I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.
I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.

Quote from: cclapper on December 09, 2010, 12:31

Quote from: Microbius on December 09, 2010, 09:36

Quote from: ten on December 09, 2010, 06:38

FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency,   http://www.flemishdreams.com/    shows "several" potential PR infringements. 

Deep pocket attempts may be with ALL the licensing agencies,...but the ultimate responsibility/liability falls on the Tog.

Great images, FD,...but I'd keep moving too,...nice knowing you!.....;-))

ten

And no, FD doesn't license images from his site, just drives traffic to his micro portfolio on the agencies including SS.
It's pretty low to try to make out he does.

And what if he did license directly from his own site. That isn't a problem either, is it? If he isn't exclusive, I was under the impression a person can sell RF anywhere he wants. No?

A number of the biggest contributors to microstock sites have their own agencies / collections that they sell and market from their own site or through other sites.  Selling your own images from your own site surely shouldn't be a problem.

Quote from: Microbius on December 09, 2010, 12:55
I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.
I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.

I see. Don't you just love anonymity on the net?

Quote from: leaf on December 09, 2010, 13:09
A number of the biggest contributors to microstock sites have their own agencies / collections that they sell and market from their own site or through other sites.  Selling your own images from your own site surely shouldn't be a problem.

That's what I thought, too. I can't imagine that that is FD's problem.

Quote from: leaf on December 09, 2010, 13:09
A number of the biggest contributors to microstock sites have their own agencies / collections that they sell and market from their own site or through other sites. 

Oh yes, sometimes even when ingested into the iStock supposedly 'exclusive' Agency programme.

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 09, 2010, 05:29...How many times do people here complain that they wrote and nothing happened, or they filed a DMCA and the images are still up. Hang em first and have a fair trial later.

Now it's the flip-side and people want slow, deliberate justice, with notification, because it's someone we know and respect and I'd bet someone who didn't infringe on anything.

Feel free to take either side, lashing out for the way it's handled... depending on, if you are the one being notified or the one doing the notification...

I've been the one doing the notification at one time in the past, and I'd rather have seen slow deliberate justice than the quick account termination response that was handed down. I think there's a better middle ground here. SS should suspend only the images in question, and then give the accused a week to respond to the accusation and provide proof of image ownership. Only after that point should an entire account be suspended or deleted.

The current SS policy assumes that the accuser is always right, which is scary. It puts any one of us at risk of having our accounts suspended for some period of time. Make an enemy in the forum and the next thing you know you could be shut down at SS just because that enemy fired off an accusatory email suggesting you stole some images.

Quote from: helix7 on December 09, 2010, 14:28

SS should suspend only the images in question, and then give the accused a week to respond to the accusation and provide proof of image ownership. Only after that point should an entire account be suspended or deleted.

I'm not on SS, but why only 'a week'. I travel in places without internet (in vast swathes of the sparsely-populated Scottish highlands as well as developing counhtries), or would have to go way out of my way to find it, for longer periods. That would be almost as unfair as instant closure.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 09, 2010, 16:32
I'm not on SS, but why only 'a week'. I travel in places without internet (in vast swathes of the sparsely-populated Scottish highlands as well as developing counhtries), or would have to go way out of my way to find it, for longer periods. That would be almost as unfair as instant closure.

It could be more. I sort of just threw one week out there arbitrarily. The point being that some period of time is given for the accused to defend themselves before they lose their entire account.

So let's say 20 days then, hypothetically. The allegedly infringing images are suspended immediately, notice is sent to the contributor that they have 20 days in which to contact SS and advise them that they plan to dispute the claim and can provide proof of image ownership. They have some period of time to submit that proof, otherwise the account is completely suspended. During the period in which the case is open, no payouts can be received, and earnings are held until the matter is resolved and released in the next payout cycle. If the accused is unable to prove image ownership and found to be guilty of the infringement, they lose all earnings accrued from the date of the initial image suspension and their account is closed.

It ain't perfect, but it sort of covers all bases. A copyright holder with a legitimate complaint against an SS user is able to protect their copyright by having the images in question immediately suspended. But the contributor is also able to remain active and continue earning on the remainder of their portfolio while the case is open, so at least if they are found innocent of any wrong-doing they don't lose out on weeks of earnings. And it's not much of a hassle for SS. They pretty much follow the same procedure as they do now, only instead of just suspending an entire account they suspend individual images. Then they still fire off the same email informing the contributor of the accusation, and wait to hear back from them. The one thing they'd have to change, however, is their response time. Right now it's just unacceptable.

--

Quote from: Microbius on December 09, 2010, 12:55
I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.
I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.

I wonder if this person has anything to do with the original complaint to SS? Why would someone open a new account just to dog FD?

Just ban the new poster - you don't have to give any reason by all accounts - that's the way it works.

Oldhand

Long, interesting and alightly scary thread.  There are 2 fundemental problems with what has happened:

1.  Zero due process

2. Not a question of suspension - seems he's been permanently kicked off the site.

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 09, 2010, 19:26

Quote from: Microbius on December 09, 2010, 12:55
I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.
I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.

I wonder if this person has anything to do with the original complaint to SS? Why would someone open a new account just to dog FD?

+1

OMG I hadn't thought of that, the person I suspect that is was extremely rude to FD recently, but surely he's not that much of a **** (insert expletive here)

Do you really think a company like SS would remove someones entire profitable gallery without justification?

This is simply a fact/fantasy issue, and no one is being rude, merely stating the facts.

Anyone who steals any others copyrighted material for their personal gain is nothing more than a thief.  If he did not do anything wrong then he could have easily cleared the issue in dialing 10 digits and talking with the agencies.

SS & BS are reputable business' who are not in the habit of arbitrarily removing member's images without just cause.  To imply otherwise is naive.

ten

So not truer. I don't even know where to begin. They remove ports and investigate later. It has happened before. When and if the accused party is found innocent, they put everything back with an " oops, sorry."

ten, you may not be aware of the cyber war currently raging because some large companies (Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard etc) closed accounts without actually having legal justification. I notice other agencies haven't been so quick to close FD's accoumts.

Quote from: patrick1958 on December 08, 2010, 21:30


FD is moving to a new house in the Philipines, he will probably be out of internet for a few weeks.  Only connections are internet stores, but i guess he is busy now moving.

Thanks for posting Patrick.  At least that explains why we haven't heard back from him. 

I hope we get good news from FD soon, but meanwhile we may entertain ourselves with fun theories.  Maybe be is actually Julian Assange?   

Quote from: madelaide on December 10, 2010, 00:36
I hope we get good news from FD soon, but meanwhile we may entertain ourselves with fun theories.  Maybe be is actually Julian Assange?   

You do make me laugh!! 

 @madelaide: 

Quote from: madelaide on December 10, 2010, 00:36
I hope we get good news from FD soon, but meanwhile we may entertain ourselves with fun theories.  Maybe be is actually Julian Assange?   

LOL!!

Quote from: helix7 on December 09, 2010, 14:28

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 09, 2010, 05:29...How many times do people here complain that they wrote and nothing happened, or they filed a DMCA and the images are still up. Hang em first and have a fair trial later.

Now it's the flip-side and people want slow, deliberate justice, with notification, because it's someone we know and respect and I'd bet someone who didn't infringe on anything.

Feel free to take either side, lashing out for the way it's handled... depending on, if you are the one being notified or the one doing the notification...

I've been the one doing the notification at one time in the past, and I'd rather have seen slow deliberate justice than the quick account termination response that was handed down. I think there's a better middle ground here. SS should suspend only the images in question, and then give the accused a week to respond to the accusation and provide proof of image ownership. Only after that point should an entire account be suspended or deleted.

The current SS policy assumes that the accuser is always right, which is scary. It puts any one of us at risk of having our accounts suspended for some period of time. Make an enemy in the forum and the next thing you know you could be shut down at SS just because that enemy fired off an accusatory email suggesting you stole some images.

I do agree with you. Offending image or whatever the complaint includes should be locked, while the investigation is on, for anyone, any complaint. Not closing a whole account, just because someone complains. I'll assume the complaint had some meat or it's even worse.

Now that someone says it's revenge, it's even scarier that FD is being personally attacked.

Lets hope that somehow SS must explain why and what caused this and the person behind the attack (if that's what it is) gets outed!

I would seriously doubt that FD would even use a part of someone else's work, let alone infringe on anything, in a photo and try to sell it. He's just way too straight forward from everything I've even seen from him and any communications. I just couldn't believe it's true.

Its been 10 days now since FD made the first post, still no sign of his portfolio being reinstated.  I can understand if he can't give us information for legal reasons but couldn't he just let us know that's why there's not been a follow up post?  Perhaps he is just too busy doing other things.

I really don't think we should speculate too much what the reasons are for shutterstock to take down his portfolio.  I just think if they have justification or not, they should still just take down the relevant images and make contact with the contributor before removing all their portfolio.  In a bad year for microstock, this is yet another reason to be concerned for contributors.

Quote from: sharpshot on December 14, 2010, 11:09
  I just think if they have justification or not, they should still just take down the relevant images and make contact with the contributor before removing all their portfolio. 

I'm with you helix7 and everyone else on the point of only removing or blocking the offending image(s).

What I was writing about in the past is, people complain if they act too slowly when it's their photos being stolen, and now complain if they act too fast, when it's someone we know. Can't have it both ways? But only taking out the individual complaint images is the way it should be done.

If the problem is a competing agency, that seems unusual, since FD doesn't really run an agency (that I know of?), he has a website to promote his own images and links to other agencies for sales. SS being one of them!

Waiting for the electricity to come back or FD to come back...