Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 260125 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #1075 on:** January 24, 2013, 17:32 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 24, 2013, 17:30

Quote from: Blammo on January 24, 2013, 17:27
Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 17:21
Quote from: Blammo on January 24, 2013, 17:18
New information regarding the DMCA takedown for http://kga.me

http://kga.me/dmca-20120124.html

I didn't realise that your first name only constituted a legal signature!

Not sure what your on about, but i have nothing to do with the site, wish i had though.

Ron the istock lawyer only signs with his first name. Its on the link you posted yourself

Yup, it was Ron I was referring to.

Blammo · « **Reply #1076 on:** January 24, 2013, 17:35 »

Sorry ShadySue way to much reading for me today

ShadySue · « **Reply #1077 on:** January 24, 2013, 17:37 »

Quote from: Blammo on January 24, 2013, 17:35

Sorry ShadySue way to much reading for me today

You're under stress. No problems.
It was just that I have to give my full name when requesting takedowns from pinterest, or IIRC Flickr.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1078 on:** January 24, 2013, 17:39 »

I see they've charged Kenny $20 for processing this complaint. Kenny - if that's coming out of your own pocket I'd be happy to help pay you back for that (not sure how we could collect $20 for him but there must be 20 of us who'd send him $1...)

ShadySue · « **Reply #1079 on:** January 24, 2013, 17:43 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 24, 2013, 17:39

I see they've charged Kenny $20 for processing this complaint. Kenny - if that's coming out of your own pocket I'd be happy to help pay you back for that (not sure how we could collect $20 for him but there must be 20 of us who'd send him $1...)

Paypal? I'd happily send $5, though currency transactions & charges would erode that considerably.

Poncke · « **Reply #1080 on:** January 24, 2013, 17:49 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 17:43

Quote from: jsnover on January 24, 2013, 17:39
I see they've charged Kenny $20 for processing this complaint. Kenny - if that's coming out of your own pocket I'd be happy to help pay you back for that (not sure how we could collect $20 for him but there must be 20 of us who'd send him $1...)
Paypal? I'd happily send $5, though currency transactions & charges would erode that considerably.

Send a personal payment and you can choose who pays charges. I will donate 5 dollar too, Kenny, just send me the email and i'll pay 5 dollars.

I didnt think I was reading it right, but its a shame they take 20 dollar for filing the istock claim. Freaken Ron needs to pay for that.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1081 on:** January 24, 2013, 17:55 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 24, 2013, 17:49

Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 17:43
Quote from: jsnover on January 24, 2013, 17:39
I see they've charged Kenny $20 for processing this complaint. Kenny - if that's coming out of your own pocket I'd be happy to help pay you back for that (not sure how we could collect $20 for him but there must be 20 of us who'd send him $1...)
Paypal? I'd happily send $5, though currency transactions & charges would erode that considerably.

Send a personal payment and you can choose who pays charges. I will donate 5 dollar too, Kenny, just send me the email and i'll pay 5 dollars.

I didnt think I was reading it right, but its a shame they take 20 dollar for filing the istock claim. Freaken Ron needs to pay for that.

Oh, right, I don't use PayPal for that sort of thing very often, so I don't really know how it works. Send me a SM too, Kenny.

flotsom · « **Reply #1082 on:** January 24, 2013, 18:06 »

Can we not resurrect the site with different hosts, if we choose dodgy ones then their far less likely to comply with takedown notices, we could also mirror it in numerous places

Poncke · « **Reply #1083 on:** January 24, 2013, 18:08 »

I think all he needs to do is send a counter DMCA and the site will be back up. Only thing what will happen then is a lawsuit, or maybe not. If all he did was linking, istock has no case.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1084 on:** January 24, 2013, 18:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 24, 2013, 17:24

Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 17:19
Quote from: sjlocke on January 24, 2013, 16:49
That was 2006. The entire point of the internet is linking. If Google is making no effort to hide the content, there is no issue, imo.

So if someone lifts one of your photos that they have found on some site and puts it on their website, they're stealing. No question.
But if someone hotlinks to one of your photos and puts it on the same place on their website, it's OK?

No, there is a difference between mere linking (ie, pointing to another piece of content), which is what was on the site, and inline linking (including the content on your page). I'm not sure if there is a huge difference, but there is a difference.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials

It seems that Ron is a chancer.
Goes with the territory, I suppose.

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #1085 on:** January 24, 2013, 18:21 »

LOBO:

"We recently issued a DMCA notice to the operator of www.kga.me/gds/ to have Getty Images and iStockphoto images removed from that site.

As many of you noted here, the site wholly reproduced your content in high resolution and made them available for download and distribution without license. The site operator promptly removed the content.

To be clear, we did not and do not object to the operator’s use of indexed information of collection names and contributor names, statistics, and other organization or categorization of publicly available information and have taken steps to confirm that with the site operator."

cmannphoto · « **Reply #1086 on:** January 24, 2013, 18:41 »

Lobo added this

Quote

We've made attempts to contact the gentleman involved in the site to let him know that the information wasn't this issue. We hope to hear back from them as soon as they are able so this is clearly understood.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6828201

EmberMike · « **Reply #1087 on:** January 24, 2013, 18:50 »

I can't waste another minute of my life caring about istock/getty. I'll wait to see what happens, but I doubt it will be anything positive. Until then, I'm done talking about it.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #1088 on:** January 24, 2013, 18:58 »

What a statement for them to make!

"We believe whilst acting in good faith that the Registrant's use of the Copyrights in the Domain is not permitted as the iStock Parties have not given the Registrant any permission or authorization to use the Copyrights nor are the Copyrights in the public domain."

Change Registrant to Getty and Domain to Google-Drive.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1089 on:** January 24, 2013, 18:59 »

Quote from: EmberMike on January 24, 2013, 18:50

I can't waste another minute of my life caring about istock/getty. I'll wait to see what happens, but I doubt it will be anything positive. Until then, I'm done talking about it.

I think it's funny that I'm not shooting, prepping or uploading to iS, but it's taking up MORE of my time and nervous energy than before!
I'm a fool to myself.

lisafx · « **Reply #1090 on:** January 24, 2013, 20:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 18:59

Quote from: EmberMike on January 24, 2013, 18:50

I can't waste another minute of my life caring about istock/getty. I'll wait to see what happens, but I doubt it will be anything positive. Until then, I'm done talking about it.
I think it's funny that I'm not shooting, prepping or uploading to iS, but it's taking up MORE of my time and nervous energy than before!
I'm a fool to myself.

Agreed! This situation has taken up so much of my time I've hardly gotten anything done. Taking the dog to the dog park today was a welcome break, but here I am again, LOL.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1091 on:** January 25, 2013, 01:45 »

I love this quote from shayes17 in the iStock thread on the latest bully tactics by Getty:

"And the one effective way "the respective artists" had to keep track of the alleged copyright infringement by Getty/Google was taken down by "iStockphoto LP and its affiliate companies and respective artists" for infringing on a copyright which "the respective artists" hold. It's like an infinite loop of irony."

Tweeted that too

flotsom · « **Reply #1092 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:05 »

I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.

Quote

Quote
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.

I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.

I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something

henryviii · « **Reply #1093 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:30 »

Quote from: flotsom on January 25, 2013, 06:05

I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Quote
Quote
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.

I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something

It's all so sad.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1094 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:33 »

Banned for telling the truth in quite a polite manner. How dare you

Poncke · « **Reply #1095 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:35 »

Quote from: flotsom on January 25, 2013, 06:05

I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Quote
Quote
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.

I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something

Its utter fascism. Lobo is completely out of touch with reality. How can he live with himself? Its sick, Getty wanted to get rid of that site as it was a thorn in their eyes, and now spin doctor Lobo is making it look like they did everyone a favor. I have no words for such a lowlife. I am sorry you got banned for saying something completely sane.

JPSDK · « **Reply #1096 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:43 »

Be happy.
When you read the posts on the istock forum its like putting your head into a barrel of delution.
Everything is so twisted.
Istock makes me sick.

dhanford · « **Reply #1097 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:40 »

Quote from: flotsom on January 25, 2013, 06:05

I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Quote
Quote
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.

I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something

You made too much sense and that makes you dangerous!

+ You may not get a badge, but I gave you a heart because you deserve it.

Microbius · « **Reply #1098 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:51 »

Quote from: flotsom on January 25, 2013, 06:05

I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Quote
Quote
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.

I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something

It seems to me that you stated something that many of us were thinking and did so in a polite way. It is also something that has been said on that thread a lot of times already. How random that you should have got banned for it. I wonder how many other people have had post deleted and been banned behind the scenes during the discussion.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1099 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:54 »

Quote from: flotsom on January 25, 2013, 06:05

I've just been banned from the istock forum for posting this, I also got a nice sarcastic email from the moderator.
Quote
Quote
Posted By Lobo:
I to find it ironic that we have managed to take that site down as quickly as we did and people are still finding reasons to be upset.....
Not as ironic as we find it, it just goes to further highlight how completely out of touch with it's contributors istock/getty are. Nobody was upset at the site - in fact it's very clear from this thread that we were all using it to check whether our images were included. We are only upset that istock/getty have allowed the display & download of contributors images at high resolution to be possible (and legal) by selling images to google to redistribute for free on some sort of perpetual license that no-one but google/getty are privy too.

I think most contributors have had enough now and unless there are some concrete things done to re-compensate the contributors involved and give us the ability to opt out of 3rd party deals such as this then we're going to be leaving in droves.
I've never been banned from anything before, I feel I should get a badge or something

Welcome to the League of the Lobotomised

Me: 26 months and counting, and that was also for telling the truth, though apparently he didn't like the way I told it succinctly. Oddly he didn't like your expanded way either.
I see he is turning nasty in the Google thread in general.
I'm guessing that's a sign that nothing good is going to come of the discussions and we'd better just suck it up or get out, then they can say that the rumblings in the ranks just disappeared, somehow.
I'd love to be proved wrong, but that's what happened with the RC thing.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 260125 times)

ShadySue

Blammo

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

Poncke

ShadySue

flotsom

Poncke

ShadySue

Monty-m-gue

cmannphoto

EmberMike

HughStoneIan

ShadySue

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

flotsom

henryviii

sharpshot

Poncke

JPSDK

dhanford

Microbius

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors