MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another dodgy Shutterstock portfolio, sigh  (Read 20632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2011, 13:00 »
0
Good catches. I'm shocked no one else has chimed in on this yet.  I don't see any of my images infringed upon by this collection, but someone needs to turn this person in.  Have you alerted Shutterstock?

« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2011, 13:32 »
0
No vectors on 123 but many of the same photos  http://es.123rf.com/profile_xjjx

« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2011, 14:13 »
0
This is my image.....http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-5927658-small-bent-tree-and-roots.php?st=d0f2da1

this is some bloke on Shutterstock......
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-15148288/stock-vector-grunge-tree.html

I've complained to istock, can't do anything, complained to Shutterstock, it's still for sale.

They may not be identical but some parts are.

« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2011, 14:21 »
0
I don't want to downplay your case John - it's a shame that you can't get either agency to act - but the butterfly head girl is not in any way shape or form something someone could claim was their own creation (I'm assuming the tree argument was that they might have had a similarly bent tree in their back garden as the reference for their illustration). Slapping hibiscus on top doesn't cut it.

Has someone contacted IS and SS or the IS artist(s)?

« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2011, 14:24 »
0
This is my image.....http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-5927658-small-bent-tree-and-roots.php?st=d0f2da1

this is some bloke on Shutterstock......
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-15148288/stock-vector-grunge-tree.html

I've complained to istock, can't do anything, complained to Shutterstock, it's still for sale.

They may not be identical but some parts are.


I'd agree with you. From the copy's # I can see it was uploaded almost exactly 3 months after your own image. Obviously they noticed how well it was selling.

Microbius

« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2011, 02:04 »
0
Good catches. I'm shocked no one else has chimed in on this yet.  I don't see any of my images infringed upon by this collection, but someone needs to turn this person in.  Have you alerted Shutterstock?

I haven't because I'm anonymous here, so anything I tell MSG about kind of precludes me getting on to the agency because it'll give away my identity!

Every photo I did the special Google image search with came up as belonging to someone else, so yes someone need to let SS know so the portfolio can be removed as a whole.

Microbius

« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 02:30 by Microbius »

« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2011, 08:12 »
0
Good catches. I'm shocked no one else has chimed in on this yet.  I don't see any of my images infringed upon by this collection, but someone needs to turn this person in.  Have you alerted Shutterstock?

I haven't because I'm anonymous here, so anything I tell MSG about kind of precludes me getting on to the agency because it'll give away my identity!

Every photo I did the special Google image search with came up as belonging to someone else, so yes someone need to let SS know so the portfolio can be removed as a whole.

Writing to SS will give up your MSG identity how does that work do you think they have a secret connection for info sharing. Why cant you write to SS and tell them?

Good sleuthing.

Microbius

« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2011, 08:38 »
0
I just meant that the agencies read this forum, if I complain about something here then send them an email from my real name about the same thing, they will obviously make the connection that Microbius who has been bad mouthing us on MSG is XXX on our site

RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2011, 13:10 »
0
I just meant that the agencies read this forum, if I complain about something here then send them an email from my real name about the same thing, they will obviously make the connection that Microbius who has been bad mouthing us on MSG is XXX on our site

That's funny that you are so worried about anyone knowing who you are, that you will give up the right to protect your images from thieves. Well maybe not funny, but strange? LOL Maybe you can have a friend write in and complain for you? I just don't think that stealing images, mis-use or copying and making minor alterations, then claiming them as original creations, is a good thing. I'd be hopping mad, even if it meant that SS knew who I was, as if they really read the forums and care that much about what we write here?

Microbius

« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2011, 03:15 »
0
They aren't my images.

« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2011, 04:19 »
0

Microbius

« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2011, 04:41 »
0
have you got the link to their portfolio, not sure how to get back to it from the image link
ETA
http://graphicleftovers.com/graphic/girl2/
http://www.123rf.com/photo_6844926_persons-of-girls-and-a-star-for-an-inscription.html
http://www.canstockphoto.com/illustration/ringlet.html#file_view.php?id=3391278
http://www.crestock.com/image/4220388-girl4.aspx

looks like they are in a lot of the agencies, several variations of the rip off on each site. You should definitely let all the image libraries know.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 04:59 by Microbius »

Microbius

« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2011, 05:03 »
0
No vectors on 123 but many of the same photos  http://es.123rf.com/profile_xjjx

I think that this my be a guy that was ripped off by the thief, or that's how I read it.

