Well at Istockolypses (not sure the spelling), does not everyone take the same photos and submit them as their own after?  I have never done one and really don't know this, I'm just curious.  I recall seeing some things in the Critic thread after them about submitting photos from it and thought it odd at the time they could submit something that was set up by someone else.

I would think that your wife can get quite different photos from you with the same studio props, models, lighting etc.  I bet if you are not present and even given the same goal as to what the photo is to represent the photos will actually be quite different.  I know when my husband and myself have the same idea with the same available props they would look very different.  It might be a lot of fun to see what happens, but if you are not present at the shoot, you might be worrying about nothing and find the shots are very different.

I only contribute (small time) to Istock and Shutterstock.  What I've found is I edit slightly differently for each (well I used to).  Istock didn't want the images sharpened or too much colour, they seemed to want a more neutral but high quality photo with no noise or CA where as Shutterstock liked a little more editing for pop, a little more contrast and some sharpening from raw.  Now Istock does seem to take anything once you are a contributor, they really relaxed their acceptance standard last year sometime but my understanding from posts in the critique forum is the initial acceptance is just as tough as it always was.  If you post your photos on the critique forum at Istock I have seen people get some support there to get accepted when reviewers seemed to be being really silly.

But there is places that can only use photos made in their area, such as the Ontario government agencies only allows photos in their brochures of people from Ontario and shot in Ontario.  A photo of a dandelion and someone blowing on it must be shot in Ontario and the model be from Ontario.  Government of Canada has some agencies that do the same, the models, photographer, and people in the photos must be from Canada and in Canada, any scenes (prints on a wall in offices) for decorating, etc all must be shot in Ontario or Canada respectively.  I'm unsure if other provincial governments also do this but it is practiced.  There are businesses that will for what ever reason want only local shots even if it's not obvious so putting in where the shot was taken could be relevant even when not obvious.

Quote from: gillian on September 28, 2013, 21:57
i agree with cuppacoffee, concepts like "beautiful" "cute" and "gorgeous" are subjective, and we've all seen cases of it and rolled our eyes. it must drive designers nuts. How about the images that contain "london" or "new york" but don't have any connection to that city, apart from being shot there? ugh! we could go on with examples. excessive spammy keywording hurts us all.

I read the blog spot wrong, just realized it's not someone that purchased the photos to repost but the selling site.  Wow yes, I think they should at very least use a program for photo displays that does not allow a right click download.  Unless these are the weekly free photos they center their blog post around then they should have downloading them disabled.  I understand wanting to make the blog post look good but they didn't actually pay for the use of the photos themselves from the photographer and they are on a site where everyone that lands on it by chance or because they meant to, is likely looking for photos for something.  That's different then someone posting them on their new site in articles where they could be taken from but it won't be attracting people that are looking for photos.

Well here's my idea... send to the Bruce Willis and explain how excited you are his movie is chose one of your photos to use for their poster and see if he will send you a signed poster.  Then you can take and sell the poster to pawn stars on TV and maybe make some money!

It is interesting that the retailer in this case can take the money from the supplier.  I know in Canada the laws are a bit different the the US for credit card sales (worked for a bank for 15 years).  When a chargeback comes the credit card company asks for a signed copy of the credit slip from the retailer, if you don't have one or the signature is found to not match that on file the retailer is responsible for not having authenticated the purchase through standard means.  With online, mail order, or any other non witnessed CC sale the retailer must apply for the right to take the non authenticated cc sales and then will often have to place a certain amount of funds in a secured account depending on their credit rating and sales history.  The retailer is held fully responsible for all CC sales without a witnessed signature if they are disputed and the retailer can't prove that the purchase was legit.  Basically if I go in and sign a legal document, have it notarized that says, I didn't make that purchase they give me my money back and the cc issuer gets it from the retailer.

Now Walmart, or Sears, or any other retailer I know of can't then go to the RCA and say, hey that TV you gave us, we're taking the money back cause someone commited a CC fraud and we never got the money for it?  Doesn't really make sense, but I guess until someone actually lost enough to make a court case this won't get solved and they can make their own rules.  Much like electronic bank, bank machines etc, the bank have many rules that the court won't uphold if it gets taken to court, such as if you claim the machine gave you less money and the bank disagrees, but they do it anyhow as there is no law saying they can't, just if someone takes it to court they get their money back.

Well you opened my eyes about the sun glass industry if nothing else.  I hadn't seen that 60 minutes video either.  It needs to be shown more.  My next pair will be generic.

You might be able to drum up public support for the law suit (much like those I happen to belong to in Canada for internet freedom), and get assistance and donations with paying your fees, possibly good lawyers that want publicity etc.  If enough feel like I do (who knows) they could tarnish their own brand with the case.  I would love to see this go to court and be won but that would be for my own selfish reasons and I'm not the one that has to pay for it.  I don't agree with many copyright cases these days and I wish the huge brands didn't have such control, but it is what has always run the world in one form or another.  I'd love to see a win take them down a notch and clearer laws on copy rights.