Jump to content

Rudy Umans

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rudy Umans

  1. 5 hours ago, siridhata said:

    The post I replied to said they didn't know who will take over. So I replied with a screenshot of the part that mentions who will take over. Wow... Amazing how a simple intention of trying to help a fellow out would actually cause more fuss in this thread.¬†ūüėā

    This is what the "fuss" is about.

    Somebody asked a question that you answered in a not very nice and condescending way (accidentally or not and if you don't know why it wasn't nice, i would recommend a little bit of Google research)) . If I was the one who asked that question and I got an answer like you gave, I would not feel very good about myself. I called you out on it and instead of apologizing to the person you answered and change your post (since it wasn't intentionally), you got angry and offensive with presumptions about my lifestyle that make no sense whatsoever. Like it is my problem and not yours. The old adage that offense is the best defense is still true I guess.

    If you would have said it was not intentionally and changed you post, I would have said, no problem and I would have deleted my post and life goes on, but that's not what happened

    In the mean time, your post is still the same while you had plenty of opportunities to change it by now, but you didn't.........

  2. 53 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

    Not really.  What is film?  A series of still images projected on a screen and moving through time at 18, 24, 30, or 60 frames per second.  Nothing about video changes the fundamentals of good photography: subject, light, exposure, focus, and composition are all as necessary to achieve good images in video as they are in photography.  What difference then, does it make, if I shoot a scene at 1 frame every few minutes, or 30 frames per second?  

    @Milleflore Images has made a living out of shooting her tabletop scenes with a 4K video camera and pulling stills from the resulting clips.  I see it as killing two birds with one stone.  :)


    The decisive moment from the comfort of your livingroom........ It's probably me. I was never into machinegun style photographer either.

    No wonder so many go back to analog 

  3. 2 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

    One thing I did actually pay attentiont to is the date of the document - its age.  It has been there displayed to the public for over a year.  I am not sure how much misery is related to something left on display for a year.  I also cannot see the difference between this and police wanted notices that are also on SS - this is a name on a "where to collect your stuff notice" while those are names, photos, and descriptions as well as what the person is supposed to have done. 

    I would also be interested to see the legal challenge of a difference between "public to any person in a town" and "public to any person looking online" - where do you draw the line legally?  How do you decide the maximum number of people who could possibly see it in its displayed place and contrast that with the number who could see it at a stock agency?  A legal definition of "only a bit public but not totally public"  or "only public to this number"

    Oh and I am UK - obviously the law on this will be different country to country.  I am as satisfied as I can be that under UK law I have done nothing wrong.

    So you are an expert in privacy and global internet laws. Good to know.  Couldn't tell from reading you first post.

  4. 18 minutes ago, Kirk Fisher said:

    Editorial or not, I wouldn't have done that. Wouldn't be worth the .33 cents to: A. possibly make this person's life more miserable and B. risk a lawsuit or whatever.

    Couldn't agree more.!!!!!  Guess the local posting wasn't embarrassing enough for the person(s), so let's make it global.

    Should never have been submitted like this and should have never been accepted.


  5. To put things into perspective: (true stories)

    I was approached by a company who does those screensavers for TV etc. Their deal was not to pay contributors per sale, but by the number of likes a picture would get on their site! (think about that for a second)

    on the other hand, I was also approached by a company who wanted to license/rent some of my pictures for some short term projects to hang in an event venture. Don't want to reveal the details and what  they offered, but it made me happy and they absorb all the cost of printing etc.! This is recent and still in the works

    The moral of these stories is, as long as you don't let them screw you and branch out, you'll be fine.

  6. 34 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

    I do not see how these legal notices can be defamatory - one states the property has been entered and secured by the legal owner in line with the legal terms of the tenancy the other tells the person the property that was inside has been secured and must be collected by a certain date.  Certainly the one without a name just a "To whom it may concern" cannot be defamatory. 

    I may see if I can recrop to remove the one with the name. 

    just pointing out that you can't compare it with a movie poster.


  7. 2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

    See this is where it all gets confusing - the notice is very definitely intended for public consumption - it is deliberately posted to be read by the public.  The whole "name is personal and/or sensitive information" is also completely and utterly illogical.  Do a search for "famous person" and you have nearly 2 million images including photos with names in the caption, and illustrations/vectors with the names in the image.  Things like movie posters which have names on and which are intended for public consumption are allowed.

    This is probably going to be one of those things where interpretation is everything lol.


    The thing is, what is public record in one country is not necessarily public record in another and SS takes the worst case scenario.


    A movie poster is advertising. Different ball game. A legal notice could be defamatory, which would be like the opposite. Besides, those movie stars sign contracts in which they allow those things and very often it is in their own best interest, especially in they get paid royalties.

  8. 4 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

    One thing is to crop and add some contrast to an editorial. Blurring would likely be a significant alteration and they should reject it accordingly.

    This concept seems like a non-starter. Too risky to be used by publishers as it shows personal information. Best to make something generic, such as a boarded up business with a clear sign that it’s been re-possessed.


    3 hours ago, Linda Bestwick said:

    I politely disagree with blurring a name being an alteration or removing/hiding an object. It is not the same thing. It is not really altering or hiding an object because it is still very obvious it is a name. It is  illegible, not invisible.  It is protecting somebody's privacy as in "sensitive information"  Here in the US, I see blurred out license plates on the evening news all the time.  Linda's 2 quotes seem contradictory, they are not, but regardless, it is the only way I would submit it.



  9. You cannot alter editorial images, but editorial or not, I would most definitely blurr any names and personal information. That way you still protect the privacy of the peope/businesses involved (and yourself) while the integrity of the editorial image remains in tact. You really don't alter anything. (Alterng is in my opinion the more correct term and different than editing. Editorial images are edited all the time, but not altered).

    If Shutterstock still doesn't like that, forget it.

  10. 14 minutes ago, MJD Graphics said:

    One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that the photographer posted the same image on her Instagram without watermark for her to use, so there is no way anyone can sue anybody. The photographer, who also writes children's books, has grabbed this to get free publicity.

    The image in question as posted by the OP has watermarks

    Who is talking about suing? That will never work with the amount of money involved. We are talking about how to go about recovery in cases like this (not necessarily just this case)

  11. On 1/30/2020 at 11:18 AM, Starsphinx said:

    The thing is even the humourous if pointed response SS made garnered negative reactions from her fan base.  While a quiet polite letter as you suggested may have got a licence fee I rather expect that the higher ups at SS calculated that a public response and no licence would garner them far more in advertising that the cost of the licence fee.  The higher ups are not going to considering the difference a couple of dollars makes to a contributor they are going to be considering a few dollars in their account compared to a level of publicity that would cost 10s of thousands in advertising.  The quiet letter you suggest may also have backfired if she decided to take exception to it and share it to her fans claiming being victim (I am not for one moment suggesting she would - but).  If some of her fans are going to kick off when no redress was sought can you imagine what they would do if if she complained? 

    Well I didn't say the letter (invoice rather) had to be quiet and friendly. That's what SS response was, friendly (I called it sissy in my first post about this) and I don't think I would have been that friendly. I have also no problem if SS announces to the world there are consequences on little hat tricks like this. Maybe not on Social Media though, that's too risky in my opinion. Too many uneducated and opinionated "experts"

    Having said that, I know there is a way to be firm and demanding without being either too friendly(sissy)  or too nasty. Been in that position many times in my other life.


    16 hours ago, MSPhotographic said:

    Amen.  Shutterstock needs to sue her for every possible penny allowed under law.  That and ONLY THAT will put an end to the idea that our work is free for the taking.  So what if it pisses a few thieves off.  


    2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

    What if it pisses off or alarms big customers like, oh I dont know, record companies?  Or even lots of little customers like the people who actually choose the images and happen to be fans of Gaga so they go and persuade their employers to switch to a different stock company?

    There is a fine line between being firm and being a bully.

    A number of years ago, Getty Images tried to be a bully. Not sure how all that ended, but it didn't end well for Getty I don't think

    Now, I do think that what Getty did was a little extreme and not very smart, but there must be a way in between acting like a best friend and an outrageous  demand letter. Maybe something like the cost of the highest license and a legal/administrative cost, which comes out at maybe a few hundred dollars. Of course the contributor (the victim) should get his/her share then of the highest license cost.  That way, SS still gets their point across without drawing too much negative attention. But hey, what the hell do I know?



  13. 1 hour ago, Crowing Hen said:

    There's lots of misinformation about copyright online but knowing what is actually protected where you live and how that applies to digital files is a whole different kettle of fish than reading a few forums.


    Yes, too many experts. Especially when international law is concerned.

    (There is no such thing as International law. There are no International or global law books and no global organization that could or would police that. It is not yet possible in today's world. There are treaties instead, Like WIPO)


    The EU is doing some good work in this area, like requiring big companies like google and FB to remove images not used with permission, but this doesn't apply outside to most of the world outside of the EU.

    Not just the EU, but every country that is part of the " World Intellectual Property Organization" (WIPO) and that is a lot of countries, including the Russian Federation.

    As a result of their WIPO participation, the US implemented the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) in 1998.  Every member of WIPO is required to have similar measures as the DMCA in place. Those measures include provisions for the take down of unauthorized use of images by search engines Like Google and Yahoo. It also requires that these search engines have a so called Copyright Agent where people can file a complaint. Here are the guidelines of Verizon, who owns Yahoo, as an example. All other search engines have something similar in place, incl Google. https://www.verizonmedia.com/policies/us/en/verizonmedia/ip/index.html

    So, the EU is not doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts, but only because they are required to do so and they have the decency to abide by the rules of the WIPO treaty The WIPO is in place since 1996, so until now, each individual EU member country was responsible, but I guess (not sure) that under the latest EU guidelines, treaties like this will be handled/negotiated/implemented by the EU as an organization



    I wrote this, but I am not sure why.

  • Create New...