pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Awkward stock photos  (Read 11123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 06, 2010, 15:37 »
0
Like it says in the tin.

http://awkwardstockphotos.com/ [nofollow]

What were the photographers thinking??! :o


« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2010, 15:46 »
0
Some of those are just plain creepy. What gets me is they were accepted!

« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2010, 16:18 »
0
I'd be more surprised if these are actually bought.

I mean if someone bought an image of a girl licking a rusty iron or a doctor with a pig mask I'd like to know just what the heck its going to be used for!

« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2010, 16:18 »
0
Based on the watermarks, the blogger didn't pay for usage license, which I find annoying (whether or not it's legal). Some of the photos posted midway on August 5 look fine, certainly not worthy of being labelled as awkward.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 17:02 by ann »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2010, 16:23 »
0
Based on the watermarks, the blogger didn't pay for usage license, which I find annoying (whether or not it's legal). The last 2 shown on August 5 look fine, certainly not worthy of being labelled as awkward.

If you click on the photo it takes you directly to the sales page of that particular photo so I'm not sure how that works with usage?

« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2010, 17:21 »
0
Based on the watermarks, the blogger didn't pay for usage license, which I find annoying (whether or not it's legal). The last 2 shown on August 5 look fine, certainly not worthy of being labelled as awkward.

If you click on the photo it takes you directly to the sales page of that particular photo so I'm not sure how that works with usage?

Interesting, I didn't try clicking on them.

I contribute to a blog where we post our own stockphotos clickable to one of the stock sites (SS, DT, ISP, F, 123rf...) they're sold on, and one or more of the sites (in a very friendly way, really) contacted our blog administrator that we each had to post the images with our own watermarks, not the stock site's watermark.

« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2010, 17:34 »
0
Actually, there are some great photos. Awkward, but great...among crappy ones.

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2010, 17:40 »
0
Those are some funny photos!  I like the commentary at Badstockart.com though.  The comments add a lot :)

« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2010, 15:34 »
0
Once again, more bloggers hiding behind the "fair use" debacle. It's good that they are linking the photos to the stock sites to buy them from, but this whole "fair use" thing shouldn't exempt bloggers. I see everyone in their comments section ragging on istock and Getty for making them take them down. In my opinion, they should pay for the photos just like everybody else does.

I don't see adverts on the site now, but I am guessing that is coming next. In other words, they will get all their material for free (the images) and make money from the advertisers.

There were some pretty funny photos there. Some pretty bad ones too.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 15:39 by cclapper »

« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2010, 19:52 »
0
I think that while ago I see in Stokas and other sites TOS that you can use they small watermarked image in you jabbering or blogging within any cost!!!
Now flyby thru this site "author" says that iStock has too much patient and now they are angry about violating about copyright infringement and that it must be stopped?!?
what???

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2010, 03:08 »
0
I think that while ago I see in Stokas and other sites TOS that you can use they small watermarked image in you jabbering or blogging within any cost!!!

Wrong. the small watermarked images are so that designers can 'comp' them in a potential design to see how it would look, or to pitch to clients (however, some prefer not to pitch a watermarked image). At least that's on iStock. I haven't a clue about the others.

« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2010, 03:42 »
0
I love the stock market.  No...I mean I REALLY love the stock market.


« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2010, 05:00 »
0
A comp is never meant to be public: it's a mock-up just for the customer's eyes.
If the guy links the thumbs to the originals on the agency site, it can be considered as a promo or referral. In that case, he can't be blamed, imho.

« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2010, 07:07 »
0
A comp is never meant to be public: it's a mock-up just for the customer's eyes.
If the guy links the thumbs to the originals on the agency site, it can be considered as a promo or referral. In that case, he can't be blamed, imho.

That's fair, for now. Once there are adverts all over the page, that opinion will change for me.

OM

« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2010, 08:10 »
0
Those are some funny photos!  I like the commentary at Badstockart.com though.  The comments add a lot :)

What a hoot, indeed (some comments).

« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2010, 12:55 »
0
From badstockart.com:
NOTE: please dont share photos from istockphoto.com unless that is, youve paid for the license and are willing to give it to us. They gave us the old cease and desist email, which scared us deeply. We know, we know, we lost some classics there. We might buck up and pay for some of the funnier ones.

Looks like istock agreed Cathy :)

« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2010, 14:50 »
0
I started reading some of the comments at the end of the site. Bad mistake. I posted a few myself, but really it is kind of pointless. But it does show the level of ignorance out there regarding intellectual property. And some posts show just plain ignorance.  ::)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 15:05 by cclapper »


« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2010, 19:26 »
0
Gosh, the "I don't make money off of this" defense over and over again is annoying.  As is the "but I'm giving you free advertising!" refrain.

« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2010, 22:21 »
0
Very true.  It seems to be a generational thing, which makes me guess the blogger is in his 20s or younger. It's almost analogous to the belief that all sorts of media...movies, music cd's, etc should be free for the taking as long as someone is willing to post it on the net.  There doesn't seem to be much respect for intellectual property or copyrights among younger people (said the grumpy 42 year old).

That said, the website was worth more than a few chuckles.  

Do you think I could get an excited, erect stock market participant into the Vetta Collection?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 22:23 by djpadavona »

« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2010, 01:49 »
0
I started reading some of the comments at the end of the site. Bad mistake. I posted a few myself, but really it is kind of pointless. But it does show the level of ignorance out there regarding intellectual property. And some posts show just plain ignorance.  ::)

I find this rather amusing. You should read "Against Intellectual Property". Most people who champion intellectual property tend to be equally "ignorant" about it.

Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.

« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2010, 06:46 »
0
I find this rather amusing. You should read "Against Intellectual Property". Most people who champion intellectual property tend to be equally "ignorant" about it.

Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.

I totally agree with you on IP laws being crap. And you are right, I am ignorant about a lot of the IP stuff, because to me it's a lot of legal smoke and mirrors.

Here is what I do know...I spent lots of money to create the images I have online, whether they are good or bad. I authorized the microsites to put up a watermarked thumbnail for display and to sell my images. They are my property and I should have the right to say who gets to use free copies and who doesn't. I don't need a bunch of attorneys telling me who should and shouldn't use them, or finding loopholes like "fair use" to give people the ability to use them for free. So if someone uses the images in a positive way, they should pay. If someone uses the images in a negative way, they are free? That doesn't even make sense.

« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2010, 06:49 »
0
Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.

Now this is sort of an odd statement.  Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more.

« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2010, 07:22 »
0
Actually the guy is linking the thumbnails to the actual sales page. At least Dreamstime allows that, and you can even put your referral code on it. It's just another (but original) referral site. It would be totally different if he put up the thumbs without links.

The only thing you can argue about is defamation, but as the saying goes: bad publicity is better than no publicity. I have no problem with sarcasm at all, especially since the shooters clearly aimed for that effect in many of the shots. About half of the shots is not really awkward but more weird/unusual.

There is a market for it. I bet the posted shots will have additional sales.

PS - if you keep giving him attention he will rise in the charts and there will come a time you will be begging him to show your awkward shots (with the proper link of course).  :P
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 07:30 by FD-regular »

« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2010, 08:05 »
0
Actually the guy is linking the thumbnails to the actual sales page. At least Dreamstime allows that, and you can even put your referral code on it. It's just another (but original) referral site. It would be totally different if he put up the thumbs without links.

The only thing you can argue about is defamation, but as the saying goes: bad publicity is better than no publicity. I have no problem with sarcasm at all, especially since the shooter clearly aimed for that effect in many of the shots. About half of the shots is not really awkward but more weird/unusual.

There is a market for it. I bet the posted shots will have additional sales.

I bolded and italicized above: According to what I read, that's what he did do at first. He only changed them once he was outed.

Yes, it's a referral site, but the images are being used in a negative connotation. Do I think some of them are funny? You bet! Do I think he should be allowed to have the site? You bet. Does that mean I think he should be allowed to use the images on his website FOR FREE just because he is giving a referral? NO!

No one should be allowed to decide "bad publicity is better than no publicity" except the copyright holder. Great if the images sell because of the link. They STILL shouldn't be allowed to be used for free without the copyright holder's consent! If you think it's OK, that's your choice. Others may not think it's OK.

OK, pretty soon that dead horse animation is going to be posted so I am done.  :)

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2010, 08:49 »
0
I started reading some of the comments at the end of the site. Bad mistake. I posted a few myself, but really it is kind of pointless. But it does show the level of ignorance out there regarding intellectual property. And some posts show just plain ignorance.  ::)
Welcome to the World Wide Web  :o

« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2010, 09:00 »
0
--
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 09:46 by fai123rf »

« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2010, 09:23 »
0
--
Did the boss catch you?  :P Don't blame him. If the issue might turn bad, official statements of agents might be scrutinized.


« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2010, 10:41 »
0
I bolded and italicized above: According to what I read, that's what he did do at first. (not linking thumbs) He only changed them once he was outed.
Well there is more joy in heavens for one sinner that repents than for 99 saints that don't need correction.
Yes, it's a referral site, but the images are being used in a negative connotation.
That's a valid point, as I stated first, and more for the model than for a photographer. But who put those images up for stock in the first place? If the model agrees to do weird poses and the photographer uploads it, can they blame a comics page to use/refer them? The lady that lost her teeth on the apple, well, she can imagine her image won't be used on a business site but on a comics page.
Do I think some of them are funny? You bet! Do I think he should be allowed to have the site? You bet. Does that mean I think he should be allowed to use the images on his website FOR FREE just because he is giving a referral? NO!
Again, DT allows this, even with ads (I came across some of those). I don't know about other sites, but I figure the site admin will have read the TOS. You agreed to DT's agreement so you can't reasonably protest against it (I think).
No one should be allowed to decide "bad publicity is better than no publicity" except the copyright holder. Great if the images sell because of the link. They STILL shouldn't be allowed to be used for free without the copyright holder's consent! If you think it's OK, that's your choice. Others may not think it's OK.
If it's a referral (allowed by the sites), your only point will be degrading use. You can always object to it.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:44 by FD-regular »

« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2010, 14:23 »
0
Stuff like this only illustrates why IP laws are complete crap. This business does not sell IP, it sells a service, because quite frankly thats all it really can sell. I've personally talked with people who have worked at several "trad" agencies for the last 20 years, and they actually agree and understand what I'm talking about. As the world becomes more digitized, IP laws become exposed more and more for the complete ridiculousness that they are.


Now this is sort of an odd statement.  Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more.


Sure thing. This business is isn't about rights, its about convenience. The original concept behind stock photography wasn't really about trying to save money on assignment shoot costs, it was more about finding images that were already made. In other words, customers were attracted to the model because they didn't have to wait weeks for a shoot to turn around, they didn't have to worry about how the images would turn out or if the photographer was a total PITA to work with, etc... They could find exactly what they wanted, and obtain it overnight if needed, and they could even talk to real humans at the agency who knew the collection well enough to help locate the desired types of shots.

Those are all services, they have absolutely nothing to do with IP laws, and this is where 99% of all micro agencies have screwed up.

I know how much istock contributers love to hate the istock back end for submissions, but if you seriously look at the powerful search options of the istock search engine, its no wonder why they are the leader in the business. That search engine is a service, thats what you're really paying for, even though it isn't presented that way when you check out.

Now digital technology has really changed things up, because its akin to a physical store keeping all its merchandise outside in the parking lot with little stickers on everything that says: please don't take me. People here seem to think that because we have IP laws, its a solid enough foundation to build a business model on top of. Right? I mean you can always just "sue your way to profit, right?" HELL NO. For one, its rarely, if ever, profitable to sue for damages over a micro stock image. The amount you'd win probably won't be greater than your legal bills. The best you can do is scare tactics like cease and desist letters, but those are a more formal way of saying, "please stop, I'll loose money taking you to court, which makes it pointless, so hopefully this letter will scare you enough to pay up." If this business wants to survive online, it had better find a more secure way to present the photos being purchased, it also needs to "get with it" on the customer service end of things as well. I've been lampooned a few times over suggestions that agencies be more restrictive on access to their collections. It's fine to disagree, but don't moan and groan with threads like this when all you're stuff is being taken and used and you find yourself with no compensation or profitable legal options.

If you really want to understand the anti IP position in more detail, I really encourage reading or listening to "Against Intellectual Property", its available for free online at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website. It's helped me see this business with a much clearer perspective.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=226

If you have any other questions, please ask, I'll try my best to answer them.

« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2010, 15:04 »
0
Lol, just listen to the appendix. It contains some examples of questionable USA patents. Lol, hilarious :D 

« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2010, 15:43 »
0
I dunno.  Sounds like kind of a defeatest attitude.  I don't think you're saying that we shouldn't own and control the rights to our creations, just that the method for doing the controlling is imperfect.

« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2010, 16:04 »
0
it was pointed out to badstockart by more than 1 person that linking to istock in particular meant increased views but no sales which pushed people down in the search engine and therefore cost the contributor. The links went not long later.

« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2010, 16:21 »
0
I dunno.  Sounds like kind of a defeatest attitude.  I don't think you're saying that we shouldn't own and control the rights to our creations, just that the method for doing the controlling is imperfect.

I would argue its more of a "realist" attitude. You do own your stuff... that is until you give them away to the world, effectively loosing all control, and thats the big point. When you sell something, you have, at least in the real world, given up your right over whatever it is you sold, especially with intangible products. If this is how the real world operates, why on earth would anyone base a business model on some law that ignores reality? It's like creating a business that sells oxygen because some law was passed saying you have to pay a fee to breath. Do you really think thats a wise investment or smart way to create a business model? I don't, and IP law centric business's suffer from the same situation: they are not based on reality, they are based on unrealistic laws and ideas. This is why I encourage others to check out the more in depth arguments against IP, and then seriously think about the current business models based on IP laws. You really begin to see the leaky holes.

I actually think stock photography has a very bright future, I just see that future differently from others.

« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2010, 16:25 »
0
Lol, just listen to the appendix. It contains some examples of questionable USA patents. Lol, hilarious :D 


"Force sensitive, sound playing condom .... it could play whistling dixe..... "

:P

« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2010, 16:25 »
0
Ok, realist then.  But the value of the image is not in the physical 0s and 1s you transfer to someone, but permission to use the image those bits represent.  Just because it can freely be duplicated does not mean it is without value.

« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2010, 18:15 »
0
Ok, realist then.  But the value of the image is not in the physical 0s and 1s you transfer to someone, but permission to use the image those bits represent.  Just because it can freely be duplicated does not mean it is without value.

You're right, it does have value in the sense that it cost money to produce, but I still don't consider the image itself to be what is up for sale, its the services that lead up to finding that image. In other words, an agencies database of images is what drives people to buy the "search and download" services the agency offers.

A good non stock example of this attitude in real world practice is with musicians who actually give away one of their songs, but make their profit from live concert ticket sales where they perform all the other songs they have created. They are taking an approach where the music isn't whats for sale, its the concert that is for sale and songs are merely a driving force to get them to attend. Yes, they still need to protect their songs however they can, and it is important, but they have had the "a ha!" moment of realization about what they can sell that can't be easily duplicated: a great live concert experience.

It's not very easy duplicating the service aspect of a quality stock photography agency, so I can't stress how important it is to sell that, but also at the same time be more protective of the images those services lead up to, because once they are released, you no longer have true control over them, even if IP laws do exist.

« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2010, 18:54 »
0
There is no real control over most things that can be easily duplicated, especially if the duplicate is lossless.


« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2010, 01:10 »
0
It will be a sad day when societies stop attempting to protect IP. I'll have to go to school to learn what I'm interested in instead of buying VTs from Gnomon or Lynda.com. Books will stop being published since the pdfs are so easily found online. And, as you say, good music will only be available live. Pity if your favourite musician lives in another country.

« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2010, 02:25 »
0
To revert to the topic (sorry), I just had 2 shots on Awkward. Pretty awkward if I may say so. One of those almost never sold (well maybe 5 times over all).
I'll report later if they got any extra sales at ShutterStock. It's just an experiment.

« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2010, 03:13 »
0
someone may had already got an idea to establish an stock agency awkwardstockphoto.com, target on weird, crazy, silly photos, it may be profitable.

Envato ElementsMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3698 Views
Last post September 18, 2006, 21:23
by maunger
10 Replies
4160 Views
Last post June 10, 2008, 22:40
by helix7
2 Replies
3452 Views
Last post July 21, 2013, 15:53
by stockastic
5 Replies
1871 Views
Last post August 02, 2013, 20:28
by luissantos84
26 Replies
3518 Views
Last post November 26, 2018, 01:53
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements