MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fiverr  (Read 48361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EmberMike

« Reply #175 on: April 02, 2014, 09:50 »
+2

I can't figure how I'd want to sell images on Fiverr. If you can't link to a portfolio offsite, then you can't do one of those "pick an image from my portfolio" sort of deals. And I wouldn't do a bundle for $5. I'd only want to sell 1 vector for $5. So I'd have to run a separate gig for each image. No thanks.

Besides, it's not like Fiverr has exactly redeemed themselves here. They made some progress with taking down the gigs that used "Shutterstock" in the descriptions, so when you do a search for "shutterstock" nothing comes up. That's good. But then the blatant Thinkstock gig is still up, as are some other stock image gigs that are a little more vague but still identifiable as selling images they don't have the right to sell. So why would I want to sell my stuff there and do something that puts a buck in Fiverr's pocket?



ShadySue

« Reply #176 on: April 02, 2014, 09:57 »
0
But then the blatant Thinkstock gig is still up ...
It is, but I contacted iS CR on 23rd March about this. As I've only have an auto-reply, I don't know if they've even looked at it yet, or what the story is. It is still showing on my ticket list.

« Reply #177 on: April 02, 2014, 10:34 »
0

I can't figure how I'd want to sell images on Fiverr. ...Besides, it's not like Fiverr has exactly redeemed themselves here. They made some progress with taking down the gigs that used "Shutterstock" in the descriptions...But then the blatant Thinkstock gig is still up, as are some other stock image gigs that are a little more vague but still identifiable as selling images they don't have the right to sell. ...


For me, that's the clear indicator that they just don't care about the legitimacy of what's being sold as long as they get their $1 per sale.

This gig - which I reported - is still up. I gave them links to several of those images in the collage - from different artists - pointing out that even if they weren't selling those images it was fraud (showing them as if that was the product) and violating their terms of service that the seller own the copyrights to their gallery photo.

http://www.fiverr.com/stockimage/send-you-our-holiday-stock-photo-pack

I'm working on the blog packs for my own site and I'll keep an eye on Fiverr to see if they clean up their act in the future. My hope is that they clean up or shut down, but I'm not spending any more time doing the agencies work for them unless one of my own images gets into a Fiverr bundle.

« Reply #178 on: April 15, 2014, 19:58 »
+5
So the Thinkstock gig is still there

http://www.fiverr.com/nanico/send-you-10-high-quality-stock-photos-illustrations-or-vectors-you-want--10

The holiday images noted above is still there: http://www.fiverr.com/stockimage/send-you-our-holiday-stock-photo-pack

This gig is a similar setup - the background images are from multiple photographers (I located this one and this one on Shutterstock). As Fiverr did not remove the holiday setup I'm not going to bother to report this one to them.

They're clearly not concerned about what gets sold on their marketplace, beyond lip service to the rules.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #179 on: April 19, 2014, 10:24 »
+2
I suppose people could start complaining to GoDaddy, their host, but writing to whatever they call the FTC in Israel is useless.

For me, that's the clear indicator that they just don't care about the legitimacy of what's being sold as long as they get their $1 per sale.

Sound right.

ShadySue

« Reply #180 on: April 19, 2014, 13:57 »
+4
So the Thinkstock gig is still there
http://www.fiverr.com/nanico/send-you-10-high-quality-stock-photos-illustrations-or-vectors-you-want--10

Indeedy. On 8th April I got this reply from iStock's CR:
"Thank you for reaching out to us.
 
Please know that our Compliance Team is continuously monitoring these nuisance posts and working towards having them removed when possible.
 
Please keep in mind that if a 3rd party does take up one of these requests and then uses the image(s), they are doing so without a license and would be held accountable for that.
 
Regards,"


which, although it is presumably a canned answer, I thought was 'odd' inasmuch as I wouldn't exactly call Fiverr 'nuisance posts' as such, and surely going after the people who are selling the gigs would be far better than chasing up the 3rd party, who may be acting in reasonable faith, inasmuch as at least they're not just going out lifting images from the internet. How likely is it that someone using a TS file without a licence would be caught out and 'held accountable'?
And ten days the TS gig is still there, like you pointed out.
Why can't/won't TS/Getty's compliance team get something done about it?

« Reply #181 on: April 19, 2014, 15:58 »
+6
Because it costs them more money to chase up and they aren't losing enough from these gigs.

They don't care about the artists, just about Getty's bottom line

« Reply #182 on: August 04, 2014, 11:12 »
+2
Resurrecting an old one here...

I've been following a Twitter discussion about Fiverr today, and it has some relevancy to the topic of stock images being illegally resold there.

The Twitter discussion was about $5 logos and Fiverr promoting the service mush to the dismay of designers everywhere. For that discussion check out @zombiebacons on twitter (NSFW language). It gets pretty hilarious when Fiverr reprimands the guy for using profanity.

Anyway, in that discussion someone linked to a blog post titled The $5 Logo in which someone creates a fake startup with a backstory and hires some Fiverr designers to create $5 logos for this fake company.

It starts off with Fiverr "designers" posting examples of their previous logo work, including lots of stuff they didn't actually do themselves and just stole from various design showcase sites. And it ends with a bunch of designs that aren't even worth $5 because they can't actually be used.

They were mostly useless not just in terms of how they were delivered (on non-white backgrounds and you have to pay extra to get the source files) but they included what appeared to be an existing logo just copy-and-pasted into a new image, and (of course) some stock vectors. In the comments of the blog post people very easily found the stock images that were used in the purchased logos.

How this company manages to stay in business is beyond me. The stock image issue is amazing, and how little the agencies seem interested in doing about the infringements is equally amazing. Now on top of that, we can see that Fiverr doesn't care if people completely misrepresent what they offer by showing work they didn't do themselves. And they also don't care if people pass off copyrighted material, design, even possibly trademarked logos and graphics as original work.

Yet somehow they're still in business, happily profiting from rampant infringement of images, graphics, logos, vectors, and surely lots of other digital goods. And somehow no one seems to be able to (or interested in) putting a stop to it.

« Reply #183 on: August 04, 2014, 11:37 »
+2
So the Thinkstock gig is still there
http://www.fiverr.com/nanico/send-you-10-high-quality-stock-photos-illustrations-or-vectors-you-want--10

Indeedy. On 8th April I got this reply from iStock's CR:
"Thank you for reaching out to us.
 
Please know that our Compliance Team is continuously monitoring these nuisance posts and working towards having them removed when possible.
 
Please keep in mind that if a 3rd party does take up one of these requests and then uses the image(s), they are doing so without a license and would be held accountable for that.
 
Regards,"



And in August, that gig is still there. Hard to rank the dirtbags here - the outfit offering the gig, Fiverr, Getty or the people buying it (who have to know these items aren't legit).

That blog post ($5 logo) is priceless - thanks for posting a link.

« Reply #184 on: August 05, 2014, 10:24 »
+1
I see there's a new hashtag getting some use today: #f--kfiverr

:)

And in an interesting irony, Fiverr has been promoting their $5 logo design services using a Getty stock photo. At the size they used it in for the ad it's $45 for the photo.

Guess they're going well on all of these gigs selling copyrighted material if they can afford to shop at Getty.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 10:31 by EmberMike »

« Reply #185 on: August 05, 2014, 11:26 »
0
nothing, ..
just did this to keep this thread on top of the forum. i like 2 c what happens, hopefully a closure to this issue.
+ 1 for each of those who kept abreast with their comments here .  exemplary. cheers 8)

« Reply #186 on: September 26, 2014, 16:46 »
+2

Fiverr is still at it. For a while it looked like they were putting a stop to gigs that specifically mentioned a stock image company, but obviously that's not the case anymore and they're back to business as usual: https://www.fiverr.com/prompeat/give-you-any-15-stock-photosvectors-illustrationsiconseditorials

And here's a new spin on the Fiverr stock image gig...

"I will convert shutterstock image to Vector for $5"
https://www.fiverr.com/telovectorizo/convert-shutterstock-image-to-vector

Fiverr really doesn't give a s--- about artists' rights, copyright infringement, licensing, etc. Almost worse is that they don't care about their customers, selling them this stuff without a proper license.

The logo gigs are a mess, too. Lots of stock stuff shows up in those, or the gig shows work that the "designer" didn't actually do. It's a total scam. How this thing hasn't been shut down yet is amazing.


ShadySue

« Reply #187 on: September 26, 2014, 17:09 »
0
The TS gig I posted to iS about with the reply received as above is also still live.
Anyone contact SS about it?

« Reply #188 on: September 26, 2014, 18:03 »
+2
I contacted Shutterstock March 24 2014 and got the standard "We take copyright infringement ... very seriously..." reply

I think Fiverr is just a very disreputable place, but the agencies don't seem to be all that aggressive in going after this stuff.

ShadySue

« Reply #189 on: September 26, 2014, 18:16 »
0
I contacted Shutterstock March 24 2014 and got the standard "We take copyright infringement ... very seriously..." reply

I think Fiverr is just a very disreputable place, but the agencies don't seem to be all that aggressive in going after this stuff.

An unforeseen consequence of the micro model.   :(

« Reply #190 on: September 26, 2014, 21:01 »
+3

I just saw a Fiverr tv commercial. It must be karma for bringing up the Fiverr topic again today.

« Reply #191 on: October 14, 2014, 22:39 »
+3

FYI, Fiverr has some competition now. Introducing... Fourerr.

Seriously, I can't make this stuff up. Fourerr is just like Fiverr, except for the obvious price difference. But they also still sell the same services, including selling copied/ripped-off logo designs as "custom" and illegally reselling stock photos and graphics.


« Reply #192 on: October 15, 2014, 10:38 »
+1
I thought this had to be a joke (I know you said you couldn't make this stuff up, but...)

It's real, and it's not new, although it's apparently (alexa ranking) very much an also-ran in the micro jobs sweepstakes.

The owner (Thomas De Vos) has a blog post on the site from April 2012, so it's been around at least that long.

fiverr has a global alexa rank of 134 versus 37,072 for fourerr.

I reported this offer to Shutterstock - perhaps they can get it shut down

http://fourerr.com/Graphics/22104/give-you-4-Shutterstock-images-of-your-choice

« Reply #193 on: December 08, 2014, 13:21 »
+5
Just wanted to update this topic again. I'm not sure it can really go anywhere productive at this point, but I think it's worth keeping on everyone's radar nonetheless.

Fiverr seems to have now taken the stance that they prefer to cover up known infringements than to deal with them. I've been noticing this mostly on the design side of things, logos in particular. Fiverr regularly advertises their logo design services on Facebook, often using images of work that was done through Fiverr gigs but shows stock logo templates, stock graphics, copied designs, etc. And of course people point this out in the comments on Facebook, but Fiverr just deletes the comments.

I've actually linked to the original stock graphic showing exactly where a Fiverr "designer" got the image they used in the logo and instead of deleting the ad or the ad image, they just delete my comment.

So they know full well what they're doing, that they're ripping off not only artists and photographers but also their own customers by selling this stuff as "custom" design, and their course of action when faced with it is to try and sweep it under the rug.

Again, I'm not sure what (if anything) can be done to stop Fiverr at this point. They're making lots of money by being dickbags, and I don't get the feeling that they're even slightly interested in stopping what they're doing.

And as it relates to stock photos, of course Fiverr is still very much in the business of reselling stock photos in gigs that blatantly acknowledge that the images are sourced from stock agencies. There is even a gig up now that shows part of a search results page. Not sure from which site but it's clearly a stock site. And the gig shows images from various Shutterstock contributors.

So, long story short, Fiverr still sucks, they seem to just be getting worse, and despite widespread social media criticism they make no efforts to change their reputation and are still making money hand over fist at the expense of artists everywhere.

« Reply #194 on: December 08, 2014, 13:50 »
+5
Why not update their wiki page with some of the details? maybe add a section called "controversy" and detail their practice of deleting posts pointing out infringing content

« Reply #195 on: December 08, 2014, 15:14 »
+4
Just wanted to update this topic again. I'm not sure it can really go anywhere productive at this point, but I think it's worth keeping on everyone's radar nonetheless.

Fiverr seems to have now taken the stance that they prefer to cover up known infringements than to deal with them. I've been noticing this mostly on the design side of things, logos in particular. Fiverr regularly advertises their logo design services on Facebook, often using images of work that was done through Fiverr gigs but shows stock logo templates, stock graphics, copied designs, etc. And of course people point this out in the comments on Facebook, but Fiverr just deletes the comments.

I've actually linked to the original stock graphic showing exactly where a Fiverr "designer" got the image they used in the logo and instead of deleting the ad or the ad image, they just delete my comment.

So they know full well what they're doing, that they're ripping off not only artists and photographers but also their own customers by selling this stuff as "custom" design, and their course of action when faced with it is to try and sweep it under the rug.

Again, I'm not sure what (if anything) can be done to stop Fiverr at this point. They're making lots of money by being dickbags, and I don't get the feeling that they're even slightly interested in stopping what they're doing.

And as it relates to stock photos, of course Fiverr is still very much in the business of reselling stock photos in gigs that blatantly acknowledge that the images are sourced from stock agencies. There is even a gig up now that shows part of a search results page. Not sure from which site but it's clearly a stock site. And the gig shows images from various Shutterstock contributors.

So, long story short, Fiverr still sucks, they seem to just be getting worse, and despite widespread social media criticism they make no efforts to change their reputation and are still making money hand over fist at the expense of artists everywhere.

They need to be DDoS-ed.

« Reply #196 on: February 13, 2015, 13:43 »
+2

This is rich... I guess Fiverr doesn't have enough decent designs done by their "designers" that they now just use stock designs to sell their terrible services. Including one of mine.



I can't find a gig actually showing this t-shirt design, so I have to assume it's very likely that they actually bought the graphic to use as stock. Especially since it wasn't modified. Usually if someone uses a stock graphic in a Fiverr gig they modify the text to suit the customer's needs.

Unfortunately, if they bought the graphic as stock, they have every right to use it even though I really wish they wouldn't. Wherever they got it, this is one sale I kind of wish I could give back. :)

And in case anyone is wondering, yes they still allow the resale of stock images: https://www.fiverr.com/portaldigital/edit-create-give-stock-vectors-and-or-images

I guess because the seller says "send me the ID NUMBER of shutter and I will send you the EPS, JPEG, PDF, AI" instead of saying the full name "shutterstock", they let it go.

« Reply #197 on: February 13, 2015, 15:04 »
+3
There will always be dirtbags in commerce, but generally one might expect one of two sources of cleanup:

1) the agencies who take such a large chunk of the sale of our work (or a multi-agency organization that works on behalf of the group)

or

2) Government regulation - an agency with a budget to actually do enforcement

Neither of those has a prayer of happening. The agencies pay lip service to enforcement, but they expend the least effort possible - it's just one more cost to them.

Perhaps there's some way to shame the very public CEO of the outfit (he's the one listed in the domain registration and a Google search revealed he writes for Forbes about the Gig economy and entrepreneurship)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michakaufman/2015/01/02/is-that-an-office-in-your-pocket-or-are-you-just-appy-to-see-me/

I'm not sure I'd want to go swim in those shark infested waters (public shaming via social media) - see this article about how this can get really, really nasty:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html

It seems pretty rich for someone to be writing about the wonders of what his Gig economy has created when the nasty underbelly is that there is a mass of exploitation and theft that they do next-to-nothing to control. Why would they? They're making their $1 a Gig either way...

We don't get to pick the buyers of our licenses with RF - you'd have to go to RM to do that, and I don't think the money's there any more for routine transactions for your illustration.

ShadySue

« Reply #198 on: February 13, 2015, 17:00 »
0
...
Unfortunately, if they bought the graphic as stock, they have every right to use it even though I really wish they wouldn't. Wherever they got it, this is one sale I kind of wish I could give back. :)
Are there some agencies which allow file use on 'items for resale' without an Extended Licence (or equivalent)?

« Reply #199 on: February 13, 2015, 19:07 »
0
There is no excuse for those just giving the stock images away for a price.

However those performing graphic design on Fiverr and utilizing paid stock image in their work for a client are not necessarily doing anything wrong. In fact there is no difference than doing freelance work for a client project and using stock.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1032 Views
Last post April 15, 2014, 10:21
by gigmom
79 Replies
22617 Views
Last post July 09, 2015, 22:33
by PixelBytes
17 Replies
4148 Views
Last post March 17, 2017, 08:10
by outoftheblue
11 Replies
1966 Views
Last post January 24, 2019, 12:54
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results