MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => Veer => Topic started by: cathyslife on May 27, 2011, 14:31
-
Just to give everyone a heads up...
I just found out Veer is partnered with Media Bakery. I had requested the removal of my images from Veer because I do not want to participate in the partner program. They had already been sent to two partners, and my images were in the works to be sent to Media Bakery when I asked to remove my images.
If you all recall the fiasco with pixmac/media bakery and copyright information on about 220,000 images that had been stripped and changed to Colossus...well, I just checked all my images that were sent to Media Bakery via Veer, and all have had my copyright info stripped and © Media Bakery added in its place. That is not acceptable and it is copyright infringement.
I have notified Ryan at Veer of this major problem and anxiously await his reply. I have asked that all my images be removed immediately.
-
Same here! says copy. Media bakery, so what . is this then?
-
Just to give everyone a heads up...
I just found out Veer is partnered with Media Bakery. I had requested the removal of my images from Veer because I do not want to participate in the partner program. They had already been sent to two partners, and my images were in the works to be sent to Media Bakery when I asked to remove my images.
If you all recall the fiasco with pixmac/media bakery and copyright information on about 220,000 images that had been stripped and changed to Colossus...well, I just checked all my images that were sent to Media Bakery via Veer, and all have had my copyright info stripped and © Media Bakery added in its place. That is not acceptable and it is copyright infringement.
I have notified Ryan at Veer of this major problem and anxiously await his reply. I have asked that all my images be removed immediately.
Thanks for the heads up, I notified the fellow who is in charge of our API program and we will be contacting Media Bakery to get this display error corrected.
-
Thanks a lot for looking into this Ryan. Having our copyright info removed and replaced with someone else's copyright info is completely unacceptable. Not to mention illegal.
Please let us know as soon as this is resolved.
Thanks, Cathy, for bringing this up.
-
I haven't found any of my images, but Yuri Arcur's images are credited as "© media bakery" as well.
-
Today, my account at Veer is completely gone, as in wiped out and I can't even get to my dashboard page, etc. I asked to have my images removed, so I guess that is to be expected. But my images still remain on Media Bakery, snapfish and photogenica.
-
I just sent a courtesy email to Media Bakery, asking for my images to be removed. Next will be a cease and desist.
I am still baffled as to why some partner programs don't replace the copyright info and some choose to do it, when it is such a blatant disrespect. It can't be impossible to do, otherwise they all would be doing it, no?
-
I just sent a courtesy email to Media Bakery, asking for my images to be removed. Next will be a cease and desist.
I am still baffled as to why some partner programs don't replace the copyright info and some choose to do it, when it is such a blatant disrespect. It can't be impossible to do, otherwise they all would be doing it, no?
We're dealing with the same thing with Getty. They distribute some collections to Veer and Corbis with a false copyright.
-
I haven't heard of this Snapfish thing yet. Where can I find my images there?
I only could find Getty images there and the thumbnails didn't even work properly so it's like shooting in the dark.
Do you have a link where I can do a search for my images on Snapfish?
-
I haven't heard of this Snapfish thing yet. Where can I find my images there?
I only could find Getty images there and the thumbnails didn't even work properly so it's like shooting in the dark.
Do you have a link where I can do a search for my images on Snapfish?
go here:
http://stockimages.snapfish.com/LSMarketplace/LogIn?ReturnUrl=%2fLSMarketplace%2f (http://stockimages.snapfish.com/LSMarketplace/LogIn?ReturnUrl=%2fLSMarketplace%2f)
Then click the orange click here button. I searched for my Veer user name which is cathyslife and all my images came up.
edit: and actually, snapfish did the same thing, but someone complained, and they immediately revised the copyright to © snapfish/cathyslife, which still isn't correct. No where have they listed my copyright as it appears in the File Info submitted with the image. I don't want the copyright listed at cathyslife, I want it listed with the date, exactly as it appears in the file info. That's what we spend all of our time for...adding info so that it is correct and appears consistent everywhere. Snapfish or any other site doesn't have ANY RIGHTS TO MY COPYRIGHT and their name shouldn't appear anywhere near that © symbol.
-
I just sent a courtesy email to Media Bakery, asking for my images to be removed. Next will be a cease and desist.
I am still baffled as to why some partner programs don't replace the copyright info and some choose to do it, when it is such a blatant disrespect. It can't be impossible to do, otherwise they all would be doing it, no?
We're dealing with the same thing with Getty. They distribute some collections to Veer and Corbis with a false copyright.
It just isn't right.
-
Dear Veer,
Please correct your behaviour immediatly...
-
After a while I got it. Thanks.
-
I can see: (c) MediaBakery. But images include right artist's name as well.
This is progress. In Pixmac case it looked like Colossus is the most hardworking artist ever.
-
I can see: (c) MediaBakery. But images include right artist's name as well.
This is progress. In Pixmac case it looked like Colossus is the most hardworking artist ever.
Not sure what you mean. Any time the © appears, Media Bakery is after it. Elsewhere, it says "More by this artist: cathyslife".
My copyright info in an image file info reads © 2007 Cathleen A Clapper. Or whatever year the image was taken. THAT'S what should appear as the copyright.
I'm not seeing any progress. Can you explain where you are seeing the contributors correct copyright name?
-
No I cannot see correct copyright name. I meant that on Pixmac it looked like "More by this artist: Colossus"
Nevertheless I know that mentioning of the artist doesn't change anything on the fact that it is copyright infringement.
-
No I cannot see correct copyright name. I meant that on Pixmac it looked like "More by this artist: Colossus"
Nevertheless I know that mentioning of the artist doesn't change anything on the fact that it is copyright infringement.
You are correct.
I spoke with Cammie at Media Bakery. She apologized and is taking my images down because I am opting out anyway, but apparently the IPTC/file info is stripped before it gets to Media Bakery (or any other partner) by Veer (or BigStock, or whatever agency they are partnered with). But that doesn't explain how the © Colossus got added in on the last fiasco. And after that last fiasco months ago, nothing has been done by any of the agencies or the participating partners to correct that problem.
Removing contributors' copyright name is copyright infringement and is illegal. I don't get why agencies and partners think they should be able to blame "the software" and just get away with it. >:(
-
This is exactly why we need to know who our agencies partner with. There are plenty who have this confidentiality thing and won't report who they partner with. Ridiculous. We are the ones that have to keep track and make sure that our images are correctly monitored and we don't get screwed. Another award winning example right here.
-
This is exactly why we need to know who our agencies partner with. There are plenty who have this confidentiality thing and won't report who they partner with. Ridiculous. We are the ones that have to keep track and make sure that our images are correctly monitored and we don't get screwed. Another award winning example right here.
Yeah, are we sure this is a Veer partner? My images arent there (good, keep it that way!) which makes me think its not Veer (strange though Ryan seems to think it is, but didnt they say they would announce any new partners?); my guess is yet another FT partner.
-
This is exactly why we need to know who our agencies partner with. There are plenty who have this confidentiality thing and won't report who they partner with. Ridiculous. We are the ones that have to keep track and make sure that our images are correctly monitored and we don't get screwed. Another award winning example right here.
Yeah, are we sure this is a Veer partner? My images arent there (good, keep it that way!) which makes me think its not Veer (strange though Ryan seems to think it is, but didnt they say they would announce any new partners?); my guess is yet another Fotolia partner.
It's definitely Veer. And yes, they did say they would announce new partners, but this one apparently just happened about 3 weeks ago. Why they haven't announced it by now, I don't know. Maybe for the same reason the others don't...they don't want hassles? I don't know. I applauded Veer for stepping up and making their partners known. It's too bad about this whole copyright issue and it's also too bad they decided not to include an opt-out.
Besides the fact that Ryan confirmed it to me in a private email, I don't submit to Fotolia, so mine couldn't have come from there. I have no clue if Fotolia and Media Bakery are partners.
-
I don't see any of my pics on Media Bakery. I am on both Veer and Fotolia. I do notice that the pictures they have all say (c) Media Bakery.
-
looks like additional keywords are added, I wonder where they are coming from
Can't see anywhere where it says (c) mediabakery
Can somebody tell me where to look.
Personally I only really care that I get money from any sales and they can't be downloaded for free and have a suitable watermark on the thumbnail
-
looks like additional keywords are added, I wonder where they are coming from
Can't see anywhere where it says (c) mediabakery
Can somebody tell me where to look.
Personally I only really care that I get money from any sales and they can't be downloaded for free and have a suitable watermark on the thumbnail
They must have changed it. A few hours ago it was there. Now it just says "more by this artist" with the artist's name.
Fast action. Congrats to Ryan if he was responsible for getting that changed! :)
-
Great for Veer. Bad for Pixmac - obviously there was fast solution.
-
I just sent a courtesy email to Media Bakery, asking for my images to be removed. Next will be a cease and desist.
I am still baffled as to why some partner programs don't replace the copyright info and some choose to do it, when it is such a blatant disrespect. It can't be impossible to do, otherwise they all would be doing it, no?
We're dealing with the same thing with Getty. They distribute some collections to Veer and Corbis with a false copyright.
Yeah but they all seam to do this! Nordic-Photos, is another one. Weird! just noticed this.
-
looks like additional keywords are added, I wonder where they are coming from
Can't see anywhere where it says (c) mediabakery
Can somebody tell me where to look.
Personally I only really care that I get money from any sales and they can't be downloaded for free and have a suitable watermark on the thumbnail
They must have changed it. A few hours ago it was there. Now it just says "more by this artist" with the artist's name.
Fast action. Congrats to Ryan if he was responsible for getting that changed! :)
I am guessing that Cammie changed it after my conversation with her. I doubt Veer had anything to do with it. Veer is the one who strips all the IPTC data out, in their software, before it goes to the partner.
I appreciate that Media Bakery has taken that step, but just realize that any images sold by Media Bakery will not have ANY copyright info for that image. (as I understand it. If I have it wrong, please correct me...if you are partner and KNOW exactly how the software works). But at least the WRONG copyright isn't on there.
-
So if the copyright symbol can be taken out...why can't the copyright symbol be added in, so maybe it reads something like this:
More images from this artist and copyright ©: and then the artists name with the link to their port. This still may not be the correct way the contributor wants his copyright published, as a lot of photographers do not use their name as their account name, but it sure would be better than having the agency/partner name in there.
-
So my images are down from Media Bakery...thank you Cammie. Still haggling with snapfish to get them off and sent an email to photogenica, requesting deletion.
Another suggestion for Veer or any other agency participating in partner programs...communication is a good thing. When a contributor cancels their account, maybe you could email the partner sites, informing them of the cancellation and cc a copy of the email to the contributor, so that everyone knows the partner images need to be taken down ASAP, and the contributor knows that it has all been handled.
Might be asking too much. :-[
-
Good work Cathy! Sounds like your efforts are the reason that we don't have to worry about this. Please convey my thanks to Cammie.
-
looks like additional keywords are added, I wonder where they are coming from
may be interesting to analyse those additional words
do they make sense, as if they were added by a human, or partial sense as if added by a thesaurus, or no sense at all - which could result from a double translation?
I know of one site which translates everything from English to Spanish and then back to English again
e.g., my "Cardross parish church, near Glasgow, Scotland" was somehow transformed into the meaningless "Church of Scotland area"
-
OMG THIS IS SO EMBARRASSING!!!!! Here's a photo of mine on Snapfish. My photo has 19 keywords. It's a hockey player on ice with a stick and puck in front of the net. Look at what has happened to the keywords:
Child, Sports, Play, Vertical, Activity, Sports, People, boys, male, boy, young, person, caucasian, sport, life, mask, game, children, childhood, stick, ice, youth, athlete, playing, twig, sticks, helmet, activities, clothes, icy, equipment, Team sports, twigs, games, Ethnicity, Caucasians, Males, helmets, ice rink, clothing, Concept, hockey, concepts, persons, recreational actions, life stages, life stage, ethnicities and nationalities, nationality, ethnicity and nationality, athletics, Athletic Activity, white people, White ethnicity, head coverings, head covering, team sport, athletic, athletes, sports facilities, athleticism, sports facility, sports venue, sports venues, ice rinks, skating rink, skating rinks, protective clothing, protective gear, protective clothes, protective equipment, focus techniques, focus technique, protective headgear, masks
I'm not saying I approve of the ones I haven't bolded either, most of them are MAYBE 5% applicable to the photo. Jeeze, real agencies suspend people with keywords like this. I'm afraid to look for more.
Not to mention - has anyone ever taken a look at their keywords on the Veer site itself. Prepare yourself to be shocked. Why do they f*ck around with these things? ? ? Am I not paying them about 70% on every sale of MY photos, not THEIRS? I have photos of figure skaters where they have removed the keywords "figure skater" altogether!!! A girl on figure skates, in a short twinkly costume but she is no longer a figure skater.
-
OMG THIS IS SO EMBARRASSING!!!!! Here's a photo of mine on Snapfish. My photo has 19 keywords. It's a hockey player on ice with a stick and puck in front of the net. Look at what has happened to the keywords:
Child, Sports, Play, Vertical, Activity, Sports, People, boys, male, boy, young, person, caucasian, sport, life, mask, game, children, childhood, stick, ice, youth, athlete, playing, twig, sticks, helmet, activities, clothes, icy, equipment, Team sports, twigs, games, Ethnicity, Caucasians, Males, helmets, ice rink, clothing, Concept, hockey, concepts, persons, recreational actions, life stages, life stage, ethnicities and nationalities, nationality, ethnicity and nationality, athletics, Athletic Activity, white people, White ethnicity, head coverings, head covering, team sport, athletic, athletes, sports facilities, athleticism, sports facility, sports venue, sports venues, ice rinks, skating rink, skating rinks, protective clothing, protective gear, protective clothes, protective equipment, focus techniques, focus technique, protective headgear, masks
I'm not saying I approve of the ones I haven't bolded either, most of them are MAYBE 5% applicable to the photo. Jeeze, real agencies suspend people with keywords like this. I'm afraid to look for more.
Not to mention - has anyone ever taken a look at their keywords on the Veer site itself. Prepare yourself to be shocked. Why do they f*ck around with these things? ? ? Am I not paying them about 70% on every sale of MY photos, not THEIRS? I have photos of figure skaters where they have removed the keywords "figure skater" altogether!!! A girl on figure skates, in a short twinkly costume but she is no longer a figure skater.
That's a very good question. For years now, we all have been adding IPTC data to our images so that all of these things are in place. I am for the reviewing of images and keywords, but it seems as if they are stripping out the IPTC data WE input and putting their own in.
-
Good work Cathy! Sounds like your efforts are the reason that we don't have to worry about this. Please convey my thanks to Cammie.
I guess you don't have to worry about if you don't want to, but if my images were staying up on Veer, Media Bakery, snapfish and photogenica, I would NOT be happy that all of my IPTC data has been stripped, and those partners can put anything they like on their sites. For instance, snapfish still shows my copyright this way: © snapfish / cathyslife. As I said earlier, there is NO WAY IN HE11 the word snapfish should be anywhere near the © mark. If they can input the copyright symbol and cathyslife, they can certainly leave out the snapfish, but it doesn't look like they choose to. photogenica has it © cathyslife / Veer / Photogenica. That is unacceptable as far as I am concerned. I'm the only copyright holder, and by these companies putting this on their sites just creates a lot of confusion. Just makes proof of ownership all that more difficult to prove, IMHO.