Comment by jzwinck | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jzwinck | Hacker News Reader

The first image, of people having a meeting, is stolen. It has a link saying "Image Attribution" (which should really say the name of the attributee) which goes to the Flickr account of some random portrait photographer who doesn't seem to specialize in anodyne stock photos at all.

Here's the BBC attributing the very same image in 2015: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34666150

Here's what Getty charges for this image ($55 and up): https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/successful-business...

There is even a comment from three years ago on the Flickr page saying the file has Corbis copyright embedded and asking if it's original.

How do I know these things? TinEye: https://tineye.com/search/ce7668fe2986a90a93d5fda4d1c90c8ee6...

It's very frustrating for hard working stock photographers who already only get 20% of the sale price to see Flickr enabling copyright violations by displaying images as Creative Commons when an algorithmic search of the two most popular stock photo sites shows it is not original.

Hire a lawyer who specializes in IP.

Years ago I knew a pro photographer who loved getting ripped off, because he made more money than if he’d licensed his images. How? He just had his lawyer send a friendly letter to the offending party.

Ah did not realize this, will be corrected ASAP. Quite sympathetic to the situation of photographers, actually.

Removed the image.

Thank you. I would suggest changing your "Image Attribution" text to actually say the name of the person or organization you're attributing to. Right now it's just a link which is less valuable to photographers than having their name written out (yet takes about the same space), and is subject to link rot as seen on another one of your posts: http://www.jilles.net/perma/2014/10/03/introducing-graphite-...

Yeah was thinking the same after reflecting on your message. Have to tweak the system for that a bit, but it's worthwhile.

For a while I was thinking of setting myself the rule of only using my own images to circumvent this.

The embedded Corbis watermark is an issue. That said the fact Getty is selling an image isn’t proof in itself that can not be freely used. They regularly “license” works that have made freely available by the creators.

Your tineye link returns nothing.

Sorry, TinEye links expire very quickly! Rather than posting another link which will expire again, I'll just give you the direct link to the image from Flickr: https://live.staticflickr.com/5519/14565350736_09ac87154b_o_... - put that into TinEye and you should see 600+ results, some dating to 2013, a year before it was uploaded to Flickr.

Even better, put that URL into http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi to view the metadata, and behold:

    Headline: Successful Business Meeting
    Caption: Successful Business Meeting --- Image by © Corbis
    By Line: Colorblind
    Credit: © Corbis
    Copyright: © Corbis. All Rights Reserved.

Corbis was acquired by Getty in 2016, which explains why it's for sale on Getty now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com