MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DepositPhotos and Shotshop- standard purchases gives only subscription amounts?  (Read 75143 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #575 on: April 23, 2014, 18:08 »
+1
.. you mean delete all images? i just started with them 3 months ago.
i dont know what to do. will they solve it or stay "illegal" ..?

One more time: it's impossible to delete the pictures. You can only disable the images. DP will keep the pics forever-for "statistical purposes". It is simply an impertinence! >:(
Is that legal? Can I, with a letter from a solicitor, demand they delete my images? It cant be they have control over my IP. Can it?

As we say in German - Where there is no plaintiff, there is no judge.
What does that mean? Honest question.

It means that it doesn't matter if it's legal or not, until someone sues them.
Or, bluntly speaking, if you want to know if it's legal, find a lawyer who takes them to court. The judge will tell you if it was legal.
i will stop uploading depo for sure. And start uploading german agencys. They cant do something like this. German law would kick them :)


« Reply #576 on: April 23, 2014, 23:28 »
0
@dirkr: Thank you :)

Gino

« Reply #577 on: April 25, 2014, 04:20 »
0
I found my images on Shotshop also. What is I just upload my work there also? In that case they should pay you from Shotshop directly  and you should get the normal commission? Has anyone tried that?

« Reply #578 on: April 25, 2014, 04:27 »
+1
I found my images on Shotshop also. What is I just upload my work there also? In that case they should pay you from Shotshop directly  and you should get the normal commission? Has anyone tried that?
The upload to Shotshop is painful and Shotshop is very restrektiv in accepting pictures, especially since the deal with Deposit. Anyway, still I have a small portfolio there but sales are rare.

« Reply #579 on: April 29, 2014, 15:40 »
0
Lets collect money for a lawyer

Robert Kneschke had an idea.
He said:
If we find 300 contributors and everyone spends 100$ he would put 1.000 on top.


I am in too.
If we find 300 contributors and everyone spends 100$ i put 2.000 on top.

That should be enough for a competent american lawyer.

is someone able to manage that in a way that everyone is safe to get his / her money back if it does not come to a suit?

regards axel

« Reply #580 on: April 29, 2014, 16:01 »
0
Lets collect money for a lawyer

Robert Kneschke had an idea.
He said:
If we find 300 contributors and everyone spends 100$ he would put 1.000 on top.


I am in too.
If we find 300 contributors and everyone spends 100$ i put 2.000 on top.

That should be enough for a competent american lawyer.

is someone able to manage that in a way that everyone is safe to get his / her money back if it does not come to a suit?

regards axel

I would give my 100 bucks, as I wrote already in the "stockfotografie-forum".

« Reply #581 on: April 29, 2014, 17:56 »
0
300 contributors isn't easy, would it be enough? I would contribute

BD

« Reply #582 on: April 29, 2014, 23:52 »
0
Are you all talking about a class action lawsuit? I am asking because I believe attorneys in class action suits are reimbursed only if they win or settle, and it comes out of that money as decided by the court.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 00:35 by BD »

« Reply #583 on: April 30, 2014, 00:51 »
0
I would be in for a 100$ too.  I think its a small cost for the unethical nature of this deal.

« Reply #584 on: April 30, 2014, 00:58 »
0
me too

« Reply #585 on: April 30, 2014, 02:46 »
+12
In two hours i have a phonecall with our lawyer who is a specialist in copyright-issues.
i know that the actual case is not about copyright-issue but i will ask him about the possible measurements.

I myself think about to start with a suit against shotshop at first and would really like to be a part of a suit against DP.
But to be honest - i am quite confident with german law but not with american.

In some hours i know more and let you know.

« Reply #586 on: April 30, 2014, 03:03 »
0
Great! I think it is a good idea to suit against ShotShop.com because they maybe sell our Images via DP without a licence.

I have rejected the reseller/api  program at DP.
And DP has confirmed that I do not participate on the reseller program.
So which license has ShotShop.com to sell the Images from DP of the rejectes reseller contributors?

100$ from me to.

« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 03:09 by R2D2 »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #587 on: May 01, 2014, 11:29 »
0
@ Axel Lauer:  Any news?

OT:
My images now seem to have been removed from all reseller sites, including the previews. I will check back regularly, but for now it seems okay.

« Reply #588 on: May 03, 2014, 16:44 »
+18
The news are:
1:There is no need for a class action lawsuit if its against DP. Its possible to sue multiple times - for every single photographer a separate case.
Our attorney is looking for a competent american lawyer (cause you better have a lawyer in the country the company you want to sue resides)
2: We took measurements against Shotshop - but since its a actual case i do not want to tell too much.
When the whole case is a bit more advanced we gonna tell you more

axel

« Reply #589 on: May 03, 2014, 17:24 »
+2
Interesting news, Axel. Please keep us up to date!

« Reply #590 on: May 03, 2014, 18:19 »
+1
The news are:
1:There is no need for a class action lawsuit if its against DP. Its possible to sue multiple times - for every single photographer a separate case.
Our attorney is looking for a competent american lawyer (cause you better have a lawyer in the country the company you want to sue resides)
2: We took measurements against Shotshop - but since its a actual case i do not want to tell too much.
When the whole case is a bit more advanced we gonna tell you more

axel

What is the basis for a lawsuit against ShotShop?

« Reply #591 on: May 04, 2014, 02:39 »
0
@roede-orm
da du ja Deutsch sprichst:
http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2014/02/17/weniger-als-1-fotografenhonorar-depositphotos-macht-es-moeglich/   (Kommentare)

@Mantis
Like said before...i cant tell more right now.
When some things got cleared i keep you informed.

« Reply #592 on: May 04, 2014, 05:03 »
+2
Alongwith the other issues is the question of Why DP holds on to full res copies of files that have been deactivated by contributors? This is a concern to me especially after the kind of behavior exposed with the Shotshop deal.  I've been wondering if they even have a right to do that

Logically speaking the content belongs to contributor /copyright holder.  At the time a contributor decides not to sell a file thru a particular agency and deletes/ deactivates it, the file should no longer be held by agency - not in a size and resolution that is useable anyway.  So I can't understand the reason behind this keeping in mind future security of contributor files.

Ron

« Reply #593 on: May 04, 2014, 05:13 »
0
Alongwith the other issues is the question of Why DP holds on to full res copies of files that have been deactivated by contributors? This is a concern to me especially after the kind of behavior exposed with the Shotshop deal.  I've been wondering if they even have a right to do that

Logically speaking the content belongs to contributor /copyright holder.  At the time a contributor decides not to sell a file thru a particular agency and deletes/ deactivates it, the file should no longer be held by agency - not in a size and resolution that is useable anyway.  So I can't understand the reason behind this keeping in mind future security of contributor files.
DT does that as well. When I asked them to reactivate my account, my earnings and full res files were still there, after 18 months. No agency needs full res files, they can do whatever admin they need to do, or any archive they need to keep, with thumbnails.

I am sure if this goes to a court, or lawyer, they will have to delete our files. Its our property, whatever right they think they have, they cant keep what is not theirs. I am hoping Axel gets a result. I dont have deep pockets, but if need be, I will talk to a solicitor to see if they think I have a case.

« Reply #594 on: May 04, 2014, 05:34 »
0
Alongwith the other issues is the question of Why DP holds on to full res copies of files that have been deactivated by contributors? This is a concern to me especially after the kind of behavior exposed with the Shotshop deal.  I've been wondering if they even have a right to do that

Logically speaking the content belongs to contributor /copyright holder.  At the time a contributor decides not to sell a file thru a particular agency and deletes/ deactivates it, the file should no longer be held by agency - not in a size and resolution that is useable anyway.  So I can't understand the reason behind this keeping in mind future security of contributor files.
DT does that as well. When I asked them to reactivate my account, my earnings and full res files were still there, after 18 months. No agency needs full res files, they can do whatever admin they need to do, or any archive they need to keep, with thumbnails.

I am sure if this goes to a court, or lawyer, they will have to delete our files. Its our property, whatever right they think they have, they cant keep what is not theirs. I am hoping Axel gets a result. I dont have deep pockets, but if need be, I will talk to a solicitor to see if they think I have a case.

Depositphotos, Istock do that too.

This store of disabled images is a very strange thing.
In my view according to the German law is also not allowed there must be a way to completely delete images from they servers.

« Reply #595 on: May 06, 2014, 04:46 »
0
Check Your files on Shotshop, API  and program sites, my photos are there again.
And, of course, no replies on three mails.

How is with complete portfolio deactivation?
I think, that this fraud agency will keep sell despite deleting files.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 04:48 by enstoker »

« Reply #596 on: May 06, 2014, 04:51 »
+1
Check Your files on Shotshop, API  and program sites, my photos are there again.
And, of course, no replies on three mails.

How is with complete portfolio deactivation?
I think, that this fraud agency will keep sell despite deleting files.

I checked in shotshop. The thumbnails of some of my images do appear. But when I click on them, the text "Image temporarily not available. Please try later" appears instead of the image in a new window.

« Reply #597 on: May 06, 2014, 05:58 »
0
This is something new on Shotshop.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 09:15 by enstoker »

« Reply #598 on: May 06, 2014, 06:42 »
+2
Check Your files on Shotshop, API  and program sites, my photos are there again.
And, of course, no replies on three mails.

How is with complete portfolio deactivation?
I think, that this fraud agency will keep sell despite deleting files.

I checked in shotshop. The thumbnails of some of my images do appear. But when I click on them, the text "Image temporarily not available. Please try later" appears instead of the image in a new window.

My thumbs are also showing up again.  I also got the "image temporarily not available message - try again later" message when opening the preview.  However I was able to put an image into the shopping cart....  My thumbs have also returned at ibudgetphoto and clashot.  Opting out should not be a game we have to play and replay. 

« Reply #599 on: May 06, 2014, 07:39 »
0
This is new on Shotshop.
Try this:  http://www.ibudgetphoto.com/index.php


Mine do show up on Ibudget and are from Dreamstime.  I wonder if they have the same sleazy deal going on? Ironically my thumbnails are back on Shitshop too. I'm keeping a close eye on this.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 07:43 by Mantis »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
2911 Views
Last post January 12, 2013, 16:06
by cardmaverick
0 Replies
1795 Views
Last post March 28, 2013, 13:35
by tomac
41 Replies
10279 Views
Last post April 08, 2015, 14:54
by Noedelhap
12 Replies
4695 Views
Last post March 17, 2016, 12:17
by Noedelhap
5 Replies
2780 Views
Last post January 30, 2016, 13:39
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results