You are absolutely correct, this is theft and against the contributing terms.

Write to all agencies involved with links to the image and if necessary make a layered PSD showing their image and yours on a separate layer aligned so it can be easily verified. Shutterstock once asked me to do that for them.

This is a no brainer. Those IS images have been uploaded recently as well.

Got notice that my new "customized" HP laptop is in the mail ... from Shanghei China.  Sure hope Google isn't blocked.   

Here's what I'm getting:

YOUR CUSTOMIZED HP PC

dv8t quad edition
• $30 OFF! Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
• Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-720QM Quad Core processor (1.6GHz, 6MB L3 Cache) with Turbo Boost up to 2.8 GHz
• 8GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
• 500GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
• 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 230M
• 18.4" diagonal High Definition HP Ultra BrightView Infinity Display (1920x1080p)
• LightScribe SuperMulti 8X DVD+/-RW with Double Layer Support
• Webcam + Fingerprint Reader with HP Imprint Finish (Espresso Black)
• Intel Wireless-N Card
• No TV Tuner w/remote control
• HP Color Matching Keyboard
• 8 Cell Lithium Ion Battery
• System Recovery DVD with Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
• Microsoft(R) Works 9.0
• HP Home & Home Office Store in-box envelope
  

Need some ELs from SS.  I'm ready for a new Video Camera.   

What's the battery life on that one?

Got an HP laptop myself not too long ago during a sale - got it dirt cheap. No wonder the battery run time is less than 2 hours...

I think that having a "global economy" has affected many businesses, not just journalism and microstock.

Another example is the graphic design industry. I checked out some of the top freelance sites. Designers in India are bidding $10 to design a logo. Retouching, color correcting and resizing photos in Photoshop...the bids start at 50 cents per photo. There is no way I can compete with that and still pay my bills.

And then you pair that with customers who don't really give a rat's a$$ about the image quality and you're out of business like nothing.

The damage has been done, so there is little we can do to change the industry.

I originally thought that we get "properly" compensated for the quality we deliver.

Honestly, I see 7 out of 10 images being worth the cents that they earn. But images that have high quality and are shot with budgets/models/props/effort should be priced higher. Well, just wishful thinking.

So much that is wrong with this industry in the meantime.

Still, it's not stopping us to be creative and look for more ways to monetize our images...

I'm curious to see what the "penalty" from iStock will be.

However, I assume that in the worst case they will only get a slap on the hand for not reading the fine print they signed.

They wanted to make a point, did it and moved on. They could have cared less about the fine print as the strategic move was most important.

How does a lawyer justify a $5000 fine for an image that was licensed for $20? Or what else: the accounts the images were purchased from get banned?

Furthermore what compensation does the model or photographer get for such abuse? iStock is acting in its own best interest (their right) but the model and photographer will have to fight that battle with their own pocket money - good luck.

Latest developments @ Zazzle:

Dear Zazzler,

Thank you for contacting Zazzle.com.

Unfortunately Zazzle was contacted by Fration Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to have any products in violation of their trademarks and intellectual property rights removed from the Zazzle Marketplace. 

For example World Cup 2010 and South Africa 2010 infringes upon FIFA's trademarks.
...

I still don't know where this is written.

Anywho, I'll repsect it.

While I understand that IP laws have to be respected by every agency (which is fine by me), especially since IS and SS offer a warranty for their images being free of any third party rights - I don't understand why content that has been uploaded in the past is exempt from these laws.

Do laws not apply to images that are older although the same protected property is shown?

This shouldn't be a "whoever came first wins" situation. It's a legal matter.

On Shutterstock, StockXpert and other agencies old images are constantly removed because property laws change or are now being enforced more.

...
I like the suggestion from FD-amateur about uploading an original TIFF on request for an extra slice of the pie.  Certainly this would yield a higher quality final product.
...

Lisa,
obviously 123RF has not previously considered of using converted TIFFs from our RAW files in order to maintain high quality.

This is what upsets me, that our content is not appreciated the way we appreciate it. We would go way beyond in order to make the client happy but instead we see blown up JPGs ( ) for a price that can be EASILY dropped to a more realistic level.

This is way too much money for this service.

Secondly, also sadly, a third party makes a killing off of retouching our own images.

Heck, 123RF can send me an email whenever a customer wants an image enlarged and I'll do it for $50 - jeepers creepers (no blasphemy intended).

You can't tell me that it takes 24 hours to work on such an image.

People, I'm in the wrong business. This sounds like we Microstockers are really doing something wrong.

No idea how he did that - but it sure looks awesome.

Sorry I was editing my reply above when you typed your last post (my wife shouted dinner was ready  )

For all the hassle involved maybe move onto another design

You're right. It's not worth the hazzle of assuming and relying on stuff you read online instead of having an attorney look it over for me. It's no big deal I was just really confused what the deal is here.

Thanks again for your efforts!

... If Zazzle removed your design then that's their right they can decide what appears on their site, but I'd say they are very wrong to tell you that you cannot use the term "world cup", and as you've pointed out above iStock agree.

I understand that any agency/business has their right to decide what appears on their site and what not.

However, Zazzle informed me that the copyright holder contacted them and therefore they were forced to remove the content. I really don't want to open a can of worms and poke Zazzle why this was possible while iStock has no problem using those terms in a design.

Quote from: daniel_mouritsen on March 27, 2010, 21:02

Let me get back to you on this one, you cant use "World Cup 2010", that's 120% certain.

... but I can assure you to use the words "world cup" or "world cup 2010" as keywords for a stock photo is no problem whatsoever even if you also have the word "football" as well.

I'm more interested in using the term "World Cup" in the actual design. "World Cup 2010" is supposedly a bit too hot as it's quite specific (I'd assume).

However, my designs were removed from Zazzle because of the term "World Cup" incorporated into the design. No mentioning of FIFA anywhere.
I wonder how the copyright holder explained that to Zazzle...?

apparently, the guys out at work who are working on world cup have been told by the legal dudes to to avoid using the words "world cup" all together. bless them  

I thought so. I'm just going to avoid that from now on. Thanks for getting back here.

I haven't read every single post here and don't know for sure if this was addressed:

The agencies sell images on our behalf. We don't sell. They do. We authorize them to do so.

So whose job is it to go after people who got a hold of these images and then offer them for free? Us?

Yes it is infringing our copyright but, again, we're the ones working for free (doing the research) in favor of the agencies. Once we see our images for free we let the agencies know so they can take action (or not - since it is out copyright), but they are the ones possibly losing money as well.

I think by now every major stock site should have agreements with rapidshare, megaupload, hotfile etc. that any upload/post with their (trademarked!) name in it will be sent for review before going live. Hell, the agencies could even pay for that service just to eliminate a significant bunch of such postings. But again, I don't see serious efforts on the agencies' side.

These day you have to be proactive to stay ahead of the game. Just reacting will eventually push you out of the competition.

And since many here are complaining that subs are the reason for all this (I don't think that subs are the sole reason...) then you need to pull your images off the agency that offers subs - period (if you're exclusive with one of them and have no way to opt out, it shows painfully what we (you) signed for...).

As I posted before, the agencies want to make money in every way possible. If it means selling subs then they will do that as well. THEY want to make money/stay competitive but it all goes to the cost of the contributors.

We can not control price changes, the agencies do that (for us?). They cover their costs and maintain their salaries by adjusting prices. We can't do that. All we are supposed to do is shoot more (a lot more), upload/edit/keyword faster and be prepared to take pay cuts in terms of commissions. This is inevitable for every photographer unless you have a 99.9% streamlined business which many of us don't have (as there are still things happening called "life").