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    

 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

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...).

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/

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.

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

one of mine is in this persons stream of 188 images

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

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.

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.....

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

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?

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.

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.