You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.

Report misuse - only watermarked ??

I found this site that it seems to be given away (free download) wallpaper images.


Among them I found two of my own


How can I report this ? As I understand the misuse button only consider watermarked images. What if they dont have a watermark as in this case ??

Canon gear
Posted: 07/26/2013, 05:49:45 AM
Made a mistake, Took a closer look at them , and they are watermarked.
The site has several other images with DT and others agencies watermarks
Sent a report to DT already.

Canon gear
Edited: 07/26/2013, 06:23:01 AM
clicked on one of the links and up came some porn
Posted: 07/26/2013, 06:32:40 AM
LOL....how many guys are going to click on those links now :-)
f3.5-5.6 Sigma 17-50 f2.8 Canon 24-70L f2.8 Canon 70-200L f4 43...
Posted: 07/26/2013, 09:15:44 AM
To answer your original question, Daniel, you can report images that are misused but are not watermarked. However, in most cases the most that will happen is that DT will send them a threatening email. If they don't comply, it usually isn't taken any farther. DT is flooded with so many misuse reports that they only follow up on a small percentage of them.

For example, I found an image of mine that was being used on a site with erotic stories. That violates the terms of the license and I reported it. DT sent the site owner an email many months ago and nothing has been done about it. I hate that my image is being used on a porn site, but short of hiring my own lawyer to pursue it, there's not much I can do since it's not a priority for DT.
mm, Sigma 105 mm macro...
Posted: 07/27/2013, 22:58:44 PM

Originally posted by :
Quoted Message:
For example, I found an image of mine that was being used on a site with erotic stories. That violates the terms of the license and I reported it.

Can someone point out what part of the license forbids it? In the RF license I only see

Web templates, greeting cards or postcards especially designed for sale, similar print-on-demand services, canvas, t-shirts, mugs, calendars, postcards, mouse pads or any other items incorporating the Media in an essential manner, intended to be sold are considered redistribution (if the Media is used in an essential manner). The use of Dreamstime.com Media for these purposes under the regular Royalty Free license is not permitted. It is also forbidden to make the Media available on a website for download (as wallpapers for example), although you may use the Media in a concept in as many websites as you want, for any number of clients. For Web use, you must not use the Media at a width exceeding 1080 pixels unless it is included in your site`s design. If the Media is part of a design and manipulated accordingly, the Media width can be higher than 1080 pixels.

I see nothing there restricting the use of RF images in erotica.

Some images can't be due to other laws, for example in the US, even with a model release and even if the child was not exposed to any adult content, works that are considered pornographic may not include the depiction of children. At least as I understand it.

However is searching both the forums and the dreamstime terms, I was not able to find a restriction from using RF images licensed from DT in erotica.

If those restrictions exist:

A) Can I be pointed to them?
B) Can they be made more prominent?
Posted: 07/16/2017, 19:51:12 PM
There is this:

Originally posted by :
Quoted Message:
Without limitation, Media may not be used as a trademark or service mark (unless the appropriate extended license is being used), for any pornographic or unlawful purpose...

However erotica != pornographic.
Posted: 07/16/2017, 19:57:41 PM
Please see our terms and conditions regarding this here: LINK
Posted: 07/17/2017, 02:11:13 AM
I'm not sure how to interpret that since there are many images that themselves convey those exact "sensitive" issues. For example -


The title of the image even specifies call girl with money. She's not at the doctors office...


Like erotica, that image is designed to inspire sensual emotions.


Issues like that case in NYC where a stock image of a woman was put next to text saying "I'm HIV+" - that's clearly a case where the use of the image would convey to the normal person that the person in the image was HIV+ and thus is defamation of character, but if the image had been of a woman wearing a shirt that says she is HIV+ then it wouldn't be because the image itself conveys the very message of the use.

None of the images here are pornographic, but likewise, a lot of erotica is also not pornographic. Some is, but not all.
Edited: 07/17/2017, 04:33:15 AM
There are cases when these images can be used and cases when they cannot be used. It depends on different factors and if you are referring to a particular image/usage, you need to email us at support [@] dreamstime dot com so we can consult our legal department. Thank you.
Posted: 07/17/2017, 04:44:37 AM
Thank you for explaining.
Posted: 07/17/2017, 04:59:12 AM
And all of the above posts concerning, talking about pornography, or even just plain ol' "simple erotica" that is "supposed to be tasteful"...is EXACTLY the reason I DO NIOT photograph people. The reason I say this, is because I was having a convo with another DT contributor...& that person said I should widen my horizons & take pics of people. After reading a post like this...talking about porn, legal issues, & other stuff that people are having problems with...& yes, we all know DT cannot possibly handle EVERY ONE of them, cause they probably hit DTs admin desks every single day...Thanks but no thanks...I shall continue to stick with architecture, food, & nature...nothing porn there. I also stray AWAY from religious & political things, too...Too much liability there, too...don't wanna be hurting little people's feelings & have them serve me a notice from their lawyer that I cant afford.
Sony Cybershot 7.2 megapixel I also use a Samsung Android smartphone.
Posted: 07/17/2017, 10:47:46 AM
I respect that, I really do. An image of a person taken in a non sexual context that doesn't fit into the "sensitive" category shouldn't be used in one of those contexts (whether it is erotica or infectious disease or whatever) but while I will respect what the admin said, it seems silly to restrict an image that itself fits into one of those categories from being used in said category without obtaining special permission.

That policy hurts the photographers who submit those photographs, because that's the primary market for those photographs.

Those photographers will likely end up selling elsewhere eventually, if they are not already. Maybe that's what DT actually wants.
Posted: 07/17/2017, 21:04:53 PM
Yes...& I clearly agree with you, after rereading the posts this morning...but not only is it the way your photo was ripped off & used, it was just simply the fact that it was ripped off DTs site & used without your permission, even with the watermark...( I am understanding this correctly, no?). You know what's going to be a sad day for the world of photography? Will be the day somebody creates a program that can obliterate watermarks, thereby allowing them to claim it as their own. (That is, if somebody out in this big ol blue marble hasn't ALREADY done so). When that day gets here, photography will die. The REALLY GOOD PROFESSIONAL photographers are already lamenting that stock photography has killed it off, but no, I don't think so....people are always still needing images...& in the future, when a "watermark erasure" program finally comes along...all pictures will be "free". So somebody needs to come along right now & create a program that will keep watermarks on ALL images & videos until purchased...kind of, you know, "burn" them into the image until a purchase is made...& they need to do it right now. If I were a programmer, I would give it a shot myself, because even though I don't make a living off my images, there are those who do, here @ DT & @ other stock sites, & it's a crying shame people think they feel the need to feel "entitled" to have that pic that they saw on a site.
Sony Cybershot 7.2 megapixel I also use a Samsung Android smartphone.
Posted: 07/18/2017, 08:07:31 AM