|
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 - kuriouskat
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28
651
« on: January 30, 2012, 11:57 »
The problem with this case is really how badly its been reported.
Its only when you read the case that you find out that the second image isn't even a photo, but a photoshopped collage from 4 different photos, and a 5th one from iStock which is of part of a bus put over the top.
If anyone's interested, I've done up a bit of an article hopefully explaining what this all means: http://travelphotographyreview.com/uk-copyright-case-different-same-same
For those who produce conceptual images, if there is a copycat that reproduces a lot of your catalog, this is the sort of case that can help you. The difficult part in most of these cases for people alleging copyright is to prove that the copycat actually had knowledge of your image and set about re-creating it, rather than it being an independent creation of similar ideas.
For general photography around and about the place, it means very little.
Very helpful and informative article. Thank you.
652
« on: January 28, 2012, 14:33 »
I just upload the EPS as it is, via FTP, to Canstock. Can I do the same for DP?
653
« on: January 28, 2012, 10:19 »
I'm thinking of giving DP a go but do you really have to zip each individual vector/jpg together?
654
« on: January 27, 2012, 13:34 »
You are right - it does say 'or' but it also says:
or have the written permission of ALL persons who own (a) the rights to upload the image or text and (b) the rights to authorize the uses permitted in the User Agreement. If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons
I am pretty sure that any way you slice this one, you can't legitimately buy a stock image and use it in your products for a Zazzle store.
The person who uploads the image to the stock site has (a) the rights and (b) the right to authorize the uses in the UA, which would be what is allowed by an extended license (written permission).
I know that I'm am not a lawyer, (and I'm not trying to be difficult - honest!), but it's the bold part I was going with. If you sell an image under an RF licence, even with an EL, you still OWN the image, therefore anyone wanting to use it on a Zazzle products would still need to obtain your written permission would't they? The licence on purchase from a stock site doesn't give ownership but just certain usage rights I think. It would be great if someone could give a definitive answer as I may well be labouring under a lot of misapprehensions.
655
« on: January 27, 2012, 09:37 »
Yes, but it states written permission from ALL persons AND ownership of copyright. No RF EL gives the artist's copyright to the purchaser and the licence agreement only provides the relevant usage rights not the required image rights.
No it doesn't. It says "OR".
You are right - it does say 'or' but it also says: or have the written permission of ALL persons who own (a) the rights to upload the image or text and (b) the rights to authorize the uses permitted in the User Agreement. If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those personsI am pretty sure that any way you slice this one, you can't legitimately buy a stock image and use it in your products for a Zazzle store.
656
« on: January 26, 2012, 07:43 »
If you read the actual judgement then the reasons for it become much clearer.
The New English Teas had been (caught?) using the Island Temple image and had belatedly agreed to pay royalties of 5% of trade selling price of the products on which it was used. That was in March 2010.
Then, in Oct 2010, New English Teas decided to compose their own image from a photo (of the Houses of Parliament) taken by the owner and an image of a bus from Istock.
In other words New English Teas deliberately went out to reproduce the image to avoid paying the agreed royalties. That puts a slightly different slant of the matter.
It puts a completely different slant on things! The link that Sharpshot provided in his OP didn't mention any of these pertinent details. Original article was entitled: 'Create a Similarly Composed Photo in the UK, Risk Copyright Infringement' but maybe 'Steal an image, and then try and cover your tracks by creating a Similarly Composed Photo in the UK, Risk Copyright Infringement' would have been a bit more informative. Typical case of the media only presenting the information that they want the reader to see.
657
« on: January 26, 2012, 05:49 »
Very odd ruling of the face of it. Maybe there was evidence that the companies were in negotiations for the rights? that could explain it, as always it's very difficult to judge without all the facts
Agreed. I think there has to be more to this than we are aware of.
658
« on: January 26, 2012, 05:15 »
Its a deliberate copy, just the bus have moved a few meters. Things like this needs to weeded out, especially in micro stock and we wouldnt be in all the trouble we are.
In this case I fully agree on the infringements. Just too deliberate.
Do you really think so? Happy tourists, with their Point & Shoots, stand on that stretch of road every day just waiting for a bus to come past the Houses of Parliament. It's just two London icons in the same shot. Re the red on black and white, that's hardly a new idea and we've seen it thousands of times on book covers, in films (Schindler's List springs immediately to mind) and in photos. Proving that one party copied another is fine but surely, the person screaming 'he copied my idea' should be protecting something truly original. I don't see how that can be the case in this instance.
659
« on: January 25, 2012, 18:04 »
"If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons."
An extended license would be permission, imo.
I don't think so.....
As per Zazzle: You must own all rights (including copyright) in the image and text you upload or have the written permission of ALL persons who own (a) the rights to upload the image or text and (b) the rights to authorize the uses permitted in the User Agreement. If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons. If you upload any image or text that violates our User Agreement, your account may be terminated.
So, you must either own the copyright or have written permission from All persons who own the image rights, (artist), and the rights to authorise the uses permitted in the User Agreement, (Stock Site). An extended licence would only fulfil the second part of this but you would still need the artist to relinquish the copyright in writing.
"Written permission" = "the license agreement of the site you downloaded from that allows such usage".
Yes, but it states written permission from ALL persons AND ownership of copyright. No RF EL gives the artist's copyright to the purchaser and the licence agreement only provides the relevant usage rights not the required image rights.
660
« on: January 25, 2012, 16:01 »
"If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons."
An extended license would be permission, imo.
I don't think so..... As per Zazzle: You must own all rights (including copyright) in the image and text you upload or have the written permission of ALL persons who own (a) the rights to upload the image or text and (b) the rights to authorize the uses permitted in the User Agreement. If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons. If you upload any image or text that violates our User Agreement, your account may be terminated. So, you must either own the copyright or have written permission from All persons who own the image rights, (artist), and the rights to authorise the uses permitted in the User Agreement, (Stock Site). An extended licence would only fulfil the second part of this but you would still need the artist to relinquish the copyright in writing.
661
« on: January 25, 2012, 15:28 »
Thanks for your response luissantos84 but did you mean it is OK for Zazzle or Fine Art America or both?
Zazzle, never looked much into Fine Art America, have a few there too but the yearly fee is holding me off
Zazzle agreement states as follows: You must own all rights (including copyright) in the image and text you upload or have the written permission of ALL persons who own (a) the rights to upload the image or text and (b) the rights to authorize the uses permitted in the User Agreement. If someone other than you is the owner of the image or appears in it or has created the text, you must obtain such permission from those persons. If you upload any image or text that violates our User Agreement, your account may be terminated. Even POD licensing doesn't give you the copyright! I guess the problem is that too many contributors to Zazzle and the likes are either ill-informed or simply don't care.
662
« on: January 25, 2012, 15:12 »
I think Bottom Line is it's on us,to really read whats going on. The last 2 days im going back to all my sites and opting out of print sales for my Paintings and artistic stuff. The pure stocky stuff, I don't care. No one is going to print them anyway at least I don't think so. My fault for letting these go through in my haste of speedy uploading. I just find it odd they would even offer that option. My Bad I assume. OH WELL. another 3000 to go. LOL.
I agree that the bottom line is with us, and that we really all need to read all the terms and conditions of each individual site. I also think someone said earlier in the thread that there is usually an 'opt-out' for Els if you are not happy with the terms of the licence. Reading up and opting out gives us an element of choice and control but it is very difficult to make an informed decision if the wording of a licence agreement is misleading.
663
« on: January 25, 2012, 12:56 »
I think some of the confusion here stems from what "print on demand" is, as it's a term that means different things to different people.
Firstly, our standard license specifically prohibits images from being used in "print on demand" applications and other resale uses. The images can not be used on products.
Our enhanced license agreement ($50) permits images to be used for "t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, calendars, mugs, and mouse pads". Even with this license, we do not specifically allow "print on demand" - we only specifically permit "t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, calendars, mugs, and mouse pads". You can not use the license to sell copies of images, etc.
If you are not comfortable with your images being used in the above manor, you can set your images to not offer an EL option.
I'd always recommend people read the license agreement completely before submitting images - in this case the relevant portions are quoted above.
Hope that helps -
So a standard licence does not allow print on demand or use of images on products but an enhanced licence allows use of images on products but not if the products are offered 'print on demand'?
664
« on: January 25, 2012, 12:36 »
ruxpriencdiam: Correct me if I am wrong but I think you have to create your own images for Zazzle, I don't think you can just buy someones else's photo and use it on your products. I'm not sure how Fine Art America works though but I would be pretty pi**** off if someone could just by one of my images with an EL and legitimately sell it in this way.
dirkr: Apparently you should find this on the CanStockPhoto Enhanced License 
I missed Duncan's statement before my post.
Looks like my interpretation of their license terms differs from his (see my post in the thread in the Canstock forum).
In that case I fully agree: PODs should not be allowed, not even via EL.
I'm surprised that a User Agreement is sufficiently unclear that it leaves itself open to interpretation! Isn't this the legal contract between purchaser/contributor/CanStockPhoto? It would be interesting to test that one in a Court.....
665
« on: January 25, 2012, 12:22 »
Thanks for your response luissantos84 but did you mean it is OK for Zazzle or Fine Art America or both?
666
« on: January 25, 2012, 12:17 »
I would agree with you but Duncan from CanStockPhoto say the Extended Licence does allow print on demand?
I think it is worth taking a look at the CanStockPhoto forum, as there is a discussion going on today about what exactly constitutes print on demand. Maybe it's me but I'm still none the wiser!
667
« on: January 25, 2012, 12:09 »
ruxpriencdiam: Correct me if I am wrong but I think you have to create your own images for Zazzle, I don't think you can just buy someones else's photo and use it on your products. I'm not sure how Fine Art America works though but I would be pretty pi**** off if someone could just by one of my images with an EL and legitimately sell it in this way. dirkr: Apparently you should find this on the CanStockPhoto Enhanced License
668
« on: January 25, 2012, 10:59 »
I didn't think CanStockPhoto allowed print on demand?
669
« on: January 10, 2012, 14:39 »
Ah, thanks chromaco - I'll have another go 
670
« on: January 10, 2012, 13:20 »
Is there a way to upload EPS files? I can't find a way but I see images described 'vector art' and the keyword 'vector' returns 3693 items. Maybe I'm missing something but on the upload screen it states 'we only accept .JPG files'
671
« on: January 10, 2012, 13:03 »
Thank you CoisaX, I will take a closer look and maybe test the waters at All You Can stock.
672
« on: January 10, 2012, 12:48 »
Oh, that kinda makes sense.... ..but they would still be buying the image with a Royalty Free non-exclusive licence? Thanks for clarifying
673
« on: January 10, 2012, 12:14 »
I'm interested in giving this site a go but don't fully understand the Membership Agreement. I've got that my images will be Royalty Free and non-exclusive, which is what I want because I submit to several sites but, despite reading it several times, I'm really not clear what the 'Call for Offers' bit actually means.  Can someone please explain this to me?
674
« on: December 08, 2011, 03:35 »
675
« on: December 07, 2011, 04:55 »
I have posted a few times and started a thread in the past. Now I can't find the 'New Thread' button 
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
