Of course it's unethical.

And it's not for want of asking - I have when I've had agencies take down stolen work of mine. They just don't reply to that part.

The short answer is that there's no law making them act ethically and none of us have sued them about it - fear of lawsuits is also a powerful motivator.

We are just a cost to agencies. Businesses are focused on controlling costs.

Whenever we ask agencies to remove the copyright violations, they close the account of culprit and keep their pending account balance themselves, why?
Isn't this unethical?

While you make a good point that they should pay what's due, if an image was downloaded from a thief's account.

How do you prove that the stolen images were actually sold? Just seeing it listed, we can't assume there was ever a sale or that the agency was actually profiting from showing the image.

I still say the agencies hide behind the protection and don't really try to be proactive to prevent the numerous fake accounts that steal images and try to make money from others work. Section 230 is a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services.

Places like SS will claim that they try to protect us from theft, while it's just a show, minimal effort, so they can claim that they try. It costs money to prevent the fraud, and everything for the Microstock agencies is based on how to make more money, while spending the least.

Note DMCA doesn't protect us either and we have to do the filing?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 07, 2023, 10:50

Quote from: Artist on October 04, 2023, 02:45

Whenever we ask agencies to remove the copyright violations, they close the account of culprit and keep their pending account balance themselves, why?
Isn't this unethical?

While you make a good point that they should pay what's due, if an image was downloaded from a thief's account.

How do you prove that the stolen images were actually sold? Just seeing it listed, we can't assume there was ever a sale or that the agency was actually profiting from showing the image.

I still say the agencies hide behind the protection and don't really try to be proactive to prevent the numerous fake accounts that steal images and try to make money from others work. Section 230 is a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services.

Places like SS will claim that they try to protect us from theft, while it's just a show, minimal effort, so they can claim that they try. It costs money to prevent the fraud, and everything for the Microstock agencies is based on how to make more money, while spending the least.

Note DMCA doesn't protect us either and we have to do the filing?

I think this has became normal for companies to keep the earnings. I agree with you that least effort is made to protect us from theft.
I have seen many contributors whose max portfolio is of theft images.

This is really a concern that needs to be addressed properly.

Just to ask, how much power do DMCA hold?

DMCA is a toothless watchdog that doesn't bark.  Symbolic but does nothing to protect us.

Max portfolio that's stolen images? Some are 100% stolen images. The agencies could find these and remove them, before they make a sale. Look at how many time, we, meaning members here, find and expose the image thieves. Often just stumble across them, not by trying to find fraud. Imagine if SS was making any small effort, how much they could prevent or discourage.

They pretend to look and do the minimum, just for show.

On the other side, I don't think, like some others have suggested, that any agency is intentionally using the non-payment as a way to make a profit. Whether they pay us or someone else, it's all the same. We don't know that the stolen images make anything or get any downloads, or that anyone is ever paid.

Back tracking every image sold from every fraud account, if there are any and the thief hasn't been paid, to send people a dime? Not a reasonable demand and not cost effective.