Thanks for posting, Anita. I browsed through a couple of categories, but didn't see any of mine. But like you, I did notice a couple that I have purchased in the past (from stock agencies with proper license) for projects.

I also noticed one that I think belongs to lisafx. I took a screenshot with the URL so she can find it, if she wants. I think the western guy in red is Lisa's model. If not, so sorry.

The image IDs match to Fotolia image numbers so I assume it's a Fotolia affiliate.

Perhaps, but they are selling those images on Print-on-Demand products. Does FT have a license for that? If so, then there might not be an issue.

Quote from: click_click on July 19, 2011, 17:51

The image IDs match to Fotolia image numbers so I assume it's a Fotolia affiliate.

Perhaps, but they are selling those images on Print-on-Demand products. Does FT have a license for that? If so, then there might not be an issue.

As always in situations like this, Fotolia will claim that in case of an order the file will be purchased as EL (I assume)...

If you go to create a product it states that price includes licensing fee, but the licensing fees I saw were only 5 or 10 dollars.

You can ask FT to turn off all your EL's for you. They're pretty good about doing that.

Without digging to deep I found 12 of mine over there, don't know if any sold or not and I defiantly have never got an EL through Fotolia.

-Don

I think I recall a discussion several years ago regarding an arrangement of this sort.

 The deal was that they don't buy an EL but each time they sell a print they buy a license just for the size needed for that print. There was some discussion about whether this was right from a contributor's point of view and I think the agency argument was that if the buyer purchased a license they'd be entitled to make themselves a print of what they licensed to hang on their wall. The only difference here was that the print seller was doing the purchase on the clients behalf. The thing that's so hard to police is whether they really are buying a new license for each print.

Just got my reply from FT:

"I have set your images to sell only under the Standard license. Changes will reflect in the next few minutes.

Kind regards,

Fotolia Team U.K."

No mention from them of the POD site at all, to say they knew about them, or they were looking into them, nothing. Just the above statement.  Well what did I expect from FT lol.

...One of the customers who bought a product with my image on who left the comment stated he needed it and got it before April....

I got the identical comment on two of my images that I've looked at so far.  So I wouldn't assume that there was necessarily any sale at all!

I've written to visionbedding asking a few questions.  BTW, the image I asked about has a different ID # on their site compared to its Fotolia #, so I'm not assuming that they sourced it from Fotolia.

One thing in Visionbedding's favour is that they responded immediately to my questions.  This is what they said:

"We completely understand your questions and concerns.

First, Im not sure that image you are referencing has sold at all - I think you may be confusing the reviews - those reviews are by product type for example on this page http://www.visionbedding.com/rainforest-river-panorama-custom-size-suede-fabric-p-2429853.html
- the reviews are for the "fabric" product type (not the particular image) so those reviews you are seeing are customers who have purchased that kind of fabric not that particular image.

We have full rights to all the images you see on the website as we have an agreement with a stock gallery which is where you must have uploaded your images to. You will be paid each time an image sells according to the agreement - some of the images on the website sell regularly and some never - depends on the image as there are more than 10 million.  You will be paid each time that image is used so many artists are paid regularly over and over for the same image - it just depends on how popular that image is.  The fee is transferred directly as the two systems are connected so you will be paid for each sale individually.  We can not download the large image file until the stock gallery has been paid first.  If you do not show any fees paid in your account then that image has not sold yet.  When you do sell an image it will tell you who that image was sold to as well.

I hope that answers your questions..."

I've replied to ask them a second time which specific stock site they sourced the particular image from, and to confirm whether or not it has sold at all.

Well as far as I can tell from the Fotolia terms the site would need an extended license for each sale. ETA Not so sure about this now, they may only need one extended license per image??
As it seems that the price of the items is some times lower than the cost of an extended license there is definitely something fishy here.

ETA:
I would like some questions cleared up by Fotolia regarding whether customers are permitted to use our work on Print On Demand sites.

Based on my interpretation of the guide to uses here:
http://en.fotolia.com/Info/SizesAndUses

"MEDIA AND USES.....
PRODUCTS........
Creation of derivative products (posters, t-shirts...) intended for resale (Extended licenses)"

I interpret this to mean that provided an extended license is purchased the customer can use the image for their own print on demand site.

However, it cannot mean the image can be sold by the customer on third party sites such as Zazzle or Cafe Press as the customer would have to misrepresent the ownership of the image copyright to abide by the third party sites terms or sub-license the image to Zazzle for printing, neither of which the customer has the right to do.

Fotolia need to be more explicit in their terms about this!!!

I think I recall a discussion several years ago regarding an arrangement of this sort.

 The deal was that they don't buy an EL but each time they sell a print they buy a license just for the size needed for that print. There was some discussion about whether this was right from a contributor's point of view and I think the agency argument was that if the buyer purchased a license they'd be entitled to make themselves a print of what they licensed to hang on their wall. The only difference here was that the print seller was doing the purchase on the clients behalf. The thing that's so hard to police is whether they really are buying a new license for each print.

This is exactly what I was thinking. It seems sort of like a loophole though.