iStockphoto's user vulcanacar = Photo Thief
_rebekka, one of Flickr's most popular users, is out with a photo post today of a screenshot where some user named vulcanacar is selling some of her photos on iStockphoto.
From _rebekka: "I thought i'd bring this to light as a warning and wake up call to folks. I'm not putting the blame with iStockphoto per se, but still, this is a problem that is becoming increasingly annoying, for everyone that uses the internet to showcase work. I mean for crying out loud, out of 31 images this particular user has on his "portfolio" , 25 of them are mine, and at least 3 are of me..
I have contacted a copyright lawyer about this, and will be doing what i can to tackle this problem in the best way possible, (please, nobody start sending any angry letters or anything of that sort, this needs to be dealt with in a level-headed way) but i wanted to tell people about this as well, because this is always happening, and your photos could be on there illegally as well. You never know."
iStockphoto of course is owned by Getty Images, the largest provider of stock photography in the world. It will be interesting to see how their lawyers handle this one.
Update: More from Stephen Shankland over at Webware here.
posted by Thomas Hawk at 2:33 PM
26 Comments:
This flickr screen shot you are posting about is copyrighted all rights reserved. Did you get rebbeca's permission? That makes two stolen photos if you didn't.
Gary, while Rebekka holds copyright to the image on the screenshot, iStockphoto likely holds copyright to their website as displayed.
In either case I think the use if fair use as reporting on news. Certainly if _rebekka had a problem with my blogging this iStockphoto screenshot I would remove it, but I think she's interested in getting the word out about this at the present time. I did shoot her a link to my post on the comment to her post. I've blogged her stuff in the past when she's had similar copyright trouble and she's thanked me rather than expressed concern over the use.
oh, well, i guess i'll let it slip this one time..
Who's "rebbeca" btw?
and yes, im always grateful when Thomas pitches in to spread the word about stuff like this;)
Thanks Rebekka and sorry this has happened to you. I hope it gets resolved to your satisfaction in the end. I've contacted some higher up contacts that I know at iStockphoto with this news as well so that the matter can hopefully get the attention and resolution that you deserve.
Sorry, Thomas, I admit I was having a go at you. I should have used a smiley face.
I just imagined that if it would have been easy for me to blog about something like this without worrying about Rebekka's feelings.
I'm glad she doesn't mind, because it is a prime example of an issue that photo sharers have to be aware of.
Pretty sad :s
btw, just wondering how this guy manages to sale 2400x1616px version of the picture when the only size available on Flickr is 500x335px ??
Is he just resizing the pic (so gets hugly) or does he really have a hight reso version??
This is rich.
Do you have gaps in your memory? Does your stance on issues change as the winds change direction, or depending who you personally like or dislike?
Your exact words:
"As a photographer, producer and publisher of content I probably, pretty much, technically, in a round about way violate copyright every single day."
"Sometimes I violate copyright. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I publish these shots to Flickr and Zooomr and Pownce and my blog -- where I make money selling ads -- and sometimes I don't."
"Our time on this earth is too short to get petty and spend hours worrying about people who might steal our imagery."
"A lot of thrashing about has been taking place in the internet over the past few days over unauthorized use of digital imagery. Scoble wrote a post up about it and says, "steal my content, please." Mashable has a post out regarding a recent YouTube take down request for a Web 2.0 video published by The Richter Scales. The video in question, by the way, used at least one unauthorized photograph of mine, specifically a photo of Om Malik.
My response to this unauthorized use of my imagery? Who gives a shit? I certainly don't."
At the time, many people commented on your support for Rebekka when her imagery was stolen awhile back, and also how you insisted Valleywag remove your Creative Commons licensed work because you didn't like the way they talked about you and your company.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Thomas Hawk. It surprises me that anyone even bothers to listen to you. Apparently, other's memories are just as short as yours.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Thomas Hawk. It surprises me that anyone even bothers to listen to you. Apparently, other's memories are just as short as yours.
Anonymous, there is a big difference between someone lifting photos and selling them as stock and someone including a brief snippet of a photo in a non for profit mashup parody video.
The fact that you can't see the difference between the two and that you feel the world is so starkly black and white isn't my problem.
I shoot neon. A lot of neon. I've shot the Coca Cola sign in San Francisco here. Is that copyrighted? Sure. Is my shooting the Coca Cola sign and violating Coke's copyright the same as someone ripping 25 of Rebekka's original photos and selling them for money on iStockphoto? I don't think so.
I think that there is a difference between artists who'd remix content to create content and outright photo theft.
I also think that a lot of the corporate copyrighted stuff we see in our world is fair use as popular culture. I've got sets of imagery from McDonalds, Fedex, Disney, etc. These are pop culture to me and my shooting them (even though copyrighted) is art. Not the same thing as someone ripping Rebekka's shots at all.
In terms of your comments about Valleywag, I got tired of them lying all the time. Not just about me, about lots of other people. I had some significant people telling me that me letting them use my imagery reflected poorly on me. Like people might think that I shoot for them. I probably wouldn't let the National Enquirer use my photos either.
That is not hypocrisy pal. It's common sense.
LOL Gee I wonder where Anonymous came from?
derivative use != sale, there is a huge difference.
and as far as taking pictures of copyrighted corporate logos and premises - assuming you're not claiming a right to the logo - well, isn't that called advertising? help me out here.
Thomas,
Theft is theft. Thomas Hawk doesn't get to decide. There is no difference...when a work is marked "all rights reserved" it means the author wishes to decide on how the imagery is used. Like you decided that you didn't want Valleywag using your photos, (which you'd already given up alot of your rights on, by the way), you got to make that call and they respected it. Rebekka doesn't want her work on istockphoto, you don't want your work on valleywag, someone else doesn't want their work in a for profit mash-up video. If you wish you stand up for your rights and Rebekka's rights, you need to respect other's rights as well, even if you don't necessarily agree with every detail.
@Anonymous,
Uhhh ... You're not talking about the law here. You're talking about Thomas Hawk's integrity which is quite different from what the law says about copyright. Of course, I'm not suggesting that Thomas Hawk does not have integrity. I'm sure he does, but that is not the issue here. =D
Thomas Hawk is correct to state that the guiding principle here is fair use, and that changes according to the intent and damage to commercial value by the user. If whatever I use is for the purposes of education, comedy, parody, news reporting, research, criticism, or commentary (like the ones Anonymous conveniently cited from Hawk's blog), that's all covered under fair use. It provides people, photographers, and especially teachers like myself, a shortcut to avoid the obstacles regarding copyright protection.
I can even take the recent posts by Anonymous and discuss his/her sentence structure, grammar, logic, coherence, and argumentative style in my classes, and that will be fair use. I can even psychoanalyze, theorize, and deconstruct it to my heart's delight and it will still be fair use.
However, my defense of "fair use" is abrogated IF I start charging money without paying credit. For instance,
1) I charge students for a personal course reader that includes your posts, and keep all the profits.
2) I start charging people access to my website that features your posts and keep the profits.
These two examples are not covered under fair use. Here's another example. I take a photograph of the Starbuck's logo. Is fair use applied when: 1) I post the logo on my website and blog how I had a wonderfully productive writing session at Starbuck's, or 2) I post the logo on my website to advertise a new coffee shop that I'm opening for cool smart hip people? Without a doubt, the second one is not protected under fair use.
The dude who appropriated Rebekka's photographs is attempting or has sold her photographs for profit, and has done so without her explicit permission. She can: 1) demand that the photographs be taken down, or 2) allow the site to sell her photographs so long as Rebekka gets the profits.
Anyways, I'm pretty sure what I say is pretty obvious and there's probably a bunch of other scenarios, but it is an issue that can be solved. At least, one can hope for the best. =D
again???
this happened like a yr ago to her.
jeez.
f'in tools out there.
Well, well any time original work is copied or parodied under the fair use and as long as it ain't making bucks its ok. I agree with disorientated, but what this iStock photo dude is doin is selling the work without even acknowledging rebbeka, thts a shame! I feel Sorry rebbeka! I am studying her work aswelll, but i guess thereis a line between copying for sale and refering for research, this iStockphoto dude must and i am sur will pay!
I couldn't care less about copyright issues anymore, but slagging valleywag? Yes, it's like the national enquirer, but I used to always say that the National Enquirer was invariably right.
Since they got rid of Kevin Rose's pet Nick Douglas, I have found the reporting about digg.com has been very accurate.
Just because some rich people dislike what's being said about them, doesn't mean it isn't true.
but slagging valleywag? Yes, it's like the national enquirer, but I used to always say that the National Enquirer was invariably right.
Since they got rid of Kevin Rose's pet Nick Douglas, I have found the reporting about digg.com has been very accurate.
hmmmmm... interesting Owen. I've found inaccuracies coming from Owen Thomas as much as Nick Douglas. I'm not a big fan of the shoot first verify facts later approach to the publication.
Thomas,
Theft is theft. Thomas Hawk doesn't get to decide. There is no difference...when a work is marked "all rights reserved" it means the author wishes to decide on how the imagery is used.
I disagree. There is such a concept as "fair use." It's long been upheld by the courts. Yes, Major League Baseball holds copyright and gets to decide how their work may be used. But... I also have a right to record their game on my TiVo at my house *and gasp* zap the commercials out of their broadcast that represents their very livelyhood. Do you think that they want me to zap the commercials out of their broadcast, their fine work of sports/art? Of course not. And yet the courts have ruled that I can modify their work for my own private viewing pleasure.
The point is that it is near to impossible to completely live within the letter of the law with regards to copyright. Every logo, every advertisement, etc. etc. is copyrighted. And yet I don't go out of my way to get approval of a copyright owner before I shoot and publish my own versions of their copyrighted material.
This is not theft. The world is not as black and white as you think it is anonymous.
What happened to Rebekka *is* theft and it's something very different than parody or other fair use.
If Weird Al decides that he thinks it's funny to rip off Michael Jackson's tune to "Beat It" and change the words instead to "Eat It" (all the while keeping the same notes and melody), this is in fact legally permitted as fair use. It doesn't matter if Michael Jackson hates the song and hates the fact that his original work of art has been mauled by some nut job named Weird Al.
I think especially when works of art are derivative or even better social commentary on popular culture that copyright doesn't mean dick. Andy Warhol ripped copyright all the time. His most famous work of art ripped Campbell's soup. Richard Prince rips Marlboro and the photographers that shot for Marlboro ads when he creates his art. These are not theft in my opinion. These are repackaging and social commentary on our culture.
What happened to Rebekka is very different. This is outright theft with no redemption socially or artistically to speak of.
I have a set of images called "So This is America." Most of the images in this set violate copyright. The set is a commentary on how invasive advertising and popular culture is in our lives as Americans. It doesn't bother me one bit that I've violated hundreds of copyrights with this set. I don't consider it theft at all. I consider it art.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/sets/72157594491975505/
That photo has been online at Istock since October 06. Will be interesting to here what deal iStock agree to or whether they just pass blame straight onto the contributor.
The problem with the interest stock sites (not just microstock) is that it is almost impossible to monitor this to stop it happening.
Hopefully you will get an update on this
God I hope we find out these were uploaded by Richard Prince.
God I hope we find out these were uploaded by Richard Prince.
Haha, somehow I doubt it. I suspect he'd want to get paid a little more than 20% of $3.
I am curious how Rebekka ended up finding the images. If you think about this, it could be happening to any of us photographers and we might never even find it because really it is a vast internet out there.
Also, it is obvious that some people need to take the time to look into copyright law and fair use information. Gah.
runescape accounts buy runescape accounts rs2 accounts buy rs2 accounts runescape accounts buy runescape accounts rs2 accounts buy rs2 accounts runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling
hy
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
power leveling wow
power leveling wow
power leveling wow
powerleveling wow
powerleveling wow
cheap wow power leveling
Maple Story mesos
MapleStory mesos
ms mesos
mesos
SilkRoad Gold
SRO Gold
SilkRoad Online Gold
eq2 plat
eq2 gold
eq2 Platinum
EverQuest 2 Platinum
EverQuest 2 gold
EverQuest 2 plat
lotro gold
lotr gold
Lord of the Rings online Gold
Rolex Replica
Replica Rolex
心中一阵不安升降机，因为我忽然又想起了那道剑光升降平台，可怕的剑光升降台，美丽的剑光登车桥。为什么那一剑是那么的美丽货架，却又那么的可怕呢集装袋？在我倒下之前我说地磅，好美的剑塑料托盘，好恨的剑塑料托盘。我倒下了仓储笼。在我失去知觉之前仓储笼，我听到他说北京货架，这叫艺术超市货架，剑的艺术北京货架。
我并没有死广州货架，原来我的心是在右边仓储货架，而是不是左边货架厂。所以在那穿胸一剑之下我并没有死南京货架。
是一阵暴雨把我冲醒了货架公司。听说雨是上天的眼泪深圳货架，也许这天又有人死在那美丽的剑光之下吧服装货架！我张开嘴巴托盘，任雨水打进我的嘴托盘，直冲我的胃塑料托盘。我的伤口又开始流血塑料托盘，但已经不痛了木托盘。试问：仓储笼一个心已经死了的人仓储笼，肉体上的疼痛又算得了什么呢仓储笼？我知道我的刀再练一百年也无法那么美丽仓储笼，那么恨托盘，而且永远别想杀了他托盘。
我退出江湖了手推车，我没有通知江湖上的朋友们静音手推车，并来一个什么金盆洗手静音手推车，因为我的朋友们差不多都被他杀了置物架。我悄悄的走了置物架，隐进了山林之中堆垛架。俨然一个世外高人的样子堆垛架，每天一壶绿茶登高车，放在身边的几上登高车，然后或盯着一朵白云超市手推车，或盯着一片树叶物流手推车，或双目紧闭物流台车。我的刀在玉盆中泡了七七四十九天角钢货架，已经没有血腥味了角钢货架。然后我把它放在我的屋顶轻型货架，任它风吹雨打轻型货架。
十年就这年过去了中型货架。为何今天天忽然想起那柄剑中型货架，那道剑光重型货架？而且内心为什么如此不安重型货架？不应该是这样的仓库货架，对于一个喝了十年绿茶的人来说服装货架，面对死上海货架，也已不再惧怕精品货架，不再不安苏州货架，但今天又为何如此呢托盘货架？
莫非是他青岛货架，和他的剑库房货架，加上他的剑光沈阳货架。我已不问江湖之事天津货架，想他十年前也应该坐上武林盟主的位子了杭州货架，一个武林中人做了武林盟主山东货架，这一生还有什么要求的呢文件柜？
我不停的喝着绿茶工具柜。绿茶静心工具柜。但此时怎么也静不下来零件柜。茶已尽工作台。平时茶尽之时工作台，正也是日落之时工作桌。
一定快有什么事情发生了工作桌。
剑还是那美丽的剑Google左侧排名，如果再加上一道剑光吹塑机，就会形成剑的艺术色带，武学的艺术电源插座。
我问反光背心：为何还来找我滚针轴承，我已在十年之前就退出江湖了夜光粉。
他说文化石：因为你没死缎带，因为我没有对手风火轮。
我说激光打标机：十年前已不是你的对手平衡机，何况现在十年未动刀大功率led。
他说磁力泵：放眼天下梯子，只有你一个人是我的对手网眼袋，也只你一个人对我的威胁无尘布。
