Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JohnB

  1. After doing some searching I think this is a variation of "DHL delivery notification Adobe ID phishing scam".http://www.hoax-slayer.net/dhl-delivery-notification-adobe-id-phishing-scam/


    Seems pretty much what I experienced  (swap "DHL" for "bearkatautorepair" ). Basically they tell you they have information for you which requires you to log in to your Adobe account and then present you with a bogus Adobe login form. It also drops malware.   I guess I didn't imagine it.


    I suppose there are a large number of people here with Adobe accounts who may like to be aware of this. I guess my details probably did not come from Adobe.


    This one was oddly convincing. I have never had a scam mail  sent to me with my correct name let alone address and phone number. They also know I buy car parts online or maybe that was a coincidence. Perhaps it is to do with a parts supplier. I actually thought I'd accidentally bought something via Amazon.


    Perhaps you thought you were buying a photograph......


    If you've looking I have some. :D


    Quite honestly the day I've had I could have done anything. I'm feeling quite old.

  3. This one was oddly convincing. I have never had a scam mail  sent to me with my correct name let alone address and phone number. They also know I buy car parts online or maybe that was a coincidence. Perhaps it is to do with a parts supplier. I actually thought I'd accidentally bought something via Amazon. Not had a very good day - was rather distracted.

  4. I really do only use my email address as contact for precisely these reasons.  There is one place where it is possible to find my address but that is not photo-related or social  and does not include my telephone number. I suppose a link could be made but it would take quite a bit of work.

    Windows defender found and removed a trojan downloader and I then ran  malawarebytes which found nothing.

    I emailed "Adobephishing" and copied the source to them. 


    Now I've calmed down and thinking more clearly I'm actually beginning to wonder if the email tried and failed to open an acrobat document and I was then diverted to Adobe for an update. It might be a false alarm - apart from me being daft enough to click the link. It happened rather quickly: I clicked the link; windows defender told me I had malware; I found myself at Adobe's website; I closed the page. I'm not going to try it again. :)


    Still worrying that a scammer now has all my details.

  5. Does anyone know if there is some sort of recent phishing scam/ hack at Adobe. This might be related to the Adobe hack of a few years back.

    I received an email purporting to be from bearkatautorepair telling me that my order would be packed and sent to me asap. It had my correct name, address and telephone number. There was a link supposedly telling me the progress of my order. I usually spot these scams fairly quickly but, because I've recently been searching a lot of car related sites and as it had my correct details I click it. To my surprise it linked me to a form with the adobe heading asking me for info about my CC account. Obviously I've closed the form without proceeding. Windows defender now telling me it's removed malware. The link appears to go to "winournation.com".

    Apart from worrying about what it might have dropped on my pc I am very concerned about how someone got hold of my name, address and telephone number and seems to know I have Adobe cc.

    I'm going to email Adobe .



  6. First sale of this year was on the 6th. It was a picture of a tadpole. I've had eight sales so far this year mostly relating to zooms in the last few months of last year. So far this year I've had only 1 zoom (new search engine ??). That might just be due to statistical fluctuation or the holidays. If it's down to search engine I'm wondering where future sales will come from. (not panicking yet).

  7. I should say that, contrary to what I was led to believe yesterday, I have now been told that there was a mistake and the front-page use will be billed separately. This means that the licence description is not as inaccurate as I believed. I don't very often physically have the newspaper in my hand so when I see a newspaper sale arrive for a tiny amount I console myself with the belief that the image has been used at thumbnail size near the bottom of page 23. This came as a bit of a shock to me. 

    So far it's barely covered the cost in time spent emailing "customer relations", photocopying tear sheets and arguing with Niels over something we appeared to agree on. :D

    • Upvote 1
  8. The image was used twice in the same printed version of the newspaper - once inside at half page and once on the front cover by the masthead. The front cover version was accompanied by text advertising the main article inside. My interpretation of the licence agreement was that I should have been paid for both uses. I'm told that both usages are covered by this licence and therefore I conclude that the licence details I have been presented with are meaningless in almost all respects. 

    Now I understand your reference to RF. I was not suggesting that I thought the newspaper had somehow bought the right to do what they want with the image. I meant "anywhere within that edition of the newspaper" not "anywhere" per se. I have edited my original post accordingly.

  9. Unless the licence is RF - this is not according to my knowledge. The uses are for the very same article.

    Not entirely sure what you mean. I expected to be paid for two uses. "One use in a single editorial or advertorial article used within print and /or web versions," Does that simply mean the image can only be used once within one article or could be it interpreted to mean the image can be used as often as you like as long as it's included in different articles? (I'm joking - I hope!) . :D   I enquired about both the double usage and size and was assured that the usage was within the terms of the licence. I will ask for confirmation about the multiple usage. :)


    Anyway this rather diverts from my main point that the image placement details, size details and ,of course, date are irrelevant and misleading.

  10. Can we please have correct description of licence in "My sales"


    I do not see the point in giving so much detail in the licence description if, as an example, with newspaper sales the details are actually wrong. A recent sale of mine carried this licence information:


    Country: United Kingdom
    Usage: Editorial
    Media: Newspaper - national
    Print run: up to 2 million
    Placement: Inside and online
    Image Size: 1/4 page
    Start: 01 August 2016
    End: 02 August 2016
    One use in a single editorial or advertorial article used within print and /or web versions, with re-use of the article in other titles or web versions within the same newspaper group. Digital use includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article. Any placement in paper and online.


    I queried this licence as it was one of those rare uses I'd actually seen in the newspaper. In reality the image was  used twice in the same edition - once at larger than 1/2 page  and once on the front page. I'm told that under the newspaper scheme the paper can use the image at a flat rate  anywhere within that edition of the newspaper, and at whatever size they like. This actually means that everything in the licence description  below "Media Newspaper National" is wrong except the very last phrase " Any placement in paper and online." which contradicts and/or overrides all that precedes it.

    • Upvote 2
  11. I think they are saying that the image was originally sold, and priced, as a book cover but the usage use was  incorrectly described as "inside". ie. the customer originally paid for a book cover use even if it was wrongly described. The price is rather  less than the calculator states because Alamy do  deals for regular customers who may, for instance, be bulk buying images. It is relatively unusual for images to sell at the calculator price.

  12. I got this a while back and was diverted here:


    From the bank of England:





    "Under section 18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 it is a criminal offence for any person, without the prior consent in writing of the Bank of England, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any Bank of England banknote or any part of a Bank of England banknote. The Bank of England also owns the copyright in its banknotes."


    It seems to be saying BofE notes can't be copied at all.

    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.