MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: LSD72 on July 16, 2010, 21:41
-
First find for me...but not my pic. I just happened across this on Flickr... love the title to the Pic. So original.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjmartins/3430795211/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjmartins/3430795211/#)
Looks like it's on Istock to someone who has major sales.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5270511-symbol-of-heart.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5270511-symbol-of-heart.php)
Matter of fact... looks like this person has more than a few Stock Photos on their Flickr account. Might want to run through it and see if any are yours.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=shutterstock&w=all (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=shutterstock&w=all)
-
I found this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennkarlsen/3636770708/?addedcomment=1#comment72157624395488341 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennkarlsen/3636770708/?addedcomment=1#comment72157624395488341)
The guy admits under the caption that he bought the background and sky from shutterstock. Now he is claiming copyright and allowing others to download the image. I posted a comment, suggest he/she read the copyright/ip policies of flickr, and will try and find the image on shutterstock and report it to the owner.
edited: ok there are 3100 pages of grass and sky on SS. I will modify the comment I left just to make the person aware of the licensing.
-
Another thing I noticed:
I recognized a few images, tried to tineye them but it said the image was too small to do that. So I right clicked to save to my desktop, but it comes out blank. Thieves know all the tricks, don't they? It's funny because this prevents anyone from stealing the image, which is a good thing. Except the image that is posted might be stolen! Ha!
-
I found this:
[url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennkarlsen/3636770708/?addedcomment=1#comment72157624395488341[/url] ([url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennkarlsen/3636770708/?addedcomment=1#comment72157624395488341[/url])
The guy admits under the caption that he bought the background and sky from shutterstock. Now he is claiming copyright and allowing others to download the image. I posted a comment, suggest he/she read the copyright/ip policies of flickr, and will try and find the image on shutterstock and report it to the owner.
edited: ok there are 3100 pages of grass and sky on SS. I will modify the comment I left just to make the person aware of the licensing.
http://glennkarlsen75.deviantart.com/art/Jump-Remi-Jump-126484894 (http://glennkarlsen75.deviantart.com/art/Jump-Remi-Jump-126484894)
http://www.freetwitterskins.com/nature/grassy-knoll/ (http://www.freetwitterskins.com/nature/grassy-knoll/)
-
Yes I saw those links. I also could tineye the background photo and it shows a Getty contributor. When you click on that link, the contributor is gone. Maybe he sold the photo outright to the free skins people? Not sure but it all looks hinky.
-
Maybe we're just too old and stubborn about these things. Well rules are rules sure but obviously a photographer who can shoot a guitar payer in the air is not making the effort the shoot the background himself these days anymore.
Instead they do it the "easy" way to speed up things. No idea if this is still legal or not but it's not very different from an ad agency doing the same thing and promoting a product or service.
If someone is looking for a nice environmental background they're not going to download this picture because of the guitar player in it. So is the photographer really losing sales...?
-
If agencies bothered about this, they could hire MSG members to do such investigations...
-
I don't think the guy with the guitarist has purposely done anything wrong. He just needs to remove the download link.
He sounds like a genuine customer buying stuff to use in his work, which is of course what we want, or else he wouldn't be saying in the comments where he got the background from.
I think we have to be careful not to scare business away.
-
I don't think the guy with the guitarist has purposely done anything wrong. He just needs to remove the download link.
He sounds like a genuine customer buying stuff to use in his work, which is of course what we want, or else he wouldn't be saying in the comments where he got the background from.
I think we have to be careful not to scare business away.
Perhaps he is one of those people who know nothing about copyrights, and yes he just needs to remove the download link. If he is a genuine customer, then he should read the license that he agrees to before he can download a photo. It's his responsibility before hitting the download button. And what business are we scaring away if a person buys one photo then allows a hundred others to download it freely?
Read some of the comments under the photo...they are made by people who appear to be professional photographers (judging by their names). Not one of them mentioned the copyright infringement issue.
-
I don't think the guy with the guitarist has purposely done anything wrong. He just needs to remove the download link.
He sounds like a genuine customer buying stuff to use in his work, which is of course what we want, or else he wouldn't be saying in the comments where he got the background from.
I think we have to be careful not to scare business away.
Perhaps he is one of those people who know nothing about copyrights, and yes he just needs to remove the download link. If he is a genuine customer, then he should read the license that he agrees to before he can download a photo. It's his responsibility before hitting the download button. And what business are we scaring away if a person buys one photo then allows a hundred others to download it freely?
Read some of the comments under the photo...they are made by people who appear to be professional photographers (judging by their names). Not one of them mentioned the copyright infringement issue.
Exactly.
You can buy the image for your project but not for resale or give away for free.
If that is allowed I would have the best portfolio in microstock world.
-
Yes I saw those links. I also could tineye the background photo and it shows a Getty contributor. When you click on that link, the contributor is gone. Maybe he sold the photo outright to the free skins people? Not sure but it all looks hinky.
Tineye has a tendency to pull up Getty when in fact they are on iStock. I don't have images on Getty and a lot of times Tineye shows them on Getty when they are not. When you click on the link it always says "We're sorry. Item .......... is no longer available." It doesn't do it on all of them, just some times. So I don't think that really means it was a Getty contributor.
-
Yes I saw those links. I also could tineye the background photo and it shows a Getty contributor. When you click on that link, the contributor is gone. Maybe he sold the photo outright to the free skins people? Not sure but it all looks hinky.
Tineye has a tendency to pull up Getty when in fact they are on iStock. I don't have images on Getty and a lot of times Tineye shows them on Getty when they are not. When you click on the link it always says "We're sorry. Item .......... is no longer available." It doesn't do it on all of them, just some times. So I don't think that really means it was a Getty contributor.
Aha, I did not know that. I did a search for grass and sky on Shutterstock to try and find the owner. It returned 3400+ hits. ::) I looked through the first 3 or 4 pages then tried tineye. Then gave up.