Author Topic: Beware of Shutterstock (Read 53995 times)

crashoran · « **on:** December 26, 2007, 13:59 »

I received an email on December 14, 2007 telling me someone had claimed one of my photos had a copyrighted design in it. They told me I had until December 18 to reply or my account would be shut down.

I replied back on Dec 14, 2007 at 2:43 PM and sent another support request ticket again on Dec 17, 2007 at 9:05 PM. These are all in my email records as well as Shutterstock's.

They never replied back.

I sent another support request asking what was going on and when my account would be unlocked. They told me they never received an email from me and my account was going to be shut down.

Shutterstock has disabled my account and has prevented me from logging in and took over $400.00 of my earnings.

I am FURIOUS.

ALTPhotoImages · « **Reply #1 on:** December 26, 2007, 15:21 »

If it helps;

Shutterstock Images LLC.
155 W. 19th St., 2Fl
NY NY 10011

1-866-663-3954

By Fax
1-347-402-0710

Smithore · « **Reply #2 on:** December 26, 2007, 17:39 »

What a shame!!!!

vonkara · « **Reply #3 on:** December 26, 2007, 17:48 »

Wow...that's awful!

hospitalera · « **Reply #4 on:** December 26, 2007, 18:52 »

Support ticket never worked for me, send me an pm and I give you an email address that worked previously for me, good luck! SY

hatman12 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 26, 2007, 19:17 »

Hmmm... sounds like a very tall story to me. Shutterstock are reasonable and professional people; they don't close accounts without good reason.

Typically, guy pops up from nowhere claiming he was 'got at' unfairly; usually in such cases there is much more to the story.

epixx · « **Reply #6 on:** December 26, 2007, 19:28 »

Maybe you could show us the photo in question. Is it online at any other agency? What was the size of your portfolio?

crashoran · « **Reply #7 on:** December 26, 2007, 22:34 »

Guys, I have asked them I don't know how many times for them to show me the photo that was not created by me. They WILL NOT SHOW ME. I had 400 photos in my portfolio and sold ~2,500 images each month. I do this to pay tuition for my schooling.

There is nothing else to the story. I have read their terms of service and nowhere does it mention they have the right to take back earnings from submitters.

epixx · « **Reply #8 on:** December 26, 2007, 22:56 »

Why don't you try the forum at SS? The admins do read the forums there.

crashoran · « **Reply #9 on:** December 26, 2007, 23:03 »

They banned me from the forums also. I would appreciate if anybody could help me find out what's going on - and ask an admin on the SS forums. I was under the same name there. Crashoran

hatman12 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 26, 2007, 23:25 »

Ah, so now we start to hear the real story: instead of "copyright infringement" we've got "stole someone else's idea or work". That's a better reason for Shutterstock to ban someone.

Sooner or later we'll hear the rest of the story.

epixx · « **Reply #11 on:** December 26, 2007, 23:33 »

I won't be the judge of anyone here, but this seems to be the story:

You have, with or without knowing it, copied or made identical icons to another user named sodafish. I haven't seen the icons, so I have no idea. The only way for you to clear up the mess, would be to contact admin at SS directly, preferably by phone, and very, very politely.

I've had a look at your portfolio at DT and IS, and if it's legit, you're work is excellent. Still, getting too inspired by others when it comes to vector graphics is not a good idea. I do vectors myself, and know that it's not always easy to see what's inspiration and what's copying.

You can be pretty sure that SS is one safe legal ground when it comes to money. They don't like to take chances (which they showed when they banned you). A piece of advice: go through your other portfolios, and be 100% sure that you have no conflicts coming up there as well.

Good luck.

crashoran · « **Reply #12 on:** December 26, 2007, 23:35 »

Hatman12, I'm just telling you what they have told me in their emails. First they told me a photo had a copyrighted design and then later tonight they sent another email telling me I was selling a photo that was not taken by me.

None of this is making sense to me. There is no rest of the story...I wish I knew the whole story

Epixx, I can swear that I did not copy or make identical icons from others. I already know and knew before this that copying other's work would result in being banned. There are alot of generic looking icons that could have clashed. I've created all my vectors on my own in Illustrator CS2

epixx · « **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2007, 23:47 »

I haven't seen any of the icons in question. It was a claim by Helix7 in a post on 17 December after someone commented that your portfolio was empty.

If what you are saying in your latest post is true, SS is on thin ice here. Firstly, a photo with a copyrighted design should never have been approved by them in the first place, secondly, it's relatively easy to document if a photo has been taken by another person, particularly if the EXIF is intact. Do you still not know what photo they are talking about?

crashoran · « **Reply #14 on:** December 27, 2007, 00:04 »

Are you serious epixx? I looked through his entire portfolio and I don't know what he was talking about. None of them look like mine.

Can you please ask him which photo he made the claim against?
I have never heard of this person and have never seen any of his images before

epixx · « **Reply #15 on:** December 27, 2007, 00:12 »

He didn't talk about his own portfolio, but the icons of sodafish. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'll post a few questions at the SS forum, and see what kind of responses I get. Hope they don't ban me then

crashoran · « **Reply #16 on:** December 27, 2007, 00:27 »

I see they have locked your post.

They say they will take care of it through their support, but they dont respond when asking for the photo

Something is going on here...

epixx · « **Reply #17 on:** December 27, 2007, 00:39 »

Wow... that was fast. Oh well, they are probably reading this thread anyway.

I'll leave it for now. Give some feedback when they have reached a conclusion. Could be interesting to hear what's behind all this.

crashoran · « **Reply #18 on:** December 27, 2007, 00:46 »

I really just want to continue submitting on Shutterstock, It's been working out really well for me and I sell a couple thousand photos each month on there. I wanted to continue building my portfolio higher and higher.

Ill let you know what happens

Elenathewise · « **Reply #19 on:** December 27, 2007, 12:02 »

Quote from: hatman12 on December 26, 2007, 19:17

Shutterstock are reasonable and professional people; they don't close accounts without good reason.

Sorry hatman can't agree with that - I do not call people professional if they never reply to support inquiries. I emailed support multiple times, tried to PM admins on reviews issues, I never got any reply. Either they have a problem with their support email, or they simply ignore emails from contributors. In any case, professional this is not.
I don't know what the story is here, but the contributor definitely deserved a better explanation, as do all of us by the way. If they post something here or on their forum explaining the incident and show us the photos/images in question, then I'll call them professional.
But my impression about them is they don't care about individual contributors at all.... like 'we'll have people submitting to us no matter what we do".

digiology · « **Reply #20 on:** December 27, 2007, 12:26 »

That's strange. I recently had a problem connecting to SS. I emailed support ([email protected]) and they replied within 24hrs. We corresponded a few times and they solved my problem within 48hrs.

I have a puny port with puny sales yet they got back to me within a reasonable time frame. I would think they would offer the same courtesy to the OP especially if his sales are as high as he says they are. $:-\$

crashoran · « **Reply #21 on:** December 27, 2007, 16:34 »

Update:

Here is the email I sent last night

"Seth,

That email was not sent to me on December 19. Please respond to each statement I have numbered.

1. Shutterstock never showed or told me which specific photos that I had allegedly stolen, therefore I never got a chance to show my side of the claim. The e-mail wanted to hear my side of the claim, I responded, and never heard back. This is in violation of my rights as a submitter according to your own terms of service.

2. Please SHOW ME which images I submitted that were not created by me.

3. Furthermore, I will need my earnings from this month sent to my PayPal address at *********@gmail.com"

Here is their response:

"Hello Nick,

This issue was handled by the head of the review department who is no longer with us. I cannot deal with this matter any further. The email WAS sent to you on December 19, though you may not have received it for whatever reason.

I have been notified that this case is closed."

I find it highly coincidental that the head of review person just now happened to no longer work for them. All I want is an explanation. Shutterstock will not answer the questions in the email, will not cooperate with me, or even return my phone calls. I have lost faith in shutterstock, and what they are doing is a little something called internet fraud by taking my earnings. They will receive notification concerning my remaining earnings through a small claims lawsuit.

epixx · « **Reply #22 on:** December 27, 2007, 19:58 »

Crashoran: I received a mail from Seth today that they will look into your case again.

Jorgen

Elenathewise · « **Reply #23 on:** December 27, 2007, 21:58 »

Yikes!!! Cashoran, please keep us posted on this. If that "professional" email you posted would be the last thing you hear from them, that is scary stuff!!! Basically telling you to bugger off without any reasonable explanation. If they don't show you the images that they think you copied and don't let you defend yourself (what if the accuser stole your images and decided to get rid of the competition??) then ya I'd take them to court too.
About technical support - they may have decent technical guys dealing with connectivity issues etc, but anything related to content.... what can I say can be much much better.

crashoran · « **Reply #24 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:25 »

Phew - they showed me which image was in question and I'm not worried at all. I'm waiting to hear back with their decision. It was an icon set by sodafish - I can tell he thought that some of them looked similar - especially a briefcase icon. But none of them are identical to mine

Elenathewise · « **Reply #25 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:39 »

Nice to hear they finally got to you with the explanation. It shouldn't have taken all this trouble tho...

helix7 · « **Reply #26 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:47 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 13:25

Phew - they showed me which image was in question and I'm not worried at all. I'm waiting to hear back with their decision. It was an icon set by sodafish - I can tell he thought that some of them looked similar - especially a briefcase icon. But none of them are identical to mine

Come on, man. I took one look at those icons and knew where they were from. Some looked identical to sodafish's.

crashoran · « **Reply #27 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:55 »

These aren't sodafish's icons...

helix7 · « **Reply #28 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:56 »

Uh, yeah, they are. The briefcase you stole is from another one of his sets, as is the clock. They are nearly identical, save for a few minor stoke weights. Just because you picked some icons from his many sets and made one new set from them, doesn't mean they're not stolen.

