pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Adobe Stock another contributor who sells wikipedia files  (Read 1238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 10, 2022, 03:26 »
+4
We hope they close the profile, as happened at Monster design

https://stock.adobe.com/it/contributor/209611844/mariia?load_type=author&prev_url=detail [nofollow]



« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2022, 12:45 »
+1
Found another colleague of Mariia - We hope Adobe will take action

https://stock.adobe.com/it/contributor/209480610/macrobyte?load_type=author&prev_url=detail [nofollow]

« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2022, 17:19 »
+1
How does this stuff even get accepted?

« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2022, 00:44 »
0
Another Mariie image newly approved  >:(, Mat can you report to Adobe Stock? I do not know how to do

« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2022, 04:36 »
0
Strange how they group a few totally unrelated logo's in one bundle: imagine you want to buy Felix the Cat, you also get Star Wars, Hello Kitty, Superman and Studio Ghibli logos. What's the point?

« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2022, 05:45 »
0
They probably wont do anything unless Disney or whoever get in touch. AS is truly awful with this sort of thing.

« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2022, 08:32 »
0
They probably wont do anything unless Disney or whoever get in touch. AS is truly awful with this sort of thing.

Adobe accepts illustrative editorial, The problem is that they sell vectors not made by them but taken from other sites

example:
https://stock.adobe.com/it/images/vinnytsia-ukraine-june-10-2022-donald-duck-character-vector-illustration-isolated-on-white-background/510064472?prev_url=detail [nofollow]
https://it.vectorhq.com/vector/donald-duck-vector-121355 [nofollow]
« Last Edit: June 12, 2022, 08:36 by Neapolis4ever »

Chillswell

« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2022, 08:35 »
0
when the same things happen in Fiver and Etsy ,
it kinda makes you wonder maybe they're in on it themselves?
It's a quick money grab, the copyright owners have no idea where and who the user really is.
Especially considering Adobe's current "subscription" plans where
you can clearly see the reviews on Trustpilot calling Adobe Stock a Scam.

Never in the history of Adobe Stock did they have these reviews,
You can use webarchive.org to see, its since they started this subscription plan,
which does shady practices, promising a "free trial" but fines people for leaving,
recurrent charges on credit cards without permission.
How did that company lose their backbone and dignity is beyond me.

« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2022, 10:45 »
0
They probably wont do anything unless Disney or whoever get in touch. AS is truly awful with this sort of thing.

Adobe accepts illustrative editorial, The problem is that they sell vectors not made by them but taken from other sites

example:
https://stock.adobe.com/it/images/vinnytsia-ukraine-june-10-2022-donald-duck-character-vector-illustration-isolated-on-white-background/510064472?prev_url=detail
https://it.vectorhq.com/vector/donald-duck-vector-121355

Yes I know, the issue isnt the unreleased property/ people or trademarks. The issue is that these contributors are just stealing and licensing other peoples copyright work. For example a photo taken by me with unreleased logos and people is fine as editorial. Me downloading the photos from the Times news website front page and licensing them as editorial as if I own the copyright is not. That is what these people are doing.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2022, 11:29 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2022, 12:00 »
+1
They probably wont do anything unless Disney or whoever get in touch. AS is truly awful with this sort of thing.

Adobe accepts illustrative editorial, The problem is that they sell vectors not made by them but taken from other sites

example:
https://stock.adobe.com/it/images/vinnytsia-ukraine-june-10-2022-donald-duck-character-vector-illustration-isolated-on-white-background/510064472?prev_url=detail [nofollow]
https://it.vectorhq.com/vector/donald-duck-vector-121355 [nofollow]

Yes I know, the issue isnt the unreleased property/ people or trademarks. The issue is that these contributors are just stealing and licensing other peoples copyright work. For example a photo taken by me with unreleased logos and people is fine as editorial. Me downloading the photos from the Times news website front page and licensing them as editorial as if I own the copyright is not. That is what these people are doing.


I fully understand your reasoning, and I agree with it, But there are also illustrative editorial that follow the rules, (to recreate this mockup there is a lot of work behind it) example:

https://stock.adobe.com/it/images/instagram-template-app-screens-on-apple-iphone-vector-set-realistic-instagram-interface-on-smartphone-profile-photo-message-storie-editable-text-and-blank-frames-editorial-vector-illustration/442775829 [nofollow]

But Mariie was still approved this file today:

https://stock.adobe.com/it/images/minnie-mouse-disney-logo-cartoon-character-isolated-on-white-background/510064808?prev_url=detail [nofollow]

https://seeklogo.com/vector-logo/379444/minnie-mouse [nofollow]

I don't understand why Adobe accepts this


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
5261 Views
Last post January 07, 2017, 06:14
by Pauws99
11 Replies
8341 Views
Last post July 30, 2017, 22:22
by YadaYadaYada
19 Replies
7369 Views
Last post January 07, 2018, 21:32
by dragonblade
9 Replies
7290 Views
Last post September 24, 2018, 13:14
by fotorob
52 Replies
15063 Views
Last post September 21, 2020, 15:31
by MatHayward

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle