MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: zorba on December 14, 2016, 18:12
-
from the contributor newsletter:
"ADP Copyright Name
In the very near future we will be changing the term 'Copyright' to 'Credit Line' on all Asset Detail Pages. "
do we agree?
Is this fair?
-
This looks like the final nail in the coffin...
-
I agree. I think the word copyright is essential on the ADP.
Are they going to make credit lines mandatory? If so, are they going to police it? I'd say at least half of my found in-uses of editorial are uncredited, although credit is required for editorial.
-
Can anyone advise what practical difference this makes?
-
I agree. I think the word copyright is essential on the ADP.
I don't see © at Alamy.
-
If we let them remove Copyright, other agencies will follow. Image buyers may understand what Copyright means but to many Credit Line is nothing. This may just be the time to leave this devil agency.
-
Is any independent contributor with an ounce of self respect still unloading to IStock anyway?
-
Is any independent contributor with an ounce of self respect still unloading to IStock anyway?
No.
-
On Adobe it says "by", I don't see "copyright" anywhere.
-
On Adobe it says "by", I don't see "copyright" anywhere.
That doesn't make it right, even though Adobe seems to be the current flavour of the month with many suppliers?
I'm sure you were just pointing out that it isn't just iS who do this. But what's wrong is wrong, even if Adobe do it. Many people don't know about copyright. Before I started supplying, I thought that if a photo didn't say copyright, it wasn't. What harm can the word 'copyright' do, compared to the possible good.
With the new wording, some people may genuinely think that so long as they give credit, they're good to go. I'm sure I thought that at one time also, even if copyright was also stated. It is vaguely implied by that wording. (Luckily 'fair use' also applied to my purposes, so I wasn't actually acting illegally.)
-
On Adobe it says "by", I don't see "copyright" anywhere.
That doesn't make it right, even though Adobe seems to be the current flavour of the month with many suppliers?
I'm sure you were just pointing out that it isn't just iS who do this. But what's wrong is wrong, even if Adobe do it. Many people don't know about copyright. Before I started supplying, I thought that if a photo didn't say copyright, it wasn't. What harm can the word 'copyright' do, compared to the possible good.
With the new wording, some people may genuinely think that so long as they give credit, they're good to go. I'm sure I thought that at one time also, even if copyright was also stated. It is vaguely implied by that wording. (Luckily 'fair use' also applied to my purposes, so I wasn't actually acting illegally.)
Yeah I wasn't making a judgement just pointing it out. It looks like even Stocksy isn't using "copyright".
-
Your copyright should be in the metadata of your file in the picture
-
Your copyright should be in the metadata of your file in the picture
Yes it should, and probably for most of us it is, but who is going to look there?
-
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever
-
Your copyright should be in the metadata of your file in the picture
Yes it should, and probably for most of us it is, but who is going to look there?
Absolutely. People who ignorantly genuinely think pics which aren't marked copyright aren't copyright probably don't have a clue where to look for copyright, or even that it can be sought in metadata - they might not even have a program which can find it even if they knew. Also, files can extremely easily be orphaned.
Jodi: what possible good can come of not having the word 'Copyright' on the ADP?
-
"Credit Line" doesn't mean anything to artists and users/buyers of artwork but means a ton to bankers and financiers...
THIS IS SCARY!!! :o
-
"Credit Line" doesn't mean anything to artists and users/buyers of artwork but means a ton to bankers and financiers...
THIS IS SCARY!!! :o
It would be good if they were going to require buyers to credit us on all uses, but I haven't seen any indication that that's their intention.
Even if so, it should still say copyright to prevent the reasonable inference that if you credit an image that's OK.
-
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever
As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.
Alamy list me as Contributor
-
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever
As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.
Alamy list me as Contributor
I actually spoke with a copyright attorney about the issue of agencies stripping metadata from our images, and all he could tell me was there haven't been any cases about it in US courts, so for the time being it's perfectly legal.
-
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever
As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.
Alamy list me as Contributor
I actually spoke with a copyright attorney about the issue of agencies stripping metadata from our images, and all he could tell me was there haven't been any cases about it in US courts, so for the time being it's perfectly legal.
I don't know much about copyright law, but there may be precedent now in Germany: http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/facebook-photo-metadata-lawsuit/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/facebook-photo-metadata-lawsuit/)
"A photographer has won a lawsuit filed against Facebook in Germany. The suit claimed that Facebook’s practice of removing EXIF metadata from photos uploaded to the service violated German copyright law. Now, Facebook may be forced to stop the practice or risk paying a fine to photographers in Germany, according to a report in PetaPixel."
And later...
"Wiedulwilt said the case could have an effect on Facebook’s policies even outside of Germany. “This is good for photographers since it makes it easier for them to pursue copyright infringement. And since it is technically unlikely that Facebook will create a technical solution only for Germany, this might have global consequences,” he told PetaPixel."
And more information here: http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/german-photographer-sued-facebook-removing-exif-data-won/ (http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/german-photographer-sued-facebook-removing-exif-data-won/)
"The ruling also sets a precedent, and since Facebook is not the only service online that removes EXIF data on upload, we could hope that Germany will act as the first domino that finally eliminates the widespread practice of stripping out identifying information."
-
Good for Germany. Hope the rest of the world, including the US follows suit.
-
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever
As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.
Alamy list me as Contributor
I actually spoke with a copyright attorney about the issue of agencies stripping metadata from our images, and all he could tell me was there haven't been any cases about it in US courts, so for the time being it's perfectly legal.
Something wrong with this line of reasoning. No such cases in US courts does not make the conduct legal or acceptable.
There just hasn't been any court cases as yet.
-
The question still remains, WHY is Istock changing 'Copyright' to 'Credit Line'?
What do they gain from it? (They are NOT doing this for nothing)
Copyright is clear. Credit Line is fuzzy. Do they want to blur terms in their advantage to rob more rights from us? (My guess is YES THEY DO)
What are we going to do about it?
-
Good for Germany. Hope the rest of the world, including the US follows suit.
Needs someone to pay for the lawyers, but right, this needs to change. No matter how small we are, we deserve the rights to be associated with our creative works, just like everyone else.
-
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever
As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.
Alamy list me as Contributor
I actually spoke with a copyright attorney about the issue of agencies stripping metadata from our images, and all he could tell me was there haven't been any cases about it in US courts, so for the time being it's perfectly legal.
Something wrong with this line of reasoning. No such cases in US courts does not make the conduct legal or acceptable.
There just hasn't been any court cases as yet.
Right. And until there is a court case, the agencies can do whatever they want with the metadata. He explained to me that agencies started removing metadata in the early days of the web, because bytes took up precious server space, and they were trying to save space. But now, there's absolutely no reason for them to continue doing that.
-
I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.
although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA. A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorney’s fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls “copyright management information” from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press
http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html (http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html)
-
Thank you for the article. Everyone check it out!
I personally add the copyright notice in camera "Copyright firstname lastname"(and make sure it shows there while I do editing) and I believe the workflow for many Istock contributors is pretty much the same. So when the image is submitted the copyright information it is definitely there.
Istock has the nerve to dilute Copyright to wishy washy "credit line". They have to be stopped, or other agencies will follow suit.
I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.
although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA. A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorney’s fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls “copyright management information” from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press
[url]http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html[/url] ([url]http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html[/url])
-
Thank you for the article. Everyone check it out!
I personally add the copyright notice in camera "Copyright firstname lastname"(and make sure it shows there while I do editing) and I believe the workflow for many Istock contributors is pretty much the same. So when the image is submitted the copyright information it is definitely there.
Istock has the nerve to dilute Copyright to wishy washy "credit line". They have to be stopped, or other agencies will follow suit.
I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.
although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA. A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorney’s fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls “copyright management information” from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press
[url]http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html[/url] ([url]http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html[/url])
US courts might not count a copyright notice as counting for anything (after all, copyright exists automatically on every image that's made) unless the image has been registered with the Library of Congress. That's my guess, anyway.
-
"Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA. A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorney’s fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls “copyright management information” from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press
But is it a violation to remove a copyright notice from a webpage that contains the image?
-
Thank you for the article. Everyone check it out!
I personally add the copyright notice in camera "Copyright firstname lastname"(and make sure it shows there while I do editing) and I believe the workflow for many Istock contributors is pretty much the same. So when the image is submitted the copyright information it is definitely there.
Istock has the nerve to dilute Copyright to wishy washy "credit line". They have to be stopped, or other agencies will follow suit.
I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.
although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA. A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorney’s fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls “copyright management information” from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press
[url]http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html[/url] ([url]http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html[/url])
US courts might not count a copyright notice as counting for anything (after all, copyright exists automatically on every image that's made) unless the image has been registered with the Library of Congress. That's my guess, anyway.
Getty /Istock have a lot of international contributors. They can not be expected to register their copyright in a foreign country, in this case, US.
We do the creative work and have the copyright. Why should we have to ASK some office in another country to register it? Do we have to ask some foreign entity whether our work is really ours before we can sell it at 0.02 usd via Istock?
Copyright is the essential right for every artist/ contributor. Without copyright we cannot sell or licence our work. Istock is intentionally blurring the line and distributing unclear information. Just try and download a preview photo. At least on the metadata of my photos the selected "copyrighted" is changed onto "unknown".
Replacing "Copyright" with "credit line" is altering and distributing false or misleading copyright information so yes that is wrong and against law.
-
I don't like this either. I've seen lots of photos in use where the credit simply stated "istockphoto" and no name of the contributor at all. :(