MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock suspicious accounts "wackamoles" update  (Read 4008 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2019, 09:52 »
+2
Small update:
-----

All-time summary:

Total moles identified to date: 468

Total moles wacked: 236

Summary for week ending Feb 3:

Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 27 - Feb 2: 116

Moles pending: 105

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96349-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-3-468-so-far-flagged/

Highest praise for you, and finally somehow getting their attention. I only got two shut down last year on my own, you've done an outstanding job. And I realize that some people on the SS forum have been contributing to your collection as well.

If the crooks found that they can't profit, hopefully the word will get out and they will do this less. If the claim of locations are true, those people are probably using fake IDs or borrowed IDs and could be the same group behind it. I mean, once they can't profit, we could get rid of a repeating person or orginization and get the profits to the correct artists.
 


Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2019, 10:08 »
+1
Small update:
-----

All-time summary:

Total moles identified to date: 468

Total moles wacked: 236

Summary for week ending Feb 3:

Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 27 - Feb 2: 116

Moles pending: 105

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96349-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-3-468-so-far-flagged/

Highest praise for you, and finally somehow getting their attention. I only got two shut down last year on my own, you've done an outstanding job. And I realize that some people on the SS forum have been contributing to your collection as well.

If the crooks found that they can't profit, hopefully the word will get out and they will do this less. If the claim of locations are true, those people are probably using fake IDs or borrowed IDs and could be the same group behind it. I mean, once they can't profit, we could get rid of a repeating person or orginization and get the profits to the correct artists.

I think they'll just go to another agency. I haven't done any research at the likes of iStock or Adobe Stock but I'm sure they have their own issues with theft, however, they probably have better systems in place to flag similars, etc (I'm assuming).

Most of their keywords are so terrible that not sure they'll ever get sales. Then there's the 3-month payment probation. I can't see how doing this can ever be worthwhile and hope they start to realise that it's really fruitless. Some have decent Photoshop skills and should just focus on that instead of looking for shortcuts.

Even though I started the initiative, this is a team job and really appreciate those that are taking their time to find these moles. I need to stress that nobody, including myself, is getting paid a cent for this.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2019, 19:24 »
0
Can you change the name to "Wack-a-dolt"?  :)

Yes we assume, but it seems there's no member program working on other sites. Probably because SS is biggest, they attract the most of the easy money crooks. I have reported totally off photos on iStock, they are still there. I mean keywords that are irrelevant and none match the image at all, not nit picking.

Oh I almost forgot the entertaining part of this, the descriptions. That would make a good collection before they go away. I should have started last month before we lost a couple of the best and funniest.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2019, 17:10 »
+5
Update:

Total moles identified to date: 463

Total moles wacked: 235

Summary for week ending Feb 10:

Moles wacked (by SS) from Feb 3 - Feb 10: ZERO (0)

Moles pending: 101

Great work everybody, except SS!

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96415-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-10-463-so-far-flagged/

« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2019, 17:30 »
0
Summary of last week (week ending Jan 27):

Total moles identified: 250

Moles wacked (by SS) from Jan 20 - 26: 120

Moles pending: 130+ (new accounts identified today)

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/01/27/update-why-shutterstocks-copyright-infringement-problems-should-concern-you/

Complete list:

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96297-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-jan-27-251-so-far-flagged/

Small victory but huge huge challenges ahead...

Thanks

« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2019, 17:31 »
+1
Typical of SS I could have predicted they'd get bored of actually doing any real work on this.

I'll make a tongue in cheek prediction ~ you've seen the last of SS deleting thieves accounts.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2019, 17:34 »
+4
Typical of SS I could have predicted they'd get bored of actually doing any real work on this.

I'll make a tongue in cheek prediction ~ you've seen the last of SS deleting thieves accounts.

Yeah, I'm kinda bored too...

« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2019, 17:41 »
+4
Typical of SS I could have predicted they'd get bored of actually doing any real work on this.

I'll make a tongue in cheek prediction ~ you've seen the last of SS deleting thieves accounts.

Yeah, I'm kinda bored too...

I can imagine you would be because you are not being paid to do this and its obviously something those people in the Empire State should have been doing in the  first place!

If I were you I'd send Jon Oringer a PM on his FB account! Pointing out they are aiding copyright thieves and leaving themselves open to legal action .

See if the guy can put down his guitar long enough to actually see what his minions are allowing to happen.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 02:59 by Sammy the Cat »



« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2019, 17:37 »
0
what?

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2019, 11:53 »
+2
what?

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?

Is that the same one who drove through the city with a GoPro set to 1 frame per second and uploaded all of them?

I still want to know how or why SS ever accepts those. And if it's someone different why they accept the 19,000 blurred backgrounds?

« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2019, 12:47 »
+3
what?

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?

Is that the same one who drove through the city with a GoPro set to 1 frame per second and uploaded all of them?

I still want to know how or why SS ever accepts those. And if it's someone different why they accept the 19,000 blurred backgrounds?
The only thing I can  think is money laundering ie using an account to transfer dodgy funds cross border?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2019, 10:29 »
0
what?

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?

Is that the same one who drove through the city with a GoPro set to 1 frame per second and uploaded all of them?

I still want to know how or why SS ever accepts those. And if it's someone different why they accept the 19,000 blurred backgrounds?
The only thing I can  think is money laundering ie using an account to transfer dodgy funds cross border?

Interesting angle. Someone buys a subscription then only downloads from people with these trash collections. Wouldn't that kind of throw up a flag for SS? I mean say I have someone in another part of the world, buy a subscription and download the limit from mine, for a profit. Or as your idea money laundering, break even, gets the money back somewhere else. But then there are records of the transactions, as expenses on one end or earnings on the other.

Still I wouldn't discount something else going on, beyond stupid uploads of useless files that will never sell, or absurd reviews that miss thousands of blurred backgrounds created by a PS action. How does that guy with the driving through the city get all that passed?

Or did you have some other way that these accounts are somehow tied to money laundering? I don't see it.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2019, 13:17 »
+5
All-time summary:

Total moles identified to date: 448

Total moles wacked: 337

Summary for week ending Feb 17:

Moles wacked (by SS) from Feb 3 - Feb 17: TWO (2)

Moles pending: 111

This is my last week doing this as it's apparent that SS don't give a fk about this project with only two wacked moles after 2 weeks. I and others helping out obviously have way more important things to do with our time. If anybody else wants to pursue this apparently fruitless task further, please be my guest.

Perhaps I'll re-continue if I see SS pull their weight. Meanwhile the number of thieves keeps growing...

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96484-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-17-448-so-far-flagged/

« Reply #41 on: February 17, 2019, 15:29 »
+4
All-time summary:

Total moles identified to date: 448

Total moles wacked: 337

Summary for week ending Feb 17:

Moles wacked (by SS) from Feb 3 - Feb 17: TWO (2)

Moles pending: 111

This is my last week doing this as it's apparent that SS don't give a fk about this project with only two wacked moles after 2 weeks. I and others helping out obviously have way more important things to do with our time. If anybody else wants to pursue this apparently fruitless task further, please be my guest.

Perhaps I'll re-continue if I see SS pull their weight. Meanwhile the number of thieves keeps growing...

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96484-thieves-thread-update-week-ending-feb-17-448-so-far-flagged/

Its the culture in these organisations ~ a manager comes round says "we have a problem" they work furiously on it for a week or two then the manager stops checking and they go back to their laissez faire attitude.

You are right they don't give a f.u.c.k and the only thing that would make them give one is for a major law suit or government legislation


« Reply #42 on: February 17, 2019, 18:22 »
+5
I think informing the buyers may be more productive or the press and the shareholders.  If the 111 pending moles stole 10 images each and the images were sold 5 times each (legit and stolen), that's 5550 buyers who don't know if their images are infringing the legitimate copy holders rights or not.  Tracing 1% of the buyers and informing them of their dilemma would have 55 irate people knocking on Shutterstocks door.
 If my estimates are a little conservative and the thieves stole substantially more and they were all good selling images (who would steal a duff one?) then the numbers grow exponentially, 500 thieves, with 100 images, selling 50 images each. That's 250,000 buyers not knowing if they bought from the copyright holder or not, and a potential indemnity bill of $10,000 per image = $2,500,000,000. 
Now even those numbers might be a little on the low side given that 448 moles were found in a month without the tools that Shutterstock has at their disposal.  I think that if you can find reasonable estimates, not my guesstimates, the press and shareholders would have a field day with such numbers and wonder why Shutterstock choose to ignore the issue, not good for our sales short term, but would put the market on a proper footing.

« Reply #43 on: February 17, 2019, 20:38 »
+2
@obj owl -- I think you are being naive to think more than a small handful of the buyers would even care.  From their point of view, they are protected by purchasing from SS.  They don't really care beyond that, and are not likely to go very far out of their way to raise a fuss.  At most, you might get a few of them to sign a chain letter complaining.  That letter better not take more than 30 seconds to handle though, or you have lost them.

Same with SS stockholders.  If you cannot show that SS has a large legal risk with a potentially expensive lawsuit, then it is not likely you will get any traction there.  Those people want SS to be profitable, and if they can double-sell the same item with no additional cost, well, that is a win in their books.

Though I wish Brasilnut would continue jousting with windmills (every thief removed brings the chance of my making another sale a little higher), but I can certainly understand why s/he is giving up.  The windmills keep spinning, and not paying very much attention to the knight with the lance...
« Last Edit: February 17, 2019, 20:41 by mindstorm »

« Reply #44 on: Yesterday at 03:03 »
0
what?

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?page=17&section=1&sort=popular&search_source=base_gallery&language=en
I can't begin to understand why anyone would create this and how they could ever be accepted. Totally bizarre. Is there any possible explanation?

Is that the same one who drove through the city with a GoPro set to 1 frame per second and uploaded all of them?

I still want to know how or why SS ever accepts those. And if it's someone different why they accept the 19,000 blurred backgrounds?
The only thing I can  think is money laundering ie using an account to transfer dodgy funds cross border?

Interesting angle. Someone buys a subscription then only downloads from people with these trash collections. Wouldn't that kind of throw up a flag for SS? I mean say I have someone in another part of the world, buy a subscription and download the limit from mine, for a profit. Or as your idea money laundering, break even, gets the money back somewhere else. But then there are records of the transactions, as expenses on one end or earnings on the other.

Still I wouldn't discount something else going on, beyond stupid uploads of useless files that will never sell, or absurd reviews that miss thousands of blurred backgrounds created by a PS action. How does that guy with the driving through the city get all that passed?

Or did you have some other way that these accounts are somehow tied to money laundering? I don't see it.
Yes I was thinking along the lines you said. I  think its unlikely but not completely implausible by making the collections so huge it might make the activity less visible plus if you are not looking for something you won't find it. SS seem to have a habit of not looking for things or some of these collections or those of image thieves wouldn't exist.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #45 on: Yesterday at 06:19 »
+4
Quote
Though I wish Brasilnut would continue jousting with windmills (every thief removed brings the chance of my making another sale a little higher), but I can certainly understand why s/he is giving up

I'm not quitting.

I'm pessimistically waiting for SS to start pulling their own weight. They did OK in the first weeks but have recently completely stopped taking this seriously...and so have I. But I would encourage others to keep going in my absence, it's not rocket science as one thief usually leads to another in the "similars" results.

Let's see how this pans out.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #46 on: Yesterday at 20:31 »
+1
Quote
Though I wish Brasilnut would continue jousting with windmills (every thief removed brings the chance of my making another sale a little higher), but I can certainly understand why s/he is giving up

I'm not quitting.

I'm pessimistically waiting for SS to start pulling their own weight. They did OK in the first weeks but have recently completely stopped taking this seriously...and so have I. But I would encourage others to keep going in my absence, it's not rocket science as one thief usually leads to another in the "similars" results.

Let's see how this pans out.

Maybe hard work, but you are the first one to get action instead of lip service. I think you have the gratitude of many of us. No you don't get paid for the hard work, but I personally thank you.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
10048 Views
Last post August 19, 2009, 15:03
by RacePhoto
1 Replies
3583 Views
Last post September 10, 2010, 22:47
by bobbigmac
25 Replies
11848 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
12 Replies
2520 Views
Last post March 16, 2014, 09:38
by StockPhotosArt.com
6 Replies
1715 Views
Last post June 14, 2015, 10:28
by WeatherENG

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results