Flickr artist Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir, previously reported on here for her dispute with the site Only-Dreemin, has took aim at stock photography site iStockPhoto after finding twenty five of her photographs, including three of her, available for sale on the site.
Though she did not put the blame on iStockPhoto directly, she did note that this is a problem that is becoming “increasingly annoying” for those who use the Internet to showcase their work.
iStockPhoto has not responded as of this writing and there is no way of knowing if the images are still on line at this timeArticle Update: iStockPhoto has responded below and confirms that the images have been removed. Guðleifsdóttir has said that she has contacted a copyright attorney about this and is working “tackle this problem in the best way possible.”
Unfortunately, this seems to be a problem that is, as of right now, unresolved and is likely affecting many other photographers on the Web. Worst of all, there is a great deal of legal uncertainty as to how and if resolution can be obtained.
Legal Uncertainty
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the case, there is no simple way to resolve it.
Guðleifsdóttir is from Iceland, iStockPhoto is based in Alberta, Canada and the person who uploaded in the infringing images is, most likely, in another country altogether.
Since iStockPhoto is located in Canada, it isn’t bound by the DMCA. There is no notice and takedown provision in Canadian law as of this writing. Furthermore, since iStockPhoto profits directly from each infringement, they would likely not be eligible for protection under the DMCA, even if they were an American company.
iStockPhoto does offer a “Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Infringement” on their site that closely resembles the DMCA. However, it requires a postal letter be sent directly to their president. Given the geography of the situation, that could take a week or to arrive and even longer to be acted upon.
Article Update: iStockPhoto in a comment below stated that the images involved have been removed and a physical letter. I am seeking clarification as to how to bring these issues to their attention without the use of a physical letter.
Finding and targeting the person who uploaded the images could prove difficult as one would first need to get the account information from iStockPhoto and then target the individual or company in their home country. That could easily wind up costing more than any potential damages that could be claimed.
If iStockPhoto is not cooperative in this matter, this situation could be almost impossible to resolve and regular photographers, without the legal resources to go after the company and any infringers, could be left with little recourse against abuse on the site.
Some Good News
The good news is that those I’ve spoken with that have worked with iStockPhoto have reported that they do handle cases swiftly and fairly. Though the requirement of a mailed letter slows down resolution times, they do respond and handle such matters when they are discovered.
Though iStockPhoto doesn’t seem to have much motivation to work with artists, not doing so would not only harm the infringed parties, but their own customers.
Furthermore, if they knowingly sell photos they do not have the rights to offer, they could held liable for other damages by both the artists that were ripped off and the companies that bought the bad images.
All in all, even though iStockPhoto might have the legal high ground right now, they could lose it quickly if they acted in bad faith and all signs point to them responding quickly and effectively to this case. However, the details of what that resolution will include, especially as it pertains to the money earned on the infringing images, remains unclear.
Conclusions
As a company that sell photographs, not merely hosts them, iStockPhoto has a greater responsibility than other sites. It is not merely enough to take down infringing photos when notified via postal mail, they owe it to their customers and to the photographers that legitimately sell their works over the site to try and keep infringing works from being made available in the first place.
To that end, image matching technology is rapidly entering the mainstream and could save the company a great deal of headaches.
Even if the technology isn’t perfect, if it prevents even a small percentage of infringing images from being uploaded, those are images they don’t have to clean up after the fact.
For artists and photographers, it makes image watermarking an even more appealing option, where practical, and highlights the importance of using low-resolution images when posting to the Web.
It isn’t much, but it can prevent your work from being an appealing target for those who wish to make a quick buck.
For more information, see my previous article entitled “The Secret Site of Stock Photography“
Hi Jonathan,Back in November of 2008 I caught a guy named Dylan Jones selling website templates at the Warrior Forum. Dylan and Wynter Jones run <a href="http://www.monetizedesign.com” target=”_blank”>www.monetizedesign.com along with numerous other websites. Dylan is the president and Wynter is the VP and self described "graphic ninja" (this all according to their website as it appeared at that time).Dylan and Wynter offered for sale website templates that contained numerous watermarked, stolen images in them from istock Photo. I made as many people as possible aware of this photo theft including Istockphoto.What amazes me is the general appearance of acceptance and apathy. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to me that Istock has taken any measures against these guys. It is my understanding after reading posts at Warrior Forum that Dylan and Wynter may have purchased extended licenses AFTER THE FACT, but I haven't heard much else.I was also amazed at the way some of the Warriors at Warrior Forum came to the defense of these guys. I thought the Warrior Forum (WF) was a place to go and share ideas in order to become a more effective internet marketer (IM), but it appears to me that a few of these guys consider it a safe haven for scumbags. This is unfortunate because the majority of WF members appear to be good people, but the actions of a few have given WF a black eye, in my opinion.I might point out that I (user name: Win Crow) have been banned from WF for violating Rule #1 which is publicly talking about someone who ripped me off. I have had my videos regarding this image theft removed from Youtube (presumably by Dylan and / or Wynter Jones). Youtube will remove videos first and ask questions later IF you want to go through their legal process.I have a hard time sitting back and watching people skirt the system. A few months after I pointed out the stolen picture scheme by Dylan guess who pops up with a WSO (Warrior Special Offer)? You're right if you guessed Wynter. Wynter may not have been the front man for Monetize Design, but as VP and "graphics ninja" I hold him equally responsible. How does WF justify this?Ken Reno, the guy who purchased the templates from Dylan before selling them to me, has made it clear that he is not going to sit back and let this happen again either. Initially I had problems with Ken because he was the person who purchased the templates with Private Label Rights (PLR) from Dylan and he was the person I bought them from. Upon further investigation I find that he was as much a victim as I was. Ken had to refund over 200 of his customers because of the watermarked images.What I would like to see is Istockphoto come down hard on these guys. I'd also like to see that all of the photographers get paid for their work, and I'd like to see these two morons get banned from WF then fined and/or jailed for their blatant disregard for copyright infringement.What do you think?John Johnson aka Win Crow
"Wichita Wilson" is another one of my user names for another forum.I noticed that I may have posted here before. John Johnsonaka Win Crow, Wichita WilsonPS The link at WF where all of this took place is:http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-special-off…..
Hi Jonathan,Back in November of 2008 I caught a guy named Dylan Jones selling website templates at the Warrior Forum. Dylan and Wynter Jones run <a href="http://www.monetizedesign.com” target=”_blank”>www.monetizedesign.com along with numerous other websites. Dylan is the president and Wynter is the VP and self described "graphic ninja" (this all according to their website as it appeared at that time).Dylan and Wynter offered for sale website templates that contained numerous watermarked, stolen images in them from istock Photo. I made as many people as possible aware of this photo theft including Istockphoto.What amazes me is the general appearance of acceptance and apathy. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to me that Istock has taken any measures against these guys. It is my understanding after reading posts at Warrior Forum that Dylan and Wynter may have purchased extended licenses AFTER THE FACT, but I haven't heard much else.I was also amazed at the way some of the Warriors at Warrior Forum came to the defense of these guys. I thought the Warrior Forum (WF) was a place to go and share ideas and in order to become a more effective internet marketer (IM), but it appears to me that a few of these guys consider it a safe haven for scumbags. This is unfortunate because the majority of WF members appear to be good people, but the actions of a few have given WF a black eye, in my opinion.I might point out that I (user name: Win Crow) have been banned from WF for violating Rule #1 which is publicly talking about someone who ripped me off. I have had my videos regarding this image theft removed from Youtube (presumably by Dylan and / or Wynter Jones). Youtube will remove videos first and ask questions later IF you want to go through their legal process.I have a hard time sitting back and watching people skirt the system. A few months after I pointed out the stolen picture scheme by Dylan guess who pops up with a WSO (Warrior Special Offer)? You're right if you guessed Wynter. Wynter may not have been the front man for Monetize Design, but as VP and "graphics ninja" I hold him equally responsible. How does WF justify this?Ken Reno, the guy who purchased the templates from Dylan before selling them to me, has made it clear that he is not going to sit back and let this happen again either. Initially I had problems with Ken because he was the person who purchased the templates with Private Label Rights (PLR) from Dylan and he was the person I bought them from. Upon further investigation I find that he was as much a victim as I was. Ken had to refund over 200 of his customers because of the watermarked images.What I would like to see is Istockphoto come down hard on these guys. I'd also like to see that all of the photographers get paid for their work, and I'd like to see these two morons get banned from WF then fined and/or jailed for their blatant disregard for copyright infringement.What do you think?John Johnson aka Win Crow
PS, It’s not about the money anymore.
No, my name is not Wichita Wilson, but with so many promises being broken today regarding private info I have not choice but to use an alias. If you will watch this video you will see what I'm talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLmBEEG2Q5I
Kenneth Reno who owns several domains sold copyrighted istockphot.com images to me.
Dylan Jones is the person who sold the templates to Kenneth Reno and admitted this in a private message at WarriorForum.com I had a horrible experience with Ken Reno. He not only failed to promptly honor his guarantee, but I had to track him down and once I caught up with him he failed to take care of business.
I closed my Paypal account after 2 weeks of tracking him. Paypal refused to back me up in the transaction so I canceled my account. 1 week later I finally caught up with him and embarrassed him at Warriorforum and he finally agreed to refund my money. Only problem? I didn't have a paypal account anymore. You'd think that he would go out of his way to refund my money based on the BS he put me through, but not Ken!
If you purchased these website templates from Ken Reno, Dylan Jones, or any of the other PLR resellers you may want to verify the watermarked images and remove them immediately! Istockphoto.com can hold YOU responsible. I would also consider finding an attorney if you would like to discuss your legal options in this matter.
Good luck,
Wichita Wilson AKA Winford Crowley
Our Compliance and Enforcement Officer can be contacted about these issues at ce [at] istockphoto.com.
A few points of clarification: we (iStock) responded to all media outlets that requested comment, and we addressed the issue in our forums. The offending images were removed by our compliance officer early February 5th.
And of course we don’t need a take-down notice if there happens to be an issue with images. We react as quickly as possible when something is brought to our attention. Although keep in mind, copyright infringement is rarely black & white as in this case. It has happened that an iStock photographer has been accused of taking an image, when in fact it turns out to be the other way around.
A philosophy of trust and respect has been at the foundation of iStock’s community since the beginning and this has been one of the key ingredients to its ongoing success. Unfortunately, as with any community, there will always be people who attempt to take advantage of this trust. And while we take great pains to try and prevent this type of behavior, it is not something we are able to eliminate entirely on our own. The good news is that the community as a whole can – and does – help point out when there are problems and issues.
We have many more issues with people on Flickr taking iStock content. We usually issue at LEAST 5 take down notices a week. Here are two from today alone (note these links may not work if they have indeed been taken down):
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4902531
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18827076@N07/2219322188/
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=2571586
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinkerroll21/415351501/
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Kelly Thompson
Executive VP, iStockphoto Inc.
A few points of clarification: we (iStock) responded to all media outlets that requested comment, and we addressed the issue in our forums. The offending images were removed by our compliance officer early February 5th.
And of course we don’t need a take-down notice if there happens to be an issue with images. We react as quickly as possible when something is brought to our attention. Although keep in mind, copyright infringement is rarely black & white as in this case. It has happened that an iStock photographer has been accused of taking an image, when in fact it turns out to be the other way around.
A philosophy of trust and respect has been at the foundation of iStock’s community since the beginning and this has been one of the key ingredients to its ongoing success. Unfortunately, as with any community, there will always be people who attempt to take advantage of this trust. And while we take great pains to try and prevent this type of behavior, it is not something we are able to eliminate entirely on our own. The good news is that the community as a whole can – and does – help point out when there are problems and issues.
We have many more issues with people on Flickr taking iStock content. We usually issue at LEAST 5 take down notices a week. Here are two from today alone (note these links may not work if they have indeed been taken down):
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18827076@N07/22193…
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinkerroll21/41535…
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Kelly Thompson
Executive VP, iStockphoto Inc.
Our Compliance and Enforcement Officer can be contacted about these issues at ce [at] istockphoto.com.
Kelly: First off, thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I attempted to send an email to kara yesterday. However, sent the email as I was leaving to go across the river and did not get a chance to verify if it had sent. I've been having trouble with my ISPs servers so it is entirely probably it didn't send. I am sorry.Thank you for the update on the status of the image and on your policy. However, I have to ask, what is the exact procedure for reporting a copyright violation on iStock apart from the policy described? Is there an email address one can contact?Thank you very much for your feedback and I will be emailing you in a moment with further questions and be updating this article.Thank you again.
Kelly: First off, thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I attempted to send an email to kara yesterday. However, sent the email as I was leaving to go across the river and did not get a chance to verify if it had sent. I've been having trouble with my ISPs servers so it is entirely probably it didn't send. I am sorry.
Thank you for the update on the status of the image and on your policy. However, I have to ask, what is the exact procedure for reporting a copyright violation on iStock apart from the policy described? Is there an email address one can contact?
Thank you very much for your feedback and I will be emailing you in a moment with further questions and be updating this article.
Thank you again.
Kelly: First off, thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I attempted to send an email to kara yesterday. However, sent the email as I was leaving to go across the river and did not get a chance to verify if it had sent. I've been having trouble with my ISPs servers so it is entirely probably it didn't send. I am sorry.Thank you for the update on the status of the image and on your policy. However, I have to ask, what is the exact procedure for reporting a copyright violation on iStock apart from the policy described? Is there an email address one can contact?Thank you very much for your feedback and I will be emailing you in a moment with further questions and be updating this article.Thank you again.
A few points of clarification: we (iStock) responded to all media outlets that requested comment, and we addressed the issue in our forums. The offending images were removed by our compliance officer early February 5th. And of course we don't need a take-down notice if there happens to be an issue with images. We react as quickly as possible when something is brought to our attention. Although keep in mind, copyright infringement is rarely black & white as in this case. It has happened that an iStock photographer has been accused of taking an image, when in fact it turns out to be the other way around.A philosophy of trust and respect has been at the foundation of iStock’s community since the beginning and this has been one of the key ingredients to its ongoing success. Unfortunately, as with any community, there will always be people who attempt to take advantage of this trust. And while we take great pains to try and prevent this type of behavior, it is not something we are able to eliminate entirely on our own. The good news is that the community as a whole can – and does – help point out when there are problems and issues.We have many more issues with people on Flickr taking iStock content. We usually issue at LEAST 5 take down notices a week. Here are two from today alone (note these links may not work if they have indeed been taken down):<a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4902531
“>http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=49…
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/18827076@N07/2219322188/
“>http://www.flickr.com/photos/18827076@N07/2219322…
<a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=2571586
“>http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=25…
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinkerroll21/415351501/
“>http://www.flickr.com/photos/tinkerroll21/4153515…
Please contact me if you have further questions.Kelly Thompson
Executive VP, iStockphoto Inc.