rgbstock
Pictures illegal use
1. saavem18 March 2010, 19:53 GMT +01:00
Istockphoto user named mervebirinci publish my picture from sxc.
My first thread about it. I hope the last one
This is my picture:
http://www.rgbstock.com/image/2dFkyUp
This is the url reporting the illegal use of my picture
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1 ..
I noticed it to sxc.hu
I'm going to notice it to istockphoto also!
26. micromoth28 September 2010, 13:20 GMT +02:00
@24 From the information you have given, Caroline Parker has taken the credit for your image - she has given the misleading impression that it was her work. Was she paid for this work I wonder? I would suggest sending a polite message to her email address, pointing out that she is in breach of the conditions of use of your image and asking her for 50% of the payment she received for the work. I doubt you will actually get the money (though you might!) but it will help dissuade her from undertaking any further rip-offs.
What do others think?
27. StariSob28 September 2010, 13:24 GMT +02:00
I think there should be a line which clearly states whose picture is on the cover along with designer of the cover. The info on designer from CD cover you provided us can be indeed misread and it is ambiguous - though it does not says she took cover photo.
However, I don't know what should be done, since CD is finished and on sale and can't be easily corrected. But if it is small series or some kind of print-on-demand you can insist they on correction.
28. krayker29 September 2010, 10:18 GMT +02:00
how about a condition in RGB user agreement that would require a credit line:
"© (Artist's Name) / RGBstock"
as a condition of the License. This would mean for any publication - multiple prints as in this case of a CD cover.
29. xymonau29 September 2010, 11:04 GMT +02:00
Maybe we could go to the system they had elsewhere where uploaders could stipulate permission needed for certain images. I don't know how complicated that would be to set up, but the search would also have to allow searching for "no permission needed" images. In these early days, it's hard to weed out people who abuse the system.
30. micromoth29 September 2010, 13:14 GMT +02:00
@29 I think that could be a good idea, even if only to help generate some feedback from users. Currently out of about 1600 downloads of my images I've received feedback from less than 10 users - hardly a generous attitude! - and I'm not aware of a single link to usage of the images. Something that restrains this grab-first-and-never-mind-anything-else behaviour and gives image providers some idea of where their images are used would be a welcome improvement. But is it an awful lot of extra work for our hardworking site architects?
31. Abyla5 October 2010, 21:14 GMT +02:00
@29 & @30
I agree with you.
I understand that the use of image restrictions is against the spirit of our site but, to set usage restrictions can help us to avoid some not desired usages of our images.
We could remember four level of restrictions we used in other time:
- Standard restrictions apply
- Contact for public use
- Contact and credit for public use
- Written permission needed
32. tinneketin5 October 2010, 22:05 GMT +02:00
@31 I would like to have the same restrictions here to ! ;o)
33. saavem6 October 2010, 7:14 GMT +02:00
@31 I would like the same restrictions cold be applied in RGBStock!. I agree Javier, Kevin(@30) & Dez (@29),
34. weirdvis6 October 2010, 10:35 GMT +02:00
Sadly restrictions will not prevent rip-offs or other kinds of unauthorised usage. While the majority of users have honest intentions you will always get a percentage that do not. It's the risk we all take when we upload to stock sites.
35. Abyla6 October 2010, 11:59 GMT +02:00
Lynne you are right, restriction levels don't prevent unauthorised usages completely, but restriction levels can help us to upload more images for private ( and not commercial ) usage, images which are been rejected for property release reasons now ( and I understand and I agree with that reasons ).
Do most of our users need our works for a commercial usage ?
36. weirdvis6 October 2010, 15:17 GMT +02:00
Restrictions do not prevent unscrupulous commercial use. It just makes a ripper work a little harder and simply lie to obtain what s/he wants, that's all. We effectively lose control of our images the second they are posted on the net. We rely on honesty while acknowledging that not everyone is honest. The only 100% way to prevent copyright theft and protect privacy is to not post the images at all which sort of defeats the object of the exercise.
Many of my images have been used commercially. Some users even asked for permission first. :0)
37. saavem7 October 2010, 21:33 GMT +02:00
I agree 100% Javier @35.
RGBStock users need my pictures for a non commercial usage. A lot of webs using my pictures.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saavem/sets/72157624344332991/
A dozen of book covers and so on. I only detected illegal use in DevianArt and in the said CD cover.
Maybe is necessary to change the terms of use of our pictures in the way Javier say.
38. weirdvis8 October 2010, 9:05 GMT +02:00
What sort of changes to the Terms of Use would you like to suggest?
39. lusi8 October 2010, 10:43 GMT +02:00
I have nothing against my pictures being commercialy used. I like helping young designers (trying to earn some money,) get photos they need, cause they do not have the means to buy them from paystock sites. Therefore, I am against restrictions because they always make the life more difficult...
40. Abyla8 October 2010, 12:40 GMT +02:00
First of all, I respect your point of view of course and nobody must understand this as a confrontation among this site members.
Lusi, with restriction levels you can set all your images for commercial uses, without restriction levels I cannot set which of my images are for not commercial uses. I only ask for a bit of freedom for contributors to decide.
41. saavem8 October 2010, 13:32 GMT +02:00
@39 I like to see my pictures used in commercial items. I like it a lot. But I don't like someone use my pictures without crediting me as the author, because this way the picture seem to be of the user.
It's obvious that when the user assume the picture is not mine, he/she is violating the license agreement on RGBStock.com.
"7.4 Ownership of the copyright of manipulated, deviated and modified RGBStock.com images remains with the RGBStock.com image provider and may not be assumed by any other person if the original image is still identifiable in part or in whole."
@ 38 Then I would like the obligation about the authorship credit extending the article 7.4 in commercial usage. The picture, of course, is for free and I think the minimum courtesy is to credit the author.
42. weirdvis8 October 2010, 15:11 GMT +02:00
"Then I would like the obligation about the authorship credit extending the article 7.4 in commercial usage. The picture, of course, is for free and I think the minimum courtesy is to credit the author."
Unfortunately that will not prevent unscrupulous users doing what they want. While many honest users go out of their way to accomodate such a request it isn't always practical. For example I've had some of my images used for museum display backgrounds and I would not expect to see my name appearing anywhere on the display. Nor would I ask it. It would be enough to know it is being useful and seen by many people.
43. saavem8 October 2010, 17:04 GMT +02:00
I agree you Lynne. Maybe it's necessary the author permission,
44. xymonau9 October 2010, 10:57 GMT +02:00
Well, with some optional restrictions, we may not be able to control use, but we could sue the pants off those who abuse copyright, if so inclined. I never restricted mine elsewhere, until the place was bought by unscrupulous people, and I possibly wouldn't here. But I must admit feeling reluctant to upload some better images knowing they are likely to end up on a cd compilation and given away by some creep(as has happened several times). At least with a very visible restriction - symbol or words next to the image - no-one can be mistaken. It's also another way to keep track of just where our images are being used. That's the real pay-off, after all.
46. weirdvis10 October 2010, 11:55 GMT +02:00
A clarification is required. The "we" in "we could sue the pants off..." means you the individual. While RGB will be happy to come down on dishonest individuals we simply haven't got the resources or the expertise to take thieves to court.
47. xymonau10 October 2010, 12:30 GMT +02:00
Yes, that's what I meant, sorry. No site is able to defend the people posting images. It's up to the individual. Nevertheless, it's nice to have some psychological advantage when you catch people. I remember finding s person offering one of my images on a cd for sale. When I pointed out what I had written on my profile about charging money for use outside the permitted uses, they became quite distressed. I felt sorry for them, and of course let them off, but I'll bet they thought twice about copyright in the future.
48. weirdvis10 October 2010, 16:54 GMT +02:00
I'm with you on that one. Genuine mistakes regarding copyright do occur, I usually let them off too. :0)
first page | previous page | next page | last page
