MicrostockGroup
Other ways of making money => Print on Demand Forum => Topic started by: Ariene on December 16, 2015, 17:20
-
That's sad but needs to be said. For those of you who take care of protecting your work I hope this info will be usefull and give you an eye on the problem.
On the Crated site our images are NOT well protected and are easy to take up to 960px size (from the page code). Size large enough to make prints and use it in wide range without paying license fee.
I've found it accidentally when found my work stolen on some site (name doesn't matter now) and I contacted Crated few times about the problem. Nothing is done, the page code still gives 960px with NO watermark. All they offer is:
" you could try deleting the image and re-uploading it? This would change the URL on them and most likely remove it from their site since it's a direct linking."
Earlier I wanted to remove my image by my own with abuse report on the found site (not on Crated of course) but found it's some kind of scam or whatever you call it... The final is they only got my email address ::) I can remove my images from here and there but I believe that's not the solution. The problem starts with the source.
And for those of you who ask on the forum if there is watermark on Crated. No, there isn't and:
"I did pass along your request regarding watermarks but I don't believe we're going to be moving forward offering those on Crated."
Crated is one of many sites I'm with and I know it's physically possible to (1) not use large 960px size in page code to be cool site and (2) protect images with watermark and have sales at the same time...
My big entreaty for those who don't care what's going on with your work - please do not comment in this thread. There are many other already started threads if it's worth to protect your work or not. Please, respect those who care what is going on with their work. Please do not fight with the rights here. This thread is made to aware people of what's going on.
-
its the norm for pod sites because its printed art thyre selling not licences so they dont care and i can see why
-
its the norm for pod sites because its printed art thyre selling not licences so they dont care and i can see why
Yes, if you look up well known artists/photographers in your genre, you'll probably find that most of them have unprotected files which are larger than most of us would find acceptable. Why would they care if someone 'stole' their image to write about it in their blog? And they're not in the micro market. I use FAA's watermark, but I know that the big names in my genre don't.
Fact is, once someone has licensed your file and uses it on the web, it can be stolen by anyone, and with no easy way of finding your original file. I tried once to find the original of a file someone wanted me to use on a site and although it was used well over a hundred times online, I couldn't find the source. Probably most people don't even know about TinEye and Google Reverse Image Search. Also, a lot of buyers seem not to know about resizing, and when I click on an image I've found in-use, I often find a link to the full sized original.
Also if a legitimate stock buyer puts 'share' next to your photo, I'm sure many people would think it was perfectly OK to 'share' your photo in whatever context. What may be 'obvious' to us isn't 'obvious' to Jean or Joe Public, even those without intentional malice.
In addition, I've found abuses with watermarks on them, on (small) business sites (and I don't mean they accidentally published a comp).
-
there is a crossover from photographers from stock to fine art and whilst we are used to protected images, in fine are that is really not the case, fully agree with you. also think though that those artists should realize that a 1000px image is enough to put on mugs, postcards etc so it could hurt their business as well, amazon is full of stolen work printed on mugs, key chains, etc
-
there is a crossover from photographers from stock to fine art and whilst we are used to protected images, in fine are that is really not the case, fully agree with you. also think though that those artists should realize that a 1000px image is enough to put on mugs, postcards etc so it could hurt their business as well, amazon is full of stolen work printed on mugs, key chains, etc
True, but the people I'm thinking of don't sell their images on products.
-
The "finer" art, the less image protection. I always fail to understand what's the logic behind that.
-
The "finer" art, the less image protection. I always fail to understand what's the logic behind that.
Class, as in 'classiness'.
Also, they're not setting up competitors with micro images or t-shirts, key rings etc.
Like anyone else, they would free to pursue infringers.
A popular stock image might be found and 'lifted' from a large number of places on the web. A Fine Art image, not so much.
-
The "finer" art, the less image protection. I always fail to understand what's the logic behind that.
Class, as in 'classiness'.
Also, they're not setting up competitors with micro images or t-shirts, key rings etc.
Like anyone else, they would free to pursue infringers.
A popular stock image might be found and 'lifted' from a large number of places on the web. A Fine Art image, not so much.
A thief will steal anything that has value. It is very naive not to protect "fine art" images.
-
The "finer" art, the less image protection. I always fail to understand what's the logic behind that.
I've always differentiated fine art and commercial art as opposite. Commercial art (also stock art) purpose is to make money while fine art's goal/purpose isn't monetary.
-
The "finer" art, the less image protection. I always fail to understand what's the logic behind that.
Class, as in 'classiness'.
Also, they're not setting up competitors with micro images or t-shirts, key rings etc.
Like anyone else, they would free to pursue infringers.
A popular stock image might be found and 'lifted' from a large number of places on the web. A Fine Art image, not so much.
A thief will steal anything that has value. It is very naive not to protect "fine art" images.
Not much more naive than accepting small compensation for letting micro buyers disseminate our unwatermarked images all over the www.
-
Unfortunately the bottom line is that watermarks kill sales of art photos. You can dispute this all you want, but the guy who owns FAA has the numbers and I believe him. And big previews sell art. The only thing you can do is forget about shooting things that people might want on a t-shirt.
-
Unfortunately the bottom line is that watermarks kill sales of art photos. You can dispute this all you want, but the guy who FAA has the numbers and I believe him. And big previews sell art. The only thing you can do is forget about shooting things that people might want on a t-shirt.
The guy has numbers. I see.
You can dispute this all you want, but not protecting content is saying it is not worth protecting. Why pay for it when you can save it or take a screenshot for free and use it to make money free and easy. Wake up people.
-
...
My big entreaty for those who don't care what's going on with your work - please do not comment in this thread. There are many other already started threads if it's worth to protect your work or not. Please, respect those who care what is going on with their work. Please do not fight with the rights here. This thread is made to aware people of what's going on.
I am so sorry I need to quote myself ::)
-
...
My big entreaty for those who don't care what's going on with your work - please do not comment in this thread. There are many other already started threads if it's worth to protect your work or not. Please, respect those who care what is going on with their work. Please do not fight with the rights here. This thread is made to aware people of what's going on.
I am so sorry I need to quote myself ::)
When I see one of my photos showing up on Pinterest, with a different title and someone else's name, I get just as angry as you do. And I have no doubt some of my photos are on those cr@p mouse pads and coffee cups being sold openly on Amazon. I just don't see watermarks as the answer. We need something better.
-
...
My big entreaty for those who don't care what's going on with your work - please do not comment in this thread. There are many other already started threads if it's worth to protect your work or not. Please, respect those who care what is going on with their work. Please do not fight with the rights here. This thread is made to aware people of what's going on.
I am so sorry I need to quote myself ::)
If you don't like the level of protection on a site, why put your images there?
-
Sue, excuse me but you ask the wrong question.
I've found the problem AFTER I uploaded my work (500 files). Do you upload your work to the agency if you know the site doesn't respect your rights? I'm surprised you ask this...
I'm not rapid in action to remove my work without considerations (hard work with upload is done), everytime I make decision about leaving some place, it's deeply reflectioned. Right now I am waiting for their final decision if the case will be fixed. If Crated is not interested in improving the site, respecting our work and changing anything in the case, I'll have no choice and will remove my work. It's up to them now.
-
Sue, excuse me but you ask the wrong question.
I've found the problem AFTER I uploaded my work (500 files). Do you upload your work to the agency if you know the site doesn't respect your rights? I'm surprised you ask this...
OK, I am sympathetic if they changed their watermarking after you had uploaded 500 files. You must have been a very early adopter, as I remember seeing this issue about Crated well back.
But for sure, I don't upload to agencies whose policies I don't like. But when agencies change, I agree it's difficult. I'm not happy with subs for 75c taking over at iStock and have hardly uploaded anything over the past six months, but you're right, I haven't closed my port there (nowhere else to go: 75c bad, 25c worse). I did once remove a few hundred pics from an RM agency when their focus changed.
But as I've often said, watermarks are no guarantee of protection, nor are small size previews.
I posted this site over a year ago. Happy to see my Flickr (watermarked) pics aren't there now, but presumably SS doesn't see a problem with this (NSFW):
http://anglerz.com/sign-become-vip-member-with-the-art-cuisine.html (http://anglerz.com/sign-become-vip-member-with-the-art-cuisine.html)