|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - click_click
Pages: 1 ... 97 98 99 100 101 [102] 103 104 105 106 107 ... 119
2526
« on: March 21, 2010, 22:21 »
Thanks for these reference clips.
I didn't know I could submit stuff like that. I always thought it one can identify him- or herself it's not allowed to upload it without a release.
Good for us I guess.
2527
« on: March 21, 2010, 20:47 »
Luckily, the aforementioned footage under discussion does not clearly identify a person, so, most likely would not need a release for commercial sales, as previously mentioned.
I would definitely be able to identify myself or anyone I know who appears in the focused area of this video. Is it just the fact that it's also time lapsed that makes the people in the footage "not clearly identifiable"? That's why I brought up the Shutterstock time lapses before, where you can see people in malls etc. pretty close IF the clips are paused. But of course it's just a blur when played back at regular speed. The clips from this OP was most likely processed to be Full HD and at 100% you can clearly identify people in there especially at iStock where the videos are inspected frame by frame. I'm more than interested to hear long time contributors' experience with any kind of footage and masses of people where individual persons "could" be identified. At what level can one speak of that there is no release necessary to be RF since Sean thinks that this clip would be ok for RF?
2528
« on: March 21, 2010, 11:08 »
....I am guessing the designer forgot to switch it out with the purchased image 
pffffffffffffffffffff uaaahaaahaaahaaa  Good one!
2529
« on: March 19, 2010, 13:46 »
Hypothetically a good idea but what happens once you get your report with 500 web sites that use your images - are you going to write to every single one of them to task if they have a valid license?
I don't see the difference compared to Tineye...
Keep us posted how much money you recovered!
2530
« on: March 18, 2010, 14:31 »
If it was my image and they paid for it, I'm happy.
What buyers do with our images is beyond our control. These days we should be happy actually getting paid for the usage...
Whitechild, I'm sorry to hear your story about not getting paid. But as a freelancer, I never lift a finger without getting paid 50% up front for ANY job.
Furthermore this web site you mentioned does not look professional at all. Who recommended it to you?
Maybe you would be happy, but I doubt your model would.
I informed all my models that these things can happen. Take it or leave is the motto.
2531
« on: March 18, 2010, 13:46 »
I got a friend who does translations. The website maybe doesn't look awesome, but it's simple and functional... so, it really works, and yes, like everywhere, there is a warning about scam, but you know, you never expect it will happen to you. I was checking this person and her company website few times, and it looked OK to me. But I didn't check the TinEye. If I did it before, I would know it's scam.
Ok, that is a school of life.
I wouldn't have checked it with Tineye either. It was very unfortunate.
2532
« on: March 18, 2010, 08:34 »
If it was my image and they paid for it, I'm happy.
What buyers do with our images is beyond our control. These days we should be happy actually getting paid for the usage...
Whitechild, I'm sorry to hear your story about not getting paid. But as a freelancer, I never lift a finger without getting paid 50% up front for ANY job.
Furthermore this web site you mentioned does not look professional at all. Who recommended it to you?
2533
« on: March 17, 2010, 20:43 »
click_click,
Yes, I can contact their host and DT, but in the end she will simply remove the image. No punishment, life goes on. And she works for the legal market! What type of consultant is she? I could accept she not knowing this was illegal, but after I emailed her saying it wasn't legal, offering her a chance to buy it or contact Dreamstime for clarification, she simply ignored this and kept using it - this is absurd!
I know that this is incredibly infuriating "although" we're talking about a watermarked thumbnail but I truly understand how you feel. It's not right. I had issues before and did find lawyers who were willing to help me on a contingency basis. It might take you 10 or 20 phone calls but it could be worth a try. Usually the lawyer would write a nasty letter threatening with a lawsuit, offering a settlement which really makes sense. But some thieves are going to try to hard ball it and wait and see because litigation is very costly for a lawyer (his time) and they want to avoid that when working on contingency. If you'd pay them of course they'd be happy to go to court. Furthermore the lawyer will take into consideration what amount of damages are estimated. That would determine the settlement amount. I guess we're not talking about tens of thousands of $ of damages. Licensing fee for the lady would have been 2$ or 3$ and what are your damages? You better have registered copyright on that image. That might help the lawyer to gain some leverage (that's what I've been told... - I'm NOT a lawyer!!!). Sorry, I wish I could do more. I've seen this happening so many times it doesn't even bother me anymore (as sad as it sounds). Another long time contributor whose images were ripped as well by the Indiana printing company just wanted to have his images removed. He wasn't interested in damages because he knows there is nothing to get - or at least not enough to make it worth while. It is sad indeed. But cyber-criminals do have a relatively easy life online. Best of luck!
2534
« on: March 17, 2010, 18:20 »
...
I wrote her weeks ago explaining she could not do this. I even said "As a serious bunisesswoman, I am sure you will act correctly, respecting my intellectual property rights." Now, writing to DT will only make her remove the image, without any compensation for her insistence on doing something illegal.
We need to find ways of punishing such people. ...
WHOIS info Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :
Karasma, L.L.C
[email protected]
15 West 120th Street
#5
New York, NY 10027
US
Phone: 917-865-5410
Record expires on 19-Mar-2012
Record created on 19-Mar-2007
Database last updated on 19-Mar-2007
Domain servers in listed order: Manage DNS
NS11.IXWEBHOSTING.COM
NS12.IXWEBHOSTING.COM
Show underlying registry data for this record
Current Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
IP Address: 76.163.243.147 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
IP Location: US(UNITED STATES)-KENTUCKY-HOPKINSVILLE
Record Type: Domain Name
Server Type: Apache 1
Lock Status: clientTransferProhibited
WebSite Status: Active
DMOZ no listings
Y! Directory: see listings
Secure: No
Ecommerce: No
Traffic Ranking: Not available
Data as of: 22-Apr-2008 This is the web host who you should contact: IXWEBHOSTING.COM from their Terms of Service: ...
D. Intellectual Property Provisions
Subscribers of IX Web Hosting's services are prohibited from storing or posting content or links to content that infringe, or otherwise violate the intellectual property rights of third parties (e.g. trademark, patent or copyright infringements).
... Your best bet is to contact the 24/7 live support online and ask for the email address where you have to send you DMCA claim. Send that email to Erin ( [email protected]) on CC as well so she can forward it to DT's legal department. If you can' afford a lawyer that's all you can do I'm afraid. That lady knows that you couldn't sue her for a lot of money - that's why she is doing it. Seen it happening too many times. Good luck!
2535
« on: March 17, 2010, 15:16 »
IP = Intellectual Property
2536
« on: March 17, 2010, 08:45 »
That's because those people aren't USING it to their gain.
I don't see any ads whatsoever that could remotely generate any monetary benefit for this site owner unless the site becomes so incredibly famous that he would be featured on CNN for his outstanding work... I guess the Tumblr referral link is what you are referring to? Other than that, this site is a dud. Who cares? I started the thread about the printing company in Indiana that is using images from National Geographic photographers as well as other Macro and Micro shooters. That guy never bought one license and is selling tons of products with the images on them. That is a problem, not some watermarked, agency-linked and "awkward" images.
2537
« on: March 17, 2010, 08:37 »
I bump this real quick to make sure some people can check this place if their images are there.
2538
« on: March 17, 2010, 08:01 »
Yeah, I think it is a bit of a gray area.
Here is the site they are talking about
http://awkwardstockphotos.com/
Dreamstime, Crestock and Fotolia even provide links to hotlink back to them. I have been a little confused as to when it is and isn't OK to use this hot link, but I do know that Crestock for sure gives you permission to use the image for free in a blog post if you use the hot link code.
Using a watermarked image for a blog makes it look unprofessional. I doubt that highly successful bloggers would actually use watermarked image on a regular basis. If a small group of bloggers that doesn't have the money for even the smallest sizes (they still have to buy credit packs...) then I'd rather see them use my image with a watermark and a straight link to the agency. After all, I'm not complaining about all the people looking at my watermarked image at an agency NOT buying it...
2539
« on: March 16, 2010, 20:56 »
I ran across this blog post about some site that was using istock watermarked thumbs and got a take down notice from Getty.
Reading the comments section gives you an idea how some of these thieves think, its their right, its fair use and so on.
Here is the link if you care to have a look........if you do it will probably piss you off, like it did me.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100202/0325448009.shtml#comments
-Don
Powerful stuff. I think it's a very thin line in a gray area - so it's hard to tell from our perspective to say whether it's right or wrong (and we will have people on both sides). Surely Getty won't agree with those practices and they have their reasons. On another note it is "just" a collected pile of "awkward" images with watermarks intact, no products or services promoted and reference links added. Indeed it would drive traffic straight to the copyright holder - which shouldn't be a bad thing in itself. I doubt that any significant amount of royalties were accrued that way but this might be the least of our worries in terms of copyright violation. I'm seriously more concerned about designers and companies using our images in flyers, catalogs, ads, TV, Internet and more without licensing them.
2540
« on: March 16, 2010, 10:27 »
You're assuming he doesn't have ELs for those window prints, right?...
Me and other photographers already found out that he has no ELs. He removed the images from his site, but I have a strange feeling that there are still other photographer's images online. They should get in touch with him to straighten this out.
2541
« on: March 16, 2010, 10:04 »
While technically the images on Fllickr have a nice " " next to each picture most people who visit Flickr have no clue what that means.
Maybe not in this case, but often stock images are being uploaded there for the sole purpose of offering them for free to the "image community" (or whatever they call themselves).
At least once a week I'm in touch with people who stole my images from Google's image search. 100% of these people "had no clue" that the images were copyrighted and/or that they just cannot be simply downloaded and be used.
People don't care. That's our first problem. The second problem is former buyers dumping their archives on to photo sharing sites. It doesn't take a genius to guess what will happen once these images are online.
And while people do have the "option" of downloading an image from a buyer's web site it is also obvious that sites like Flickr do have significant more visitors and therefore more exposure to such criminals than almost any individual web site.
Whether this user intended to display his images to the entire world or just wanted to show them or exchange them with colleagues from the same company (which would be alright if a license is present), he/she needs to be made aware of their doing. We can't just assume that all the people all over the world suddenly understand copyright or the term royalty FREE.
2542
« on: March 16, 2010, 09:52 »
I came across a printing company using many images from Micros and Macro shooters. I contacted a few of them already. Lots of other 3rd party copyrights have been infringed as well. You might want to check: You have to click through the categories http://www.seethrugraphics.comSome owner - different web site: http://www.customonlinesigns.com/see_thru_rear_window_graphic_kitsSame owner - different web site: http://www.customwallgraphics.com/I found many more web sites from this owner but non-print products, also violating other parties' copyrights. Owners contact info according to the WHOIS information: Jamie Quint 8304 Cline Ave Crown Point, Indiana 46307 United States (219) 365-4088 Email: [email protected]
2543
« on: March 16, 2010, 09:42 »
...
Judging by the sheer lack of searchable metadata in those shots, I wouldn't really assume they are out to share the images with the world.
I think it's about the actual images which are copyrighted and not some meta data...
As opposed to the exact same images being hosted on the buyers website - equal size, equally downloadable with still no searchable metadata? Copyright is full of holes, like a leaky boat getting ready to sink.
I don't get it. The images are copyrighted not the keywords (whether they are there or not). Whoever uses unlicensed content is committing copyright infringement. No matter if they get the image from Flickr or a buyer's web site. If you want you can go to your nearest supermarket and take a bottle of Whiskey and walk out of there without paying. Just because you might not get caught doesn't make it right. Who cares if the images are search-able? They are there and they have been used without a valid license, that's all that matters.
2544
« on: March 15, 2010, 18:24 »
...
Judging by the sheer lack of searchable metadata in those shots, I wouldn't really assume they are out to share the images with the world.
I think it's about the actual images which are copyrighted and not some meta data...
2545
« on: March 15, 2010, 17:58 »
I'll disagree with the MR release needed comment. There are lots of videos on iStock with unrecognizable crowd situations. I wouldn't think you'd need a release from the airport either, since you've already gotten away with having your camera set up for the shoot.
I'm sure iStock is taking serious precautions not to accept identifiable people clips but I must admit that there are plenty on Shutterstock where it's more than clear who these people are - speaking of RF of course. Some time lapse are so incredibly fast that it appears that the reviewers think the regular John Doe won't recognize them either when played at regular speed. But when you pause the clip you could easily identify yourself in some clips. Only in clips where a ND filter was used to create some motion blur that even if standing people become somewhat blurry it would be ok but I know that certain clips didn't have that.
2547
« on: March 13, 2010, 11:18 »
I noticed it my friend, thank you for the reminder. i wrote to him but I think my words will be wasted into the wind...
This guy might not take his web site down because of your email but if more and more people write him he will understand that they know what he is doing. It's a matter of making him feel bad about that and he still has to live with himself knowing that he upset a lot of people. The web hosting company should be cooperative, especially if 123RF would contact them and make them aware of what's happening. I still haven't found any of my images on there so I can't make a claim to either one of them but everyone who finds his or her images there should write to the web host.
2548
« on: March 13, 2010, 10:48 »
dam.n it my image is showing in the first page (the cyborg guy)
hmmm I hate these kind of things, although he's giving for free just thumbnails... well it still bothers me.
I'm gonna drop a few lines to that guy if I get to understand where the heck is the email address... my knowledge of Bulgarian is equal to zero.
I posted all his contact info on the first page of this thread: Email: [email protected]
2549
« on: March 12, 2010, 17:13 »
There is nothing wrong with standing up for yourself.
When people do that, mostly they don't get compensated for that time anyway.
After doing things like this a few times you will find your happy medium and know how much time it is worth to you pursuing thieves.
2550
« on: March 12, 2010, 13:50 »
I was wondering the same thing. I love the tilt shift effect but I guess it is "too easy" to add it in post processing. So some agencies might reject it. Never tried uploading it - but I will do that right now Then I'll let you know.
Pages: 1 ... 97 98 99 100 101 [102] 103 104 105 106 107 ... 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
