Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 19:27

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 17:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public.  And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be.  It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves.  What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public.  Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach.  Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

No need to post links for a discussion imho... Or do you need pictures to have a discussion?

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 20:03

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 19:27

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 17:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public.  And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be.  It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves.  What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public.  Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach.  Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

No need to post links for a discussion imho... Or do you need pictures to have a discussion?

Often we do.  How many times do conversations start in the abstract and get specific because too many of us aren't getting the point without a real example?  Again, I'm sorry if the subject of the original post got punished, but not that they got caught.  If catching him or her was the intent, reporting to iStock would have been more effective.  But that's not what the OP did, so I assume that wasn't the intent.  Call it a side-in effect if you like.

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 20:36

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 20:03

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 19:27

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 17:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public.  And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be.  It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves.  What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public.  Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach.  Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

No need to post links for a discussion imho... Or do you need pictures to have a discussion?

Often we do.  How many times do conversations start in the abstract and get specific because too many of us aren't getting the point without a real example?  Again, I'm sorry if the subject of the original post got punished, but not that they got caught.  If catching him or her was the intent, reporting to iStock would have been more effective.  But that's not what the OP did, so I assume that wasn't the intent.  Call it a side-in effect if you like.

Actually, I did report these images to Istock as being wrongfully accepted if there's such an obvious possible copyright infringement. It wasn't my intent to 'catch' the contributor though, I never accused the guy in the support ticket I sent to Istock.

And I opened a topic here, to discuss Istock's weird reviewing mistakes. Couldn't do that without showing the examples, as you said.

Poncke would have done it differently, which I respect. But anyway, could we stop the discussion about whether it was immoral, too damaging, too hasty or too judgmental?

George Costanza - Was that wrong?

Quote from: cclapper on June 23, 2012, 13:52

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 00:42
I'm having trouble seeing the problem here.  Identifying a violation, or even a potential violation, isn't a crime.  It's a public service.  It's up to iStock or another relevant agency to investigate and decide the appropriate action.  If they overreact, that's a shame.  And perhaps a bunch of folks could make a case for lenience.

As kids we learn not to fink on our classmates.  That's a mixed lesson at best, and one we have to unlearn as we get older.  Sometimes making a report to the authorities is not just an appropriate action but the only appropriate action.

I agree. The Op did nothing wrong. Get off his back. Instead, go tell istock how they should feel shame for not hiring reviewers to do their job correctly. I will bet none of you will bother to do that.

Reviewers don't get paid a lot, I would expect them to make some mistakes.  If istock wanted them to be perfect, they would have to pay a lot more and I'm sure we would pay for that.

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 19:27

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 17:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public.  And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be.  It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves.  What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public.  Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach.  Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.  This was a witch hunt.  If the OP wanted to discuss acceptance/rejection at IS then he could have used his own images.  We all get some accepted and others rejected that conflict with one and another. This person chose to take out his own frustration on ONE contributor, not on the situation as a whole. If he truly was concerned about infringement then go to Istock directly, not a public forum. Instead he did both.  That is a * shame.

Witch hunt is a good analogy although I don't for a moment believe the OP intended for an entire port to be removed.  Someone posted in another thread about how agencies don't care about affecting the livelihoods of contributors the way the mess around with best match – this is manifestly true and they are so risk averse that they delete entire portfolios and accounts on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing so, like Salem, an accusation is enough.  If the outcome of this type of post was removal of the images in question, possibly followed by a rigorous examination to see if anything else was amiss this would be proportionate.  As it is, we should find more circumspect ways to make a point because outing someone could lead to removing a livelihood with no hint of due process.
I'm not blind to the legal aspects of all this but does nobody else think is just a little ridiculous that a photo where someone happens to be wearing branded shoes is unacceptable but scans of public domain material are ok? Or folks getting all precious if someone else copies their idea of having a tomato isolated on white?  I see a big future for nude photography because it's getting to the point that any clothes will have copyright implications

looks like no more portfolio in 123RF too, same for DP and DT

and now a joke to relax a bit: I am sure it will be hard for "him/her" to have a BME

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 08:32

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

euwwww, the keyword 'sexy' is very much misused! should also add: tacky, tramp stamp, bogan,

I think some people here are totally over-reacting,  IMO,  the OP, did nothing wrong, fair enough he could have been a little more suttle but then again if problems with sites are not highlighted here, how then will we ever find out, this is the one and only place where we can discuss these problems.

Also, sorry but if an agency employ or use bad reviewers, staff, etc, well,  this is the price one has to pay, isnt it? exposed,  could have happend to any agency, anybody.

Perhaps this contributor deserved to have their portfolio and possibly their main income taken away but I would still rather see contributors giving people that only have one or two images with problems a chance, by sending a PM and giving them time to remove the offending images from their portfolio.

It would of been possible to discuss this problem without posting links or informing istock.  I'm sure if I spent a day looking through portfolios, I could find lots of images that should never be sold as RF.  Reviewers aren't that good because it's a low paid job and lots of them probably aren't copyright and trademark experts.  There's also a lot of variation between sites.  Istock still allow photos of british currency notes that were removed from Shutterstock a few years ago.  But some SS reviewers seem to of forgotten that.  Compare the two sites with a search for "british currency notes" and you will see the difference.  I'm not going to report the images to SS though, as I don't understand how they are allowed on istock and other sites.  In general, I think the istock reviewers sometimes pick up things that are missed by the other sites.  I've seen people complaining here that their images were rejected by istock when they were accepted by all the other sites.

Quote from: sharpshot on June 24, 2012, 08:52
Perhaps this contributor deserved to have their portfolio and possibly their main income taken away but I would still rather see contributors giving people that only have one or two images with problems a chance, by sending a PM and giving them time to remove the offending images from their portfolio.

It would of been possible to discuss this problem without posting links or informing istock.  I'm sure if I spent a day looking through portfolios, I could find lots of images that should never be sold as RF.  Reviewers aren't that good because it's a low paid job and lots of them probably aren't copyright and trademark experts.  There's also a lot of variation between sites.  Istock still allow photos of british currency notes that were removed from Shutterstock a few years ago.  But some SS reviewers seem to of forgotten that.  Compare the two sites with a search for "british currency notes" and you will see the difference.  I'm not going to report the images to SS though, as I don't understand how they are allowed on istock and other sites.  In general, I think the istock reviewers sometimes pick up things that are missed by the other sites.  I've seen people complaining here that their images were rejected by istock when they were accepted by all the other sites.

That's exactly the point. Some of us are willing to help them do their jobs by giving them a heads up on problem material. The OP might have just saved one or more of these agencies a huge lawsuit by bringing these images to their attention. By pointing us to the images, we were able to verify that yes, they look an awful lot like Hanna Barbera figures.

QuoteI think some people here are totally over-reacting,  IMO,  the OP, did nothing wrong, fair enough he could have been a little more suttle but then again if problems with sites are not highlighted here, how then will we ever find out, this is the one and only place where we can discuss these problems.

Exactly. That's the beauty of this forum!

Some agencies have a zero tolerance policy!

If one image is out of the order regarding copyright, your entire port will be removed.

If you are honest and can prove your case they will reactivate your port, but it's a procedure I never wish on anyone. It's very scary, frustrating and nerve wrecking to say the least, especially if you make a living with this.

IS and SS are no agency to gamble with. One severe violation and you're out.

I hope this guy is getting back on IS - his other work looks great.

Quote from: Mantis on June 23, 2012, 23:37

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 19:27

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 17:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public.  And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be.  It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves.  What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public.  Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach.  Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.  This was a witch hunt.  If the OP wanted to discuss acceptance/rejection at IS then he could have used his own images.  We all get some accepted and others rejected that conflict with one and another. This person chose to take out his own frustration on ONE contributor, not on the situation as a whole. If he truly was concerned about infringement then go to Istock directly, not a public forum. Instead he did both.  That is a * shame.

Frustration? No, I'm not frustrated. The reason I chose to show this obvious similarity-example on this forum, is not shameful imho. This is a place where we can discuss all good and bad things of the microstock industry. I wanted to share this with you guys, so you could all have a good laugh on how Istock passes these images as being genuine. Not to say: "Look he's a witch, burn him!" That was just a side-effect. Just as I couldn't have known that Istock would remove the entire port instead of these two images. You seem to blame me for that.

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 25, 2012, 01:51

Quote from: Mantis on June 23, 2012, 23:37

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 19:27

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 17:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public.  And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be.  It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves.  What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public.  Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach.  Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.  This was a witch hunt.  If the OP wanted to discuss acceptance/rejection at IS then he could have used his own images.  We all get some accepted and others rejected that conflict with one and another. This person chose to take out his own frustration on ONE contributor, not on the situation as a whole. If he truly was concerned about infringement then go to Istock directly, not a public forum. Instead he did both.  That is a * shame.

Frustration? No, I'm not frustrated. The reason I chose to show this obvious similarity-example on this forum, is not shameful imho. This is a place where we can discuss all good and bad things of the microstock industry. I wanted to share this with you guys, so you could all have a good laugh on how Istock passes these images as being genuine. Not to say: "Look he's a witch, burn him!" That was just a side-effect. Just as I couldn't have known that Istock would remove the entire port instead of these two images. You seem to blame me for that.

You must be the most naive person in the stock business

Bottom line
-you didn't really saved Hanna Barbera
-inspectors didn't learn a lesson
-Istock didn't learn a lesson
-skilled contributor is screwed

If you thought that outcome will be different - you really doesn't know how things work nowadays... but as cclapper said: 'using ignorance as a defense rarely works'

I think this thread has served it's purpose...