ETA, actually probably not, probably the same guy
« Last Edit: October 02, 2011, 06:36 by Microbius »

« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2011, 06:19 »
0
have you got the link to their portfolio, not sure how to get back to it from the image link
ETA
http://graphicleftovers.com/graphic/girl2/
http://www.123rf.com/photo_6844926_persons-of-girls-and-a-star-for-an-inscription.html
http://www.canstockphoto.com/illustration/ringlet.html#file_view.php?id=3391278
http://www.crestock.com/image/4220388-girl4.aspx

looks like they are in a lot of the agencies, several variations of the rip off on each site. You should definitely let all the image libraries know.


They aren't my images - I just noticed the similarity because this person did a 'take' on one of my bestsellers. It was annoying but was not a reportable offence, as there was enough variation. However, the example above appeared to be a direct copy, (simply flipped and with a few additions).

Here are the portfolio links:

Original:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=nikit_a&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1&secondary_submit=Search#id=6294709

Copy:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=face+&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=MANSUROVA+YULIA&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#id=42177367

Sorry, I obviously didn't post correctly the first time.

« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2011, 07:05 »
0
Maybe you could site mail the person who got ripped off, letting them know?

« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2011, 07:08 »
0
Maybe you could site mail the person who got ripped off, letting them know?

I tried but couldn't tract artist down on Shutterstock due to _ in username.

Off to work no so can't do anything until this evening, but tonight I will see if I can track the original artist as a contributor on a different site, and try and contact them that way.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 07:10 by KuriousKat »

Microbius

« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2011, 10:06 »
0
Just rechecked the links and unbelievably that first portfolio is still there, even the image of the woman with the flowers in her hair that's clearly someone else's work with a different background and two extra flowers dropped in on top. Very disappointed with SS

« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2011, 10:38 »
0
Just rechecked the links and unbelievably that first portfolio is still there, even the image of the woman with the flowers in her hair that's clearly someone else's work with a different background and two extra flowers dropped in on top. Very disappointed with SS


The plot thickens. The copier from above has this image in his port;

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34647139/stock-vector-the-man-beats-on-a-ball-playing-in-golf-a-vector-illustration.html

Which itself appears to have been been copied here;

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-70076212/stock-vector-golf-sport-with-area-for-text.html

Totally different level of keywording so I wouldn't think it could be multiple accounts by the same person.

« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2011, 12:16 »
0
... Totally different level of keywording so I wouldn't think it could be multiple accounts by the same person.
I think SS as well as other agencies only allow multiple accounts for one single contributor on a very rare basis.
The only one I know from the top of my head was Lumaxart. No idea why he did it and how it helped him to have separate accounts but I'm sure the guy you mentioned is not playing in the same league.

« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2011, 12:34 »
0
Just rechecked the links and unbelievably that first portfolio is still there, even the image of the woman with the flowers in her hair that's clearly someone else's work with a different background and two extra flowers dropped in on top. Very disappointed with SS

Patience, please...  ;)

« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2011, 03:01 »
0
I love Google's right-click image search.  Recognized the style of one of this dude's illustrations, and yep...it's one of Kirsty Pargeter's.   ::)

« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2011, 23:12 »
0
I sent Kirsty an email and she's gonna get a hold of SS.  Considering she's a big name micro illustrator, I'll bet SS finally removes this guy's fake portfolio.

Microbius

« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2011, 04:48 »
0
it's still there:
Copy:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-70321078/stock-vector-woman-vector-illustration-style.html
Original:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-3222420-abstract-girl-with-butterflies-in-hair.php?st=b661c30

Seems so strange that when something is as clear cut as this it takes them ages to sort it (if they sort it at all) while it seems that some of the more muddy issues result in quicker portfolio closures, sometime of the wrong people.
I hope it isn't because the people having work stolen are IStock exclusives, that's a pretty low way to go about business if it is, and shown a pretty dubious attitude towards IP.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2011, 09:33 »
0
So it looks like xJJx is clueless enough. He/she uses the same profile name. Can we all just contact the sites to report the problems? I just sent SS support an alert with the portfolio links. I hope that helps.
Eric

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-70321078/stock-vector-woman-vector-illustration-style.html
rip off of:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-3222420-abstract-girl-with-butterflies-in-hair.php?st=f8f0bd6

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-53595523/stock-vector-red-apple-vector.html
rip off of one of the second set of cherries here:
http://www.procurator.su/blog/procurator/92.php#comments

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-62869315/stock-vector-green-world-vector-illustration-image.html
rip off of this plus others:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-7968945-green-plant-concept.php?st=b2fcf08

and so on and so on for the whole portfolio. I suspect this is probably the only original image:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=270868&safesearch=1&images_per_page=100&thumb_size=small&prev_sort_method=popular&sort_method=newest&page=5#id=64557238

because it sucks too hard to be a rip off.

Please check through for you own work or let the artists know if you know who they are.

ETA, just so we've got one of the photos as an example too:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-270868p1.html#id=18295126
from
http://pl.123rf.com/photo_3901303_bia-y-pies-w-zielonej-trawie.html
« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 09:36 by TheBlackRhino »

Microbius

« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2011, 10:11 »
0
I hope so, but I think SS has known about for a while, they also read this forum.

RacePhoto

« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2011, 14:04 »
0
it's still there:
Copy:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-70321078/stock-vector-woman-vector-illustration-style.html
Original:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-3222420-abstract-girl-with-butterflies-in-hair.php?st=b661c30

Seems so strange that when something is as clear cut as this it takes them ages to sort it (if they sort it at all) while it seems that some of the more muddy issues result in quicker portfolio closures, sometime of the wrong people.
I hope it isn't because the people having work stolen are IStock exclusives, that's a pretty low way to go about business if it is, and shown a pretty dubious attitude towards IP.


Oh really, they do nothing because it's from IS exclusives. Come on! But if SS doesn't do something soon, you'll be winning my support about dragging their feet on the obvious infringement. THREE WEEKS! Hopefully all the rest of the sites will also dump the skunk.

Here's another copy, (girl with butterflies this time) http://imgfave.com/view/333699 Image Fav but they had to get it someplace?

How about the one on DT?  http://www.dreamstime.com/abstract-women-love-flowers-illustration--image17675499 Cohnen was inspired, maybe claiming it just looks the same? But the spit curls are identical!

Microbius

« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2011, 05:15 »
0
Wow, over a month and still no action, I wonder how many times those stolen images have been sold since then?
I take it that if it's ever sorted the agency will pass on the income to the people who have had their work stolen and let the buyers know they will be using the images illegally?
Or will they perhaps just pocket the money and leave it at that?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 05:29 by Microbius »

Microbius

« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2011, 05:25 »
0
oh and he's still at it. A new rip off:
ORIGINAL:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=71530747

COPY:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-62869309/stock-vector-love-against-money-vector-on-black.html

And I'm sure the hearts are also from someone else too, but I can't be bothered to track them down.
This is really p*ssing me off. If it's perfectly obvious to me when an illustration is ripped off, because you can see that the person who assembled the elements clearly doesn't have the skills with vectors to have created the composite parts, then why can't the reviewers spot it?

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2011, 05:50 »
0
What a loser.  >:( Come on Shutterstock, help us out.

oh and he's still at it. A new rip off:
ORIGINAL:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=71530747

COPY:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-62869309/stock-vector-love-against-money-vector-on-black.html

And I'm sure the hearts are also from someone else too, but I can't be bothered to track them down.
This is really p*ssing me off. If it's perfectly obvious to me when an illustration is ripped off, because you can see that the person who assembled the elements clearly doesn't have the skills with vectors to have created the composite parts, then why can't the reviewers spot it?

« Reply #31 on: November 01, 2011, 08:27 »
0
Did anyone inform Shutterstock about this?

Usually these portfolios are offline within hours...  ???

RacePhoto

« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2011, 10:54 »
0
Here's another one just in case you might be one of the people getting ripped off.

Original
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/deniscristo#id=60274681

Copied portions: (lady and man are center top of the original)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-667015p1.html#id=84624715

Makes me wonder where he got the table from to complete the theft? Also has each individual character as a single stolen upload.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 03:15 by RacePhoto »

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2011, 11:18 »
0
Did anyone inform Shutterstock about this?

Usually these portfolios are offline within hours...  ???

I sent a message about them to support a few weeks ago.

« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2011, 11:20 »
0
Did anyone inform Shutterstock about this?

Usually these portfolios are offline within hours...  ???

I sent a message about them to support a few weeks ago.
Great, did you also inform the original copyright holder? Maybe it has more effect if the copyright holder is making a complaint.

Usually SS responds very hard on suspicious ports and puts them on hold.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2011, 11:20 »
0
Indeed, a dork. Looks like he removed the black outline for the illustrations in an attempt to make his work appear "original". SS needs to pay you some reward for all the free work you're doing finding this crap.

Here's another one just in case you might be one of the people getting ripped off.

Original
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/deniscristo#id=60274681

Copied portions: (lady and man are center top of the original)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-667015p1.html#id=84624715

Makes me wonder where he got the table from to complete the theft? Also has each individual character as a single stolen upload. What a dork!

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2011, 11:22 »
0
No I didn't think of that Click-Click. Not sure how to do it. But please do it. We all need to pitch in to help each other against theft.

Did anyone inform Shutterstock about this?

Usually these portfolios are offline within hours...  ???

I sent a message about them to support a few weeks ago.
Great, did you also inform the original copyright holder? Maybe it has more effect if the copyright holder is making a complaint.

Usually SS responds very hard on suspicious ports and puts them on hold.

RacePhoto

« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2011, 12:54 »
0
Did anyone inform Shutterstock about this?

Usually these portfolios are offline within hours...  ???

Just got this and wrote to ask if it had to be the original artist and owner, or could anyone report these.

[email protected]

Note it's not the same as Support. Maybe that will work, I also linked to the xJJx files for example.



Microbius

« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2011, 04:28 »
0

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2011, 09:15 »
0
I sent another complaint to infringement at SS with a link to this thread. Come on Shutterstock.  >:(

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-270868p1.html#id=70321123
this with the simplify filter run?:
http://en.fotolia.com/id/26809175
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 09:17 by TheBlackRhino »

« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2011, 09:32 »
0
Maybe the owner of some of the content could send a DMCA take down notice to SS?  Particularly if they don't contribute to SS, it should be open and shut.

pkdinkar

« Reply #43 on: November 05, 2011, 00:59 »
0

traveler1116

« Reply #44 on: November 05, 2011, 02:00 »
0
it's still there:
Copy:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-70321078/stock-vector-woman-vector-illustration-style.html
Original:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-3222420-abstract-girl-with-butterflies-in-hair.php?st=b661c30

Seems so strange that when something is as clear cut as this it takes them ages to sort it (if they sort it at all) while it seems that some of the more muddy issues result in quicker portfolio closures, sometime of the wrong people.
I hope it isn't because the people having work stolen are IStock exclusives, that's a pretty low way to go about business if it is, and shown a pretty dubious attitude towards IP.


Oh really, they do nothing because it's from IS exclusives. Come on! But if SS doesn't do something soon, you'll be winning my support about dragging their feet on the obvious infringement. THREE WEEKS! Hopefully all the rest of the sites will also dump the skunk.

Here's another copy, (girl with butterflies this time) http://imgfave.com/view/333699 Image Fav but they had to get it someplace?

How about the one on DT?  http://www.dreamstime.com/abstract-women-love-flowers-illustration--image17675499 Cohnen was inspired, maybe claiming it just looks the same? But the spit curls are identical!


Another "similar" one.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-689698p1.html#id=68425660

« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2011, 05:25 »
0
I  just had a look at  gfxtra dot com  They have some of my art work  that they are  just giving away. I don't know what to do.   >:(
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 07:54 by julie123 »

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2011, 09:53 »
0
Holy crud! Not only are they giving your work away, it looks like this band of thieves is selling an entire Shutterstock and Fotolia collections????  :o

They have the NERVE to put their own watermarks on the thumbnails. I chose not to share the link. Too scandalous.

