pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This person sells thousands of exclusive Istockphoto images on Shutterstock!  (Read 1877 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 26, 2023, 13:27 »
+6
I have just found out that a person with user name 3D river sells stolen images from my Istock exclusive portfolio on Shutterstock and other exclusive images from Istockphoto contributors as well. Istock exclusives, please check your images from the link below:

User portfolio link:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/3D+River [nofollow]

My portfolio link:
https://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/adventtr?mediatype=photography&sort=best [nofollow]

Unfortunately this is the second time I find my stolen images in a Shutterstock portfolio. The funny things is, there have been a time these double stolen images were active in the same time uploaded by two different thieves. I don't know what else to say...

Proof of stolen images:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3d-illustration-generic-shop-isolated-on-2190199939 [nofollow]
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/3d-illustration-of-a-generic-shop-isolated-on-white-gm1303438983-394888713 [nofollow]

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/two-heat-pumps-standing-near-house-2184622089 [nofollow]
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/heat-pumps-outside-the-house-gm1408849134-459587602?phrase=heat%20pump [nofollow]

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/generic-hydrogen-refuelling-station-isolated-on-2193411977 [nofollow]
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/generic-hydrogen-refuelling-station-isolated-on-white-gm1205217234-347095018?phrase=hydrogen [nofollow]

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/strands-human-hair-under-microscope-3d-2184622045 [nofollow]
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/strands-of-human-hair-under-the-microscope-gm1342421463-421850606 [nofollow]

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/generic-portable-air-conditioner-standing-near-2190199847 [nofollow]
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/generic-portable-air-conditioner-standing-near-the-window-in-the-room-gm1301722213-393679428?phrase=air%20conditioner [nofollow]



« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2023, 00:34 »
+1
It is so unbelievably disgusting. Even bigger problem than usual I guess is because images should be exclusive.

« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2023, 04:42 »
+8
sigh - frustrating to be sure.

And also frustrating that when the images are removed from Shutterstock, where do the sales commissions go?  They SHOULD be sorted out and sent to the original author, but my suspicion is they just go into the agency's pocket - 100% share. 

« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2023, 09:03 »
+8
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.

« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2023, 01:19 »
+5
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...

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] [nofollow], or, if you end up sending a DMCA notice [email protected] [nofollow]

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.

« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2023, 08:13 »
+2
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...

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 :D

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

« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2023, 15:28 »
+1
I have just found out that a person with user name 3D river sells stolen images from my Istock exclusive portfolio on Shutterstock and other exclusive images from Istockphoto contributors as well. Istock exclusives, please check your images from the link below:

User portfolio link:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/3D+River

My portfolio link:
https://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/adventtr?mediatype=photography&sort=best

Unfortunately this is the second time I find my stolen images in a Shutterstock portfolio. The funny things is, there have been a time these double stolen images were active in the same time uploaded by two different thieves. I don't know what else to say...

Proof of stolen images:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3d-illustration-generic-shop-isolated-on-2190199939
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/3d-illustration-of-a-generic-shop-isolated-on-white-gm1303438983-394888713

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/two-heat-pumps-standing-near-house-2184622089
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/heat-pumps-outside-the-house-gm1408849134-459587602?phrase=heat%20pump

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/generic-hydrogen-refuelling-station-isolated-on-2193411977
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/generic-hydrogen-refuelling-station-isolated-on-white-gm1205217234-347095018?phrase=hydrogen

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/strands-human-hair-under-microscope-3d-2184622045
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/strands-of-human-hair-under-the-microscope-gm1342421463-421850606

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/generic-portable-air-conditioner-standing-near-2190199847
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/generic-portable-air-conditioner-standing-near-the-window-in-the-room-gm1301722213-393679428?phrase=air%20conditioner
Shutterstock should be forced to send any earnings to you by law but how do you make them do that? If they keep the money then isn't it illegal in any western country?

« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2023, 17:45 »
+6
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.

« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2023, 09:26 »
+3
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 remember very well that during the Shutterstock boycott, they accepted a Pixar image into an absolute noob portfolio with non-linear quality (he just downloaded images here and there). Maybe I even still have a screenshot. I mean, they could at least do an initial review of 10 works properly

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2023, 12:38 »
+1

« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2023, 13:20 »
+1
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.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2023, 13:32 »
+2
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4801 Views
Last post May 03, 2006, 03:05
by leaf
10 Replies
5244 Views
Last post October 12, 2008, 10:28
by hali
37 Replies
11107 Views
Last post September 27, 2013, 02:43
by jry
4 Replies
2323 Views
Last post June 14, 2020, 08:23
by Mantis
5 Replies
959 Views
Last post January 09, 2023, 17:55
by derby

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle