 |
The same has happened to me, and I can't report the use of it because I don't find a valid email. What I have done and sometimes it had work is to write directly in the page, and ask them kindly to remove the image since they haven't paid for it. Here it is an example: Vegas Vacation
- posted by
Egomezta
on October 09, 2011 |
 |
FREE is the culprit word .
I found photo and AV magazines writing that it is ok to use "royalty free" work because it is FREE ...meaning you don't have to pay ROYALTY for using them. much like the misunderstanding that you paid for a movie dvd or music cd so you're free to distribute it on the web.
Imagine it, if the editors of photo and AV product magazines don't understand the meaning of ROYALTY FREE, and tell readers that, would you expect readers to think it's ok to used royalty free images ,etc without paying for it?
- posted by
Tan510jomast
on October 08, 2011 |
 |
I suppose one could conclude that dreamstime concedes the theft of small sized images and reaps the benefit of free advertising. Unfortunately for me, most of my sales seem to be in the small sized images.
- posted by
Peanutroaster
on October 08, 2011 |
 |
This is a serious problem.
This should arouse our attention.
- posted by
Linqong
on October 08, 2011 |
|
The Korean site has right click disabled and displays a Creative Commons statement so it makes it seem like the images are public domain.
- posted by
Peanutroaster
on October 08, 2011 |
|
If you trace the image from the Greek page, it goes back to another Greek blog page. So each time an image is used illegally you can bet the abuse is multiplied.
- posted by
Peanutroaster
on October 08, 2011 |
|
Need to embedded the images with some code that deactivates the image unless its been paid for.
- posted by
Peanutroaster
on October 08, 2011 |
 |
@Roberto1977 I used it already! NOTHIN happened
- posted by
Cristalloid
on October 08, 2011 |
 |
Use the new Report misure page.
Bye, Rob.
- posted by
Roberto1977
on October 08, 2011 |
 |
I agree. I don't understand why they don't make the watermark darker and more irritating on the image. It should realy make sure the image doesn't look nice to use with the watermark.
- posted by
Twindesign
on October 08, 2011 |
 |
I agree, in many cases I think there's no watermark on the image, until I really take a VERY close look.
- posted by
Diavata
on October 08, 2011 |
 |
I have to say, I think DT's watermark needs to be beefed up. There are soooooo many files where you have to really look hard to see the swirl, the dreamstime.com shows up in the corner, but the image is still "usable" to those who have no regard for copyright infringement.
I know the argument is the need to balance our customers ease of use with protection for the creators, but I have seen this topic arise in many message threads, so it is obviously an issue that is important to a lot of people.
- posted by
Karenfoleyphotography
on October 08, 2011 |
|
I think DT should use all of its capabilities to fight for the rights of us contributors...
- posted by
Cristalloid
on October 08, 2011 |
 |
I think DT needs to improve the watermark to protect contributors' right.
- posted by
Maybefalse
on October 08, 2011 |
Email us | Phone: +1 615-771-5611
