"Bloopers" when using photos to design a site
On the page “Greenhouse of Social Technologies” in the Federal Bureau, they posted a comparison of photos from the main page of the new civic project of oligarch Maxim Nogotkov Yopolis and original photos from sites from which the photos were borrowed. Users found one photo in the photo bank , and another - on the site for the selection of technical personnel in the Netherlands from the page "Jobs" .
As you can see, despite serious investments in project development- $ 1 million, the designers decided to follow the path tested over the years, “Russifying” photographs of foreigners with inscriptions in Russian. So, the first picture on the site with two pretty young ladies and a glamorous and young man was supplemented with the text “I registered in Jopolis, because I believe that we ourselves can change the country. Fedor, student ”[compare with the original: Three young adults looking at a computer at an outdoor cofee shop.] A worker in the Netherlands, accordingly, says:“ I think that’s how the state of the future should be governed. Sergey, shift supervisor. ”
This is confirmed by a well-known fact: buying a finished photograph, albeit non-exclusive, is a faster and cheaper way to fill the site with content than creating images on your own.
Apparently, there is not enough money for an exclusive license in these situations, regardless of the amount of investment. As they write on Lurkmore - “Having inserted some smoking p ** do in the advertising of your fire extinguishers, you can suddenly find it tomorrow as an illustration for an article about massage parlors, which will spoil the image and impact on the target audience.”
When we worked on a number of projects, we faced the same problem. Although the contract stipulated something like “The Contractor guarantees that the transfer of rights ... does not violate the copyrights of third parties, including both property and personal non-property rights”, the brief stated that the illustrations are made to order as unique, on stolen photos we designers caught more than once or twice.
There are plenty of examples, say, recently in Bigdan’s blog posted an advertisement in which the same girl advertises in different banks.
The question is how do you deal with such fails / protect yourself from them? Not to draw everything yourself.
As you can see, despite serious investments in project development- $ 1 million, the designers decided to follow the path tested over the years, “Russifying” photographs of foreigners with inscriptions in Russian. So, the first picture on the site with two pretty young ladies and a glamorous and young man was supplemented with the text “I registered in Jopolis, because I believe that we ourselves can change the country. Fedor, student ”[compare with the original: Three young adults looking at a computer at an outdoor cofee shop.] A worker in the Netherlands, accordingly, says:“ I think that’s how the state of the future should be governed. Sergey, shift supervisor. ”
This is confirmed by a well-known fact: buying a finished photograph, albeit non-exclusive, is a faster and cheaper way to fill the site with content than creating images on your own.
Apparently, there is not enough money for an exclusive license in these situations, regardless of the amount of investment. As they write on Lurkmore - “Having inserted some smoking p ** do in the advertising of your fire extinguishers, you can suddenly find it tomorrow as an illustration for an article about massage parlors, which will spoil the image and impact on the target audience.”
When we worked on a number of projects, we faced the same problem. Although the contract stipulated something like “The Contractor guarantees that the transfer of rights ... does not violate the copyrights of third parties, including both property and personal non-property rights”, the brief stated that the illustrations are made to order as unique, on stolen photos we designers caught more than once or twice.
There are plenty of examples, say, recently in Bigdan’s blog posted an advertisement in which the same girl advertises in different banks.
The question is how do you deal with such fails / protect yourself from them? Not to draw everything yourself.