As you can see by the iStockphoto watermark on these images, someone felt the images weren’t worth the $1 iStockphoto charges for them… which, for most microstock photography, that’s actually true.
Found these over at Photoshop Disasters.



No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
That’s just sad. It’s really depressing for photographers in the stock industry. Economy is a bitch.
It’s not that sad, really. If the photog associated with the shot comes to find that a company has wrongfully used their image, they could be in for a hefty settlement.
That’s trying to be optimistic, of course… and will most likely not happen to the majority…
What’s sadder is that the offenders couldn’t even manage to remove the watermark. L-l-l-lame.
chirp.
I recently caught the ceo of a multi-billion dollar technology company doing the same thing; in a presentation he was giving (that i was viewing) there was a clearly watermarked image. I don’t think he did it himself, most likely one of the marketing staff, but as the ceo and presenter he carries the ultimate responsibility.
I raised it to his attention and have not heard back on the issue yet. While in relation to everything else on his plate right now it’s a minor issue, but you know his legal department wouldn’t miss the chance if the tables were turned.
[...] then it was the market cutting how much it would pay for photography, and now we are seeing the market not respecting even the micro-stock fees or the market not wanting to pay anything for [...]
I wouldn’t give this to much importance. Probably the designer from this Sites/Banners just forgot to replace the watermarked image in the layout before he gave the designs to the client. Usually when you work with Stock-Photography you first take de watermarked Image just to test if it fits your design. And before you present the layout to the client you replace it with a image without Watermark.
[...] When even $1 is too much for your photography. [...]