... full of Yuri's images 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7MBpQJ-zsg" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7MBpQJ-zsg</a>

I see kat youtubed one of her

cage blows

(spotted it when I checked the vid the OP linked to). Demonoid has

videoed

a few of his too - interesting stuff (for designers and digital artists).

All those images have been nicked, hence the watermarks.
If they wanted to make a spoof, funny as it is, they should have purchased the images.

Legally, I don't think it's necessary. Do you want the details? 

Always up for a good mystery.

eh... because they don't use those images to promote/mention anything else than Istock itself, maybe that's why?

I am just curious, who hates IS so much to make this video and to upload it to youtube??  This video needs much more than few minutes to be made. When we consider the time spent on idea and text writing....
Wow, that must be somebody pissed off exactly because of IS 

Yes, probably this is more about stock photography, than on IS.

Could you explain a bit better, I'm not sure how that works. Would I for example be able to use any images from IStock without paying on a blog where I discuss my experience on IStock?
If not why not if the video is okay?
The contributor is the copyright holder, not IStock, does this make a difference?
Just interested to know what the legal stance is on this.
I know if I'd taken any of those photos I wouldn't be happy to see them having the p*ss taken out of them YouTube without getting my commission!

well if your blog is all about istock and you don't make money with ads on it with another compianies, I guess it would be the same. Now istock may not be happy of negative publicity they might be getting with this video (I doubt they would bother with it anyway), that could be a greater deal than mentioning istock with images sold on istock, carrying istock logo all over it. They for sure don't want to be bashed by the images that are annacurate and come from the different source.

Another trend I noticed about microstockers is how fast they jump to "I want my money back" . For instance the first reactions on the post about image found in use is "you should have gotten at least an EL for it", without even thinking maybe the photographer did get paid for en extended use and everything is just fine.

No longer available  What did I miss?

No longer available  What did I miss?

Really? I can still see it.

Maybe it's my firewall

For editorial use (and I think parody would come under that category) it's generally allowed to use some fraction of a copyrighted work without permission. A blog about stock photography by a stock photographer would probably be considered as promotion and not as editorial, hence commercial use requiring proper licensing.

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 09, 2009, 13:26

Parody

Yes, parody and satire are 'fair use'. (I'm not an IP attorney, but if I put on a suit I could pretend to be one in a stock photo.)

OK I'm convinced, it's not parody it's satire. 

YouTube isn't a commercial site and iStock has videos up there, along with iStock contributors, and other agencies and contributors. I'm thinking that the fact that it's not selling anything and could be seen as editorial or parody or satire, would be a defense. This is why people can do parodys of pop tunes with different words and not be sued. As for using iStock images, I'm not so sure. But above all that, and I don't really find it a direct criticism of iStock as much as stock, stock, it was pretty funny.

Sometimes these parodies can be as beneficial as paid advertisements because of the attention they bring to the real source. Also if iStock had a legal grounds for having this humor removed, it would have contacted YouTube and it would be gone.

Parody is a form of fair use in all copyright legal systems I know of. The video was funny and not slanderous at all. In fact, to me, it felt like a good alternative commercial for Istock. If I wouldn't know Istock as a designer/customer, I surely would be very curious to visit the site after seeing the video. Because every designer knows photos for marketing are fake, staged, and bigger than life.

The YT video reminded me of the famous ads that John Cleese made for Compaq long ago. He ridiculized the Compaq, comparing it to a goldfish etc... The ad campaign was very successful.
here, here, here.

Thanks very much, that clears it up!