MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

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 - Chris S

Pages: [1]
Image Sleuth / Re: Microsoft's new pinterest clone !!
« on: May 25, 2012, 07:38 »

I filled out the DMCA notice and the image was taken down within a couple hours, surprisingly fast.  But having to fill out your name, address, email, and phone number to report it seems a bit much, I couldn't help but think that pinterest is collecting all this info from DMCA takedown requests and selling it to advertisers.  Maybe that's the business model?  The image pinterest had stored seems to have been removed along with the pinned content though.

They remove the SINGLE REPORTED PAGE that calls the pinned image.  Unless they changed the way they operate, they don't remove the repins, nor do they remove the actual image from their servers.

All DMCA take down request require information to identify you in case your take-down notice is countered.

They do remove the repins.  I'm not sure about the image from their servers though.  We'll have to test that.  Next DMCA I send, I'll take note of the image URL before sending it through. 

I just tested this to be sure.

They removed the pin page.

The repins are still there, the images still on their servers.

In that case, hand me a pitch-fork, and light my torch!...

Silly question, but I just want to check if that 'most' of the people/users in here are 'fine' with sites that 'share/post' links.  ie: google search results, facebook posts to an interesting article, tweeting a site you found, (pinning on pinterest IF it is used as a public notice-board, AND that they don't strip & host the image/work as there own) ... (disclaimer: for facebook, etc, am referring to a post like "Wish I had thought of this for my wedding www,url,com/wedding-idea  [image thumbnail]"   ...  People copying an image into there own album is another storey...  )

Image Sleuth / Re: Microsoft's new pinterest clone !!
« on: May 24, 2012, 12:01 »
I'm confused now... if I receive a magazine in the post and like a hair style in it, and take the magazine to the barber/hairdresser/hairstylist, and ask them to eg: shave my hair similar to like in the photo, is that illegal?  If I tear out the sheet, and do the same, is it illegal? If I cut out only the photo or only the haircut is that illegal? [As of proof reading this, I've realise that copying the hairstyle might be break copyright and IP law too.  Just to play it safe, when I next shoot a model, I shall have the make-up artist sign a makeup-release  ??? ]

( Re lending a physical book to a friend to read and then have it returned, or not, or if I sell it on, I am not aware of this being illegal, or requiring licensing.  This does not mean I'm right or wrong, so I'm asking on this? ... However, just as when we used to play football at school, and some kid brought his ball, we did not pay a rent/licence/etc to play with that ball.  He owned the ball, and we did what we wanted with it...  I draw the line at, not being able to 'reproduce' the content of the book, and then sell it.  ie: The book that I have purchased, maybe be sold on, however I'm not entitled to photocopy it, or re-write it for that matter.  However in the case of school-projects, Thesis's, etc, proper referencing/bibliographing needs to be done. )  [ If you really want to be anal about things, no original content is really original.  Where do you draw the line, on what is original content in a book, such as "how to use your camera".  Lets assume an author was taught at school/college/other about aperture and shutter and then focuses (no pun intended) on ISO in the book.  Self taught on ISO, but to describe ISO, makes reference to shutter/aperture.  Some authors credit their teachers, but not all do.  I'm not saying that its right or not too, but its practically impossible, since we learn daily thought human-interactions. .. enough of that off topic RANT ]

Back to my first example, magazine are disturbed, and the companies would be glad of us, the general public 'showing' their adverts around.  I'm hoping my hair-dressing example is not illegal, because the next scenario is a bride, tearing out sheets from various magazines, 'these are the flowers I want for my wedding', 'this is the dress style I'm going for', etc... is that illegal?

So far what I've seen of Pinterest is that, as some others have mentioned, is its a public billboard.  If you tear out a photo from a magazine, hang it on a wall in you bedroom/house, is that illegal?  What about when your friend comes over and sees that 'famous singer/actor/other' hanging on the wall.  Is that act now illegal?  Pinterest seems to link to the hosting website, and does not hold the content itself from what I've seen.  Please correct me if I'm wrong!?  Is google illegal, or google-images illegal?  It points to the hosting-site.  Pinterest can be seen as a 'google' where users pick what makes it to the page and not.  When it comes to facebook/etc. and someone downloading a photo off another site, and then placing that in their album, then that, I believe is illegal.  HOWEVER sharing/posting a site with the content I would like my friends to see, is something else, and I don't believe that is illegal.

Its a very fine line, between illegal and legal use, and it seems that people draw that line at different points.

General Stock Discussion / Re: photographing 'ECG's"
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:36 »
oops, i thought you said eggs.

   haha  ::)  ;D

Sites like do not check photos pixel by pixel, rather they use algorithms which will still find 'copied' works.  These works could have been cropped, enhanced, modified or used as as part of another image.  ( I believe the google-image-search tool works in the same way ).

If am not mistaken tineye offer services and other tools specifically for the 'Agencies' needs, and if am not mistaken too they also encourage portfolios/galleries/albums/depositories (call them what you want) to be added to their (ie: tineye's) image-banks.

It might not be the Agencies job to check duplicate/copyright works, however it is in their interest... unless their interests are in making profit from the money from held-back-sales.

Image Sleuth / Re: How to recognize legal/illegal use?
« on: September 06, 2011, 05:15 »
Sorry to go off Topic: "How to recognize legal/illegal use?",,, just wanted to point out how naive (silly) i was to think that when some 'agencies' offer a low % cut-back to the contributor/photographer (ie: me) that the rest of the money was partially going to protect my work too, apart from profits and other costs.

Going exclusive normally means you get a bigger cut of the money from your work being sold, which unless sold at a higher price too, means that's less money is going to the agency... which is less money for them to 'use/waste' time on hunting down illegal use.

( I bring up this post, since a previous post mentioned, forget having your work defended unless your an exclusive,,, although that does make sense too since it's harder to track down the source/agency )

Also want to bring up a point about google-images-search and tineye etc... these site don't track every image on the web, so illegal use might be greater, or lets be positive, your/our work might be out their more than is found.  Also am pretty sure that stock is being used for Printed media that doesn't appear on the web, let alone to be found by any image-finding-site.

Image Sleuth / Re: Photo thief reselling on major agencies
« on: August 30, 2011, 06:17 »
TinEye  might be able to help with tracking down some images, including derivative/mashup works.

Pages: [1]


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle