibly losing money as well.

I think by now every major stock site should have agreements with rapidshare, megaupload, hotfile etc. that any upload/post with their (trademarked!) name in it will be sent for review before going live. Hell, the agencies could even pay for that service just to eliminate a significant bunch of such postings. But again, I don't see serious efforts on the agencies' side.

These day you have to be proactive to stay ahead of the game. Just reacting will eventually push you out of the competition.

And since many here are complaining that subs are the reason for all this (I don't think that subs are the sole reason...) then you need to pull your images off the agency that offers subs - period (if you're exclusive with one of them and have no way to opt out, it shows painfully what we (you) signed for...).

As I posted before, the agencies want to make money in every way possible. If it means selling subs then they will do that as well. THEY want to make money/stay competitive but it all goes to the cost of the contributors.

We can not control price changes, the agencies do that (for us?). They cover their costs and maintain their salaries by adjusting prices. We can't do that. All we are supposed to do is shoot more (a lot more), upload/edit/keyword faster and be prepared to take pay cuts in terms of commissions. This is inevitable for every photographer unless you have a 99.9% streamlined business which many of us don't have (as there are still things happening called "life").

Dreamframer · « **Reply #91 on:** March 29, 2010, 12:36 »

Obviously agencies are not so unhappy with money they already earn.

click_click · « **Reply #92 on:** March 29, 2010, 13:09 »

Quote from: Whitechild on March 29, 2010, 12:36

Obviously agencies are not so unhappy with money they already earn.

That's exactly right. If it ain't broken, don't fix it (no matter how much the contributors complain...).

lisafx · « **Reply #93 on:** March 29, 2010, 14:33 »

Quote from: click_click on March 29, 2010, 12:32

I haven't read every single post here and don't know for sure if this was addressed:

The agencies sell images on our behalf. We don't sell. They do. We authorize them to do so.

So whose job is it to go after people who got a hold of these images and then offer them for free? Us?

Yes it is infringing our copyright but, again, we're the ones working for free (doing the research) in favor of the agencies. Once we see our images for free we let the agencies know so they can take action (or not - since it is out copyright), but they are the ones possibly losing money as well.

I think by now every major stock site should have agreements with rapidshare, megaupload, hotfile etc. that any upload/post with their (trademarked!) name in it will be sent for review before going live. Hell, the agencies could even pay for that service just to eliminate a significant bunch of such postings. But again, I don't see serious efforts on the agencies' side.

I completely agree. It is the agency's job to pursue this. They all get 60% or more of the revenue generated by our images. They should put forward the effort to protect them.

I don't see how it would be especially difficult or costly to implement the type of agreement Click_Click is suggesting with rapidshare, etc. There just has to be the motivation to do it. Maybe when they lose enough money and market share to these illegal sharing sites they might do something about it.

Meanwhile, as much as I resent the time it takes, it seems like our best course of action is to deal with these things as they crop up, while trying not to drive ourselves crazy.

On the subscription issue, it is pretty obvious from the variety of watermarks on these images, and the presence of Istock (completely)exclusive images that the issue goes way beyond just subs.

alias · « **Reply #94 on:** March 29, 2010, 17:20 »

Whilst piracy is an issue, I doubt that it is significantly damaging our revenues - in so much as I do not believe that many clients who would otherwise buy stock photos are choosing, instead, to use pirated content. I do not think that sales are being lost.

I do not believe that the relative availability of pirated images necessarily points to a significant demand for pirated stock photos to be used commercially.

I am also in no doubt that the best way of discouraging the use of pirated stock photos is by bringing users into the system via free and cheap content including subscriptions.

I think it could even be argued that the use of stolen content ultimately encourages sales via encouraging the use of stock content in general.

All businesses have to factor in a degree of theft. I'll bet there are people even on this thread who at sometime have used pirated software or watched a pirated movie or ripped a cd.

Anestis · « **Reply #95 on:** April 03, 2010, 05:43 »

Sorry for posting here but could not start a new topic (new members are not allowed?) and I hope I help.

In this video there are 2 istock photos with the istock watermark, probably never paid for.

newbielink:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywQy1cCgU&feature=player_embedded# [nonactive]

The guy is making millions in adwords advertising and coaching.

If anyone is interested, please take the necessary measures.

Microbius · « **Reply #96 on:** June 04, 2010, 04:41 »

Quote from: madelaide on March 28, 2010, 19:49

A friend of mine send me dozens of links everyday to movie and music CDs/DVDs and software, in rapidshare and such. I've told him about the IP disrespect, but he doesn't care. My colleagues at work often talk about the latest video download they got.

I remember when you posted a nature video on this forum featuring stolen bbc documentary clips with the message "watch it before it gets taken down again because of the copyright infringement" (I'm paraphrasing) so it's not just your "friends" that don't care is it?

ETA oh here it is http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/we-are-all-one/msg144486/#msg144486 and there's a few of the people complaining on this thread thanking you for it too!

Dreamframer · « **Reply #97 on:** June 04, 2010, 18:18 »

Quote from: Microbius on June 04, 2010, 04:41

Quote from: madelaide on March 28, 2010, 19:49
A friend of mine send me dozens of links everyday to movie and music CDs/DVDs and software, in rapidshare and such. I've told him about the IP disrespect, but he doesn't care. My colleagues at work often talk about the latest video download they got.

I remember when you posted a nature video on this forum featuring stolen bbc documentary clips with the message "watch it before it gets taken down again because of the copyright infringement" (I'm paraphrasing) so it's not just your "friends" that don't care is it?

ETA oh here it is http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/we-are-all-one/msg144486/#msg144486 and there's a few of the people complaining on this thread thanking you for it too!

Yes, that's true. But it's not Maria's fault that copyrighted track found it's place on youtube. Actually, youtube should have much better control over everything that is uploaded.
If program like windows media player, or winamp, or any other player, can recognize songs and albums, and pull all information about them from Internet, than youtube can do it for sure.....just they don't care, cause without all that content no one would watch youtube.
They are "trying" to inform users that some track is copyrighted, but they actually don't care until some PRO agency like ASCAP or BMI reacts.
Authors are informing ASCAP or BMI when they find their tracks used without their permission, and those agencies react the same moment.
Microstock agencies could do the same for us, why not?
It costs I know, but they get the biggest piece of the cake, so I think they could afford paying one person just to search internet for pirated stock photos. I think one person would be enough for all agencies, altogether.

crazychristina · « **Reply #98 on:** June 04, 2010, 19:27 »

Sean did address him as Marco in some fairly recent thread, so I'm guessing his identity was on open secret.

madelaide · « **Reply #99 on:** June 04, 2010, 19:45 »

Quote from: Microbius on June 04, 2010, 04:41

Quote from: madelaide on March 28, 2010, 19:49
A friend of mine send me dozens of links everyday to movie and music CDs/DVDs and software, in rapidshare and such. I've told him about the IP disrespect, but he doesn't care. My colleagues at work often talk about the latest video download they got.

I remember when you posted a nature video on this forum featuring stolen bbc documentary clips with the message "watch it before it gets taken down again because of the copyright infringement" (I'm paraphrasing) so it's not just your "friends" that don't care is it?

ETA oh here it is http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/we-are-all-one/msg144486/#msg144486 and there's a few of the people complaining on this thread thanking you for it too!

If you consider viewing a low res video that BBC could have had YouTube to remove (it hasn't, maybe it's also online in their website or at Youtube itself) the same as sharing software/DVD/CD containt without control...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pirated istock images ? (Read 46064 times)

macrosaur

macrosaur

macrosaur

macrosaur

Dreamframer

cthoman

Phil

sam100

Phil

cdwheatley

madelaide

Phil

Dreamframer

macrosaur

cathyslife

click_click

Dreamframer

click_click

lisafx

alias

Anestis

Microbius

Dreamframer

crazychristina

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors