This person contacted me to let me know they had used my images in the linked image, but they seem to not have understood the image licence, and are offering the image for sale without even asking me. The frame and waterlilies are both recognisable, and I left a note under the image because I don't want people paying for it. The downloader copyrighted her image. This is not acceptable if the images used are not public domain.
I don't class this person as a ripper, but they are still using the images illegally. I am not flattered when someone is making money out of my work in this way. There are limits to the commercial use of RGBStock images.
Hmm... looks like the webpage on which the image is offered for sale has now been withdrawn. I should think so too!
Yes, she posted on the images that she had removed it, and said because there was no copyright mark she didn't realise. I think that's not good enough. If you want to use the pics, read the image licence or contact us directly for permission. I may have given or negotiated permission, but I wasn't contacted for that. I feel a bit mean when the person is honest, but I try to be consistent, as I have made money when people really wanted some of mine, and at the time I needed that money. And they are generally quick to claim copyright themselves.
I was reading about Getty images. They are very aggressive stock photography company. Getty will sue people for illegal use of their images. Generally, copy right enforcement in Asia is very limited. I don't mind if people use my images for their website or blog because images are very expensive to purchase online. People don't have the money in global economic downturn.
The rules on RGBStock allow such use, and use for illustrations inside books and on flyers. But when people sell my images - which is what happens with Zazzle and the above example, then I am entitled to be contacted and paid if I make that a condition of use. I frequently allow people from Asia to use them in other ways, asking only that if they make a lot of money that they will purchase a licence. I have no way of checking whether they are honest or not. I allow others who seem to have little money to use them for book covers, etc, but I ask for full information and if they hedge around that, then I don't allow it. I am old, and one day these might be my only means of earning a trickle of money. In the meantime, as long as they use them within the RGBStock licence, I am more than happy for them to be used. If I wasn't, I'd remove them.
Still, when it's brought to people's attention, they are generally good and well mannered about it. We don't bite, and the worst we can say is "no", so people just need to ask.
I guess illegal use happens a lot but unfortunately it is very expensive to legally enforce copyrights. I generally give permission most of the time because I like to see my pictures being used rather than sitting on my external drive at home.
I have always preferred to limit use, and particularly once I made some money from my images. I'm happy for them to be used within the RGB licence. However, I object if a designer is charging a company for my image.