我不再说话手摇手电筒，因为我不知道说什么手板，我知道我十年前就开始找我毛巾布，发现我没有死就开始找我磁钢。我不死促销台，他心不安模具钢材。
他说时尚配饰：拿出你的刀筛网。
我说齿轮泵：我已无刀天使花房，命托辊，亦可有可无色丁。
他盯着我广告衫，握剑的手越来越紧钢坯，我知道那道美丽的剑光可能随时发出过滤网。在那美丽过后疏水阀，我的生命将画上句号胸章。
阳光照在了刀上发热管，反射到他的脸上手机耳机。他发现了那把刀螺杆，我的刀插销，宝刀蝴蝶，没有鞘的刀工具包。
刀已在我手中点钞机，刀还是那把刀配电箱，人却已不是那个人流苏，因为心不是那颗心沙滩巾。
他为了杀我竟找了我十年氯化镁，而为了和我比武竟帮我从屋顶拿下我的刀来双面胶带，并放在我的手中碳纤维。我忽然发现排线，他也变了汽车座垫，他在后悔十年前将所有高手都杀绝珍珠奶茶。
高手的悲哀太阳伞。
我握紧了刀桥架，我看着他的眼tpr，已经不再像十年前那样明亮了钢丝。
他的剑划出柴油发电机组，划出一道美丽的剑光护栏。我想围栏，这十年他大概在不停地使自己的剑光更美围栏。
我的刀也出了隔离网。简单的动作隔离网，一刀刺进了他的胸网片。那道美丽的光忽然停止网片，停在我的衣服上南京货架。
他说北京货架：这也是艺术北京货架，杀人的艺术北京货架，想不到你十年不动刀还懂这个艺术仓储货架。
我说仓储货架：因为我不想再让你痛苦了广州货架。
他说广州货架：谢谢货架厂。
我走了货架公司。我头也不回的走了塑料托盘。没有取回我的刀塑料托盘，因为我觉得它在我身边已经没用塑料托盘，我后悔我十年前为什么不扔了它塑料托盘？我听到了尸体倒下的声音塑料托盘。我流泪了塑料托盘，我真的不想杀他仓储笼，十年前不想仓储笼，十年后也不想仓储笼，因为我下山时答应过师父仓储笼，一切让着他仓储笼。
我叹了一口气仓储笼。远去仓储笼。
心中一阵不安升降机，因为我忽然又想起了那道剑光升降平台，可怕的剑光升降台，美丽的剑光登车桥。为什么那一剑是那么的美丽货架，却又那么的可怕呢集装袋？在我倒下之前我说地磅，好美的剑塑料托盘，好恨的剑塑料托盘。我倒下了仓储笼。在我失去知觉之前仓储笼，我听到他说北京货架，这叫艺术超市货架，剑的艺术北京货架。
我并没有死广州货架，原来我的心是在右边仓储货架，而是不是左边货架厂。所以在那穿胸一剑之下我并没有死南京货架。
是一阵暴雨把我冲醒了货架公司。听说雨是上天的眼泪深圳货架，也许这天又有人死在那美丽的剑光之下吧服装货架！我张开嘴巴托盘，任雨水打进我的嘴托盘，直冲我的胃塑料托盘。我的伤口又开始流血塑料托盘，但已经不痛了木托盘。试问：仓储笼一个心已经死了的人仓储笼，肉体上的疼痛又算得了什么呢仓储笼？我知道我的刀再练一百年也无法那么美丽仓储笼，那么恨托盘，而且永远别想杀了他托盘。
我退出江湖了手推车，我没有通知江湖上的朋友们静音手推车，并来一个什么金盆洗手静音手推车，因为我的朋友们差不多都被他杀了置物架。我悄悄的走了置物架，隐进了山林之中堆垛架。俨然一个世外高人的样子堆垛架，每天一壶绿茶登高车，放在身边的几上登高车，然后或盯着一朵白云超市手推车，或盯着一片树叶物流手推车，或双目紧闭物流台车。我的刀在玉盆中泡了七七四十九天角钢货架，已经没有血腥味了角钢货架。然后我把它放在我的屋顶轻型货架，任它风吹雨打轻型货架。
十年就这年过去了中型货架。为何今天天忽然想起那柄剑中型货架，那道剑光重型货架？而且内心为什么如此不安重型货架？不应该是这样的仓库货架，对于一个喝了十年绿茶的人来说服装货架，面对死上海货架，也已不再惧怕精品货架，不再不安苏州货架，但今天又为何如此呢托盘货架？
莫非是他青岛货架，和他的剑库房货架，加上他的剑光沈阳货架。我已不问江湖之事天津货架，想他十年前也应该坐上武林盟主的位子了杭州货架，一个武林中人做了武林盟主山东货架，这一生还有什么要求的呢文件柜？
我不停的喝着绿茶工具柜。绿茶静心工具柜。但此时怎么也静不下来零件柜。茶已尽工作台。平时茶尽之时工作台，正也是日落之时工作桌。
一定快有什么事情发生了工作桌。
剑还是那美丽的剑Google左侧排名，如果再加上一道剑光吹塑机，就会形成剑的艺术色带，武学的艺术电源插座。
我问反光背心：为何还来找我滚针轴承，我已在十年之前就退出江湖了夜光粉。
他说文化石：因为你没死缎带，因为我没有对手风火轮。
我说激光打标机：十年前已不是你的对手平衡机，何况现在十年未动刀大功率led。
他说磁力泵：放眼天下梯子，只有你一个人是我的对手网眼袋，也只你一个人对我的威胁无尘布。
我不再说话手摇手电筒，因为我不知道说什么手板，我知道我十年前就开始找我毛巾布，发现我没有死就开始找我磁钢。我不死促销台，他心不安模具钢材。
他说时尚配饰：拿出你的刀筛网。
我说齿轮泵：我已无刀天使花房，命托辊，亦可有可无色丁。
他盯着我广告衫，握剑的手越来越紧钢坯，我知道那道美丽的剑光可能随时发出过滤网。在那美丽过后疏水阀，我的生命将画上句号胸章。
阳光照在了刀上发热管，反射到他的脸上手机耳机。他发现了那把刀螺杆，我的刀插销，宝刀蝴蝶，没有鞘的刀工具包。
刀已在我手中点钞机，刀还是那把刀配电箱，人却已不是那个人流苏，因为心不是那颗心沙滩巾。
他为了杀我竟找了我十年氯化镁，而为了和我比武竟帮我从屋顶拿下我的刀来双面胶带，并放在我的手中碳纤维。我忽然发现排线，他也变了汽车座垫，他在后悔十年前将所有高手都杀绝珍珠奶茶。
高手的悲哀太阳伞。
我握紧了刀桥架，我看着他的眼tpr，已经不再像十年前那样明亮了钢丝。
他的剑划出柴油发电机组，划出一道美丽的剑光护栏。我想围栏，这十年他大概在不停地使自己的剑光更美围栏。
我的刀也出了隔离网。简单的动作隔离网，一刀刺进了他的胸网片。那道美丽的光忽然停止网片，停在我的衣服上南京货架。
他说北京货架：这也是艺术北京货架，杀人的艺术北京货架，想不到你十年不动刀还懂这个艺术仓储货架。
我说仓储货架：因为我不想再让你痛苦了广州货架。
他说广州货架：谢谢货架厂。
我走了货架公司。我头也不回的走了塑料托盘。没有取回我的刀塑料托盘，因为我觉得它在我身边已经没用塑料托盘，我后悔我十年前为什么不扔了它塑料托盘？我听到了尸体倒下的声音塑料托盘。我流泪了塑料托盘，我真的不想杀他仓储笼，十年前不想仓储笼，十年后也不想仓储笼，因为我下山时答应过师父仓储笼，一切让着他仓储笼。
我叹了一口气仓储笼。远去仓储笼。
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
power leveling wow
power leveling wow
power leveling wow
powerleveling wow
powerleveling wow
cheap wow power leveling
Maple Story mesos
MapleStory mesos
ms mesos
mesos
SilkRoad Gold
SRO Gold
SilkRoad Online Gold
eq2 plat
eq2 gold
eq2 Platinum
EverQuest 2 Platinum
EverQuest 2 gold
EverQuest 2 plat
lotro gold
lotr gold
Lord of the Rings online Gold
Rolex Replica
Replica Rolex
hy
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
power leveling wow
power leveling wow
power leveling wow
powerleveling wow
powerleveling wow
cheap wow power leveling
Maple Story mesos
MapleStory mesos
ms mesos
mesos
SilkRoad Gold
SRO Gold
SilkRoad Online Gold
eq2 plat
eq2 gold
eq2 Platinum
EverQuest 2 Platinum
EverQuest 2 gold
EverQuest 2 plat
lotro gold
lotr gold
Lord of the Rings online Gold
Rolex Replica
Replica Rolex
hy
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home