i assume that guy posted it to a number of stock sites, if the guy said shutterstock, then maybe he really meant getty. he should look at all transactions. its a good reason not to look for your own work - because you don't know where they got the files from.
pixabay usually has a large image and i don't know if those were small images made or large. if they were large how did pixabay get a large image?
when i get images from there, i'm always wary of the very good images and if i do use it i cut it out or use pieces or modify it so it can't be tracked that easily, its always a worry. i do wonder where he got that $9000 price though. seems high for instagram photos. doesn't seem to be a proof of commercial use here., though fine art was mentioned. and i do doubt that the guy paid for anything, if its for instagram only. though i didn't see any signs of watermark removal, so if the only place to get it was to get it as bought stock, then he did pay for it.
and if he did pay for it all he has to do is show the receipt.
the other question is, if he can prove it came from pixabay, did that guy make an account and upload the bought picture there, just to throw people off the scent? i wonder what the timing is of all of this?
#1 I don't think the photographer mentioned where (or if) he is selling the images as stock.
#2 The digital artist said he got the images from Abode Stock or Shutterstock and then changed his story to he got them from Pixabay.
#3 If the images were on FAA then it seems like at least *attempted* commercial use to me.
#4 Pixabay is one of the better public domain sites but who knows who uploaded the images there, if they were uploaded there. It's not a guarantee that the images are in the public domain even if they were on there. Use Pixabay at your own risk as something like this *could* happen to you. Even if they weren't on Pixabay something like this *could* happen to you if you are not using your own stuff.
#5 The invoice price was *probably* due to the fact that it was many images going back quite a while.
That said, the work of the digital artist *may* be transformational anyway.
The digital artist had a store linked to here but now the link is broken so it must have been pulled down or he deleted it.
Since the account does not seem to be here this should not be a name and shame. If the work *is* considered transformational then the photographer *may* have gone overboard with his inflammatory public callout.
Here is the extreme weather photographer's blogpost.
"The way I see it, if he paid for these images and he can prove that he did so, he can do whatever he wants with them even if they were uploaded on that site illegally or not."
Not by a long shot. If they were uploaded illegally then use of the download is illegal too. Copyright is copyright.
"#1 I don't think the photographer mentioned where (or if) he is selling the images as stock."
Sure he did, Don. You
provided the link to the page where he says he has it for sale on Getty.''
If you download a site from a public domain site you have to do your own due diligence to make sure it really is public domain. That's what reverse image searches are for.
When you download an image from a stock agency you don't get the rights to do anything you want. Reselling the image, even if transformational is generally forbidden. That's not what microstock or even macrostock is for. If that was allowed nobody would be uploading to stock agencies.
At one time there was a stock photo that was the most downloadedstock photo in ll; of microstock The photographer just happened to be on the staff at Istockphotos. Many artists did transformational works and uploaded here on FAA. Some even just painted it. I contacted the artist as we were both in the same agency. She let me know that a download on microstock does not allow uploading for sale as prints. Even if it was painted!. One of the images taken doen was the same photograph and she said in the description the model gave her permission!! That was a total fabrication. Anyway certain transformative works remain. I would say they were inspired by but there was obvious tracing in some of the paintings.
Anyway transformative is very subjective. What is not subjective is a violation of a stock photo agreement, so if the person bought a stock photo then in my opinion they have a license agreement that explicitly forbids certain uses or allows them as the case may be.
Good catch, Bradford. I missed that he had stated where he licensed the images in his email to the digital artist --> Getty, Barcroft, and AP. Yup, unless you purchase some sort of extended or enhanced license (if available) the sale of prints is usually not allowed.
That said, if someone is using the image under fair use they don't care what any license says as it wouldn't be applicable. Of course, only a judge, copyright arbitrator, or copyright board can determine if the use is fair use when all is said and done.
FWIW, I have sold packages of stock images and have include printing, POD, and T-shirt licenses etc. Supposedly in this case, the digital artist did not purchase a license so he won't be arguing what a stock license allows or does not allow.