pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do CR reps just make up stuff as they go along?  (Read 2359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« on: February 08, 2013, 08:35 »
0
I and others have often mentioned that CR reps give various replies, and it all depends who you get on the day.

I happened to notice this on an iStock thread:
By anchev:
According to a reply from CE customers are not allowed to post images on Facebook because FB's terms contradict the RF license. The explanation is: uploading to FB grants the right to sub-licensing of content and the customer has no such right.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351293&messageid=6840001

That's as may be, but how is even the most conscientious buyer supposed to know that? It's not on the license comparison page you can access directly from any file's home page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses
or on the full Licence agreement, clickable from the above page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php


« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2013, 18:54 »
+1
How can they say that, when they themselves are making it look like it's okay to use their images on Facebook by giving them away for free as cover images?

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150868420440825.396331.20425620824&type=3

In fact, by offering those images for free, with their logo on it, ironically they may be violating FB's terms of use:

Quote
Covers must not be false, deceptive or misleading, and must not infringe on third parties' intellectual property. You may not encourage or incentivize people to upload your cover image to their personal timelines.

https://www.facebook.com/help/276329115767498/

Many of the images they have in the free album they have also used for their own timeline covers!
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 19:04 by caspixel »

« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2013, 18:56 »
0
A classic, Do as we say, NOT as we do.

Ed

« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2013, 20:21 »
0
I and others have often mentioned that CR reps give various replies, and it all depends who you get on the day.

I happened to notice this on an iStock thread:
By anchev:
According to a reply from CE customers are not allowed to post images on Facebook because FB's terms contradict the RF license. The explanation is: uploading to FB grants the right to sub-licensing of content and the customer has no such right.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351293&messageid=6840001

That's as may be, but how is even the most conscientious buyer supposed to know that? It's not on the license comparison page you can access directly from any file's home page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses
or on the full Licence agreement, clickable from the above page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php


I agree with this answer 100% and I no longer post on Facebook because of it.  Instead,  post on my website and link to the image on the site from Facebook.

Facebook has been using other people's images (and their likeness) for their own advertising purposes.  In fact, I received notice of class action settlement from the class action lawsuit surrounding the issue.

http://www.fraleyfacebooksettlement.com/claim

I also do not upload to instagram or twitter for the same reason.  Once you upload to these sites, you essentially lose control over your images.  In fact, when you download an image on Facebook, you'll notice the metadata is stripped so unless your watermark is on it, the image essentially an orphaned work.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2013, 20:33 »
0
You made a choice and have justified that choice.

However, NOTHING in the iStock licence information for buyers says they can't use images on FB, so the CR person was wrong.

If they want to make that a clause in the licence, they need to do it, then announce it to buyers. They can't just let a CR person announce it in a response to an enquiry, totally out of the blue. Then there's the issue that you can't make a rule like that retrospective, so it would be difficult to police unless a file was added after the date of the change.

How likely is it that it would policed? Vide the widespread omission of iStock/contributor credit on editorially-used images, which is contrary to the stated licence terms.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
What is this stuff?

Started by RacePhoto Off Topic

22 Replies
14548 Views
Last post March 05, 2010, 22:17
by RacePhoto
5 Replies
5724 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 07:50
by ProArtwork
49 Replies
6524 Views
Last post July 01, 2015, 09:28
by gbalex
7 Replies
2032 Views
Last post July 16, 2015, 13:09
by wordplanet
25 Replies
3920 Views
Last post November 13, 2021, 09:53
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle