Shutterstock terminated my account because at one eps I sent to them they found a watermarked image belonging to another individual.

I explained to them that this image left accidentally in my artwork but no answer from them. My artwork has the same concept with the other image but it is totally mine. I used the other image only for comparison purposes. As you understand I would be foolish to try to cheat them and to left the watermarked image in my artwork. I also explained to them to check my image by opening the eps file. If they do that they will see that my image is not a trace of the watermarked image.

I am still awaiting answer from Shutterstock ...


Do you believe that Shutterstock fairly closed my account or not?

Here we go again!!

Quote from: fotografer on December 27, 2012, 20:25
Here we go again!!

<sigh> Yet another 'innocent victim' who only uploaded someone else's work, as their own, by accident.

"Next".

Quote from: gostwyck on December 27, 2012, 20:29

Quote from: fotografer on December 27, 2012, 20:25
Here we go again!!

<sigh> Yet another 'innocent victim' who only uploaded someone else's work, as their own, by accident.

"Next".

Thats not what I read. But its a grey area, copying work. When is it allowed and when is it copyright violation?

http://keithpp.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/copyright-abuse-over-who-owns-the-image-of-a-london-red-bus/

My artwork is different from the watermarked image. The image is hidden (it doesn't contribute at all at my artwork) and I did not traced it. I used it only for comparison purposes and I simply forgot to remove it from the eps.

If you don't show us the work we can't comment. It could be that the work is a cartoon animal, for example, and the watermarked image a photo of that animial that has no resemblance to the illustration, used just for general anatomical reference.
Without actual links, how are we supposed to know?

Quote from: Microbius on December 27, 2012, 20:36
If you don't show us the work we can't comment. It could be that the work is a cartoon animal, for example, and the watermarked image a photo of that animial that has no resemblance to the illustration, used just for general anatomical reference.
Without actual links, how are we supposed to know?

+1

This industry is now saturated with copycats. It's like China on a global scale, and there's nothing to stop it. Time to get smart or drown with the sheep.

Quote from: ankarb on December 27, 2012, 20:35
My artwork is different from the watermarked image. The image is hidden (it doesn't contribute at all at my artwork) and I did not traced it. I used it only for comparison purposes and I simply forgot to remove it from the eps.

unfortunately you submitted someone elses copyrighted image as your own, even tho you didnt use it. there are WAY too many people who do copy other people, so they have a zero tolerance policy. i agree with them closing your account. unfortunately it has proven to be an expensive lesson for you. maybe they will change their mind.

next time put the works to copy in another folder

now go and open an account on your sister's name

I see no reason not to believe the OP, and given that, the real issue is his inability (so far) to get a response from SS.  Obviously mistakes happen and a responsible company wouldn't just shut off someone's income without the possibility of him offering an explanation. 

Quote from: stockastic on December 27, 2012, 21:53
I see no reason not to believe the OP, and given that, the real issue is his inability (so far) to get a response from SS.  Obviously mistakes happen and a responsible company wouldn't just shut off someone's income without the possibility of him offering an explanation.

On these stories we usually only ever get one side of the account. Who's to say that SS haven't been entirely fair and that the OP isn't actually telling us the whole truth?

These 'issues' only ever seem to happen to people brand new to MSG and never, 'out of the blue', to our regular and well-known contributors with verifiable portfolios and history. Funny that.

The funny thing is, that we never get to see the images in question (the illustration and the watermarked image for "comparison purposes only"). My hunch is they look a bit alike...

This must be the weirdest industry I have ever worked in! 

Nowhere have I ever found people going "Hey man, this other company kicked me out for fraud, but I am innocent. What do you think...?" 

Unbelievable!!! 

Dude, You blew it up so bad...

Concept (if original enough) is not possible to copy under DMCA and many agencies after auditing vector works will delete your account for that reason... You should wait for at least 20 years to copy other people's vector work if you happen to want to do that.

So, yes... Make a new account on your sister or aunt name and no more copying/peeking... As far if you wish to earn some money from YOUR vectors, be original.

Surely this should be "SHOW and tell" not just "TELL".

Quote from: ankarb on December 27, 2012, 20:17

Do you believe that Shutterstock fairly closed my account or not?

I am almost %100 sure that they "fairly" closed your account..

Claims like yours require proper evidence.. You are wrong until you post the image here.. The reason you don't post it here is because you already know that shutterstock is right on this issue..

Using other people's works for "comparison"_{(! yeah I am that naive to believe it is for comparison)} is wrong..

What a sad story... I can't stop crying. Account closed, the portfolio based on someone's concepts - vanished. But all your portfolios (if you have them) in other agencies are still alive!

PS. Great 'Thank You' to admins in SS.

You are quite unfortunate in that case.

Speaking of truth, there should be thousands or millions of contributor banned, because most vector illustrators are basically submitting the same design over again. I see so many identical design elements like abstract background, design elements, vintages.

SO what is original???

A person is innocent until proven guilty.

Quote from: JPSDK on December 28, 2012, 09:30
A person is innocent until proven guilty.

in his case, he is proven guilty by shutterstock as his port is removed..

now he needs to prove SS is wrong.. or why else start a thread about it?

he doesn't even seem to care enough to post links..

Quote from: JPSDK on December 28, 2012, 09:30
A person is innocent until proven guilty.

How do you know that said person wasn't found comprehensively guilty by SS? The agency is also entitled to be regarded as 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Also, nope the person isn't innocent until proven guilty. This isn't a court of law.
An agency can choose who to work with using any criteria they like.

If I was an agency I would be operating on a balance of probability, not on proof.

They need to cover their a** legally, so if it looks like somethings amiss they deactivate a portfolio until it is sorted.

I also appreciate it when agencies actively work to protect artists. There are agencies out there who are selling work blatantly nicked from other contributors, long after SS and IS have acted to delete the infringer's portfolios (funny to think that IS is still doing one thing right, but they are another agency on the ball with this sort of thing)

Quote from: Microbius on December 28, 2012, 10:16
I also appreciate it when agencies actively work to protect artists.

Is the correct answer.

He is put on suspension by shutterstock while the case is being investigated,  thats fine.
But it is not the same as being guilty.