MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Pixart on May 18, 2010, 21:51
-
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Bz0RH8lML._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
From Amazon.com
-
OMG! ROFL!!!
Stolen?! Hijacked straight from the site?
THAT IS TOO FUNNY!
-
How embarassing. Such a renowned publishing house. They are so concious of their reputation that it is (or at least used to be) their policy not to give away or sell with a discount faulty copies to their employees (as most other book publishers do), because they don't want members of the public to see faulty copies of their books. It can only be a mistake. Can you use a comp file at that size? Don't suppose so. I've seen istock watermarks in magazines before, but then a few pages later the same image without a watermark. That's why I'm wondering.
-
It is even on the publisher's site!!!!
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521886499 (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521886499)
Thought it might have just been an Amazon thing ???
-
esp'ly funny consider the title!
but i can imagine at least one innocent but sloppy way this could happen - they probably used a comp for early versions while the book was in production, then no one noticed when it wasnt replaced in final version. i doubt amazon spends much time, if any, looking at publishers' images
s
-
It's time to pull out a dusty old guillotine, sharpen and grease 'er up and put it to work. Either someone bought it and used the mock up download and forgot to replace it with the real thing or simply didn't pay for it. Either way the punishment should be the same.
-
OMG, that is too incredible. I am going to have to say that this is definitely a case to pursue. Not only should you have gotten paid for the high rez image, but depending on the print run, you might have been entitled to an EL.
-
Hilarious.
Pathetic.
Either or both.
-
I'm thinking the actual book doesn't have the watermark on it.
The publisher probably forwarded an older pdf for the image and "look inside" feature on Amazon.
It's definitely worth checking out, but if this (or similar) is the case then no crime has been committed as the extended license would have been purchased for the actual book. I can't believe a major publishing house would have missed such an obvious error on their proofs.
-
yep, found this: http://crookedtimber.org/category/archives/political-economy/ (http://crookedtimber.org/category/archives/political-economy/) doesn't look photoshopped clean
ETA and here http://www.henryfarrell.net/trust/poltrust.jpg (http://www.henryfarrell.net/trust/poltrust.jpg)
-
Well, good if the actual book was published correctly. Hope you got the proper EL for it. But I still cannot fathom anyone allowing something to be published anywhere with a comp image. To me, that is a major faux pas and someone's a-- should be in a sling. Mistake or not, by allowing that image to be published online is a copyright infringement and the owner should file complaints immediately. And Amazon, of all people, should know better than to let that go on their site. IMHbadassO. :D
-
WHAT? OMG! I don't even understand why am I laughing. Are they stupid or what?
-
Hope you got the proper EL for it.
I don't think an EL is required, unless the print run is very high (>500k?).
-
Well, good if the actual book was published correctly. Hope you got the proper EL for it. But I still cannot fathom anyone allowing something to be published anywhere with a comp image. To me, that is a major faux pas and someone's a-- should be in a sling. Mistake or not, by allowing that image to be published online is a copyright infringement and the owner should file complaints immediately. And Amazon, of all people, should know better than to let that go on their site. IMHbadassO. :D
Nope, no copyright infringement has taken place if they have bought the license. It's just a bit embarrassing for them. Not really sure why you are baying for blood if this is the case ?
-
omg, to laugh or to cry?
-
It's likely the graphic designer sent the sample to the publisher and publisher furnished the sample to the websites, without noticing the IS watermark. I can't imagine the hard copies could be printed with the small web site sample.
-
without noticing the IS watermark.
Wow, are they blind? ;D
-
without noticing the IS watermark.
Wow, are they blind? ;D
Have you ever failed to notice things? Not everyone knows the existence of the stock photo business, particularly if you are not a graphic designer or someone familiar with the image industry.
-
This has gotta be a draft version. I doubt this is on the actual book.