I  just had a look at gfxtra dot com They have some of my art work  that they are  just giving away. I don't know what to do.   >:(
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 07:28 by TheBlackRhino »

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2011, 09:56 »
0
I  just had a look at gfxtra dot com They have some of my art work  that they are  just giving away. I don't know what to do.   >:(

Fight for it. Send emails, make phone calls.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 07:28 by TheBlackRhino »

Microbius

« Reply #48 on: November 06, 2011, 01:57 »
0
I  just had a look at www.gfxtra.com They have some of my art work  that they are  just giving away. I don't know what to do.   >:(

DMCA their webhost, find out who provides their ads and follow their procedure for reporting it too.
If they take payments directly through Paypal etc. I think there is also a procedure for reporting the account to Paypal.
Also could everyone that posted a link to the site please break it/ write it as text to avoid helping their rankings.
Forgot to say also DMCA Rapidshare or Depositfiles or whoever is hosting the actual files (as well as the website's webhost)
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 13:02 by Microbius »

« Reply #49 on: November 06, 2011, 04:19 »
0
I  just had a look at www.gfxtra.com They have some of my art work  that they are  just giving away. I don't know what to do.   >:(

DMCA their webhost, find out who provides their ads and follow their procedure for reporting it too.
If they take payments directly through Paypal etc. I think there is also a procedure for reporting the account to Paypal.
 Also could everyone that posted a link to the site please break it/ write it as text to avoid helping their rankings.

But what can I do, when I found my illustrations on more than 500 sites for free ?
Also are my illustrations or mostly parts of my illustrations in some microstockportfolios.
I was so grazy and searched intensive with google etc.
The result is more than 1.500 copyright infringements.
and I didn't search all my pictures...
(and much more from I don't know...)
So,what now ?
I don't want to spend weeks for this.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2011, 07:24 »
0
I  just had a look at gfxtra dot com They have some of my art work  that they are  just giving away. I don't know what to do.   >:(

Fight for it. Send emails, make phone calls.

« Reply #51 on: November 06, 2011, 08:16 »
0
I  just had a look at www.gfxtra.com They have some of my art work  that they are  just giving away. I don't know what to do.   >:(

DMCA their webhost, find out who provides their ads and follow their procedure for reporting it too.
If they take payments directly through Paypal etc. I think there is also a procedure for reporting the account to Paypal.
 Also could everyone that posted a link to the site please break it/ write it as text to avoid helping their rankings.

But what can I do, when I found my illustrations on more than 500 sites for free ?
Also are my illustrations or mostly parts of my illustrations in some microstockportfolios.
I was so grazy and searched intensive with google etc.
The result is more than 1.500 copyright infringements.
and I didn't search all my pictures...
(and much more from I don't know...)
So,what now ?
I don't want to spend weeks for this.



------------------------------------
For those images of yours that are in microstock portfolios, you can contact the microstock companies themselves and they should take down those images and portfolios quickly

« Reply #52 on: November 06, 2011, 12:32 »
0
I just put one of the my pictures in the Google image search and found it being given away free on 13 different sites I have stopped looking now. I work very hard on my art work and microstock is my only source of income. I feel like I have been muged.  :(

Microbius

« Reply #53 on: November 06, 2011, 13:08 »
0
Honestly you don't have to spend too long doing it, there aren't that many of the larger Warez sites. There just have to be enough of us getting their ad income shut down for a day or two each to make it too much hassle for them to keep responding to the DMCA to get the ads back up. Or to get enough broken links on the sites to make it too much hassle for users to bother with them when they can get the files legally for a couple of dollars.
Just when you happen to spot some of your work spend a couple of minutes taking action, or when you spot another artists work send them a pm or email and let them know.
No one's suggesting spending all day on Google image search tracking down every single violation.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2011, 15:01 »
0
Honestly you don't have to spend too long doing it, there aren't that many of the larger Warez sites. There just have to be enough of us getting their ad income shut down for a day or two each to make it too much hassle for them to keep responding to the DMCA to get the ads back up. Or to get enough broken links on the sites to make it too much hassle for users to bother with them when they can get the files legally for a couple of dollars.
Just when you happen to spot some of your work spend a couple of minutes taking action, or when you spot another artists work send them a pm or email and let them know.
No one's suggesting spending all day on Google image search tracking down every single violation.

Microbius, maybe it's a little overwhelming to Julie because she just discovered it. Do you have any suggestion on how to do that DMCA thing? Maybe just provide a hypothetical or an example of what to look for and how to send it. It can sound a bit overwhelming for someone newly mugged.  :'(

Microbius

« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2011, 04:19 »
0
Another user of this forum has very kindly put together a DMCA info page here:
http://flemishdreams.com/index.php/dmca
The DMCA needs to be sent to the hosting company etc. not the website owner. A lot of the Warez sites have a page saying they care about copyright etc. as a smoke screen and say they have a DMCA form to fill out, procedure to follow and so on but in reality you will get no joy by using these methods.

If the site has ads on the page where your work appears there is usually an automated way of letting the company providing the Ads know. I have found Google, for example to be very responsive. The way it works is that the Ads get suspended for a day or two, the thief takes the work down and then the Ads get reinstated because they have corrected the problem. This sucks because the Ads get reinstated, but the thief has lost a couple of days of Ad income. There is actually an advantage to us in the huge volume of stuff these people seem to steal, it only takes a few artists to complain, get the Ads stopped for a day or two each, and get their work removed, to make the collections look like Swiss cheese and put a big hole in the income generated too, till it's no longer worth the hassle of the thieves to maintain the sites respond to the notices etc.

Here's an example for Google.
There are two things you should do, the first part isn't a DMCA, it's letting Google know that the site violates the terms of AdSense by systematically violating copyrights and stealing IP:
1.
Where you see a Google Ad there will be a tiny blue arrow with an "i" on it that says "AdChoices" when you hover over it. Click that.
On the page that pops open click the drop down list under "Report a policy violation regarding the site or ads you just saw" choose "the issues are with the website"
Tick "The site violates AdSense program policies in other ways."
The write out something to the effect that it is a site distributing people's Intellectual property in violation of copyright. Here's where this is explained:
https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=105959

2. This is the DMCA bit:
As above but instead of Ticking "The site violates AdSense program policies in other ways." tick "The site is hosting or distributing my copyrighted content, without my permission." Follow the DMCA link click "Infringement notification form" fill it in and you're done. You need to provide a link to your work in the form. You can just have a link to the work on one of the micro sites.

All this takes far less time to do then it took to explain. The AdSense actions take about two minutes.

rubyroo

« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2011, 05:53 »
0
That's great Microbius.  Thanks for all this.  I wonder if Tyler could put your post in the 'Wiki' so it's easy to find.

Microbius

« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2011, 06:02 »
0
Thanks, again forgot to say anything about how to send DMCA takedowns to the file hosts that often have the actual files (Rapidshare and the like). If we just email the standard form or if there's a quicker way?
I don't have a lot of experience about how to handle each of these specifically, maybe someone else could chime in? If I remember correctly Holgs on this forum seemed to know a bit more about this.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #58 on: November 07, 2011, 08:06 »
0
Another user of this forum has very kindly put together a DMCA info page here:
http://flemishdreams.com/index.php/dmca
The DMCA needs to be sent to the hosting company etc. not the website owner. ...All this takes far less time to do then it took to explain. The AdSense actions take about two minutes.


Thanks Microbius. Julie, you should do this ASAP!  :)

RacePhoto

« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2011, 09:15 »
0
That's great Microbius.  Thanks for all this.  I wonder if Tyler could put your post in the 'Wiki' so it's easy to find.

+1

That was one of the easiest and clearest explanations of how to hit them in the pocketbook and make something happen. Most of these sites don't really care about content or how they get things, all they want are page views and click-troughs. Not saying they are innocent, just that their motivations aren't theft or distribution, but is getting clicks for cash.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4041 Views
Last post April 13, 2011, 14:22
by sponner
0 Replies
3484 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 10:03
by ClaridgeJ
16 Replies
5151 Views
Last post July 22, 2016, 14:42
by Justanotherphotographer
4 Replies
3472 Views
Last post November 15, 2018, 10:12
by Shelma1
Sigh.....

Started by PZF Canva

17 Replies
6963 Views
Last post April 26, 2019, 11:29
by EO

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle