0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Microbius on December 09, 2010, 04:36Quote from: ten on December 09, 2010, 01:38FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency, http://www.flemishdreams.com/ shows "several" potential PR infringements. Deep pocket attempts may be with ALL the licensing agencies,...but the ultimate responsibility/liability falls on the Tog.Great images, FD,...but I'd keep moving too,...nice knowing you!.....;-))tenAnd no, FD doesn't license images from his site, just drives traffic to his micro portfolio on the agencies including SS. It's pretty low to try to make out he does.And what if he did license directly from his own site. That isn't a problem either, is it? If he isn't exclusive, I was under the impression a person can sell RF anywhere he wants. No?
Quote from: ten on December 09, 2010, 01:38FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency, http://www.flemishdreams.com/ shows "several" potential PR infringements. Deep pocket attempts may be with ALL the licensing agencies,...but the ultimate responsibility/liability falls on the Tog.Great images, FD,...but I'd keep moving too,...nice knowing you!.....;-))tenAnd no, FD doesn't license images from his site, just drives traffic to his micro portfolio on the agencies including SS. It's pretty low to try to make out he does.
FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency, http://www.flemishdreams.com/ shows "several" potential PR infringements. Deep pocket attempts may be with ALL the licensing agencies,...but the ultimate responsibility/liability falls on the Tog.Great images, FD,...but I'd keep moving too,...nice knowing you!.....;-))ten
I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.
A number of the biggest contributors to microstock sites have their own agencies / collections that they sell and market from their own site or through other sites. Selling your own images from your own site surely shouldn't be a problem.
A number of the biggest contributors to microstock sites have their own agencies / collections that they sell and market from their own site or through other sites.
...How many times do people here complain that they wrote and nothing happened, or they filed a DMCA and the images are still up. Hang em first and have a fair trial later.Now it's the flip-side and people want slow, deliberate justice, with notification, because it's someone we know and respect and I'd bet someone who didn't infringe on anything.Feel free to take either side, lashing out for the way it's handled... depending on, if you are the one being notified or the one doing the notification...
SS should suspend only the images in question, and then give the accused a week to respond to the accusation and provide proof of image ownership. Only after that point should an entire account be suspended or deleted.
I'm not on SS, but why only 'a week'. I travel in places without internet (in vast swathes of the sparsely-populated Scottish highlands as well as developing counhtries), or would have to go way out of my way to find it, for longer periods. That would be almost as unfair as instant closure.
Quote from: Microbius on December 09, 2010, 07:55I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.I wonder if this person has anything to do with the original complaint to SS? Why would someone open a new account just to dog FD?
FD is moving to a new house in the Philipines, he will probably be out of internet for a few weeks. Only connections are internet stores, but i guess he is busy now moving.
I hope we get good news from FD soon, but meanwhile we may entertain ourselves with fun theories. Maybe be is actually Julian Assange?
Quote from: RacePhoto on December 09, 2010, 00:29...How many times do people here complain that they wrote and nothing happened, or they filed a DMCA and the images are still up. Hang em first and have a fair trial later.Now it's the flip-side and people want slow, deliberate justice, with notification, because it's someone we know and respect and I'd bet someone who didn't infringe on anything.Feel free to take either side, lashing out for the way it's handled... depending on, if you are the one being notified or the one doing the notification...I've been the one doing the notification at one time in the past, and I'd rather have seen slow deliberate justice than the quick account termination response that was handed down. I think there's a better middle ground here. SS should suspend only the images in question, and then give the accused a week to respond to the accusation and provide proof of image ownership. Only after that point should an entire account be suspended or deleted. The current SS policy assumes that the accuser is always right, which is scary. It puts any one of us at risk of having our accounts suspended for some period of time. Make an enemy in the forum and the next thing you know you could be shut down at SS just because that enemy fired off an accusatory email suggesting you stole some images.
I just think if they have justification or not, they should still just take down the relevant images and make contact with the contributor before removing all their portfolio.