I'll give you this: those last couple are definitely yours, as they are no where near as good as sodafish's. And that's a tell-tale sign of a copy, when some icons clearly don't fit with the others.

crashoran · « **Reply #29 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:59 »

No, his briefcase icon is not mine. Look at it. A briefcase will always look like a box with a handle...

helix7 · « **Reply #30 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:00 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 13:59

No, his briefcase icon is not mine. Look at it. A briefcase will always look like a box with a handle...

AND the clock? AND the lock? AND the shopping cart? AND the mag glass? Come on.

AND they all just happen to have the same reflection.

You're caught. Deal with it.

crashoran · « **Reply #31 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:01 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 28, 2007, 13:56

Uh, yeah, they are. The briefcase you stole is from another one of his sets, as is the clock. They are nearly identical, save for a few minor stoke weights. Just because you picked some icons from his many sets and made one new set from them, doesn't mean they're not stolen.

I'll give you this: those last couple are definitely yours, as they are no where near as good as sodafish's.

Somebody is in a bad mood today

crashoran · « **Reply #32 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:04 »

Why don't you do a search for a shopping cart and clock and see what you come up with? How is a clock not supposed to look like a clock other than the way I created it and my shopping cart contains several weaved angles together in a single object. How does a magnifying glass look any other way? This is common sense. Until you find anybody's icon with my design you don't have any grounds of your words. My reflections were created on my own and are open paths. There is no other place to put a reflection other than the obvious place where the light would bounce off of the icons. Several of his reflections are single strands of lines while mine are rounded or curved corners. They all have the same reflection? You dont make any sense.

Geez. I guess before I submit an icon set I should search every microstock website to see if any of them look like mine?

grp_photo · « **Reply #33 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:05 »

I don't see a problem here he was maybe inspired but not more!

helix7 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:12 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 14:04

Why don't you do a search for a shopping cart and clock and see what you come up with? How is a clock not supposed to look like a clock other than the way I created it and my shopping cart contains several weaved angles together in a single object. How does a magnifying glass look any other way? This is common sense. Until you find anybody's icon with my design you don't have any grounds of your words. My reflections were created on my own and are open paths...

Granted the reflection is common. The icons are super simple and easily open to interpretation and "inspiration" by others. But when you put is all together... maybe you had a clock that looked similar. Fine. No big deal. Then maybe your briefcase looked similar. Ok. not so bad. But now you've got a handful that are too close. The color palette isn't too far off (gray and orange instead of gray and red). Reflections are the same. Style is the same. Even layout is the same. The shopping cart is identical except you stroked the circles instead of filling them.

It's too obvious. These are straight copies. You may have drawn them, but you used sodafish's icons as the basis for the images.

One thing I will say in your defense. They shouldn't have pulled your whole portfolio. How about a warning, pull the one questionable image, etc. Sort of overkill to just delete a portfolio.

crashoran · « **Reply #35 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:21 »

Now I'm not allowed to even choose my own color scheme for my icon sets!!? I can't arrange my icons in rows and columns like everyone else?!?! I give up...

helix7 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:24 »

Are we getting the picture yet?

You know what you did. You can be a little girl and cry about it and make excuses, or you can come clean and move on.

I didn't want to see your whole port get deleted, but I can't say I feel too bad about it now that you refuse to even acknowledge that you jacked some icons and the comparisons are crystal clear.

crashoran · « **Reply #37 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:29 »

Sodafish has the copyright to which I set my clockhands at?
You rotated my magnifying glass to try and frame me?
The locks are identical? no
The briefcases are identical? no
The shopping carts are identical? no
The graphs are identical? no

helix7 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:31 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 14:29

You rotated my magnifying glass to try and frame me?

Oh man. That's too funny.

crashoran · « **Reply #39 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:41 »

Helix,

You can spend all day searching for icons from everybody across the microstock industry and line up all of the ones that look similar. What's the point? I have found dozens in less than 5 minutes that look just like mine that were created after mine were.

grp_photo · « **Reply #40 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:51 »

They are not identical that is for sure! They look in some points similar yes.
But the whole microstock is a pot of similar looking styles.
I'm sure sodafish had his inspirations too.
I don't get your problem helix do you have a personal issue against crashoran?

helix7 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 28, 2007, 15:12 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 14:41

Helix,

You can spend all day searching for icons from everybody across the microstock industry and line up all of the ones that look similar. What's the point? I have found dozens in less than 5 minutes that look just like mine that were created after mine were.

Fair enough. I can agree that many icons look similar to many others. As you clearly know however, I think yours crossed the line. But who am I to draw that line. It's up to SS now.

As said above, I think it was unfair to pull your portfolio and I hope you get it back online. I still believe that the icon set and earnings related to that image should have been pulled, but going beyond that for a first offense seems uncalled for.

helix7 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 28, 2007, 15:14 »

Quote from: grp_photo on December 28, 2007, 14:51

I don't get your problem helix do you have a personal issue against crashoran?

Nope. Nothing personal. I've just had my fair share of images ripped and I guess I just try to look out for other artists. If I see something, I might say something.

This is the first time I've ever done that, and likely the last, though, since it seems that you can't report anything without having to get into a huge debate over whether or not it was justified.

helix7 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 28, 2007, 17:03 »

Quote from: Editorial on December 28, 2007, 16:46

I gotta agree with Helix on this occasion even though I have about as much respect for him as a photographer trying to take a closeup shot of the horizon...

Touché sir... Touché.

sharply_done · « **Reply #44 on:** December 28, 2007, 17:06 »

I'll stick my nose in to say this: The icons as presented by helix7 are fairly compelling. That crashoran has not clearly stated he was ignorant of sodafish's work is moot - the fact that the icons are extremely similar is enough to warrant action. As it stands, I tend to agree with helix7. I think it would have been more equitable of SS to impound crashoran's icons and his earnings from them while issuing a warning - given what I've seen, banning seems overly harsh.

On a related note, I'm a little perplexed how an agency can, on one hand, accept similar work and then ban/discipline a contributor for submitting it, while on the other reject it for being overly common and then advise the contributor to use similar images for inspiration. (e.g. "This is a very well covered subject in our data base ... take a few minutes to browse through the best selling images online (on this subject) and go deeper, ...")

People may be interested to read this old thread as well as this recent article.

Void · « **Reply #45 on:** December 28, 2007, 17:32 »

"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal."
Pablo Picasso

Susan S. · « **Reply #46 on:** December 28, 2007, 19:56 »

In my view these go past inspiration. It's not just the style which is similar, its the collection of icons in the same set.

Yes it's hard to think of different ways of presenting these ideas. But just because there are lots of other similar styles of icons by different people, doesn't make it right to go adding yet another copycat version, especially when these are so close in style. I've avoided doing icon sets, because well, icons are so iconographic - it's very hard to come up with something original and I don't want to go close to reproducing someone else's work. Of course because my illustrations follow my own style it also means they don't sell. But at least I can sleep soundly in bed at night!

crashoran · « **Reply #47 on:** December 28, 2007, 21:35 »

My account has been reinstated. Back to selling photos.

I am going to delete this icon set.

Happy New Years everybody

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #48 on:** December 28, 2007, 23:07 »

WOW! I don't post much at all. I read a lot, but don't care to post much. I read a lot of good posts, and see a lot of crap, but WOW! Next person that takes a picture of downtown Austin, Texas better watch out. I have a lot and yours could be close! Wait! Maybe I should delete all of them because someone could have taken them before?!?!

I can't think of how many posts and how many pictures I have seen that are complete rip offs!

crashoran, looks like someone was having a bad day and found you a simple target. Makes me kinda sad. Kind of like a wake up to all of us.

Sorry. Not punching at anyone, but like I said, I don't post much. Something here tugged at me in a bad way. I need to go brush my teeth to get rid of that aweful taste.

stock_fan · « **Reply #49 on:** December 29, 2007, 01:38 »

Well, as I understand copyright law, this is not illegal. It is cashorans work. Has it been inspired by someone else. Most likely. Is this morally wrong? Is “bad ethics”? Maybe. Illegal? Not as far as I know.

The earlier quoted article reads: Bialobrzeski himself concedes that the issue is one of ethics, not of copyright. “It’s not a legal issue. It’s a moral issue,”

However, I have not studied Shutterstock’s terms and conditions in detail, but I am sure they claim the right to ban anyone they want?! If this is “legal” or “fair” is a different thing.

My personal opinion here is: as long as you create it yourself, it is ok. I understand that some people have issues with “inspiration”, but where is the boarderline? And who decides where the boarder is? …. What I mean is … who has the copyright on a colour … a rectangle … an arrow … a traffic sign … a web button … the “business handshake” or the “pretty girl with headset?

Again legally this is “relatively” clear. Your work, it’s yours. AN IDEA CANNOT HAVE A COPYRIGHT!

Susan S. · « **Reply #50 on:** December 29, 2007, 06:15 »

I think there is an issue of ethics here - and lots of grey areas where we will all draw lines in different places. My view is that it's not nice to copy someone else's work substantially, even if you go and start from scratch and do the vector pen work yourself. If you can draw it's pretty easy to copy someone's vector by eye and provide enough proof in the form of sketches/reference screen shots to satisfy a microstock that it's your "work". But you are piggy backing on someone else's original creation.
I think vectors are a bit different to say landscape photographs or images of famous places, when there are only so many ways you can take the image. I don't feel any moral qualms abut posting yet another set of images of a landmark - the lighting may be a bit different from other people's Millenium Bridge or St Pauls Cathedral or the Twelve Apostles or whatever- you aren't usually exploiting someone else's ideas doing so. The business handshake and other concept shots are a bit greyer. Yes stock photograph concepts do feed off each other and everyone seems to copycat to some extent. Personally I don't like to copy someone else's concept shots - I try to put a twist on them if I can, so I'm not purely a copyist.

But vector artwork (and icon construction in particular) are a concrete expression of a particular design idea - not just the concept but the actual style and form of its expression in this case - and trying to take a free ride on someone else's ideas is just so not cool. Yes it's true you can't copyright an idea. But copying someone else's expression of an idea that closely, even if you have redrawn the lines rather than tracing them is not something that I'd be happy with doing myself.

PenelopeB · « **Reply #51 on:** December 29, 2007, 08:09 »

Ever heard the saying "Great minds think alike." ?

I don't think for one minute that Hatman or I had any idea what the other was doing (based upon the very close up load date)

http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=844319 (uploaded Apr 27)

http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=749593 (uploaded Mar 18)

It is quoted that design work is 90% borrowed, 10% original. (not insinuating that you borrowed anything Hatman as I don't know when you took your photos, just that we each had a good idea with no knowledge of the other on the same track. I didn't see your photos on this subject until last week)

Relax people - stuff happens - its a big world.

leaf · « **Reply #52 on:** December 29, 2007, 14:02 »

Three posts have been removed from this thread for name calling. If your post was removed and you feel it had other good points (besides the name calling which was not a good point), you will have to re type what you said in a new post.

Editorial · « **Reply #53 on:** December 29, 2007, 16:27 »

Quote from: leaf on December 29, 2007, 14:02

Three posts have been removed from this thread for name calling. If your post was removed and you feel it had other good points (besides the name calling which was not a good point), you will have to re type what you said in a new post.

You're a gobshite and a spineless one at that. If ever an avatar was truly representative of an individual, your cows arse is more than fitting.

ason · « **Reply #54 on:** December 29, 2007, 16:34 »

English is not my (mothers)language...so just wonder..Editorial... what is a gobshite? or can u express this word in more words...
/lena

Editorial · « **Reply #55 on:** December 29, 2007, 16:40 »

Quote from: ason on December 29, 2007, 16:34

English is not my (mothers)language...so just wonder..Editorial... what is a gobshite? or can u express this word in more words...
/lena

A gobshite is typically one who exerts undue influence over a discussion as we've seen here. Basically a pathetic little power tripper who's neurotic censorship raises his head at the first hint of controversy.

Case in point:

Why wasn't this thread removed and numerous others like it? It's because we have an Norwegian idiot who deletes virtually every post this journalist makes under the guise of censorship. Go check out the link and it'll prove just how much of a two-faced gobshite leaf actually is... LOL

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=2334.msg19709#msg19709 [nofollow]

ason · « **Reply #56 on:** December 29, 2007, 17:08 »

Thanks...hmm.maybee I understand gobshit in english now. In swedish gobshit is: older men that not can work together trying to be the best -gubbskit....

Mellimage · « **Reply #57 on:** December 29, 2007, 17:38 »

Quote from: Editorial on December 29, 2007, 16:40

A gobshite is typically one who exerts undue influence over a discussion as we've seen here. Basically a pathetic little power tripper who's neurotic censorship raises his head at the first hint of controversy.

Case in point:

Why wasn't this thread removed and numerous others like it? It's because we have an Norwegian idiot who deletes virtually every post this journalist makes under the guise of censorship. Go check out the link and it'll prove just how much of a two-faced gobshite leaf actually is... LOL

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=2334.msg19709#msg19709

I feel your tone is out of line ... . I would be happy to see this post removed too.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #58 on:** December 29, 2007, 17:49 »

Leaf,

Thank you for practising environmentally-friendly censorship on your non-government-owned website. It keeps the air clean and smelling much better around here. I don't think most of us are interested in being around the smell of a garbage dump.

ale1969 · « **Reply #59 on:** December 29, 2007, 17:52 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on December 29, 2007, 17:49

Leaf,

Thank you for practising environmentally-friendly censorship on your non-government-owned website. It keeps the air clean and smelling much better around here. I don't think most of us are interested in being around the smell of a garbage dump.

** Approved**

I couldn't express the same concept with better words.

(Btw Editorial, go read the definition of "forum troll")

pixelbrat · « **Reply #60 on:** December 29, 2007, 17:59 »

Quote from: ale1969 on December 29, 2007, 17:52

Quote from: HughStoneIan on December 29, 2007, 17:49
Leaf,

Thank you for practising environmentally-friendly censorship on your non-government-owned website. It keeps the air clean and smelling much better around here. I don't think most of us are interested in being around the smell of a garbage dump.

** Approved**

I couldn't express the same concept with better words.

(Btw Editorial, go read the definition of "forum troll")

I agree as well. Editorial is way of of line.

sharply_done · « **Reply #61 on:** December 29, 2007, 19:16 »

Quote from: Editorial on December 29, 2007, 16:40

A gobshite is typically one who exerts undue influence over a discussion ...

Actually, Editorial, a gobshite is Irish/British slang for
1. a mean and contemptible person, esp. a braggart.
2. a stupid and incompetent person.

Oh, the irony ...

zymmetricaldotcom · « **Reply #62 on:** December 29, 2007, 19:52 »

Oh noez, ze troll! This is what makes running a forum a pain, general riffraff can show up like a car accident and make things dreary for the rest of us. Please Leaf, pay no mind to this guy (other than the 'delete' button). Let's all aspire to show more respect in the new year.

leaf · « **Reply #63 on:** December 29, 2007, 20:26 »

Allright - 2 points of interest

- that thread that Editorial linked to (which didn´t really have much a purpose or use to anyone) has been quaranteened - he did have a good point there, that thread wasn´t too useful.

- The user editorial has been banned for actions typical of someone ´wanting´be be banned

and now back to our regular programming.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #64 on:** December 29, 2007, 23:58 »

Quote from: ale1969 on December 29, 2007, 17:52

(Btw Editorial, go read the definition of "forum troll")

I decided to take your advice to Editorial, and went and got myself educated on "forum trolls" quite thoroughly. I highly recommend to anyone on this and other forums to learn all you can about trolls. I'm sure this is old stuff for some of you, but not everyone is aware of it. One interesting passage from that research is the following:

"The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls. By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby."

Wow. Doesn't that description just fit in this case??

And thanks again, Leaf. Some of us actually appreciate your work!

helix7 · « **Reply #65 on:** December 30, 2007, 12:01 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 21:35

My account has been reinstated. Back to selling photos.

I am going to delete this icon set...

Good to hear. I never wanted to see your whole account deleted, and it is a shame that SS goes to these extremes. It makes me question whether I would ever report something like this again because not every case deserves the same action. Had you several questionable images like this in your gallery, it might be a different story. But one error in judgement does not warrent complete account deactivation.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #66 on:** December 30, 2007, 12:16 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on December 29, 2007, 17:49

Leaf,

Thank you for practising environmentally-friendly censorship on your non-government-owned website. It keeps the air clean and smelling much better around here. I don't think most of us are interested in being around the smell of a garbage dump.

Self moderation is the best moderation. When that doesn't work, someone has to sweep the streets for us.

Artists Right and the Law, Harvard law school, plus some interesting intro to copyright sections. Entertaining and educational reading.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/image_rights.htm

I found this site when searching for the Rogers v. Koons case, where he admitted he was "inspired" and made it into a sculpture. His defense was that his are is based on copying iconic art. (or something in that vein) What stuck him was notes on the original card from a gift shop, of the inspiration for his work, with notes about how exact he wanted things to be reproduced, written in his own hand writing.

Trolls are those ugly lawn ornaments with pointy red caps and the travelocity guys, right.

I used to moderate two large communities, so please don't correct me. Our rule was Warn if that didn't work, vacation (aka a couple weeks time out), if that didn't do it, Ban But most of all IGNORE because usually the trolls are just looking for attention.

See Vacation / Travelocity, Trolls / Gnomes, it's all the same!

sharpshot · « **Reply #67 on:** December 30, 2007, 13:31 »

Quote from: leaf on December 29, 2007, 20:26

Allright - 2 points of interest

- that thread that Editorial linked to (which didn´t really have much a purpose or use to anyone) has been quaranteened - he did have a good point there, that thread wasn´t too useful.

- The user editorial has been banned for actions typical of someone ´wanting´be be banned

and now back to our regular programming.

He picked on the wrong person

A good decision. I wish other forums would do the same.

sharpshot · « **Reply #68 on:** December 30, 2007, 13:35 »

Those icons look far too similar for my liking. Just a few differences and I am sure there would be no problems.

digiology · « **Reply #69 on:** December 30, 2007, 13:37 »

Well to give Crashoran the benefit of the doubt. I have to say I find the icons somewhat generic and find it very plausible that two people (or more) could have come up with simular looking artwork.

I am glad that your account is re-instated and wish you many sales in 2008.

And Leaf - you do a great job here and I appreciate your effort keeping these forums up and running smoothly for the microstock community - Thanks!

Alex · « **Reply #70 on:** December 30, 2007, 15:09 »

Yes on another forum the person who finally had the courage to stand up to Editorials constant abuse was banned... glad to see that Editorial is not in control here and that he was not allowed to continue to bully the contributors on this forum. Now if we could just do something about the carpet baggers always trying to sell us something!

Quote from: sharpshot on December 30, 2007, 13:31

Quote from: leaf on December 29, 2007, 20:26
Allright - 2 points of interest

- that thread that Editorial linked to (which didn´t really have much a purpose or use to anyone) has been quaranteened - he did have a good point there, that thread wasn´t too useful.

- The user editorial has been banned for actions typical of someone ´wanting´be be banned

and now back to our regular programming.

He picked on the wrong person A good decision. I wish other forums would do the same.

vonkara · « **Reply #71 on:** December 30, 2007, 15:35 »

Quote from: Alex on December 30, 2007, 15:09

Yes on another forum the person who finally had the courage to stand up to Editorials constant abuse was banned... glad to see that Editorial is not in control here and that he was not allowed to continue to bully the contributors on this forum. Now if we could just do something about the carpet baggers always trying to sell us something!

I don't understand how other forums can support this?

crashoran · « **Reply #72 on:** December 30, 2007, 17:29 »

Thanks Helix,

I saw those other vector floral copies on the SS forums, and those in my opinion were obviously copied - even with the same keywords, forgetting to remove "Vector" from his raster file

yingyang0 · « **Reply #73 on:** December 30, 2007, 18:49 »

Quote from: Alex on December 30, 2007, 15:09

Now if we could just do something about the carpet baggers always trying to sell us something!

This thread has used more colorful language than I've seen in a long time. "carpet bagger". Haven't heard that one in years (then again haven't been been in the south for years).

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #74 on:** December 30, 2007, 20:56 »

Quote from: leaf on December 29, 2007, 20:26

and now back to our regular programming.

One of the things that attracted me to this forum was the fact that everyone... for the most part... acted like family here. Yeah there is the occassional heavy discussion, same as you find in a family. But in the end, most of the folks here go out of their way to help and encourage each other.
This is the only forum I participate in. The only one. I appreciate Leaf's efforts to keep it ...'a family'.

=tom

northflyboy · « **Reply #75 on:** December 30, 2007, 22:09 »

I agree with Tome here, heavy discussion can be healthy. Diverging opinions make for interesting debates, we will not agree on everything but in the end, respecting the other party goes a long way towards keeping it civilized. I can agree to disagree, but I will never agree to childish name calling!..

On that note, Happy New Year to all here.

Pierre

crashoran · « **Reply #76 on:** December 31, 2007, 01:26 »

Here is an inspiration from one of my photos that appeared in the top 50

Mine

Theirs

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #77 on:** December 31, 2007, 10:08 »

How about this, posted today at the other general microstock forum:
(btw, Rand McNally is the preeminent US publisher of maps, atlases, other travel materials)

"Ok check this one out. ShutterStock claimed that Rand McNally had contacted them wanting my private contact info because they said that you could see part of one of their maps in 2 of my images. They froze my entire collection of 1500 images until they could verify from me that the images were ok to stay or needed to be removed. I replied the same day that it was a bogus copyright complaint and politely gave detailed info on how the images were created .. the primary fact being that it was not even a Rand McNally map that I used kinda settled everything right off the bat. Then I waited ... hmmm a week goes by and no response .. meaning notta sales for a week. I contacted the women from SS directly again with no response. A month later Im still asking why is my account froze and not getting any type of reply.
So now its like 3+ months later and guess what ... MY ACCOUNT IS UNFROZEN !!!!!!!!!! .. but ... yup there is a but .. they wiped out all 1500 images and say I need to re-upload .. A pain but ok I can deal with that. Now for but number 2. I have to upload 10 for review like Im a newbie ... Guess what all 10 were rejected and they say I can wait a month and try again.
So just to test things out I setup a new account with completly different contact info and uploaded 10 of what was my best sellers I had already uploaded on SS ... All 10 denied for ridiculous reasons. ( I'm an admin so I know what noise is LOL ) ... I do this again from a different IP address just in case and get the same rejections.
So to test it out further I take the same photos and have them uploaded under another photographers existing account and guess what .. Oh my gosh they are all accepted and praised for excellence.
So my question is ....
How naive is that ??"

I'm not taking anyone's side on this one yet since I don't know all the facts. It's just that statements similar to the above are starting to appear with alarming frequency in regards to SS. Why does it take so long for submitters to get replies back from admin at a major site like SS? For two-bit home-operated sites I can understand, almost expect it, but for a major player like Shutterstock?? And deleting all 1500 files without banning the submitter? What's the point of that reaction? It sounds like that if one photographer has a grudge against another, he can just call up Rand McNally or whoever and say, "Hey, I think this guy's been using your copyrighted stuff in his pictures," they call SS, and BOOM!, the other submitter is history. It's really starting to sound not-so-right over there....or maybe it's been like that for a long time and I just never noticed.

harry · « **Reply #78 on:** December 31, 2007, 10:48 »

^^ Thats terrible! And not very smart, considering that the contributor will probably take his perfectly decent work elsewhere.

strikerx98 · « **Reply #79 on:** December 31, 2007, 14:44 »

Gee whiz! I was just accepted to SS today (still waiting to see what images were accepted as they don't show yet) and I hope I don't later regret it.

I've seen on thier forum where photos were purchased at cheaper prices and then used on calendars in the UK. I can't tell you how much that would suck to me to get $0.25 and then have the company get away without paying the EL price.

Smiles,
Connie

vphoto · « **Reply #80 on:** December 31, 2007, 15:11 »

Btw, 9 of my images that were approved yesterday and did show up in my gallery yesterday evening do now show up today. Something broken at SS,it seems. I sent support a note.

vphoto

epixx · « **Reply #81 on:** December 31, 2007, 16:07 »

These cases (and others that appear regularly on their own forums) make me wonder if the microstock agencies are able to handle copyright issues in a proper way. It seems to me that competence as well as resources are lacking. What will happen if they get a major lawsuit against them?

Beckyabell · « **Reply #82 on:** January 01, 2008, 00:11 »

Quote from: sharply_done on December 29, 2007, 19:16

Quote from: Editorial on December 29, 2007, 16:40
A gobshite is typically one who exerts undue influence over a discussion ...

Actually, Editorial, a gobshite is Irish/British slang for
1. a mean and contemptible person, esp. a braggart.
2. a stupid and incompetent person.

Oh, the irony ...

...funny

ManicBlu · « **Reply #83 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:20 »

I remember a year or so ago a top vector artist created a stylized Christmas tree that sold like hotcakes. I even saw it used on a billboard in France. It wasn't long before 'similar' but not 'exactly' alike trees started appearing. Everytime I would see one I'd just shake my head. I didn't see these people as thieves only people without ideas of their own.
Except for highly technical and detailed work vectors are easily copied especially those that are created with brushes.
Many of the designs you see that look so much alike are copied ideas. There's no crime in this. It's an ethics question and all do not see things the same way. As someone once said...money is the root of all evil. LOL

As for the icons shown here. They are generic and have been done over and over again. They're always going to look similar. I mean just how many ways can you draw a clock or a briefcase?

The tree on the other hand looks like a straight copycat.

There is no way to stop this, not really, accept after the fact. With all the files that reviewers have to look at there is no way they can keep track of them all.

KiwiRob · « **Reply #84 on:** January 13, 2008, 14:20 »

whoevers design they are I found two being used on the following webpage

http://www.partypoker.com/marketing/norwegian1.htm?wm=2916142

maunger · « **Reply #85 on:** January 14, 2008, 10:48 »

sorta off topic (but still shutterstock)

i find it funny that the #1 photo for the last week in sales has been removed for copyright issues, but still shows in the top 50 list!

photojay · « **Reply #86 on:** January 26, 2008, 16:55 »

Quote from: stock_fan on December 29, 2007, 01:38

What I mean is … who has the copyright on a colour … a rectangle … an arrow … a traffic sign … a web button … the “business handshake” or the “pretty girl with headset?

In regard to copyright on a color check out THIS link Can copyright issues get any more complicated? It seems as soon as lawyers get involved, right and wrong goes out the window and winners and losers are formed based on who can argue their point better and nothing else.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #87 on:** January 26, 2008, 17:11 »

Quote from: photojay on January 26, 2008, 16:55

Quote from: stock_fan on December 29, 2007, 01:38
What I mean is … who has the copyright on a colour … a rectangle … an arrow … a traffic sign … a web button … the “business handshake” or the “pretty girl with headset?

In regard to copyright on a color check out THIS link Can copyright issues get any more complicated? It seems as soon as lawyers get involved, right and wrong goes out the window and winners and losers are formed based on who can argue their point better and nothing else.

..... cause all that the lawyers in the U.S. think about is .........the color 'green'.

photojay · « **Reply #88 on:** January 26, 2008, 18:19 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on January 26, 2008, 17:11

Quote from: photojay on January 26, 2008, 16:55
Quote from: stock_fan on December 29, 2007, 01:38
What I mean is … who has the copyright on a colour … a rectangle … an arrow … a traffic sign … a web button … the “business handshake” or the “pretty girl with headset?

In regard to copyright on a color check out THIS link Can copyright issues get any more complicated? It seems as soon as lawyers get involved, right and wrong goes out the window and winners and losers are formed based on who can argue their point better and nothing else.

totally agree.

..... cause all that the lawyers in the U.S. think about is .........the color 'green'.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Beware of Shutterstock (Read 53995 times)

vonkara

digiology

helix7

helix7

helix7

grp_photo

helix7

helix7

helix7

grp_photo

helix7

helix7

helix7

zymmetricaldotcom

helix7

RacePhoto

digiology

vonkara

harry

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors