istockphoto...pffft

[Xrproto]

Do they enforce this...what good are they then?

use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner that (i) would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour; or (ii) that depicts such person in a potentially sensitive subject matter, including, but not limited to mental and physical health issues, social issues, sexual or implied sexual activity or preferences, substance abuse, crime, physical or mental abuse or ailments, or any other subject matter that would be reasonably likely to be offensive or unflattering to any person reflected in the Content;

 

[barman]

fuck that, its never stopped me... and i spend a lot on istock

 

[DaveEMG]

I've never heard of iStock going after folks for implying an "endorsement"... Should be fine.

 

[_poto_]

yes, they do enforce it...

istockphoto sux... in fact I got a C&D from them just last month...

I edited out the details, but it looks like this:

To Whom it May Concern;

It was brought to our attention that xxxxxxxxxx.com has published to its website a photograph exclusively represented by our agency, iStockphoto.com. The image which we represent may be viewed online at hxxp://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=xxxxxxxxxxxx. I have also attached a screen capture of the website xxxxxxxxxx.com which illustrations the image use.

Section 4 (a). 6 / 7 our or Content License Agreement [hxxp://www.istockphoto.com/license.php] prohibits imagery to be used in this manner therefore we require that you immediately cease and desist further use of our content.

I expect a response within 5 business days from the date of this email to confirm that the above correction has taken place. Failure to do so will be interpreted as wilful infringement and permit the copyright holder and iStockphoto to take futher action.

Regards,

xxxxxxxx

Compliance Enforcement Officer
iStockphoto Inc.

my advice... don't use them...

 

[avantrosa]

It's not easy to regulate millions of images. It was most likely the photographer that filed a complaint with iStockPhoto - which can happen with any of the royalty free image sites.... just my speculation anyhow.

 

[_poto_]

It's not easy to regulate millions of images. It was most likely the photographer that filed a complaint with iStockPhoto - which can happen with any of the royalty free image sites.... just my speculation anyhow.

I've heard istockphoto has a bot that crawls and checks site images...

in fact, I've never knowingly used istockphoto because of the bad things I've heard about them... the image that I got the C&D for was automatically pulled from a feed from a dating affiliate program that I was promoting on one of my porn sites... so, I had no idea it was even up, lol...

 

[smaxor]

yeah just alter the checksum of the image with some meta data and you should be fine.

 

[DewChugr]

I believe they use the PicScout bot to do this. It's a company, possibly from israel that get's a reported 35% cut on money recoverd from infringement. There's allso Cyveilance that searches for brand names, trademankrs, etc.

They will eat up a ton of your bandwidth and skew your logs, but it can be hard to block them. One of my sites has about 5k pages and I don't want any bots crawling it that are not going to benefit me. I wrote a script that watches the number of visits by an ip number, the amount of time between visits and number of visits per day. It will add abusive bots to a ban database. In my robots.txt (these bots usually ignore robots.txt) file I list a bogus directory with an index file that instantly bans any ip that loads the page. In addition I can view and edit all bots that have been added to the database. The script also has a list of pre-defined user agents and ip numbers I know are bad. Anyone in the db gets redirected to a 404 page.

 

[xecutech]

Why would someone buy their images if we can't use them to endorse a product or service on our websites? That's the only reason I would use them.

 

[Supergeek]

They will eat up a ton of your bandwidth and skew your logs, but it can be hard to block them. One of my sites has about 5k pages and I don't want any bots crawling it that are not going to benefit me. I wrote a script that watches the number of visits by an ip number, the amount of time between visits and number of visits per day. It will add abusive bots to a ban database. In my robots.txt (these bots usually ignore robots.txt) file I list a bogus directory with an index file that instantly bans any ip that loads the page. In addition I can view and edit all bots that have been added to the database. The script also has a list of pre-defined user agents and ip numbers I know are bad. Anyone in the db gets redirected to a 404 page.

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

 

[DewChugr]

I'm not sure Cyvelliance has anything to do with photos, rather other types of monitoring.

Why would someone buy their images if we can't use them to endorse a product or service on our websites? That's the only reason I would use them.

 

[avantrosa]

Speaking of iStockPhoto, I just got received this email:

This message is a friendly reminder to you that iStockphoto credits expire within 1 year of the date of purchase. You have credits in your account that will expire in the next 15 days if not used.

That policy is pretty lame.

 

[Supergeek]

Speaking of iStockPhoto, I just got received this email:



That policy is pretty lame.

Yeah, if you bought a shitload of credits assuming they'd roll over so you could get a price break.

If I had bought a lot of credits and still had a bunch left over, I'd call and talk to a real person there and get an extension or a refund. That's bullshit.