Typically I'm busy with family and the holidays anyway so I have a natural inclination to not upload until mid-January. But if I did have images ready to upload, I think I would do so. I feel like sharpshot does...they don't make any money sitting on my computer. And even if they get buried in a search, there's still a chance I could sell something because they are in a lightbox, etc. There's absolutely no chance of a sale on my computer.

And in the spirit of constructive criticism, the angle of the hammer should have been turned. It's hard to tell that it is a hammer at all. As a buyer, I can see where both images would be useful, but the execution of FD-amateurs shot is just far better.

That's incredible. I can see why people might be freaked out. The spiral pattern is so consistent.

I think wiseguy is trying to say that the agency took his photos down while they do more investigating. The agency doesn't think he copied, but they must do the investigating before making any decisions.

This topic comes up every couple of months. We are all human beings, experiencing relatively the same events in the same world. Sure, some are more creative than others, but for the most part, a lot of contributors are going to shoot the same thing someone else has already shot, just by accident, not because they copied.

I see stuff pass through the queue all the time that looks pretty much exactly like something in my port. Nothing I can do about it. Keep shooting, try to be more creative, use backgrounds/fabrics/props/models that bring a different look to the photo.

Without seeing wiseguys' photo and the one this photographer claims he copied, I would never be able to make a decision or take sides.

Maybe companies are cracking down on designers...making them return any photos they didn't use for a project.

"I don't need as many downloads now to make a payout" and voil�, you get less downloads because that thought has turned into a reality.

The power of negative thinking!

Until then you are probably better off expending the time & energy into producing more stock than chasing the tails of these hobbyists.

If the person is a hobbyist, that is one thing. They can use anything they want to express their artistic inclinations. As soon as they start selling the image and saying they own the copyright, they are violating the terms of the license of the original image. In order for someone to claim copyright to a work such as whitechild posted, it was my understanding they had to own the copyright to ALL of the elements in the photo.

If it turns out a person can take my image, make a minor modification and RESELL that image as their own, I am going to have to investigate all of the contributors agreements again. I thought I read them carefully, but I never understood that THAT was ok to do. Altering an image and using it on a printed piece or putting it on a website is what I understood the license to cover.

Just because this person has never sold that image does not make it right that she is offering it for sale. That's like saying someone only walked into a store and stole a 5 cent piece of candy. It's still stealing, even if it was only worth 5 cents!

If a buyer wants to get a photo for free and don't care about having a valid license for it, paying a license and then asking for a refund is definitively not the safest and most efficient way to proceed

Valid point, and I think for the most part, people are honorable. By the same token, I don't wear rose-colored glasses. There are always a few cheaters in the crowd. Just like cheater contributors, there are cheater buyers.

In the four years I have been contributing, I can count on one hand the number of times this has happened to me. I'll take those odds any day! (Hope I just didn't jinx it.) In a horrible economy, I think we can all expect things like this to happen more and more. But it's still stealing, and the bad economy is no excuse, though some are sure using it as one. Including big business. 

I wondered. Was supposed to get a payout yesterday.

"Buying" of the company usually means they have the same name at the line of CEO but doesn't mean the same database, inspectors and politics of acceptance.

That's how I understood it, too. For now, I think they are still two separate companies.

What do you think is the situation when the same image is purchased on the same day, same license, size, etc., multiple times but by different agencies?

Coincidence. How do you know it is being purchased by different agencies? As far as I know, microstock doesn't provide the buyers names or information like that.

But...

If a contributor is non-exclusive and uploads to multiple sites, a buyer can buy a photo on one site, the same photo on another site and a third from yet another site and triple their print run etc. usage, thereby having to spend less $ than buying an EL. So if you sold the exact same image on multiple sites on the same day, that could explain it.

however, there's always small claims court.

Unless something has changed drastically in the last few years, this is an even bigger waste of time. I've been through small claims court. Even when you are right, have all the documentation, the other party doesn't show up and you get a ruling in your favor, the next step is to track the person down and actually collect the money. At that point, there isn't much help from the court system. Sure, you can file the paperwork, but Vinny the Collector doesn't go over and get the money for you.

OK thanks Leaf.