Author Topic: What you see is not what you get... (Read 7252 times)

click_click · « **on:** October 07, 2009, 19:37 »

I noticed that during my editing breaks I'm using Tineye very often.

Check this site out:
http://thethirdbid.ev1n.infogenix.com/success.html

All client's images are from Istock. Nothing new to most of us but I thought someone might be "surprised"

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5965602-modern-professional-businesswoman.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6104193-audience-and-he.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5132168-construction-worker-portraits.php

elvinstar · « **Reply #1 on:** October 07, 2009, 20:02 »

It's pretty sad when companies have to buy faces to match up with their testimonials... Makes you wonder if the testimonials are real!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2009, 20:26 »

That would be oh, so, against the iStock license.

click_click · « **Reply #3 on:** October 07, 2009, 20:32 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 07, 2009, 20:26

That would be oh, so, against the iStock license.

Sean,
would you mind to elaborate on that.

Why "would it be" against the iStock license

and

what does the iStock license actually say? (brief outline would be fine)

madelaide · « **Reply #4 on:** October 07, 2009, 20:37 »

From IS license FAQ:

Quote

Prohibited uses for both Standard and Extended license
(...)
Use that depicts personal endorsement by model

Also, from DT:

Quote

If an Image depicts a person and is used in a manner that implies the use or endorsement of a product or service by that model, you must indicate that the person depicted is a model and used only for illustrative purposes. Under no circumstances, you cannot use an image with a person or more, in a context suggesting he/she or they are endorsing a subject that can be seen as sensitive.

FT is not as clear, but I believe it also means the same:

Quote

he or she shall not: (...)
take any action in connection with the Work that associates it or the creator of the Work, or the persons or property appearing in the Work (if any), with any political, religious, economic or other opinion-based movements or parties.

click_click · « **Reply #5 on:** October 07, 2009, 20:45 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 07, 2009, 20:37

From IS license FAQ:
Quote
Prohibited uses for both Standard and Extended license
(...)
Use that depicts personal endorsement by model

Also, from DT:
Quote
If an Image depicts a person and is used in a manner that implies the use or endorsement of a product or service by that model, you must indicate that the person depicted is a model and used only for illustrative purposes. Under no circumstances, you cannot use an image with a person or more, in a context suggesting he/she or they are endorsing a subject that can be seen as sensitive.

FT is not as clear, but I believe it also means the same:
Quote
he or she shall not: (...)
take any action in connection with the Work that associates it or the creator of the Work, or the persons or property appearing in the Work (if any), with any political, religious, economic or other opinion-based movements or parties.

Thanks for that.

I believe a significant percentage of such downloads will be used for "endorsements" anyway.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** October 07, 2009, 21:20 »

But not such obvious ones. There's a difference between putting an image next to a paragraph and putting an image next to a name, with a direct quote from the "person".

disorderly · « **Reply #7 on:** October 07, 2009, 21:37 »

The last one of these we saw was the Faces of Coal campaign, which was another bunch of iStock images. (Story on the iStock forum.) Which suggests a new slogan: iStockphoto: When Real Customers Just Won't Do!

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** October 07, 2009, 21:56 »

There was a thread here some time ago... maybe in the "tear sheets" thread... a stock photo used in a site where people would get counseling with a woman, as if that woman in the photo was the counselor. Not a big deal, but makes on wonder if there is a counselor on the other side, or just a group of trainees answering the mail.

In most cases I believe the model or the photographer wouldn't bother about this use, unless there is a more sensitive issue.

bittersweet · « **Reply #9 on:** October 07, 2009, 22:22 »

Those first two testimonials are so bad. Would people really admit to that kind of attitude regarding their clients or employer with their name attached and published on the web? "...the client never knows"... "stupid company policy"

They are either fake or incredibly stupid.

After looking further, it appears to be a joke site.

http://www.freedomzone.com/interstitial.html

leaf · « **Reply #10 on:** October 08, 2009, 00:21 »

haha.. yeah I think it is a joke site in which case the image use is probably within reason. Check out the video on one of the pages
http://thethirdbid.ev1n.infogenix.com/index.html

qwerty · « **Reply #11 on:** October 08, 2009, 02:39 »

they're all exclusive Istock files so definitely breaking the licence terms. Probably just a case of them not reading them before using the pictures. A gentle reminder from Istock of the conditions would be suitable here.

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** October 08, 2009, 09:29 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 07, 2009, 21:56

In most cases I believe the model or the photographer wouldn't bother about this use, unless there is a more sensitive issue.

^^ Definitely.

I have seen a lot of my images used next to testimonials, and also in magazine articles about specific named individuals as though the models were the people named.

The agency is not listed in these cases for obvious reasons, so difficult to pursue it through the agencies - particularly if you aren't exclusive anywhere.

Unless it is a sensitive use and/or the model objects I don't bother pursuing it.

helix7 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 09, 2009, 00:11 »

Quote from: qwerty on October 08, 2009, 02:39

they're all exclusive Istock files so definitely breaking the licence terms. Probably just a case of them not reading them before using the pictures. A gentle reminder from Istock of the conditions would be suitable here.

Doesn't matter that they're exclusive. Same license rule applies in this case, prohibiting any use that depicts a personal endorsement by the model. Although since it's a joke site, I wonder if the license still applies. Technically the models aren't being depicted to endorse any real product. The testimonial from the construction workers mentions working on the "fetzer valve", which isn't even a real valve.

leaf · « **Reply #14 on:** October 09, 2009, 03:28 »

but the site is just a spoof website, or a joke. it is meant to be humor so we will know that the people are fake actors, so I think maybe it is within the licensing conditions.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What you see is not what you get... (Read 7252 times)

click_click

elvinstar

Sean Locke Photography

click_click

madelaide

click_click

Sean Locke Photography

disorderly

madelaide

bittersweet

leaf

qwerty

lisafx

helix7

leaf

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors