Hey everybody,

I want to tell my short story about how DT has banned me. What happened seems not very fair to me, so i want to share it.

I was beginning selling vectors at stocks about year ago and uploading my first 100 images to DT, shutterstock and others. DT was selling rare, but selling some and i got about $70-80 by some time. But one day i have received an e-mail, saying that my account is banned permanently for copyright issue.

And DT showed me 2-3 of my images that i made using reference photos from internet. I admitted that it's true, though funny enough - one picture that they claimed to be original from shutterstock, in fact was same as mine - traced from photograph. Other two accusations were correct - those photos i used to trace my vectors. Well, one of them was simplified graphics and hardly resembled photo, the other one was just as photo, very detailed. This work took me several days to complete and i would call it rather my personal work based on image, than tracing. And those pictures are still selling elsewhere but DT and did not get any complains.

Anyway, let's agree that i used photos that i should not have used. My guilt, i admit it. But interesting thing is also how banning was performed - account blocked permanently and all money taken from me without any questions. Money that i got from selling not only those pictures, but all of my content.

And this looks quite like crookery to me, sorry to say that. Writing to DT official who has banned me returned silence.

That was my story, thanks for reading.

Nice to hear that your account is closed.
You sold pictures and didn't own the copyright.
Clear situation and clear statement and reaction from dreamstime.
I hope the other agencies will do the same!

I found too many of people like you, selling my pictures in many variations. 

A common thief trying to justify his/her work hoping to get sympathy from those here for what they have done! HA! >:(Pfftt~~~~~~~~~~~~

Get a life no one here is going to sympathize with you in any way and we should let other agencies know about you and what you doing and inform them of what you have done and tell them they need to take down your port and ban you as DT did.

  Mistakes  do  happen.  But  3  showed  you'd  din't  care.  Agree  100  percent  with  the  rest

>>>>>> This work took me several days to complete and i would call it rather my personal work based on image, than tracing. And those pictures are still selling elsewhere but DT and did not get any complains.

   most people wouldnt know it was a copyright violation, so why would u expect complaints?  it's still wrong.

call it whatever you like, but theft is theft

Anyway, let's agree that i used photos that i should not have used. My guilt, i admit it. But interesting thing is also how banning was performed - account blocked permanently and all money taken from me without any questions. Money that i got from selling not only those pictures, but all of my content.

Yes, under the described circumstances, any account will be terminated and all earnings forfeited.
And I guess this applies the same way at any agency.

edited: wrong quote.

I suspect the OP is trying to stir things up to get a reaction from us. (horrorshow?) The story doesn't pass the smell test.

Quote from: rimglow on July 28, 2012, 13:16

I suspect the OP is trying to stir things up to get a reaction from us. (horrorshow?) The story doesn't pass the smell test.

The response from Rolmat (DT admin) seems to verify the OP claim.  It is, however, hard to believe that anyone would be so bold as to rat themselves out as being a real sleaze ball.

My post was just intended to confirm that under such circumstances an account may be terminated and all earnings forfeited.
Just a general information, if that's ok with you.And Warren, I don't have a clue about who the OP is. 

Doubt you'll get much sympathy here.  Why haven't you taken down those images from other sites?  And what are you uploading to DT now?  http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/dt-down-16475/msg0/?topicseen#new

how are you showing remorse if you've made a new ID and started uploading again?

Looking for support at MSG with this story sounds to me like coming to police station saying: "I raped my neighbour's wife a few times and - believe it or not - my neighbour slapped my face and he doesn't want to give me my lawn mower back."

Thank you, that's what i was talking about. The fact that neighbour's wife was raped doesn't mean that neighbour becomes the owner of rapist's lawn mower.

Quote from: jm on July 29, 2012, 02:35

Looking for support at MSG with this story sounds to me like coming to police station saying: "I raped my neighbour's wife a few times and - believe it or not - my neighbour slapped my face and he doesn't want to give me my lawn mower back."

Thank you, that's what i was talking about. The fact that neighbour's wife was raped doesn't mean that neighbour becomes the owner of rapist's lawn mower.

I wouldn't push this analogy, if I were you. Rape incurs a far higher penalty than holding on to a lawn mower, which would be considered pretty mild in the 'crime passionel' scale.

Similarly, you might feel you've got off lightly if you don't get sued in your circumstance.

Added: I hope DT forwarded the forfeited fees to the infringed party and didn't just keep it for themselves.

Took a while, but I think I got the grit of it now:

NEVER BORROW HORRORSHOW'S LAWN MOWER!

The time will come when violators won't get away anymore with just their accounts being closed.

I can see that violators who happen to live in the same country as the agency's HQ will receive a letter from their lawyer as well.

Don't even try taking my lawnmower he-he-he.. 

Thanks for advice, i have deleted those files from other stocks and certainly agree that other people's work should not be copied, but better used as reference and inspiration. Copying is boring and creating new is cool. Wish good sales to everyone!

Quote from: horrorshow on July 31, 2012, 17:53

... and certainly agree that other people's work should not be copied, but better used as reference and inspiration. Copying is boring and creating new is cool...

Actually, you shouldn't use other people's work as reference material. If you're creating something for stock that is based on another work, such as a reference photo, illustration, or any other visual reference, that reference material must be your own creation as well. In fact, some companies like istock require you to show your reference material when uploading an image that appears to have been derived from another image.

Copying isn't just boring. It's illegal. And in this business, it will get you shut down quickly.

EmberMike, whether you meant to or not, you've got me thinking. I'm sure this has been debated and argued before courts many times, but how much referencing is too much?  I think most photographers look at the works of others and glean ideas and inspiration from them.  When does it become copying?  In the realm of stock, is there a difference when the subject is a simple object (eg., the infamous isolated tomato) and when the subject portrays a concept in a particular way (an isolated apple wrapped with measuring tape to illustrate the idea of dieting)?

These questions are currently bothering me quite a bit as I find myself in that exact situation. Awhile back, I saw a photo in a magazine which illustrated a concept in a way that I really liked (for discussion sake, let's pretend it was the apple wrapped in measuring tape -- the actual concept is roughly that simple).  At that point, I marked that as an idea I would to try.  Several months have passed, and just this week I got around to shooting the image.  I've mostly completed the editing, and I've taken a quick look to see how saturated the market is with similar images.  There are not a whole lot, but there are definitely a handful of other photographers who have also implemented the concept in the same or very similar way (okay, the apple concept has many more occurrences than the image I have taken).  Now, I read your comment, and I pause.  I hadn't considered uploading this image to be a violation of anyone else's work, but I am no longer entirely sure.  The idea definitely came from the work of someone else. In that since it is copying.  However, it most definitely is not unique.  I could have come up with the idea on my own, and it would have been fine then.  But, I didn't.

Anyway, I am not trying to detract from the OP's topic, but your comment has me thinking.  I certainly do not want to be stealing anyone else's creative work, and I definitely want my work to be ethically created.  I may hold off on uploading this image until I have thought through where the boundaries are a bit more.

EmberMike, whether you meant to or not, you've got me thinking...

...I am not trying to detract from the OP's topic, but your comment has me thinking.  I certainly do not want to be stealing anyone else's creative work, and I definitely want my work to be ethically created...

My comment was actually more about vector images, since that is the type of work the OP was doing. When I think of "reference material" as it relates to vector images and illustration, it's more to do with using an existing image as the basis for a new image. Creating an illustration from a photo, for example. In that regard, it is 100% not allowed in stock. Even if the resulting image is significantly different, we are not supposed to use any reference material in any way that isn't our own.

As it relates to photography, it seems like more of a gray area. A "reference" in illustration could be something that you literally trace over. Obviously that's a copy. A "reference" in photography can't be traced per se, but it can be the basis for a new photo, setting up a shot similarly, using similar props, models, etc. In a sense, it's a tracing as well. But it's harder to define and harder to identify than a straight tracing.