Author Topic: Resimstock - Turkish site stealing images and selling with EL? (Read 28704 times)

fotorob · « **on:** August 06, 2015, 09:54 »

Hello,

I was just made aware of a site called "Resimstock.com" which offers thousands of images.

It seems to be shady, because the photo author is not mentioned, instead it says "Owner: Resimstock" and they sell the images with an Extended Licence.

I found several of my images, for example:
http:/ /resimstock.com/photo/2392/Health,-Care,-Doctor,-People,-Hospital.html

from Kurhan:
http:/ /resimstock.com/photo/821/Business,-I%C5%9F,-Call-Center,-%C3%87a%C4%9Fr%C4%B1-Merkezi.html

from ArtFamily:
http:/ /resimstock.com/photo/1858/Others.html

Minerva Studio:
http:/ /resimstock.com/photo/540/Business,-I%C5%9F.html

WavebreakMediaMicro:
http:/ /resimstock.com/photo/2464/Technic,-technology.html

Lev Dolgachov / Syda Productions:
http:/ /resimstock.com/photo/1406/smiling-couple-having-fun-in-park.html

Peshkova:
http:/ /resimstock.com/photo/665/Business,-I%C5%9F.html

Monkey Business:
http:/ /resimstock.com/photo/17/Group-Of-Friends-Standing-By-Car-On-Coastal-Road-At-Sunset.html

and many many more. (links not clickable on purpose)

Does anybody know more about the site?

What would be the best way to find out or get the images removed?

Thanks in advance,
Robert Kneschke

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2015, 10:50 »

I would contact them and tell them to remove your images and that you will be notifying other artists whose stuff they are selling. Then search this forum for DCMA. Some folks have used this process to shut the rouge sites down.

Also, break the links in your original post so they cannot track them back to our forum (add a space or remove a character).

They must be a scam because there are no artist credits. Even if they were part of a partner program there would probably be credits.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2015, 12:30 »

I didn't see any of mine at a quick glance, but the filenames of some are a giveaway. Most are just numbers, but search for tunnel and you'll get a picture of a "tunnel of media" and the filename is

Fotolia_65372548_Subscription_Monthly_XXL.jpg

I know the guy whose image this is, so I sent him e-mail about it.

There's another Fotolia file name for a Sergei Nivens image (search for cosmos to find it)

Fotolia_60157821_Subscription_Monthly_XL.jpg

This really suggests that this bum got these from a subscription and forgot to rename some of them...

objowl · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2015, 13:23 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 06, 2015, 12:30

I didn't see any of mine at a quick glance, but the filenames of some are a giveaway. Most are just numbers, but search for tunnel and you'll get a picture of a "tunnel of media" and the filename is

Fotolia_65372548_Subscription_Monthly_XXL.jpg

I know the guy whose image this is, so I sent him e-mail about it.

There's another Fotolia file name for a Sergei Nivens image (search for cosmos to find it)

Fotolia_60157821_Subscription_Monthly_XL.jpg

This really suggests that this bum got these from a subscription and forgot to rename some of them...

Search Fotolia and you get 5 images, the 2 above and 3 more.

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #4 on:** August 06, 2015, 13:37 »

Let us know how it goes so we can barrage him with warnings. I like to tell the thieves I will sue them. It seems to have worked sometimes.

fotorob · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2015, 15:43 »

A colleague photographer told me how the site is supposed to work:
The real purpose of the site is to scam people.

They massively contact turkish companies and ask for proof that they purchased the images they have on the website and they try to bully them into paying a "licence" to them, claiming to be a representative of the copyright owner.

I already have contact with a person who claims to be threatened by them now, I will try to get more evidence.

fotorob · « **Reply #6 on:** August 07, 2015, 02:59 »

I just sent an email to them asking to remove my images. Let's see how they react...

Dodie · « **Reply #7 on:** August 08, 2015, 03:43 »

Quote from: fotorob on August 07, 2015, 02:59

I just sent an email to them asking to remove my images. Let's see how they react...

I don't think they will be very impressed.

Why don't you file a DMCA complaint to their web host? You must be sure fist that it is not a stock partner. This site (I don't want to promote its name) is hosted by softlayer.com, host with a questionable reputation.

http://www.softlayer.com/dmca
http://blog.softlayer.com/2012/tips-from-the-abuse-department-part-1-reporting-abuse
http://blog.softlayer.com/2013/tips-from-the-abuse-department-dmca-takedown-notices

You can use a DMCA copyright infringement form from G00gle as a model.
Only the web hosting service has the power to take down a site if the owner doesn't react to your email.
I don't know if they will take any action but it is a necessary step before you file a DMCA complaint to G00gle. They will contact the host and if you are lucky, they will at least, take down the site from G search.

I did this, with success, many times for images stolen from my blogs. Unfortunately, these thieves will just create another site with the same content.

fotorob · « **Reply #8 on:** August 08, 2015, 10:52 »

@Dodie:

So far I did not get response to my email, not even the automated "Delivery Status Notification" (DNS) I requested when sending the mail.

But I issued the DMCA notice to the host now, let's see if it helps.

Dodie · « **Reply #9 on:** August 08, 2015, 14:36 »

Quote from: fotorob on August 08, 2015, 10:52

@Dodie:

So far I did not get response to my email, not even the automated "Delivery Status Notification" (DNS) I requested when sending the mail.

But I issued the DMCA notice to the host now, let's see if it helps.

Is this your image: https://goo.gl/UUnTuC
I found 36 copies of it, some are legit, others have all kind of watermarks on it.

I don't want to discourage you but there is no way to stop thieves.
I made this for a long time (as I said before); a website designer company mirrored all my blogs on many of their clients' sites, ripping off content with automated software. All sites had the same content (mine) and look, they didn't even bother to vary their free WP template. Though I had a high % of success with removals at prestigious web hosts, I always found another site doing the same thing. At the end I was so tired that I abandoned the blogs, haven't posted anything new for years (still paying for domain).
It was than that I discovered stock. "There's always something new to fall in love with".

Don't beat yourself up, it is not worth it.

Much luck!

Lev · « **Reply #10 on:** August 09, 2015, 08:46 »

It's a scam.

Same company was acting similar way 2 months ago. We've got a lot of complains from Turkey.

That's why we have a warning for Turkish customers on our website ( http://sydaproductions.com ) .

Thanks for letting know these criminals are acting again, Robert.

Lev · « **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2015, 09:52 »

I also issued the DMCA notice to the host.

fotorob · « **Reply #12 on:** August 11, 2015, 02:33 »

More people contacted me know.

It really seems that the company behind Resimstock emails or calls people in Turkey who use an image that is shown on their site and asks for the 150$ fee advertised on the site. They threaten people that if they do not pay, they will take the case to court.

I also got hold of a PDF they email the people which shows that they have a contract with a lawyer (however, they do not seem to provide evidence that they have the rights to pursue usage cases).

So it is more than a "steal images and sell as their own" scheme...

Also, people try to open threads about Resimstock in Turkish forums, but people claim that the company threatens the forums to take them down, so I hope this thread is enough to inform people out the scam why they search for it.

Best regards,
Robert

click_click · « **Reply #13 on:** August 11, 2015, 04:45 »

Their name servers say "KTOOLS.NET" - technically their site should be hosted there (Rockford, MI 49341).

If so, wouldn't it take only one DMCA request to KTOOLS to remove their entire site?

Usually, American web hosts don't take DMCA claims lightly due to the fear of getting sued.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I couldn't find any of my content there so I would have also sent a claim.

Otherwise the registrar should be able to provide the information where the domain is pointing to. Even the registrar (name.com) is located in the US.
Perhaps one can even submit a claim to them as the unlicensed content is displayed under a URL registered through them.

Here the Whois info:

resimstock.com registry whois
Updated 1 second ago - Refresh
Domain Name: RESIMSTOCK.COM
Registrar: NAME.COM, INC.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 625
Whois Server: whois.name.com
Referral URL: http://www.name.com
Name Server: NS1.KTOOLS.NET
Name Server: NS2.KTOOLS.NET
Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 08-jul-2015
Creation Date: 30-jun-2015
Expiration Date: 30-jun-2016
resimstock.com registrar whois
Updated 1 second ago
Domain Name: RESIMSTOCK.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1943332277_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.name.com
Registrar URL: http://www.name.com
Updated Date: 2015-07-08T14:39:15-06:00Z
Creation Date: 2015-06-30T08:42:01-06:00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-06-30T08:42:01-06:00Z
Registrar: Name.com, Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 625
Reseller:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Whois Agent
Registrant Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Registrant Street: PO Box 639
Registrant City: Kirkland
Registrant State/Province: WA
Registrant Postal Code: 98083
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.4252740657
Registrant Fax: +1.4259744730
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Whois Agent
Admin Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Admin Street: PO Box 639
Admin City: Kirkland
Admin State/Province: WA
Admin Postal Code: 98083
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.4252740657
Admin Fax: +1.4259744730
Admin Email: [email protected]
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Whois Agent
Tech Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Tech Street: PO Box 639
Tech City: Kirkland
Tech State/Province: WA
Tech Postal Code: 98083
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.4252740657
Tech Fax: +1.4259744730
Tech Email: [email protected]
Name Server: ns1.ktools.net
Name Server: ns2.ktools.net
DNSSEC: Unsigned Delegation
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.17203101849
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2015-08-11T03:37:22-06:00 <<<

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #14 on:** August 11, 2015, 04:50 »

looks like these are the same people: http://enystock.com/about

Lev · « **Reply #15 on:** August 11, 2015, 06:47 »

I see they keep adding images to resimstock.com

So more photographers may be affected now.

bagnaz adam · « **Reply #16 on:** August 11, 2015, 08:20 »

hi. We are software company from turkey. this web site contacted us today and said 'you are using our photo. we will sue you. you can go to prison for this. if you don't want us to sue you, then pay us 150 dollar which is photo's cost on our site.' interesting thing is we have already pay for the photo at other stock image web site. you can find documents in attachments.

here is the link from turkey telling the same think about resimstock.com:
newbielink:https://eksisozluk.com/resimstock-com--4875947 [nonactive]

Lev · « **Reply #17 on:** August 11, 2015, 09:23 »

bagnaz adam,

I would suggest you to contact Turkish Economical Police and also Turkish business media (newspapers).

fotorob · « **Reply #18 on:** August 11, 2015, 09:37 »

@click_click, thanks I sent the DMCA mail again to Ktools. Let's say how they react.

Dodie · « **Reply #19 on:** August 11, 2015, 09:38 »

ktools.net is selling a software - Photostore http://www.ktools.net/photostore/online-demo
Click on the "Public site Demo" on this page and you will see the same page layout as at Resinstock with a few items missing from the menu. See the "Featured" tab and you will see the same subtabs in the dropdown at both sites.

This is a harder nut than I thought, hard to imagine that anyone will hurt these guys' clients but you should try to bring to their attention that their product is misused.

Just a humble advice, if I may; try to shorten URL and post screenshots where possible. We've made a lot of free advertising for these guys already. As you know, negative advertisement is more precious as the positive one, these days.

kudrt · « **Reply #20 on:** August 11, 2015, 09:51 »

hi, just speaking is worth nothing guys.
we had already charge them by law last week as they contacted us.
our lawyer took it really serious.
and its true, i do not found the threads from last week.
its not a hard nut if you are here in turkey.
wondering what they will say to the prosecuting attorney

thats the most effective way and the only to finish this.
i'll be update you guys with the progression and before i forget hi bagnaz adam:)

Lev · « **Reply #21 on:** August 11, 2015, 09:53 »

kudrt,

Did you also contact the police? I think it's a good case for economical police and also for newspapers.

These people should be punished.

Lev · « **Reply #22 on:** August 11, 2015, 09:56 »

Quote from: Dodie on August 11, 2015, 09:38

Just a humble advice, if I may; try to shorten URL and post screenshots where possible. We've made a lot of free advertising for these guys already. As you know, negative advertisement is more precious as the positive one, these days.

I believe the opposite. People in Turkey are getting massive threats and money demands from these people. Posts of victims on Turkish forums getting deleted because forum admins also get threats. So more negative advertisement is made to this criminal activity - more victims in Turkey can be Google the information about this scam.

kudrt · « **Reply #23 on:** August 11, 2015, 10:00 »

yep, but the police forward us to prosecution to investigate fraud.
and one more thing we have good connections here, we are not small business to mess with.
so i think it should not take long as usual in our case

Lev · « **Reply #24 on:** August 11, 2015, 10:15 »

Good.

From our previous experience with this company - they tend to show their victims a lot of papers similar to one bagnaz adam attached here. I can easily imagine them showing fake papers too.

If they will try to show something that's pretending to be a "proof" of authorisation from photographers or other agencies, don't believe them and ask your lawyer or prosecution to contact photographers or agencies.

Two months ago I sent a warning about this company to all agencies I work with. So no agency would authorise this fraud.

Dodie · « **Reply #25 on:** August 11, 2015, 12:07 »

@ dolgachov,

Well done, though no agency would do such a thing anyway, it is in all TOS that buyers are not allowed to contact photographers.

Now let's grow up!
You say they were acting 2 month ago, domain created on 2015-06-30 but they could have been using another domain name before. How come nobody took any action till now?
I'm somehow confused here; do you want to defend your work and copyright or you want to solve your problems by being the advocate of threatened buyers? I still don't understand how do these people find you if you sell only by stock agencies (as per your web page). You have nothing to fear if you didn't do anything wrong.

Threatening, in itself and asking for money is neither a crime nor fraud. At most it can be is cyberextortion.
Normal police doesn't investigate cyber crime.

Prosecution investigates fraud if there is any solid evidence of fraud. I don't understand those papers bagnaz adam posted and can't find any other tread either. So did someone come up with evidence of fraud or just with threatening? If yes, he will take some mild fine in a year or two, maybe. In the meantime he will get even richer from stealing and you will lose your shirt on lawsuits, no matter how big boys you are.
There are countless examples of such things on the web.

Internet crime is not taken seriously enough by authorities.
You have to do something to take that site down.

Just saying.

Dodie · « **Reply #26 on:** August 11, 2015, 12:25 »

Quote from: kudrt on August 11, 2015, 09:51

hi, just speaking is worth nothing guys.

How right you are.
Good luck and keep us posted!

PhotoStore · « **Reply #27 on:** August 11, 2015, 13:46 »

This is Jon from Ktools.net. This was brought to my attention today. This person is using our PhotoStore product to run a site that seems to be hosting photos that are infringing on copyrights of others. I have given them until tomorrow to remove these photos or I will shut the site and hosting account down. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

click_click · « **Reply #28 on:** August 11, 2015, 14:14 »

Quote from: PhotoStore on August 11, 2015, 13:46

This is Jon from Ktools.net. This was brought to my attention today. This person is using our PhotoStore product to run a site that seems to be hosting photos that are infringing on copyrights of others. I have given them until tomorrow to remove these photos or I will shut the site and hosting account down. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Awesome! That's what I thought, that they actually host these images on the KTOOLS servers which is insanely stupid actually as KTOOLS would never knowingly allow that!!!

Great for stepping up and taking action!

click_click · « **Reply #29 on:** August 11, 2015, 14:18 »

Still, everyone who has been affected will have to keep watching that URL as that company will change (or have to change) their web hosts.

So their domain name will redirect you to the new web host and the game may start all over again.

Therefore, if KTOOLS shuts them down AND your images appear again under that domain name In a few days/weeks then send a DMCA claim to both the new webhost AND the registrar of that domain name (name.com).

If the domain registrar is also aware that their client is abusing the domain name, they might shut down the domain name as well for copyright infringement (which is explicitly forbidden by the TOS of name.com).

cathyslife · « **Reply #30 on:** August 11, 2015, 15:20 »

Quote from: PhotoStore on August 11, 2015, 13:46

This is Jon from Ktools.net. This was brought to my attention today. This person is using our PhotoStore product to run a site that seems to be hosting photos that are infringing on copyrights of others. I have given them until tomorrow to remove these photos or I will shut the site and hosting account down. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Awesome, Jon!

Now, we will all have to keep an eye out...once they are shut down from Ktools server, you can believe they will find hosting somewhere else. Unless the lawyers shut them down.

Dodie · « **Reply #31 on:** August 11, 2015, 15:48 »

Quote from: PhotoStore on August 11, 2015, 13:46

This is Jon from Ktools.net. This was brought to my attention today. This person is using our PhotoStore product to run a site that seems to be hosting photos that are infringing on copyrights of others. I have given them until tomorrow to remove these photos or I will shut the site and hosting account down. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Problem solved! Great.

@ Jon from Ktools.net.
Sorry for doubting your possible actions in my statement. Maybe a better choice of words would have been more appropriate.

Lev · « **Reply #32 on:** August 12, 2015, 07:02 »

As I see, they deleted 3 images I used as examples in DMCA notice, but left hundreds my our other images on their site.

In the meanwhile I've got another complain from Turkish customer who bought image on Shutterstock some time ago and now is threatened by these people.

PhotoStore · « **Reply #33 on:** August 12, 2015, 09:00 »

He started taking down some of the photos but as a couple of you have pointed out there are still others. I have emailed him again to have him remove all these photos. If it is not done today the account will be closed for good and completely removed from our servers. This is definitely not something we take lightly. If anyone has any further issues or questions with the site feel free to email me directly at newbielink:mailto:[email protected] [nonactive].

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #34 on:** August 12, 2015, 13:17 »

If you haven't shut the account down yet then no, sorry, you aren't taking it seriously.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #35 on:** August 12, 2015, 15:34 »

Quote from: PhotoStore on August 12, 2015, 09:00

He started taking down some of the photos but as a couple of you have pointed out there are still others. I have emailed him again to have him remove all these photos. If it is not done today the account will be closed for good and completely removed from our servers. This is definitely not something we take lightly. If anyone has any further issues or questions with the site feel free to email me directly at [email protected].

I don't understand why, after all this evidence that images are stolen, people are being threatened and harrassed and abuse the TOS, you still give them 24 hours to comply. If I were you, I'd shut down the site without prior notice. You have that right, I assume.

click_click · « **Reply #36 on:** August 13, 2015, 02:23 »

In previous instances where images of mine were offered for sale on a website (or otherwise used to make money without the appropraite license) the web host shut down the site after one DMCA complaint that I made.

I think KTOOLS can show some support for artists when clearly a company is ripping off contributors with rather large sums making some good money through extortion.

Did anybody send a copy of these documents to KTOOLS so they can verify the accusations? This may accelerate the closure of the account.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #37 on:** August 13, 2015, 02:34 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on August 12, 2015, 15:34

Quote from: PhotoStore on August 12, 2015, 09:00
He started taking down some of the photos but as a couple of you have pointed out there are still others. I have emailed him again to have him remove all these photos. If it is not done today the account will be closed for good and completely removed from our servers. This is definitely not something we take lightly. If anyone has any further issues or questions with the site feel free to email me directly at [email protected].

I don't understand why, after all this evidence that images are stolen, people are being threatened and harrassed and abuse the TOS, you still give them 24 hours to comply. If I were you, I'd shut down the site without prior notice. You have that right, I assume.

They are doing the same thing as the actual site itself. Hiding behind the DMCA. Only taking down the images specifically reported, even if every image that is investigated turns out to dodgy. How could the site comply? What is KTools waiting for? I hope every photographer using KTools reads this thread is all I can say.

martinn · « **Reply #38 on:** August 13, 2015, 02:43 »

Quote from: bagnaz adam on August 11, 2015, 08:20

hi. We are software company from turkey. this web site contacted us today and said 'you are using our photo. we will sue you. you can go to prison for this. if you don't want us to sue you, then pay us 150 dollar which is photo's cost on our site.' interesting thing is we have already pay for the photo at other stock image web site. you can find documents in attachments.

here is the link from turkey telling the same think about resimstock.com:
newbielink:https://eksisozluk.com/resimstock-com--4875947 [nonactive]

Same thing happaned to me also. I am from Turkey. They called me yesterday and told me to pay $150 dollars or you will go to jail for 2 years. You said you suited them. What happened? What can i do?

macukali · « **Reply #39 on:** August 13, 2015, 04:25 »

Obviously they're confidence tricksters.
I'm from Turkey too. Turkish webmasters or stock photographers call police immediately or use online complaint form( newbielink:http://www.egm.gov.tr/sayfalar/ihbar.aspx [nonactive]) and informing about their illegal activities especially their banks IBAN number and telephone numbers etc.
They've no intent to remove photos their website. I think their host dont want lose their customer because its big business $150 from single photo without any cost. I think shutterstock and the other big companies need pay attention to this case

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #40 on:** August 13, 2015, 05:35 »

I hope everyone complaining has legally licensed their photos from stock sites, otherwise bringing this to the attention of legitimate sites could just result in a legitimate suing. If not they need to run out and get licenses ASAP. Just saying.

fotorob · « **Reply #41 on:** August 13, 2015, 06:31 »

Thanks to everyone for helping to shut down the site (at least for now)

Dodie · « **Reply #42 on:** August 13, 2015, 07:10 »

Congratulations!

fritz · « **Reply #43 on:** August 13, 2015, 07:14 »

Good work! Site is down.

Lev · « **Reply #44 on:** August 13, 2015, 07:58 »

Is it the same hosting?

Looks like some other hosting and "site under constuction".

click_click · « **Reply #45 on:** August 13, 2015, 09:01 »

Quote from: dolgachov on August 13, 2015, 07:58

Is it the same hosting?

Looks like some other hosting and "site under constuction".

Yes they have changed their hosting company as the updated WHOIS information shows:

Code: [Select]

Domain Name: RESIMSTOCK.COM
Registrar: NAME.COM, INC.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 625
Whois Server: whois.name.com
Referral URL: http://www.name.com
Name Server: NS1.NATROHOST.COM
Name Server: NS2.NATROHOST.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 13-aug-2015
Creation Date: 30-jun-2015
Expiration Date: 30-jun-2016
resimstock.com registrar whois
	Updated 1 second ago
Domain Name: RESIMSTOCK.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1943332277_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.name.com
Registrar URL: http://www.name.com
Updated Date: 2015-08-13T10:41:10-06:00Z
Creation Date: 2015-06-30T08:42:01-06:00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-06-30T08:42:01-06:00Z
Registrar: Name.com, Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 625
Reseller:  
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:  
Registrant Name: Whois Agent
Registrant Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Registrant Street: PO Box 639  
Registrant City: Kirkland
Registrant State/Province: WA
Registrant Postal Code: 98083
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.4252740657
Registrant Fax: +1.4259744730
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Registry Admin ID:  
Admin Name: Whois Agent
Admin Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Admin Street: PO Box 639  
Admin City: Kirkland
Admin State/Province: WA
Admin Postal Code: 98083
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.4252740657
Admin Fax: +1.4259744730
Admin Email: [email protected]
Registry Tech ID:  
Tech Name: Whois Agent
Tech Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Tech Street: PO Box 639  
Tech City: Kirkland
Tech State/Province: WA
Tech Postal Code: 98083
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.4252740657
Tech Fax: +1.4259744730
Tech Email: [email protected]
Name Server: ns1.natrohost.com
Name Server: ns2.natrohost.com
DNSSEC: Unsigned Delegation
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.17203101849
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2015-08-13T07:59:05-06:00 <<<

Do we have someone here who speaks Turkish? I used Google translate to check for Natro.com's copyright terms but couldn't find any.

Probably they picked a web host who doesn't care about copyright. They most likely won't make this "mistake" twice.

click_click · « **Reply #46 on:** August 13, 2015, 09:06 »

I can only repeat, if Resimstock comes back online with the same site, I recommend that affected artists should also contact (DMCA claim) the domain registrar "name.com" as well.

Name.com is located in the US and if they see any chance that someone could make a copyright claim against them for knowingly supporting that company should lead to quick actions as well.

macukali · « **Reply #47 on:** August 14, 2015, 08:32 »

natrohost and Turkish police wants 'court order' for intervention

Good luck!

Sebastian Radu · « **Reply #48 on:** August 14, 2015, 09:03 »

I saw that their site is again online.... $:-\$

blackorange · « **Reply #49 on:** August 27, 2015, 15:12 »

Hello, I'm Turkish. Natro's service agreement has such terms at the page below and translates as follows.

newbielink:http://www.natro.com/webhosting/hizmetSozlesmesi.asp [nonactive]

a. Paylaşılan web sunucuları ve Bayi sunucularının hiçbirinde kabul edilmeyen materyallere şunlar dahildir:
Forbidden materials in any of the shared web servers and reseller servers includes below,

• Telif hakları ödenmemiş içeriklerin yayınlanması
Publishing copyright protected content without holding the rights

As for the threats, when asked to prove their authority over the materials, they claim photos were taken either in their studios or in a studio they represent according to a legal agreement that imposes confidentiality clause thereby there never disclose who they actually represent at the artist side.

This is still a hot topic for Turkish web sites, everyone should write their findings.

Quote from: click_click on August 13, 2015, 09:01

Quote from: dolgachov on August 13, 2015, 07:58
Is it the same hosting?

Looks like some other hosting and "site under constuction".

Yes they have changed their hosting company as the updated WHOIS information shows:

Code: newbielink:javascript:void(0); [nonactive]
Domain Name: RESIMSTOCK.COM Registrar: NAME.COM, INC. Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 625 Whois Server: whois.name.com Referral URL: http://www.name.com Name Server: NS1.NATROHOST.COM Name Server: NS2.NATROHOST.COM Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Updated Date: 13-aug-2015 Creation Date: 30-jun-2015 Expiration Date: 30-jun-2016 resimstock.com registrar whois Updated 1 second ago Domain Name: RESIMSTOCK.COM Registry Domain ID: 1943332277_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.name.com Registrar URL: http://www.name.com Updated Date: 2015-08-13T10:41:10-06:00Z Creation Date: 2015-06-30T08:42:01-06:00Z Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-06-30T08:42:01-06:00Z Registrar: Name.com, Inc. Registrar IANA ID: 625 Reseller: Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: Whois Agent Registrant Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Registrant Street: PO Box 639 Registrant City: Kirkland Registrant State/Province: WA Registrant Postal Code: 98083 Registrant Country: US Registrant Phone: +1.4252740657 Registrant Fax: +1.4259744730 Registrant Email: [email protected] Registry Admin ID: Admin Name: Whois Agent Admin Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Admin Street: PO Box 639 Admin City: Kirkland Admin State/Province: WA Admin Postal Code: 98083 Admin Country: US Admin Phone: +1.4252740657 Admin Fax: +1.4259744730 Admin Email: [email protected] Registry Tech ID: Tech Name: Whois Agent Tech Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Tech Street: PO Box 639 Tech City: Kirkland Tech State/Province: WA Tech Postal Code: 98083 Tech Country: US Tech Phone: +1.4252740657 Tech Fax: +1.4259744730 Tech Email: [email protected] Name Server: ns1.natrohost.com Name Server: ns2.natrohost.com DNSSEC: Unsigned Delegation Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected] Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.17203101849 URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/ >>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2015-08-13T07:59:05-06:00 <<<Do we have someone here who speaks Turkish? I used Google translate to check for Natro.com's copyright terms but couldn't find any.

Probably they picked a web host who doesn't care about copyright. They most likely won't make this "mistake" twice.

robbinsbox · « **Reply #50 on:** August 29, 2015, 08:34 »

actually, even though the site is back online, it can only be good to have this raised here. I live in Turkey, did a quick search and, for the moment, plenty of warnings out there thanks in part to the OP. The name resimstock has effectively zero value, they may rebrand and move on, there is another stock site associated them, same address, enystock. So if that crops up, be wary.
Also, I just joined, followed on and off for a while. Great source of info and advice.
Michael

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #51 on:** August 29, 2015, 11:06 »

Quote from: robbinsbox on August 29, 2015, 08:34

The name resimstock has effectively zero value, they may rebrand and move on, there is another stock site associated them, same address, enystock.
Michael

That is the actual company I think, the site said that they were enystock trading as Resimstock or something similar I think.

superdone · « **Reply #52 on:** September 04, 2015, 02:42 »

good to know,thanks

kudrt · « **Reply #53 on:** September 08, 2015, 13:19 »

hey guys quick update:
i was today out of office and our firm did get a letter from the procuratorial.
so my attorney went there to inform himself over the issue.
this firm had start a prosecution against us

my lawyer told me that we had used a cultuca rm content for over 5,5 years.
and now they demanding over 1.800 € for settlement.
p.s. i remember that i took this picture with our web designer at that time from adidas turkeys page, because i thought it was kind a cool and hip.
all this is just a joke from now on for me, i told my lawyer to accept nothing

cathyslife · « **Reply #54 on:** September 08, 2015, 14:25 »

Quote from: kudrt on September 08, 2015, 13:19

hey guys quick update:
i was today out of office and our firm did get a letter from the procuratorial.
so my attorney went there to inform himself over the issue.
this firm had start a prosecution against us
my lawyer told me that we had used a cultuca rm content for over 5,5 years.
and now they demanding over 1.800 € for settlement.
p.s. i remember that i took this picture with our web designer at that time from adidas turkeys page, because i thought it was kind a cool and hip.
all this is just a joke from now on for me, i told my lawyer to accept nothing

So are you saying that you actually DID use a rights-managed image you weren't supposed to?

kudrt · « **Reply #55 on:** September 08, 2015, 14:35 »

i don't understand by meaning you weren't supposed to?
the same picture was also on google but with lower quality.
so we took it with right click and safe as, all people i know do this here.
whats the the matter?
you really don't expect that someone pays that much (except maybe very big international corporates).
and after paying you are limited in time, come on.

ppdd · « **Reply #56 on:** September 08, 2015, 14:49 »

So here's the business model: You live in a place where you know all content is stolen. You pretend to be the copyright owner and send out random demands for payment, which will be taken seriously since everyone is in violation. If they pay, they still won't be in compliance, but no one cares one way or the other. I don't much care for either side in this battle.

kudrt · « **Reply #57 on:** September 08, 2015, 14:57 »

if they can go legal and they are, they must have show something,
but please can someone in god sake explain to me in a easy way
whats this whole matter with rights managed content?

click_click · « **Reply #58 on:** September 08, 2015, 15:21 »

Sorry for being late but this requires a lot more than just a bucket of popcorn...

Anywho, let the discussion begin

kudrt · « **Reply #59 on:** September 08, 2015, 15:41 »

excuse me but i really dont understand the reaction from cathyslife?
it felt like that im accused and im the guilty part

ppdd · « **Reply #60 on:** September 08, 2015, 15:49 »

Quote from: kudrt on September 08, 2015, 15:41

excuse me but i really dont understand the reaction from cathyslife?
it felt like that im accused and im the guilty part

It sounds like you are taking images that interest you from Google Images and using them in your designs. Is that what you do? That is illegal, and any time you do that, it directly takes money from people on this forum. So, people are trying figure out if that is what you do. Images you use should be licensed from the people who create them or the agencies that represent them, not stolen from elsewhere online.

kudrt · « **Reply #61 on:** September 08, 2015, 16:05 »

sorry ppdd but,
if i can get it on google without watermarks, then its for me legal.
google images and their search function is the same like on 'your agencies'.
main problem is that these agencies and photographers mislead customers on purpose.
For example in my country many people dont understand proper english, but on these sites
you have royalty free images (that leads to misunderstandings) or like in my case they invent licenses with absurd fees.
theres a big problem in this stock business

ppdd · « **Reply #62 on:** September 08, 2015, 16:11 »

There is a zero percent chance that anyone on this board gives a crap about your argument.

kudrt · « **Reply #63 on:** September 08, 2015, 16:19 »

thats your opinion and i respect it,
im just a layman and thats my point of view.
these are my thoughts or rather that is what i learn from my investigations.
like they say: each man to his own

estike · « **Reply #64 on:** September 08, 2015, 16:54 »

When you did investigations you should have seen: "This image may be copyrighted." The meaning of copyright is known by everyone also laymans. Sorry, no comprehension for your situation.

loop · « **Reply #65 on:** September 08, 2015, 17:04 »

Quote from: kudrt on September 08, 2015, 16:05

sorry ppdd but,
if i can get it on google without watermarks, then its for me legal.
google images and their search function is the same like on 'your agencies'.
main problem is that these agencies and photographers mislead customers on purpose.
For example in my country many people dont understand proper english, but on these sites
you have royalty free images (that leads to misunderstandings) or like in my case they invent licenses with absurd fees.
theres a big problem in this stock business

That's like saying "If I can kill you without being caught, then is legal"
Good luck, **hole

trek · « **Reply #66 on:** September 08, 2015, 17:16 »

Quote from: kudrt on September 08, 2015, 16:05

sorry ppdd but,
if i can get it on google without watermarks, then its for me legal.
google images and their search function is the same like on 'your agencies'.
main problem is that these agencies and photographers mislead customers on purpose.
For example in my country many people dont understand proper english, but on these sites
you have royalty free images (that leads to misunderstandings) or like in my case they invent licenses with absurd fees.
theres a big problem in this stock business

You may have found the image on google but you do not have a valid use license. Use of unlicensed images makes you nothing more than a thief.

kudrt · « **Reply #67 on:** September 08, 2015, 17:30 »

to loop,
thats not a very nice behave from you.
i try to keep my objective level as i can in my situation.
i also dont understand how this conversation came to this point where im the badguy?
thanks to this group and other comments in the internet i think i have a distance view.
how many photographers had complain in this forum about not getting paid or too late?
ok getty and his allegiance do infringement, shutterstock withdraw money from customers on the behalf of auto renew wihout permission. And this goes and goes.
So by all respect every body should handle sometimes critic and the main difference between us is, im attacking no one like you do.
Final note: Then please prohibit google in his actions, if you can.

kudrt · « **Reply #68 on:** September 08, 2015, 17:37 »

and if i should loose legal proceedings (which is impossible in my opion), im man enough to pay for my mistakes, if there is someone

In what kind of world are we living in?
1800€ for 5,5 years for using a single picture, sorry equipped with rights managed license, i forgot.

cathyslife · « **Reply #69 on:** September 08, 2015, 23:28 »

We are living in a world where people who work deserve to get paid, not have someone steal their work. I am not sure what world you are living in.

Just because you find something unwatermarked on google, doesnt mean its free for you to use. And then come to this forum and talk about it like its perfectly ok.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #70 on:** September 09, 2015, 00:11 »

I hope you get sued by Adidas, you have now admitted you and your "designer" stole the image. I suspected there could be more to this earlier in the thread when I said I hope those complaining had actually licensed images for use.

You may think people are being rude to you, but frankly that is nothing like as bad as stealing someone's work without the license. It is like being offended that someone swore at you after you mugged them.

60D · « **Reply #71 on:** September 09, 2015, 11:05 »

kudrt, have you ever noticed that you can filter images in Google search based on usage rights? It's just your imagination that you can use anything without a license just because it appears in Google search.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #72 on:** September 09, 2015, 14:37 »

Even then I wouldn't trust the copyright status reported on google. Their whole model relies on giving other people's stuff away (take a look at youtube). Those images could still be stolen and relabled by the thief. Only trust images licensed from a reliable source, especially for your "not small" business.

LSI · « **Reply #73 on:** September 09, 2015, 20:11 »

Oh man.... *palm-face* + *rolling-eyes* so bad that it got lost in its socket.
I really have to answer kudrt in Turkish, in a way he'll get it...

"Egitim sart."
Kendini savunmandaki cehaletine aciyorum.

Such a typical, low class, and uneducated opinion.
Yes, what you did and do does make you a photo thief.
Uneducated people like yourself, have a tendancy to close mindedly talk and talk annnnd talk as though thay have a right to do anything they want.
Well you don't.
Stop stealing and justifying yourself, just go start researching copyright.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #74 on:** September 09, 2015, 23:37 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 09, 2015, 14:37

Even then I wouldn't trust google. Their whole model relies on giving other people's stuff away. Those images could still be stolen and relabled. Only trust images licensed from a reliable source, especially for your "not small" business.

Google is not the fault. It's just a search. Do you find a book on Google and copy it, for sale? Do you find a song with Google and then resell it as your own. Then why do you accuse Google of being the problem because people find photos and steal them?

What does trusting Google have to do with any of this? It's just a search like every other search. They don't sell or license.

The problem is people like kudrt who are either ignoring the laws and trying to make an excuse or don't understand the laws. Just because anybody can find something on the internet, that doesn't mean it's free. Legally ignorance is not a defense. kudrt is pretending that the laws he doesn't know or understand don't exist because he doesn't know them.

Then kudrt makes up some childish finders keepers legal argument and like you, and tries to blame Google instead of the people who steal. If the door is unlocked, and you walk in and steal things from a house, is it their fault for not locking the door, or yours for stealing?

Should the internet make searching illegal?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #75 on:** September 10, 2015, 03:30 »

? I guess you read another post and posted under the wrong tab or something?

kudrt · « **Reply #76 on:** September 10, 2015, 03:56 »

so many comments from uneducation to criminality.
tzz.
i had a talk with one of the agencies resimstock.com works.
image source say that in my case i had use RM content and they have authorisation for
infringement against antipiracy use.
I offer them 5$ for settlement because on deposit photos i have see similar images to this price.
They rejected

How can it be that i can get images at starting price from 5$ or in this case up to hundreds $ for single image?
Are these in gold or platinium? Did picasso shoot them? Thats a shame, really.
Quite frankly i think they have no chance to convince the court that images at this price tags can be sold, maybe with exception to amateur users with too much money. On this basis they have no chance in their demands

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #77 on:** September 10, 2015, 06:34 »

ppdd · « **Reply #78 on:** September 10, 2015, 11:54 »

Quote from: kudrt on September 10, 2015, 03:56

I offer them 5$ for settlement because on deposit photos i have see similar images to this price.
They rejected
How can it be that i can get images at starting price from 5$ or in this case up to hundreds $ for single image?

So you steal a $50 shirt, and once you get caught, you say "I offered them $50 because that's what it cost, but still they made go to court and made me look like a criminal! I'm so confused!"

It's not a steal-all-you-can and pay if you get caught kind of world.

emjaysmith · « **Reply #79 on:** September 10, 2015, 14:04 »

I sometimes wonder !!!!!!!!!

Stocker2015 · « **Reply #80 on:** September 11, 2015, 14:47 »

We got an email indicaating that we have to buy a photo which was used in a web site that we made. We bought the image from Shutterstock but they claim that they have the rights of the image.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #81 on:** September 11, 2015, 15:28 »

Quote from: kudrt on September 10, 2015, 03:56

so many comments from uneducation to criminality.
tzz.
i had a talk with one of the agencies resimstock.com works.
image source say that in my case i had use RM content and they have authorisation for
infringement against antipiracy use.
I offer them 5$ for settlement because on deposit photos i have see similar images to this price.
They rejected
How can it be that i can get images at starting price from 5$ or in this case up to hundreds $ for single image?
Are these in gold or platinium? Did picasso shoot them? Thats a shame, really.
Quite frankly i think they have no chance to convince the court that images at this price tags can be sold, maybe with exception to amateur users with too much money. On this basis they have no chance in their demands

If you've seen similar images on Depositphotos for $5, why don't you go and license those, and take down the one (s) you stole and used illegally??!

eyeidea · « **Reply #82 on:** September 11, 2015, 15:33 »

Don't see any of mine but I'll be keeping an eye on them. Thank you for the tip!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Resimstock - Turkish site stealing images and selling with EL? (Read 28704 times)

objowl

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors