pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

how shutterstock works?

right
36 (52.2%)
wrong
33 (47.8%)

Total Members Voted: 60

Author Topic: shutterstock account terminated  (Read 29247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: May 19, 2011, 03:36 »
0
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 Grne Punkt" ? Many people don't realize it's a trademark protected logo


« Reply #126 on: May 19, 2011, 04:19 »
0
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.

eggshell

« Reply #127 on: May 19, 2011, 04:45 »
0
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 .

Microbius

« Reply #128 on: May 19, 2011, 05:28 »
0
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.

« Reply #129 on: May 19, 2011, 05:52 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 05:56 by Perry »

Microbius

« Reply #130 on: May 19, 2011, 05:53 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 06:05 by Microbius »

« Reply #131 on: May 19, 2011, 06:16 »
0
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.

« Reply #132 on: May 19, 2011, 07:24 »
0
So it looks like the OP was "inspired" by this one? http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html

If that's true, I'm with SS on this one.

« Reply #133 on: May 19, 2011, 07:31 »
0
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.

« Reply #134 on: May 19, 2011, 07:34 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 07:40 by sharpshot »

« Reply #135 on: May 19, 2011, 07:45 »
0
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.

« Reply #136 on: May 19, 2011, 07:52 »
0
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:

Quote
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.

« Reply #137 on: May 19, 2011, 07:59 »
0
yes the image is mathematically generated 100% from scratch by the filter (much like fractals start from nothing)

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #138 on: May 19, 2011, 08:33 »
0
This one is tricky and assuming the OPs story is true and nothing has been left out, I do feel for him.  He, wasnt 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 theres the moral issue of whether its right to claim any copyright over the image and sell it... its definitely a grey area.

Then theres 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 doesnt 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 its 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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 09:18 by pseudonymous »

« Reply #139 on: May 19, 2011, 08:37 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 08:39 by sharpshot »

« Reply #140 on: May 19, 2011, 09:03 »
0
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

« Reply #141 on: May 19, 2011, 09:26 »
0
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.


Microbius

« Reply #142 on: May 19, 2011, 10:03 »
0
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.

« Reply #143 on: May 19, 2011, 10:42 »
0
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?


Yes this is 100% true, you just need to read carefully, i used filter forge to create my photo, http://www.filterforge.com/, this is original filter created by ZEPHOS 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/

just need to read carefully and few times to be sure that is all correct

« Reply #144 on: May 19, 2011, 10:47 »
0
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

« Reply #145 on: May 19, 2011, 10:52 »
0
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.

velocicarpo

« Reply #146 on: May 19, 2011, 10:57 »
0
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.

helix7

« Reply #147 on: May 19, 2011, 11:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #148 on: May 19, 2011, 11:07 »
0
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
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 16:10 by copyrightdesign »

« Reply #149 on: May 19, 2011, 11:10 »
0
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...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
59 Replies
10930 Views
Last post August 15, 2008, 09:55
by leaf
4 Replies
1448 Views
Last post August 20, 2009, 09:11
by bittersweet
30 Replies
5334 Views
Last post October 02, 2011, 07:03
by leaf
38 Replies
6206 Views
Last post December 09, 2011, 12:07
by cthoman
48 Replies
5161 Views
Last post January 11, 2013, 20:52
by EmberMike

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors