MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock Photo Models Whose Coffee Was Probably Too Strong  (Read 13892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cuppacoffee



Poncke

« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2013, 10:13 »
0
He is in violation of his licence as the images are bigger then 800x600

cuppacoffee

« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2013, 11:31 »
0
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2013, 11:33 »
0
I did wonder why someone would pay money to buy the files for that page, even though a bit funny.

Poncke

« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2013, 11:34 »
0
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.

mattdixon

« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2013, 12:40 »
0
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

« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2013, 12:42 »
0
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?

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2013, 12:47 »
0
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.

« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2013, 12:54 »
0
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!

Poncke

« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2013, 12:56 »
0
Size

« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2013, 13:05 »
+3
In other words, size is more important than what you do with it....
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 13:43 by heywoody »

mattdixon

« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2013, 13:06 »
0
Humour

RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2013, 05:22 »
0
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.

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2013, 05:30 »
0
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

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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2013, 05:41 »
0
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;

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.

ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2013, 05:53 »
0
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 (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.

Quote
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2013, 06:08 »
0
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?


Quote
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.



mattdixon

« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2013, 07:28 »
0
Humour definitely appears to be in breach of Terms and Conditions.

<a href="http://www.youtu.be/KS2khYJZKwA" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtu.be/KS2khYJZKwA</a>


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2193 Views
Last post January 25, 2008, 17:43
by rinderart
3 Replies
2615 Views
Last post September 21, 2010, 09:03
by dgilder
13 Replies
3755 Views
Last post February 13, 2012, 11:00
by wut
26 Replies
16684 Views
Last post August 12, 2016, 13:03
by ComfortEagle2095
10 Replies
2140 Views
Last post February 23, 2018, 13:02
by StockbyNumbers

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results