MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Vitamine on December 26, 2012, 23:59
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/122375398/stock-photo-blueberries-122375398.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/180544/180544,1308607091,2/stock-photo-tea-plantation-cameron-highlands-malaysia-79605559.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/119682997/stock-photo-bread-119682997.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/312586/109266878/stock-photo-windmills-in-consuegra-spain-109266878.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/118776769/stock-photo-cup-of-coffee-118776769.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/685879/115700533/stock-photo-magic-christmas-115700533.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/110688218/stock-photo-coconuts-on-table-110688218.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/913918/97837076/stock-photo-tropical-coast-beach-with-hang-palm-trees-view-of-the-sea-the-island-green-and-the-sky-with-97837076.jpg)
And many more.
admin edit: changed the thread title to be a little more explanatory
-
Do you mean,
1) how is it possible that SS accepted them with so much out of focus, or
2) do you mean how did the photographer produce them?
-
Equus:
How shutterstock's inspector have approved pictures with elements of other author? Blurred backgrounds are stolen.
-
I believe they're asking about the use of other photographers' backgrounds in the table images.
In each of the examples posted, the background image (quite blurred) are used in the following table image. If you look up the table images, they're all created by one person but if you look up the background images, they're all created by different photographers (none of which are the same).
Seems sketchy to me. I'd imagine Shutterstock hasn't caught on yet but I do believe this isn't allowed.
-
I was joking, sorry it wasn't clear.
I would have expected them all (the composites) to be rejected for focus.
-
wow, it's terrible to see this kind of thing. You should report it to Shutterstock immediately with links to the relevant images, and see what they have to say.
-
Jeez, this guy has over 10,000 images and a lot like these ones posted where he has used a background which isn't his. I can see SS shutting him down for this, it has been done for a lot less than this before.
-
Jeez, this guy has over 10,000 images and a lot like these ones posted where he has used a background which isn't his. I can see SS shutting him down for this, it has been done for a lot less than this before.
I am sure they will ban him, they are already
-
I am sure they will ban him, they are already
They are already what? The offender's port is still live.
This guy must make a lot of money for SS. I wonder if they'll kick him out completely, or just the ones that infringe?
-
its not online, the first one is deleted so I guess all other
incredible how can pro guys do this stuff...
http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194)
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997)
http://www.123rf.com/photo_16573644_two-loaves-of-bread-on-rustic-table-with-wind-mill-background.html (http://www.123rf.com/photo_16573644_two-loaves-of-bread-on-rustic-table-with-wind-mill-background.html)
http://depositphotos.com/user-1489960/bigiii.html (http://depositphotos.com/user-1489960/bigiii.html)
-
its not online, the first one is deleted so I guess all other
incredible how can pro guys do this stuff...
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url])
Is anyone turning him in to the various agencies?
Wow, look at his stuff on Fotolia. It's all based on 3-credit pricing. He must sell a LOT there as well.
If he wasn't such a thief, I would actually feel sorry for this guy. He seems to have good skills, and he clearly makes a lot of money in microstock, and if justice is served, his whole world is about to come crashing down.
I wonder if he supports a family from this income. He's about to lose it all. Very sad. I'm very curious to see how this plays out.
-
its not online, the first one is deleted so I guess all other
incredible how can pro guys do this stuff...
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url])
Is anyone turning him in to the various agencies?
Wow, look at his stuff on Fotolia. It's all based on 3-credit pricing. He must sell a LOT there as well.
If he wasn't such a thief, I would actually feel sorry for this guy. He seems to have good skills, and he clearly makes a lot of money in microstock, and if justice is served, his whole world is about to come crashing down.
I wonder if he supports a family from this income. He's about to lose it all. Very sad. I'm very curious to see how this plays out.
yep messed up, he will go down, sadly but well deserved for such stupidity...
-
its not online, the first one is deleted so I guess all other
incredible how can pro guys do this stuff...
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url])
Is anyone turning him in to the various agencies?
Wow, look at his stuff on Fotolia. It's all based on 3-credit pricing. He must sell a LOT there as well.
If he wasn't such a thief, I would actually feel sorry for this guy. He seems to have good skills, and he clearly makes a lot of money in microstock, and if justice is served, his whole world is about to come crashing down.
I wonder if he supports a family from this income. He's about to lose it all. Very sad. I'm very curious to see how this plays out.
I thought the same. What a shame he felt the need to steal as he is obviously very talented.
-
According to his FT portfolio he's from Poland.
Interestingly, although he's been registered on SS since 2007, almost all of his portfolio was uploaded in 2012 (same at FT and DT too). That's a huge amount of work in one year ... but it's probably all about to disappear. From the volume alone I'd guess that this operation was the work of more than one individual.
The photography itself, the foreground stuff that is, is actually of a very high standard too. Seems even stranger to me for someone to be that skilled and work that hard whilst engaging in a cheap trick like ripping off backgrounds. You'd think that they could have produced their own stuff relatively easily.
Well spotted Vitamine.
-
its not online, the first one is deleted so I guess all other
incredible how can pro guys do this stuff...
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url])
Is anyone turning him in to the various agencies?
Wow, look at his stuff on Fotolia. It's all based on 3-credit pricing. He must sell a LOT there as well.
If he wasn't such a thief, I would actually feel sorry for this guy. He seems to have good skills, and he clearly makes a lot of money in microstock, and if justice is served, his whole world is about to come crashing down.
I wonder if he supports a family from this income. He's about to lose it all. Very sad. I'm very curious to see how this plays out.
I thought the same. What a shame he felt the need to steal as he is obviously very talented.
thats where talent falls apart, how talented is he? he is a sad guy just that... and will lose everything... sure he will come up with other portfolio, maybe with his cousin or wife name, if he havent already...
-
Wow, look at his stuff on Fotolia. It's all based on 3-credit pricing. He must sell a LOT there as well.
If he wasn't such a thief, I would actually feel sorry for this guy. He seems to have good skills, and he clearly makes a lot of money in microstock, and if justice is served, his whole world is about to come crashing down.
I wonder if he supports a family from this income. He's about to lose it all. Very sad. I'm very curious to see how this plays out.
How did he get 3-credit pricing on FT? He's only at Silver rank. I wonder if he's tried to claim that those images are exclusive to FT (which they are not).
-
Wow, this is insane. His ports are still up, has anyone reported to the agencies yet?
-
I wonder if the owners of the "borrowed" photos are aware of what's going on.
-
This is really the most puzzling case I've seen to date. As has been said, why would someone who has taken such care to produce good work resort to this? Very odd.
-
Wow, look at his stuff on Fotolia. It's all based on 3-credit pricing. He must sell a LOT there as well.
If he wasn't such a thief, I would actually feel sorry for this guy. He seems to have good skills, and he clearly makes a lot of money in microstock, and if justice is served, his whole world is about to come crashing down.
I wonder if he supports a family from this income. He's about to lose it all. Very sad. I'm very curious to see how this plays out.
How did he get 3-credit pricing on FT? He's only at Silver rank. I wonder if he's tried to claim that those images are exclusive to FT (which they are not).
Exactly he claims his stuff or even more probably himself as an exclusive photographer that will not going to work in the long term he will banned for that!
-
Will Shutterstock have to audit every sale and pay the original artists who have had their work appropriated ? Will they have to contact the people who have bought these images ? Will the final clients have to be informed that their advertising includes content which they never had permission to use ?
We never seem to hear the outcome of these sorts of cases. It would be great to see one of the magazines or influential professional photography blogs following through on one of these stories which often show what a potentially problematic minefield low priced RF and especially microstock can be for the final clients
I am surprised that these images were not flagged at inspection. They are not particularly well executed and are obviously composites. So how were they accepted without property releases for the back grounds or other evidence of where the backgrounds were from ?
-
This will be good for all of us.
A major seller will be closed and his sales can go to others.
Thats fine.
-
I am surprised that these images were not flagged at inspection. They are not particularly well executed and are obviously composites. So how were they accepted without property releases for the back grounds or other evidence of where the backgrounds were from ?
1 - they are reasonable done, much much much better than the majority of files back in 2004 or even 2012
2 - I don't see where and why he would need a property release for a beach or windmills or fireplace or vineyard AND of course the owner wouldn't sign the release
3 - why would they be flagged? the similarity program SS is supposed to own is far from perfect and I don't know a program that can do that easily, reviewers aren't the ones to blame, pretty much is this guy that not only have great shooting skills but also a ton of stupidity on his bag ;D
-
Has someone posted this on SS forum? They should know.
