rgbstock
Used Without Permission
1. xymonau22 June 2014, 13:27 GMT +02:00
This person contacted me to let me know they had used my images in the linked image, but they seem to not have understood the image licence, and are offering the image for sale without even asking me. The frame and waterlilies are both recognisable, and I left a note under the image because I don't want people paying for it. The downloader copyrighted her image. This is not acceptable if the images used are not public domain.
I don't class this person as a ripper, but they are still using the images illegally. I am not flattered when someone is making money out of my work in this way. There are limits to the commercial use of RGBStock images.
http://ladyjudina.deviantart.com/art/Crack-Repedes-462384059
2. micromoth22 June 2014, 17:43 GMT +02:00
Hmm... looks like the webpage on which the image is offered for sale has now been withdrawn. I should think so too!
3. xymonau22 June 2014, 17:54 GMT +02:00
Yes, she posted on the images that she had removed it, and said because there was no copyright mark she didn't realise. I think that's not good enough. If you want to use the pics, read the image licence or contact us directly for permission. I may have given or negotiated permission, but I wasn't contacted for that. I feel a bit mean when the person is honest, but I try to be consistent, as I have made money when people really wanted some of mine, and at the time I needed that money. And they are generally quick to claim copyright themselves.
4. coolhewitt2323 June 2014, 7:11 GMT +02:00
I was reading about Getty images. They are very aggressive stock photography company. Getty will sue people for illegal use of their images. Generally, copy right enforcement in Asia is very limited. I don't mind if people use my images for their website or blog because images are very expensive to purchase online. People don't have the money in global economic downturn.
5. xymonau23 June 2014, 10:24 GMT +02:00
The rules on RGBStock allow such use, and use for illustrations inside books and on flyers. But when people sell my images - which is what happens with Zazzle and the above example, then I am entitled to be contacted and paid if I make that a condition of use. I frequently allow people from Asia to use them in other ways, asking only that if they make a lot of money that they will purchase a licence. I have no way of checking whether they are honest or not. I allow others who seem to have little money to use them for book covers, etc, but I ask for full information and if they hedge around that, then I don't allow it. I am old, and one day these might be my only means of earning a trickle of money. In the meantime, as long as they use them within the RGBStock licence, I am more than happy for them to be used. If I wasn't, I'd remove them.
Still, when it's brought to people's attention, they are generally good and well mannered about it. We don't bite, and the worst we can say is "no", so people just need to ask.
6. coolhewitt2311 July 2014, 19:49 GMT +02:00
I guess illegal use happens a lot but unfortunately it is very expensive to legally enforce copyrights. I generally give permission most of the time because I like to see my pictures being used rather than sitting on my external drive at home.
7. xymonau12 July 2014, 21:49 GMT +02:00
I have always preferred to limit use, and particularly once I made some money from my images. I'm happy for them to be used within the RGB licence. However, I object if a designer is charging a company for my image.
8. Jayred25 October 2022, 6:41 GMT +02:00
I'd be quite offended if they were selling them. I have dealt with the law firms representing Getty as well as other large image copyright holders through my job and they are not jokers. However, more interestingly, I received an email from someone pretending to do that same thing on behalf of a copyright holders, only they are asking for backlinks to a website and their law firm was fake. They find images in the public domain on free mage websites, then email people using them and try and trick them into adding a credit link out of fear. Technically it is extorsion but it is better referred to as an SEO scam.
9. xymonau14 November 2022, 6:33 GMT +01:00
Yes, not just offended. It's theft. I don't quite understand what you mean bout "adding a credit link".
10. Jayred15 November 2022, 9:01 GMT +01:00
Meaning to add a hyperlink to the original source to give them credit.
