MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yuri's image used for fake identity  (Read 13087 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 17, 2010, 17:31 »
0
So, I joined www.aquarius.net, the website who connects people who need translations, and people who translate. I was contacted by Mrs. Elvira Ruiz (this is her profile on aquarius http://aquarius.net/expert/54058/) and I translated several documents from Russian and Croatian to English language. The policy of her company www.devinportglobal.com is to pay through paypal 30 days after receipt of translation. She was very polite and we exchanged several emails, but after 40 days of not being paid, I started to call her on the phone. Automatic voice machine is the only thing one can reach there. Then I saw the company already received one bad review on aquarius.
I decided to try tineye, and to check if her profile image is real, and this is what I discovered. The image is fake. It's Yuri Arcurs image:



I was stupid enough not to check it 40 days ago... Should I report this to IS?


lisafx

« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2010, 17:35 »
0
Sorry to hear you were scammed.  That sucks.

Being one of Yuri's images there's no way to prove where it came from.  In my experience IS won't be very helpful about misuse of non-exclusive images even if you can prove they were bought there.

For future reference, I would be skeptical that an image of that style and quality represented a real person anyway.  Most people's profile pictures are more likely to look like snapshots or WalMart-style pictures with cheesy backgrounds.

Good looking person over white just screams "stock photo" IMO.

Hope it turns out for the best... :)

« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2010, 17:36 »
0
Yes Lisa, at the moment I forgot Yuri has images everywhere...

« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2010, 17:40 »
0
Stupid question but is it illegal vs stock photography or simply immoral? I know that faking an identity is illegal and so is scamming people but is using a stock photography for a profile picture against the terms of service of agencies? Just curious!

« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2010, 17:41 »
0
Sorry to hear that, that is a shame. I use Tineye more and more often to check for fakes, sometime you can have surprise...

« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2010, 17:48 »
0
That isn't "faking an identity", any more than any site that uses a stock image to represent themselves.

« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2010, 17:56 »
0
I somehow doubt that it is a 'scam' as such __ assuming of course that your client does actually work for Devonportglobal (have you any proof of that?).

It just doesn't strike me as much of a model for scamming people __ it's a lot of work for probably not much money. You only have a need for the services of translators if you have clients that are going to pay you, in which case you would surely want to cultivate reliable translators. It may be that they only really pay out after the client themselves has paid Devonportglobal.

« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2010, 18:00 »
0
Sorry to hear that, Ivan.

Stupid question but is it illegal vs stock photography or simply immoral? I know that faking an identity is illegal and so is scamming people but is using a stock photography for a profile picture against the terms of service of agencies? Just curious!

I think there is some clause in most sites like this from IS about prohibited uses: "Use that depicts personal endorsement by model".  I think it should apply to a situation like this, or not?  Although this is a bit incoherent with the use in advertisements - a woman talking about the great results of an anti-wrinkle cream is in a way endorsing the product, isn't she?  Even if she is anonymous.  In the present case, it's worse because they are using the model to represent a "real" person.

« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2010, 18:06 »
0
I called Devinport Global, and I typed Elvira's extension. The answering machine said that it's transfering my call to "Elvira Ruiz", but then no one answered. And it's like that for the whole last week. Also, when I want to reach customer support it says that customer support is not available at the moment, and the moments lasts for days. So I guess whole company is fake. Elvira's profile on aquarius is made in january this year, so I guess they posted documents for translation, and after 30 days when they had to pay they simply disappeared.
This website is well known, and I know people who make money on it. The website is very active. I guess not all agencies can afford to pay translators. It works like eBay. Yo bid for a project.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2010, 19:16 »
0
Inconclusive thread on iStock about a similar image use:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=184981&page=1#post3259221
I think it's a pity that when an 'issue' is raised with ce, we don't get any public feedback.
I'd think public feedback would be very useful to see what usages are considered 'unacceptable', for both contributers and buyers' benefit and it would highlight to buyers that they should not misuse images.
For example, I'd really like to know what happened about the British National Party (far right/racist UK political party) use of an iStock image, showing a family allegedly endorsing their policies.

lisafx

« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2010, 19:46 »
0

I think it's a pity that when an 'issue' is raised with ce, we don't get any public feedback.
I'd think public feedback would be very useful to see what usages are considered 'unacceptable', for both contributers and buyers' benefit and it would highlight to buyers that they should not misuse images.
For example, I'd really like to know what happened about the British National Party (far right/racist UK political party) use of an iStock image, showing a family allegedly endorsing their policies.

I completely agree.  We read about these potential misuses but never any follow up to find out what happened. That's not very encouraging IMO.  Surely if there was a positive resolution someone would be Woo Yaying about it...?

Personally I have NEVER heard back from IS support after reporting a clear misuse over a year ago.  I had to pay a lawyer $1100 and go after them myself. 

I realize I am independent, but in this case the buyer freely admitted the image was bought at IS where they had a corporate account.  I feel there should have been some sort of follow up on IS part, even if it was only to say "we can't help you with this".  Deafening silence instead.

« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2010, 20:35 »
0

I think there is some clause in most sites like this from IS about prohibited uses: "Use that depicts personal endorsement by model".  I think it should apply to a situation like this, or not?  Although this is a bit incoherent with the use in advertisements - a woman talking about the great results of an anti-wrinkle cream is in a way endorsing the product, isn't she?  Even if she is anonymous.  In the present case, it's worse because they are using the model to represent a "real" person.

No, those are really for "Bob, pictured here, says Crest is the greatest!".  Just having an image represent your company, even a one person company, probably isn't a crime.

« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2010, 20:55 »
0
Just having an image represent your company, even a one person company, probably isn't a crime.

It is at least unethical if they use it to impersonate someone, especially a non-existing one, even more one in an illegal business like in this case.

helix7

« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2010, 21:15 »
0

No, those are really for "Bob, pictured here, says Crest is the greatest!".  Just having an image represent your company, even a one person company, probably isn't a crime.

In this case, though, if it does turn out that this company is scamming people, they are causing damage to the reputation of the model by using that model's image in the commission of fraud. Obviously there is no way to police this sort of misuse until after a crime is committed, but nonetheless it still seems to fall under the terms of most licenses regarding the use of an image that would portray the model in an unflattering way.

Of course it all pales in comparison to the actual fraud taking place, but it is still misuse in my opinion. Maybe in a gray area of misuse, but still not what stock should be used for.

This whole discussion does make me wonder how widespread this type of usage is, though. In this case it's one image representing one person in a company. Theoretically you could use stock images to (mis)represent every part of a business. Stock images of an office building, interior offices, employees, manufacturing facilities, etc. Meanwhile the company is all owned and operated by some college kid in a dorm. And it's all on the up-and-up according to stock image license terms.

« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2010, 21:17 »
0
It is at least unethical if they use it to impersonate someone, especially a non-existing one, even more one in an illegal business like in this case.
I have seen "beautiful women" smiling with headset on many phone support pages of established businesses, like hosters. I never thought that when calling, I would get that woman on the line.
A fake identity is like on Facebook or in a testimonial about a product on a sales site, where there is clearly implied that the mugshot is from the poster or owner himself.

« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2010, 23:10 »
0
Ok, I'll ake this clear for people who say this is not unethical. First, the website for translation (www.aquarius.net) asks you to upload "your photograph". By registering, you are making your personal profile on aquarius, and not company profile. I think it's unethical to put your full name below someone else's picture on the website that requires YOUR PHOTOGRAPH. Aquarius is not a forum, it's not a blog, it's not a place for people to meet to have fun. For me, it's similar to putting any fake data, like name, address, etc.

The worst thing is I translated several Birth certificates from Russia and Croatia for her, which means, my translation was probably connected with some kind of immigration to US...
I reported the problem to Better Business Bureau of Minnesota.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 23:37 by Whitechild »

« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2010, 00:48 »
0
Ok, I'll ake this clear for people who say this is not unethical. First, the website for translation (www.aquarius.net) asks you to upload "your photograph". By registering, you are making your personal profile on aquarius, and not company profile. I think it's unethical to put your full name below someone else's picture on the website that requires YOUR PHOTOGRAPH.

In this case you are right. The issue goes much further though, as it is a fraudulent business, probably also scamming the candidate-immigrants. You probably should also report it to the police.


« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2010, 06:22 »
0
I haven't looked at the site but if the members offering services are suppose to upload "their" photo I can see where it technically is wrong .. for example if some goofy 16 yr old kid in a messy trailer was using a photo of an intelligent senior business professional in a fancy office that can be very misleading .. I agree totally on that. However it's one of those things that kinda falls on a fine line and agencies have more pressing matters than somebody using a photo on their document translation services profile. But I see your point ... I wouldn't use a stock photo to represent myself either.

I wouldn't see it as a stock related concern though. Somebody mentioned it causing harm to the model. I'm not so sure about that. I don't know any models who would even care about that type of mis-usage .. somebody made me look like I knew how to translate documents .. big deal. Models are more concerned with their likeness being used in a demeaning manor .. like being used to promote a sexy escort service and all their family thinking they became a hooker or maybe that happy smiling shot of them ending up on an interstate billboard for anti-herpie cream. LOL

« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2010, 07:44 »
0
Quote
Personally I have NEVER heard back from IS support after reporting a clear misuse over a year ago.  I had to pay a lawyer $1100 and go after them myself.

I realize I am independent, but in this case the buyer freely admitted the image was bought at IS where they had a corporate account.  I feel there should have been some sort of follow up on IS part, even if it was only to say "we can't help you with this".  Deafening silence instead.

Sorry to hear about that but I guess I'm not surprised. How many thousands or tens of thousands of dollars has IS made off of you? I agree that exclusives should get more perks, but that's just wrong of them not to help you. If you had 10 images in your port and had been a member for 5 years, I could understand.

« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2010, 08:34 »
0
If it was my image and they paid for it, I'm happy.

What buyers do with our images is beyond our control. These days we should be happy actually getting paid for the usage...

Whitechild, I'm sorry to hear your story about not getting paid. But as a freelancer, I never lift a finger without getting paid 50% up front for ANY job.

Furthermore this web site you mentioned does not look professional at all. Who recommended it to you?

« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2010, 13:30 »
0
I got a friend who does translations. The website maybe doesn't look awesome, but it's simple and functional... so, it really works, and yes, like everywhere, there is a warning about scam, but you know, you never expect it will happen to you. I was checking this person and her company website few times, and it looked OK to me. But I didn't check the TinEye. If I did it before, I would know it's scam. :)
Ok, that is a school of life.

« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2010, 13:46 »
0
I got a friend who does translations. The website maybe doesn't look awesome, but it's simple and functional... so, it really works, and yes, like everywhere, there is a warning about scam, but you know, you never expect it will happen to you. I was checking this person and her company website few times, and it looked OK to me. But I didn't check the TinEye. If I did it before, I would know it's scam. :)
Ok, that is a school of life.

I wouldn't have checked it with Tineye either. It was very unfortunate.

« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2010, 14:18 »
0
If it was my image and they paid for it, I'm happy.

What buyers do with our images is beyond our control. These days we should be happy actually getting paid for the usage...

Whitechild, I'm sorry to hear your story about not getting paid. But as a freelancer, I never lift a finger without getting paid 50% up front for ANY job.

Furthermore this web site you mentioned does not look professional at all. Who recommended it to you?

Maybe you would be happy, but I doubt your model would.

« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2010, 14:31 »
0
If it was my image and they paid for it, I'm happy.

What buyers do with our images is beyond our control. These days we should be happy actually getting paid for the usage...

Whitechild, I'm sorry to hear your story about not getting paid. But as a freelancer, I never lift a finger without getting paid 50% up front for ANY job.

Furthermore this web site you mentioned does not look professional at all. Who recommended it to you?

Maybe you would be happy, but I doubt your model would.

I informed all my models that these things can happen. Take it or leave is the motto.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5801 Views
Last post August 29, 2008, 12:53
by gunnar3000
9 Replies
5798 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 09:08
by MicrostockExp
15 Replies
5618 Views
Last post September 10, 2009, 02:12
by sharpshot
3 Replies
3035 Views
Last post November 01, 2011, 00:29
by RacePhoto
6 Replies
2804 Views
Last post November 10, 2012, 07:38
by Microbius

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle