pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Agency Collection Now Showing up on IStock  (Read 35766 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: September 17, 2010, 06:56 »
0
Is Inmagine under Getty?

HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo

HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.


traveler1116

« Reply #176 on: September 17, 2010, 07:00 »
0
Is Inmagine under Getty?

HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo

HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.


Istock has to know about that don't they?

« Reply #177 on: September 17, 2010, 07:18 »
0
Is Inmagine under Getty?

HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo

HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.


Istock has to know about that don't they?

They don't seem in control any more.  Has anyone posted this info in their forum?  Don't Inmagine owne 123rf?  Not a getty site.

« Reply #178 on: September 17, 2010, 07:20 »
0
What a mess... I just tweet both links.....

traveler1116

« Reply #179 on: September 17, 2010, 07:45 »
0

« Reply #180 on: September 17, 2010, 08:51 »
0

« Reply #181 on: September 17, 2010, 09:11 »
0
Is Inmagine under Getty?

HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo

HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.


Istock has to know about that don't they?


Do you really think Istock did not know about this
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo
and also about this
http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/
when they made this "special contributor" ;) also "exclusive contributor" ;) with all it's 16,123 images ?

« Reply #182 on: September 17, 2010, 09:29 »
0
The imagine and  thing is on their discussion board. So far not a single answer from anyone. You screw your contributors and they are going to hunt on their own to find all your dirty laundry.

Exclusivity - ur doin in wrong.

OM

« Reply #183 on: September 17, 2010, 09:44 »
0
Reminds me of Fotolia's "Infinite" collection when it began. Has that one gotten any better?

Nope, only more pluriform. Denying valuable page space to images that stand a far better chance of selling. Be fair, buyers go to microstock for low prices and when they see the infinity prices, I'm sure they give up and go elsewhere.

« Reply #184 on: September 17, 2010, 10:28 »
0
Is Inmagine under Getty?

HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo

HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.


Istock has to know about that don't they?


Do you really think Istock did not know about this
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo
and also about this
http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/
when they made this "special contributor" ;) also "exclusive contributor" ;) with all it's 16,123 images ?


A stolen image, maybe?

grp_photo

« Reply #185 on: September 17, 2010, 10:53 »
0
Is Inmagine under Getty?

HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo

HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.


Istock has to know about that don't they?


Do you really think Istock did not know about this
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo
and also about this
http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/
when they made this "special contributor" ;) also "exclusive contributor" ;) with all it's 16,123 images ?


A stolen image, maybe?

You don't have to steal it! Once bought you can resell it as the copyright of these images is long expired - it's that simple - people in this forum are getting paranoid - IMHO.

Microbius

« Reply #186 on: September 17, 2010, 10:58 »
0
You can't resell them, but they could have gotten it from the same source.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #187 on: September 17, 2010, 10:58 »
0
^ getting paranoid? lol. that's an understatement...though everything iStock is doing right now is bad, no other way to look at it. sometimes if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck....iStock have f'ed up royally. ROYALLY.

« Reply #188 on: September 17, 2010, 18:35 »
0
If this isn't so sad it would be very funny...

But, now it is really FAIL!

« Reply #189 on: September 17, 2010, 21:53 »
0
Derrick Rhodes is a dumbass.  I will offend him until I see more crap from other 'talented' photographers

I had a short look at Fstop.
"Snapshot in a jam with blown out sky"
http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init
It's yours for only 700$.

Suddenly, I feel very pity for all those great iStock exclusives.  :o


I am sorry I am jumping in the middle of the thread, but I just feel I have to say a few words here. First of all, I did not read all of the replies, but according to the reply from FD and his link to Fstop, I don't feel the same way as you guys, I don't see what most of you see. Come on, guys! I have to say I'm sorry to FD and everyone else, I have nothing personal against you but Fstop's site, at least the one that FD links to, I see a much better photographer than many of us. I wish I had a portfolio like his. Okay, there are some images that he probably should delete, but all in all, it is just superb. I don't know if I am looking at the same portfolio as you, but the link from FD leads me to the one I'm talking about.
I am sorry FD, but I have to say this and don't take it personally, I like your post and I will be reading them with interest.

Kone

« Reply #190 on: September 18, 2010, 06:39 »
0


I am sorry I am jumping in the middle of the thread, but I just feel I have to say a few words here. First of all, I did not read all of the replies, but according to the reply from FD and his link to Fstop, I don't feel the same way as you guys, I don't see what most of you see. Come on, guys! I have to say I'm sorry to FD and everyone else, I have nothing personal against you but Fstop's site, at least the one that FD links to, I see a much better photographer than many of us. I wish I had a portfolio like his. Okay, there are some images that he probably should delete, but all in all, it is just superb. I don't know if I am looking at the same portfolio as you, but the link from FD leads me to the one I'm talking about.
I am sorry FD, but I have to say this and don't take it personally, I like your post and I will be reading them with interest.

Kone
[/quote]

Have to agree to some extent....it's easy to pick out the crap but there is high quailty work on the site, superior to a lot of "exclusive" work on IS - inflammatory but true I'm afraid

« Reply #191 on: September 18, 2010, 06:55 »
0


I am sorry I am jumping in the middle of the thread, but I just feel I have to say a few words here. First of all, I did not read all of the replies, but according to the reply from FD and his link to Fstop, I don't feel the same way as you guys, I don't see what most of you see. Come on, guys! I have to say I'm sorry to FD and everyone else, I have nothing personal against you but Fstop's site, at least the one that FD links to, I see a much better photographer than many of us. I wish I had a portfolio like his. Okay, there are some images that he probably should delete, but all in all, it is just superb. I don't know if I am looking at the same portfolio as you, but the link from FD leads me to the one I'm talking about.
I am sorry FD, but I have to say this and don't take it personally, I like your post and I will be reading them with interest.

Kone

Have to agree to some extent....it's easy to pick out the crap but there is high quailty work on the site, superior to a lot of "exclusive" work on IS - inflammatory but true I'm afraid
[/quote]

Can't agree. And most, quality could be considered "similar". On the other hand, content at IS (and at SS FT etc) looks way "newer" and "fresher".
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 07:21 by loop »

« Reply #192 on: September 18, 2010, 07:12 »
0

You don't have to steal it! Once bought you can resell it as the copyright of these images is long expired - it's that simple - people in this forum are getting paranoid - IMHO.


Exactly right - these images are in the public domain - JJ even says as much when they introduced contents of the collection. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54443

I don't however understand how istock justifies "licensing" these images for a fee. They don't have any copyright to license.

« Reply #193 on: September 18, 2010, 07:17 »
0
I don't however understand how istock justifies "licensing" these images for a fee. They don't have any copyright to license.
Don't they have copyright of their digital version or 'copy' of the image. For example if you scanned an old image (perhaps adding your own touch-ups, etc) then you would own the copyright to your digital version __ but not the original.

« Reply #194 on: September 18, 2010, 08:09 »
0
I don't however understand how istock justifies "licensing" these images for a fee. They don't have any copyright to license.
Don't they have copyright of their digital version or 'copy' of the image. For example if you scanned an old image (perhaps adding your own touch-ups, etc) then you would own the copyright to your digital version __ but not the original.

That's the official explanation and no doubt it is legally correct but it is also absurd. It means that if they scan a book they can claim copyright on that image and I am stealing it if I use it without paying them, but if I get the same book and scan it myself I can then not only use it but also upload it and sell it as my own. Thousands of us could all have identical scans of someone else's drawing that we apparently own the copyright to.

I suppose this also means that you can upload a scan of any negative or positive as being your own copyright.

If you have an Old Master in your mansion you can photograph it and sell the picture as your copyright but if the Old Master is in a museum and you photograph it, then the copyright no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the museum, apparently.

Go figure.

« Reply #195 on: September 18, 2010, 08:24 »
0
If you have an Old Master in your mansion you can photograph it and sell the picture as your copyright but if the Old Master is in a museum and you photograph it, then the copyright no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the museum, apparently.

No, I think in that case you would still own the copyright to your own image but you would not be able to use it for commercial purposes without the permission of the museum. Same thing with photographing zoo animals.

I don't see the complication or issue with this. If you owned an expensive painting or paid for the upkeep of exotic animals then surely you are entitled to benefit from any commercial exploitation of that asset?

Microbius

« Reply #196 on: September 18, 2010, 08:45 »
0
I don't however understand how istock justifies "licensing" these images for a fee. They don't have any copyright to license.
Don't they have copyright of their digital version or 'copy' of the image. For example if you scanned an old image (perhaps adding your own touch-ups, etc) then you would own the copyright to your digital version __ but not the original.

This is what I meant. Think about it like this. For me to sell a photo of a painting I would need the permission of the painter and copyright of the photo.
The permission of artist bit is taken care of; the picture is public domain. I still need to be the one who took the photo (or scan) or hold copyright to be allowed to sell it. This is probably true legally, but definitely true under the terms of a lot of the image libraries.

« Reply #197 on: September 18, 2010, 09:08 »
0
However, there is the Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corporation case:

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/01library/08legal/FairUse.html

Quote
In other words, an exact reproduction of an image in the public domain does not possess creativity itself.  Therefore, the reproduction is not protected under copyright law.


Edit:
Here is a Wikipedia article about the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 09:14 by Maui »

lisafx

« Reply #198 on: September 18, 2010, 10:03 »
0

I am sorry I am jumping in the middle of the thread, but I just feel I have to say a few words here. First of all, I did not read all of the replies, but according to the reply from FD and his link to Fstop, I don't feel the same way as you guys, I don't see what most of you see. Come on, guys! I have to say I'm sorry to FD and everyone else, I have nothing personal against you but Fstop's site, at least the one that FD links to, I see a much better photographer than many of us. I wish I had a portfolio like his. Okay, there are some images that he probably should delete, but all in all, it is just superb. I don't know if I am looking at the same portfolio as you, but the link from FD leads me to the one I'm talking about.
I am sorry FD, but I have to say this and don't take it personally, I like your post and I will be reading them with interest.

Kone

FWIW, Fstop is an agency that represents a number of photographers.  There is wide variety on the site.  Some of what I saw was quite good and some of lower quality or niche stuff.

But I feel Derick & Fstop are being dragged into this fight with Istock unfairly.  Getty is simply one agency that carries the Fstop collection.  It's not his fault if Getty royally F*d up the way it was introduced to Istock.   

Microbius

« Reply #199 on: September 18, 2010, 12:39 »
0
However, there is the Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corporation case:

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/01library/08legal/FairUse.html

Quote
In other words, an exact reproduction of an image in the public domain does not possess creativity itself.  Therefore, the reproduction is not protected under copyright law.


Edit:
Here is a Wikipedia article about the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

Wow, that's fascinating stuff! So if that case stands as precedent, as long as you can get hold of a decent res scan or photo of out of copyright stuff you can resell it!
I'll have to read up on it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3611 Views
Last post September 17, 2010, 01:08
by leaf
85 Replies
17709 Views
Last post November 09, 2010, 20:54
by Chico
10 Replies
2781 Views
Last post October 28, 2010, 11:34
by WarrenPrice
Agency collection? oh! boy!

Started by lagereek « 1 2 ... 5 6 » iStockPhoto.com

125 Replies
23509 Views
Last post December 04, 2010, 13:45
by jbarber873
6 Replies
2469 Views
Last post July 30, 2011, 13:19
by leaf

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results