Author Topic: Nice going, Istock... (Read 19194 times)

Noedelhap · « **on:** June 19, 2012, 01:12 »

*sarcasm*

So I searched for 'mouse character' and by chance came across this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18309482-cat-and-mouse.php?st=20d94b5

You may have noticed the mouse closely resembles Jerry from the famous duo Tom & Jerry.

A further look into this contributor's portfolio reveals this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18695475-bulldog-and-dachshund.php?st=a3eafb5

Yep, that's awfully similar to Spike the Dog from the same cartoon series.

How in the seven hells did this pass the quality control at Istock? I already sent a ticket to Contributor Relations. I'm not out to screw this contributor, because the rest of his work seems genuine, but I think it's better if these two images are removed from their database.

Lagereek · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2012, 01:21 »

Not only IS. I nearly fell off the chair yesterday, laughing. I saw several shots of this so called young business-man, dressed in the most ill-fitted suit, wearing a hardhat, big ponytail sticking out under the helmet and posing like a ballerina with some industry in background, man! how this could pass the reviewers, is just unbelieavable? I mean, everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2012, 02:32 »

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21

... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

ProImage · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2012, 04:27 »

I'm pretty sure it's a bunch of fatigued men/women. Don't catch them on a bad day!

qwerty · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2012, 04:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

I like that some of the photos don't even have hard hats in them. Unless a mirror ball counts

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2012, 05:29 »

Quote from: qwerty on June 19, 2012, 04:57

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32
Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

I like that some of the photos don't even have hard hats in them. Unless a mirror ball counts

Yeah, while I always get the inspector who takes 'horizontal' out of a horizontal photo, or 'copy space' out of a photo that's mostly copy space.

Wim · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2012, 06:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 05:29

Quote from: qwerty on June 19, 2012, 04:57
Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32
Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

I like that some of the photos don't even have hard hats in them. Unless a mirror ball counts

Yeah, while I always get the inspector who takes 'horizontal' out of a horizontal photo, or 'copy space' out of a photo that's mostly copy space.

I thought this was only a problem for us independents. This is one of the 2 issues I still have with IS:

1. Overly strict about keywords. I'm affraid to get rejections for keywords and therefore remove most, this in turn will surely affect my sales.
2. Rejection of all my composites (for overfiltering) which are my best selling images. Do they reject for all contributors or selectively, I wonder, can't be bothered to check, got better things to do.

I'm actually not that bothered anymore since sales are miserable lately.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2012, 07:02 »

Quote from: Wim on June 19, 2012, 06:40

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 05:29
... while I always get the inspector who takes 'horizontal' out of a horizontal photo, or 'copy space' out of a photo that's mostly copy space.

I thought this was only a problem for us independents. This is one of the 2 issues I still have with IS:

1. Overly strict about keywords. I'm affraid to get rejections for keywords and therefore remove most, this in turn will surely affect my sales.
2. Rejection of all my composites (for overfiltering) which are my best selling images. Do they reject for all contributors or selectively, I wonder, can't be bothered to check, got better things to do.

I'm actually not that bothered anymore since sales are miserable lately.

Exclusives don't get photos rejected for keywording, but get them removed on upload.
Some inspectors are stricter than others, for indies and non. Just check 'commercial kitchen' sorted by age.

Depends how well the composite is done: I've had rejections and acceptances.

Wim · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2012, 07:26 »

Well, like I've said, they are my best selling images on all other agencies so I guess they must be ok

I even get overfiltered rejections for the slightest saturation adjustment, according to my reviews none of the images that are the most popular on SS, DT and FT would get accepted there.

By rejecting my ( and probably from a lot more then myself) composites they miss out on all the conceptual stuff which is in fact the most valuable stock imagery, a pitty.

Lagereek · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2012, 07:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

Yeah that just about wraps it up, good one. Totally pathetic BUT! my example is even worse, at least here is a felale semin-nude model, fair enough but what I saw is something like a male hippie ballerina who was so out of place the reviewer in question must have been zozzled on a really bad whiskey and I mean bad!

Seriously though! it just goes to show, any old crap and I mean crap, is accepted as long as its technically sound, isnt it? no wonder the micro is getting a reputation from bad to worse.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2012, 08:51 »

A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

heywoody · « **Reply #11 on:** June 19, 2012, 08:59 »

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 07:35

Seriously though! it just goes to show, any old crap and I mean crap, is accepted as long as its technically sound, isnt it? no wonder the micro is getting a reputation from bad to worse.

Blow up the image to 200% and hold up the yardstick and you could train monkeys to make a technical evaluation. Making a call on the marketability of the subject matter would require a degree of actual critical judgement

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:08 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 08:51

A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

There are reviewers from all over the world. Maybe whoever approved the images didn't recognize them as cartoon characters that are well known in the US (and possibly the rest of the Western world)?

It probably could get them in trouble though, if Hanna Barbera, or whoever owns the rights to the cartoons discovers it...

Noedelhap · « **Reply #13 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 19, 2012, 09:08

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 08:51
A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

There are reviewers from all over the world. Maybe whoever approved the images didn't recognize them as cartoon characters that are well known in the US (and possibly the rest of the Western world)?

It probably could get them in trouble though, if Hanna Barbera, or whoever owns the rights to the cartoons discovers it...

Maybe I should have contacted Time Warner, in an effort to punish Istock for what they did to us in the past

wut · « **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:15 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 09:11

Quote from: lisafx on June 19, 2012, 09:08
Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 08:51
A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

There are reviewers from all over the world. Maybe whoever approved the images didn't recognize them as cartoon characters that are well known in the US (and possibly the rest of the Western world)?

It probably could get them in trouble though, if Hanna Barbera, or whoever owns the rights to the cartoons discovers it...

Maybe I should have contacted Time Warner, in an effort to punish Istock for what they did to us in the past

And whose pocket do you think that will be coming out?

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #15 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:17 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 01:12

*sarcasm*

So I searched for 'mouse character' and by chance came across this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18309482-cat-and-mouse.php?st=20d94b5

You may have noticed the mouse closely resembles Jerry from the famous duo Tom & Jerry.

A further look into this contributor's portfolio reveals this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18695475-bulldog-and-dachshund.php?st=a3eafb5

Yep, that's awfully similar to Spike the Dog from the same cartoon series.

How in the seven hells did this pass the quality control at Istock? I already sent a ticket to Contributor Relations. I'm not out to screw this contributor, because the rest of his work seems genuine, but I think it's better if these two images are removed from their database.

I've given up trying to understand—and submit—what's "suitable for stock" at iStock. They are the strangest bunch of the entire pack. Consistently inconsistent.

Lagereek · « **Reply #16 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:33 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 19, 2012, 09:08

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 08:51
A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

There are reviewers from all over the world. Maybe whoever approved the images didn't recognize them as cartoon characters that are well known in the US (and possibly the rest of the Western world)?

It probably could get them in trouble though, if Hanna Barbera, or whoever owns the rights to the cartoons discovers it...

Or like Walt Disney

, however, the sad fact that effect us all are the reviewers incompetance, totally and utterly blind to the word, creative, just that the WB and no noise is correct. SAD!, very sad indeed.

lisafx · « **Reply #17 on:** June 19, 2012, 10:15 »

For anyone not familiar with the characters, here's a link showing both the mouse, and also Spike the dog. The linked images DO look very much like the Hanna Barbera cartoon characters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_and_Jerry

FreeTransform · « **Reply #18 on:** June 19, 2012, 18:50 »

I wrote to CE months ago regarding these files, and others, that have a red tab on the jeans pocket:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-13405135-jeans-pocket.php?st=7f886ed

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-15807647-jeans-pocket-with-money.php?st=7f886ed

The red tab, regardless of the stitching on the pocket, is trademarked by Levi's, and is one of the most recognizable marks in the world. And Levi's is one of the most litigious companies in the world when it comes to protecting their marks.

Speaking of pocket stitching, there is this one, plus a handful of others, that has a 'W' on the pocket. Hello, Wrangler!

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18241655-back-pocket-with-tools.php?st=7f886ed

I've stopped caring. Let Levi's, et al, sue them. In fact, it's probably best to notify the companies directly rather than iStock.

FreeTransform · « **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2012, 18:54 »

I just looked, and there's an entry in the wiki about Levi's red tab!

(no way to permalink it - but you can search for yourself)

pancaketom · « **Reply #20 on:** June 20, 2012, 00:30 »

Usually IS inspectors seem to be the most anal about copyright stuff noticing a little 5 pixel YKK on a zipper or something like that. I am sure they all miss stuff though.

Dantheman · « **Reply #21 on:** June 20, 2012, 01:59 »

Quote from: Wim on June 19, 2012, 06:40

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 05:29
Quote from: qwerty on June 19, 2012, 04:57
Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32
Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

I got this image rejected

I like that some of the photos don't even have hard hats in them. Unless a mirror ball counts

Yeah, while I always get the inspector who takes 'horizontal' out of a horizontal photo, or 'copy space' out of a photo that's mostly copy space.

I thought this was only a problem for us independents. This is one of the 2 issues I still have with IS:

1. Overly strict about keywords. I'm affraid to get rejections for keywords and therefore remove most, this in turn will surely affect my sales.
2. Rejection of all my composites (for overfiltering) which are my best selling images. Do they reject for all contributors or selectively, I wonder, can't be bothered to check, got better things to do.

I'm actually not that bothered anymore since sales are miserable lately.

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** June 20, 2012, 05:10 »

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 01:59

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

Not for White (descriptive colour).
The DA for the guy is White (Caucasian)
For the background you have all of: isolated, isolated on white, plain background, white background.

Poncke · « **Reply #23 on:** June 20, 2012, 05:22 »

Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

Caz · « **Reply #24 on:** June 20, 2012, 05:27 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 19, 2012, 08:59

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 07:35
Seriously though! it just goes to show, any old crap and I mean crap, is accepted as long as its technically sound, isnt it? no wonder the micro is getting a reputation from bad to worse.

Blow up the image to 200% and hold up the yardstick and you could train monkeys to make a technical evaluation. Making a call on the marketability of the subject matter would require a degree of actual critical judgement

And then cue the deluge of posts here complaining that reviewers have no right/experience/ability/whatever to judge the "marketability" and that if an image is technically sound it should be accepted.

Dantheman · « **Reply #25 on:** June 20, 2012, 05:43 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 05:10

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 01:59

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

Not for White (descriptive colour).
The DA for the guy is White (Caucasian)
For the background you have all of: isolated, isolated on white, plain background, white background.

Ok thanks, this helps a lot. I was a bit confused, since english also isn't my first language. Now i know!

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** June 20, 2012, 06:01 »

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 05:43

Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 05:10
Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 01:59

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

Not for White (descriptive colour).
The DA for the guy is White (Caucasian)
For the background you have all of: isolated, isolated on white, plain background, white background.

Ok thanks, this helps a lot. I was a bit confused, since english also isn't my first language. Now i know!

I can't imagine how I would manage if English (i.e., Standard Scots English) weren't my first language.
At least you'd get a laugh!

Wim · « **Reply #27 on:** June 20, 2012, 08:28 »

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 05:43

Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 05:10
Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 01:59

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

Not for White (descriptive colour).
The DA for the guy is White (Caucasian)
For the background you have all of: isolated, isolated on white, plain background, white background.

Ok thanks, this helps a lot. I was a bit confused, since english also isn't my first language. Now i know!

- isolated on white (no shadow/255)
- white background (shadow)

It's a bit annoying to re-type keywords just for IS, especially since sales aren't that great but that's just the way it is.

Dantheman · « **Reply #28 on:** June 20, 2012, 10:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 06:01

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 05:43
Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 05:10
Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 01:59

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

Not for White (descriptive colour).
The DA for the guy is White (Caucasian)
For the background you have all of: isolated, isolated on white, plain background, white background.

Ok thanks, this helps a lot. I was a bit confused, since english also isn't my first language. Now i know!

I can't imagine how I would manage if English (i.e., Standard Scots English) weren't my first language.
At least you'd get a laugh!

Well my english isn't to bad, i used to live in South Africa for quite some time. You also learn a great amount of new vocabulary when doing keywording!

michealo · « **Reply #29 on:** June 20, 2012, 10:54 »

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 10:51

Well my english isn't to bad, i used to live in South Africa for quite some time. You also learn a great amount of new vocabulary when doing keywording!

too bad rather than to bad ;-)

lisafx · « **Reply #30 on:** June 20, 2012, 11:17 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22

Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

First question: No, it is generally frowned upon to "rat out other contributors about their images", the exception being when someone is violating someone else's copyright.

Second question: Contributors who expect consistent standards, and artists who respect the copyrights of other artists.

Third question: Close - it's about well known trademarked cartoon characters.

Fourth question: Only up to a point. They are not allowed to add plagiarized, trademarked, or copyrighted images without the permission of the trademark/copyright holders. And again, as contributors, we have a right to expect a certain amount of consistency.

Slightly related to question #4: I once saw a series of extremely and offensively racist images added to Istock. And no, I'm not talking memorabilia stuff like vintage Nazi or Confederate stuff that might have some historic value. Just blatantly racist images. I didn't publicly out the contributor, but I did contact support to see if this was the type of imagery that Istock wanted to have on its site and plastered with its watermark. After some discussion at HQ, it was decided that they were NOT the type of images IS wanted to have associated with it. Good decision, I thought.

But the fact remains that they had been approved by the initial inspector, probably because they were technically acceptable. It took someone (me) bringing the concept to the attention of others so that the images could be judged conceptually, not just on technical merit.

gostwyck · « **Reply #31 on:** June 20, 2012, 11:39 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 11:17

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22
Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

First question: No, it is generally frowned upon to "rat out other contributors about their images", the exception being when someone is violating someone else's copyright.

Second question: Contributors who expect consistent standards, and artists who respect the copyrights of other artists.

Third question: Close - it's about well known trademarked cartoon characters.

Fourth question: Only up to a point. They are not allowed to add plagiarized, trademarked, or copyrighted images without the permission of the trademark/copyright holders. And again, as contributors, we have a right to expect a certain amount of consistency.

Slightly related to question #4: I once saw a series of extremely and offensively racist images added to Istock. And no, I'm not talking memorabilia stuff like vintage Nazi or Confederate stuff that might have some historic value. Just blatantly racist images. I didn't publicly out the contributor, but I did contact support to see if this was the type of imagery that Istock wanted to have on its site and plastered with its watermark. After some discussion at HQ, it was decided that they were NOT the type of images IS wanted to have associated with it. Good decision, I thought.

But the fact remains that they had been approved by the initial inspector, probably because they were technically acceptable. It took someone (me) bringing the concept to the attention of others so that the images could be judged conceptually, not just on technical merit.

^^^ KAPOW!!! Great answer.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #32 on:** June 20, 2012, 11:41 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22

Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

I clearly said I'm NOT out to screw this contributor, since his other work seems his own, but when infringement of copyright is involved (and proven) then I don't feel sorry for that contributor.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out something this obvious, either.

Poncke · « **Reply #33 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:40 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 20, 2012, 11:41

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22
Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

I clearly said I'm NOT out to screw this contributor, since his other work seems his own, but when infringement of copyright is involved (and proven) then I don't feel sorry for that contributor.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out something this obvious, either.

Sure, I was just surprised that you posted in public you reported this guy and sounded quite content with it. I would keep that to myself instead of bringing it to a public forum and publicly shame the guy. Unnecessary in my humble opinion. I would have thread differently. But thanks for the response. I agree infringing copyright is not cool either.

Thanks

Poncke · « **Reply #34 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:44 »

@ Lisafix,

Thanks for a vast explanation, makes a lot of sense. Also thanks for correcting the spelling error. I am not native English, but it was a slip up. I normally do not make that mistake. Fortunately my English is still better than some of the native English posters.

Peace.

lisafx · « **Reply #35 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:46 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 12:44

Thanks for a vast explanation, makes a lot of sense. Also thanks for correcting the spelling error. I am not native English, but it was a slip up. I normally do not make that mistake. Fortunately my English is still better than some of the native English posters.

Never would have guessed it. Your English is great, and us native English speakers make the their, there, they're mistake all the time too. Sometimes your fingers have a mind of their own when typing

Poncke · « **Reply #36 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 12:46

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 12:44

Thanks for a vast explanation, makes a lot of sense. Also thanks for correcting the spelling error. I am not native English, but it was a slip up. I normally do not make that mistake. Fortunately my English is still better than some of the native English posters.

Never would have guessed it. Your English is great, and us native English speakers make the their, there, they're mistake all the time too. Sometimes your fingers have a mind of their own when typing

LOLOL. I know about the their, there, they're mistakes amongst the English speakers, thats why I am trying so hard not to make them

This one slipped through. And because their, there, they're are correctly spelled, the spell checker doesnt ring the alarm bell either. Haha.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2012, 17:39 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 12:40

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 20, 2012, 11:41
Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22
Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

I clearly said I'm NOT out to screw this contributor, since his other work seems his own, but when infringement of copyright is involved (and proven) then I don't feel sorry for that contributor.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out something this obvious, either.

Sure, I was just surprised that you posted in public you reported this guy and sounded quite content with it. I would keep that to myself instead of bringing it to a public forum and publicly shame the guy. Unnecessary in my humble opinion. I would have thread differently. But thanks for the response. I agree infringing copyright is not cool either.

Thanks

Well, it's more publicly shaming Istock than shaming the contributor. That's why I didn't mention his name.

Although anyone can look it up for himself.

Are you Flemish, btw? Your name (Poncke) sounds Belgian.

Sadstock · « **Reply #38 on:** June 20, 2012, 19:06 »

Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2012, 19:19 »

Quote from: Wim on June 20, 2012, 08:28

- isolated on white (no shadow/255)
- white background (shadow)

Oh yes, sorry; isolated on white should have no shadow.
A shadow isn't actually 'necessary' for white (etc) background.

lisafx · « **Reply #40 on:** June 20, 2012, 20:52 »

Quote from: Sadstock on June 20, 2012, 19:06

Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

I just noticed the same thing. I'm curious whether the account is still active too. Wish I had bookmarked the contributor.

click_click · « **Reply #41 on:** June 20, 2012, 21:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 20:52

Quote from: Sadstock on June 20, 2012, 19:06
Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

I just noticed the same thing. I'm curious whether the account is still active too. Wish I had bookmarked the contributor.

His/her entire portfolio is gone. I hope it's just an investigative measure, would be a shame if this thread caused the boot from iStock...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 20, 2012, 22:05 »

Quote from: click_click on June 20, 2012, 21:54

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 20:52
Quote from: Sadstock on June 20, 2012, 19:06
Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

I just noticed the same thing. I'm curious whether the account is still active too. Wish I had bookmarked the contributor.
His/her entire portfolio is gone. I hope it's just an investigative measure, would be a shame if this thread caused the boot from iStock...

ouch! now I need to go! (heavy cleaning in my portfolio)

Lagereek · « **Reply #43 on:** June 21, 2012, 01:40 »

At least IS, is better then a few others who will plaster entire series of useless material on first or second places in a search. However its poinless getting flustered over this, we should be used to this by now.

sharpshot · « **Reply #44 on:** June 21, 2012, 03:56 »

It might be better to PM the contributor first and tell them they could get in to trouble with some images before informing the site. I would much rather have the chance to remove a few images than have my portfolio taken down. If a contributor ignores a PM for a few weeks, then it's time to inform the site admin.

It's different if the portfolio is full of copyright abuses but this didn't seem like that.

Poncke · « **Reply #45 on:** June 21, 2012, 04:37 »

If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.

One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.

Prejudice. Think before you judge.

Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement

wut · « **Reply #46 on:** June 21, 2012, 04:51 »

Quote from: click_click on June 20, 2012, 21:54

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 20:52
Quote from: Sadstock on June 20, 2012, 19:06
Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

I just noticed the same thing. I'm curious whether the account is still active too. Wish I had bookmarked the contributor.
His/her entire portfolio is gone. I hope it's just an investigative measure, would be a shame if this thread caused the boot from iStock...

I hope that's exactly what happened

cathyslife · « **Reply #47 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:29 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 21, 2012, 04:37

If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.

One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.

Prejudice. Think before you judge.

Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement

Unfortunately, using ignorance as a defense rarely works. I can't imagine anyone around the stock photo business NOT knowing that using someone else's work, especially work as popular as Hanna Barbera's, wouldn't be an infringement.

You can't have it both ways...either thieves get punished or they don't. Just because the thief might be a nice person doesn't make them any less of a thief. And if istock investigates and finds no wrongdoing, the contributor's port will go back up. How do we know there aren't any other infringements in the port? The OP found two...there might be more.

Let's not be quick to judge the OP, either.

photo_noob · « **Reply #48 on:** June 21, 2012, 07:02 »

Poncke is voice of reason on this forum...
Next time when you want to do a noble thing...you can start thread about some kind of trade union or something that can be truly good... Playing policeman isn't

cathyslife · « **Reply #49 on:** June 21, 2012, 07:08 »

Quote from: photo_noob on June 21, 2012, 07:02

Poncke is voice of reason on this forum...
Next time when you want to do a noble thing...you can start thread about some kind of trade union or something that can be truly good... Playing policeman isn't

Well, someone has to be a policeman, don't they? And trade union threads have already been done. But you are entitled to your opinion. I just hope you never have to report items being stolen from your home. After all, policemen aren't noble, according to your logic.

heywoody · « **Reply #50 on:** June 21, 2012, 07:12 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 21, 2012, 04:37

If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.

One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.

Prejudice. Think before you judge.

Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement

+1

photo_noob · « **Reply #51 on:** June 21, 2012, 07:47 »

Nice

you revealed that i'm anarcho-communist in my heart

playing policeman and be policeman is not a same thing...
When my items are stolen I'm the one who calls 911...

In future just follow Poncke's procedure...he said it all and my English isn't good enough.

Cheers

Lagereek · « **Reply #52 on:** June 21, 2012, 08:26 »

Broomsticks, cobblers and bollucks! name of the game

Poncke · « **Reply #53 on:** June 21, 2012, 08:49 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 21, 2012, 06:29

Quote from: Poncke on June 21, 2012, 04:37
If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.

One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.

Prejudice. Think before you judge.

Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement

Unfortunately, using ignorance as a defense rarely works. I can't imagine anyone around the stock photo business NOT knowing that using someone else's work, especially work as popular as Hanna Barbera's, wouldn't be an infringement.

You can't have it both ways...either thieves get punished or they don't. Just because the thief might be a nice person doesn't make them any less of a thief. And if istock investigates and finds no wrongdoing, the contributor's port will go back up. How do we know there aren't any other infringements in the port? The OP found two...there might be more.

Let's not be quick to judge the OP, either.

I used the word IF in bold, and I used the word MIGHT. I did not make any claims, nor did I assume anything.

I did not judge. I merely voiced my own morals.

You assume the artist knows Hana-Barbara cartoons but what IF the artist is from a country where they do not have these cartoons and never heard of them? Dont assume because its obvious for you, its obvious for everyone.

heywoody · « **Reply #54 on:** June 21, 2012, 09:32 »

I would add that the original post is criticising IS for accepting the content - site's mistake not the contributors. No first hand experience but, from threads on this site, it seems that agencies shoot first and ask questions later (actually probably just a case of putting the contributor up against the wall without any questions). For that reason, highlighting possible copyright infringements in a public forum is something I personally wouldn't do.

FreeTransform · « **Reply #55 on:** June 22, 2012, 11:17 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 21, 2012, 09:32

I would add that the original post is criticising IS for accepting the content - site's mistake not the contributors.

Exactly. In the case of the Levi's illustrations I linked to, the copyright info is in iStock's own wiki. So one would hope that iStock inspectors would be familiar with it.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #56 on:** June 22, 2012, 18:16 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 21, 2012, 04:37

If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.

One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.

Prejudice. Think before you judge.

Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement

Oh please. I never intended for his entire portfolio to be removed. I never accused the contributor of infringement. I never even mentioned his name here. I simply asked whether Istock agreed this was a similarity with trademarked characters. I just brought the bad reviewing on Istock's part to their (and this forum's) attention, because it affects the microstock industry, the company and us contributors in a bad way. And it was Istock, not me, who decided to (apparently) put his portfolio on inactive to investigate the matter. It's understandable though, however drastic the measure may seem.

If it's indeed a mistake (which I doubt), then it's too bad, but then it would have happened eventually (with Istock being sued). If it's not an honest mistake, it's probably better for all of us that this user can't upload any more images.

Mantis · « **Reply #57 on:** June 22, 2012, 18:23 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 22, 2012, 18:16

Quote from: Poncke on June 21, 2012, 04:37
If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.

One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.

Prejudice. Think before you judge.

Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement

Oh please. I never intended for his entire portfolio to be removed. I never accused the contributor of infringement. I never even mentioned his name here. I simply asked whether Istock agreed this was a similarity with trademarked characters. I just brought the bad reviewing on Istock's part to their (and this forum's) attention, because it affects the company and us contributors in a bad way. And it was Istock, not me, who decided to (apparently) put his portfolio on inactive to investigate the matter. It's understandable though, however drastic the measure may seem.

If it's indeed a mistake (which I doubt), then it's too bad, but then it would have happened eventually (with Istock being sued). If it's not an honest mistake, it's probably better for all of us that this user can't upload any more images.

I think you could have handled this a bit more diplomatically than make a public announcement about what you "think" could be an infringement. I don't condone copyright infringement at all, but proper, ethical, good faith tactics would have been better. You concluded guilt before innocence or you would have never posted it in this public forum.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #58 on:** June 22, 2012, 18:27 »

Quote from: Mantis on June 22, 2012, 18:23

You concluded guilt before innocence or you would have never posted it in this public forum.

No I did not. I posted this to show Istocks bizarre reviewing habits. Not to turn the contributor into a scapegoat.

jamirae · « **Reply #59 on:** June 22, 2012, 18:31 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 22, 2012, 18:27

Quote from: Mantis on June 22, 2012, 18:23
You concluded guilt before innocence or you would have never posted it in this public forum.

No I did not. I posted this to show Istocks bizarre reviewing habits. Not to turn the contributor into a scapegoat.

I understand your intent. But sadly by using links to the contributor's work that's exactly what happened. You essentially singled out that one contributor as an example and thus not only proved the point you were trying to make about istock's reviewing but you highlighted a potential issue with the contributor's work which, apparently, got his/her account suspended.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #60 on:** June 22, 2012, 18:38 »

I believe that next time you should contact him and perhaps iStock if you want, not in the forum

disorderly · « **Reply #61 on:** June 22, 2012, 18:42 »

I'm having trouble seeing the problem here. Identifying a violation, or even a potential violation, isn't a crime. It's a public service. It's up to iStock or another relevant agency to investigate and decide the appropriate action. If they overreact, that's a shame. And perhaps a bunch of folks could make a case for lenience.

As kids we learn not to fink on our classmates. That's a mixed lesson at best, and one we have to unlearn as we get older. Sometimes making a report to the authorities is not just an appropriate action but the only appropriate action.

Mantis · « **Reply #62 on:** June 22, 2012, 18:59 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 22, 2012, 18:42

I'm having trouble seeing the problem here. Identifying a violation, or even a potential violation, isn't a crime. It's a public service. It's up to iStock or another relevant agency to investigate and decide the appropriate action. If they overreact, that's a shame. And perhaps a bunch of folks could make a case for lenience.

As kids we learn not to fink on our classmates. That's a mixed lesson at best, and one we have to unlearn as we get older. Sometimes making a report to the authorities is not just an appropriate action but the only appropriate action.

Interesting that you'd shoot a flea with a canon.

Sadstock · « **Reply #63 on:** June 22, 2012, 20:27 »

disorderly · « **Reply #64 on:** June 22, 2012, 20:33 »

Quote from: Mantis on June 22, 2012, 18:59

Quote from: disorderly on June 22, 2012, 18:42
I'm having trouble seeing the problem here. Identifying a violation, or even a potential violation, isn't a crime. It's a public service. It's up to iStock or another relevant agency to investigate and decide the appropriate action. If they overreact, that's a shame. And perhaps a bunch of folks could make a case for lenience.

As kids we learn not to fink on our classmates. That's a mixed lesson at best, and one we have to unlearn as we get older. Sometimes making a report to the authorities is not just an appropriate action but the only appropriate action.

Interesting that you'd shoot a flea with a canon.

Never. I shoot everything with a Nikon.

Mantis · « **Reply #65 on:** June 22, 2012, 21:00 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 22, 2012, 20:33

Quote from: Mantis on June 22, 2012, 18:59
Quote from: disorderly on June 22, 2012, 18:42
I'm having trouble seeing the problem here. Identifying a violation, or even a potential violation, isn't a crime. It's a public service. It's up to iStock or another relevant agency to investigate and decide the appropriate action. If they overreact, that's a shame. And perhaps a bunch of folks could make a case for lenience.

As kids we learn not to fink on our classmates. That's a mixed lesson at best, and one we have to unlearn as we get older. Sometimes making a report to the authorities is not just an appropriate action but the only appropriate action.

Interesting that you'd shoot a flea with a canon.

Never. I shoot everything with a Nikon.

touche'

Wim · « **Reply #66 on:** June 23, 2012, 02:31 »

http://www.microstockgroupolice.com

We're making progress here.

Poncke · « **Reply #67 on:** June 23, 2012, 03:16 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 22, 2012, 18:16

Quote from: Poncke on June 21, 2012, 04:37
If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.

One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.

Prejudice. Think before you judge.

Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement

Oh please. I never intended for his entire portfolio to be removed. I never accused the contributor of infringement. I never even mentioned his name here. I simply asked whether Istock agreed this was a similarity with trademarked characters. I just brought the bad reviewing on Istock's part to their (and this forum's) attention, because it affects the microstock industry, the company and us contributors in a bad way. And it was Istock, not me, who decided to (apparently) put his portfolio on inactive to investigate the matter. It's understandable though, however drastic the measure may seem.

If it's indeed a mistake (which I doubt), then it's too bad, but then it would have happened eventually (with Istock being sued). If it's not an honest mistake, it's probably better for all of us that this user can't upload any more images.

You were out to shame iStock or expose their reviewers and in the process you completely forgot about all possible collateral damage. You even went through the person's portfolio to see if you could find more content to expose iStock. Then you went out of your way to come here and post about it. You didnt name the person, but you posted links to his portfolio. Thats the same to me. You can say all you want to justify your actions, but I still believe you could have handled it differently.

cathyslife · « **Reply #68 on:** June 23, 2012, 07:52 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 22, 2012, 18:42

I'm having trouble seeing the problem here. Identifying a violation, or even a potential violation, isn't a crime. It's a public service. It's up to iStock or another relevant agency to investigate and decide the appropriate action. If they overreact, that's a shame. And perhaps a bunch of folks could make a case for lenience.

As kids we learn not to fink on our classmates. That's a mixed lesson at best, and one we have to unlearn as we get older. Sometimes making a report to the authorities is not just an appropriate action but the only appropriate action.

I agree. The Op did nothing wrong. Get off his back. Instead, go tell istock how they should feel shame for not hiring reviewers to do their job correctly. I will bet none of you will bother to do that.

cathyslife · « **Reply #69 on:** June 23, 2012, 08:43 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 03:16

You were out to shame iStock or expose their reviewers and in the process you completely forgot about all possible collateral damage. You even went through the person's portfolio to see if you could find more content to expose iStock. Then you went out of your way to come here and post about it. You didnt name the person, but you posted links to his portfolio. Thats the same to me. You can say all you want to justify your actions, but I still believe you could have handled it differently.

You and some others believe that. Others believe something different. It's done. If the person was innocent, their port will be back up. If they were infringing, then the right thing was done. Even if it wasn't the way YOU would have done it.

wut · « **Reply #70 on:** June 23, 2012, 10:12 »

IS? Take a look at CS, I found so many photos with Adidas three stripes on shorts, socks etc. So much copyright infringements, that my head is spinning. It's probably just the same at most of the smaller agencies.

Poncke · « **Reply #71 on:** June 23, 2012, 11:57 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 23, 2012, 07:52

Quote from: disorderly on June 22, 2012, 18:42
I'm having trouble seeing the problem here. Identifying a violation, or even a potential violation, isn't a crime. It's a public service. It's up to iStock or another relevant agency to investigate and decide the appropriate action. If they overreact, that's a shame. And perhaps a bunch of folks could make a case for lenience.

As kids we learn not to fink on our classmates. That's a mixed lesson at best, and one we have to unlearn as we get older. Sometimes making a report to the authorities is not just an appropriate action but the only appropriate action.

I agree. The Op did nothing wrong. Get off his back. Instead, go tell istock how they should feel shame for not hiring reviewers to do their job correctly. I will bet none of you will bother to do that.

Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

cathyslife · « **Reply #72 on:** June 23, 2012, 12:05 »

And that, my friends, is how I get ignores. Disagree with someone, BOOM! My count just went up 1.

wut · « **Reply #73 on:** June 23, 2012, 12:12 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 23, 2012, 12:05

And that, my friends, is how I get ignores. Disagree with someone, BOOM! My count just went up 1.

Stop caring, just like I did. They're usually just ignorant and/or stupid, narrow minded ppl. Or they're missing a sense of humour.

disorderly · « **Reply #74 on:** June 23, 2012, 13:27 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 11:57

Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public. And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be. It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves. What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public. Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach. Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

Poncke · « **Reply #75 on:** June 23, 2012, 14:03 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 13:27

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 11:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public. And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be. It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves. What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public. Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach. Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

No need to post links for a discussion imho... Or do you need pictures to have a discussion?

disorderly · « **Reply #76 on:** June 23, 2012, 14:36 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 14:03

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 13:27
Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 11:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public. And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be. It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves. What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public. Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach. Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.
No need to post links for a discussion imho... Or do you need pictures to have a discussion?

Often we do. How many times do conversations start in the abstract and get specific because too many of us aren't getting the point without a real example? Again, I'm sorry if the subject of the original post got punished, but not that they got caught. If catching him or her was the intent, reporting to iStock would have been more effective. But that's not what the OP did, so I assume that wasn't the intent. Call it a side-in effect if you like.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #77 on:** June 23, 2012, 15:08 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 14:36

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 14:03
Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 13:27
Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 11:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public. And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be. It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves. What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public. Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach. Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.
No need to post links for a discussion imho... Or do you need pictures to have a discussion?

Often we do. How many times do conversations start in the abstract and get specific because too many of us aren't getting the point without a real example? Again, I'm sorry if the subject of the original post got punished, but not that they got caught. If catching him or her was the intent, reporting to iStock would have been more effective. But that's not what the OP did, so I assume that wasn't the intent. Call it a side-in effect if you like.

Actually, I did report these images to Istock as being wrongfully accepted if there's such an obvious possible copyright infringement. It wasn't my intent to 'catch' the contributor though, I never accused the guy in the support ticket I sent to Istock.

And I opened a topic here, to discuss Istock's weird reviewing mistakes. Couldn't do that without showing the examples, as you said.

Poncke would have done it differently, which I respect. But anyway, could we stop the discussion about whether it was immoral, too damaging, too hasty or too judgmental?

Sadstock · « **Reply #78 on:** June 23, 2012, 16:30 »

George Costanza - Was that wrong? (The video's owner prevents external embedding)

sharpshot · « **Reply #79 on:** June 23, 2012, 17:14 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 23, 2012, 07:52

Quote from: disorderly on June 22, 2012, 18:42
I'm having trouble seeing the problem here. Identifying a violation, or even a potential violation, isn't a crime. It's a public service. It's up to iStock or another relevant agency to investigate and decide the appropriate action. If they overreact, that's a shame. And perhaps a bunch of folks could make a case for lenience.

As kids we learn not to fink on our classmates. That's a mixed lesson at best, and one we have to unlearn as we get older. Sometimes making a report to the authorities is not just an appropriate action but the only appropriate action.

I agree. The Op did nothing wrong. Get off his back. Instead, go tell istock how they should feel shame for not hiring reviewers to do their job correctly. I will bet none of you will bother to do that.

Reviewers don't get paid a lot, I would expect them to make some mistakes. If istock wanted them to be perfect, they would have to pay a lot more and I'm sure we would pay for that.

Mantis · « **Reply #80 on:** June 23, 2012, 17:37 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 13:27

Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 11:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public. And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be. It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves. What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public. Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach. Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. This was a witch hunt. If the OP wanted to discuss acceptance/rejection at IS then he could have used his own images. We all get some accepted and others rejected that conflict with one and another. This person chose to take out his own frustration on ONE contributor, not on the situation as a whole. If he truly was concerned about infringement then go to Istock directly, not a public forum. Instead he did both. That is a * shame.

heywoody · « **Reply #81 on:** June 23, 2012, 18:37 »

Witch hunt is a good analogy although I don’t for a moment believe the OP intended for an entire port to be removed. Someone posted in another thread about how agencies don't care about affecting the livelihoods of contributors the way the mess around with best match – this is manifestly true and they are so risk averse that they delete entire portfolios and accounts on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing so, like Salem, an accusation is enough. If the outcome of this type of post was removal of the images in question, possibly followed by a rigorous examination to see if anything else was amiss this would be proportionate. As it is, we should find more circumspect ways to make a point because outing someone could lead to removing a livelihood with no hint of due process.
I’m not blind to the legal aspects of all this but does nobody else think is just a little ridiculous that a photo where someone happens to be wearing branded shoes is unacceptable but scans of public domain material are ok? Or folks getting all precious if someone else copies their idea of having a tomato isolated on white? I see a big future for nude photography because it’s getting to the point that any clothes will have copyright implications

luissantos84 · « **Reply #82 on:** June 23, 2012, 18:45 »

looks like no more portfolio in 123RF too, same for DP and DT

and now a joke to relax a bit: I am sure it will be hard for "him/her" to have a BME

gillian vann · « **Reply #83 on:** June 23, 2012, 20:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

euwwww, the keyword 'sexy' is very much misused! should also add: tacky, tramp stamp, bogan,

Lagereek · « **Reply #84 on:** June 24, 2012, 01:27 »

I think some people here are totally over-reacting, IMO, the OP, did nothing wrong, fair enough he could have been a little more suttle but then again if problems with sites are not highlighted here, how then will we ever find out, this is the one and only place where we can discuss these problems.

Also, sorry but if an agency employ or use bad reviewers, staff, etc, well, this is the price one has to pay, isnt it? exposed, could have happend to any agency, anybody.

sharpshot · « **Reply #85 on:** June 24, 2012, 02:52 »

Perhaps this contributor deserved to have their portfolio and possibly their main income taken away but I would still rather see contributors giving people that only have one or two images with problems a chance, by sending a PM and giving them time to remove the offending images from their portfolio.

It would of been possible to discuss this problem without posting links or informing istock. I'm sure if I spent a day looking through portfolios, I could find lots of images that should never be sold as RF. Reviewers aren't that good because it's a low paid job and lots of them probably aren't copyright and trademark experts. There's also a lot of variation between sites. Istock still allow photos of british currency notes that were removed from Shutterstock a few years ago. But some SS reviewers seem to of forgotten that. Compare the two sites with a search for "british currency notes" and you will see the difference. I'm not going to report the images to SS though, as I don't understand how they are allowed on istock and other sites. In general, I think the istock reviewers sometimes pick up things that are missed by the other sites. I've seen people complaining here that their images were rejected by istock when they were accepted by all the other sites.

cathyslife · « **Reply #86 on:** June 24, 2012, 08:50 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 24, 2012, 02:52

Perhaps this contributor deserved to have their portfolio and possibly their main income taken away but I would still rather see contributors giving people that only have one or two images with problems a chance, by sending a PM and giving them time to remove the offending images from their portfolio.

It would of been possible to discuss this problem without posting links or informing istock. I'm sure if I spent a day looking through portfolios, I could find lots of images that should never be sold as RF. Reviewers aren't that good because it's a low paid job and lots of them probably aren't copyright and trademark experts. There's also a lot of variation between sites. Istock still allow photos of british currency notes that were removed from Shutterstock a few years ago. But some SS reviewers seem to of forgotten that. Compare the two sites with a search for "british currency notes" and you will see the difference. I'm not going to report the images to SS though, as I don't understand how they are allowed on istock and other sites. In general, I think the istock reviewers sometimes pick up things that are missed by the other sites. I've seen people complaining here that their images were rejected by istock when they were accepted by all the other sites.

That's exactly the point. Some of us are willing to help them do their jobs by giving them a heads up on problem material. The OP might have just saved one or more of these agencies a huge lawsuit by bringing these images to their attention. By pointing us to the images, we were able to verify that yes, they look an awful lot like Hanna Barbera figures.

Quote

I think some people here are totally over-reacting, IMO, the OP, did nothing wrong, fair enough he could have been a little more suttle but then again if problems with sites are not highlighted here, how then will we ever find out, this is the one and only place where we can discuss these problems.

Exactly. That's the beauty of this forum!

click_click · « **Reply #87 on:** June 24, 2012, 09:21 »

Some agencies have a zero tolerance policy!

If one image is out of the order regarding copyright, your entire port will be removed.

If you are honest and can prove your case they will reactivate your port, but it's a procedure I never wish on anyone. It's very scary, frustrating and nerve wrecking to say the least, especially if you make a living with this.

IS and SS are no agency to gamble with. One severe violation and you're out.

I hope this guy is getting back on IS - his other work looks great.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #88 on:** June 24, 2012, 19:51 »

Quote from: Mantis on June 23, 2012, 17:37

Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 13:27
Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 11:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public. And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be. It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves. What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public. Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach. Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. This was a witch hunt. If the OP wanted to discuss acceptance/rejection at IS then he could have used his own images. We all get some accepted and others rejected that conflict with one and another. This person chose to take out his own frustration on ONE contributor, not on the situation as a whole. If he truly was concerned about infringement then go to Istock directly, not a public forum. Instead he did both. That is a * shame.

Frustration?

No, I'm not frustrated. The reason I chose to show this obvious similarity-example on this forum, is not shameful imho. This is a place where we can discuss all good and bad things of the microstock industry. I wanted to share this with you guys, so you could all have a good laugh on how Istock passes these images as being genuine. Not to say: "Look he's a witch, burn him!" That was just a side-effect. Just as I couldn't have known that Istock would remove the entire port instead of these two images. You seem to blame me for that.

Poncke · « **Reply #89 on:** June 25, 2012, 05:12 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 24, 2012, 19:51

Quote from: Mantis on June 23, 2012, 17:37
Quote from: disorderly on June 23, 2012, 13:27
Quote from: Poncke on June 23, 2012, 11:57
Fair enough. But I still dont see the need to go public with it. Reporting is one, going public with it is two. Completely unnecessary, no value add whatsoever. I'll leave it at that.

Because it's hard to have a conversation on a public forum without it being public. And that was the point of the original post: to talk about this peculiar violation or reviewing failure or misunderstanding or whatever it turned out to be. It wasn't about reporting the violation, but about talking amongst ourselves. What you're suggesting is that we should not talk about certain subjects because of ramifications of their being made public. Sorry, but I'm here to talk and listen and learn and maybe even teach. Can't do that and keep others' potential transgressions secret.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. This was a witch hunt. If the OP wanted to discuss acceptance/rejection at IS then he could have used his own images. We all get some accepted and others rejected that conflict with one and another. This person chose to take out his own frustration on ONE contributor, not on the situation as a whole. If he truly was concerned about infringement then go to Istock directly, not a public forum. Instead he did both. That is a * shame.

Frustration? No, I'm not frustrated. The reason I chose to show this obvious similarity-example on this forum, is not shameful imho. This is a place where we can discuss all good and bad things of the microstock industry. I wanted to share this with you guys, so you could all have a good laugh on how Istock passes these images as being genuine. Not to say: "Look he's a witch, burn him!" That was just a side-effect. Just as I couldn't have known that Istock would remove the entire port instead of these two images. You seem to blame me for that.

You must be the most naive person in the stock business

photo_noob · « **Reply #90 on:** June 25, 2012, 07:21 »

Bottom line
-you didn't really saved Hanna Barbera
-inspectors didn't learn a lesson
-Istock didn't learn a lesson
-skilled contributor is screwed

If you thought that outcome will be different - you really doesn't know how things work nowadays... but as cclapper said: 'using ignorance as a defense rarely works'

leaf · « **Reply #91 on:** June 25, 2012, 07:41 »

I think this thread has served it's purpose...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Nice going, Istock... (Read 19194 times)

Lagereek

Wim

Wim

Lagereek

lisafx

wut

Lagereek

lisafx

Poncke

Wim

michealo

lisafx

Poncke

Poncke

lisafx

Poncke

lisafx

Lagereek

Poncke

wut

photo_noob

photo_noob

Lagereek

Poncke

Wim

Poncke

wut

Poncke

wut

Poncke

Lagereek

Poncke

photo_noob

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors