MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Disturbing new stock image app  (Read 3582 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« on: December 08, 2017, 15:27 »
+1
"The aim of the service is to help prevent companies from being sued by photographers for using unlicensed imagery a serious issue considering an estimated 85% of images online are stolen, and many people dont know where to go for legally-cleared photos."

It's $1.99/month.

https://sociable.co/business/stock-image-startup-pickit/

I tried pickit.com, but it looks like you have to download an app for Windows to make it work. (I'm on a Mac.) I'm wondering if our stolen images are there.


« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2017, 15:44 »
+1
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a scam.   Really, I would LOVE it if this was a scam.

GraniteCove

« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2017, 15:56 »
+1
Perhaps I misunderstood the entire article but this sounds like a good thing. An app pointing to legitimate image sources, not how to workaround licensing.

« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2017, 16:04 »
+1
Thinking about it, any legit stock site has a goal of keeping people from being sued by photographers for using stolen images.  They are where to go for legally cleared photos.

JimP

« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2017, 16:58 »
0
Why is this disturbing? It's a legitimate source for images that are licensed. Personalize your image service to make your work really matter. Try Pickit Pro for 30 days free, then for just $1.99/month.

TOS https://pickit.com/tos

Read the parts about content and legal. Why is this disturbing?

« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2017, 17:02 »
+4
This is disturbing because they want you to pay them $1.99 a month or $5 a month (depending on the service) for them to point you to free images. If you want to spend money on licensing images, it should be going to the creators of those images, not the parasites who sell ads around content they didn't create (e.g. Google) or apps (PickIt).

I'm fine with free image sites. I'm not fine with the endless parade of middle-men trying to siphon money out of the system that should be going to the people who make the stuff people want to use.

And donating a little money to "reward" a photographer doesn't count in my book

https://www.pickit.com/pricing

https://startupbeat.com/2017/12/swedish-startup-pickit-abandons-frequent-flier-miles-for-an-office-in-redmond-wa/

And Microsoft invested in this company

https://go.pickit.com/microsoft-invests-in-pickit

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/microsoft-ventures-leads-4m-funding-round-for-swedish-image-service-startup-pickit/

http://www.finsmes.com/2017/03/pickit-raises-4-6m-in-series-a-funding.html
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 18:13 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2017, 17:29 »
0
This is disturbing because they want you to pay them $1.99 a month or $5 a month (depending on the service) for them to point you to free images. If you want to spend money on licensing images, it should be going to the creators of those images, not the parasites who sell ads around content they didn't create (e.g. Google) or apps (PickIt).

I'm fine with free image sites. I'm not fine with the endless parade of middle-men trying to siphon money out of the system that should be going to the people who make the stuff people want to use.

And donating a little money to "reward" a photographer doesn't count in my book

https://www.pickit.com/pricing

https://startupbeat.com/2017/12/swedish-startup-pickit-abandons-frequent-flier-miles-for-an-office-in-redmond-wa/

And Microsoft is investing in this company

https://go.pickit.com/microsoft-invests-in-pickit

Microsoft investing in them is that a scam as it was called? Wondering if our stolen images are there? I don't like a new parasite agency if that's what they are and the reward is value. But the OP was about a different kind of disturbing and so was the second message. If I read them right? Something wrong with legally cleared photos instead of stolen photos?

If I upload to pickit is that them pointing people to free images? The whole idea of how they work is unclear and if they pay for uploads, how is that a scam or free images? I can see how policing uploads of stolen images would be a big problem, here we go again, and the agency gets the money when the account is closed, after we tell them it's stolen images.

« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2017, 17:32 »
0
$5 per month is not going to buy indemnity for an unknown number of free images, so that's not what it's about.

« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2017, 17:54 »
+2
From the article in StartupBeat:

"Pickets solution is of particular interest to Microsoft, as they have 1.2 billion people using Microsoft Office to create Word documents, PowerPoint presentations, and Excel spreadsheets. They partnered with Picket to give their users a simple and legal source for the images they need for their projects, while matching the resolution and quality of traditional stock images."

None of the free sites can make that claim - the images are fine, but clearly different. The other big issue is managing property and model releases which is unlikely to be done well unless PickIt turns into a full service agency or does a deal with an agency to get their content.

More utter bollocks in the same article:

"Pickit offers 60% of profits back to the photo providers, meaning that photographers not only enjoy recognition for their art but also have a working revenue stream that would otherwise have been lost to piracy."

What's lovingly referred to as Hollywood accounting ensures that there are never any profits to share, which is why anyone with clouts wants a percentage of the gross, not the net.

And enjoying recognition? Do we really need to eat recognition for dinner again?

And where do they expect to get contributors - grabbing Facebook and Instagram photos?

There's a video about the plugin here:

https://appsource.microsoft.com/en-us/product/office/WA104178141?tab=Overview

It talks up the images as being from "...the world's leading image makers..." - who exactly? They also say that these aren't the same boring old stock images but they certainly look a lot like stock to me (from the few in the video)

I have access to a Windows machine (not mine) so I'm going to try and check this out over the weekend.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 18:53 by Jo Ann Snover »

Shelma1

« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2017, 18:19 »
+2
"WE ENDEAVOUR TO PROVIDE THE BEST SERVICE WE CAN, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE PICKIT SERVICE AND ANY CONTENT IS PROVIDED AS IS AND AS AVAILABLE, WITHOUT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. YOU USE THE PICKIT SERVICE AND ANY CONTENT MADE AVALABLE THROUGH THE SERVICE AT YOUR OWN RISK. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, PICKIT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AND DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT."

The entire point of the service, supposedly, is to keep people from being sued for using stolen images. But Pickit "makes no representations and disclaim any warranties...blah blah blah....non-infringement." You use the Pickit service and content at your own risk. In addition, "Pickit may, but has no obligation to, monitor, review, or edit User Content." Doesn't that sound like there will be no oversight as to what's uploaded?

« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2017, 18:21 »
0
From their website

"Pickit aggregates images from multiple stock providers and our own Pickit Community photographers. Then we put them all in one place. At your fingertips."

Be careful with who your agencies partner with, you might just get 60% of nothing.

« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2017, 19:57 »
+3
From their website

"Pickit aggregates images from multiple stock providers and our own Pickit Community photographers. Then we put them all in one place. At your fingertips."

Be careful with who your agencies partner with, you might just get 60% of nothing.

more like you get 15-50% of 60% of nothing.

« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2017, 21:28 »
+1
From their website

"Pickit aggregates images from multiple stock providers and our own Pickit Community photographers. Then we put them all in one place. At your fingertips."

Be careful with who your agencies partner with, you might just get 60% of nothing.


Yay Images, Stock Unlimited are two of the partners. Pixabay is too (but they are a cc0 free site anyway). Science Photos has a pretty big collection there and they're also sold via Getty, so this image is included (at 1280 pixels on the long edge). The smaller "Small" size on Getty sells for $175...

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/blood-stream-artwork-royalty-free-illustration/173298624

Arcaid Images has a collection there, including this image, and their prices start at 45 GBP for editorial use

http://www.arcaidimages.com/zoomPopUp.php?assetPK=119916&s=1

With the free plugin you get what they call HD images - from about 1280 pixels on the long edge down to about 720 pixels depending on the image. If you pay a monthly fee, you get what they call FHD size which is still small-ish (about 2,000 pixels on the long edge for the ones I checked).

Their interface has nothing about license terms - even though the store blurb and video talks about using the images for anything (which I'm sure isn't true; I bet I can sell prints and cards from these in my shop at the mall...). When I installed the plugin, there was nothing at all about license terms for the images - just emphasis on how easy it was to include them and that they were free.

The 30 day trial refers to what I would then be browsing as "premium images". I haven't signed up for that.

User uploaded images (I assume, based on the look of the images and small portfolios) are full of brand names, logos, other people's photos and people (in a shopping mall, on a street, faces clearly visible). These would only be OK as editorial. Here is an example of a Pixabay image that would be OK only for editorial use at any of the agencies

https://pixabay.com/en/library-la-trobe-study-students-1400313/

A user image was of a Barbara Cage poem with the author's name; a library picture had book covers, copyrighted text and images - all stuff no agency would permit. But PickIt says these are "Legally Cleared and licensed to use for anything"

This is almost the opposite of what they're claiming - being able to use the images with confidence as there's no worry about being sued.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 21:42 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2017, 22:39 »
0
This is basically Microsofts way of replacing Clipart, but at arms length knowing what the pitfalls are going to be.   I keep reading the words Legally Cleared and always with a capital C, whatever that means, cut and paste error?  Looking at the terms it seems they are going to be passing the buck to the source of the image, no business looking at the T&Cs are going to touch this with a barge pole.  If anyone is with any of those agencies they need answers as to what the renumeration is or pull their images, fortunately none of mine in those.   I wonder if they have a slush fund to keep infringed copyright holders quiet, otherwise you would think the whole thing would fall apart fairly rapidly.

« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2017, 13:42 »
0
I have images on Pickit and have received decent payouts over the past year. As far as I know, there is no app offered by Pickit. Hope this helps.

« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2017, 07:23 »
+2
Disturbing "new" stock image app?

The Microsoft page promoting it says
Updated: 12/12/2013

As for material being "legally cleared"... the contributor page encourages contributors to submit images on the latest terms searched by users.  These include Minecraft and Papa Smurf.  Would be interesting to see what the "legally cleared" pics on these topics would be.

(Also, some poetic justice here ... Microsoft owns Minecraft.  Would be funny if Microsoft had to call out Pickit for copyright violations on one of its titles.)
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 07:35 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2017, 21:10 »
+4
A thread from Microsoft's support forum for Office (posts from October & Nov 2017) has users unhappy about the removal of Clipart from office. Moderator replies include mention of using PickIt, but also suggest Bing image searches as a way to get image content. It's really sad that there's so little attention paid to copyright holder's rights - grabbing images from a search seems to be given an OK by the moderator.

A user has all the right questions:

" Can you tell me if I can use the images that come up with Free version of Pick IT without any legal obligations? I only see the option to insert the image. Does this mean that nothing additional is necessary? I mean that I do not need to attribute anyone or display copyright? Is it a free image no strings attached like Clip Art used to be? I want to be sure that I am in compliance but I do not see where this information displays. "

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Add-online-pictures-or-clip-art-to-your-file-0a01ae25-973c-4c2c-8eaf-8c8e1f9ab530

The thread does reference the PickIt terms of service, but even that is light on discussions of what you can and can't do with the images you obtain from them.

https://www.pickit.com/tos

Further down, in response to another user who was mad that clipart was removed, the moderator says (emphasis mine):

"Online Pictures: Get line drawings and photos from the web. Bing Image Search finds pictures for you and makes it easy to insert them in your Office document. To get started: On the "Insert" tab of the toolbar ribbon in Office, click "Online Pictures".

There's one more: An app named "Pickit" from another company that you can install on your computer and then open inside your Office apps. It offers clip art and photos that are licensed to be used freely."

I did a bing search that returned one of my stock images on the first line - on a site that had used the image in a blog (I assume appropriately and it's just unfortunate that what they used was 4000 pixels on the long edge). Other than a small note saying "This image may be subject to copyright" there was no indication in the search as to whether it was OK to use or not.

So bottom line is that the instructions from the moderator will lead users into a murky area where they use an image search and then are left to try and decide if it's OK to use. The fact that the moderator directed them to do the search to find content might make them think it's OK when it absolutely isn't.

W. T. F is Microsoft doing directing Office users to find images by doing a Bing image search? That's madness!
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 21:13 by Jo Ann Snover »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3238 Views
Last post September 03, 2007, 22:44
by Pixart
7 Replies
3711 Views
Last post May 01, 2010, 14:51
by gaja
19 Replies
6648 Views
Last post August 20, 2010, 08:26
by Digital66
34 Replies
8768 Views
Last post June 21, 2011, 14:54
by RacePhoto
10 Replies
4901 Views
Last post August 16, 2011, 12:28
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results