MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: copyrightdesign on May 17, 2011, 10:15
-
the case is closed, i am terminated, do not use filters ,
-
I need some time to see how this works, i only want to inform you about my case
-
I wrote to support couple times, i explained how i created this photo, wrote to every email at shutterstock, ZEPHOS author of this filter http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html (http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html) wrote to shutterstock and they won`t accept nothing, for them i am guilty, but all others submiters with same photos are not. This photos are uploaded before and after me. And for them its allowed, and for me its forbidden.
-
after 3 years and 2800 photos they decided to terminate me ???
-
.... The person making the complaint is requesting that Shutterstock take appropriate steps against you. Prior to taking any further steps, we are inviting you to respond to this claim.
How did someone make a complaint about your image before it had been approved?
The really simple way to avoid such issues is to not use elements of other peoples' work within your images. I don't care if it is supposedly 'allowed', public domain or whatever, or indeed whether some folk's images have got through the system. If it's not your work in it's entirety then don't submit it. Dead simple.
-
Please respond to this email by December 30, 2010. If you fail to respond by said date with the information we outline above, your Shutterstock.com submitter account may be closed.
You are just posting now that your account is terminated. Did you respond to Shutterstock before the date listed above (from your original post)? Just curious. If you didn't respond before then, maybe they are just getting around to terminating it now? If that's the case, you had a free ride for almost 5 months.
-
yes i did, i immediate wrote to support
admin edit: employee name removed
-
i was blocked for 3 or 4 months, they were working on my case
-
Please respond to this email by December 30, 2010. If you fail to respond by said date with the information we outline above, your Shutterstock.com submitter account may be closed.
You are just posting now that your account is terminated. Did you respond to Shutterstock before the date listed above (from your original post)? Just curious. If you didn't respond before then, maybe they are just getting around to terminating it now? If that's the case, you had a free ride for almost 5 months.
yes i did, i immediate wrote to support
admin edit: employee name removed
-
they said that they need some time, and that they are working on my case, and i need to be patient
-
my account is terminated in april
-
.... The person making the complaint is requesting that Shutterstock take appropriate steps against you. Prior to taking any further steps, we are inviting you to respond to this claim.
How did someone make a complaint about your image before it had been approved?
The really simple way to avoid such issues is to not use elements of other peoples' work within your images. I don't care if it is supposedly 'allowed', public domain or whatever, or indeed whether some folk's images have got through the system. If it's not your work in it's entirety then don't submit it. Dead simple.
I don`t know, my case is suspicious. I make a mistake using filter forge and that filter, but according to filter forge EULA final image render i can use for personal and commercial work, i always wonder how do they create such photos, and i discovered it`s filter forge. There are a lot submiters at shutterstock who are using filter forge without limit.
-
I used filter forge for bakgrounds and textures, and something which i can create in photoshop, but all other others are using all filters without limit or fear. i just wonder why is for them that allowed and legal but for me it` forbidden.
-
You still haven't explained how someone could make a complaint before your image was approved. How do you complain about an image that nobody has even seen yet? Doesn't make sense.
-
You still haven't explained how someone could make a complaint before your image was approved. How do you complain about an image that nobody has even seen yet? Doesn't make sense.
I said same thing, i ask shutterstock and *** who make a complaint about my photo, i sent that photo, it was in review mode, and after that i received warning email, and i saw that my account is blocked or disabled, photo was never approved, without shutterstock watermark.
admin edit: employee name removed
-
You still haven't explained how someone could make a complaint before your image was approved. How do you complain about an image that nobody has even seen yet? Doesn't make sense.
I said same thing, i ask shutterstock and james who make a complaint about my photo, i sent that photo, it was in review mode, and after that i received warning email, and i saw that my account is blocked or disabled, photo was never approved, without shutterstock watermark.
i don`t know how to explain, photo was in review mode, after that i received warning email, my account is blocked or disabled, photo was never approved, and this is email i received.
-
The really simple way to avoid such issues is to not use elements of other peoples' work within your images. I don't care if it is supposedly 'allowed', public domain or whatever, or indeed whether some folk's images have got through the system. If it's not your work in it's entirety then don't submit it. Dead simple.
Exactly. It's hard enough sometimes proving ownership of source material for illustrations, brushes, etc., I wouldn't dare risk using anything I didn't create myself in a stock image. Just not worth it.
Besides, even if what you used is legit and allowed by stock agencies, what good is something pre-made that tons of other people use? It's a waste of time to create an image that looks exactly like many others out there. Especially now. Stock agencies are making it harder to get similars approved, and SS is the most aggressive with that new policy. Don't even waste time on these filters. Make your own stuff.
-
The really simple way to avoid such issues is to not use elements of other peoples' work within your images. I don't care if it is supposedly 'allowed', public domain or whatever, or indeed whether some folk's images have got through the system. If it's not your work in it's entirety then don't submit it. Dead simple.
Exactly. It's hard enough sometimes proving ownership of source material for illustrations, brushes, etc., I wouldn't dare risk using anything I didn't create myself in a stock image. Just not worth it.
Besides, even if what you used is legit and allowed by stock agencies, what good is something pre-made that tons of other people use? It's a waste of time to create an image that looks exactly like many others out there. Especially now. Stock agencies are making it harder to get similars approved, and Shutterstock is the most aggressive with that new policy. Don't even waste time on these filters. Make your own stuff.
It`s too late now, because i am terminated, i used filters for something i can create in photoshop, i didn`t know that this exactly filter is used by someone, so i need to check 12.000.0000 photos in that time, to see is someone uploaded similar photo before me.
-
It`s too late now, because i am terminated, i used filters for something i can create in photoshop, i didn`t know that this exactly filter is used by someone, so i need to check 12.000.0000 photos in that time, to see is someone uploaded similar photo before me.
You'll get reinstated. If so many other people are using the same filter and you have confirmation from the person who made the filter that it's ok to use in stock, SS will reopen your account. You just have to wait it out.
But once that happens, no more filters! :)
If you don't use filters, you don't have to worry about looking through all those images to see if someone else created a similar image. It's too late to do anything about it in this particular case, but in the future, just make your own images from scratch. It may take longer, but like everything in this business there are no shortcuts to success.
-
So why for all others is allowed to use filter forge and that filters without limit, and copy each other without limit, but when i create something with filter forge that is not allowed? I only want to know why? in this case different rules for different submiters.
-
It`s too late now, because i am terminated, i used filters for something i can create in photoshop, i didn`t know that this exactly filter is used by someone, so i need to check 12.000.0000 photos in that time, to see is someone uploaded similar photo before me.
You'll get reinstated. If so many other people are using the same filter and you have confirmation from the person who made the filter that it's ok to use in stock, Shutterstock will reopen your account. You just have to wait it out.
But once that happens, no more filters! :)
If you don't use filters, you don't have to worry about looking through all those images to see if someone else created a similar image. It's too late to do anything about it in this particular case, but in the future, just make your own images from scratch. It may take longer, but like everything in this business there are no shortcuts to success.
I hope so, i wrote to support and every email i had, i didn`t get any new respond, only ZEPHOS AUTHOR OF THIS FILTER received email from SHUTTERSTOCK and they said that my case is closed. So i posted my case on this forum, and i hope someone will see, and reinstate my account.
I don`t know what to say anymore.
-
without those filters in your samples shown, the files would be very simple pieces that most buyers would pass up. I am against blatant profiteering from other peoples hard work. Same goes for supposed photographers who take shots of dead artists work. If you cant create those types of filters yourself, you shouldnt be submitting them as your own.
Just my take... I think filter forge has been seeing their textures used on SS and is trying to protect their business. They probably sent some sort of warning letter to sue to SS. On istock, you have to prove its your own textures you created and i dont know if its like that on SS. Inspectors are probably aware of this issue so they see your submission. flags gets raised and your caught. they will most likely be taking those samples down one by one soon.
-
without those filters in your samples shown, the files would be very simple pieces that most buyers would pass up. I am against blatant profiteering from other peoples hard work. Same goes for supposed photographers who take shots of dead artists work. If you cant create those types of filters yourself, you shouldnt be submitting them as your own.
Just my take... I think filter forge has been seeing their textures used on Shutterstock and is trying to protect their business. They probably sent some sort of warning letter to sue to Shutterstock. On istock, you have to prove its your own textures you created and i dont know if its like that on Shutterstock. Inspectors are probably aware of this issue so they see your submission. flags gets raised and your caught. they will most likely be taking those samples down one by one soon.
This may be a valid moral statement, but as the OP outlined, the license of the software permits the use of Images on shutterstock. Therefore he did legally nothing wrong but nevertheless gets punished and prejudged by shutterstock. And this is IMHO plain wrong.
-
without those filters in your samples shown, the files would be very simple pieces that most buyers would pass up. I am against blatant profiteering from other peoples hard work. Same goes for supposed photographers who take shots of dead artists work. If you cant create those types of filters yourself, you shouldnt be submitting them as your own.
Just my take... I think filter forge has been seeing their textures used on Shutterstock and is trying to protect their business. They probably sent some sort of warning letter to sue to Shutterstock. On istock, you have to prove its your own textures you created and i dont know if its like that on Shutterstock. Inspectors are probably aware of this issue so they see your submission. flags gets raised and your caught. they will most likely be taking those samples down one by one soon.
Well, i am not sure, i wrote to ZEPHOS he is author of this filter http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html (http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html) , i have a support and permission to use final image render for personal and commercial use. I wrote to FILTER FORGE support and they said same thing, final image render i can use for personal and commercial use. And my photo was never approved, only reviewers could see. I know it`s bad and not moral, but all others are using without limit. I saw that from them. And always wonder is this allowed or not? Now i know it`s allowed for most users, but only for me it`s forbidden. ???
-
This may be a valid moral statement, but as the OP outlined, the license of the software permits the use of Images on shutterstock. Therefore he did legally nothing wrong but nevertheless gets punished and prejudged by shutterstock. And this is IMHO plain wrong.
Nope, you're wrong. It's Oringer's agency. It's his money, he takes the risks, he writes the rules and he has those rules applied as he sees fit __ all perfectly legally. If you don't like the way he runs his business you are under no obligation to participate in it.
-
OT: Why would anyone even want to use that filter, the results doesn't even look like real film, at least the perforation doesn't look like 35mm film.
I think SS have done wrongly here; if the filter site says it's okay to use the filters for commercial use, then it is.
-
And my photo was never approved, only reviewers could see. I know it`s bad and not moral, but all others are using without limit. I saw that from them. And always wonder is this allowed or not? Now i know it`s allowed for most users, but only for me it`s forbidden. ???
You don't know that. There might have been many others terminated too and maybe more to come. All stock agencies take a very harsh line on issues of this nature. They may have taken the overall quality of your portfolio into account when making their decision. How original was your work? Have you been habitually using filters and/or uploading repetitions of others' best-selling images? Could there have been an 'accumulation of offences'?
-
You have dedicated time and effort to grow a portfolio there, the site has benefited of that. Now, you lose all. Read your contract with Shutterstock; if there says that they can sack you with no need for a reason, or if you see you have really broken some written rule, there's nothing to do. In the opposite case, you would have grounds for suing.
-
This may be a valid moral statement, but as the OP outlined, the license of the software permits the use of Images on shutterstock. Therefore he did legally nothing wrong but nevertheless gets punished and prejudged by shutterstock. And this is IMHO plain wrong.
Nope, you're wrong. It's Oringer's agency. It's his money, he takes the risks, he writes the rules and he has those rules applied as he sees fit __ all perfectly legally. If you don't like the way he runs his business you are under no obligation to participate in it.
I disagree. Sure it is his agency. But if we even check to not violate any copyright and then suddenly "custom rules" pop out which may lead to our accounts terminated it is not right. If Oringer does not want it he has to outline his custom rules clearly to the people. As long as he does not, I think we all agree that we follow the comon copyright law. We have to rely on that if we do NOT violate any copyright our behaviour is fine.
Sometimes I don`t understand the people on this board here, they continuously shoot themselves in the foot ... it is to the benefit of all of us if we demand the Agencies to follow the laws and official copyrights and licenses. Off course he has the possibility to exclude sorts of content from his site. But shutterstock has to make this clear. If not, we follow the law and it has to be fine.
-
OT: Why would anyone even want to use that filter, the results doesn't even look like real film, at least the perforation doesn't look like 35mm film.
I think Shutterstock have done wrongly here; if the filter site says it's okay to use the filters for commercial use, then it is.
What if its a competing filter product that looks similiar to this filter. Their license prevents commercial usage. Whos going to police all this BS. Make is simple. if it aint yours, dont use it to make money off.
-
What if its a competing filter product that looks similiar to this filter. Their license prevents commercial usage. Whos going to police all this BS. Make is simple. if it aint yours, dont use it to make money off.
Then it is a legal issue between the two filter developers. Easy.
-
And my photo was never approved, only reviewers could see. I know it`s bad and not moral, but all others are using without limit. I saw that from them. And always wonder is this allowed or not? Now i know it`s allowed for most users, but only for me it`s forbidden. ???
You don't know that. There might have been many others terminated too and maybe more to come. All stock agencies take a very harsh line on issues of this nature. They may have taken the overall quality of your portfolio into account when making their decision. How original was your work? Have you been habitually using filters and/or uploading repetitions of others' best-selling images? Could there have been an 'accumulation of offences'?
Yes, i don`t know that, but this submiters with same or similar photos created with this filter are still online, since i am blocked, and i discovered this photos, it was 5 months ago, for them is allowed to use that filter and to have that photos, i don`t have nothing against them, they can do what they want. I had metal backgrounds, textures, i tried to be original, i finished 3d studio max course, i had business charts, and that`s it, nothing special, only backgrounds, i received a lot rejections, if metal plate is best-selling image, or wooden background, or blue sky, i had, like many others, i had few isolations, money background, grunge background, paper, blue sea.....
-
What if its a competing filter product that looks similiar to this filter. Their license prevents commercial usage. Whos going to police all this BS. Make is simple. if it aint yours, dont use it to make money off.
Then it is a legal issue between the two filter developers. Easy.
wouldnt it be a legal issue with the filter company protecting their IP and SS who is making money from a file that mainly consists of their IP?
-
Seems like you should call them and try to sort things out, if they say they don't want those files then agree not to submit them. If this is the only issue I would guess that they would let you back.
-
Did you use a filter that comes packages with Filter Forge/ create your own filter or use a filter created by another person using filter forge?
-
Also I have found with Shutterstock they don't really care enough about individual contributors to spend too much time looking into these things.
If it looks like it's gonna get messy they will just cut everyone involved loose, innocent or guilty. If you are in the right I'd say that you're doing the right thing by publicizing the problem, as it seems like the only way to get them to pay attention sometimes!
-
If the software license says you can use it for commercial use, then SS is in the wrong to suspend this guy. They could reject the image as a matter of editing policy (but they should be consistent which they obviously aren't) but they shouldnt suspend him.
-
I don't think Shutterstock is wrong. This is the first line of the Submitter Agreement:
"Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it."
Even if the filter license allows for commercial work, Shutterstock doesn't allow submission of anything that you do not have the complete rights to. You must own everything you submit.
ETA: I think Sean is correct. Shutterstock maybe shouldn't have suspended the guy, but my point above is probably still accurate. They have the right to refuse anything not fully owned by the Submitter.
Still, I think anyone using anything they didn't fully create and submitting it to any agency is crazy. It's not worth the risk.
-
I disagree. Sure it is his agency. But if we even check to not violate any copyright and then suddenly "custom rules" pop out which may lead to our accounts terminated it is not right. If Oringer does not want it he has to outline his custom rules clearly to the people. As long as he does not...(snip)
But here's the thing - he does. The number one bullet point in Shutterstock's Submitter Guidelines appears to cover this issue:
Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it.
Although the filter owners may have given permission for their filters to be used in stock submissions, it is pretty clear that they are not "wholly owned" by the OP, and therefore a violation of Shutterstock policy.
FWIW, most of the other sites contain similar clauses that we all have to check off each time we upload.
ETA: Darn, Mike beat me to it :)
-
It all sounds a bit similar to the issue with those clipart 'brushes' that were being uploaded a few years ago. Contributors weren't being terminated but were being severely warned if I remember correctly. I don't think SS can be bothered nowadays to spend too much time on such cases. If they have proof that their rules have been broken then they just close the account.
-
I disagree. Sure it is his agency. But if we even check to not violate any copyright and then suddenly "custom rules" pop out which may lead to our accounts terminated it is not right. If Oringer does not want it he has to outline his custom rules clearly to the people. As long as he does not...(snip)
But here's the thing - he does. The number one bullet point in Shutterstock's Submitter Guidelines appears to cover this issue:
Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it.
Although the filter owners may have given permission for their filters to be used in stock submissions, it is pretty clear that they are not "wholly owned" by the OP, and therefore a violation of Shutterstock policy.
FWIW, most of the other sites contain similar clauses that we all have to check off each time we upload.
ETA: Darn, Mike beat me to it :)
So this means i can`t use photoshop or 3d studio max or filter forge, because i didn`t create that by myself. This photo is not public, was created with filter forge, it`s software that creates that kind of photos, so filter forge EULA is not working, i don`t have full rights with final image render? So all this time i was in delusion. Filter Forge said that i have full rights with final image render. I am really confused...
-
Sorry. A filter is just a set of instructions. It's just a tool. I buy a hammer, I make a chair, I own the chair. No different here. I use a tool to make an image, I am the owner of that image.
Now, again it is up to Shutterstock to decide if they want art of that type in their collection, but they must be consistent and not terminate an account over their editing choice.
Again, the OP wholly owns his content.
-
I disagree. Sure it is his agency. But if we even check to not violate any copyright and then suddenly "custom rules" pop out which may lead to our accounts terminated it is not right. If Oringer does not want it he has to outline his custom rules clearly to the people. As long as he does not...(snip)
But here's the thing - he does. The number one bullet point in Shutterstock's Submitter Guidelines appears to cover this issue:
Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it.
Although the filter owners may have given permission for their filters to be used in stock submissions, it is pretty clear that they are not "wholly owned" by the OP, and therefore a violation of Shutterstock policy.
FWIW, most of the other sites contain similar clauses that we all have to check off each time we upload.
ETA: Darn, Mike beat me to it :)
Then I am wrong :-(
Nevertheless I think they should have warned him before suspending his account since he didn`t violate intentionally any copyright...
Beyond that, if you take this serious you should not use Photoshop anymore?
-
Sorry. A filter is just a set of instructions. It's just a tool. I buy a hammer, I make a chair, I own the chair. No different here. I use a tool to make an image, I am the owner of that image.
Now, again it is up to Shutterstock to decide if they want art of that type in their collection, but they must be consistent and not terminate an account over their editing choice.
Again, the OP wholly owns his content.
+1
The question is where to draw the line...
-
This is email from filter forge support
What concerns your rights to use Filter Forge in commercial purposes, according to our EULA you are free to do it -- filter authors hold the copyright to the filter files proper (.ffxml files), while the copyright to the final rendered images belongs to the end user, i.e. you.
However, I'd recommend that you read the microstock regulations and terms of use carefully -- perhaps, they somehow specify and restrict the use of images made with third-party filters. I'd also recommend that you contact them directly -- hopefully they'll be able to explain the situation and take into account our policy regarding the end user's copyright to the rendered images.
-
From the original post:
Shutterstock Images LLC ("Shutterstock") has discovered that an image you are attempting to submit to your portfolio has elements that are copies of another person's work and, therefore, belong to that individual or entity:
67635457 -- "film frame" (see attached thumbnail)
Original image here -- [url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html[/url] ([url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html[/url])
The person making the complaint is requesting that Shutterstock take appropriate steps against you. Prior to taking any further steps, we are inviting you to respond to this claim.
At the minimum, please let us know:
a) where and when the image(s) in question was taken or created;
b) what program, if any, was used to generate or modify the image(s); and
c) if the image(s) was modified, where the original image was obtained.
If it turns out that the claim is without merit we will not take any further action and your account will remain active.
Please respond to this email by December 30, 2010. If you fail to respond by said date with the information we outline above, your Shutterstock.com submitter account may be closed.
It looks to me like SS DID give him notice before terminating his account. And it looks like there are more questions about the image besides the use of a filter in some software. The questions are also about the original image that has been modified, too.
I'm not sticking up for either side, because I don't have all the facts. I can sympathize with the contributor because having your account terminated stinks. But according to the posts by Lisa and others, the first sentence clearly states their policy. They don't seem to ever institute the same policy consistently, much like life outside of micro. I'm pulling a Switzerland.
-
Seems ridiculous to me. Even more so if you compare the situation to http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?sort_method=popular&gallery_username=akaiser (http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?sort_method=popular&gallery_username=akaiser) where PD imagery is used extensively!
-
the first sentence clearly states their policy. They don't seem to ever institute the same policy consistently, much like life outside of micro. I'm pulling a Switzerland.
Then you have to delete every image which had been processed by any photoshop filter. Good luck.
-
Right. Including Gaussian blur. Or high pass. Sharpen too.
-
Right. Including Gaussian blur. Or high pass. Sharpen too.
would you have an end product without the filter being used? in the examples shown by the author, i think not.
-
Sorry. A filter is just a set of instructions. It's just a tool. I buy a hammer, I make a chair, I own the chair. No different here. I use a tool to make an image, I am the owner of that image.
Now, again it is up to Shutterstock to decide if they want art of that type in their collection, but they must be consistent and not terminate an account over their editing choice.
Again, the OP wholly owns his content.
Hmmm. But isn't every digital image 'just a set of instructions', i.e. a series of 1's and 0's, like everything else on a computer? I guess the problem occurs when you incorporate someone else's 'set of instructions' in such a way that the original source is obvious and detectable. You can claim authorship of a book or a song you have written but not if you have incorporated large chunks of others' work (if the original source is obvious and detectable).
-
It looks to me like Shutterstock DID give him notice before terminating his account. And it looks like there are more questions about the image besides the use of a filter in some software. The questions are also about the original image that has been modified, too.
I'm not sticking up for either side, because I don't have all the facts. I can sympathize with the contributor because having your account terminated stinks. But according to the posts by Lisa and others, the first sentence clearly states their policy. They don't seem to ever institute the same policy consistently, much like life outside of micro. I'm pulling a Switzerland.
Yes, absolutely agree. Having one's account terminated is a big deal and wouuld be very upsetting.
I don't really think Photoshop is an accurate comparison. We are talking about a preset, group of filters here. Ones which are readily visible and identifiable. Not really comparable to the vast set of capabilities in Photoshop.
However, if you want to talk about specific actions sets created by PS users and shared or marketed online, that could be a similar situation. Particularly if the resulting images were obviously identifiable as coming from that action set.
-
...I don't really think Photoshop is an accurate comparison. We are talking about a preset, group of filters here. Ones which are readily visible and identifiable. Not really comparable to the vast set of capabilities in Photoshop.
However, if you want to talk about specific actions sets created by PS users and shared or marketed online, that could be a similar situation. Particularly if the resulting images were obviously identifiable as coming from that action set.
Right. There's a huge difference between using some standard Photoshop functions (sharpening, blurring, etc) and using the filters in question here. In this case, the folters pretty much are the image. Hence the issue SS has with them and the reason that so many images using the same filter look pretty much the same.
-
The complexity of the tool should not be at issue, especially since they have no issue and permit such a use. SS can choose not to accept it because they are easy and they have too many, but it should be evenly applied and not a reason for suspension.
-
The complexity of the tool should not be at issue, especially since they have no issue and permit such a use. Shutterstock can choose not to accept it because they are easy and they have too many, but it should be evenly applied and not a reason for suspension.
I agree it should be evenly applied. I am not going to assume it isn't being.
I remember when Istock stopped accepting photos where the main subject was a car. People uploading cars were getting rejections and pointing out all the cars in the existing collection. Eventually all those existing cars were purged too, but it took time.
It certainly seems as though account termination was an over-reaction, but such account terminations are rare at Shutterstock. They are not typically a reactionary type of site, so there may be more to this situation than meets the eye.
-
If the software license says you can use it for commercial use, then Shutterstock is in the wrong to suspend this guy. They could reject the image as a matter of editing policy (but they should be consistent which they obviously aren't) but they shouldnt suspend him.
You can't argue with this statement - this is the legal position regardless what anyone thinks of the originality of the result. If we get really basic, the vast majority of stock images are the result of pointing a tool at something not created by the photographer. Was this situation due to someone, having produced images using the same 3rd party tool, complaining that the OP had ripped off his work - or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
-
Right. There's a huge difference between using some standard Photoshop functions (sharpening, blurring, etc) and using the filters in question here. In this case, the folters pretty much are the image. Hence the issue Shutterstock has with them and the reason that so many images using the same filter look pretty much the same.
And I HAVE gotten rejections for overfiltering when I hadn't used ANY at all. And I only ever process in Photoshop.
Suspending someone's account for one problem image seems drastic. But again, we don't know the whole story. There has to be more to it. And if there isn't, then I suspect the OP's account will be reinstated.
Wasn't the whole Russell Tate thing something similar? Wasn't there some question about the tutorials he used or filters or something like that? Look how long he was suspended for. Not at Shutterstock, I know, but the same sort of situation. Shutterstock isn't the only company that has this policy.
-
If the software license says you can use it for commercial use, then Shutterstock is in the wrong to suspend this guy. They could reject the image as a matter of editing policy (but they should be consistent which they obviously aren't) but they shouldnt suspend him.
+1
-
...Suspending someone's account for one problem image seems drastic...
Can't argue with that. SS has a history of that sort of thing, taking unnecessarily drastic measures for single image situations.
-
Shutterstock employee names have been removed from the thread
-
Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it.
Woa, that's really shocking. I haven't read that stuff for years but I am really blown away by this.
There's absolutely truck loads of public domain and out of copyright content on Shutterstock!!!
It seems really underhanded to allow public domain content on the site but keep that clause in so you can easily show contributors the door if they get to be a nuisance, but I can't think what other reason there is for such a massive difference between what's officially allowed and what reviewers let into the site everyday.
-
To OP - Are you sure you had no previous warnings or other interactions with the SS staff ? Closing an 2800 images account for one not even approved image - it's obvious that they were just looking for some excuse to kick you out .
SS needs to step up and release a clear statement what precisely is allowed and what not . Then do a massive clean out . There are so many people trying to abuse their system - I've seen a portfolio of 5000+ images composed of about 100 originals that have been replicated in all kind of variations ( reversed vertcally,horizontally ,with different color gradients , cropped etc ) . I've also seen Evermotion's entire model collection released as clip art .
"Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it." - apparently this is open to interpretation since it is clearly violated by a huge amount of images on SS
-
There's gotta be more to this. Period. We are hearing one side, and perhaps, one selective piece of one side, and not the other. I do feel for the guy....2800 images is a lot, especially if they were sellers.
-
To OP - Are you sure you had no previous warnings or other interactions with the Shutterstock staff ? Closing an 2800 images account for one not even approved image - it's obvious that they were just looking for some excuse to kick you out .
Shutterstock needs to step up and release a clear statement what precisely is allowed and what not . Then do a massive clean out . There are so many people trying to abuse their system - I've seen a portfolio of 5000+ images composed of about 100 originals that have been replicated in all kind of variations ( reversed vertcally,horizontally ,with different color gradients , cropped etc ) . I've also seen Evermotion's entire model collection released as clip art .
"Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it." - apparently this is open to interpretation since it is clearly violated by a huge amount of images on Shutterstock
I didn`t receive nothing before this email, no warnings, nothing, they didn`t told me nothing. I send about 10 photos for review, and after few days, i received this warning email, and i saw disabled account, no new photos were approved, i didn`t post nothing on forum, i didn`t say nothing, everything was fine before this email. I don`t know what was wrong? they can ask me nice, please remove this photo, or this image use is not allowed, or you can`t use filter forge, or something like that. They just looking any reason to terminate me. Then i discovered same photos created with filter forge, and for them it`s allowed but fo me not. My photo was never approved but someone make a complaint? That is another question? ???
-
- There are tens of thousands scanned vintage illustrations from artists whose copyright expired sold as RF
- There are more than 10,000 images online with the use of the water reflection plugin sold as RF
I think Shutterstock has just started to create a big mob against itself.
-
Been thinking a bit more about this.
It's all very weird, so they just now disabled your account even though they originally asked you to respond by 30th December to avoid account closure?
Are you sure the two things are related and they didn't just shut you down for another reason altogether.
I mean it seems all the Filter Forge stuff was going on 5 months ago or more. Shutterstock are usually very quick to shut down an account if they even get a sniff of a problem.
I think that the email posted in the original post may be a bit of a red herring.
I reckon someone made a new complaint about another file and SS just figured "this guy's getting to be more trouble than he's worth, bye"
-
- There are tens of thousands scanned vintage illustrations from artists whose copyright expired sold as RF
- There are more than 10,000 images online with the use of the water reflection plugin sold as RF
I think Shutterstock has just started to create a big mob against itself.
That's what I thought too, it's really suspect having the "no public domain" clause in their terms then letting in so much public domain content. All very weird. Maybe there should be a new thread about this as there are two conversations going on here now?
-
- There are tens of thousands scanned vintage illustrations from artists whose copyright expired sold as RF
- There are more than 10,000 images online with the use of the water reflection plugin sold as RF
I think Shutterstock has just started to create a big mob against itself.
I know I won't win over any fans with this comment, but to be honest here I really wouldn't feel too bad for anyone who got reprimanded or suspended by SS for using any of the above type of images. Using that stuff despite the clear warning on the Upload page that your work should be 100% your own, that's the risk they take when they upload.
There may be a big angry mob in the works here, but I'm not sure they really have much of an argument when they knowingly ignored the site policies and submitted work that wasn't entirely their own. Is SS wrong for allowing this stuff and then going back on it in some cases? Sure. But it's not like they changed the policy after allowing this type of work. It was always there, and some folks chose to ignore it.
-
Well, for me personally, Shutterstocks behaviour is quite unprofessional. Especially since others have Images online using the same Filter. I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.
-
Well, for me personally, Shutterstocks behaviour is quite unprofessional. Especially since others have Images online using the same Filter. I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.
Just to add to my previous post, I also wouldn't say that what SS is doing is very professional. But they're also not operating outside their rights in this matter since the actions they're taking are based on pre-existing policy.
They may not be 100% right in this, but neither are the contributors who use other people's work in their images, even if those other people authorize, license, or no longer have rights to that work.
-
Doesn't this sentence say that it is allowed to use these filters? I'm afraid that my English is not good enough for understanding of these "slight differences"
e. if the Submitted Content consists in whole or in part of design elements, fonts, clipart, sprites, vectors, brush tools and the like that are included in design programs (e.g., Photoshop, Daz, Illustrator) by uploading such Submitted Content to Shutterstock, you warrant and represent that the end user license agreement, terms of service or the equivalent license held by you does allow you to incorporate such elements in Submitted Content created by you, and to license such Submitted Content to Shutterstock for the purposes set forth herein;
-
They may not be 100% right in this, but neither are the contributors who use other people's work in their images, even if those other people authorize, license, or no longer have rights to that work.
I would agree if their behavior matched what they say in their policy document. But you can't let people upload stuff that clearly says in the description "scanned from book from 18XX and out of copyright" then turn around and ban them from the site.
-
Doesn't this sentence say that it is allowed to use these filters? I'm afraid that my English is not good enough for understanding of these "slight differences"
e. if the Submitted Content consists in whole or in part of design elements, fonts, clipart, sprites, vectors, brush tools and the like that are included in design programs (e.g., Photoshop, Daz, Illustrator) by uploading such Submitted Content to Shutterstock, you warrant and represent that the end user license agreement, terms of service or the equivalent license held by you does allow you to incorporate such elements in Submitted Content created by you, and to license such Submitted Content to Shutterstock for the purposes set forth herein;
Yup, 100% I would agree this means use of Filter Forge is okay if you check that it's legally above board. But again, I'm beginning to doubt that the Filter Forge controversy of last year could have been the main reason for the OP's account suspension.
-
I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.
Oh don't be such a big girl's blouse. This is a discussion forum and 'the community' is discussing the merits or otherwise of the case. We only know one side of the story and even then it is hardly black or white. By his own admission the OP clearly broke the 'Submission Guidlelines' and SS have terminated his account. Those are the only known facts.
-
Been thinking a bit more about this.
It's all very weird, so they just now disabled your account even though they originally asked you to respond by 30th December to avoid account closure?
Are you sure the two things are related and they didn't just shut you down for another reason altogether.
I mean it seems all the Filter Forge stuff was going on 5 months ago or more. Shutterstock are usually very quick to shut down an account if they even get a sniff of a problem.
I think that the email posted in the original post may be a bit of a red herring.
I reckon someone made a new complaint about another file and Shutterstock just figured "this guy's getting to be more trouble than he's worth, bye"
I received warning email 23.december 2010. I wrote immediate to them, same day, and explainded its created by photoshop filter forge. My account was disabled or blocked, then i received this answer 27. december
This issue is currently being reviewed with our legal department. Be advised that this may take some time. Your portfolio will remain suspended until the investigation is complete. I will be contacting you if we require any additional information.
and this email is from 25. february 2011 , after 2 months
As originally stated, this issue is under review by our Legal department. It
is not necessary to continually send emails. You need to be patient while
your issue is reviewed & you will be contacted when a decision is made.
Consider this matter closed and you will hear from us when a decision is made
regarding your account.
I was patient 4 months. i just asked about my case, nothing else, because i saw on forum that shutterstock sometimes not receive emails from submiters. So now its forbidden to ask?
-
- There are tens of thousands scanned vintage illustrations from artists whose copyright expired sold as RF
- There are more than 10,000 images online with the use of the water reflection plugin sold as RF
I think Shutterstock has just started to create a big mob against itself.
I know I won't win over any fans with this comment, but to be honest here I really wouldn't feel too bad for anyone who got reprimanded or suspended by Shutterstock for using any of the above type of images. Using that stuff despite the clear warning on the Upload page that your work should be 100% your own, that's the risk they take when they upload.
There may be a big angry mob in the works here, but I'm not sure they really have much of an argument when they knowingly ignored the site policies and submitted work that wasn't entirely their own. Is Shutterstock wrong for allowing this stuff and then going back on it in some cases? Sure. But it's not like they changed the policy after allowing this type of work. It was always there, and some folks chose to ignore it.
And they don`t care about their own policy. Some are going through. Others not. The database is full of Images using PD and obviously shutterstock knows that. Just think about NASA visible earth images. Using stuff like water reflection Filters, provided textures in 3D software etc. is quite common in all over the Design industry. I see nothing wrong with it as long as the Filter makers, suppliers are fine with it, everything stays legal and no license agreement had been violated. Instead of defending a company which, not for the first time, overreacted to "possible" copyright problems I rather suggest in demanding a reconsideration of their agreement to be able to meet noewadays standards and legal policies. But off course you could delete simply like 30% of the Database and leave it to the competition ;-) (along with every interior shot without property release and every shot with a possibly design copyrighted cup of coffee)
-
Well, for me personally, Shutterstocks behaviour is quite unprofessional. Especially since others have Images online using the same Filter. I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.
Again, we are going by one side of the story here, jm73 posted part of the SS policy that seems to okay the use of the filters. But to get totally behind the OP we'd need to know that that's definitely why he was suspended.
The email he has shared with us goes way back to last year.
-
Consider this matter closed and you will hear from us when a decision is made
regarding your account.
I was patient 4 months. i just asked about my case, nothing else, because i saw on forum that shutterstock sometimes not receive emails from submiters. So now its forbidden to ask?
Wow, that seems pretty low. They could at least give you a proper explanation.
I'm also not sure what:
"Consider this matter closed and you will hear from us when a decision is made"
is supposed to mean, is it closed or is a decision being made?
It sucks to be left in limbo.
-
the OP clearly broke the 'Submission Guidlelines' and Shutterstock have terminated his account. Those are the only known facts.
Reading jm73's quote from the terms it seems that actually he was okay to use the filter provided it was okay with the software company and filter creator.
-
Well, for me personally, Shutterstocks behaviour is quite unprofessional. Especially since others have Images online using the same Filter. I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.
Again, we are going by one side of the story here, jm73 posted part of the Shutterstock policy that seems to okay the use of the filters. But to get totally behind the OP we'd need to know that that's definitely why he was suspended.
The email he has shared with us goes way back to last year.
True, maybe we are missing part of the story. Off course my opinion is based on the known. If there had been something else or a real violation it is a different story. But it is not the first time that we hear from suspended accounts and users complaining in public about it. I would suspect that the real copyright violators would rather stay quiet instead of presenting their case in public.
BTW: What happened with the story of FDregular?
-
BTW: What happened with the story of FDregular?
I'm not sure he just kinda disappeared after that stuff.
I was trying to track down the thread where his account closure was discussed.
As a word of warning on that thread some other guy chimed in saying he was a victim too then it turned out he was actually tracing loads of really famous photos and uploading them!
If the timeline stated in the OPs last post is correct then I have every sympathy for him. Seems like they really are making him suffer unnecessarily over the whole thing.
-
BTW: What happened with the story of FDregular?
I'm not sure he just kinda disappeared after that stuff.
I was trying to track down the thread where his account closure was discussed.
As a word of warning on that thread some other guy chimed in saying he was a victim too then it turned out he was actually tracing loads of really famous photos and uploading them!
If the timeline stated in the OPs last post is correct then I have every sympathy for him. Seems like they really are making him suffer unnecessarily over the whole thing.
Yeah, I remember the guy...this is the other side of the coin. Too many people abusing systems like shutterstock.
-
I agree we are probably missing part of the story.
OTH, in looking at the image in question, (and not taking into account that others have done the same thing), how about this scenario?
You have a filter that can put a picture frame around an image. I'm sure there are many of these. If you put a frame around one of your images and submit it, you are using the filter for its intended purpose and that is legal. If you put the frame around a blank image and submit that for the buyer to insert their own image or copy in the blank space, you are, in effect, stealing their filter and reselling it.
I don't know anything about the filter in question, but in looking at the image in question, it looks like it would have similar uses.
-
I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.
Oh don't be such a big girl's blouse. This is a discussion forum and 'the community' is discussing the merits or otherwise of the case. We only know one side of the story and even then it is hardly black or white. By his own admission the OP clearly broke the 'Submission Guidlelines' and Shutterstock have terminated his account. Those are the only known facts.
Seems from the following there has been no breach even of submission guidelines, nevemind the law
Doesn't this sentence say that it is allowed to use these filters? I'm afraid that my English is not good enough for understanding of these "slight differences"
e. if the Submitted Content consists in whole or in part of design elements, fonts, clipart, sprites, vectors, brush tools and the like that are included in design programs (e.g., Photoshop, Daz, Illustrator) by uploading such Submitted Content to Shutterstock, you warrant and represent that the end user license agreement, terms of service or the equivalent license held by you does allow you to incorporate such elements in Submitted Content created by you, and to license such Submitted Content to Shutterstock for the purposes set forth herein;
Yup, 100% I would agree this means use of Filter Forge is okay if you check that it's legally above board. But again, I'm beginning to doubt that the Filter Forge controversy of last year could have been the main reason for the OP's account suspension.
-
'You have a filter that can put a picture frame around an image. I'm sure there are many of these. If you put a frame around one of your images and submit it, you are using the filter for its intended purpose and that is legal. If you put the frame around a blank image and submit that for the buyer to insert their own image or copy in the blank space, you are, in effect, stealing their filter and reselling it.'
Not really. You may be selling the results if using the filter, which is clearly allowed, but you certainly aren't selling the filter itself.
-
and my account at bigstock is terminated, because shutterstock own bigstock, i had about 50 photos, uploaded long time ago, when bigstock was not owned by shutterstock, i didn`t have this photo at bigstock, and i had 2 dollars in earnings, i hope they are happy with this 2 dollars.... ;D
-
i wouldn`t open new account at bigstock even if they pay me... ;D
-
'You have a filter that can put a picture frame around an image. I'm sure there are many of these. If you put a frame around one of your images and submit it, you are using the filter for its intended purpose and that is legal. If you put the frame around a blank image and submit that for the buyer to insert their own image or copy in the blank space, you are, in effect, stealing their filter and reselling it.'
Not really. You may be selling the results if using the filter, which is clearly allowed, but you certainly aren't selling the filter itself.
I think same, i am not selling filter, only final image render....
this is email from filter forge support
What concerns your rights to use Filter Forge in commercial purposes, according to our EULA you are free to do it -- filter authors hold the copyright to the filter files proper (.ffxml files), while the copyright to the final rendered images belongs to the end user, i.e. you.
However, I'd recommend that you read the microstock regulations and terms of use carefully -- perhaps, they somehow specify and restrict the use of images made with third-party filters. I'd also recommend that you contact them directly -- hopefully they'll be able to explain the situation and take into account our policy regarding the end user's copyright to the rendered images.
-
the truth is that everybody is using filter forge without limit. I would like to show you how many submiters are using filter forge. they all have websites, they all working at all microstock agencies, they are creative, some studios....they can create what they want, they have magic, but when look better you will see its filter forge.
i would like to hear that someone else is terminated beside me, because he has used filter forge to create some photo, until now i didn`t hear that someone is terminated because he used filter forge.
since i am terminated i have a lot time, and am exploring shutterstock, and every filter forge user that i discovered at shutterstock, they are all still online, with every day new filter forge photos.
shutterstock policy for them is, you can do what you want......with filter forge....
-
Can we get links to your potfolio on other microstock sites? Your other images might provide a helpful context to this discussion. Thanks.
-
Can we get links to your potfolio on other microstock sites? Your other images might provide a helpful context to this discussion. Thanks.
No, you have all information about this shutterstock case, and what happend to me, you can like it or not. That`s it. I never post anything on any forum, about somedy, i didn`t make any complainsts. This happens to me, and because shutterstock terminated me, i wanted to share that information.
-
Can we get links to your potfolio on other microstock sites? Your other images might provide a helpful context to this discussion. Thanks.
No, you have all information about this shutterstock case, and what happend to me, you can like it or not. That`s it. I never post anything on any forum, about somedy, i didn`t make any complainsts. This happens to me, and because shutterstock terminated me, i wanted to share that information.
Not a good move IMHO
-
Well then my conclusion is that you have something to hide.
-
Well then my conclusion is that you have something to hide.
yes, i hide, i am using photoshop, filter forge, 3d studio max.... and other graphic program like many others. you now everything. i can be accused for anything. no thanks. mostly i worked on shutterstock, i had metal backgrounds, textures, almost that type of photos, like many other filte forge user, i am using filter forge, but according to shutterstock that is not allowed,
can i see your portfolio?
-
well, actually you already included a link to the photo, and so, to your portfolio in 123rf in one of your first posts
-
Well then my conclusion is that you have something to hide.
yes, i hide, i am using photoshop, filter forge, 3d studio max.... and other graphic program like many others. you now everything. i can be accused for anything. no thanks. mostly i worked on shutterstock, i had metal backgrounds, textures, almost that type of photos, like many other filte forge user, i am using filter forge, but according to shutterstock that is not allowed,
can i see your portfolio?
If i hide something, i will never post on this forum, ever, i was blocked for 4 months, and follow what shutterstock told me about my case, i used filter forge, it`s bad and not moral, but i saw that everybody is using, that`s it. Ok i am bad person, and i hide something, i don`t know what,
The best thing is not say nothing, i can be accused for saying my opinion, and what happend to me. That`s why i didn`t post nothing until now...
-
I hate to be the one point this out, but you provided a link to your portfolio on another site in your opening post.
-
attack is best defense. i just post what happend to me, and what i saw, i am not blind, i said only what i saw...
-
No, you have all information about this shutterstock case, and what happend to me, you can like it or not. That`s it. I never post anything on any forum, about somedy, i didn`t make any complainsts. This happens to me, and because shutterstock terminated me, i wanted to share that information.
The best thing is not say nothing, i can be accused for saying my opinion, and what happend to me. That`s why i didn`t post nothing until now...
^^Condensing the relevant portions from two of your posts.
I think this may be the problem you are encountering. Never having posted in this forum before, you have not established a reputation. Shutterstock, on the other hand, has a very good reputation with most of us on these forums.
You may very well have been treated unfairly by Shutterstock. Or you may just be a crank. Since you are unknown on these forums, there is no way for any of us to tell.
A few months back a long time contributor to these forums had a similar issue with Shutterstock. He got a lot more sympathy and support because we all knew him and he had a reputation to back him up. He has since completely vanished, but that's another story...
If you never bothered with this forum before, why do you care what anyone here thinks now? I am not sure what type of validation or support you were hoping for by posting in a forum full of complete strangers... ???
-
No, you have all information about this shutterstock case, and what happend to me, you can like it or not. That`s it. I never post anything on any forum, about somedy, i didn`t make any complainsts. This happens to me, and because shutterstock terminated me, i wanted to share that information.
The best thing is not say nothing, i can be accused for saying my opinion, and what happend to me. That`s why i didn`t post nothing until now...
^^Condensing the relevant portions from two of your posts.
I think this may be the problem you are encountering. Never having posted in this forum before, you have not established a reputation. Shutterstock, on the other hand, has a very good reputation with most of us on these forums.
You may very well have been treated unfairly by Shutterstock. Or you may just be a crank. Since you are unknown on these forums, there is no way for any of us to tell.
A few months back a long time contributor to these forums had a similar issue with Shutterstock. He got a lot more sympathy and support because we all knew him and he had a reputation to back him up. He has since completely vanished, but that's another story...
If you never bothered with this forum before, why do you care what anyone here thinks now? I am not sure what type of validation or support you were hoping for by posting in a forum full of complete strangers... ???
I never used forum, in any way, i am not using facebook, i am not that kind of person, almost every day i am at computer, i am creating photos, reading books, watching tutorials, i am not moving at all, and now i need to be on forum to be seriously, almost 3 years at shutterstock, that is not serious. ok. i wrote to one submiter who has similar case, about some recycle sign, and his account was blocked, but he is online, and he told me i can wrote to shutterstock or microstock forum, so i did. i wanted to hear what others think about my case? so now and that is forbidden.
-
Not a good move IMHO
can you think like for 10 seconds? why to share? that´s his business not yours.. that's a joke really!!
-
No, because I need to retain my anonymity. My portfolio has nothing to do with the issue you have brought up in this post, but your portfolio absolutely does. It should be quite obvious why I requested to see your other images. Your anger over this is understandable, but you can't possibly expect us to side with you based on incomplete information provided from only one side of the altercation.
A few Google searches have revealed that you created several blogs, one named "SHUTTERSTOCK IS BAD". A quote from one of your all-caps posts:
"IF SOMETHING HAPPEN TO ME OR MY BLOG, THAT IS SHUTTERSTOCK, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DESTROY ME IN ANY WAY, THIS IS THE TRUTH"
The irrationality of statements like this really damage your side of the argument. I will, of course, not post links to this because of your wish to remain hidden.
-
I don´t agree with most of the posts on this thread, I really think that everybody just wanna stick a finger in and know more and more.. looks like a bunch of old ladies on the window all day
I haven´t comment this topic because I had nothing to "help/say" I believe that other that are willing to JUST know more should go out and have a drink :)
-
No, because I need to retain my anonymity. My portfolio has nothing to do with the issue you have brought up in this post, but your portfolio absolutely does. It should be quite obvious why I requested to see your other images. Your anger over this is understandable, but you can't possibly expect us to side with you based on incomplete information provided from only one side of the altercation.
A few Google searches have revealed that you created several blogs, one named "SHUTTERSTOCK IS BAD". A quote from one of your all-caps posts:
"IF SOMETHING HAPPEN TO ME OR MY BLOG, THAT IS SHUTTERSTOCK, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DESTROY ME IN ANY WAY, THIS IS THE TRUTH"
The irrationality of statements like this really damage your side of the argument. I will, of course, not post links to this because of your wish to remain hidden.
I don`t understand this, i said i am using filter forge, and it`s forbidden at shutterstock, i said what happend to me, i said what i saw, i had filter forge photos and that`s it . I UNDERSTAND IT`S FORBIDDEN TO SPEAK AT ANY WAY, OH MY GOD THIS MUST BE MY IMAGINATION, PLEASE WAKE ME UP, BECAUSE THIS MUST BE DREAM
-
yes, i hide, i am using photoshop, filter forge, 3d studio max.... and other graphic program like many others. you now everything. i can be accused for anything. no thanks. mostly i worked on shutterstock, i had metal backgrounds, textures, almost that type of photos, like many other filte forge user, i am using filter forge, but according to shutterstock that is not allowed...
Let's slow it down a little there with the innocent victim routine. Look, I don't think anyone here feels as though your account should have been completely shut down over that one image in question. But let's not pretend that you didn't have some small role in your own downfall. You used a filter that, in itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing to do. But you used it to create an image that without the filter would have looked entirely different, an image that looked very much like all of the other similar images out there that were created with the same filter, and then you ignored the very clear policy on the SS upload page that says that they work you upload must be 100% created by you.
You didn't just use a filter to enhance an image. The filter is basically the image. The film frame, the texture, etc. Whether or not that is acceptable to SS or any other stock agency is certainly debatable. What's not, as far as I can tell, is that you are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing here.
Yes you used Photoshop, 3DSMAX, etc., like other people here do all the time. Unlike most people, though, you used a filter that generates the majority of the image with a couple of mouse clicks and are acting like you're just an unlucky victim of random chance. You had a hand in this, and as unfortunate as it is that SS took such drastic action over one image, you should have known that where was some risk associated with uploading an image that was almost entirely generated by a filter and looks exactly like a bunch of other images already in the collection.
-
OK, this is all my imagination, i didn`t receive this email from shutterstock, i am guiltly because i used filter forge, i didn`t work at shutterstock, ALL OTHERS ARE RIGHT, just keep uploading... and make money, you all have rights to create what you want. my account is terminated. shutterstock is right. everybody are happy.
I WISH YOU ALL THE BEST
I AM AWAKE....
-
Not a good move IMHO
can you think like for 10 seconds? why to share? that´s his business not yours.. that's a joke really!!
Harsh words. Did I miss something? If he would have shown his Port everybody would be able to verify that he is clean - or not. That would have been an advantage for him.
-
Perhaps there is a significant translation problem here. Seems impossible to have a conversation with each other.
-
OK, this is all my imagination, i didn`t receive this email from shutterstock, i am guiltly because i used filter forge, i didn`t work at shutterstock, ALL OTHERS ARE RIGHT, just keep uploading... and make money, you all have rights to create what you want. my account is terminated. shutterstock is right. everybody are happy.
I WISH YOU ALL THE BEST
I AM AWAKE....
Duuuude, calm down...nobody is forbidding you to speak or whatever. It is understandable that you are upset when you tell the truth, but you will have to understand that the community cannot trust everybodys word when he was previously unknown. Showing your Port would have been an advantage to you, but off course you are not "obligated" to. Just relax a bit...
-
OK, this is all my imagination, i didn`t receive this email from shutterstock, i am guiltly because i used filter forge, i didn`t work at shutterstock, ALL OTHERS ARE RIGHT, just keep uploading... and make money, you all have rights to create what you want. my account is terminated. shutterstock is right. everybody are happy.
I WISH YOU ALL THE BEST
I AM AWAKE....
Duuuude, calm down...nobody is forbidding you to speak or whatever. It is understandable that you are upset when you tell the truth, but you will have to understand that the community cannot trust everybodys word when he was previously unknown. Showing your Port would have been an advantage to you, but off course you are not "obligated" to. Just relax a bit...
I am calm, my best agency was shutterstock, on bigstock i had about 50 photos, on others i didn`t have nothing special, less than 500 photos, with low sales, like i said before i had filter forge photos, metals, wood, textures....this is my house i can show you or not, that is my full right. Shutterstock has own house and they own rules, i was thinking that maybe they are wrong about my case...
-
From your posting of the email from BigStock;
"We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of
images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have
determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC."
Sorry mate but it sounds to me that there may be rather more to this issue than you are actually disclosing to us. SS did not act in haste and only terminated your account several weeks after they suspended it. The time-scale alone suggests that the matter may have been properly investigated by SS before taking the action that they did.
-
From your posting of the email from BigStock;
"We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of
images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have
determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC."
Sorry mate but it sounds to me that there may be rather more to this issue than you are actually disclosing to us. Shutterstock did not act in haste and only terminated your account several weeks after they suspended it. The time-scale alone suggests that the matter may have been properly investigated by Shutterstock before taking the action that they did.
that's kind of a classic formula in these cases, sort of "dear Sir". It's the same as in this case: http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/huh-can-they-do-it-like-this/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/huh-can-they-do-it-like-this/)
See the email quote.
-
no need of that really
-
From your posting of the email from BigStock;
"We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of
images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have
determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC."
Sorry mate but it sounds to me that there may be rather more to this issue than you are actually disclosing to us. Shutterstock did not act in haste and only terminated your account several weeks after they suspended it. The time-scale alone suggests that the matter may have been properly investigated by Shutterstock before taking the action that they did.
i show you all information that i recived from them, what i recived from them, what is reason, maybe they discovered something, but i don`t know what, they ask me only about this photo, and photo was the reason, i think, they didn`t told me nothing else, so to my opinion the reason is this photo created with filter forge, i wouldn`t waste time to speak something without sense...
-
Perhaps there is a significant translation problem here. Seems impossible to have a conversation with each other.
Yeah. I am noticing the same thing.
If the OP displayed the same sort of irrationality in his communications with Shutterstock, it does shed some more light on this situation.
-
I've been reading this thread with a greater and greater sense that something stinks. Granted, I have had good relations with Shutterstock for a bunch of years and am not inclined to believe they would act so precipitously without good reason and good evidence, but the OP's story doesn't ring true to me. That doesn't make what he says untrue, but I wouldn't be surprised it that's where things lie.
Here's the thing: the use of one filter or another isn't an issue. We all use filters, or at least most of us do. We sharpen, we blur, we clean up skin, we mask out subjects to create isolations, we do a hundred or a thousand more things. But all those have one thing in common: they're all filters. By that I mean that they take a source image and apply some sort of transformation on it. And that's acceptable in retouching for stock, at least as long as the result is pleasing and usable.
But not all filters filter, by which I mean that they don't all transform image A into image A'. Some filters generate a new image. Photoshop comes with a group of Render filters for making patterns. They're filters because they're on the Filters menu. But they aren't really filters, in that they create rather than transforming.
Filter Forge has filtering capabilities. It also includes a set of base images which can be used with its filters. My suspicion is that it's these base images that got the OP into trouble. It's not that he filtered; it's what he filtered that violated the rules.
I took a look at the OP's portfolio on 123RF. And I may be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a large number of his images there, maybe even most, are composites. The question is where the elements came from that he composed. Did he personally photograph or create every one of them by hand, or did he find other sources? If the latter, that would be a clear violation of Shutterstock policy if not the creators' copyrights.
It may be that that last image was simply the one Shutterstock used to confirm their theory. It wasn't one image, I would speculate, that caused his removal from the site, but the confirmation that this was yet another image to which he could not claim ownership. Which would make focusing on one image as the reason for his removal, or the use of one admittedly sophisticated filter in the editing of his images, evidence of a larger collection of inappropriate behavior.
Of course I could be wrong, and the OP is the victim of a horrible miscarriage of justice. But if I had to place a bet one way or the other, I know which I'd choose.
-
I don´t agree with most of the posts on this thread, I really think that everybody just wanna stick a finger in and know more and more.. looks like a bunch of old ladies on the window all day
I haven´t comment this topic because I had nothing to "help/say" I believe that other that are willing to JUST know more should go out and have a drink :)
Then I guess the OP shouldn't have posted, right? Everything has a root cause and the root cause of every post here has evolved from the OP posting this topic in the first place.
-
some other images using same filter including some but not all?? of the images linked in OP have been deleted by SS.
-
some other images using same filter including some but not all?? of the images linked in OP have been deleted by Shutterstock.
Very weird, same thing happened when I pointed out in another thread that dozens of images on Shutterstock were just uploads of a graphic font.
It ended up with Shutterstock deleting a seemingly random sample of the infringing work while leaving a load up still.
They need some consistency over there.
-
I have been reading this forum for a long time but haven't contributed before now. However, I have been following this thread with interest, as I guess everyone of us worries about the possibility of this happening to us.
I am confused though. The OP refers us to Shutterstock's email which includes:
Shutterstock Images LLC ("Shutterstock") has discovered that an image you are attempting to submit to your portfolio has elements that are copies of another person's work and, therefore, belong to that individual or entity:
67635457 -- "film frame" (see attached thumbnail)
Original image here -- http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html (http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html)
He is not saying that he is the creator of the work on 123RF, he links to his image at the bottom of his original post here:
and this is mine photo, without shutterstock watermark, because my photo was never approved
http://copyrightdesign.webs.com/apps/blog/show/7074417-my-photo (http://copyrightdesign.webs.com/apps/blog/show/7074417-my-photo)
If you look carefully at both the images you will see that they are slightly different.
The creator of the work on 123RF has a very large and active portfolio on Shutterstock, and my guess is that the OP uploaded his image and a reviewer spotted how uncannily similar it was to an existing image in another port.
I have now idea how this particular filter works, but does it just create an image that could look the same time and time again?
-
Oh right, I thought that was a link to his own file on 123RF!!!
So SS sent him that link as being to the original file he's meant have ripped off? Could the OP please clear this up?
-
Oh right, I thought that was a link to his own file on 123RF!!!
So Shutterstock sent him that link as being to the original file he's meant have ripped off? Could the OP please clear this up?
I didn't understand that either. Does it mean that that guy that has the image on 123rf is the one that complains to SS?
If so I don't understand what is that filter about. Does it create photo frame as well or does it only add that noise and scratches to selected area?
If it creates the film stripas as well and it would be illegal to use (which is not) - then it means as we say : Thief is screaming "Catch the Thief!"
If the filter just adds that noise - then it is obvious that SS is absolutely right.
-
Looking at the Filter Forge website and the links to other files it's pretty clear that the filter adds the scratches and the frame
-
I thought so. But then it is really strange - then I could complain when someone uses same font on Christmas Card even if the font is free for commercial use or part of software.
-
I thought so. But then it is really strange - then I could complain when someone uses same font on Christmas Card even if the font is free for commercial use or part of software.
Like someone else said, it might have been the reviewer who noticed the OPs work looked like someone else's without even knowing a filter was involved.
-
i wrote to one submiter who has similar case, about some recycle sign, and his account was blocked, but he is online, and he told me i can wrote to shutterstock or microstock forum
I'm guessing "Der Grüne Punkt" ? Many people don't realize it's a trademark protected logo
-
filterforge will produce the same image time and again, the person creating the filter sets up settings they like (called presets) as examples, the person using the filter can use the preset settings or adjust to their own taste. So it is possible for dozens of people to produce the exact same image (and for each person to own the copyright of their own individual image) hence using the preset settings really isnt a good idea.
-
I don't get why everybody here is focusing on the legality to use filters and plugins . I don't see anywhere SS mentioning a problem with using filters . They basically said in their mail that the OP created a copy of another contributor's work . The problem in this particular case is that other user's infringed copyright . The fact that they both used a third party filter to generate those similar images is a whole different problem . Apparently they are starting to take care of that too .
To OP - they disabled your account for creating a copy ( what they assume ) of another person's image , not for using Filter Forge .
-
I guess because the OP says he emailed SS with links to the Filter Forge website demonstrating why there was a similarity between the images and SS still closed his account.
Assuming this is true then it's either the filter use that's the problem, or SS chose to ignore him, or it's about a totally different image.
-
The person making the complaint is requesting that Shutterstock take appropriate steps against you. Prior to taking any further steps, we are inviting you to respond to this claim.
I really cannot understand how another submitter can make a complaint about an image that isn't already for sale?
This sounds just too strange, and makes it hard to believe the OP doesn't have anything to hide.
One thing that also pops into my mind: Did Shutterstock ever get the OP's reply at all?
-
I would agree except this seems to be something the OP is drawing attention to himself.
Anyway, I think we're stuck without seeing the OPs portfolio.
The community here can usually sniff out fakes very quickly with access, but I feel like we're going round in circles here till we know who this guy is.
If you are serious about having the community look into your case you need to be open about who you are.
-
If you do a tin eye search on the OP's file it brings up the 123rf file.
They are actually so slightly different but it appears to the casual observer that they are copies.
I'm a bit confused here. what was the source for this, a photo of a grey background then run a filter on it that makes a frame and scratches on it.
-
So it looks like the OP was "inspired" by this one? http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html (http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html)
If that's true, I'm with SS on this one.
-
Sorry, I'm going to disagree. If you're going to accept something that is the result of a button push from someone, you've got to accept it from everyone. First come, first serve doesn't work in this case.
-
So is the entire image from a button push? I thought the film frame and the background were separate? It also looks like it's been cropped exactly the same as the one on 123rf, unless that's the OP's image as well.
(http://imageshack.us/m/864/7896/filmw.jpg)
-
As I understand it, two different guys get almost same result by pushing same button in the same software with same presets.
One of them is that shameless that he complains as he thinks he is author of this "image" created in two seconds because he pushed the button first.
-
Sorry, I'm going to disagree. If you're going to accept something that is the result of a button push from someone, you've got to accept it from everyone. First come, first serve doesn't work in this case.
I agree with Sean and jm73:
As I understand it, two different guys get almost same result by pushing same button in the same software with same presets.
One of them is that shameless that he complains as he thinks he is author of this "image" created in two seconds because he pushed the button first.
-
yes the image is mathematically generated 100% from scratch by the filter (much like fractals start from nothing)
-
This one is tricky and assuming the OPs story is true and nothing has been left out, I do feel for him. He, wasn’t aware that he did anything wrong. He ‘legaly’ maintained full ownership of his image after applying the filter. He did not breach any copyright laws.... but how is Shutterstock supposed to know that?
This has raised some interesting and probably very serious issues regarding the use of filters. If you have two contributors who apply a filter to an image with a plain flat red background and the filter generates a red 3D swastika for example, then you have two images out there that are identical and two artists that hold the copyright to these same images. What if the first graphic artists accuses the second one of copying him because he created the image first? Can two people hold the copyright to the exact same image? What if more people create the same image and the internet becomes flooded with this red 3D swastika that is legally owned by thousands of individuals? These types of images, in my opinion, should automatically become public domain. Effectively they are public domain so there’s the moral issue of whether it’s right to claim any copyright over the image and sell it... it’s definitely a grey area.
Then there’s another big issue. Is Shutterstock or any other agency supposed to be aware of every filter out there and what it produces? All they see is the final image. It doesn’t come with a note saying “this swastika was created using a filter”. If they see two identical images, they have to react and delete the second one and assume the second guy copied the first. In this case, since it’s been bought to the attention that the film strips have been created using filterforge, both should be deleted. As for the OPs account being terminated, I suspect he probably had a port full of images that appeared to be created using filters. I also suspect the person who complained about the image was the reviewer themself.
So yes, I do feel for this guy but really, if his portfolio is full of these types of images that are freely available everywhere and that anyone can produce with a click of a button then nobody will miss them. Although it was harsh, Shutterstock acted appropriately. However with more and more of these programs and filters popping up everywhere, these agents need to update their policies and make it clear that uploading images that have been created solely with the use of a filter, are not acceptable.
-
As I understand it, two different guys get almost same result by pushing same button in the same software with same presets.
One of them is that shameless that he complains as he thinks he is author of this "image" created in two seconds because he pushed the button first.
I agree if all you have to do is press a button and this image appears. I thought the film grain effect was made separately and the cropping was manual but if that isn't the case, it's hard to see why this image would get a portfolio removed. I presume there must be something else going on here that we don't know about.
-
look at it from an agency point of view. how much value does this portfolio bring to the agency. I am betting any mediocre portfolio these days would be terminated in an instant due to oversupply.
So for all the hobbyists out there. dont take shortcuts. hard work pays off
-
As I understand it, two different guys get almost same result by pushing same button in the same software with same presets.
One of them is that shameless that he complains as he thinks he is author of this "image" created in two seconds because he pushed the button first.
I agree if all you have to do is press a button and this image appears. I thought the film grain effect was made separately and the cropping was manual but if that isn't the case, it's hard to see why this image would get a portfolio removed. I presume there must be something else going on here that we don't know about.
Exactly. If others have submitted the image using the exact same filter, which apparently creates the whole image, and it has been approved, then the OP should be able to submit the same image, since NOBODY really created it themselves. I also don't think the whole portfolio would be removed solely on this one image issue. I just have a feeling that something else is going on, too.
But I also think that IF this one image is the problem, then the person (or persons...who knows, maybe 100 people have submitted this exact image...I haven't looked) who complained about the OP should have HIS port pulled, too.
-
I think the longer this is discussed the less it feels like we have the whole picture.
I doubt that the use of the filter is the issue here and also doubt SS would have closed the OP's portfolio because the image was similar to another person's once he had presented them with the evidence that they were both just created with the same filter.
There has to be more to this.
Until we can see the rest of the guy's portfolio we are blind here. I originally thought the image on 123RF was his.
-
I have been reading this forum for a long time but haven't contributed before now. However, I have been following this thread with interest, as I guess everyone of us worries about the possibility of this happening to us.
I am confused though. The OP refers us to Shutterstock's email which includes:
Shutterstock Images LLC ("Shutterstock") has discovered that an image you are attempting to submit to your portfolio has elements that are copies of another person's work and, therefore, belong to that individual or entity:
67635457 -- "film frame" (see attached thumbnail)
Original image here -- [url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html[/url] ([url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html[/url])
He is not saying that he is the creator of the work on 123RF, he links to his image at the bottom of his original post here:
and this is mine photo, without shutterstock watermark, because my photo was never approved
[url]http://copyrightdesign.webs.com/apps/blog/show/7074417-my-photo[/url] ([url]http://copyrightdesign.webs.com/apps/blog/show/7074417-my-photo[/url])
If you look carefully at both the images you will see that they are slightly different.
The creator of the work on 123RF has a very large and active portfolio on Shutterstock, and my guess is that the OP uploaded his image and a reviewer spotted how uncannily similar it was to an existing image in another port.
I have now idea how this particular filter works, but does it just create an image that could look the same time and time again?
Yes this is 100% true, you just need to read carefully, i used filter forge to create my photo, http://www.filterforge.com/, (http://www.filterforge.com/,) this is original filter created by ZEPHOS http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html (http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html)
according to filter forge EULA i can use final image render for personal or commercial use. this software creates this kind of photos, almost every filter has variations, for example metal background, you can choose color, variations, and photo is never 100 % same, but in this case, this black film frame has no variations, it`s same in every case, you can change only position, but background has variations, and color and photo it`s not 100% same.
you can download trial and see how filter forge works http://www.filterforge.com/download/ (http://www.filterforge.com/download/)
just need to read carefully and few times to be sure that is all correct
-
filterforge will produce the same image time and again, the person creating the filter sets up settings they like (called presets) as examples, the person using the filter can use the preset settings or adjust to their own taste. So it is possible for dozens of people to produce the exact same image (and for each person to own the copyright of their own individual image) hence using the preset settings really isnt a good idea.
true, i now it`s bad idea, i did make a mistake using filter forge and this filter in question, i started to use in june 2010. bad decision
-
I guess because the OP says he emailed Shutterstock with links to the Filter Forge website demonstrating why there was a similarity between the images and Shutterstock still closed his account.
Assuming this is true then it's either the filter use that's the problem, or Shutterstock chose to ignore him, or it's about a totally different image.
yes, i wrote to them immediate, i said its filter forge, after that send links, everything, what i could, and this is all i got, i don`t know, maybe there some other image, but they didn`t told me nothing else.
-
look at it from an agency point of view. how much value does this portfolio bring to the agency. I am betting any mediocre portfolio these days would be terminated in an instant due to oversupply.
So for all the hobbyists out there. dont take shortcuts. hard work pays off
Everybody should be treated the same when it comes to legal issues.
-
I have been reading this forum for a long time but haven't contributed before now. However, I have been following this thread with interest, as I guess everyone of us worries about the possibility of this happening to us....
You don't have to worry about this happening to you if you don't use 3rd party filters, fonts, or anything else made by someone other that you in your images. I think that should be the lesson learned here. Make your own textures, frames, backgrounds, effects, filters, etc.
If you rely on someone else's filters, effects, brushes, etc. to make your images, it will just result in rejections, closed accounts (like in this case), or accepted images that look like lots of other images and won't sell well anyway.
Don't bother. Just make your own stuff and you don't have to worry about any of this.
-
The person making the complaint is requesting that Shutterstock take appropriate steps against you. Prior to taking any further steps, we are inviting you to respond to this claim.
I really cannot understand how another submitter can make a complaint about an image that isn't already for sale?
This sounds just too strange, and makes it hard to believe the OP doesn't have anything to hide.
One thing that also pops into my mind: Did Shutterstock ever get the OP's reply at all?
Yes, same question here, my photo was never approved, i didn`t receive status of uploaded image, just warning email, they show me my photo without shuttestock watermark in attach email, so this means that photo was never approved, when they approve photo, your photo at shutterstock must have wattermark, and they show me simillar photo from 123rf agency, created with this filter, there is no need to copy nothing if you are using filter forge, it creates every time simillar photo. and i don`t know who is original copyright owner of this black elements or frame, i think its author of this filter.
but shutterstock don`t think like that
shuttestock told me to wait, that i need to wait, and be patient, they are working on my case, i was patient for almost 4 months, from the end of december 2010, to april 2011, i think its enough time, i just follow what they said, shutterstock is boss, i am just little worker, at the bottom, i am not big player
shutterstock is best agency ever, but for me its not anymore because i am terminated
-
Sorry, I'm going to disagree. If you're going to accept something that is the result of a button push from someone, you've got to accept it from everyone. First come, first serve doesn't work in this case.
i think same thing, why all other can do and use that software, but i can`t, when using filter forge at shutterstock, its important to be first, then you have full rights, but when someone upload after you, you need to explain a lot of things...
-
The way you keep posting the name of the filter and links to it is actually making me think that perhaps this has all been made up just to get traffic to the filter site! You don't have any links to YOUR portfolio, only to someone else's. Or maybe the someone else's port on 123 is in fact your port and you have also improved traffic to your own port.
edit: in fact, you are even telling US to go download the filter to see how it works when we're saying stay away from 3rd party filters!
You certainly got a lot of people talking about this. I'm smelling something fishy.
-
The way you keep posting the name of the filter and links to it is actually making me think that perhaps this has all been made up just to get traffic to the filter site!
Same thing pops into my mind also. ZEPHOS (with capital letters!) and Filter Forge is mentioned in almost every message, without it being necessary at all.
(Except this case would be bad advertisement for microstock submitters!)
-
The way you keep posting the name of the filter and links to it is actually making me think that perhaps this has all been made up just to get traffic to the filter site! You don't have any links to YOUR portfolio, only to someone else's. Or maybe the someone else's port on 123 is in fact your port and you have also improved traffic to your own port.
edit: in fact, you are even telling US to go download the filter to see how it works when we're saying stay away from 3rd party filters!
You certainly got a lot of people talking about this. I'm smelling something fishy.
how many people said that this is mine portfolio
Original image here -- http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html (http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html)
a lot, see my forum or thread, i don`t know how is calling, so this 123rf portfolio is not mine. read carefully,
this 123r portfolio is not mine
second, do you now what is filter forge, if you know, there is no more need to mention, ok , i didn`t copy elements, i didn`t trace or whatever, you all know what is that software, so now there is no need to mention. or its more easy to tell that i copied.
Now you all now what is this software and how this filters work, now there is no need to mention ever again.
ok
-
look at it from an agency point of view. how much value does this portfolio bring to the agency. I am betting any mediocre portfolio these days would be terminated in an instant due to oversupply.
So for all the hobbyists out there. dont take shortcuts. hard work pays off
Everybody should be treated the same when it comes to legal issues.
i bolded it for emphasis. reality doesnt work like that. ideally yes, everybody should be treated the same. Just like all babies should be cute.
I thoughtt SS has the right to terminate anyones contract if they feel theres a breach of contract. i dont think theres any legal issue here.
-
I have been reading this forum for a long time but haven't contributed before now. However, I have been following this thread with interest, as I guess everyone of us worries about the possibility of this happening to us....
You don't have to worry about this happening to you if you don't use 3rd party filters, fonts, or anything else made by someone other that you in your images. I think that should be the lesson learned here. Make your own textures, frames, backgrounds, effects, filters, etc.
If you rely on someone else's filters, effects, brushes, etc. to make your images, it will just result in rejections, closed accounts (like in this case), or accepted images that look like lots of other images and won't sell well anyway.
Don't bother. Just make your own stuff and you don't have to worry about any of this.
My concerns are not because I am using anything I shouldn't be, but more a concern that if someone decided to be spiteful and stir up trouble for a competitor, it can be difficult to defend a position with Stock sites who don't really want to enter into too much dialogue over the matter. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? I know there are many thieves and copycats in this industry but I also don't think that everyone who is accused is necessarily guilty.
I appreciate that we are only getting one view in this particular case but if what the OP has said is correct and is the full story, it seams very harsh that a Stock site can remove a whole portfolio and affect someone's livelihood without taking all the evidence into account. The OP has effectively been fired by his employer and, on the face of it, without the case being fully proven. In any other industry, if you were innocent, you would have the right to pursue the matter via some sort of Tribunal or Employment court.
-
look at it from an agency point of view. how much value does this portfolio bring to the agency. I am betting any mediocre portfolio these days would be terminated in an instant due to oversupply.
So for all the hobbyists out there. dont take shortcuts. hard work pays off
Everybody should be treated the same when it comes to legal issues.
i bolded it for emphasis. reality doesnt work like that. ideally yes, everybody should be treated the same. Just like all babies should be cute.
I thoughtt Shutterstock has the right to terminate anyones contract if they feel theres a breach of contract. i dont think theres any legal issue here.
Shutterstock terminated the account for copyright violation. This is a legal issue.
-
My concerns are not because I am using anything I shouldn't be, but more a concern that if someone decided to be spiteful and stir up trouble for a competitor, it can be difficult to defend a position with Stock sites who don't really want to enter into too much dialogue over the matter. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? I know there are many thieves and copycats in this industry but I also don't think that everyone who is accused is necessarily guilty.
I appreciate that we are only getting one view in this particular case but if what the OP has said is correct and is the full story, it seams very harsh that a Stock site can remove a whole portfolio and affect someone's livelihood without taking all the evidence into account. The OP has effectively been fired by his employer and, on the face of it, without the case being fully proven. In any other industry, if you were innocent, you would have the right to pursue the matter via some sort of Tribunal or Employment court.
Sure, that's totally possible. I've mentioned that very scenario in these forums before, that someone could spitefully accuse someone of stealing an image just to have that person's account shut down. That's a whole other situation, though, and while it's possible that it could happen to anyone, I think we can mitigate the risks associated with account suspension/termination in at least not using questionable materials and filters in our images. My point was that while anyone can be the victim of a false accusation, only those who choose to rely on other people's work to create their own images are at risk of suspension due to a legal claim.
In this particular situation I think I'd be a little more proactive than the OP has been here and do more than send a few emails. SS is a significant part of my daily income, and if that were jeopardized in any way from any sort of accusation, you can bet that I'd be on the phone with SS HQ immediately. I'm not waiting for an email response when it comes to something that important. I can't help feeling like there was more the OP could have done if they really wanted to get this resolved immediately and get their account reinstated, if they truly believed that they were innocent of any wrongdoing.
-
Just saw on facebook, an Shutterstock contributor and full-time microstocker just had images deleted from his portfolio that they feel were created using "simple filters."
-
Just saw on facebook, an Shutterstock contributor and full-time microstocker just had 700 images deleted from his portfolio that they feel were created using "simple filters."
Without terminating of his account?
-
this gone too far, so people do not use filters, i think the case is closed, i did something wrong, and that`s it i am terminated. do not use filters
-
Without terminating of his account?
Yep.
-
From an idealist pov, I peronally wouldn't mind if they getting rid of the "I keep pressing the randomize fractla seed" stuff, but I heaqrd it sells, and these ppl only care about money, so this mgit indicate some future price rasie? Even if so I hifhly doubt the contributors will see more money.
-
So I see the title changed from "Shutterstock account terminated" to just plain "Shutterstock account". Does that mean they reinstated your account, copyright design?
-
From my point of view the guy did not breach any copyright law nor the Agreement of shutterstock. It is possibly just an missunderstanding and the inspector thought he stole the Image from someone else and did not realize that it is a filter.
I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.
-
From my point of view the guy did not breach any copyright law nor the Agreement of shutterstock. It is possibly just an missunderstanding and the inspector thought he stole the Image from someone else and did not realize that it is a filter.
I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.
How do you know this? Have you heard Shutterstock's side of the story too or are you just jumping to conclusions without actually knowing the facts of the case?
-
From my point of view the guy did not breach any copyright law nor the Agreement of shutterstock. It is possibly just an missunderstanding and the inspector thought he stole the Image from someone else and did not realize that it is a filter.
I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.
How do you know this? Have you heard Shutterstock's side of the story too or are you just jumping to conclusions without actually knowing the facts of the case?
Well, I cannot make statements based on unknown things. Nor anybody can do so. I do not like to speculate not against nor in favor of the OP. My posting is based on the known. It would be very interesting to hear shutterstocks side! Anybody listening :-) ?
-
So I see the title changed from "Shutterstock account terminated" to just plain "Shutterstock account". Does that mean they reinstated your account, copyright design?
No, i didn`t receive nothing, still terminated, i will call them next time, and i will inform you what answer i received, i need to take a brake, i can wait, i don`t like when same things are delayed, like wait, we are working on your case, wait, and wait, how long, so i asked few questions, because i read on forum that there are cases when they didn`t receive mail.
-
No, i didn`t receive nothing, still terminated, i will call them next time, and i will inform you what answer i received, i need to take a brake, i can wait, i don`t like when same things are delayed, like wait, we are working on your case, wait, and wait, how long, so i asked few questions, because i read on forum that there are cases when they didn`t receive mail.
I gotta ask... Is this really all that important to you? I mean, it's been months already since this all happened, you never even picked up the phone to try and get it straightened out, and now you're just ready to give up.
My advice is if you really want to get your account reinstated, talk to someone about it. SS HQ can be reached at 1-866-663-3954. Sending a couple of emails and ranting about this in the forums obviously hasn't gotten you anywhere. Call them, explain to them what happened and ask if you can speak to someone who can help get your account fixed.
-
copyrightdesign, don't get me wrong, but are you afraid that something will be discovered if you call SS? Maybe something else, and not this thing about filter forge.
If you are not located in USA you can use your google email account to call any US or Canada number for free. I do that all the time. They have a promotional period till the end of the year, and they give free phone calls to any number in USA and Canada. Just set your email account language to English, and enable phone call option.
It's that simple. I don't understand why you posted your question here, when there is no one competent who can answer your question here. Just call SS, and tell us what happened.
-
I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.
Right. No law has been determined to have been broken. OTOH, nobody is being sent to jail either. Just an account closed by one privately owned business.
The OP may not have violated any laws. It appears the reason his account was terminated is because SS concluded he violated its submission guidelines. They are perfectly within their rights to terminate his account, although it was a bit harsh.
I keep reading these posts that if no law was violated then the account shouldn't have been closed. There are other reasons to close accounts, and violation of submission terms is an appropriate reason for closure.
So in answer to your question - that's what many of those "shutterstock did right" votes are about.
-
I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.
Right. No law has been determined to have been broken. OTOH, nobody is being sent to jail either. Just an account closed by one privately owned business.
The OP may not have violated any laws. It appears the reason his account was terminated is because Shutterstock concluded he violated its submission guidelines. They are perfectly within their rights to terminate his account, although it was a bit harsh.
I keep reading these posts that if no law was violated then the account shouldn't have been closed. There are other reasons to close accounts, and violation of submission terms is an appropriate reason for closure.
So in answer to your question - that's what many of those "shutterstock did right" votes are about.
Lisa. By "law" I refer too to Shutterstocks own TOS/ guidelines, not only to the governmental law.
Please read this from their agreement:
e. if the Submitted Content consists in whole or in part of design elements, fonts, clipart, sprites, vectors, brush tools and the like that are included in design programs (e.g., Photoshop, Daz, Illustrator) by uploading such Submitted Content to Shutterstock, you warrant and represent that the end user license agreement, terms of service or the equivalent license held by you does allow you to incorporate such elements in Submitted Content created by you, and to license such Submitted Content to Shutterstock for the purposes set forth herein;
As such, I am unsure on what basis the account had been closed. A contract has to be valid for both parties, not only from one. A
-
Lisa. By "law" I refer too to Shutterstocks own TOS/ guidelines, not only to the governmental law.
Please read this from their agreement:
e. if the Submitted Content consists in whole or in part of design elements, fonts, clipart, sprites, vectors, brush tools and the like that are included in design programs (e.g., Photoshop, Daz, Illustrator) by uploading such Submitted Content to Shutterstock, you warrant and represent that the end user license agreement, terms of service or the equivalent license held by you does allow you to incorporate such elements in Submitted Content created by you, and to license such Submitted Content to Shutterstock for the purposes set forth herein;
As such, I am unsure on what basis the account had been closed. A contract has to be valid for both parties, not only from one. A
Ah. Okay. I keep reading the term "law" as meaning something you can get arrested for breaking.
You are certainly right that the above clause muddies the waters of the first paragraph in their submitter guidelines.
-
I would also think that the "agreement" should prevail over "guidelines" in case of doubt.
-
The more ramble, the more publicity, the more they are anxious to comply ..... :-X
-
Soooo......status quo:
- Shutterstock states in this Terms that it is OK to use Filters etc as long as you have the right to.
- The filter producer says it is ok to sell the result as stock.
Surely it may be moraly wrong, but from a legal point of view Shutterstock did wrong.
As many here I LOVE shutterstock BUT, by accepting such behaviour of any agency we weaken our own rights.
Or is it just because the OP has a bad english and gets easily emotional?
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?
-
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?
contributors are like cockaroaches. ;) too * many. if u have to use a filter, its a pretty good indicator your not even worth a second look to an agency that is predominantly subscriptions based.
-
i called shutterstock 2 times and nothing, first they said they don`t have support for submiters, i left my phone, and they said they gonna try to find someone who can help me, they said if i have any questions i need to write email to suppot, until now nothing. second time, same answer,
-
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?
if u have to use a filter, its a pretty good indicator your not even worth a second look to an agency that is predominantly subscriptions based.
+1
-
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?
if u have to use a filter, its a pretty good indicator your not even worth a second look to an agency that is predominantly subscriptions based.
+1
Then they have to say so in their TOS. Your argument is missing logic. Beyond that, do you wanna delete everyones Portfolio who "has to use a filter". I am under the impression that your argument is rather based on emotions than logic.
-
Soooo......status quo:
- Shutterstock states in this Terms that it is OK to use Filters etc as long as you have the right to.
- The filter producer says it is ok to sell the result as stock.
Surely it may be moraly wrong, but from a legal point of view Shutterstock did wrong.
As many here I LOVE shutterstock BUT, by accepting such behaviour of any agency we weaken our own rights.
Or is it just because the OP has a bad english and gets easily emotional?
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?
The question was: (vague and unclear, but...)
how shutterstock works?
I answered yes, because i interpreted it to be, [Is this] how shutterstock works?
The answer is yes, that's how they work? ???
I have no clue how this has anything to do with filters, which wasn't the question, or friends and relatives, which wasn't the question, and the story keeps coming out in dribbles, which makes it difficult to understand what the real issue was in the first place. ;D
Others had the first answer and the right one. Phone SS and talk to them. The forums have no power and SS doesn't read here.
-
Soooo......status quo:
- Shutterstock states in this Terms that it is OK to use Filters etc as long as you have the right to.
- The filter producer says it is ok to sell the result as stock.
Surely it may be moraly wrong, but from a legal point of view Shutterstock did wrong.
As many here I LOVE shutterstock BUT, by accepting such behaviour of any agency we weaken our own rights.
Or is it just because the OP has a bad english and gets easily emotional?
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?
The question was: (vague and unclear, but...)
how shutterstock works?
I answered yes, because i interpreted it to be, [Is this] how shutterstock works?
The answer is yes, that's how they work? ???
I have no clue how this has anything to do with filters, which wasn't the question, or friends and relatives, which wasn't the question, and the story keeps coming out in dribbles, which makes it difficult to understand what the real issue was in the first place. ;D
Others had the first answer and the right one. Phone SS and talk to them. The forums have no power and SS doesn't read here.
Wow. You just vote for shutterstock undermining contributor rights and haven`t even read what all this was about?
Not a surprise that Agencies do with us what they want...
-
Just figure I didn't understand the question.
As for rights, we have rights with the agencies? When? I figure they just make up the rules as they go along. Change commissions, add or remove images. (this isn't just SS, they are actually one of the best and open about their policies) Change canisters or jewels or whatever stupid carrot they put out for the donkey's and then take away when someone reaches it. So what rights do we have actually, that's an interesting question. They own the agency and can do whatever they want, I wonder if we have any legal rights past ownership of our images?
Is that what you were asking?
Soooo......status quo:
- Shutterstock states in this Terms that it is OK to use Filters etc as long as you have the right to.
- The filter producer says it is ok to sell the result as stock.
Surely it may be moraly wrong, but from a legal point of view Shutterstock did wrong.
As many here I LOVE shutterstock BUT, by accepting such behaviour of any agency we weaken our own rights.
Or is it just because the OP has a bad english and gets easily emotional?
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?
The question was: (vague and unclear, but...)
how shutterstock works?
I answered yes, because i interpreted it to be, [Is this] how shutterstock works?
The answer is yes, that's how they work? ???
I have no clue how this has anything to do with filters, which wasn't the question, or friends and relatives, which wasn't the question, and the story keeps coming out in dribbles, which makes it difficult to understand what the real issue was in the first place. ;D
Others had the first answer and the right one. Phone SS and talk to them. The forums have no power and SS doesn't read here.
Wow. You just vote for shutterstock undermining contributor rights and haven`t even read what all this was about?
Not a surprise that Agencies do with us what they want...
-
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?
if u have to use a filter, its a pretty good indicator your not even worth a second look to an agency that is predominantly subscriptions based.
+1
Then they have to say so in their TOS. Your argument is missing logic. Beyond that, do you wanna delete everyones Portfolio who "has to use a filter". I am under the impression that your argument is rather based on emotions than logic.
I think you have it backwards my friend. your argument is based on ideology and mine is based on reality. im being LOGICAL and seeing it from the agencies point of view. SS currently has more than enough contributors. Enough talent is already in SS. They will not waste time and resources on certain types of contributors (low performing).
What are they going to re-write on their TOS? "We used to beg for images and accepted almost anybody before, but due to our success and the amount of quality images in our library, if your portfolio falls below a certain standard we see fit for our library, we will find faults in ur images and reject your photos and delete your account if there is any slight breach of contract."
The only people that HAS to use a filter are the types that really cant create it on their own. Or their lazy, and it doesn't pay to be lazy in micro.
-
I think you have it backwards my friend. your argument is based on ideology and mine is based on reality.
No. Read the Shutterstock FAQ and Agreement. They state that the use of Software and filters is allowed as the OP did. This is quoted in this thread a couple of times.
You cannot say to your Contributors/Customers that you want to have it this way and then throw them out and punish them for doing so....lol....Please think and read before you type.
Maybe it would satisfy all the "Yes" voters if qwe agree that any Agency can do whatever they want with Contributors?
God I don`t understand this Forum....
-
this is a really hot topic!
I was thinking about submitting to Shutterstock first... anyway after reading all the pages of this thread - someone mentioned about the blog this guy had and I think this all really weird: shutterstockisbad.blogspot.com/
there's gotta be another side to this... ??? ???
Do accounts get closed often at Shutterstock??
-
There is no problem with scratches, problem is both of them use same fake film strip which looks like film strip only if you are to young or naive. Both of them deserves to be hung by the balls on they village square at least.
Next case please...
-
On this board alone we know at least about two cases. This one and another one with a member called FD-Regular. He too assured us he didn`t do any violation at all and had a very good standing with the forum.
So, both cases in which the affected contributors posted their cases in public here had been somehow questionable. We don`t know how many Contributors in total are affected, but it may be a larger number ...
-
At the risk of appearing a half wit - what are "Filters"
-
At the risk of appearing a half wit - what are "Filters"
Plugins that apply an effect to an image. Blur, sharpen, various enhancement effects; these are all filters. In Photoshop they appear on the Filters menu.
As best we can tell (the story is somewhat muddled), the individual in question used a filter to create his images. He started with a blank canvas or a stock image and applied multiple effects from the same filter application. That he provided no content of his own in the process may have led to his termination. But we can't be sure, since his English isn't the greatest and we have only his own explanation for what happened.
-
Ah I see :)
-
yeah and so this guy is saying he can use the filmstrip filter -http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html
but was his whole gallery different renditions of the filmstrip? there seems to be a lot of other filters that make pictures on filterforge?
-
yeah and so this guy is saying he can use the filmstrip filter -http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html
but was his whole gallery different renditions of the filmstrip? there seems to be a lot of other filters that make pictures on filterforge?
huhu? velossaraptor? I guess I got a Fanboy here :o
-
yeah and so this guy is saying he can use the filmstrip filter -http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html
but was his whole gallery different renditions of the filmstrip? there seems to be a lot of other filters that make pictures on filterforge?
huhu? velossaraptor? I guess I got a Fanboy here :o
if only there were real dinosaurs to photograph, my friend...sigh 8)
-
yeah and so this guy is saying he can use the filmstrip filter -http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html
but was his whole gallery different renditions of the filmstrip? there seems to be a lot of other filters that make pictures on filterforge?
huhu? velossaraptor? I guess I got a Fanboy here :o
if only there were real dinosaurs to photograph, my friend...sigh 8)
Haha, this would be definitly a real new niche in stock photography.....time for Jurassic park!
-
On this board alone we know at least about two cases. This one and another one with a member called FD-Regular. He too assured us he didn`t do any violation at all and had a very good standing with the forum.
So, both cases in which the affected contributors posted their cases in public here had been somehow questionable. We don`t know how many Contributors in total are affected, but it may be a larger number ...
Whatever happened with FD-Regular. I read that thread with interest and have not seen or heard about it, or from him, in a long while.
Anyone know anything?
-
I'm confused - did you get your account terminated even though you didn't break the Terms of Service?
So, everyone who uses a legal font should go, so should anyone using the high pass filter in PS, people who add motion blur, in fact anyone who uses software at all instead of digging their picture out of sand with a stick.
So is it true that our accounts can get terminated for arbitrary reasons, without a robust appeals process?
-
On this board alone we know at least about two cases. This one and another one with a member called FD-Regular. He too assured us he didn`t do any violation at all and had a very good standing with the forum.
So, both cases in which the affected contributors posted their cases in public here had been somehow questionable. We don`t know how many Contributors in total are affected, but it may be a larger number ...
Whatever happened with FD-Regular. I read that thread with interest and have not seen or heard about it, or from him, in a long while.
Anyone know anything?
I don't know for a fact that he was suspended for using filters, maybe someone else has more information. All I know is he was suspended and decided to ignore SS. I don't even know if he appealed or just said, screw it, I'm going independent. :D
I can't see any great offense in using a film rebate filter, especially since the people who sell it, approve and obviously SS has been accepting these for some time.
I'm suspicious that there's more to this and we aren't getting the whole story. Otherwise as the OP has pointed out, about 100 more people should be suspended.
As for rights, someone show me the photographers bill of rights, where it says we have some. I don't like it, but that's the way it seems to work. They (the agencies) hold all the cards, change the rules on a whim, and can do whatever they want.