3 ms·

She put the photo up for sale on a stock photo site and Samsung apparently bought it and used it. Where are you seeing her state otherwise?

acdha 8y ago
The article says nothing about being paid but does say this at the end: “Since I’d made my first sale on EyeEm and saw the image on Samsung Malaysia’s website right after that, I didn’t even assume that they’d stolen the image. I mean, why would they? It’s not expensive for a huge company like that to buy one stock photo. Although, to be honest, I think that they should have paid more for a better retoucher. But just to make sure, I got in touch with EyeEm, asking whether Samsung bought the image from them. A wonderful lady from customer support told me that the sale wasn’t registered on EyeEm yet. However, she explained that sometimes buyers have subscriptions with Getty Images, meaning that they will be billed later for their photos. “Photos can be used months before we get sales data for the photo,” she added, and promised to keep me updated. After this, I contacted Getty to check whether the sale was made through their website. I never got a reply.”
- spuz 8y ago
  Your quotes from the article don't support your original claim that she claimed that Samsung did not pay her for her photo. Just the opposite. I think you are reading the text incorrectly. To paraphrase what I think she is saying: "My photo was bought on EyeEm via Getty Images. I don't know who bought my photo from Getty Images but it was probably Samsung".
  - acdha 8y ago
    That’s why I was asking whether there was a subsequent confirmation. It’s definitely possible that they bought it but it’s easy to find photographers who’ve been ripped off by companies which are big enough to know better and given that the main story is an ethical lapse, a second one is hard to rule out.

acdha 8y ago

The article says nothing about being paid but does say this at the end: “Since I’d made my first sale on EyeEm and saw the image on Samsung Malaysia’s website right after that, I didn’t even assume that they’d stolen the image. I mean, why would they? It’s not expensive for a huge company like that to buy one stock photo. Although, to be honest, I think that they should have paid more for a better retoucher. But just to make sure, I got in touch with EyeEm, asking whether Samsung bought the image from them. A wonderful lady from customer support told me that the sale wasn’t registered on EyeEm yet. However, she explained that sometimes buyers have subscriptions with Getty Images, meaning that they will be billed later for their photos. “Photos can be used months before we get sales data for the photo,” she added, and promised to keep me updated. After this, I contacted Getty to check whether the sale was made through their website. I never got a reply.”

spuz 8y ago
Your quotes from the article don't support your original claim that she claimed that Samsung did not pay her for her photo. Just the opposite. I think you are reading the text incorrectly. To paraphrase what I think she is saying: "My photo was bought on EyeEm via Getty Images. I don't know who bought my photo from Getty Images but it was probably Samsung".
- acdha 8y ago
  That’s why I was asking whether there was a subsequent confirmation. It’s definitely possible that they bought it but it’s easy to find photographers who’ve been ripped off by companies which are big enough to know better and given that the main story is an ethical lapse, a second one is hard to rule out.