MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: cuppacoffee on April 21, 2013, 10:11
-
All Shutterstock Images.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/h2/obad/dunkindonuts/stock-photo-models-whose-coffee-was-probably-too-strong (http://www.buzzfeed.com/h2/obad/dunkindonuts/stock-photo-models-whose-coffee-was-probably-too-strong)
-
He is in violation of his licence as the images are bigger then 800x600
-
Yeah, they are quite large. I thought it was in violation but I don't know what the top limit is on the different sites. I also wondered if it was some kind of second hand agreement directly with Shutterstock. Some of the agencies donate articles with their images in to odd hobby and tech sites/blogs to get publicity. Most of the readers don't realize that.
-
I did wonder why someone would pay money to buy the files for that page, even though a bit funny.
-
Why would SS agree to have their images mocked? And if they bought them of SS, then he is in violation of the licence.
Yeah, they are quite large. I thought it was in violation but I don't know what the top limit is on the different sites. I also wondered if it was some kind of second hand agreement directly with Shutterstock. Some of the agencies donate articles with their images in to odd hobby and tech sites/blogs to get publicity. Most of the readers don't realize that.
-
Yep, a lot of stock photography is becoming pretty pointless and ludicrous.
Slick piece of parody from DIS Mag...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/dis-magazine-stock-photos_n_2772783.html#slide=more283408 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/dis-magazine-stock-photos_n_2772783.html#slide=more283408)
-
Why would SS agree to have their images mocked? And if they bought them of SS, then he is in violation of the licence.
Yeah, they are quite large. I thought it was in violation but I don't know what the top limit is on the different sites. I also wondered if it was some kind of second hand agreement directly with Shutterstock. Some of the agencies donate articles with their images in to odd hobby and tech sites/blogs to get publicity. Most of the readers don't realize that.
Just checking -- are they violating the license agreement because of the size of the images, or because they're mocking the images?
-
Why would SS agree to have their images mocked? And if they bought them of SS, then he is in violation of the licence.
Yeah, they are quite large. I thought it was in violation but I don't know what the top limit is on the different sites. I also wondered if it was some kind of second hand agreement directly with Shutterstock. Some of the agencies donate articles with their images in to odd hobby and tech sites/blogs to get publicity. Most of the readers don't realize that.
Just checking -- are they violating the license agreement because of the size of the images, or because they're mocking the images?
Parody is a fair use.
-
Why would SS agree to have their images mocked? And if they bought them of SS, then he is in violation of the licence.
Yeah, they are quite large. I thought it was in violation but I don't know what the top limit is on the different sites. I also wondered if it was some kind of second hand agreement directly with Shutterstock. Some of the agencies donate articles with their images in to odd hobby and tech sites/blogs to get publicity. Most of the readers don't realize that.
Just checking -- are they violating the license agreement because of the size of the images, or because they're mocking the images?
Parody is a fair use.
I see. :) Thanks!
-
Size
-
In other words, size is more important than what you do with it....
-
Humour
-
Humour
Actually the term is Parody, but yes.
So someone explain, you can pay for and download a file for use, but you can't use it? Or you can only use it at a reduced size? What's the size limit? I haven't been able to identify that from ThinkStock contract regulations? I mean an actual size restriction?
I can't seem to find the place that regulates web use from there. 800 x 600?
Maybe someone could make a list that shows what the top ten sites have for web use restrictions, that would be very interesting information.
-
TS seems to have no size restriction as such (see other thread)
SS, which is the relevant agency in this thread, has a web restriction of 800x600:
2. By this Agreement, Shutterstock grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, right to use and reproduce Images in the following ways, subject to the limitations set forth herein and in Part II hereof:
a) On web sites, provided that no Image is displayed at a resolution greater than 800 x 600 pixels;
http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?type=standard (http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?type=standard)
By SS's modus operandi, your sub lets you download the largest size for the same price. You could use the largest size for print. They rely on buyers to read the ToS to know that they can't use them larger than 800x600 on the web.
That's different from e.g. iS, who let you use larger sizes provided you alter them, e.g. put text on the image before uploading.
-
Small wonder I still don't understand.
SS has a restriction 800 x 600 for the web. IS does also (unknown) but if you alter it, then you can ignore that. ThinkStock has a different restriction for the identical images that are on IS? What are FT and DT and 123RF and DP for example.
How does anyone know where the image came from, if it's up on 20 different sites? How would we know which "restriction" or lack of one, is invoked, if we don't know where people got something.
Is there any list anywhere of the top ten, that lists the websize use restrictions? That would be interesting data.
TS seems to have no size restriction as such (see other thread)
SS, which is the relevant agency in this thread, has a web restriction of 800x600:
2. By this Agreement, Shutterstock grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, right to use and reproduce Images in the following ways, subject to the limitations set forth herein and in Part II hereof:
a) On web sites, provided that no Image is displayed at a resolution greater than 800 x 600 pixels;
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?type=standard[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?type=standard[/url])
By SS's modus operandi, your sub lets you download the largest size for the same price. You could use the largest size for print. They rely on buyers to read the ToS to know that they can't use them larger than 800x600 on the web.
That's different from e.g. iS, who let you use larger sizes provided you alter them, e.g. put text on the image before uploading.
-
SS has a restriction 800 x 600 for the web. IS does also (unknown) but if you alter it, then you can ignore that.
It's not unknown, but I think we can take it that if contributors don't know the rules for the sites they post on (actually, I can't remember if you upload to iS, but you do submit to SS), and don't know where to find them you can bet your bottom dollar that many/most buyers don't bother.
iS:
License restrictions
Here is what you cannot do with either a Standard or Extended license:
...Displaying an original image digitally on-screen larger than 1200 x 800 pixels; video image size limitation is 640 x 480. Any size reproduction is acceptable with substantial changes to the content...
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses (http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses) (is that correct spelling in Canada?)
On iS you get to the licence page by clicking the licence options link underneath the price/credit table on each image's 'home page'. I don't see a direct link from an image page in SS - I found the info by wading through the FAQs and getting a link there.
How would we know which "restriction" or lack of one, is invoked, if we don't know where people got something.
That is probably the main hazard of being an indy - tracking down any sort of misuse/abuse.
-
Found one of them: SS
Part I LIMITED LICENSE, section 2.
a) On web sites, provided that no Image is displayed at a resolution greater than 800 x 600 pixels;
DP =
1600 x 1200 pixels (for images) and 640 x 480 pixels (for videos)
Maybe someone else can fill in some more?
How would we know which "restriction" or lack of one, is invoked, if we don't know where people got something.
That is probably the main hazard of being an indy - tracking down any sort of misuse/abuse.
-
Humour definitely appears to be in breach of Terms and Conditions.
http://www.youtu.be/KS2khYJZKwA (http://www.youtu.be/KS2khYJZKwA)