It is so unbelievably disgusting. Even bigger problem than usual I guess is because images should be exclusive.

It's terrible that the contributor would try to do this - upload a portfolio of someone else's work - but the main fault likes with Shutterstock's slap-dash approach to inspecting work, especially from new contributors. The first hit on a google image search from the Shutterstock preview (of the thief's upload) is your iStock image! There is no excuse.

I assume you have reported this to Shutterstock [email protected], or, if you end up sending a DMCA notice [email protected]

Is there anyone at iStock/Getty who'd contact Shutterstock on your behalf - a long time ago they would have (I was an iStock exclusive for a little while and they were good about doing that sort of thing with other agencies)? Shutterstock's sloppiness is undermining iStock's exclusivity program

Good luck getting this louse's portfolio removed.

Thanks,
I have already sent e-mails to both Shutterstock adresses with detailed information and the links with upload date information; it's been five work days and no answer yet. (Not even an OK, we're working on it answer). On the contrary, a Getty representative contacted me promptly and asked about the situation, not sure why Shutterstock is acting so slowly this time... They were helpful and seemed to be eager to resolve the same problem last time. Portfolio is still active by the way...

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 27, 2023, 09:03

It's terrible that the contributor would try to do this - upload a portfolio of someone else's work - but the main fault likes with Shutterstock's slap-dash approach to inspecting work, especially from new contributors. The first hit on a google image search from the Shutterstock preview (of the thief's upload) is your iStock image! There is no excuse.

I assume you have reported this to Shutterstock [email protected], or, if you end up sending a DMCA notice [email protected]

Is there anyone at iStock/Getty who'd contact Shutterstock on your behalf - a long time ago they would have (I was an iStock exclusive for a little while and they were good about doing that sort of thing with other agencies)? Shutterstock's sloppiness is undermining iStock's exclusivity program

Good luck getting this louse's portfolio removed.

Looks like shittystock finally removed the thief's stolen images  from your links above

However the shysters still have his profile active with 1654 no doubt other stolen images

Someday a contributor will bring the agency to court and the judge will see that as a company they are as responsible for the criminal act of selling stolen photos as the infringer.

One a few millions in fines need to be paid you will see how fast we will never see this again in the age of IA. It is very easy to spot this fraudster. SS and others are turning a blind eye because it brings profits to their corporations and it cannot harm them. Once it really does all will change in that regard.

And some of those still active images are also stolen from IS.

Exclusive Original:  https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/gingerbread-cookie-and-hot-chocolate-for-christmas-gm1270902491-373679887?phrase=gingerbread

Stolen By 3d River:  https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/gingerbread-cookie-hot-chocolate-christmas-2204480183

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 06, 2023, 12:38

And some of those still active images are also stolen from IS.

Exclusive Original:  https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/gingerbread-cookie-and-hot-chocolate-for-christmas-gm1270902491-373679887?phrase=gingerbread

Stolen By 3d River:  https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/gingerbread-cookie-hot-chocolate-christmas-2204480183

SS keeps the port up because it's a cash cow.  They know that most contributors don't have the means to involve attorneys.  They will ask if the photographer did a DMCA. Well, are we supposed to do thousands of them because the agency let it get out of control? Seriously, I think that is their approach, they will always refer back to the first step of actions the artist "should have taken".  Based on that shroud they choose to capitalize on the cash it generates at the cost of copyright infringements.

And of course the agencies are protected because the person who uploaded is at fault and legally SSTK only has to show that they do take action when notified with a DMCA. The laws need to be updated to include places that ignore the problems by pretending they are actively policing their content.

There are problems with the, pay every user for downloaded stolen images. First off, finding the original source, not always easy. Also if the person is an IS exclusive, that's a dead end. And then for people who say, pay for every download, we don't know that all these stolen images actually have downloads.

There's no benefit to SSTK intentionally keeping the 10c. There are cost savings, in not policing and not doing the detailed search to find the rightful artist. That would take a paid human. But they don't allow stolen images as a way to make more money by avoiding paying someone the miserable small amounts that are involved.

And yes, I 100% agree that if someone is found with multiple stolen images, the punishment should be, close their account, and keep the money. Then file charges against the thieves. As someone else said, if the agencies start prosecuting, and this isn't just SSTK, then the people who play this stolen item game, will soon learn it's not profitable and could harm them financially or at least get something on their personal records.

Convictions for copyright aren't going to look as terrible as other theft, but at least it's on their files, that they have low integrity and are willing to steal.