Thanks Gualtiero,
I hope there is more participation from everyone, it's about protecting our work and our copyright.

If you want to follow the updates, friend me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/antonio.gravantestockphoto/ [nofollow]

AI does so many great things. Why not use it to detect these thieves? I don't think it's difficult ...

And then I believe that to enter these agencies from now, you have to pass a very tough entry test of 100 images, to guarantee quality for subscribers and to guarantee REAL contributors.

90% of Shutterstock images are snapshots or stolen images. The quality of the offer has deteriorated a lot.

On a simple search I found three thieves using my pictures on Adobe Stock. Two of them have already been blocked.
That's right, it's not a complicated process, I don't understand why these companies don't do the process automatically during reviews.

 

We have to start protesting, otherwise there will be no difference between closing the account and not earning anything anymore. The customers are there and the photos are useful, the rest is lies. The problems are oversupply, free photo sites, scammers, and agencies with cheap memberships with unlimited downloads.

It is absolutely incomprehensible to me - especially in times of ever-improving AI - why newly uploaded images are not compared with images already in the database during the review process. This could be an automated process.

New images (also mirrored) could be checked as easily as with the google reverse image search.

Perhaps there is a reason why not much emphasis is placed on this.

If it is discovered that someone has an account with stolen images, the account will be closed and the money that has not yet been paid out will certainly be withheld. The return of money that has already been paid out may also be demanded. So it's a win-win situation for the agencies because they get the money for selling the images but don't have to pay anything to the contributor.

And the contributor who actually took the image does not receive any compensation anyway.

Conclusion: Accounts with stolen images and videos that are discovered are a lucrative source of income. Therefore, the effort to prevent this is non-existent.

Yeah, sounds like a disgusting strategy of a further increase of earnings. Brutal, what a mess this industry had become. I would never ever invest time of producing real photos anymore.

Great work Gualtiero! Didn't someone in the past have a wack a mole program and SS punished that person instead of the thieves?

Thanks to Antonio Gravante! Really wonderful hard work he's doing.

It's so weird that the agencies all say they are strict about having a policy that rejects "too many similars" and then they take thousands of identical images!

It seems like it should be easy to set up an automatic check to prevent identical images from being uploaded but perhaps it would also grab too many similar photographs? Like landmarks taken from a similar position much as you often find similar but not identical images when you do a google images search? That would then require a human to check - and I suspect the agencies pay reviewers poorly requiring them to get through as many images as possible in the shortest amount of time, so adding this burden would require the agencies to pay reviewers more - or to have a separate review process that checks for identical images paying for that part of the review separately - that would seem the fairest way.

We certainly deserve to have this kind of review to protect our work, which has already been so devalued by the concept of microstock. It's the least the agencies can do considering we bear all the costs of production and keywording.

DigitalID sounds like a great idea but then I live in a country where I can't imagine my government punishing me for what I post. I can see how it could be dangerous for those who are not so fortunate to have their work identified. I assume that's what @SuperPhoto is referring to? Or am I missing something. If it's widely available but voluntary, wouldn't that avoid the problem?

thief https://www.shutterstock.com/g/MARENZO 

Agencies will close thief accounts if they are reported, but otherwise do little to prevent fraud because there is nothing in it for them.  They get 85% (or whatever) regardless if asset has been downloaded from original creator port or stolen port.  As simple as that.

Agencies will close thief accounts if they are reported, but otherwise do little to prevent fraud because there is nothing in it for them.  They get 85% (or whatever) regardless if asset has been downloaded from original creator port or stolen port.  As simple as that.

OK, but they are knowingly selling stolen material, legally are they not worried?

Complicated and very hypothetical...besides, the buyer is unaware of the problem, why involve him?

Complicated and very hypothetical...besides, the buyer is unaware of the problem, why involve him?

Yes complicated, but you should also be able to receive a large damage compensation (it's based on the laws in your country though - I think if you're based in the US, you'll have a very large one).

Yes, the buyer is unaware and Shutterstock doesn't care about thieves (they get their commission either way). So what else can you do? Besides the buyer can sue Shutterstock for the damage inflicted and also make a win out of this. Shutterstock will try to make the thief contributor pay, which is probably going to be difficult with most of them - but in any case they will suspend their account.