MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: Fruitcocktail on September 18, 2018, 12:46
-
This seller, https://www.shutterstock.com/g/maryam%20sadeghian (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/maryam%20sadeghian) has three of my top selling jewelry images listed for sale. The photos have either been flipped horizontally or the colors are slightly tweaked. Please check to see if your images are also in this portfolio for sale.
-
looks like they are taking down images - only a handful now..
-
I posted a link to her partial portfolio earlier. The full portfolio has over 1000 images. I have updated the link. Most images are of luxury items like fine watches, glasses and diamond gemstone jewelry.
-
Thanks for posting. I have very few jewelery shots, but I did take a look .
It still beggars belief that with all the automation SS has introduced into the review process, they don't match against the existing collection (and flipping or scaling shouldn't be an issue for finding matches).
-
The carrots and peas amongst all the fine jewelry cracked me up. Maybe they are branching out? :D I don’t have any jewelry images out there, but it did remind me that I do have some I could upload. Hope you can get their account deleted for infringement.
-
looks like they are taking down images - only a handful now..
We looking at the same person? 22 pages when I just took a look. Maybe they stole thousands, uploaded all at once, in hopes of making a payout before discovered?
-
looks like they are taking down images - only a handful now..
We looking at the same person? 22 pages when I just took a look. Maybe they stole thousands, uploaded all at once, in hopes of making a payout before discovered?
He probably complained and shutter put his pages back ! They should use the name 'The Heist' for their shutter account >:(
I wonder if this is the person?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryam-sadeghian-a63740125/?originalSubdomain=ir (https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryam-sadeghian-a63740125/?originalSubdomain=ir)
-
What I don't get is... how did they get access to the "full" (non-watermarked) images in the first place?
-
I'm also seeing 22 pages, and the first appear to have been upload around April 2017, judging by the image numbers. It looks as if this contributor has been getting away with this for quite some time :(
-
We already know Shutterstock doesn’t care about this. They have allowed people to grab high resolution images through a hole in their code for a couple of years now. Plenty of threads on here about it. It’s no problem for them...they don’t care how they get sales. If 50 people steal your images and post them, that’s 49 more revenue streams for them. You lose, but what do they care.
-
We already know Shutterstock doesn’t care about this. They have allowed people to grab high resolution images through a hole in their code for a couple of years now. Plenty of threads on here about it. It’s no problem for them...they don’t care how they get sales. If 50 people steal your images and post them, that’s 49 more revenue streams for them. You lose, but what do they care.
If you walk into a store and the shelves are not covered and locked, is that a permission to steal? The problem is the people that do this, not the agency trying to cover and lock things. As you know, watermarks or smaller samples change nothing, except making it more difficult for the thieves to alter and steal the images. No excuse but the ability to copy images is pretty much everywhere not just SS.
Now back to the sales/theft problem. If this person is stealing images and has been reported, why doesn't SS do something? And if I was one of the people who has my work on her portfolio, I'd be checking other agencies, because she's not just stealing these for one site. I considered messaging her on Linkedin and asking why she's an image thief and has no integrity. Nothing of mine is there, I don't feel right without solid evidence. So, if someone has found their work on her collection, please write to SS, please check other agencies, and report her!
-
This seller, https://www.shutterstock.com/g/maryam%20sadeghian (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/maryam%20sadeghian) has three of my top selling jewelry images listed for sale. The photos have either been flipped horizontally or the colors are slightly tweaked. Please check to see if your images are also in this portfolio for sale.
Please post a link here, to one of your original files and one of her copies or altered copies? Send the same to SS! If it's more than one, find a bunch and send the file numbers to SS. Maybe you can get her shut down.
-
It seems the profile is growing daily. Now it up to over 2000 images. It has been reported to Shutterstock but nothing has been done yet, I just got a canned email so far saying that they are looking into it.
Here is a link to my image that has been altered and listed for sale by the fake account. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/white-gold-ring-diamonds-1176773980 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/white-gold-ring-diamonds-1176773980)
Here is a link to my image.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/beautiful-diamond-engagement-solitaire-wedding-band-379990138 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/beautiful-diamond-engagement-solitaire-wedding-band-379990138)
Its a basic diamond ring, and nothing fancy, but still, it's mine. I'm an average photographer, and my stock photography sales are what support my camera and gear habit, so I'm not exactly happy. I am going to issue a takedown notice today. Hopefully others who's work has been stolen will see the post here and try to protect their images as well.
-
One thing I don't understand is, did you report this user to the SS and they do nothing?
This is not only the agency related issue. You can sue a company for using your image without permission if they do not buy from you. And you can prove these photos belong to you with the original files.
-
So far they have done nothing. I reported it five days ago, so perhaps they are working on it.
I am digging into my archives to find the original images as we speak. It is actually a combination of two of my images put together, the diamond and setting were shot separately, so it should be easy to prove that the image is mine. Plus the original images aren't isolated, and I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of wax goo on the board that I shot them on so I can show that it is in fact an original photograph that I own the rights too.
Hopefully submitting the original images to the Shutterstock team will help them to see that this account should be shut down. I'm tempted to go onto TinEye and do a reverse search to find the original owners of other photographs in the account and let them know that their pics are being stolen. I don't wan't them to just remove my images, I feel for the other photographers as well.
-
We already know Shutterstock doesn’t care about this. They have allowed people to grab high resolution images through a hole in their code for a couple of years now. Plenty of threads on here about it. It’s no problem for them...they don’t care how they get sales. If 50 people steal your images and post them, that’s 49 more revenue streams for them. You lose, but what do they care.
If you walk into a store and the shelves are not covered and locked, is that a permission to steal? The problem is the people that do this, not the agency trying to cover and lock things. As you know, watermarks or smaller samples change nothing, except making it more difficult for the thieves to alter and steal the images. No excuse but the ability to copy images is pretty much everywhere not just SS.
Now back to the sales/theft problem. If this person is stealing images and has been reported, why doesn't SS do something? And if I was one of the people who has my work on her portfolio, I'd be checking other agencies, because she's not just stealing these for one site. I considered messaging her on Linkedin and asking why she's an image thief and has no integrity. Nothing of mine is there, I don't feel right without solid evidence. So, if someone has found their work on her collection, please write to SS, please check other agencies, and report her!
You are comparing two different things, apples and oranges. If the store leaves their door unlocked, and somebody walks in and takes stuff, sure it is still theft, but responsibility still lies with the store for not securing the merchandise!
It is SS’s responsibility to secure contributor’s digital files. Yes, of course it’s the thieves’ fault for stealing. But it is ALSO shutterstock's fault for not securing their site and allowing high rez images to be stolen because of a hole in their code, that can be fixed.
But I suspect you are just looking to argue. 😄 Buh bye.
-
Thanks for posting. I have very few jewelery shots, but I did take a look .
It still beggars belief that with all the automation SS has introduced into the review process, they don't match against the existing collection (and flipping or scaling shouldn't be an issue for finding matches).
It really shouldn't but, they use that technology for the similar images function ... t'would be silly to run the same function to find duplicates :/
I still find it amazing that google can pull up exact matches and 10,000 similar images yet, the companies working in the ACTUAL IMAGE INDUSTRY can't.
-
It really shouldn't but, they use that technology for the similar images function ... t'would be silly to run the same function to find duplicates :/
I still find it amazing that google can pull up exact matches and 10,000 similar images yet, the companies working in the ACTUAL IMAGE INDUSTRY can't.
Shutterstock is finding the original image in the "similars" for the thief's flipped and recolored version.
The reason I think it's SS's responsibility to check for duplicates is that they do it if you submit an image of your own that you already uploaded. Once upon a time (before they accepted just about everything) they would complain if you had an image that was too similar in their view.
They have the technology to avoid allowing thieves to upload. It's irrelevant how the thief obtained the images. SS should be concerned about the integrity of the collection and protecting their customers from getting into trouble from using stolen works. I'm guessing they think the odds of ramifications for them as a company are very small and they just don't care about harm to contributors as it doesn't damage their bottom line (in the short term anyway).
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
You are saying those bots have portfolios and they reject similar to hold down the competition? ;D
If I leave the keys in my car, it's alright for you to steal it? The point is, SS can make things more difficult, but they can't eliminate theft. Also the problem is the person who stole the images, not the artist or SS, but you don't seem to see past what you want to believe, so you attack people instead of the ideas? And you seem to have a love hate relationship with agencies as you want them to pay you but don't like them and think they are dishonest, and you don't trust them. But you keep giving them your work?
A wall of graffiti is not allowed, and hasn't been for years. No artists rights... you can't resll other artists works.
Back to the OP, I think you have a good case and hopefully SS is looking. We have all seen the messages here, "they closed my account and I did nothing wrong", so I hope SS is doing research and will close this, like the other image theifs we have seen here.
I still wonder if that person also uploaded your work to other places. That's scary and you'll have to chase them to get more accounts closed. Good luck!
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
You are saying those bots have portfolios and they reject similar to hold down the competition? ;D
If I leave the keys in my car, it's alright for you to steal it? The point is, SS can make things more difficult, but they can't eliminate theft. Also the problem is the person who stole the images, not the artist or SS, but you don't seem to see past what you want to believe, so you attack people instead of the ideas? And you seem to have a love hate relationship with agencies as you want them to pay you but don't like them and think they are dishonest, and you don't trust them. But you keep giving them your work?
A wall of graffiti is not allowed, and hasn't been for years. No artists rights... you can't resll other artists works.
Back to the OP, I think you have a good case and hopefully SS is looking. We have all seen the messages here, "they closed my account and I did nothing wrong", so I hope SS is doing research and will close this, like the other image theifs we have seen here.
I still wonder if that person also uploaded your work to other places. That's scary and you'll have to chase them to get more accounts closed. Good luck!
LOL. Of all the people bitching and moaning here, you say I have a love-hate relationship with the agencies? As I said earlier, you are just looking to argue. I’m not gonna. 😄 You should stick to the topic because you aren’t making sense.
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
You are saying those bots have portfolios and they reject similar to hold down the competition? ;D
If I leave the keys in my car, it's alright for you to steal it? The point is, SS can make things more difficult, but they can't eliminate theft. Also the problem is the person who stole the images, not the artist or SS, but you don't seem to see past what you want to believe, so you attack people instead of the ideas? And you seem to have a love hate relationship with agencies as you want them to pay you but don't like them and think they are dishonest, and you don't trust them. But you keep giving them your work?
A wall of graffiti is not allowed, and hasn't been for years. No artists rights... you can't resll other artists works.
Back to the OP, I think you have a good case and hopefully SS is looking. We have all seen the messages here, "they closed my account and I did nothing wrong", so I hope SS is doing research and will close this, like the other image theifs we have seen here.
I still wonder if that person also uploaded your work to other places. That's scary and you'll have to chase them to get more accounts closed. Good luck!
LOL. Of all the people bitching and moaning here, you say I have a love-hate relationship with the agencies? As I said earlier, you are just looking to argue. I’m not gonna. 😄
You win, you're right. ;)
-
I was just looking at some pm’s you sent me in 2017, back when you used to talk to me civilly and even stuck up for me when other jerks were mouthing off. What happened? Guess I am just one of those other jerks to you now. Whatever dude.
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Artwork-Property-Release?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Artwork-Property-Release?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons)
Graffiti & Murals are unacceptable.
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
You are saying those bots have portfolios and they reject similar to hold down the competition? ;D
If I leave the keys in my car, it's alright for you to steal it? The point is, SS can make things more difficult, but they can't eliminate theft. Also the problem is the person who stole the images, not the artist or SS, but you don't seem to see past what you want to believe, so you attack people instead of the ideas? And you seem to have a love hate relationship with agencies as you want them to pay you but don't like them and think they are dishonest, and you don't trust them. But you keep giving them your work?
A wall of graffiti is not allowed, and hasn't been for years. No artists rights... you can't resll other artists works.
Back to the OP, I think you have a good case and hopefully SS is looking. We have all seen the messages here, "they closed my account and I did nothing wrong", so I hope SS is doing research and will close this, like the other image theifs we have seen here.
I still wonder if that person also uploaded your work to other places. That's scary and you'll have to chase them to get more accounts closed. Good luck!
Thank you! They responded this week and said they are still looking into it. So far I haven't found the work for sale anywhere else. Which is a good thing! I was really surprised to see my work stolen. It's pretty basic stuff. I would think they would steal something that would earn them a bit more. Perhaps mine they thought would be less noticeable. Thanks for all of the suggestions to everyone who has posted here. I will updated when I find out more.
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
You are saying those bots have portfolios and they reject similar to hold down the competition? ;D
If I leave the keys in my car, it's alright for you to steal it? The point is, SS can make things more difficult, but they can't eliminate theft. Also the problem is the person who stole the images, not the artist or SS, but you don't seem to see past what you want to believe, so you attack people instead of the ideas? And you seem to have a love hate relationship with agencies as you want them to pay you but don't like them and think they are dishonest, and you don't trust them. But you keep giving them your work?
A wall of graffiti is not allowed, and hasn't been for years. No artists rights... you can't resll other artists works.
Back to the OP, I think you have a good case and hopefully SS is looking. We have all seen the messages here, "they closed my account and I did nothing wrong", so I hope SS is doing research and will close this, like the other image theifs we have seen here.
I still wonder if that person also uploaded your work to other places. That's scary and you'll have to chase them to get more accounts closed. Good luck!
Thank you! They responded this week and said they are still looking into it. So far I haven't found the work for sale anywhere else. Which is a good thing! I was really surprised to see my work stolen. It's pretty basic stuff. I would think they would steal something that would earn them a bit more. Perhaps mine they thought would be less noticeable. Thanks for all of the suggestions to everyone who has posted here. I will updated when I find out more.
Good luck, apparently this thief thinks your work is good enough to copy and steal. Which could be considered a compliment to your work. But none of us want that kind of honor. :)
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Artwork-Property-Release?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Artwork-Property-Release?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons)
Graffiti & Murals are unacceptable.
Correct, but the OP said they have many shots of the same thing up already. So it was acceptable and now it’s not?
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Artwork-Property-Release?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Artwork-Property-Release?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons)
Graffiti & Murals are unacceptable.
Correct, but the OP said they have many shots of the same thing up already. So it was acceptable and now it’s not?
If you think and look you know the answer, and it's not reviewers who are protecting their uploads. https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=en&searchterm=wall+in+Verona+lovers+messages&image_type=all (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=en&searchterm=wall+in+Verona+lovers+messages&image_type=all) most are editorial the rest are blurred or not main focus, a few might have been passed by accident or before the graffiti rule. Did you look before you came up with the conspiracy answer? Do you just like to argue and disagree when somebody tries to help?
-
There are 2,115 images, 22 pages shown as being for sale at this moment.
Now slightly off topic, I recently posted a shot of a wall in Verona that was covered in lovers messages and it was rejected as Non-Licensable Content (they do have many shots of the same subject for sale however). So how can you have shots of the items on this page, when it would be fair to say they are registered designs without any doubt. Any answers???
This has come up many times over the years. One theory is that people who do the reviewing are also photographers with portfolios and an image that is similar, so they reject it so theirs doesn’t have competition. Or, as you said, they already have many shots of the same thing. Maybe the images just don’t sell, so why keep accepting them? Who knows, their game, their rules.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Artwork-Property-Release?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Artwork-Property-Release?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons)
Graffiti & Murals are unacceptable.
Correct, but the OP said they have many shots of the same thing up already. So it was acceptable and now it’s not?
If you think and look you know the answer, and it's not reviewers who are protecting their uploads. https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=en&searchterm=wall+in+Verona+lovers+messages&image_type=all (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?search_source=base_search_form&language=en&searchterm=wall+in+Verona+lovers+messages&image_type=all) most are editorial the rest are blurred or not main focus, a few might have been passed by accident or before the graffiti rule. Did you look before you came up with the conspiracy answer? Do you just like to argue and disagree when somebody tries to help?
Actually, I was asking a simple question. But apparently you have jumped on Pete’s bandwagon too. Oh boy. But buried in your reply was an actual answer. Thanks for that. 😏