Author Topic: Adobe Stock another contributor who sells wikipedia files (Read 6507 times)

Neapolis4ever · « **on:** June 10, 2022, 03:26 »

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]

Neapolis4ever · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2022, 12:45 »

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]

Noedelhap · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2022, 17:19 »

How does this stuff even get accepted?

Neapolis4ever · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2022, 00:44 »

Another Mariie image newly approved

, Mat can you report to Adobe Stock? I do not know how to do

Noedelhap · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2022, 04:36 »

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?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2022, 05:45 »

They probably wont do anything unless Disney or whoever get in touch. AS is truly awful with this sort of thing.

Neapolis4ever · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2022, 08:32 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 12, 2022, 05:45

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]

Chillswell · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2022, 08:35 »

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.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #8 on:** June 13, 2022, 10:45 »

Quote from: Neapolis4ever on June 12, 2022, 08:32

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 12, 2022, 05:45
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 isn’t the unreleased property/ people or trademarks. The issue is that these contributors are just stealing and licensing other people’s 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.

Neapolis4ever · « **Reply #9 on:** June 13, 2022, 12:00 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 13, 2022, 10:45

Quote from: Neapolis4ever on June 12, 2022, 08:32
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 12, 2022, 05:45
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 isn’t the unreleased property/ people or trademarks. The issue is that these contributors are just stealing and licensing other people’s 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.