MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: ann on November 03, 2011, 07:39
-
© Thinkstock where the contributor is literally out of the picture
dealbreaker #1: The contributor is never identified anywhere on images distributed by Thinkstock, including on the site.
-
That's pathetic, its good I can keep my images out of that collection.
-
Yep, that's a Getty thing. You are a nobody.
-
Thinkstock seems able to credit some files:
http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-photo-turtle-and-chipmunk-wearing-party-hats/83290871 (http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-photo-turtle-and-chipmunk-wearing-party-hats/83290871)
I believe it's more of an IS thing. It's not 'commercially reasonable' to credit IS contributors.
-
Thinkstock seems able to credit some files:
[url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-photo-turtle-and-chipmunk-wearing-party-hats/83290871[/url] ([url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-photo-turtle-and-chipmunk-wearing-party-hats/83290871[/url])
I believe it's more of an IS thing. It's not 'commercially reasonable' to credit IS contributors.
Actually, I was with IS for about 6 years and any time I found my photo, it was credited to me personally. This subject was brought up before here, because IS has recently started to do this too (I personally have noticed it, including in such magazines as Good Housekeeping, where they now put ©istockphoto instead of the photographer ). sjlocke, in that thread, mentioned that Getty does this and contributors were complaining to Getty about it. Therefore, my reasoning is that IS has started following Getty protocol, hence my statement "it's a Getty thing".
And I don't really care if it's commercially reasonable or not for the agencies. Photos are copyrights of the photographers NOT Getty or istock and putting a copyright symbol next to the Getty or istockphoto name is just WRONG and deceitful.
-
Only a complete asssshooole, would like his name/credit, from a place like TS.
-
Only a complete asssshooole, would like his name/credit, from a place like TS.
I want my name credited wherever my work is sold. My freelance business is tied to my stock art business and vice versa. The easier it is for someone to find my name and contact info, the easier it is for them to contact me with potential additional opportunities.
That said, I don't have any stuff at Thinkstock. Browsing there though I saw some photos had photographer credits, but others didn't. Is the stuff from iStock not credited?
-
@fujiko: Thank you for the link.
©cclapper - Yes. Anyway, isn't it illegal for distributing agency to place/require just "© agency name" for whatever images contributors hold copyrights to? Or, when contributors do business with agency despite it, does it give some sort of implicit consent to hijack copyright notice?
(Full discloser: I've already deleted my small port from any agency that feeds to thinkstock.)
Thinkstock seems able to credit some files:
[url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-photo-turtle-and-chipmunk-wearing-party-hats/83290871[/url] ([url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-photo-turtle-and-chipmunk-wearing-party-hats/83290871[/url])
I believe it's more of an IS thing. It's not 'commercially reasonable' to credit IS contributors.
Actually, I was with IS for about 6 years and any time I found my photo, it was credited to me personally. This subject was brought up before here, because IS has recently started to do this too (I personally have noticed it, including in such magazines as Good Housekeeping, where they now put ©istockphoto instead of the photographer ). sjlocke, in that thread, mentioned that Getty does this and contributors were complaining to Getty about it. Therefore, my reasoning is that IS has started following Getty protocol, hence my statement "it's a Getty thing".
And I don't really care if it's commercially reasonable or not for the agencies. Photos are copyrights of the photographers NOT Getty or istock and putting a copyright symbol next to the Getty or istockphoto name is just WRONG and deceitful.
-
@fujiko: Thank you for the link.
©cclapper - Yes. Anyway, isn't it illegal for distributing agency to place/require just "© agency name" for whatever images contributors hold copyrights to? Or, when contributors do business with agency despite it, does it give some sort of implicit consent to hijack copyright notice?
(Full discloser: I've already deleted my small port from any agency that feeds to thinkstock.)
The contributor agreement says they will do what is 'commercially reasonable' to credit the contributor but they don't guarantee it and require the contributor to waive this right. I think it's because they want to promote only themselves and not contributors. So if anyone sees an image credited to istock, they will go to istock, but if the contributor is credited, buyer can look for the contributor elsewhere. I think that's the reasoning behind this because of the word 'commercially', although they will say it's a technical problem but the agreement is clear, it's about money. They want all credit, 85% royalties and complete control over the files. Greedy companies do those things.
-
It would be more honest to put "Source: TS". To try to claim it is their copyright is simply false. I don't suppose there is a single image on their site to which TS is the copyright owner.
-
The contributor agreement says they will do what is 'commercially reasonable' to credit the contributor but they don't guarantee it and require the contributor to waive this right. I think it's because they want to promote only themselves and not contributors. So if anyone sees an image credited to istock, they will go to istock, but if the contributor is credited, buyer can look for the contributor elsewhere. I think that's the reasoning behind this because of the word 'commercially', although they will say it's a technical problem but the agreement is clear, it's about money. They want all credit, 85% royalties and complete control over the files. Greedy companies do those things.
Great points.
-
They're creating a whole new class of "orphan works" where, for all practical purposes, the enduring lineage for lots of stock images will just be an agency's name as the years go on.
From vantage point of contributors' heirs - argument could be made that the agency is kidnapping images right in front of ©-holder's eyes.
And they bought a company that tracks images. Simply an ironic coincidence?
greedy companies get away with what they are allowed to get away with
-
They're creating a whole new class of "orphan works" where, for all practical purposes, the enduring lineage for lots of stock images will just be an agency's name as the years go on.
From vantage point of contributors' heirs - argument could be made that the agency is kidnapping images right in front of ©-holder's eyes.
And they bought a company that tracks images. Simply an ironic coincidence?
greedy companies get away with what they are allowed to get away with
That seems a bit overly dramatic. A quick Google image search would yield the copyright holder for almost all images. That's hardly orphaned. Look, I don't approve of not having the proper copyright credits, but I don't see any danger of losing any copyrights. It also seems like a fairly fixable problem that a little grumbling on the mothership (istock) would fix.
-
If they have got a copyright attribution - even a wrong one - how can they be "orphan works"?
-
Cthoman & BaldricksTrousers -
Yes, it sounds rather melodramatic the way I worded it, so I can't disagree with you.
And since I didn't mean the images would literally have no attribution - but, rather a False one - I should have not used the term "Orphan Work."
Separate from any images the agency may own outright:
The agency is the distributor.
It does not own the copyright to the images.
Writing (c) Agency Name is a Lie.
And it strengthens agency's tie to the work at the expense of distancing the work from the contributor.
Think about the effect of having one's images "out there" over the Years with just some agency name after the copyright symbol. It wll be unnecessarily harder for contributors and their heirs to keep track of the use of images they hold (c) to.
-
The contributor agreement says they will do what is 'commercially reasonable' to credit the contributor but they don't guarantee it and require the contributor to waive this right. I think it's because they want to promote only themselves and not contributors. So if anyone sees an image credited to istock, they will go to istock, but if the contributor is credited, buyer can look for the contributor elsewhere. I think that's the reasoning behind this because of the word 'commercially', although they will say it's a technical problem but the agreement is clear, it's about money. They want all credit, 85% royalties and complete control over the files. Greedy companies do those things.
Bingo and very well to the point. That's why I didn't sign their agreement. Fair enough. Nobody was forced to sign the agreement. If it's a dealbreaker, then don't cut the deal. I still don't miss IS (and vice versa I suspect) ;D
-
It would be more honest to put "Source: TS". To try to claim it is their copyright is simply false. I don't suppose there is a single image on their site to which TS is the copyright owner.
Not so sure that's true. For example, not our work, but everything that Getty owns, all those old collections and agencies they scooped up, which is licensed through ThinkStock might be considered ThinkStock? Or to go with your logic, then none of the agencies can claim Copyright to anything they distribute or sell for us? So they can't say, © agency name, artist name?
As for the people who can't get over misrepresenting orphan works, or how it would work. The fact that it has a copyright on it, even if it's wrong and says ThinkStock, means it's not an orphan. End of argument. No one can claim orphan when it's clearly marked © and has a name. The bill is about old files in archives, lost attribution and no clue where they came from, not modern works and people trying to steal Microstock instead of pay the lousy few dollars.
And yes, even if it's ThinkStock I'd like my name on the images as the artist, not some soulless agency name. Any personal publicity can't hurt?
-
My understanding is that copyright resides with the creator of the work or, if the actual creator was employed to create it, with whoever supplied the materials with which the work was created.
I'm not even sure that you can "sell copyright". In the music biz artists are now able to claw back copyright that they transferred to record labels decades ago, which rather suggests that while you may sell exclusive usage rights the underlying copyright remains forever with the creators.
Having a "wholly owned" collection probably doesn't transfer copyright, it just passes on exclusive usage rights from the previous agency to the one that bought it. Unless, of course, the agency hired the photographer and supplied the films.
The materials thing is quite important because it explains how a photographer hired for a wedding shoot retains copyright over the works while a newspaper staff photographer doesn't, the copyright belongs to his newspaper (and it is illegal for him to supply agencies with images from shoots using newspaper materials unless he has an agreement with his employer to do so).
So, no, none of the agencies should use "copyright: Agency/Shooter", at the very least it should be "copyright: Shooter/agency", making it clear that the agency's name is just being added to that of the copyright owner.
As I'm damned sure TS has never handed a camera to anyone and paid them to shoot a job, it can't legally hold the copyright to anything. Even an image Getty paid to have created would technically still belong to Getty, not to TS, as the companies will be established as separate legal entities.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and it seems that if we want to do business with agencies we have to put up with their routine misrepresentation of our copyright as being their own when they know damned well that it isn't. If they believed their own lies, I am sure TS would be suing SS and DT for all the "Thinkstock copyright" files they are licensing.
-
My understanding is that copyright resides with the creator of the work or, if the actual creator was employed to create it, with whoever supplied the materials with which the work was created.
I'm not even sure that you can "sell copyright". In the music biz artists are now able to claw back copyright that they transferred to record labels decades ago, which rather suggests that while you may sell exclusive usage rights the underlying copyright remains forever with the creators.
Having a "wholly owned" collection probably doesn't transfer copyright, it just passes on exclusive usage rights from the previous agency to the one that bought it. Unless, of course, the agency hired the photographer and supplied the films.
The materials thing is quite important because it explains how a photographer hired for a wedding shoot retains copyright over the works while a newspaper staff photographer doesn't, the copyright belongs to his newspaper (and it is illegal for him to supply agencies with images from shoots using newspaper materials unless he has an agreement with his employer to do so).
So, no, none of the agencies should use "copyright: Agency/Shooter", at the very least it should be "copyright: Shooter/agency", making it clear that the agency's name is just being added to that of the copyright owner.
As I'm damned sure TS has never handed a camera to anyone and paid them to shoot a job, it can't legally hold the copyright to anything. Even an image Getty paid to have created would technically still belong to Getty, not to TS, as the companies will be established as separate legal entities.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and it seems that if we want to do business with agencies we have to put up with their routine misrepresentation of our copyright as being their own when they know damned well that it isn't. If they believed their own lies, I am sure TS would be suing SS and DT for all the "Thinkstock copyright" files they are licensing.
Thanks I see where you are headed now.
OK so "images on white", sells their in house created collection to Getty. When someone makes something under contract the place paying them owns the rights. Lets call it work for hire. ;) If Agency IOW has 100% work for hire, and sells that to Getty and Getty owns ThinkStock and ThinkStock has the right to sell rights, someone has to own the right to the images?
The general rule is that the person who creates a work is the author of that work. However, there is an exception to that principle. The copyright law defines a category of works called “works made for hire.” If a work is “made for hire,” the employer, and not the employee, is considered the author. The employer may be a firm, an organization, or an individual.
I suppose that everything according to your view, would be attributed to Getty Images? Same for IS and photos.com? Keep in mind that EdStock is really Getty Images. Then anything sold from IS from that account needs to be labeled as Getty Images?
Anyway, we do agree that everything where possible should have the artists name not the agency name. Just that small point where some images are owned by the agency. And I do believe that someone can sell all rights to something or that rights can be transferred, otherwise we have a real mess that only the author owns everything, forever?
As for the music, I'd have to read more in each case where fraud may have been involved or improper contracts. But the part that is creating the new claims and changes is not the right for an artist to sell their copyright, but expiration. Important distinction. It's not as simple as, the artist can't sell the rights to his own works.
The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.
Copyrights can be transferred!
-
"Transferring" a copyright is not quite the same as "selling" it, is it? If you sell something you can't have it back after a certain time.
As for your example, I suspect the copyright owner might still be "Images on White" rather than Getty, but I'm not a lawyer and it really doesn't matter with regard to what TS is doing.
The thing is that the copyright of an image belongs to one person, it can't simultaneously belong to me, TS, SS, iS and everyone else. So the TS claim is simply a lie and if copyright is being credited to anybody it ought to be to the person who owns it, not someone who doesn't.
I suspect that what they are doing is,illegal and isn't covered by their cop-out clause. There is a big difference between agreeing that they will only credit you if it is "commercially reasonable" according to their thinking and agreeing that they are allowed assert that they own the copyright of your work. They may not be able to credit you, but it doesn't follow that that means they have a right to say it belongs to them. Not only do they fail to preserve your copyright info in the file, having stripped it out they proceed to assert that they own the copyright. Legal? Really?
-
snip
So, no, none of the agencies should use "copyright: Agency/Shooter", at the very least it should be "copyright: Shooter/agency", making it clear that the agency's name is just being added to that of the copyright owner.
Exactly. Copyright symbol shouldn't be anyways near the agency name.
SO glad I'm not at istock anymore, too. I hope none of the other agencies are doing this, either.
-
Right, copyright symbol should be next to contributor's name, not agency!
And when it uses/requires: © agency name agency is openly claiming copyright on millions of photos it does not own copyright to, so a competent copyright lawyer could have a field day with this one.
Contributor (class action suit or not) could hire a copyright lawyer who sees the potential not only for fees but also priceless publicity.
"The Emperor Has No Clothes" "The Agency Has No Right to Claim Copyright"
-
"The Emperor Has No Clothes" "The Agency Has No Right to Claim Copyright"
Why bother? Just dump iSuck.
-
That's exactly what I did months ago with my tiny port, but an enterprising lawyer could decide the potential publicity, at least, made this worth her while.
-------------
I'm gong to use BIG brand names now so most will be familiar with them:
No store is going to advertise Coke or Pepsi as Amazon.com Cola or Walmart Cola
not only because because Coke & Pepsi would rightfully sue them Big Time, but because the brand names Coke and Pepsi mean a lot to a lot of customers.
Coke & Pepsi would never be where they are now if, in the early days, they let whatever store sold them call their cola soda by the store's name! Which, in effect, is not far different from contributors allowing © agency name. And they continue to have top lawyers actively protecting their brand name, because they know that the brand names are Gold to their company.
Well, by promoting just the agency name, even at agency site, with false © agency name - the agency is helping prevent brand awareness, and therefor power, of the contributor/copyright holder - in favor of strengthening brand awareness, and therefore power, of the distributor.
"The Emperor Has No Clothes" "The Agency Has No Right to Claim Copyright"
Why bother? Just dump iSuck.
-
And when it uses/requires: © agency name agency is openly claiming copyright on millions of photos it does not own copyright to, so a competent copyright lawyer could have a field day with this one.
Actually a competent copyright lawyer would just point out that the copyright symbol ( © ) just specifies that the work is copyrighted, not that they're claiming ownership of that copyright, the purpose of having a name after © is just so that anybody who wants to enquire about the identity of the copyright owner then has a point of contact, and if you want to be really technical all that Getty (or any agency come to that) would have to do to justify them putting there name there would be to show the the contributor (or any contributor) uses a different pseudonym at different agencies, to go even further, take your own name (assuming it's not a unusually unique one) and search the web to find out whether there's anybody else in the world that has a photo displaying the same name as yours - and there's your answer and the reason why Getty would win before it even went to court.
I'm not justifying them not using our names (and I'd rather see my own because it links to my website) just explaining why they can do it, not that they legally have to display any copyright anyway. To be honest, from a protection point of view, unless you do have a truly unique name it's probably better having Getty/Thinkstocks name after the © than your own.
-
<deleted by author>
-
Of course RT is wrong. The copyright symbol does mean owner of the IP in many countries. But why getting worked up over it? iStock/Getty ask to release the copyright by contract. Then just dump then. Nothing is easier.
-
@fujiko: Thank you for the link.
©cclapper - Yes. Anyway, isn't it illegal for distributing agency to place/require just "© agency name" for whatever images contributors hold copyrights to? Or, when contributors do business with agency despite it, does it give some sort of implicit consent to hijack copyright notice?
(Full discloser: I've already deleted my small port from any agency that feeds to thinkstock.)
The contributor agreement says they will do what is 'commercially reasonable' to credit the contributor but they don't guarantee it and require the contributor to waive this right. I think it's because they want to promote only themselves and not contributors. So if anyone sees an image credited to istock, they will go to istock, but if the contributor is credited, buyer can look for the contributor elsewhere. I think that's the reasoning behind this because of the word 'commercially', although they will say it's a technical problem but the agreement is clear, it's about money. They want all credit, 85% royalties and complete control over the files. Greedy companies do those things.
I really don't think that clause of the agreement is wide enough to allow for completely disregarding attribution of our works on sites that are related to iStock - the waiver refers to the practice by end-users, not by iStock or related agencies. What they're doing here is simply not transferring across copyright information - to me this isn't making "commercially reasonable efforts to credit you" - its making no efforts. Given that other photographers ar having their work credited, I don't think they can show that it would be unreasonable to credit us as well.
Has there been any discussion abou this on the iStock forums that anyone can link to?
-
@AttilaTheNun - Hi! Since you asked, "But why getting worked up over it?" I'm happy to answer you.
Though you and I, among others, are aware of the © agency name situation at that agency, and pulled our ports, there are thousands of contributors, particularly non-exclusives, who might not be aware of it, or perhaps not see the implications as significant, and so will not pull ports because of it.
The contributors' lack of a legal union once again is a boon for the agency. Wouldn't the agency be quite pleased if the only fallout from their © agency name lie was having some small percentage of dissatisfied contributors simply pull their ports, and quietly go away....
I • do • not • want • © agency name • to • become • "the norm" -
where more agencies, emboldened by what the first one pulled off, consider doing the same.
That's why.
-
Of course RT is wrong. The copyright symbol does mean owner of the IP in many countries.
Well as you're so well educated in the subject maybe you'd like to actually show where it says "the copyright symbol does mean the owner of IP"
In the meantime here's a snippet from a site explaining about the copyright symbol:
The normal format would be to include alongside the copyright symbol the year of first publication and the name of the copyright holder, however there are no particular legal requirements regarding this. While it has historically been a requirement in some jurisdictions to include a copyright notice on a work in order to be able to claim copyright over it, the Berne Convention does not allow such restrictions, and so any country signed up to the convention no longer has this requirement.
-
RT, though I respectfully and strongly disagree, I do own a domain name that should work in this situation (and which absolutely does not lead to my editorial photography site, LOL). So...
put © StinkStock.com next to all your images, and I will happily forward your info to anyone who inquires
And once StinkStock becomes famous enough, we can shorten the copyright notice to © StinkStock
;)
Sorry you seem so upset about it, I didn't mean to offend you I was just pointing out that they're not doing anything illegal.
-
@RT - Oh my goodness - I was neither offended nor upset.
Sorry I wasn't clearer.
<rest deleted by author>
-
P.S. perhaps we should just agree to disagree about the illegal part
When I "agree to disagree" with an attorney, on legal issues, it's a safe bet the attorney is right and I'm wrong.
-
RT's a copyright attorney?
P.S. perhaps we should just agree to disagree about the illegal part
When I "agree to disagree" with an attorney, on legal issues, it's a safe bet the attorney is right and I'm wrong.
-
@ Ann - it's not a problem we all vent at some time or another, sent you a PM
-
There may not be any particular legal requirements for adding a name behind a copyright symbol, but geez, that's typically how copyrights have been handled. Again, when talking about what Getty/istock does and doesn't do...it may never be illegal, but it sure is unethical and deceitful. That's why they have a whole team of attorney's at their disposal...if there's a loophole, they're going to find it and use it, that's for sure.
RT didn't answer Ann's question...are you a copyright attorney? If so, then I totally defer to what you say about copyrights. But just being an attorney doesn't necessarily mean you know everything about copyrights. If you are a family law attorney, for instance, you may have touched upon copyrights at some point in your studies/career. But typically if one asks a family law attorney about copyrights, the family law attorney would refer you to a copyright attorney.
I'm not saying that to insult you because I imagine that if you are in fact an attorney, copyright or not, you know more about it all than I do! I only know what I read on the copyright.gov site.
-
There are, of course, also questions of jurisdiction and different copyright laws in different places. Is TS governed by Canadian law or US law? If we supply iS, which is Canadian, and it sends our images to companies registered in different countries all over the world, whose law applies? I don't know.
If I submit an image to a company that has terms based on Canadian law, can it then bind me to the terms of US law simply by insisting that I have to allow it to sell my images via a US company?
I suppose the lawyers resolved this one long ago, but I have no idea of the answer.
-
There may not be any particular legal requirements for adding a name behind a copyright symbol, but geez, that's typically how copyrights have been handled. Again, when talking about what Getty/istock does and doesn't do...it may never be illegal, but it sure is unethical and deceitful.
Absolutely. I think we all agree that what they are doing is deceitful, and certainly misleading.
To be fair, RT didn't throw around his being an attorney. That was me. It has been mentioned here in the forums before, so I hope I wasn't letting any cats out of the bag.
-
There are, of course, also questions of jurisdiction and different copyright laws in different places. Is TS governed by Canadian law or US law? If we supply iS, which is Canadian, and it sends our images to companies registered in different countries all over the world, whose law applies? I don't know.
If I submit an image to a company that has terms based on Canadian law, can it then bind me to the terms of US law simply by insisting that I have to allow it to sell my images via a US company?
I suppose the lawyers resolved this one long ago, but I have no idea of the answer.
There's very rarely black and white answers to any of these questions. The internet creates a whole set of jurisdictional questions that haven't really been relevant before. In the past it was difficult for a company to create contractual arrangements with so many different people from diverse jurisdictions, both buyers and sellers, without having a physical presence in those countries. Aside from the purely contractual issues, there's statutory laws relating to copyright, privacy, sale of goods, consumer transactions or even unfair contracts that can't just be side-stepped by defining a jurisdiction in a contract. Ask a lawyer the same question in Australia, France and the US the same question, and you'll get 3 wildly different answers all of which may well be right.
The answer here will be that TS and iStock are goverened by the laws of every country that they seek to create legal relationships in to some extent. How many of those laws are relevant depends very much on the exact issue you're talking about, and even how one of the parties aims to go about seeking remedies.
-
Though you and I, among others, are aware of the © agency name situation at that agency, and pulled our ports, there are thousands of contributors, particularly non-exclusives, who might not be aware of it, or perhaps not see the implications as significant, and so will not pull ports because of it.
Fair enough. Thanks for the heads up since I also didn't know it.
-
And when it uses/requires: © agency name agency is openly claiming copyright on millions of photos it does not own copyright to, so a competent copyright lawyer could have a field day with this one.
Actually a competent copyright lawyer would just point out that the copyright symbol ( © ) just specifies that the work is copyrighted, not that they're claiming ownership of that copyright, the purpose of having a name after © is just so that anybody who wants to enquire about the identity of the copyright owner then has a point of contact, and if you want to be really technical all that Getty (or any agency come to that) would have to do to justify them putting there name there would be to show the the contributor (or any contributor) uses a different pseudonym at different agencies, to go even further, take your own name (assuming it's not a unusually unique one) and search the web to find out whether there's anybody else in the world that has a photo displaying the same name as yours - and there's your answer and the reason why Getty would win before it even went to court.
I'm not justifying them not using our names (and I'd rather see my own because it links to my website) just explaining why they can do it, not that they legally have to display any copyright anyway. To be honest, from a protection point of view, unless you do have a truly unique name it's probably better having Getty/Thinkstocks name after the © than your own.
Alternatively they might note that the historical origin of the practice was a statutory requirement to enforce copyright in many jurisdictions, including the US prior to those countries adopting the Berne Convention, and that this practice dictated that the © symbol be followed by the name of the copyright holder and the year the work was created. It was never just to provide a contact point - maybe you can provide some authority for that proposition?
A "competent" lawyer might also note that this is a continuing requirement in jurisdictions that haven't adopted the convention, and provides a procedural advantage even in many of those countries that have, so the name of the actual copyright holder is absolutely relevant. The adoption of a pseudonym itself is also irrelevant seeing as copyright statutes themselves envisage this and allow for a different expiration period for copyright (ie. 70 years from the date of publication rather than 70 years from the date of the death of the copyright holder).
Sorry but there are legal, ethical and moral reasons why this should be a concern for contributors.
-
Well as you're so well educated in the subject maybe you'd like to actually show where it says "the copyright symbol does mean the owner of IP"
I'm not educated in those matters at all. I just repeat what our legal counsel (I'm connected with a media agency since a year) said on the occasion for the situation in Belgium (alone). Hence my statement ("most countries") was probably much too bold. He also insisted several times that group releases are legally valid but since stock agencies ask an individual release, I have my own at the side. He also told that removing copyright info from an image is an offense (but was not clear about the EXIF) and that it should have the form (c), author, year.
To be clear, I got this info from him a year or more ago, and I didn't ask it again before my post. Specific laws might be different in other countries and the counsel might be wrong too, but until proven wrong, I trust him.
In the meantime here's a snippet from a site explaining about the copyright symbol:
The normal format would be to include alongside the copyright symbol the year of first publication and the name of the copyright holder, however there are no particular legal requirements regarding this. While it has historically been a requirement in some jurisdictions to include a copyright notice on a work in order to be able to claim copyright over it, the Berne Convention does not allow such restrictions, and so any country signed up to the convention no longer has this requirement.
Even if they can get away with omitting the copyright holder (even on a sales site), the attribution of the copyright to thinkstock is false, unless they own the content. Anyways, it seems that the contributor "agreed" to this in the small print so it doesn't matter.
-
Alternatively they might note that the historical origin of the practice was a statutory requirement to enforce copyright in many jurisdictions, including the US prior to those countries adopting the Berne Convention, and that this practice dictated that the © symbol be followed by the name of the copyright holder and the year the work was created. It was never just to provide a contact point - maybe you can provide some authority for that proposition?
No it's never historically had to be the "name of the copyright holder" , as I said earlier historically it had to be the copyright identity, which was legally defined as being either the name, pseudonym, publisher or agent of the copyright holder - or in other words something by which they can be identifiable, or to put it in layman's terms - 'a point of contact' - I wrote that so people weren't confused into thinking 'identity' meant their name.. (I presume you've sourced your info from a site that's fallen foul of the common misconception of the word identity)
Now for me it's a pointless waste of any more time discussing how historically things used to be, let's deal in the present shall we.
A "competent" lawyer might also note that this is a continuing requirement in jurisdictions that haven't adopted the convention, and provides a procedural advantage even in many of those countries that have, so the name of the actual copyright holder is absolutely relevant. The adoption of a pseudonym itself is also irrelevant seeing as copyright statutes themselves envisage this and allow for a different expiration period for copyright (ie. 70 years from the date of publication rather than 70 years from the date of the death of the copyright holder).
A "competent" lawyer (or ex) wouldn't get mislead over common legal definitions. ;)
Sorry but there are legal, ethical and moral reasons why this should be a concern for contributors.
Sorry but I disagree and have pointed out that there are no legal concerns over this issue, you may not like it but unfortunately the law on this matter is not subject to your personal agreement. And as someone else has pointed out earlier, Getty's legal team seem to agree with me.
As for ethical and moral reasons, please read my first statement, I'm in favour of having our name or pseudonym next to our work, although personally it's a minor issue and it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over, so they're using their name after the © instead of mine - I'm pretty sure it's just a marketing strategy on their behalf.
I think people have got too hung up over this particular issue and I imagine a lot of it is because they are being forced to have their work included in Thinkstock against their wishes, looking at the bigger picture Getty as a company is world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, to me that's the most important factor.
Having said all this, in the past companies such as Getty have bowed to contributor pressure so if people really feel the urge to battle over what appears after the © then go ahead and contact them, just don't accuse them of breaking the law - that's my advice.
-
Well as you're so well educated in the subject maybe you'd like to actually show where it says "the copyright symbol does mean the owner of IP"
I'm not educated in those matters at all. I just repeat what our legal counsel (I'm connected with a media agency since a year) said on the occasion for the situation in Belgium (alone). Hence my statement ("most countries") was probably much too bold.
Umm you've confused me, the copyright symbol is just that, a symbol in place of the word copyright/copyrighted, although legally you don't have to display it at all, all creative work is copyrighted automatically as soon as it's (excuse the pun) created. The advantage of displaying © is that it rules out any possible confusion, the symbol itself doesn't mean 'owner' and I've never said that!
He also insisted several times that group releases are legally valid but since stock agencies ask an individual release, I have my own at the side.
He's absolutely right about group releases, a release is just a form of contract between you and a third party or parties, you can include whatever you want on them. Stock agencies have their own policies regarding releases, those policies should not always be taken as legal requirements, although from a practical point of view generally speaking the policies made by agencies serve to protect you.
He also told that removing copyright info from an image is an offense (but was not clear about the EXIF) and that it should have the form (c), author, year.
Well copyright info isn't always included in an image, that's reliant on the author (photographer) inputting that data in the first place, modern cameras allow you to set that up so that's it's included in every image, but when you buy a new camera it's doesn't guess your name :D So no, common logic tells you that he's wrong on that, what I think you'll find he was talking about is "moral rights", go look that up I'm not typing all that, when you've read it go and read the t&c on any of the sites you sell on, you've agreed to waive your moral rights.
As for ©, author, year - read my reply above - how old is your counsel :D
To be clear, I got this info from him a year or more ago, and I didn't ask it again before my post. Specific laws might be different in other countries and the counsel might be wrong too, but until proven wrong, I trust him.
I don't confess the know the laws of every single country in the world, but neither for that matter should he, nothing wrong with trusting him - sounds a bit out of touch to me though.
OK I'm done on this matter, anything else go look it up for yourselves.
Oh @cclapper - As Lisa later pointed out, Ann's question was to Lisa about me not to me, but I suggest in the future you never assume, I had answered Ann's question in a PM to her, you can check if you want.
@Lisa - Thanks a lot :-*
-
Alternatively they might note that the historical origin of the practice was a statutory requirement to enforce copyright in many jurisdictions, including the US prior to those countries adopting the Berne Convention, and that this practice dictated that the © symbol be followed by the name of the copyright holder and the year the work was created. It was never just to provide a contact point - maybe you can provide some authority for that proposition?
No it's never historically had to be the "name of the copyright holder" , as I said earlier historically it had to be the copyright identity, which was legally defined as being either the name, pseudonym, publisher or agent of the copyright holder - or in other words something by which they can be identifiable, or to put it in layman's terms - 'a point of contact' - I wrote that so people weren't confused into thinking 'identity' meant their name.. (I presume you've sourced your info from a site that's fallen foul of the common misconception of the word identity)
Now for me it's a pointless waste of any more time discussing how historically things used to be, let's deal in the present shall we.
A "competent" lawyer might also note that this is a continuing requirement in jurisdictions that haven't adopted the convention, and provides a procedural advantage even in many of those countries that have, so the name of the actual copyright holder is absolutely relevant. The adoption of a pseudonym itself is also irrelevant seeing as copyright statutes themselves envisage this and allow for a different expiration period for copyright (ie. 70 years from the date of publication rather than 70 years from the date of the death of the copyright holder).
A "competent" lawyer (or ex) wouldn't get mislead over common legal definitions. ;)
Sorry but there are legal, ethical and moral reasons why this should be a concern for contributors.
Sorry but I disagree and have pointed out that there are no legal concerns over this issue, you may not like it but unfortunately the law on this matter is not subject to your personal agreement. And as someone else has pointed out earlier, Getty's legal team seem to agree with me.
As for ethical and moral reasons, please read my first statement, I'm in favour of having our name or pseudonym next to our work, although personally it's a minor issue and it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over, so they're using their name after the © instead of mine - I'm pretty sure it's just a marketing strategy on their behalf.
I think people have got too hung up over this particular issue and I imagine a lot of it is because they are being forced to have their work included in Thinkstock against their wishes, looking at the bigger picture Getty as a company is world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, to me that's the most important factor.
Having said all this, in the past companies such as Getty have bowed to contributor pressure so if people really feel the urge to battle over what appears after the © then go ahead and contact them, just don't accuse them of breaking the law - that's my advice.
Maybe you could point out where I accused anyone of "breaking the law"? My point is that a formulation where naming the copyright owner is omitted isn't in out best interests, isn't in keeping with the spirit of the contributor supply agreement and doesn't accord with standard notices of copyright.
Actually, the Thinkstock agreement contemplates naming photographers:
5.3 Photo Credit. All Licensed Material used in an editorial context, must include the following credit line adjacent to the Licensed Material: "[Photographer's Name]/[Collection Name]/Thinkstock" or as otherwise shown on the Thinkstock website. If Licensee omits the credit, an additional fee in an amount up to one hundred percent (100%) of the Licence Fee may be payable by Licensee, at Thinkstock’s sole discretion. The foregoing fee shall be in addition to any other rights or remedies that Thinkstock may have at law or in equity.
So the problem appears to be with actually identifying us on the site. It isn't an issue on Photos.com - so in all likelyhood its not even a deliberate policy.
You seem to be arguing this on the basis of supposed legal definitions that don't appear anywhere except from the top of your head.
-
Oh @cclapper - As Lisa later pointed out, Ann's question was to Lisa about me not to me, but I suggest in the future you never assume, I had answered Ann's question in a PM to her, you can check if you want.
Well, first of all I didn't ASS-U-ME anything. I asked a question. To which I don't see where you have actually answered straight up. You keep talking legalese, as though you were or are an attorney. If you are, good for you. If you're not, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me. I don't really care if the question was addressed to Lisa or to you, I was asking the question TO YOU also.
Please explain how I can check a PM. ??? I could ask Ann, but why would I ask her when I asked you?
But no matter that you haven't answered directly because I already handled the whole issue myself by NOT contributing anymore at all to istock or stinkstock.
I think people have got too hung up over this particular issue and I imagine a lot of it is because they are being forced to have their work included in Thinkstock against their wishes, looking at the bigger picture Getty as a company is world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, to me that's the most important factor.
For me, it doesn't have anything to do with being forced into Thinkstock, since I am not. It has to do with what's right and what's wrong. Not legally, ethically. And Getty might be world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, but istock and thinkstock most certainly are NOT. And to me that's the most important factor.
But thank you for speaking to me like I'm a child, Mike. Let me hang my head and cower into the corner because a man has admonished me. :-*
::)
PS Here's what I wrote the first time around, guess you didn't actually read it:
RT didn't answer Ann's question...are you a copyright attorney? If so, then I totally defer to what you say about copyrights. But just being an attorney doesn't necessarily mean you know everything about copyrights. If you are a family law attorney, for instance, you may have touched upon copyrights at some point in your studies/career. But typically if one asks a family law attorney about copyrights, the family law attorney would refer you to a copyright attorney.
-
Oh @cclapper - As Lisa later pointed out, Ann's question was to Lisa about me not to me, but I suggest in the future you never assume, I had answered Ann's question in a PM to her, you can check if you want.
Well, first of all I didn't ASS-U-ME anything. I asked a question. To which I don't see where you have actually answered straight up. You keep talking legalese, as though you were or are an attorney. If you are, good for you. If you're not, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me. I don't really care if the question was addressed to Lisa or to you, I was asking the question TO YOU also.
Please explain how I can check a PM. ??? I could ask Ann, but why would I ask her when I asked you?
But no matter that you haven't answered directly because I already handled the whole issue myself by NOT contributing anymore at all to istock or stinkstock.
I think people have got too hung up over this particular issue and I imagine a lot of it is because they are being forced to have their work included in Thinkstock against their wishes, looking at the bigger picture Getty as a company is world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, to me that's the most important factor.
For me, it doesn't have anything to do with being forced into Thinkstock, since I am not. It has to do with what's right and what's wrong. Not legally, ethically. And Getty might be world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, but istock and thinkstock most certainly are NOT. And to me that's the most important factor.
But thank you for speaking to me like I'm a child, Mike. Let me hang my head and cower into the corner because a man has admonished me. :-*
::)
PS Here's what I wrote the first time around, guess you didn't actually read it:
RT didn't answer Ann's question...are you a copyright attorney? If so, then I totally defer to what you say about copyrights. But just being an attorney doesn't necessarily mean you know everything about copyrights. If you are a family law attorney, for instance, you may have touched upon copyrights at some point in your studies/career. But typically if one asks a family law attorney about copyrights, the family law attorney would refer you to a copyright attorney.
"Well, first of all I didn't ASS-U-ME anything."
"RT didn't answer Ann's question...."
Yes I had answered it, as I had said in a PM, so therefore you did ASS-U-ME something, and you assumed it wrongly.
If it makes you really happy no I'm not a copyright attorney, I'm a full time photographer, but I was an IP attorney before that. Are you happy now - probably not but I don't really care, this whole pathetic argument started over me replying to Ann's initial comment about them putting Thinkstock after the © and pointing out not it wasn't illegal, sorry for trying to help.
Oh and my name isn't Mike and I had no idea you're a woman, so I don't know why you felt the need to write "Let me hang my head and cower into the corner because a man has admonished me." I admonished you because you assumed I hadn't done something, which I had, I wasn't aware of using any gender specific terminology or undertones in my reply to you.
@ holgs - You're right I made it all up off the top of my head, please accept my appologies, I suggest in the future everyone listens to an ex employment lawyer, such as yourself, who seems to understand IP law so well.
-
@ holgs - You're right I made it all up off the top of my head, please accept my appologies, I suggest in the future everyone listens to an ex employment lawyer, such as yourself, who seems to understand IP law so well.
Thanks for the sarcasm, but you still don't explain where your idea of the "copyright identity" being different from the copyright holder or owner comes from, or why you seem to think naming a party that isn't in fact the owner of the copyright, and only has an indirect relationship with the copyright owner, is better than naming the copyright owner.
If people are really seeking advice there's some useful online sources:
UK: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-auto.htm (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-auto.htm)
US: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf)
Australia: http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/3525355584d00168563bdf.pdf (http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/3525355584d00168563bdf.pdf)
-
I don't like this but would Getty risk getting this wrong? They have made some big mistakes but this would be disastrous. Other sites have done something similar in the past and there was something being done about it but I didn't get involved and haven't heard the outcome, if there was one. Does anyone know what happened about this?
www.microstockgroup.com/pixmac/pixmac-dubious-contributor-maybe-stolen-images/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/pixmac/pixmac-dubious-contributor-maybe-stolen-images/)
-
I don't like this but would Getty risk getting this wrong? They have made some big mistakes but this would be disastrous. Other sites have done something similar in the past and there was something being done about it but I didn't get involved and haven't heard the outcome, if there was one. Does anyone know what happened about this?
[url=http://www.microstockgroup.com/pixmac/pixmac-dubious-contributor-maybe-stolen-images/]www.microstockgroup.com/pixmac/pixmac-dubious-contributor-maybe-stolen-images/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/pixmac/pixmac-dubious-contributor-maybe-stolen-images/[/url])
Yeah, that fiasco...somehow thousands of images, some of which were mine, ended up on an agency site with all of the contributors copyrights being changed to copyright Colossus on the agency site, for sale. No one would take responsibility for the actual changing of the copyright. Everyone blamed everyone else, at least publicly. And after a time, since bigstock photo was involved, the matter vanished into thin air. There was a group planning a class-action lawsuit, but I haven't heard anything about the outcome of that, either. It just seems to have vanished too.
As I said earlier, I imagine Getty knows exactly what they can and can't do, legally. So no, I don't imagine they are at risk at all.
-
@ holgs - You're right I made it all up off the top of my head, please accept my appologies, I suggest in the future everyone listens to an ex employment lawyer, such as yourself, who seems to understand IP law so well.
Thanks for the sarcasm, but you still don't explain where your idea of the "copyright identity" being different from the copyright holder or owner comes from, or why you seem to think naming a party that isn't in fact the owner of the copyright, and only has an indirect relationship with the copyright owner, is better than naming the copyright owner.
If people are really seeking advice there's some useful online sources:
UK: [url]http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-auto.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-auto.htm[/url])
US: [url]http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf[/url])
Australia: [url]http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/3525355584d00168563bdf.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/3525355584d00168563bdf.pdf[/url])
The sarcasm comes from the fact that even now, even after you link to three documents all supporting exactly what I've said from the beginning i.e. 1. They are not breaking the law because there's no legal requirement to put a copyright notice. & 2. That the purpose of the text entered after © is to identify the copyright holder and that it's doesn't by law have to be the copyright holders name, and that by having © Thinkstock under your images on their site, they are not doing anything illegal. Even now you still don't seem to get it.
And please note I have never said that I think it is better than having my name, I have only ever said that it's not illegal. In fact on two occassions (quite clearly I thought) I have stated that I would personally prefer to have my details.
Try and look at this from a different perspective. Do you understand what the purpose of a copyright notice is? It is not there to serve as a way to advertise the holders portfolio, neither is it there to give you a buzz when you see your name in print, the whole purpose is to aid the protection of the copyright:
The © is an internationally agreed symbol for 'Copyright', when displayed on/in/against any legible piece of work there can be no legal defense for an infringer to claim they weren't aware the work was copyright protected, or as gets banded about a lot nowadays, that is was public domain work.
The purpose of text after the © is to identify the copyright holder - or in other words something from which the copyright holder can be identified, their name, initials, psuedonym or agent all satisfy this purpose, obviously from a protection point of view the clearer the better.
The date is obvious.
However I do have one final thing to say over this whole thing, and that is I've made a huge mistake - the mistake, always check the validity of the statement.
©cclapper - Yes. Anyway, isn't it illegal for distributing agency to place/require just "© agency name" for whatever images contributors hold copyrights to? Or, when contributors do business with agency despite it, does it give some sort of implicit consent to hijack copyright notice?
I've just checked one of my images on the Thinkstock site, there's no copyright notice on it anywhere, in fact all they're doing is saying the images are from the iStockphoto collection which has absolutely nothing to do with copyright whatsoever. And as you (holgs) pointed out earlier the licensing agreement is encouraging buyers to to include a copyright notice identifying the photographer, which goes beyond what they have to do anyway.
Geez what a complete waste of time this thread is >:(
-
Oh and my name isn't Mike and I had no idea you're a woman, so I don't know why you felt the need to write "Let me hang my head and cower into the corner because a man has admonished me." I admonished you because you assumed I hadn't done something, which I had, I wasn't aware of using any gender specific terminology or undertones in my reply to you.
Oops, sorry about that, I was sure I saw Lisa call you that because I remembered thinking so much for anonymity, but then realized there are million Mikes in the world so no biggie. Maybe it was another thread I was thinking of. :)
-
Geez what a complete waste of time this thread is >:(
Maybe for you, not for me. I learned some good things from it.
-
Geez what a complete waste of time this thread is >:(
Not at all. I learned a lot.
-
Writing (c) Agency Name is a Lie.
I think Ann is correct. What is used is "photo credit: agency/photographer", in editorial usage. IS may have written to require © in that situation, but that is WRONG. They can not claim any copyright, and we do not transfer any kind of rights to them.
-
The Daily Mail, which I believe is the UKs busiest newspaper website, litters its 'magazine' style features with copyright/agency credits.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2061515/Cancer-From-hot-drinks-using-mobile-phones-theory-cause-disease-But-think.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2061515/Cancer-From-hot-drinks-using-mobile-phones-theory-cause-disease-But-think.html)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2061623/Lowering-cholesterol-easing-migraines-Which-cereal-YOU-eating.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2061623/Lowering-cholesterol-easing-migraines-Which-cereal-YOU-eating.html)