Doesn't Electronic Template use require  EL ?

Thank you for the article. Everyone check it out!

I personally add the copyright notice in camera "Copyright firstname lastname"(and make sure it shows there while I do editing) and I believe the workflow for many Istock contributors is pretty much the same. So when the image is submitted the copyright information it is definitely there.

Istock has the nerve to dilute Copyright to wishy washy "credit line". They have to be stopped, or other agencies will follow suit.

I am not going to look up the law for the sake of this post, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to remove a copyright notice from a creative work in the US.

although i found this: "Removing or altering a copyright notice from an image or stripping metadata from the picture file is a violation of the DMCA.  A person can be liable for between $2,500 and $25,000 plus attorney�s fees for removing from a work what the DMCA calls �copyright management information� from a work". Murphy v. Millenium Radio Group LLC and McClatchey v. Associated Press

http://www.photolaw.net/did-someone-remove-the-copyright-notice-from-your-photograph.html

The question still remains, WHY is Istock changing 'Copyright' to 'Credit Line'?
What do they gain from it? (They are NOT doing this for nothing)

Copyright is clear. Credit Line is fuzzy. Do they want to blur terms in their advantage to rob more rights from us? (My guess is YES THEY DO)

What are we going to do about it?

Your copyright should be in the metadata of your file in the picture

Yes it should, and probably for most of us it is, but who is going to look there?

Sorry to hear about this scary incident that happened to you.
I agree with others, the Hotmail address and language they use spell SCAM. "Full proof", threats, simple language etc is just the kind of language spammers, scammers and phishers would use. They will make you feel like you have no options but to act quickly. If you clicked any link on the emails they sent, scan your emails and computer very carefully for malware, spyware and viruses like somebody already suggested.
If you have the materials that you used for the image, that's good, keep them, but I would not be worried if I were you. You know it is your image and you can easily prove it if necessary!

Hi all,
Just lately I've seen some of my Editorial photos used in social media in either promoting or advertising a product. No photographer credit line. They've all been mid-size or small businesses doing this, and I don't know where they have purchased the images. In one incident I was quite sure the source was Bigstock (and still am) and wrote in, but they denied it and nothing followed.

It is perfectly clear that images of property, featuring a logo, etc, or people, need appropriate releases and without them the contributor will need to sell them under Editorial.
It's not OK that the buyers are using them in advertising. The photographer/ contributor is the one who will face the blame and responsibility eventually, everyone will ask "who took this photo?" and no one blames the buyer who used it wrongly.

What would you do in a situation like this? Any help/insight will be welcome.

Hi,

(3)
b. In addition to the foregoing grant iStock and its Distribution Partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the iStock Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and your registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the iStock Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to you for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes.

"Without limitation"
"third parties"
These concern me.

Sorry if I missed something, but  what if anything does the petition say about the rights that Getty claims to our work on the new ASA?

Are there any stock agencies any more  that would NOT allow social media use (or at least restrict it) for stock images?

Just found 4 of my photos in somebody's Facebook at 1800*1200 and it is frustrating to get few cents from them and now they are practically free photos to share with no copyright information. 

Is there a way to sell images without having to deal with the Facebook monster? How?

Quote from: Morphart on October 28, 2016, 09:06

I have a graphic design company which I run for 10 years now. A logo doesn't have to be trademarked. By definition, a logo is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition. Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark).

So, how is a commercial enterprise, organization or individual supposed to use an image like this, if not to promote public recognition of their company, event or product?



It's essentially an icon, something that iconifies something.

SS should be selling this only as editorial. This is a well known logo esp in Europe.

Well, I don't know.

Getty and other stock agencies are the ones to display our work, and they fail to protect them with proper watermarks. Thumbnails have no watermark and Getty/Istock has the largest, in many cases poorly watermarked, image preview in the industry.

Getty's petition is like leaving ones wallet unattended in the middle of a busy market square and then crying and whining when somebody steals it.

I don't know how long it's been there, but I was quite shocked to notice today the 2048 x 1365 image preview & download at Istock. Downloaded two of my own images at that size...

Some square images can be downloaded at 2048 X 2048.

Don't know if there is a thread already about this, but I find this quite shocking. Images with a light background and lots of white are under little or practically no protection.

Yes.

Even more, I am very worried that they can alter EDITORIAL IMAGES.
We photographers have strict rules as to what to do, how to crop & enhance the photo, but general public are now INVITED to do whatever.
Guess who will face the blame of that "result".

Anyone else bothered that they can edit and alter the watermarked images BEFORE licensing them?  Shouldn't you at least need a license to alter someone else's copyrighted material?

Also, for the SS plugin will we be getting OD pricing, or are they going to slip this in with subscription royalties?