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.

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

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....

Perhaps there is a significant translation problem here. Seems impossible to have a conversation with each other.

Quote from: copyrightdesign on May 18, 2011, 16:10

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. 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/

See the email quote.

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...

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.

some other images using same filter including some but not all?? of the images linked in OP have been deleted by SS.

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

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

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 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.

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.