Quote from: sweetgirll on February 11, 2015, 12:17

I think the other person was talking about this shutter talk live workshop about protecting your content...

 http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/learn-how-to-protect-your-content-in-our-shuttertalk-live-workshop

Bingo it is all explained right there.

What's explained? As it relates to this discussion, people copying other people's work, I don't see the connection. I get that ideas aren't copyrightable, only the expression of the idea is. And in the examples shown in that video (ironically one of which is my nautical graphics set) the point is that if things are sufficiently different, they are considered separate works. Which I completely agree with.

But I'm not talking about that here. This is about people fully copying my work, to the extent that you could place one image over the other and see that the copied image was clearly traced from the original.

...Funny to think how invested she was in IS

Haven't we all been heavily invested in one company or another at various times? I've backed certain companies only to see things change and need to shift my focus elsewhere.

iStock was a company worth backing at one time. Obviously those days are long gone, but up to a certain point I think it made complete sense for Stacey and others to be so personally invested in the company. Sean was another big proponent of iStock. Things change, that's just how it goes.

I don't know what the point of this is other than to vent some frustration over this never-ending problem and maybe inspire someone to not be so inspired by other people's work. Enjoy...

------------

Dear Unoriginal Vector Artist,

Thanks for viewing my portfolio and picking out a few things you really like. I can tell right away which of my designs you were most inspired by because you copied them and are now selling them.

Fortunately for me you are as unskilled in creating vector graphics as you are in coming up with ideas of your own, so your stuff isn't really competing with mine. But you have still created some problems for me and I have to do something about this. But before I do, I thought you should know why. Because inevitably, whenever I report someone for copying my work, I get that angry email afterwards asking why I'm such an a*****e and why I bothered reporting you.

First, save the excuses. I've heard them all. Maybe you think I'll believe that you were just practicing, trying to learn how to do something by copying something else. And that's fine. I've done that myself. But I have never copied something to learn and then inadvertently keyworded it, saved it to various sizes and formats, and then accidentally uploaded it to multiple stock sites and put it up for sale.

You may also think I'll believe that you didn't know you couldn't sell other people's work. Or that you didn't think your design looked that much like mine. You were just "inspired" by my work and tried to do your own version.

Or if you're especially brazen you may even think anyone will believe that you actually are the original designer of that vector and that I, in fact, copied you. Even though it's pretty easy to prove otherwise.

But let's assume for a second that you don't throw any of these excuses at me and you really did just make this one mistake. You had this single lapse in judgement and 99% of your work is truly original. Then sure, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you'll be more careful in the future not to copy anything of mine. But we still need to deal with this. Here's why...

I reuse a lot of elements from my designs in new work. I'll grab an icon I did last year or a graphic from a couple of years ago and work it into a new design. And since often the way that agencies assess cases of possible copying is to simply look at who uploaded the image first, now I could potentially look like the copier if I upload an image with that same graphic at a later date. Now because you copied my work, I'm potentially in danger of having my account with an agency terminated or suspended while they investigate. And although ultimately I'll be able to prove that I was the original artist, I can't take the chance that my accounts could be suspended even for a day. I'm not losing a day's earnings because of you.

So go ahead. Call me names, get angry that I reported you. Have at it. But understand that the innocent copying you did, thinking there was no harm in it, puts my livelihood at risk and hurts my ability to reuse stuff that I created and you decided to copy and sell. Maybe you think I really am an a*****e for being so overly protective of some silly clipart or vector icons. But please know that those silly graphics are the result of years of learning, practicing, studying the market and figuring out what sells and what doesn't. It's how my mortgage gets paid and how I pay for the clothes on my kids' backs. It took you just a few minutes to do your sloppy version of my design but it took me 8 years of working at this to get to this point, and I'm not about to let you or anyone else take it away because you felt entitled to copy my work.

I like to think I'm not a total a*****e so if this is a situation where it looks like you just copied 1 or 2 things of mine, I'll give you a chance to delete the infringing work, rather than going straight to the agencies and getting your accounts shut down. But that's a one-time, short-term offer to do the right thing. Refuse to remove the copied designs, try to explain why it's not an exact copy, or even refuse to respond to my request in a timely manner, and you're on your own in dealing with the wrath of compliance departments who won't give you the same courtesy I am.

If you do manage to come out of this with your microstock accounts still online, consider yourself lucky. Not many people who get caught copying others are able to get their accounts reinstated. Enjoy your good fortune and learn from it. If you are one of those few people who really did have a small lapse in judgement and made this one mistake, and you really do want the chance to build a legit portfolio, don't squander the opportunity.

I spend lot of time to explain to every single model all the aspects of image use, AND ALSO despite all of this - potential misuse...

Sadly I think that even though you're doing right by your models to educate them on how the stock image business work (and sometimes works negatively), unless it's in writing you're probably open to a potential lawsuit as well. All a model has to say is, "He didn't tell me that," or "It wasn't made clear to me," and it's your word against theirs.

Has anyone developed their own model release? Obviously the standard ones from the agencies aren't detailed enough to protect photographers. Why not have an agency release along with a special release that the model signs and asserts that they understand that images end up on the Internet, we have no control over who uses the Internet and downloads images, etc.

How sad is it that photographers have to be the ones to explain the Internet to models? Because ultimately that's what this boils down to. On the web, anything can be taken by anyone and used for whatever good or bad purposes they want. When did it get to be the responsibility of the photographer to educate models on how the Internet works?

...I was under the impression that Shutterstock was going to take the settle route but could not reach an agreement Forni.

Which is interesting since she's claimed that she's not after money with the stock agencies. So if they couldn't reach an agreement, what was she asking for, if not money?

Rhetorical question, we all know she's just after money, and lots of it.

Donated.

I'm not even a photographer and I think it's important for all artists to support this. It is so important on so many levels that Josh beats this lawsuit. The precedent this could set if the model wins is frightening.

That said, I'm also still a big proponent of a more bullet-proof model release. I said in another thread about this that I think you guys need to come up with something more substantial for when working with models. I don't remember who came up with the idea but I really like the practice of having a model stand and hold a signed release and snapping a shot of them. I also think there should be some sort of secondary release signed, one that specifically and clearly states that the model understands these images will be distributed online and the photographer cannot be held responsible for what people do with the images, even when those uses violate license terms.

Until the site design gets an update, the whole thing still looks very 1999 to me. But the logo is indeed a step in the right direction.

Time will tell if they can grow beyond the high-school art class image they seem to have, though. It would be great if they became a more mature community, with more pro artists showing work there.

It seems that CafePress is paying out 3% to some contributors these days. That's 2 companies already, I'm sure more will follow suit.

Unfortunately in this day and age I think you guys need a more idiot-proof contract with models. Something that says, "By signing this document, I understand that photos of me will be distributed on the Internet through reputable agencies, however the photographer has no control over who purchases the images and whether or not those buyers adhere to the limitations of the image license." Along with something that says that they'll hold the photographer harmless against any claim regarding misuse, and take up such claims over image distribution and misuse with the distributing agencies.

Personally, if I were a photographer I'd have every model sign something containing this kind of language in addition to a normal stock release, and then snap a photo of the model holding both signed documents before the actual shoot even begins.

You guys did notice that this was posted in the Illustration section, right?

First step to your %20 flat rate.

Without a doubt. Getty isn't in the business of paying people more than 20%. Surely this is another step towards correcting that anomaly that is (or was) iStock.

I actually thought this would have happened by now, though. Kind of surprised the royalty rate flattening hasn't been pushed through this year. Probably by this time next year it will happen.

From an email I just received:

We would like to notify you that starting November 24 our subscription plans will include all image sizes and vectors.

We believe that in the current market environment where subscriptions without size limits have become the norm, being the only agency with such restrictions has no benefits for contributors any more, in fact � based on a lot of feedback we're receiving � it just drives customers away.

I think it's the only move they can make here. I did like not having my stuff in subs at all over there, but it's not helping them compete to limit subscriptions to only certain sizes of photos and no vectors at all.

Just a sign of the times.

So, hypothetically, what is the true royalty on an Inmagine sale for an image uploaded to 123RF? I'm supposed to be getting 50% on a $10 sale. Is it 50% after Inmagine takes their 50%?

Help me out, here, I'm a little mathematically challenged. Hence why I stopped studying Engineering in college and got into the art program instead.