-
2 - I don't see where and why he would need a property release for a beach or windmills or fireplace or vineyard AND of course the owner wouldn't sign the release
Not to do with the windmills, fireplace etc. Submitting composites artists should normally be required to account for or provide property releases for all of the elements. The normal thing is surely to provide a link to your original component image in the case of a backdrop. The same as when you submit images which use a painted and textured backdrop.
3 - why would they be flagged?
Obvious composites.
So the main thing is that the original artists get paid for every download and that the final clients are advised to pull any uses.
-
2 - I don't see where and why he would need a property release for a beach or windmills or fireplace or vineyard AND of course the owner wouldn't sign the release
Not to do with the windmills, fireplace etc. Submitting composites artists should normally be required to account for or provide property releases for all of the elements. The normal thing is surely to provide a link to your original component image in the case of a backdrop. The same as when you submit images which use a painted and textured backdrop.
3 - why would they be flagged?
Obvious composites.
So the main thing is that the original artists get paid for every download and that the final clients are advised to pull any uses.
thanks for letting me know, I had no idea about that and in this case makes total sense BUT thinking that contributors are honest submitting composites would turn into a lot of work
-
I contacted Shutterstock with a link to this thread.
By the way, all of my work are composites, but all of the photographs are mine. I've never notified any agency that my work is a composite, or ever felt a need to. The goal is to not make it obvious.
-
Seems like a very high percentage of the entire microstock collections is composite images. You don't have to upload property releases for each element. Nor should you. When you upload you check the boxes that all the work and the elements in it are your own creation.
Deliberate fraudsters are always going to try and game the system. Eventually they do seem to get caught by eagle eyed people like Vitamine or others.
-
Eventually they do seem to get caught by eagle eyed people like Vitamine or others.
Or grassed up by former friends / colleagues.
Well done for spotting these by the way OP !
-
so it seems that composites don't need proof of nothing
-
...By the way, all of my work are composites, but all of the photographs are mine. I've never notified any agency that my work is a composite, or ever felt a need to. The goal is to not make it obvious.
The goal is to make it seamless and believable, but it's often obvious that something wasn't shot like that, especially as you head into the realm of fantasy. Some collages aren't blended images, just collections of multiples
Some of the time iStock would request a statement that all the images in the composite are your own. Seems redundant when you're saying you own the copyright. However, having been asked once or twice, I just do it as a matter of course. For sites that have a comment field (SS and DT) I put the disclaimer in with every composite "All images used in this composite are my own". Doesn't cause any problems and saves me hassle.
And on the subject of releases for your own work, many sites already require a property release for any photo of a painting or other art of your own you photograph. I hand painted some easter eggs and did the "art" for some Christmas crafts images, for example. I have one catch-all release for that. However Veer insisted that I have a unique release for each work, which is just insane when it's my own work (so I didn't do it). I have a catch all release for self portraits, not one for each shoot and the same should be the case for art - it's not as if I'm about to cheat myself :)
I could live with having to use a release for my own photos used as backgrounds in my own composites as long as agencies (a) have stored releases and (b) permitted a catch all release. It'd save me typing notes!
Good catch on the thief. It's a real shame that there are cheats to be caught and that the agencies can't be bothered to check things out better themselves.
-
Give the OP a heart! People are fast to give hearts for remarks in threads, but very rarely for the OP who started an informative/interesting thread.
-
This perhaps casts some doubt on the sometimes-stated theory that SS has software checking for similars at upload.
-
This perhaps casts some doubt on the sometimes-stated theory that SS has software checking for similars at upload.
Yes I've heard that one or two agencies have a software check for similars. It is only software though. It can look for similar patterns of pixels in the images, but it has no real awareness of what it's looking at in the way a human does. Heavy blurring, and adding foreground subjects would get around it. Google images, for example, doesn't find any of the image's source files.
Nice find to the OP!
-
This guy must be reported on all agencies.... many of us are investing time and money creating competitive images.
-
his portfolios are still online, wonder if agencies went to Brazil on vacations ;D
-
Images on SS are "temporarily unavailable" now.
I usually feel sorry for someone who made one stupid mistake. But it's hard to feel sorry for someone who made thousands of "mistakes".
-
Finding it hard to feel sorry for this guy. He must have been in the industry for very long to build up a port like that. I am only 2 years in it an I know that you can not just use another peoples work (even partial) and pass it of as your own (it is actually logical, no experience needed).
He must have been very aware of what he was doing and was prepared to risk it, saving time on building his own port by stealing other's work, even if it was only backgrounds.
-
As all the backgrounds aren't his, I wonder if the foregrounds are someone else's photos as well? They don't have to come from the microstock sites.
-
As all the backgrounds aren't his, I wonder if the foregrounds are someone else's photos as well? They don't have to come from the microstock sites.
I did isolate the foreground of one with the coconut and did a Google image search and all came up as his (with that specific background), so I think it is only the backgrounds he was messing with.
-
As all the backgrounds aren't his, I wonder if the foregrounds are someone else's photos as well? They don't have to come from the microstock sites.
I don't think so. There's a consistency of lighting and use props in the foregrounds. Also, Google image search would probably find them much easier - the backgrounds are likely to evade detection because they have been blurred, reversed, had flare introduced...and may well have been squeezed or stretched a bit for good measure.
-
Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally :o
-
Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally :o
Just asking, does EL's normally include the right to use the image as part of your own work and then sell it (without any recognition), passing it off as your own? Is there a license like that? I thought it is only to use on things like T-Shirts etc. for reprint, but not giving away your full copyright for such purpose?
-
Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally :o
Just asking, does EL's normally include the right to use the image as part of your own work and then sell it (without any recognition), passing it off as your own? Is there a license like that? I thought it is only to use on things like T-Shirts etc. for reprint, but not giving away your full copyright for such purpose?
There is no EL that permits what this guy did - making your own stock images using someone else's work as a part.
Even for a reference for an illustration, this isn't permitted.
You can buy the copyright from someone, but that's probably not what happened as the original owners are still selling their work.
-
Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally :o
Just asking, does EL's normally include the right to use the image as part of your own work and then sell it (without any recognition), passing it off as your own? Is there a license like that? I thought it is only to use on things like T-Shirts etc. for reprint, but not giving away your full copyright for such purpose?
There is no EL that permits what this guy did - making your own stock images using someone else's work as a part.
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..
they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..
this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..
-
Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally :o
Just asking, does EL's normally include the right to use the image as part of your own work and then sell it (without any recognition), passing it off as your own? Is there a license like that? I thought it is only to use on things like T-Shirts etc. for reprint, but not giving away your full copyright for such purpose?
There is no EL that permits what this guy did - making your own stock images using someone else's work as a part.
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..
they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..
this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..
Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?
-
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..
they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..
this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..
Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime? :D
-
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..
they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..
this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..
Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime? :D
Are you refering to this statement "photodune's ELs kind of do".
Incorporating pictures into projects (like an advertisement) is not the same as selling the combined image, is it?
-
I caught someone selling a template on GR that was basically one of my vectors with a bit of text on top of it.
When I complained about it it turned out they could buy an EL from GR and do that. Of course I made sure I changed my settings to stop EL sales right away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Envato had equally dodgy ELs in place PhotoDune as they do on GR.
ETA GR= GraphicRiver Envato's graphics equivalent to PhotoDune
-
I caught someone selling a template on GR that was basically one of my vectors with a bit of text on top of it.
When I complained about it it turned out they could buy an EL from GR and do that. Of course I made sure I changed my settings to stop EL sales right away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Envato had equally dodgy ELs in place PhotoDune as they do on GR.
What is GR? Is it Graphic Leftovers?
-
To me, this is very similar to when a buyer uses the image in a Zazzle or other third party POD service and it ends on a single issue that I think is time the agencies make a clear statement on the licenses and if an agency doesn't I suggest nobody uploads to it.
It's all about the right to re-license the license. Can a buyer re-license a license to a third party? Does the agency make it clear in the license that it's not allowed to re-license? There are some agencies whose license agreement is ambiguous and allows for re-license depending on the interpretation, and this is very bad for contributors.
If the answer from the agency is not clear, then it's a trouble agency. This business is all about licenses and if a buyer can re-license to third parties the contributors are doomed.
Defend your rights and don't upload to agencies with ambiguous license agreements that can be interpreted to allow room for this kind of usage and re-licensing. This issue is even more dangerous than royalty cuts, discounts or anything else.
-
I caught someone selling a template on GR that was basically one of my vectors with a bit of text on top of it.
When I complained about it it turned out they could buy an EL from GR and do that. Of course I made sure I changed my settings to stop EL sales right away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Envato had equally dodgy ELs in place PhotoDune as they do on GR.
What is GR? Is it Graphic Leftovers?
Sorry, GraphicRiver Envato's site for selling vectors (the graphics equivalent of PhotoDune)
-
I caught someone selling a template on GR that was basically one of my vectors with a bit of text on top of it.
When I complained about it it turned out they could buy an EL from GR and do that. Of course I made sure I changed my settings to stop EL sales right away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Envato had equally dodgy ELs in place PhotoDune as they do on GR.
What is GR? Is it Graphic Leftovers?
Sorry, GraphicRiver Envato's site for selling vectors (the graphics equivalent of PhotoDune)
Of course, thanks. I just wondered if I needed to go in and disable ELs at Graphic Leftovers.
-
No complaint about GraphicLeftovers. In fact they seem super switched on to protecting artist's work and copyright issues (check out some of their blog articles e.g. http://graphicleftovers.com/blog/fan-art-vs-copyright-infringement-legal/ (http://graphicleftovers.com/blog/fan-art-vs-copyright-infringement-legal/))
GraphicRiver on the other hand have been caught out selling templates featuring blatantly copyright infringing content many times, as well as having artists work featured in their news letters traced from photos they don't have the rights to. All in all a bit "confused" about all that copyright stuff.
So polar opposites really, shame they have similar names!
-
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..
they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..
this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..
Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime? :D
Are you refering to this statement "photodune's ELs kind of do".
Incorporating pictures into projects (like an advertisement) is not the same as selling the combined image, is it?
technically it's the same thing.. foreground is the main image, background only contributes to the "larger" photo as envato words it..
-
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..
they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..
this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..
Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime? :D
No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.
-
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime? :D
No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.
yeah right :D
then explain these:
http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy (http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy)
http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy (http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy)
See the "photo is included" line.. he claims to have purchased the EL so he can sell the brochure with the photo in it.. which of them are more prominent? the blurred backgrounds mentioned in this thread, or the girl image in these brochures?
-
Have a read of this:
http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/375/70/extended-license-usage-examples (http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/375/70/extended-license-usage-examples)
"Licensing: Extended License Usage Examples
.....
The following examples are acceptable uses of files "purchased" (i.e. licensed) using the Extended License:
….....
Here are some more examples, using the three categories of permitted uses in paragraph (c) of the extended license.
You may license, sublicense, sell, resell, or redistribute the Work or offer to do any of these things (together referred to Resale) in the following circumstances:
(i) the Work is incorporated into a larger work you have created.
…......
Using individual graphical elements as a piece of a larger project:......
(iii) you use the Work alone as a Limited Re-Purposing, but only if: (A) you first obtain the permission of the author of the Work (by contacting the author through the marketplace contact system); and (B) the Resale of the second work is only made on an Envato marketplace. A Limited Re-Purposing means that you use the Work alone and modify it for Re-sale as a tool, template, or stock item, or with source files.
…..."
Tell me that if the license doesn't allow it, it doesn't at least open things up for misreading the terms!
-
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime? :D
No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.
yeah right :D
then explain these:
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url])
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url])
See the "photo is included" line.. he claims to have purchased the EL so he can sell the brochure with the photo in it.. which of them are more prominent? the blurred backgrounds mentioned in this thread, or the girl image in these brochures?
Templates are allowed under a license for resale of electronic items. That is not the same as being able to license something as stock, yourself.
-
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime? :D
No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.
yeah right :D
then explain these:
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url])
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url])
See the "photo is included" line.. he claims to have purchased the EL so he can sell the brochure with the photo in it.. which of them are more prominent? the blurred backgrounds mentioned in this thread, or the girl image in these brochures?
That's not the same thing at all. One thing is selling a stock image and the other a product that uses a stock image-
ETA oops Sean beat me to it.
-
I know the difference.. for me it is technically and ethically the same thing as I mentioned before.. the templates actually violate copyright more imo because:
1- the image can be extracted from the layers of the template
2- they both collect royalties
3- template stock is no different from photo stock imo.. it just feels as wrong as the subject of this thread to me..
I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime? :D
No, you didn't. No EL gives the right to incorporate and resell as stock claiming copyright, afaik.
yeah right :D
then explain these:
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/long-play-party-posterflyer/2629372?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url])
[url]http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url] ([url]http://graphicriver.net/item/big-summer-party-poster/2524458?WT.ac=portfolio_thumb&WT.seg_1=portfolio_thumb&WT.z_author=moodboy[/url])
See the "photo is included" line.. he claims to have purchased the EL so he can sell the brochure with the photo in it.. which of them are more prominent? the blurred backgrounds mentioned in this thread, or the girl image in these brochures?
Templates are allowed under a license for resale of electronic items. That is not the same as being able to license something as stock, yourself.
-
I know the difference.. for me it is technically and ethically the same thing as I mentioned before.. the templates actually violate copyright more imo because:
1- the image can be extracted from the layers of the template
2- they both collect royalties
3- template stock is no different from photo stock imo.. it just feels as wrong as the subject of this thread to me..
It isn't technically (or ethically?) the same thing.
1. Which has nothing to do with the rights granted by the license for the template and for the stock image.
2. Uh, yes, when you sell a product that uses elements you have been granted (paid for) the rights for, you do get paid.
3. template stock allows you to use the content as a product - a brochure, a website, etc. So, it is different.
-
Have a read of this:
[url]http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/375/70/extended-license-usage-examples[/url] ([url]http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/375/70/extended-license-usage-examples[/url])
"Licensing: Extended License Usage Examples
.....
The following examples are acceptable uses of files "purchased" (i.e. licensed) using the Extended License:
….....
Here are some more examples, using the three categories of permitted uses in paragraph (c) of the extended license.
You may license, sublicense, sell, resell, or redistribute the Work or offer to do any of these things (together referred to Resale) in the following circumstances:
(i) the Work is incorporated into a larger work you have created.
The last sentence clearly allows that photos may be incorporated as backgrounds in a larger work.
-
Yes it is very ambiguous and open to abuse, "larger work" could mean a composite photo.
-
No, it's pretty clear that "larger work" means part of something bigger than what itself was, from the examples. A slider into a video player or whatever.
In fact, one of the terms specifically mentions stock, and manipulation of images, and that is this:
"(iii) you use the Work alone as a Limited Re-Purposing, but only if: (A) you first obtain the permission of the author of the Work (by contacting the author through the marketplace contact system); and (B) the Resale of the second work is only made on an Envato marketplace. A Limited Re-Purposing means that you use the Work alone and modify it for Re-sale as a tool, template, or stock item, or with source files.
Converting one item to another of the same or similar type:
Converting an HTML template to a WordPress theme.
Converting a WordPress theme to a Drupal theme.
Converting a photo to an isolated object.
Converting a Flash photo gallery into a Javascript photo gallery.
Changing the color, font, positioning, or size of the original item."
-
Have a read of this:
[url]http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/375/70/extended-license-usage-examples[/url] ([url]http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/375/70/extended-license-usage-examples[/url])
"Licensing: Extended License Usage Examples
.....
The following examples are acceptable uses of files "purchased" (i.e. licensed) using the Extended License:
….....
Here are some more examples, using the three categories of permitted uses in paragraph (c) of the extended license.
You may license, sublicense, sell, resell, or redistribute the Work or offer to do any of these things (together referred to Resale) in the following circumstances:
(i) the Work is incorporated into a larger work you have created.
…......
Using individual graphical elements as a piece of a larger project:......
(iii) you use the Work alone as a Limited Re-Purposing, but only if: (A) you first obtain the permission of the author of the Work (by contacting the author through the marketplace contact system); and (B) the Resale of the second work is only made on an Envato marketplace. A Limited Re-Purposing means that you use the Work alone and modify it for Re-sale as a tool, template, or stock item, or with source files.
…..."
Tell me that if the license doesn't allow it, it doesn't at least open things up for misreading the terms!
WOW!
I never thought I would read a license like this one. Some time ago I was wondering about joining envato, now I am sure I'll never join if the license allows this kind of broad rights to sublicensing and redistribution.
I can't understand how anyone would allow their content to be licensed this way. Anyone who does is selling licenses to the competition.
-
It doesn't. It's the same as most any other Electronic Items for Resale EL.
-
I don't mind there being licenses that grant extensive rights, but I do believe the price should be higher the more rights are granted.
If someone wanted to create an extended license to permit backgrounds, I might consider it if I were a photographer who couldn't do composites to save her life. As I can, and I use my own photos the way this person uses other people's, I wouldn't want to.
The big problem with Envato's EL is the price is ridiculous. A secondary problem is that they don't seem to be very eager - they've had to be pushed - to enforce copyright when it's sellers on their own other marketplaces that are the violators. I think that's because the bulk of their money comes from those guys, not PhotoDune.
But back to the main point. When we upload to reputable sites, they require us to state that we own the copyright to what we upload. Even if Envato allows people to sell things that include other people's work, it doesn't allow them to claim copyright for it when it includes someone else's copyrighted work.
So I think the lousy Envato EL is a red herring - even if that's where this guy bought the backgrounds, he can't claim copyright to the result so his port should come down from FT, SS and anywhere else he's uploaded the work.
I think this scale of violation probably deserves a total ban rather than removal of the offending works and a promise to do better next time
-
It doesn't. It's the same as most any other Electronic Items for Resale EL.
It allows sublicensing, shutterstock EL and istock EL don't allow sublicensing.
Maybe I am too restrictive in my interpretation and I am just fighting a lost cause. I believe there is a huge difference between being able to sell a product made with EL content and being able to sublicense the product to third parties and grant them additional licensing and sublicensing rights on the EL content which can result in additional licenses granted to buyers and even more licenses if a buyer gets an EL on the derived work. It just makes no sense to me to allow sublicensing on EL.
-
Wow, look at his stuff on Fotolia. It's all based on 3-credit pricing. He must sell a LOT there as well.
If he wasn't such a thief, I would actually feel sorry for this guy. He seems to have good skills, and he clearly makes a lot of money in microstock, and if justice is served, his whole world is about to come crashing down.
I wonder if he supports a family from this income. He's about to lose it all. Very sad. I'm very curious to see how this plays out.
How did he get 3-credit pricing on FT? He's only at Silver rank. I wonder if he's tried to claim that those images are exclusive to FT (which they are not).
He thinks he's clever. His 'exclusivity' at FT, allowing him to charge 3 credits, appears to be based on similar but not identical shots to SS, Dreamstime etc. All the bread shots on FT have a different mill background to those on SS....OP's first post has Greek windmills whereas at FT he has Dutch ones (@Kinderdijk). Uses a different name too. Very well spotted Vitamine.
-
Hello all. It's Vahid here from the Envato marketplaces and I wanted to respond to your questions about the PhotoDune extended license terms.
Our extended licenses do allow the buyer to incorporate a PhotoDune item into a larger electronic item that they'll be selling, but as explained in our Knowledge Base, it needs to be of a larger scope and different nature to the photo. Thanks, sjlocke and fotografer for pointing this out. As like other microstock agencies which have a type of extended license allowing use of an item in electronic items for sale, the buyer can use a PhotoDune item under the EL in a larger digital project. Because the second project needs to be different in nature, the chain of potential use in items for re-sale (ie stock) ends very quickly and can't go on infinitely. Furthermore, buyers should not extract the work and use it stand alone.
The examples posted by the OP would be considered a limited repurposing under our extended licenses, which requires the consent of the original author.
To be clear, a buyer can never claim copyright in the item they've licensed. Also, the references to 'sub-licensing' in our licenses are only in the context of the use in a larger project or in a 'limited repurposing' (with the first author's consent).
We're tackling the project of improving our licensing in phases to make it more manageable. We know that our licenses aren't easy to understand and we're soon going to re-launch our licenses with new wording and FAQs. We've also taken on the feedback from many photographers that on the point of their work being used in larger projects for re-sale, pricing is their main concern. We recognise that there are different types of uses under the extended license, and that a 'one price fits all uses' approach to our extended licenses isn't optimal for authors and buyers alike. Although our upcoming wording changes won't address this particular feedback, we're going to consider whether and how to tackle this in future phases.
I hope this clarifies this and let me know what other feedback you have.
-
Forgot to say a big Happy New Year to everyone on MSG! :-)
-
Forgot to say a big Happy New Year to everyone on MSG! :-)
Thanks Vahid..
I have criticized envato for many things this past year including:
- your vector pricing
- graphicriver's abysmally slow upload process which is only rivalled by istockphoto
- your EL licensing terms and pricing as well as complicated wording of some sections
BUT; there is one thing I can't praise enough about envato: It is your willingness to listen to feedback and make neccessary adjustments. This is a great trait the owners have and it can not be bought with money..
I sometimes so blatantly criticize you guys.. Most of the times, you don't deserve responses as harsh. I confess that I do that on purpose, because I know it's worth my time and I trust someone at envato will be reading and as a result "will at least" consider improvements..
Apart from the issues I listed above, graphicriver is a great marketplace in my opinion and once those issues are sorted, it has the potential to be a flawless site..
Thanks again for dropping by and happy new year to you as well..
-
Thanks for chiming in on this vtaeed, great to often see Envato admins dropping by MSG.
-
I did opt in to Photodune EL's for the past few months, just to see if I would get any. I didn't get any and have opted out again. I don't understand how SS can outsell every site so much with EL's at a reasonable price? All the other sites are losing money on this. Buyers are obviously willing to pay $100 for an EL but only one site is doing it properly.
-
This is the same guy, right???
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997)
http://depositphotos.com/portfolio-1489960.html (http://depositphotos.com/portfolio-1489960.html)
Has anyone reported him on these sites????
-
it appears DT still have his stuff up, but not elsewhere.
-
DT and DP has his ports still up. I am amazed that the pros arent all over this to get his ports down as quick as possible...
-
I was going to say the agencies are probably giving him special treatment because of the volume of his sales, but that's not the case on DT... he only has 390 images there and his downloads per image is only 0.44.
I'm guessing DT is asleep at the wheel for the holidays. Seems like there have been some serious lag time in reporting sales over the break, with the worst lags happening today. (Do they have people manually pushing data through the system for reporting? That's what it seems like when there are hours with no sales reported, then a huge wave at once, then another long gap with nothing.)
-
I was going to say the agencies are probably giving him special treatment because of the volume of his sales, but that's not the case on DT... he only has 390 images there and his downloads per image is only 0.44.
Unfortunately from my own experience I can say that Shutterstock at least, does favor some people. I have twice reported a situation when my work was copied (not directly stolen, but recreated to a degree that it was a clear plagiarism). In the first case they acted immediately and within a day or two the images were removed. The second time it took them a month to answer and informed me they won't do a thing. The second user had over 10 thousand images and was definitely doing very well (my guess is he's in the top50 at least).
By the way the MaxPhotographer's port is still online although with only 15 images. So it looks like you can do whatever you want and if you get caught the worst thing that can happen is that you won't be allowed to continue. You get to keep the money and keep your account.
-
Does someone know why his full port is online again with all 10790 images for sale. Including the ones with stolen backgrounds.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-161170p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-161170p1.html)
-
Unless SS have gone totally crazy it can only be because he has an agreement with the other photographers to use their work. Have we heard from anyone directly involved?
-
Does someone know why his full port is online again with all 10790 images for sale. Including the ones with stolen backgrounds.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-161170p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-161170p1.html[/url])
Thats bizarre..
-
OMG! does this mean that using others work as background is now allowed?
looks like only 123RF and FT decided to shut it down..
-
something needs to be done here, is the OP going to open a topic at SS?
I will not allow this to happen, don't care if it is a newbie or a top guy with 10k portfolio, this guy cannot sell our work as blurred backgrounds...
-
Does someone know why his full port is online again with all 10790 images for sale. Including the ones with stolen backgrounds.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-161170p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-161170p1.html[/url])
Sept. data: 192 MaxPhotographer 10653 23 179 99.9% photo, 0.1% illustration 31.12.2007
I wonder why they haven't done anything?
-
There must be an agreement between the photogs. Maybe a profit share on the image sales? If it was straightforward the images would at least be taken down.
-
There must be an agreement between the photogs. Maybe a profit share on the image sales? If it was straightforward the images would at least be taken down.
there is no profit share because the pics talked in this topic were removed but the more curious is that yesterday there were still a few of the palm trees (with coconuts), today they are gone... SS seems to be generous with some contributors ;D
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i6eowDkR2Xc/UPHC6nuaFSI/AAAAAAAABjU/yLpvVWyxkhU/s1600/ss1.JPG)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zDk8LHZXDu8/UPHC7lsw8tI/AAAAAAAABjY/n9KPU0erNXM/s1600/ss2.JPG)
-
Perhaps the close-up images are not hid either. When you really look at the coffee cup it is obvious it is not actually sitting on the table. I believe that's a Photoshop created shadow.
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/161170,1323532593,2/stock-photo-cone-on-tree-90507751.jpg)
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/476794/98549552/stock-photo-beautiful-winter-landscape-with-snow-covered-trees-98549552.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/116310724/stock-photo-landscape-and-wooden-desk-116310724.jpg)
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/104850416/stock-photo-green-landscape-and-wooden-table-104850416.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/180544/180544,1308607091,2/stock-photo-tea-plantation-cameron-highlands-malaysia-79605559.jpg)
I could be here all day long.....
-
There is now a thread on SS about it!
And a few are claiming he is using their work so lets see what comes of this.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127563 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127563)
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/103891178/stock-photo-fresh-potatoes-on-field-103891178.jpg)
-
There is now a thread on SS about it!
And a few are claiming he is using their work so lets see what comes of this.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127563[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127563[/url])
man I hope SS does the right thing this time because he was suspended, now back...
-
look at this one! (found by the owner, http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2450577#2450577 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2450577#2450577))
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/180544/180544,1262825458,1/stock-photo-ocean-and-perfect-sky-43947532.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/374497/374497,1327510809,1/stock-photo-cruise-ship-on-sunset-93575662.jpg)
-
I literally couldn't believe it could be what it seemed and ss didn't shut him down. I had too much faith in them. Won't make that mistake again >:(
-
I literally couldn't believe it could be what it seemed and ss didn't shut him down. I had too much faith in them. Won't make that mistake again >:(
+1
-
I can't see any alternative but suspending this account ASAP - not very speedy action by SS - I'd have expected a lot better.....
-
Should be calling himself Max Kleptographer and has added to his port recently too.
Hope Max Profit doesn't prevail over Max Theft Photo. I would be sorely disappointed in SS were that to be the case.
-
Should be calling himself Max Kleptographer and has added to his port recently too.
Hope Max Profit doesn't prevail over Max Theft Photo. I would be sorely disappointed in SS were that to be the case.
don't think that will happen unless we are talking about a cousin of a person working for SS ;D
-
Now that other contributors on SS are pointing out usage of their work without permission they'll have to do something about it otherwise it'll allow free reign of image theft on the site.
Of course they'd like to keep him around from a financial standpoint but from a legal standpoint, if they are aware that a member is infringing on others' work, they'd have to distance themselves (kill his port) or worry about being held liable for aiding in the sale of copyrighted (without license/consent) work.
@luissantos84, I spent 15-20 minutes digging to find other uses but came up with nothing. Awesome image hunting on your behalf.
-
Can I play? ( he even badly repeated the background in the middle )
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/85690/85690,1231154567,2/stock-vector-vector-seamless-damask-see-jpeg-also-in-my-portfolio-22792609.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/121027333/stock-photo-brown-table-and-wall-121027333.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/121228894/stock-photo-fresh-coffee-121228894.jpg)
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/325834/325834,1296308252,9/stock-photo-old-fashioned-chair-on-wooden-floor-70006357.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/109069004/stock-photo-coffee-on-table-109069004.jpg)
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/359716/113848054/stock-photo-a-traditional-oven-for-cooking-and-baking-pizza-113848054.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/121663222/stock-photo-bread-and-fire-place-121663222.jpg)
-
thanks for adding a few more Sean!
I really don't believe that FT and 123RF have given his account back after suspending him, who is this guy???
-
There is now a thread on SS about it!
And a few are claiming he is using their work so lets see what comes of this.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127563[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127563[/url])
man I hope SS does the right thing this time because he was suspended, now back...
Interested to see how SS answer this, especially as that thread makes it clear there was no 'agreement' reached with the original photographers.
-
There is now a thread on SS about it!
And a few are claiming he is using their work so lets see what comes of this.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127563[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127563[/url])
man I hope SS does the right thing this time because he was suspended, now back...
Interested to see how SS answer this, especially as that thread makes it clear there was no 'agreement' reached with the original photographers.
indeed, topic at SS shows two owners saying he has no authorization, this max is now copying files from over 5 photographers, most of them very good contributors which makes it even easier to find his work
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/180544/180544,1290461583,2/stock-photo-field-of-daisyes-65690200.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/106091654/stock-photo-background-of-strawberries-106091654.jpg)
there is change in the sky which is used all over his portfolio...
-
Do you think he needs to buy the original files to edit the backgrounds, or just use small blurred files preview downloaded on the sites?
-
Do you think he needs to buy the original files to edit the backgrounds, or just use small blurred files preview downloaded on the sites?
that's interesting, not sure how relevant unless agencies track this guy purchases, I believe he actually buys them or perhaps takes the watermark, sure its a friend of him that buys the files not him ;D
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/92498/101159896/stock-photo-an-image-of-a-nice-fantasy-canyon-101159896.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/103218986/stock-photo-desk-and-rocks-103218986.jpg)
blurred 3d
-
Excellent sleuthing Luis & Sean. It's utterly bizarre how this issue has developed. Good work starting a thread on SS too.
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/137002/112264703/stock-photo-dried-herbs-spices-and-and-pepper-on-wooden-background-112264703.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/113660887/stock-photo-white-hat-of-cooking-and-vegetables-113660887.jpg)
perhaps not the perfect guys to mess around ;D
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-137002p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-137002p1.html)
-
OMFG. That guy became rich thanks to image of planks. I have one too but it doesn't work that well.
-
Yep, I'm about to shoot every plank in existence. ;)
I'm as amazed as others that this stuff is still available. I admire your tenacity Luis.
-
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/74155/74155,1283333640,3/stock-photo-golden-fields-of-beautiful-wheat-60226060.jpg)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/161170/102325321/stock-photo-summer-sunset-102325321.jpg)
-
Yep, I'm about to shoot every plank in existence. ;)
I'm as amazed as others that this stuff is still available. I admire your tenacity Luis.
I still have time before going out to watch life of pi ;D
-
LOL Enjoy the film, and the break! ;D
-
I have linked the thread in SS to the "Anything Goes" forum to see if it can get some more attention and perhaps SS may step in if enough people get on board.
-
Is this another studio where they will claim to have sacked the one rotten apple and get reinstated, then do it again, and repeat. I am getting really disheartened by the stuff going on at the moment. Are we submitting to warez sites now. They accept stolen work then give it away for free?
-
Maksymilian Skolik - LMS STUDIO, Częstochowa, Poland
Looks like he owns a studio of some sort....
All very intriguing..
-
Maksymilian Skolik - LMS STUDIO, Częstochowa, Poland
Looks like he owns a studio of some sort....
All very intriguing..
he can have all the studios he wishes, there are already 2 photographers saying he had no authorization, if SS doesn't do anything regarding this matter I will make sure to tell all other ;D
-
So far people have referred to these as 'composite' works but perhaps they should be referred to as 'derivative' works. That makes a difference legally.
-
So far people have referred to these as 'composite' works but perhaps they should be referred to as 'derivative' works. That makes a difference legally.
is that a joke? what is you point? should SS approve this?
-
So far people have referred to these as 'composite' works but perhaps they should be referred to as 'derivative' works. That makes a difference legally.
is that a joke? what is you point? should SS approve this?
PACA defines derivative right as: An artists rendering of a photograph in another medium is a derivative use of an image and does require the written permission of the copyright owner prior to use.
It's an issue of law, not whether SS will approve it.....at least in the USA.
iIt's not a
-
So far people have referred to these as 'composite' works but perhaps they should be referred to as 'derivative' works. That makes a difference legally.
is that a joke? what is you point? should SS approve this?
PACA defines derivative right as: An artists rendering of a photograph in another medium is a derivative use of an image and does require the written permission of the copyright owner prior to use.
exactly, there are no authorizations in this specific case
-
So far people have referred to these as 'composite' works but perhaps they should be referred to as 'derivative' works. That makes a difference legally.
is that a joke? what is you point? should SS approve this?
PACA defines derivative right as: An artists rendering of a photograph in another medium is a derivative use of an image and does require the written permission of the copyright owner prior to use.
It's an issue of law, not whether SS will approve it.....at least in the USA.
It's both.
SS (or any other agency) has to follow laws, but in addition, they have their own rules about what they will and won't accept, even if it would be legal for them to do so. Indeed, some of their caginess might be due to laws in certain countries in which they sell, e.g. when iStock culled photos of Nazi swastikas because of some apparent German law, even though they're used perfectly legitimately in e.g. History textbooks in the UK.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57152&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57152&page=1)
-
So far people have referred to these as 'composite' works but perhaps they should be referred to as 'derivative' works. That makes a difference legally.
is that a joke? what is you point? should SS approve this?
PACA defines derivative right as: An artists rendering of a photograph in another medium is a derivative use of an image and does require the written permission of the copyright owner prior to use.
It's an issue of law, not whether SS will approve it.....at least in the USA.
It's both.
SS (or any other agency) has to follow laws, but in addition, they have their own rules about what they will and won't accept, even if it would be legal for them to do so. Indeed, some of their caginess might be due to laws in certain countries in which they sell, e.g. when iStock culled photos of Nazi swastikas because of some apparent German law, even though they're used perfectly legitimately in e.g. History textbooks in the UK.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57152&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57152&page=1[/url])
Agreed. I was speaking more specifically to what this guy seems to be doing, but your point is spot on.
-
Maksymilian Skolik - LMS STUDIO, Częstochowa, Poland
Looks like he owns a studio of some sort....
All very intriguing..
he can have all the studios he wishes, there are already 2 photographers saying he had no authorization, if SS doesn't do anything regarding this matter I will make sure to tell all other ;D
At FT he calls himself ' food pictures studio' : http://en.fotolia.com/p/200409482 (http://en.fotolia.com/p/200409482)
What is interesting is that the pics posted here at the beginning of this month have been removed but also at FT he has most of his port re-instated and is uploading again.
Maybe he agreed to remove the shots he got called on but insisted it was a simple mistake..."won't do it again, honest officer!" IMO Max Plank is a serial kleptographer.
Still, these days with all those shareholders screaming for more profits, they (the agencies) maybe going for a 'workaround' if he's TooBigToFail.
-
Still, these days with all those shareholders screaming for more profits, they (the agencies) maybe going for a 'workaround' if he's TooBigToFail.
there is no workaround, not a chance, we won't allow it
-
http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635) (Leonid Tit)
http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686)
http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084) (konradbak)
http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320)
-
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635[/url]) (Leonid Tit)
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686[/url])
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084[/url]) (konradbak)
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url])
WOW, you're good!
I think it's extremely lame for a contributor to resort to these methods.
It might be up to the agencies to make a call here but as a copyright holder of any of these backgrounds I would try to expose these uses on all possible online channels to make buyers aware.
-
this gets even better guys, exclusive file at FT but selling at SS
http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004)
-
this gets even better guys, exclusive file at FT but selling at SS
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004[/url])
And if you post this over at Fotolia YOU will probably be banned. This is such a shame (SHAM).
-
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635[/url]) (Leonid Tit)
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686[/url])
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084[/url]) (konradbak)
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url])
Supersleuthing! Well done. I tried to find his windmill backgrounds he used for bread and grain but couldn't. Mind you, there's one helluva lot of windmill shots in all the archives and I don't have the stamina!
-
this gets even better guys, exclusive file at FT but selling at SS
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004[/url])
Yep, that too.........always thought that was a hanging offence at FT (claiming exclusivity whilst selling elsewhere).
Done the same with his latest uploads too:
http://en.fotolia.com/p/200409482?order=creation (http://en.fotolia.com/p/200409482?order=creation)
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=161170&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=161170&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest)
Now that's just greed.
-
this gets even better guys, exclusive file at FT but selling at SS
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004[/url])
Yep, that too.........always thought that was a hanging offence at FT (claiming exclusivity whilst selling elsewhere).
Done the same with his latest uploads too:
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/p/200409482?order=creation[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/p/200409482?order=creation[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=161170&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=161170&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest[/url])
Now that's just greed.
And has no fear of getting busted. And given the fact that Ft hasn't done squat, he wins.
-
So... has anyone informed any of the infringed copyright holders about this mess or are we just complaining here on the forums?
I'd suggest that the original "finder" should have the privilege to contact any of the copyright holders to let them make their move against this account holder.
If the original "finder" is not willing to do so maybe Luis will step in. If not him then I can do it. Just sayin...
-
he has almost 1k files exclusive at FT, what a joke!
-
So... has anyone informed any of the infringed copyright holders about this mess or are we just complaining here on the forums?
I'd suggest that the original "finder" should have the privilege to contact any of the copyright holders to let them make their move against this account holder.
If the original "finder" is not willing to do so maybe Luis will step in. If not him then I can do it. Just sayin...
two of them know already, one started a topic at SS
-
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635[/url]) (Leonid Tit)
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686[/url])
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084[/url]) (konradbak)
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320[/url])
Supersleuthing! Well done. I tried to find his windmill backgrounds he used for bread and grain but couldn't. Mind you, there's one helluva lot of windmill shots in all the archives and I don't have the stamina!
I have tried that one too but haven't found, I am just human ;D
-
two of them know already, one started a topic at SS
Thanks for letting me know. I haven't followed the entire discussion.
Good that something is moving!
-
http://pt.depositphotos.com/11037034/stock-photo-Winter.html?sst=0&sqc=43&sqm=635&sq=buqgv (http://pt.depositphotos.com/11037034/stock-photo-Winter.html?sst=0&sqc=43&sqm=635&sq=buqgv)
http://pt.depositphotos.com/13866441/stock-photo-Christmas-background.html?sst=360&sqc=743&sqm=2122&sq=aw4pl (http://pt.depositphotos.com/13866441/stock-photo-Christmas-background.html?sst=360&sqc=743&sqm=2122&sq=aw4pl)
http://pt.depositphotos.com/7323410/stock-photo-Tea-plantation-Cameron-highlands-Malaysia.html?sst=0&sqc=15&sqm=62&sq=busex (http://pt.depositphotos.com/7323410/stock-photo-Tea-plantation-Cameron-highlands-Malaysia.html?sst=0&sqc=15&sqm=62&sq=busex)
http://pt.depositphotos.com/10927595/stock-photo-Table-and-empty-space.html?sst=0&sqc=49&sqm=2122&sq=aw4pl (http://pt.depositphotos.com/10927595/stock-photo-Table-and-empty-space.html?sst=0&sqc=49&sqm=2122&sq=aw4pl)
http://pt.depositphotos.com/4750503/stock-photo-Real-photo-of-classic-armchair.html?sst=0&sqc=17&sqm=23&sq=but95 (http://pt.depositphotos.com/4750503/stock-photo-Real-photo-of-classic-armchair.html?sst=0&sqc=17&sqm=23&sq=but95)
http://pt.depositphotos.com/11972587/stock-photo-Coffee-on-table.html?sst=0&sqc=4&sqm=323&sq=busv9 (http://pt.depositphotos.com/11972587/stock-photo-Coffee-on-table.html?sst=0&sqc=4&sqm=323&sq=busv9)
-
[url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/11037034/stock-photo-Winter.html?sst=0&sqc=43&sqm=635&sq=buqgv[/url] ([url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/11037034/stock-photo-Winter.html?sst=0&sqc=43&sqm=635&sq=buqgv[/url])
[url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/13866441/stock-photo-Christmas-background.html?sst=360&sqc=743&sqm=2122&sq=aw4pl[/url] ([url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/13866441/stock-photo-Christmas-background.html?sst=360&sqc=743&sqm=2122&sq=aw4pl[/url])
[url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/7323410/stock-photo-Tea-plantation-Cameron-highlands-Malaysia.html?sst=0&sqc=15&sqm=62&sq=busex[/url] ([url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/7323410/stock-photo-Tea-plantation-Cameron-highlands-Malaysia.html?sst=0&sqc=15&sqm=62&sq=busex[/url])
[url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/10927595/stock-photo-Table-and-empty-space.html?sst=0&sqc=49&sqm=2122&sq=aw4pl[/url] ([url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/10927595/stock-photo-Table-and-empty-space.html?sst=0&sqc=49&sqm=2122&sq=aw4pl[/url])
[url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/4750503/stock-photo-Real-photo-of-classic-armchair.html?sst=0&sqc=17&sqm=23&sq=but95[/url] ([url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/4750503/stock-photo-Real-photo-of-classic-armchair.html?sst=0&sqc=17&sqm=23&sq=but95[/url])
[url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/11972587/stock-photo-Coffee-on-table.html?sst=0&sqc=4&sqm=323&sq=busv9[/url] ([url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/11972587/stock-photo-Coffee-on-table.html?sst=0&sqc=4&sqm=323&sq=busv9[/url])
Oh boy, I don't know what to say anymore.
-
so given this guys port, legal or not, what would your (everyone) educated guess be of the amt of money he has made with it, to date? would you say 100k more, less, over a mill???
and also, (if he has made much $$$$$) it could be that he was able to "pay off" some of the people whom he stole the backgrounds from. Kinda hush money to keep them happy and his portfolio still alive and earning.
I think like this: i made 500k with it and now im busted, darnit! but i will offer the 3-5 photogs whose work i stole 5-10k each and we will all be happy. my port will still be on line, the copy right holders got a sudden 5-10k, and the microstock agencys continue to earn from my prort.
would love to know what u think.
-
so given this guys port, legal or not, what would your (everyone) educated guess be of the amt of money he has made with it, to date? would you say 100k more, less, over a mill???
and also, (if he has made much $$$$$) it could be that he was able to "pay off" some of the people whom he stole the backgrounds from. Kinda hush money to keep them happy and his portfolio still alive and earning.
I think like this: i made 500k with it and now im busted, darnit! but i will offer the 3-5 photogs whose work i stole 5-10k each and we will all be happy. my port will still be on line, the copy right holders got a sudden 5-10k, and the microstock agencys continue to earn from my prort.
would love to know what u think.
I agree beside keeping the portfolio online, he had no authorization to use others work
-
He is using a legal loophole in the law as PJ pointed out and he evidently has the money and lawyers to back it or otherwise why were his ports pulled and then reinstated?
His lawyers took over and made everyone come to their knees.
In the United States, the Copyright Act defines "derivative work" in 17 U.S.C. § 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Several other sections of the Copyright Act are relevant, also. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) provides:
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
17 U.S.C. § 103(b) provides:
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
17 U.S.C. § 106 provides:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....
US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that:
A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.
The statutory definition is incomplete and the concept of derivative work must be understood with reference to explanatory case law. Three major copyright law issues arise concerning derivative works: (1) what acts are sufficient to cause a copyright-protected derivative work to come into existence; (2) what acts constitute copyright infringement of a copyright in a copyright-protected work; and (3) in what circumstances is a person otherwise liable for infringement of copyright in a copyright-protected derivative work excused from liability by an affirmative defense, such as first sale or fair use?
-
I guess we'll be seeing a lot more of this kind of thing then.
If he can do it, so can we all.
-
derivative work? why are copycats being shutdown? so we blur other pictures and add a pic of ours and its all fine? that's pretty much BS and I am sure owners won't accept this easily if that's true at all, I believe SS needs to explain us this contributor moves, we need see things clear, I expect an announcement, its absurd that we need to find the reasons for not suspending such behavior
-
This is clearly NOT derivative. Photo to photo slightly blurred, no way you can make that claim. No legal loophole there.
-
He is using a legal loophole in the law as PJ pointed out and he evidently has the money and lawyers to back it or otherwise why were his ports pulled and then reinstated?
His lawyers took over and made everyone come to their knees.
In the United States, the Copyright Act defines "derivative work" in 17 U.S.C. § 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Several other sections of the Copyright Act are relevant, also. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) provides:
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
17 U.S.C. § 103(b) provides:
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
17 U.S.C. § 106 provides:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....
US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that:
A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.
The statutory definition is incomplete and the concept of derivative work must be understood with reference to explanatory case law. Three major copyright law issues arise concerning derivative works: (1) what acts are sufficient to cause a copyright-protected derivative work to come into existence; (2) what acts constitute copyright infringement of a copyright in a copyright-protected work; and (3) in what circumstances is a person otherwise liable for infringement of copyright in a copyright-protected derivative work excused from liability by an affirmative defense, such as first sale or fair use?
What law is there to stop the sites removing this portfolio for any reason they want? I don't think any shop is forced to sell products they don't want to. It has to be their choice. We need an explanation why this is allowed from one of the sites. Has there been one yet?
-
This is clearly NOT derivative. Photo to photo slightly blurred, no way you can make that claim. No legal loophole there.
The fact that Luis and others have been able to find the originals of the 'derived' backgrounds and that the backgrounds often compose half of the image would plead against these being 'derivative works' as defined by the law (but I'm no lawyer).
And anyway, the original 4 'offending' SS shots as posted by vitamine (OP) on page 1 have all been removed by SS, so they were clearly not regarded as OK. Maybe it's a game of catch me if you can and I'll remove only the stuff you can catch me on. Seems pretty quiet at SS for a major crime topic........usually all the big hitters are in there demanding explanations. Hmmm...
-
Shutterstock should act correctly in this case, and not put greed in front of decency.
We need one agency we can trust.
-
The user is blocked on Dreamstime. But please note that our support didn't receive any message on this matter. So, I suggest you should notify the agencies on official channels too, instead of just posting on the forum.
I can see here 7 pages of messages on this topic, started 2 weeks ago, but how many messages have you sent to agencies? :)
-
Better check that his port stays blocked after a few weeks. They might sneak him back online again after all the fuzz is over.
-
its not online, the first one is deleted so I guess all other
incredible how can pro guys do this stuff...
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/47873194[/url])
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-two-loaves-fresh-bread-image27924997[/url])
[url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_16573644_two-loaves-of-bread-on-rustic-table-with-wind-mill-background.html[/url] ([url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_16573644_two-loaves-of-bread-on-rustic-table-with-wind-mill-background.html[/url])
[url]http://depositphotos.com/user-1489960/bigiii.html[/url] ([url]http://depositphotos.com/user-1489960/bigiii.html[/url])
Does he have more than one account, is this not the same guy on fotolia?
http://us.fotolia.com/p/200409482 (http://us.fotolia.com/p/200409482)
-
I posted this in Shutterstock's Questions / Answers:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127635 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127635)
-
The user is blocked on Dreamstime. But please note that our support didn't receive any message on this matter. So, I suggest you should notify the agencies on official channels too, instead of just posting on the forum.
I can see here 7 pages of messages on this topic, started 2 weeks ago, but how many messages have you sent to agencies? :)
all agencies look at this forum if nothing happens is because they are helping this behavior, we are not only looking a contributor that is using other pictures as his blurred backgrounds and selling files at FT as exclusive, over 1k files I repeat
-
The user is blocked on Dreamstime. But please note that our support didn't receive any message on this matter. So, I suggest you should notify the agencies on official channels too, instead of just posting on the forum.
I can see here 7 pages of messages on this topic, started 2 weeks ago, but how many messages have you sent to agencies? :)
I contacted support on Dec 27th with link to this thread. A week later, I got a nice email thanking me for bringing it to their attention, and assuring me that they take matters of theft very seriously.
-
The user is blocked on Dreamstime. But please note that our support didn't receive any message on this matter. So, I suggest you should notify the agencies on official channels too, instead of just posting on the forum.
I can see here 7 pages of messages on this topic, started 2 weeks ago, but how many messages have you sent to agencies? :)
I contacted support on Dec 27th with link to this thread. A week later, I got a nice email thanking me for bringing it to their attention, and assuring me that they take matters of theft very seriously.
Well, after that they appear to have taken down his port, removed the four images reported by vitamine on the first page of this thread and promptly re-instated him (minus the 4 images he got caught on). FT did the same and now he's uploading new work to both of which at least a couple of shots that he claims are exclusive to FT are also in the SS collection.
For FT it'll probably take a letter from a customer who bought a download at 2x or 3x credit price to write to FT to say that he's pissed cuz he coulda got the same image on his SS subscription. ;D
-
his SS portfolio is down again, will see what happens this time...
-
his SS portfolio is down again, will see what happens this time...
This image is temporarily unavailable
-
his SS portfolio is down again, will see what happens this time...
This image is temporarily unavailable
yep like I have said, we will see how it goes...
-
created a topic at FT (today) and it was removed saying I should contact support, looks like they saw the examples of borrowed elements lol and made nothing, told also that he has 1k exclusives files selling on other agencies... from the other world :D
-
How do you find these images Luis?
-
How do you find these images Luis?
using the search feature in agencies, pretty much he uses the most popular files
-
123RF have removed a few files but its useless, it will never end, if agencies are willing to pay me I will work for them ;D
http://www.123rf.com/photo_15721129_picnic-table-on-field-background.html (http://www.123rf.com/photo_15721129_picnic-table-on-field-background.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=84069796 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=84069796)
http://www.123rf.com/photo_15716075_pine-cone-with-winter-background.html (http://www.123rf.com/photo_15716075_pine-cone-with-winter-background.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=61844695 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=61844695)
portfolio still online at DP, over 400 new files uploaded this month, sent email to support a few hours ago
DT (This account is currently unavailable.)
-
The portfolio is live at SS but has only 1,498 images in it. Looks like all of the composites have been removed. Lots of isolations. Some things with foreground but a white, blue or green background I presume ready to drop onto a background.
-
Still no explanation from SS. I'm quite surprised, as this looks like a huge issue. Even if they said that they can't let us know what's happening right now for legal reasons, it would be better than no comment at all.
-
123RF have removed a few files but its useless, it will never end, if agencies are willing to pay me I will work for them ;D
[url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_15721129_picnic-table-on-field-background.html[/url] ([url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_15721129_picnic-table-on-field-background.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=84069796[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=84069796[/url])
[url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_15716075_pine-cone-with-winter-background.html[/url] ([url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_15716075_pine-cone-with-winter-background.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=61844695[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=61844695[/url])
portfolio still online at DP, over 400 new files uploaded this month, sent email to support a few hours ago
DT (This account is currently unavailable.)
Bumping this...
He is still up at DP http://depositphotos.com/portfolio-1489960.html (http://depositphotos.com/portfolio-1489960.html) . What did the support have to say about this???
-
Looks like he is going down, ss is, gone, 123rf+ most of he portfolio is gone, same at dp - most of photos are unavailable... ;)
-
123RF have removed a few files but its useless, it will never end, if agencies are willing to pay me I will work for them ;D
[url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_15721129_picnic-table-on-field-background.html[/url] ([url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_15721129_picnic-table-on-field-background.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=84069796[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=84069796[/url])
[url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_15716075_pine-cone-with-winter-background.html[/url] ([url]http://www.123rf.com/photo_15716075_pine-cone-with-winter-background.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=61844695[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=61844695[/url])
portfolio still online at DP, over 400 new files uploaded this month, sent email to support a few hours ago
DT (This account is currently unavailable.)
Bumping this...
He is still up at DP [url]http://depositphotos.com/portfolio-1489960.html[/url] ([url]http://depositphotos.com/portfolio-1489960.html[/url]) . What did the support have to say about this???
I have contacted them and they told me they will deal with it, my opinion is that they won't do anything but DP is a minor issue, SS was the more important one
-
I have contacted them and they told me they will deal with it, my opinion is that they won't do anything but DP is a minor issue, SS was the more important one
It looks like if you click on any of the obvious composite photos, that have a sharp foreground and a blurred background, you get a "404 page not found". The rest of his port seems to be clickable.
-
I have contacted them and they told me they will deal with it, my opinion is that they won't do anything but DP is a minor issue, SS was the more important one
It looks like if you click on any of the obvious composite photos, that have a sharp foreground and a blurred background, you get a "404 page not found". The rest of his port seems to be clickable.
looks like they have followed my email, I have told them he was using other work as blurred backgrounds
-
So how did the story end ? Did Shutterstock reimburse the artists who had their pictures ripped off ? Did they contact the people who they had sold them to to tell them to un-use them ?
-
So how did the story end ? Did Shutterstock reimburse the artists who had their pictures ripped off ? Did they contact the people who they had sold them to to tell them to un-use them ?
You know that's not going to happen, right?
In an ideal world, sure, that's the right thing to do. But in reality? Not likely to ever happen.
-
So how did the story end ? Did Shutterstock reimburse the artists who had their pictures ripped off ? Did they contact the people who they had sold them to to tell them to un-use them ?
You know that's not going to happen, right?
In an ideal world, sure, that's the right thing to do. But in reality? Not likely to ever happen.
I see no possible reason why the original artists can't be compensated with, at least, the amount the offender got for the sale.
Since, perhaps surprisingly, the rest of his port is still up, the money could come from his future sales.
-
What has happened to the contributor?. I just found out that you used my photo.
-
.
-
yeah, looks like he stopped uploading to both agencies, guess he opened a new account everywhere and started all over, don't think he would have left stock for good
-
.
-
like I have said, he is back with a new account with close to 5k files
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1433222p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1433222p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139820083 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139820083)
http://pt.depositphotos.com/17609639/stock-photo-Bread-and-napkin.html?sqc=21&sqm=29&sq=2ddaih (http://pt.depositphotos.com/17609639/stock-photo-Bread-and-napkin.html?sqc=21&sqm=29&sq=2ddaih)
he is using his own pictures I guess, he does have a few backgrounds approved as well, now its up to SS
-
.
-
like I have said, he is back with a new account with close to 5k files
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1433222p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1433222p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139820083[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139820083[/url])
[url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/17609639/stock-photo-Bread-and-napkin.html?sqc=21&sqm=29&sq=2ddaih[/url] ([url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/17609639/stock-photo-Bread-and-napkin.html?sqc=21&sqm=29&sq=2ddaih[/url])
It didn't make sense without the links. Does SS know about it yet?
what do you think? I am sure they don't! I have one exclusive doing pretty things on other agencies too, been following for months, guess his time is close to the end ;D
-
.
-
like I have said, he is back with a new account with close to 5k files
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1433222p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1433222p1.html[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139820083[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=139820083[/url])
[url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/17609639/stock-photo-Bread-and-napkin.html?sqc=21&sqm=29&sq=2ddaih[/url] ([url]http://pt.depositphotos.com/17609639/stock-photo-Bread-and-napkin.html?sqc=21&sqm=29&sq=2ddaih[/url])
It didn't make sense without the links. Does SS know about it yet?
what do you think? I am sure they don't! I have one exclusive doing pretty things on other agencies too, been following for months, guess his time is close to the end ;D
Why haven't you said anything if you think they are stealing other people's work?
who are you talking about? you were the one bringing up this topic, I just went to find his new account
regarding the exclusive at iStock, he isn't using other pictures but his own ;D
-
.
-
How . can he/she continue :-\
-
I was asking about the exclusive. You mean he's contributing to other sites?
yep, his best sellers are being used as other versions (mirrored, cropped, etc) in other agencies, he is a curious guy, he stopped for about 2 years but a few months ago started uploading again to most agencies ;D
-
.
-
I can not believe, Shutterstock has deleted accounts for much less and if someone reopens under another name, is also close it, why has this guy does not?
-
I'm not surprised a few people would try that.
yeah but they are dumb, if I ever thought of that I would upload totally different pictures, not mirrored/cropped versions
-
I can not believe, Shutterstock has deleted accounts for much less and if someone reopens under another name, is also close it, why has this guy does not?
because we (tickstock, then I) only found it today, will see what happens
-
he haven't waited a single day to open a new account, his first files are from January (same time he was banned)
-
removed a few posts that didn't solve anything and were simply a little bickering.
-
removed a few posts that didn't solve anything and were simply a little bickering.
Thanks! It gets a bit rough in here some times!!
-
removed a few posts that didn't solve anything and were simply a little bickering.
Thanks! It gets a bit rough in here some times!!
You ain't drinking enough. I'd recommend a few slugs of JD's Tennessee Honey before any forum interaction. As you can probably tell, I do follow my own advice to the letter.
-
I think that I'll try your recommendation, but with Tullamore Dew. I generally prefer Irish whiskeys to American ones. :D
-
How about Bushmill's Irish Honey?
-
I haven't tried the Irish Honey, but I certainly don't have anything against Bushmill's. I'll give it a go for certain.
What are your thoughts on Red Breast?
-
I'm enjoying the honey bourbons lately (Evan Walker is not bad) although Tullamore Dew is usually in my cupboard (I haven't got my hands on the Special Reserve yet). Also Paddy's which is soft and was recommended to me when I was in Ireland last. I like it hot with lemon and cloves. Probably a bit whimpy for your taste but always dependable. Redbreast sounds interesting and I did see it at the local liquor store so may give it a go. Thanks for the suggestion.