MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: image stolen Flickr and sold on Istock !  (Read 16610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 08, 2008, 05:56 »
0
I came across this article today:
http://www.cnet.com.au/software/internet/0,239029524,339285758,00.htm

Basically someone took pictures from FlickR and sold them IS !

One good reason to downsize pics on Flickr and a lot of people are not doing it even pro .....

L
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 07:42 by ldambies »


« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2008, 09:40 »
0
This is why I steer clear away from any of those free photo sharing websites like Flickr. Even web sized images can be taken and used. There are countless stories of people's images being ripped off from Flickr. Everyone knows how hard it is to find your own work being used from legit sources...

« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2008, 13:40 »
0
In the article was mentioned that she was blocked from Flickr before, because she complained for a similar case on the forums there. My paying Flickr has been blocked a week ago because "somebody complained". No warning, no clue about which image. Maybe it's the photos of a lesbian wedding that shocked some creationist moron from the bible-belt, I have no clue. I will reupload when I have time on 5 new free accounts. Flickr doesn't get a cent from me any more.

« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2008, 16:14 »
0
One thing to note in this: the person cited in the article, Rebekka Guleifsdttir, is Flickr's Lise Gagne - an article in the Wall Street Journal even referred to her as "the web's top photographer". Personally, I take exception to this, and view much of her Flickr fame to be the result of her being young, attractive, and quite willing to publish provocative self-portraits in a predominantly male environment. Her work can be good at times, but not that good - there are very many other Flickrites who are much, much better. Give yourself a two minute break from things and click here to see her work.

« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2008, 16:43 »
0
Fabulously creative portfolio.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2008, 18:02 »
0
Also looks like IS handled the situation well while Flickr handled it very poorly.

« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2008, 19:32 »
0
Also looks like IS handled the situation well while Flickr handled it very poorly.

You've seen nothing yet. Just wait until Microsoft takes over. I think I'll stay out of there, just in case that happens.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2008, 21:40 »
0
Microsoft is about revenue and profits. Yahoo is instant traffic and advertising revenue for them.  According to Dan Heller, Flickr has no revenue model or goals within Yahoo. With Microsoft, anything that doesn't generate revenue, or can't be made to generate revenue, will be eliminated.

vonkara

« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2008, 21:50 »
0
In my brain, there's a thing that say: Flickr is going to make available some pictures for selling?. Probably a kind of bizarre rumor, but I must heard or see something... Anybody see that also?

« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2008, 01:38 »
0
In my brain, there's a thing that say: Flickr is going to make available some pictures for selling?. Probably a kind of bizarre rumor, but I must heard or see something... Anybody see that also?

That has been the rumour for a long time, but it would require some serious restructuring. Another side of that is, that I believe there is a clause in their contract that make all photos uploaded available for use by the owners of Flickr without charge. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There was a case in Germany, must have been around a year ago, about a magazine that used photos from Flickr, many of them, without paying a dime. If I remember correctly, the article was about Flickr, but that doesn't change anything.

« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2008, 02:15 »
0
There are countless threads on Flickr of the "Wow, my picture was published!" and "Help, they used/stole my picture!" ilk. It's quite tiresome, really.

« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2008, 04:29 »
0
Forgive my ignorance ... but why do so many people use Flickr?

All right ... I can understand that they may want to share photos with family and friends and Filckr is a convenient central point from which to do it.

But, apart from that?

-- Selling your images to a big, big company like Microsoft? Yeah, it's happened, but I guess the chances are pretty slim. About the same as winning the lottery.

-- Getting feedback from others on your photos? Most of the images I've seen on there are unreconstituted c**p and yet they get comments like "Hey, way cool!!!!!" What use is that?

Any other reason that I'm missing?



« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2008, 05:10 »
0
Beside showing your pics Flickr is a fantastic learning tools because of its the groups (it is there I saw my first HDR pic by the way).
Also I met a couple of people to go out an take pictures in my town .
Contact list is pretty handy as well.
Usually I put my microstock pics there small size+watermark to be covered but also put more artistic pics I don't sell on MS

L

« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2008, 05:16 »
0
...
-- Getting feedback from others on your photos? Most of the images I've seen on there are unreconstituted c**p and yet they get comments like "Hey, way cool!!!!!" What use is that?

Any other reason that I'm missing?
I think ego is a key factor for a lot of people at Flickr. Just about everyone likes the constant reassurance that they are indeed good. It's a very good place to meet people, too.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2008, 19:36 by sharply_done »

« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2008, 08:44 »
0
One thing to note in this: the person cited in the article, Rebekka Guleifsdttir, is Flickr's Lise Gagne - an article in the Wall Street Journal even referred to her as "the web's top photographer". Personally, I take exception to this, and view much of her Flickr fame to be the result of her being young, attractive, and quite willing to publish provocative self-portraits in a predominantly male environment. Her work can be good at times, but not that good - there are very many other Flickrites who are much, much better. Give yourself a two minute break from things and click here to see her work.


Interesting - thanks for the link

I'd agree that they're not the best photos in the world, but they're very good photos - but then again, people often forget about how much processing is going into those - they'd be rejected for "over filtering" on most stock sites LOL!

JerryL5

  • Blessed by God's wonderful love.
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2008, 10:39 »
0
creationist moron from the bible-belt, I have no clue. I will reupload when I have time on 5 new free accounts. Flickr doesn't get a cent from me any more.



Is it really necessary to demean those who believe in God in order to get to your point?

« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2008, 10:49 »
0
creationist moron from the bible-belt, I have no clue. I will reupload when I have time on 5 new free accounts. Flickr doesn't get a cent from me any more.



Is it really necessary to demean those who believe in God in order to get to your point?


Let's put the entire post in context.

In the article was mentioned that she was blocked from Flickr before, because she complained for a similar case on the forums there. My paying Flickr has been blocked a week ago because "somebody complained". No warning, no clue about which image. Maybe it's the photos of a lesbian wedding that shocked some creationist moron from the bible-belt, I have no clue. I will reupload when I have time on 5 new free accounts. Flickr doesn't get a cent from me any more.


« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2008, 18:37 »
0
creationist moron from the bible-belt, I have no clue. I will reupload when I have time on 5 new free accounts. Flickr doesn't get a cent from me any more.

Is it really necessary to demean those who believe in God in order to get to your point?
He didn't demean those who believe in God, only creationists. Huge difference. I don't know what creationism had to do with lesbian marriage other than right-wing republicans have taken both up as causes (though creationism/intelligent design is falling out of favor, and rightfully so).

« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2008, 18:43 »
0
creationist moron from the bible-belt, I have no clue. I will reupload when I have time on 5 new free accounts. Flickr doesn't get a cent from me any more.

Is it really necessary to demean those who believe in God in order to get to your point?
He didn't demean those who believe in God, only creationists. Huge difference. I don't know what creationism had to do with lesbian marriage other than right-wing republicans have taken both up as causes (though creationism/intelligent design is falling out of favor, and rightfully so).

Maybe it wasn't a right wing rep but a gay loving liberal that just found the two lesbians Uglyyyy to the bone!

« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2008, 21:49 »
0
Quote from Rebekka Guleifsdttir:
Quote
"I mean for crying out loud, out of 31 images this particular user has on his 'portfolio,' 25 of them are mine, and at least 3 are of me," she said in the caption for a screenshot of the iStockphoto page.
So than I wonder.....how did the thief get the model release?

« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2008, 23:12 »
0
Quote from Rebekka Guleifsdttir:
Quote
"I mean for crying out loud, out of 31 images this particular user has on his 'portfolio,' 25 of them are mine, and at least 3 are of me," she said in the caption for a screenshot of the iStockphoto page.
So than I wonder.....how did the thief get the model release?
If you're willing to commit outright theft, I don't think you'd be concerned about faking a model release.

« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2008, 23:11 »
0
There is an Article in Feb. Pop Photo magazine on just this subject. It is no secret that photos are stolen from Flickr.  If they do nothing to protect you, why stay with them? If you live in a bad neighborhood and get robbed because you left your door unlocked is it not your own fault? Protect yourself. There must be a better option than flickr. Clearly not Istock or any other sites fault if images get stolen and used by someone else.

« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2008, 01:04 »
0
I am starting to get really suspicious of the agenda of a lot of these sites.

They are taking those of us who use it as an income source as fools.

helix7

« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2008, 01:55 »
0
... It is no secret that photos are stolen from Flickr.  If they do nothing to protect you, why stay with them?...

As much as Flickr does little to protect photographers, the photographers who use Flickr set themselves up for this sort of thing by uploading high-res images. If you want to use Flickr for feedback, promotion, whatever, then fine, go for it. But why not just upload a 400 x 600 image instead? Maybe even throw a little watermark on there or something, maybe save it down to 70% jpg.

There are many ways to use Flickr without setting yourself up to become a victim.



« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2008, 04:18 »
0
I agree with Helix, leaving hi-res images on Flickr is like leaving your wallet unprotected on a seat in the Central Station. The Central Station shouldn't take the blame for your ingenuity.

My images on Flickr aren't larger than 800 pixels on the wider side and all the commercial ones are also "hugely" watermarked.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2008, 17:09 by ale1969 »

dk

« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2008, 17:08 »
0
One thing to note in this: the person cited in the article, Rebekka Guleifsdttir, is Flickr's Lise Gagne - an article in the Wall Street Journal even referred to her as "the web's top photographer". Personally, I take exception to this, and view much of her Flickr fame to be the result of her being young, attractive, and quite willing to publish provocative self-portraits in a predominantly male environment. Her work can be good at times, but not that good - there are very many other Flickrites who are much, much better. Give yourself a two minute break from things and click here to see her work.


I had only seen her stock stuff 'till now - i was pleasantly surprised by looking at her art photos. Some of those photos are very good and a few seem to be inspired directly by Francesca Woodman who also was "young, attractive, and quite willing to publish provocative self-portraits", there's nothing wrong with that. When i say inspired i don't mean it in a bad way - meaning influenced by not copied.

dk

« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2008, 12:26 »
0
deleted

« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 12:38 by dk »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
10892 Views
Last post May 21, 2009, 10:57
by johngriffin
16 Replies
7121 Views
Last post April 11, 2010, 07:25
by Microbius
38 Replies
10273 Views
Last post January 10, 2012, 08:41
by shopartgallery
0 Replies
1732 Views
Last post June 12, 2015, 08:59
by Uncle Pete
2 Replies
3169 Views
Last post October 21, 2017, 11:41
by Caleb

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle