pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Nice going, Istock...  (Read 18993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: June 21, 2012, 07:12 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
Broomsticks, cobblers and bollucks!  name of the game ;D

Poncke

« Reply #53 on: June 21, 2012, 08:49 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 08:52 by Poncke »

« Reply #54 on: June 21, 2012, 09:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2012, 11:17 »
0
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.

« Reply #56 on: June 22, 2012, 18:16 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 18:21 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #57 on: June 22, 2012, 18:23 »
0
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.

« Reply #58 on: June 22, 2012, 18:27 »
0
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.

« Reply #59 on: June 22, 2012, 18:31 »
0
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. 

« Reply #60 on: June 22, 2012, 18:38 »
0
I believe that next time you should contact him and perhaps iStock if you want, not in the forum

« Reply #61 on: June 22, 2012, 18:42 »
0
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.

« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2012, 18:59 »
0
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.

« Reply #63 on: June 22, 2012, 20:27 »
0
.

« Reply #64 on: June 22, 2012, 20:33 »
0
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.

« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2012, 21:00 »
0
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 »
0
http://www.microstockgroupolice.com

We're making progress here.

Poncke

« Reply #67 on: June 23, 2012, 03:16 »
0
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.

« Reply #68 on: June 23, 2012, 07:52 »
0
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.

« Reply #69 on: June 23, 2012, 08:43 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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.

« Reply #72 on: June 23, 2012, 12:05 »
0
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 »
0
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.

« Reply #74 on: June 23, 2012, 13:27 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
4610 Views
Last post May 12, 2006, 16:31
by leaf
12 Replies
7873 Views
Last post September 23, 2008, 06:15
by peep
33 Replies
12293 Views
Last post October 29, 2008, 18:27
by hali
2 Replies
4179 Views
Last post January 23, 2011, 18:04
by vonkara
89 Replies
15377 Views
Last post June 20, 2015, 11:36
by Tryingmybest

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors