pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Theft again - please see if your images have been stolen, too.  (Read 19021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 30, 2009, 17:39 »
0
Just found one of my images on Flickr under some other user's name (I don't even have an account on Flickr):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40003475@N07/3677469194/#
Apparently, somebody called "misallphoto" thinks they can just download other people pics and build their portfolio that way....
I contacted Flickr about this, but I see other images in his "portfolio" that I know belong to other people. Some of them Yuri Arcurs', some from the user known as "ioannis kounadeas" on Fotolia. Please take a look and see if you have been stolen from, and contact Flickr as well, maybe this will result in their faster action.



« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2009, 17:42 »
0
Oh, there is one of Andres Rodriguez's, too - with Andres himself in the picture!!! Would be funny if it wasn't so annoying.

« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2009, 17:53 »
0
I didn't see any of mine, but I did notice that the persons folder is called 'Fotolia'.

Snaprender

« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2009, 18:05 »
0
I don't really understand why someone would pay for the images (or steal them somehow) and then display them on Flickr just like that. What could they possibly stand to gain? Thanx for letting us know, Elenathewise

« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2009, 19:10 »
0
Thanks for letting us know.

I didn't find any one of mine but I found some of koun's portfolio as well  as imagers from Yuri Arcurs and Andres Rodriguez. 

I wonder whether this person has bought the pictures or just took the from fotolia and erased the watermark (wich is a ridiculous watermark by the way!) .  It makes no sense buying pictures to display them on Flickr...


« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2009, 19:27 »
0
Thanks for letting us know.
 
I wonder whether this person has bought the pictures or just took the from fotolia and erased the watermark (wich is a ridiculous watermark by the way!) .  It makes no sense buying pictures to display them on Flickr...

Yeah, thanks... I've been going nuts the last couple of days finding my stuff all over the place on sites I've never heard of!!!   And the ones that I have been able to trace go back to.......yeah,   FT!!!!!

Neither of my  TWO pix on FT were there (the reason why only 2 there explained in other threads and too long to repeat again) .

and yes,  if that isn't the most asinine watermark I've ever seen.....  I'm pulling my FT port  ..... pulling as soon as I can be assured they will be pulled off all the other  outfits  FT is  or is not (by the disclaimers on these other sites) associated with!! 
I'll be damned to hades if I'm going to pull them from FT and these other morons  are still selling them.  One of them is my #2 selling foto all time!! I should have walked away from them with the first outrageous problem I had with them years ago! 8)=tom
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 19:29 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2009, 20:07 »
0
Yup it does look that the images are just stolen from Fotolia and the watermark was removed, since they all seem to be small size. However, small size still should not be free. The way I found out about this actually - my image was used in a web feature, with a link to that Flickr portfolio. So someone used a stolen image (without knowing it) in a legit publication.
Sigh.... And yeah, Fotolia's "watermark" is indeed ridiculous, did anyone suggest to them (nicely:)) to alter it?

« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2009, 20:12 »
0
Sigh.... And yeah, Fotolia's "watermark" is indeed ridiculous, did anyone suggest to them (nicely:)) to alter it?

ha ha ha ha.... Elenathewise... I am so SURE there are plenty here that have suggestions for FT... most of which should not be printed here on a family oriented site...LOL. 8)=tom

« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2009, 23:22 »
0
Hi Elenathewise,

 Thank you very much for pointing this out. One of my photos is also up there. There company has had this issue for ever and it is  time to try and put a stop to this flagrant misuse of copyright infringement. I have sent a letter to Flickr to share my opinion of what is taking place there and I am quite happy to pull the fangs out for this. I am also sending the photographer a copy of the letter. The next one comes from the lawyers.

Thx,
Jonathan

« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2009, 00:53 »
0
I think we must take an action to protect our work.

If you are concerned about the effectiveness of the current watermak used by Fotolia, please copy the message you will find below, 
connect to your account at Fotolia, go to Contact Support and send this message (you may add your own words or send a different message of course)

The more of us send it the more chances we have to get results... Please send this proposal to all stock photographers you know.

Let's act now!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Fotolia,

I am seriously concerned about the effectiveness of the current watermak against image theft.

This problem affects us all: the company, image buyers, and image producers.

We urgently need a more effective watermark to be better protected against the unscrupulous people
 who visit Fotolia with the only intention to steal images.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2009, 00:59 »
0
Don't some of these look bigger than the fotolia watermarked photos?

IF

« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2009, 01:09 »
0
Thanks a lot. I have found 2 of my images too... What is the best way how to remove them? Should I write email to Flick with the link to my FT account and also Fotolia too?

« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2009, 01:45 »
0
Hi If,

 Yes I think that is a good idea and I would keep it stern but professional about your concern for this issue and ask what action will be taken to not just stop this one infringer but also your concern for this taking place in the future as well. I would focus this on the individual and post him a letter and also contact Flickr. I sent Chad an e-mail as well but I don't see this as Fotolia's fault. Suggesting a better watermark is a good idea but I don't believe Fotolia is directly involved with what is taking place. Just my opinion.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2009, 02:16 »
0
They may have been purchased RF by the Flickr user which allows website use, they have not made them downloadable or given descriptions where they claim to have taken the photograph themself, and they might well think that by putting them in a Folder with the website name they are giving credit and are ok.

Quote from: T&Cs
3. Restrictions
(b) share the Work with any other person or entity except as expressly permitted under this Agreement;

(c) post the Work online in downloadable format, post the Work on an electronic bulletin board, or enable the Work to be distributed via mobile telephone devices. Include the Work in any electronic template or application, including those that are web based, where the purpose is to create multiple impressions of an electronic or printed product, including but not limited to website design, presentation templates, electronic greeting cards, business cards or any other electronic or printed matter;

(l) take any action in connection with the Work that violates or infringes the intellectual property or other rights of any person or entity, including, without limitation, the moral rights of the creator of the Work and the rights of any person who, or any person whose property, appears in the Work; or

B. By placing Flickr restrictions they are not allowing Download
C. Is Flickr an electronic bulletin board
I. Are they claiming IP they do not claim to have taken the images, you may argue that are they claiming IP by uploading the images to their stream, but view the Image Properties which they have not hidden and the copyright is Elena Elisseeva, so they have not claimed IP or copyright.

Agree it is against the terms & conditions of Flickr, but they are not offered for redistribution.

Flickr do not help with F.A.Q.'s like the one here, there is no firm message in the text:
Quote from: Flickr F.A.Q.
Dont upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections
may be
terminated at any time.


As much as there might be a slight case for miss-use, a bigger question would be if I was the alledged offender and had purchased the images legally, then I might just talk to my lawyer having been publicly accused of theft by the OP.  ::)

Maybe think of a better title for these type of topics, I know from my own forum experiences that you have to be careful with comments which can be read as accusations against a person, if they can prove that the deflamation has affected them they could come after you, under libel law the onus is on the accuser to prove that the statement is true, therefore you must prove that the image or copyright has been claimed stolen before you write words to that effect.

David
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 06:52 by Adeptris »

RT


« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2009, 03:30 »
0
Thanks to Sharpshot for letting me know this guy has one of mine there. . Whats even more stupid is that my copyright information is included with the photo under 'more properties'

The collection seems to be a mixed bunch of subjects, I wonder why he chose the shots he/she did.

Well see how long it takes for flickr to remove the account.

« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2009, 06:30 »
0
They may have been purchased RF by the Flickr user which allows website use, they have not made them downloadable or given descriptions where they claim to have taken the photograph themself, and they might well think that by putting them in a Folder with the website name they are giving credit and are ok.


I'd agree. I'm not sure that the Flickr poster is actually doing anything wrong here. I've no idea why they spend their time/money doing it but I see no evidence of 'theft'.

I've just found one of my food images on Flickr too but it's not watermarked and can only be downloaded in a tiny size __ there's plenty of other of my images in use (legitimately) which could be right-clicked and downloaded in much larger sizes.

« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2009, 06:41 »
0
I've just found one of my food images on Flickr too but it's not watermarked and can only be downloaded in a tiny size __ there's plenty of other of my images in use (legitimately) which could be right-clicked and downloaded in much larger sizes.

That is an infringement of the licence as they are allowing distribution of your image via a download from thier flickr account.

If the Flickr users profile says I am a photographer and these are my images then there is also IP infringement to take into consideration.

The point I was making that the accusation of theft if the image licence was purchased legally could be seen as libel and as defamation of character.
A lawyer might argue that there has been no stripping and replcement of metadata, the user has not said in the description "this is one they took last week" , the images cannot be downloaded, so the license terms have not beed breached, and the terms of use on Flickr are a different matter.

Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

Quote
Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.


David  :o
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 09:44 by Adeptris »

« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2009, 09:51 »
0
I've had this experience too, with Flikr.  In one case the Flikr member WAS claiming it was their own photo and giving it away in all sizes.

However, in the other case, it was a legitimate buyer.  They were a small news agency who had bought the images and was keeping them in a Flikr folder so they could hotlink them from their website.  Like in this case, the images were only available for DL in tiny thumbnail size.   

In both cases I went through Flikr's process and was able to get them removed.  Advice to Elena would be dig a little deeper before assuming that this was a theif, and to Warren - you might want to remove your comment publicly accusing the Flikr account holder of theft unless you know the facts. 

What's the saying - Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence.  (or something like that)

« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2009, 10:11 »
0
However, in the other case, it was a legitimate buyer.  They were a small news agency who had bought the images and was keeping them in a Flikr folder so they could hotlink them from their website.  Like in this case, the images were only available for DL in tiny thumbnail size.   


Ah, I hadn't thought of that use. I'm surprised they were using a 'show your work' site like Flickr though rather than a conventional image-hosting site like ImageShack.

bittersweet

« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2009, 10:41 »
0
I've had this experience too, with Flikr.  In one case the Flikr member WAS claiming it was their own photo and giving it away in all sizes.

However, in the other case, it was a legitimate buyer.  They were a small news agency who had bought the images and was keeping them in a Flikr folder so they could hotlink them from their website.  Like in this case, the images were only available for DL in tiny thumbnail size.    

In both cases I went through Flikr's process and was able to get them removed.  Advice to Elena would be dig a little deeper before assuming that this was a theif, and to Warren - you might want to remove your comment publicly accusing the Flikr account holder of theft unless you know the facts.  

What's the saying - Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence.  (or something like that)

This was exactly my take on the situation. It appears to be being used as a catalog of what purchases they have made. Nowhere do they claim to have taken them, they are tagged as copyrighted, and they are not offering them in large sizes for download. Posting comments on the images that they are "stolen" is a bit much, in my opinion, since you do not know that at all and are making rather far-fetched assumptions.

In the earlier days of Flickr, before there were a lot of "image bucket" type options, many people used it as a photo storage area for hot linking.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 10:42 by whatalife »

« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2009, 11:14 »
0
I never found any of my micro portfolio but did find a couple from my macro portfolio. The world is still in a surplus of losers.

« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2009, 11:51 »
0
Oh, theft it is. Those who doubt, please compare this:
http://www.fotolia.com/id/11001622
with this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40003475@N07/3677469194/#

You can also see why this person chose this particular image  - see how Fotolia "watermarks" are just around the model and can be easily removed by simple eraser tool? Both images are exactly the same size.
Plus, as I said before, I found this image with the link to that Flickr portfolio in a web article. Which means someone downloaded it from Flickr and used it for free. Which should not be allowed, right? Even if the bozo bought the image and them posted it on Flickr, the license does not allow re-distribution of the image itself. But he didn't. He just downloaded a large thumbnail (he has small ones, too!:)) and then removed the watermarks.

bittersweet

« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2009, 12:02 »
0
Sorry but that still proves nothing. Is it by any chance "exactly the same size" as the XS download? 282 x 425

Have you tried to get the image off of Flickr? It gives me a 1 pixel blank. It also lists you as the creator on the detail page.

The XS download allows someone to post the image on the web. They cannot control if someone else links to what they have posted without their permission. That is not considered redistributing the image. Is it not possible that the page you saw was linked to this image because it is the same person storing the image to allow their own linking?

However, if the Flickr terms state that you cannot upload images that don't belong to you, then I will agree that they are in violation of the Flickr agreement. I remain unconvinced on the rest of it.

« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2009, 12:31 »
0
Yeah, this is definitely against Flikr's policy, and although theft is a possibility, more likely it's just a buyer who didn't read or understand the fine print in the license agreement.  

Let's remember, lots of our buyers are not professional designers and may not be savvy about image licenses and limitations.  Discussions around here have shown even a lot of sellers on this board are confused about what's allowed and what isn't so you can't expect every buyer will get it right.

Here's a link to a sample DMCA letter.  

http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/09/dmca-notice-of-copyright-infringement.html

Fill one out, send to Flikr, all will be set right.  It's a good idea to keep a template of the DMCA letter on hand.  This kind of stuff comes up all the time.  

Better to just nip it in the bud and move on :)

« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2009, 12:49 »
0
Sorry but that still proves nothing. Is it by any chance "exactly the same size" as the XS download? 282 x 425

Have you tried to get the image off of Flickr? It gives me a 1 pixel blank. It also lists you as the creator on the detail page.

The XS download allows someone to post the image on the web. They cannot control if someone else links to what they have posted without their permission. That is not considered redistributing the image. Is it not possible that the page you saw was linked to this image because it is the same person storing the image to allow their own linking?

However, if the Flickr terms state that you cannot upload images that don't belong to you, then I will agree that they are in violation of the Flickr agreement. I remain unconvinced on the rest of it.

Whatalife, yes I was able to get the image off of Flickr yesterday. If they disabled it today, it's good news. And yes, to be precise, I do not have any physical proof that images have been stolen from Fotolia, not bought. So if we want to be picky about the terms, I would phrase my accusations as "misrepresentaion of the copyright and violation of the RF license as well as Flickr policies", or something like that. It doesn't change the fact that all those images should not be there under that person's name and made available to public for free.
Lawyers would probably phrase it better, but in my opinion a person taking another person's copyrighted work and presenting it as their own work (Flickr: "don't upload anything that is not yours" - this means that images under that account are assumed to be that person's work) is a thief. Even if they have no idea what they are doing.

« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2009, 13:08 »
0
I do not have any physical proof that images have been stolen from Fotolia, not bought.

Elena,
There are three ways to get the image:
1. If you right mouse and 'save as' you get an image 266 x 400 with no metatdata
2. If you download the fotolia comp you get 340 x 512 with no metadata
3 Paid for image is 282 x 425.

The Flickr image is 282 x 425 with full metadata, it is more than a possibility that it is a proper paid for and legal download.

When I purchase images from Istock the metadata has been stripped out, I have no Fotolia downloads to check but could it have come from anywhere else?

David  ???  
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 13:11 by Adeptris »

« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2009, 13:28 »
0
I do not have any physical proof that images have been stolen from Fotolia, not bought.

Elena,
There are three ways to get the image:
1. If you right mouse and 'save as' you get an image 266 x 400 with no metatdata
2. If you download the fotolia comp you get 340 x 512 with no metadata
3 Paid for image is 282 x 425.

The Flickr image is 282 x 425 with full metadata, it is more than a possibility that it is a proper paid for and legal download.

When I purchase images from Istock the metadata has been stripped out, I have no Fotolia downloads to check but could it have come from anywhere else?

David  ???  

Sure, I am agreeing that the images could have been bought, which still doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be on Flickr under that person's name and made available for free to the general public. How the person got the images is not quite important here, in *any* case the copyright misrepresentation issue, together with RF license violation, is still there. I call it theft because I do believe that presenting someone else's work as your own is theft (as I explained in the previous post).

« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2009, 16:03 »
0
 Hi All,

 I Had a chat with Fotolia and they can't find this photographer in their providers list so I wouldn't point a finger at Fotolia on this one. There advice was to approach Flickr with a DMCA to find out what is going on.

Best,
Jonathan


Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2009, 16:12 »
0

You can also see why this person chose this particular image  - see how Fotolia "watermarks" are just around the model and can be easily removed by simple eraser tool? Both images are exactly the same size.


My point exactly.. the watermark is laughable, especially in isolated shots such as that one.  8)=tom

« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2009, 16:19 »
0
Whether is theft or not, I recently had the same problem - the same image from LuckyOliver in two different Flickr accounts - and they sorted it out quickly.

I think there are people who simply don't know they are doing something wrong. This has been discussed over and over.

And BBC website is still using a watermarked image from StockXpert, which I reported to the latter (and I wonder if they took any action...).

« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2009, 16:29 »
0
Madelaide....  hope I'm not opening another can of worms along with you...

BUT....
I cant help but notice that a few of my pix have shown up on obscure sites with  Lucky Oliver watermarks on them...  Unless this stuff is really old....  They aren't being sold, and my name is credited to the pic 8)=tom
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 16:31 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2009, 17:01 »
0
Tom,

These are previous discussions about my case.  Maybe one watermarked image was placed in one of the many sites where I found it and other people only copied it.  No credits to me, and in some cases the person claimed copyrights.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/luckyoliver-com/has-anyone-purchased-images-from-lo/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/is-this-legal-8239/
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 17:03 by madelaide »

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #32 on: July 31, 2009, 21:25 »
0
A Friend of mine is not only having his photos stolen...but the friggin idiot is even taken on his Identity. Here is the thread on it.

http://www.photoforum.com/index.php?showtopic=45402&st=0

Dook

« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2009, 04:27 »
0
I don't really understand why someone would pay for the images (or steal them somehow) and then display them on Flickr just like that. What could they possibly stand to gain? Thanx for letting us know, Elenathewise
Some people are doing this since Getty started taking Flickr photos for Getty Flickr collection. Maybe they hope Getty will invite them. But, that is stupid. Sooner or later Getty would find out.

« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2009, 12:48 »
0
Tom,
These are previous discussions about my case.  Maybe one watermarked image was placed in one of the many sites where I found it and other people only copied it.  No credits to me, and in some cases the person claimed copyrights.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/luckyoliver-com/has-anyone-purchased-images-from-lo/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/is-this-legal-8239/


WOW.... it is really getting out of hand.  My concern is that there are so many LO pix still floating around.  I must admit I do not fully understand all the nuances of the web....   none-the-less....  this trend of ripped off images seems to be on the increase and our protection from our agencies and the supposed legit sites that support these rip off people seems to be on the wane.  8)=tom

« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2009, 14:11 »
0
Hi Dook,

 That is a good point because I am trying to figure out why he would do all that work on such a small file for free. They are only comp size to my knowledge and Getty won't take such a small file to my knowledge, unless they do with their Flicker stuff.

Best,
Jonathan

Dook

« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2009, 16:40 »
0
Jonathan, he can buy a larger file in the case Getty picks it up. This came to my mind because there is a lot of similar activity from the moment Getty introduced Flickr deal.

« Reply #37 on: August 02, 2009, 22:45 »
0
one of mine is in this persons stream of 188 images

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32552054@N04/

« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2009, 05:39 »
0

RT


« Reply #39 on: August 03, 2009, 09:57 »
0
Just had a reply from the UK copyright team to inform me the images will be removed from this Flickr account within 24hrs. Don't know if they mean all of them or just mine.

RT


« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2009, 05:01 »
0
True to their word my images have now been taken off this persons Flickr account, however others still remain.

« Reply #41 on: August 05, 2009, 14:37 »
0
I guess Flickr UK legal team is much more efficient than North America's. Still waiting for a reply on my report. Tried to contact them through a website, some moron keeps sending the same reply over and over again (just copying and pasting from somewhere) - about having to contact Yahoo!'s legal team. Which didn't respond yet.....

RT


« Reply #42 on: August 05, 2009, 14:58 »
0
Elena,

I didn't go through Flickr, I went straight to Yahoo, but yes I agree the red tape that the US have created for themselves over copyright does seem to delay things for those that live in the US.

Moonb007

  • Architect, Photographer, Dreamer
« Reply #43 on: August 05, 2009, 15:00 »
0
How do you guys even find you images on flickr sense most the time the images are stripped of keywords?

I would also contact Yahoo directly sense they own the Flickr

« Reply #44 on: August 05, 2009, 15:58 »
0
Moonb, I found mine in searches (Google, TinEye, Bing), even if not directly.  One image was at MySpace, linked to Flickr.

HerrMursilgo

  • achdulibertzeit eine Ratte mit Flgeln
« Reply #45 on: August 05, 2009, 16:34 »
0
Elena,

I didn't go through Flickr, I went straight to Yahoo, but yes I agree the red tape that the US have created for themselves over copyright does seem to delay things for those that live in the US.

USA don't give squat for anything . They have more crooks in USA that are running around free. I don't expect too much change to come for stolen images on the internet. They don't even solve serious crimes, so I am sure stolen microstock images are far from their Important Crimes to Solve Listing.
 ;)

If the Big 6 don't do nothing. Why anyone else must do it?

« Reply #46 on: August 05, 2009, 22:30 »
0
Elena,

I didn't go through Flickr, I went straight to Yahoo, but yes I agree the red tape that the US have created for themselves over copyright does seem to delay things for those that live in the US.

USA don't give squat for anything . They have more crooks in USA that are running around free. I don't expect too much change to come for stolen images on the internet. They don't even solve serious crimes, so I am sure stolen microstock images are far from their Important Crimes to Solve Listing.
 ;)

If the Big 6 don't do nothing. Why anyone else must do it?

I agree re big 6.  Istock say dont post on forum send it to their specific team who *to my knowledge* (correct me if I'm wrong) dont do anything if they are not exclusive images because they cannot be sure of where they have come from. 

Even when a site find peoples trying to sell stolen images all they do is delete the account, it's not a real big deterrent. 

« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2009, 20:18 »
0
Flickr had always worried me about usage. Although they have the creative collective, etc option.
The problem is many people share their images unknowingly on flickr.
I can't remember the name for this photo sharing option, but I am sure some of you know what I mean. It's when someone invites you to add your photo to their group or something.
EVentually, it could end up on a cd or whatever. And nobody is the wiser.

Still , the fault is on sites like Flickr,etc.. not to make awareness of the importance of image ownership.
Hell, I've seen flickr images being used in Yahoo weather and I even wonder if that is with the Flickr member aware of it. And do they pay that member for the use of their photos in Yahoo weather? I am not sure.

Check it out if ever you have the time . I think it's simply called Yahoo weather,
and it has tons of Flickr images from every states and country.


« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2009, 22:57 »
0
Interesting article relating to managing your copyright:

http://www.johnlund.com/2009/07/crowd-sourcing-crowd-enforcing.html

« Reply #49 on: August 06, 2009, 23:12 »
0
Interesting article relating to managing your copyright:

http://www.johnlund.com/2009/07/crowd-sourcing-crowd-enforcing.html


that sounds wonderful. and yes, too good to be true.
25 bucks is pretty insignificant for so much protection.
too insignificant like a money grab by the society like gun registry
which claims to protect the innocent, but instead does nothing to stop
the criminal who possess the unregistered firearms.

the protection is no more iron-clad than vapour ware that promises us new softwares each year.
but it does not promise us anything about how they are going to punish the criminals
and those who steal our copyright images , or manipulate our photographs into vectors and other
non-photographic images.

unless there is something specific about PUNISHMENT to the thief of copyright materials ie our photographs,  spending 25 bucks is no different than throwing it away.

In North America, or at least Canada, I think...
the ownership does not need to be registered. The copyright begins the moment an artist
creates the work. No fees or registration is needed. It becomes copyright material.

So anything else is just a money grab. 25 bucks multiply by how many thousands of photographers
is one heck of a money grab.
Equally similar to micro stock promises every newbie with a DSLR that he too could earn 135 K per annum.

Back to the old sickening but true saying NATO...
No Action Talk Only.

I do not condone with theft. I value another person's image as much as I do mine.
And I am also looking forward to something with teeth to deter our images from being stolen.
But it has to begin with the stock agencies that distribute our images.
If they don't care to do anything, it's really a waste of time.
Simply because this is where they got our images from.

We know how much the agencies CARE FOR THE BUYERS...
but it is still a long way from any of the Big 6 agencies showing any signs of
CARE FOR THE CONTRIBUTORS.



« Reply #50 on: August 07, 2009, 01:22 »
0
Flickr had always worried me about usage. Although they have the creative collective, etc option.
The problem is many people share their images unknowingly on flickr.
I can't remember the name for this photo sharing option, but I am sure some of you know what I mean. It's when someone invites you to add your photo to their group or something.
EVentually, it could end up on a cd or whatever. And nobody is the wiser.

Still , the fault is on sites like Flickr,etc.. not to make awareness of the importance of image ownership.
Hell, I've seen flickr images being used in Yahoo weather and I even wonder if that is with the Flickr member aware of it. And do they pay that member for the use of their photos in Yahoo weather? I am not sure.

Check it out if ever you have the time . I think it's simply called Yahoo weather,
and it has tons of Flickr images from every states and country.



Yahoo, like google never pays for images.  last time I heard about from yahoo (couple of years back) they were asking permission though

« Reply #51 on: August 07, 2009, 04:18 »
0
Yahoo, like google never pays for images.  last time I heard about from yahoo (couple of years back) they were asking permission though

lol, how noble !

en serio, that's where every one is going actually, Phil.
there has to be big money in taking advantage of contributors to rip them off with free images.
this is why the Big 6 is so much in pushing free free free images and if not free, as good as free
.. ie. low low low prices of subscription images.

there is no lost of money on the side of the Big 6 for aiming in this direction.
they make money with or without the buyers paying for our images.
they can make probably as much, if not more money, simply on bringing traffic like google,
and all those sites luring desperate single men and women to join and find their dream mate,etc.

this is the direction we are headed, if we are naive enough to believe and say,
"oh, it's okay, i don't complain how low they sell my images, as long as they make it up with more downloads and earn me the same amount of money each month".

that to me is amazing how idiotic some of these contributors are .
maybe what we need is to send these goons back to primary school to learn their arithmetic.
eg. if one apple costs $1 how many dollars do you need to buy 10 apples.

then send them off to another primary class to teach them Economics.
supply and demand.
if you let too much supply into the market place, the demand will even be diminished, or more importantly to the wallet, your  profit margin  will drop towards the bottom, UNTIL THERE IS NO BOTTOM LEFT.

look on the bright side (for the Big 6 's own selfish interest),
if our images are free, then magic genie, there will be no more worries
about image theft.
you cannot steal what is free to take.

isn't that a miracle for us? the problem of image theft is solved once and for all.
 ::)
« Last Edit: August 07, 2009, 04:21 by perseus, Who ? »

« Reply #52 on: August 07, 2009, 04:50 »
0
not relevant but does make me think of urban myth of the guy put a fridge out the front yard with a sign saying "free" and after 3 days of noone taking it he changed the sign to for sale $50. Someone stole it that night. When it was free it must be no good :)

HerrMursilgo

  • achdulibertzeit eine Ratte mit Flgeln
« Reply #53 on: August 07, 2009, 14:56 »
0
not relevant but does make me think of urban myth of the guy put a fridge out the front yard with a sign saying "free" and after 3 days of noone taking it he changed the sign to for sale $50. Someone stole it that night. When it was free it must be no good :)

Not Urban Myth, Phil.
That same guy who stole the fridge started his own micro stock agency many years later  :D

That's why they don't go after stolen images  ;)

« Reply #54 on: September 11, 2009, 22:21 »
0
I have found my image as well. Make sure you check if you have any of your images under this person as well -
Does anyone know Yahoo's email that I can email.

cafecathi's photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cafecathi/3839201933/#

Kone

« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2009, 09:13 »
0
They using a watermarked image from Istock
With original metadata

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cafecathi/

Kone

« Reply #56 on: September 12, 2009, 14:02 »
0
There is at least another with a copyright notice at the bottom.

The last image (waterlilies) appears several times in Flickr, according to a TinEye search.

Flickr is becoming each day more of a Photobucket type of illegally uploaded material.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
5160 Views
Last post August 04, 2008, 13:25
by pelmof
48 Replies
32225 Views
Last post February 22, 2016, 01:23
by heartsnatcher
1 Replies
4891 Views
Last post January 10, 2010, 19:19
by madelaide
24 Replies
4144 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 15:40
by Marburg
4 Replies
2351 Views
Last post January 24, 2015, 09:30
by aaron007

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results