MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Resolution of Pixmac/Shutterstock/Bigstock Colossus Contributor?  (Read 7924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 10, 2010, 07:32 »
0
I went back to the shutterstock forum to see what was up with this whole 292,000+ images being uploaded by a colossus, and could only find the thread by following the link from here.

Here's a link to the thread, which shutterstock has now locked.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93850&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=345

It appears that the metadata was stripped somewhere between bigstockphoto, mediabakery and pixmac. And contributors copyrights were replaced with Photographed by colossus. But no resolution or answers to the questions were forthcoming, that I could see. Has anyone heard about the outcome? Pixmac pulled the images, but was the colossus person getting the royalties or were the original copyright holders?

From what I gleaned from the thread, contributors' copyright data got stripped and replaced but I don't see anyone stepping forward and owning up to the mistake. That is a HUGE problem.


Dook

« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2010, 17:00 »
0
It is still not clear, but the question is where do these pictures come from, how come they are selling our pictures at all. It looks like the pictures are coming from BigStock and I'm really feeling stupid that I uploaded my pictures there at all. All my time wasted for ridiculous earning at BS and now this way of making us fools.

« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2010, 18:34 »
0
It is still not clear, but the question is where do these pictures come from, how come they are selling our pictures at all. It looks like the pictures are coming from BigStock and I'm really feeling stupid that I uploaded my pictures there at all. All my time wasted for ridiculous earning at BS and now this way of making us fools.

Well, you CAN opt out of partner programs on Big Stock. That will stop your images from going to Pixmac or anywhere else. I would just like to know what steps have been taken to find out where the problem is and what is being done to stop it immediately. In no way, shape or form should a person's copyright be removed from their file. And even worse is someone putting their name in as the copyright holder.

« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2010, 20:01 »
0
AAAAawwww, I'm sooo upset. I just found an image on Pixmac that isn't mine.
http://www.pixmac.com/picture/ceramic+jar/000021935473
I never understood how were my images online on Pixmac without uploading ever an image to them. They told me a brief explanation about FT and DT partner programs blah blah. But today I foud this, an images which I'm clearly credited for and I never took that image. And more, it seems to me a very bad image.

« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2010, 20:18 »
0
AAAAawwww, I'm sooo upset. I just found an image on Pixmac that isn't mine.
http://www.pixmac.com/picture/ceramic+jar/000021935473
I never understood how were my images online on Pixmac without uploading ever an image to them. They told me a brief explanation about FT and DT partner programs blah blah. But today I foud this, an images which I'm clearly credited for and I never took that image. And more, it seems to me a very bad image.


It looks distorted and rotated. what?

« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2010, 20:26 »
0
It seems a distorted version of
http://www.pixmac.com/picture/ceramic+jar/000016597033

Haven't we seen these problems when Pixmac began?

« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2010, 20:38 »
0
Maybe. But that "ceramic jar" is NOT mine. As I browsed a few minutes ago I found further 4 or 5 images in my portfolio that are not mine. And 1-2 of my images but distorted. I already sent them an email to delete immediately all my images from their site. I uploaded to FT and DT, not to them!
I'm soooo upset, I'm going to get some beers and some cigars!


« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2010, 21:37 »
0
Maybe. But that "ceramic jar" is NOT mine. As I browsed a few minutes ago I found further 4 or 5 images in my portfolio that are not mine. And 1-2 of my images but distorted. I already sent them an email to delete immediately all my images from their site. I uploaded to FT and DT, not to them!
I'm soooo upset, I'm going to get some beers and some cigars!

Make sure you opt out of partner programs or your images will just continue to keep going there. Both FT and DT automatically send images to Pixmac if you are opted in.

« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2010, 02:20 »
0
Where are those "opt out" buttons? I couldn't find them! I don't want to hear about Pixmac ever again!

Dook

« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2010, 03:03 »
0
It is still not clear, but the question is where do these pictures come from, how come they are selling our pictures at all. It looks like the pictures are coming from BigStock and I'm really feeling stupid that I uploaded my pictures there at all. All my time wasted for ridiculous earning at BS and now this way of making us fools.

Well, you CAN opt out of partner programs on Big Stock. That will stop your images from going to Pixmac or anywhere else. I would just like to know what steps have been taken to find out where the problem is and what is being done to stop it immediately. In no way, shape or form should a person's copyright be removed from their file. And even worse is someone putting their name in as the copyright holder.

I will do that. Thanks for the advice. :)

« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2010, 07:04 »
0
Where are those "opt out" buttons? I couldn't find them! I don't want to hear about Pixmac ever again!

DT: Management Area>Alliances button

BigStock: Your Account > Uploads > Reseller Sales

Don't know about FT, haven't been there for years.

And you should follow up with an email directly to Pixmac to remove all images, if you haven't already.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 07:05 by cclapper »

« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2010, 17:55 »
0
Where are those "opt out" buttons? I couldn't find them! I don't want to hear about Pixmac ever again!

FT doesn't allow you to opt out.

« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2010, 19:40 »
0
So, this is the old thread (Dec 2009) with the same thumbnail problem. 

http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/so-what%27s-the-deal-with-pixmac/

« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2010, 20:06 »
0
So, this is the old thread (Dec 2009) with the same thumbnail problem. 

http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/so-what%27s-the-deal-with-pixmac/


So after all that discussion from before, looks like nothing really got fixed. And by letting a contributor in who has effectively deleted other people's copyright information and added their own, they have compounded their problem.

RacePhoto

« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2010, 03:00 »
0
Where are those "opt out" buttons? I couldn't find them! I don't want to hear about Pixmac ever again!

FT doesn't allow you to opt out.

Oh yes they do. I dropped FT, which in effect opted out all my images, that solved the problem. :)

« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2010, 03:34 »
0
Where are those "opt out" buttons? I couldn't find them! I don't want to hear about Pixmac ever again!

FT doesn't allow you to opt out.

Oh yes they do. I dropped FT, which in effect opted out all my images, that solved the problem. :)

Of course that solution always works  ;)


molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2010, 15:50 »
0
Most Professional photographers, musicians, merchants, ect are kinda seriuos businesman too, generally in a tough stance protecting their turf as mauch as the world allows them. The people how 'let you in' on this business see you as clueless amaterus who don't know sh*t about sh*t, and stare dumfounded when violated, and they are kinda right about that. In short: expect to be raped in every orifice possible.

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2010, 22:58 »
0
Where are those "opt out" buttons? I couldn't find them! I don't want to hear about Pixmac ever again!


FT doesn't allow you to opt out.


Oh yes they do. I dropped FT, which in effect opted out all my images, that solved the problem. :)


Of course that solution always works  ;)


I need to correct that, almost always works. After reading the other thread and this one I looked for my pictures and guess what? I'm still selling on Pixmac listed as Fotolia. So how do they pay me if the FT account is closed. Now I'm part of the pissed off club.

« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 23:15 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2010, 03:30 »
0
This post has been sad reading for me. First of all, I fully agree the photographers must and should get their names visible next to the images, instead of some agency/collection name only; that is the legal and moral right. If and when that is not done, it is either question of some technical problem in showing metadata or getting the metadata through API, or someone somewhere just is not fully familiar with importance of showing the photographer's name instead of agency/collection name. What ever the reason is, it still is pure mistake and surely many people have learned something from this case.

I personally think it is very dangerous to immediately start saying the agencies mentioned in this post, have stolen the images.  We are talking about professional legal companies here, and it never is good to accuse anyone without really knowing what is going on. And I really do not  believe any of these agencies would steal images. Seeing big collection like this should already tell us there is some proper source for them. Having personal discussion is always a good way to get familiar with people so if problems like this appear, make the call, discuss, find out what is going on.

Both news photo agencies and stock photo agencies, have used sub-agencies and re-sellers all around the world at least during the past 25 years, so much before microstock was started. Different kind of collection names above the agency name have also always been used, so Colossus is no weirdo in that sense. Even today with digital photography and online shopping that is the only way to cover the whole world and maximize the sales. When we choose to work with someone, we must do it with trust. So if I upload my images to some agency, I must trust I get the payments for my sold images; and I must have the same trust if this agency chooses to sell my images through some re-seller/sub-agent, too. If I do not have this trust, I can not sell my images through this agency. But I must have some proper proven reason not to trust before making decisions.

If these re-sellers/sub-agents are used, it always works so that the re-seller/sub-agent reports and pays all the sales to their source; not to individual photographer. Why, because the so called representation contract is with the agency supplying their collections containing images from various photographers. None of the "traditional" photo agencies who have representatives all around the work ask for photographer's approval to sell the images through the re-sellers/sub-agents but it is automatic system: if you put your images for sale in any news or stock image agency, your images are sold not only on their website but also on multiple other agencies' worldwide.  You still get your payments from the agency to whom you uploaded your images, in your sales report you might see country names but you do not see the re-sellers' names there.

So why would we not want to spread our images through these rep channels worldwide to wide audience? Why would we not want to use the ways that have been found successfull ways of selling images? Yes, there are more players taking their share from the sales prices, but it comes back in form of more images sold. But it does not happen in days or weeks but it takes time to launch new collections, to charm the users. And it also means good collection size; if one has only few images, even only few hundreds of images, getting good sales is not possible. I fully understand we all are a bit frustrated with the prices going down all the time and sales going down, but rather than being just angry all the time we should discuss in peace about possibilities and choises; world is changing in microstock too.

Regarding the photographer's name being visible, or the fact it is perhaps not being found important so I personally, I am sorry to say this, feel we can accuse ourselves a bit about that, too: we use nicknames instead of our proper names. That de-valuates our work: when I am selling the images, too, I always ask the editorial users to publish the photographer's name but I understand they find it difficult when they should print there image was taken by some strange nickname only, which sometimes even is in japanese alphabets only, instead of being able to show proper "firstname surname". It also makes my work difficult: I would love to highlight photographers and their work in my blog and marketing by showing the name and some photographer profile with sample images. But I can not find any information about the photographer as when trying to Google the contact information so that I could ask the photographer to tell me a bit about the work, values etc I can not find anything else than urls to some images in some agency. I also believe use of nicknames makes it possible to make keyword spamming as it is so easy to hide behind the nickname.

I love photography and I love image business. I would love to be proud of microstock business, too - but somehow I feel we should start giving more value to our own work, we the photographers, we can not accept other people respect our work if we do not do it ourselves, properly, not only by being angry.

If we shoot microstock, let's do it with pride and show our names. Let's demand all photographers, professional or amateur, to keyword the images better and stop doing keyword spamming (which really devaluates our work and makes users to go away), let's demand the agencies do not lower the prices anymore, let's demand the agencies do not accept low quality imagery. Let's stop offering totally free images which again devaluate our work.

« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2010, 04:23 »
0
What I really do not understand is why Pixmac's partner is not BigStock directly but Colossus (that seems to be more responsible for this issue in my opinion) and what scares me is fact that Pixmac redistributes pictures to another agency (partly their venture) that is still able to afford to offer affiliate program). No wonder that our commissions must be that low.

... but on the other hand - I don't know why this issue is considered to be such a huge problem. Nobody cares that Thinkstock makes absolutely same mistake. You can find in many cases as photographers names  "Comstock Images", "Jupiterimages (even with copyritht owner Getty Images!!!") "Brand X Pictures" etc. When it comes iStock Collection - photographer's not named at all.   Well Pixmac put to Colossus "profile" Czech Republic but where's the difference?

« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2010, 04:57 »
0
What I really do not understand is why Pixmac's partner is not BigStock directly but Colossus (that seems to be more responsible for this issue in my opinion) and what scares me is fact that Pixmac redistributes pictures to another agency (partly their venture) that is still able to afford to offer affiliate program). No wonder that our commissions must be that low.

... but on the other hand - I don't know why this issue is considered to be such a huge problem. Nobody cares that Thinkstock makes absolutely same mistake. You can find in many cases as photographers names  "Comstock Images", "Jupiterimages (even with copyritht owner Getty Images!!!") "Brand X Pictures" etc. When it comes iStock Collection - photographer's not named at all.   Well Pixmac put to Colossus "profile" Czech Republic but where's the difference?

 :) I believe the answer is quite simple: though some agencies have started to see the possibilities in using reps, they still are a bit jealous about their "own" business and think hiding their own name is a way to use representatives, gain more sales but do that by using some other collection name. The difference between "traditional image business" and microstock is just this; in microstock people, the agencies and the photographers, see reasons to do things behind nicknames. But using some other collection name does not mean the agencies would try to steal from the photographers. But I think it would be better for the agencies to show up with their own name with the reps, too - in marketing sense that would be only good; for the agencies and for the photographers


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
14449 Views
Last post February 21, 2016, 15:47
by Justanotherphotographer
31 Replies
14924 Views
Last post November 20, 2010, 06:26
by fotografer
11 Replies
7653 Views
Last post September 30, 2011, 00:53
by lagereek
3 Replies
4888 Views
Last post July 13, 2012, 07:47
by Poncke
12 Replies
4660 Views
Last post April 12, 2013, 14:31
by Sadstock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle