pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?  (Read 4478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 18, 2010, 21:51 »
0


From Amazon.com


suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2010, 21:57 »
0
OMG!  ROFL!!!

Stolen?! Hijacked straight from the site?

THAT IS TOO FUNNY!

« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2010, 23:01 »
0
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.

« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2010, 23:22 »
0
It is even on the publisher's site!!!!

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521886499

Thought it might have just been an Amazon thing ???

« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2010, 11:52 »
0
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

« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2010, 12:21 »
0
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.

« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2010, 12:44 »
0
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.

« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2010, 12:53 »
0
Hilarious.

Pathetic.


Either or both.

Microbius

« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2010, 13:47 »
0
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.

Microbius

« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2010, 13:50 »
0
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 13:51 by Microbius »

« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2010, 15:15 »
0
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

« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2010, 15:23 »
0
WHAT?  OMG!  I don't even understand why am I laughing.  Are they stupid or what?

« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2010, 15:45 »
0
Hope you got the proper EL for it.
I don't think an EL is required, unless the print run is very high (>500k?).

Microbius

« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2010, 15:52 »
0
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 ?

« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2010, 18:42 »
0
omg, to laugh or to cry?

« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2010, 19:40 »
0
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.

« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2010, 20:55 »
0
without noticing the IS watermark.

Wow, are they blind?   ;D

« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2010, 21:13 »
0
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.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2010, 21:26 »
0
This has gotta be a draft version. I doubt this is on the actual book.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3977 Views
Last post March 15, 2007, 19:44
by eyetrigger
18 Replies
5529 Views
Last post November 15, 2007, 12:54
by PaulieWalnuts
17 Replies
8520 Views
Last post March 07, 2010, 15:24
by borg
4 Replies
4762 Views
Last post April 03, 2008, 12:48
by 3pod
75 Replies
27120 Views
Last post September 16, 2009, 19:36
by PaulieWalnuts

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle