Thief makes screenshots from stock videos, blurs them and sells on Shutterstock

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Didik+yulianto

Check if yours are also there.

How do those even get approved? Apparently they don't have out of focus rejections anymore. What a bunch of garbage. "Im nippon freelancer journalist who loved to travelling around the world. in blurryness i found peace and the truth perspective.thanks for supports." Peace and truth ... and money off other people's back! ... in blurriness? LOL

106 pages of that garbage.

Wow. Just wow. No other words.

Makes me even happier to be rid of Shitterstock!

So when Shutterstock ask for ID verification, can I send them a completely blurred scan?

Quote from: Digital on October 29, 2020, 23:21
So when Shutterstock ask for ID verification, can I send them a completely blurred scan?

LOL

Seems I've been going about this stock photo business all wrong

I should invest in stealing other peoples images and blurring them and there was me thinking everything had to be my own work and in focus without noise 

Quote from: Lev on October 29, 2020, 17:27
Thief makes screenshots from stock videos, blurs them and sells on Shutterstock

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Didik+yulianto

Check if yours are also there.

I take it that you reported this dog?

Quote from: cathyslife on October 29, 2020, 17:44
How do those even get approved? Apparently they don't have out of focus rejections anymore. What a bunch of garbage. "Im nippon freelancer journalist who loved to travelling around the world. in blurryness i found peace and the truth perspective.thanks for supports." Peace and truth ... and money off other people's back! ... in blurriness? LOL

106 pages of that garbage.

They do have a lot of focus rejections. Especially if the image is sharp :-D Getting lot of rejection because of sharpness for full frame camera images but almost none for images from 1.0-inch compact camera.

Quote from: Lev on October 29, 2020, 17:27
Thief makes screenshots from stock videos, blurs them and sells on Shutterstock

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Didik+yulianto

Check if yours are also there.

Screen name does not correspond the url
Didik+yulianto  vs Musashi akira - so definetely it is not "Im nippon freelancer journalist" how he (or she - Yulia, then you can guess) wrote. Keyword "japanese" on this port returns Malaysia-Indonesia stuff.
But SS does not care even the fraud is evident.

Thanks for the tip off.

Having just looked through a few pages of his blurred images I found one of mine stolen from an exclusive Getty Rights Managed, now RR, HD video.

A frame from an HD video made into a blurred still and Shutterstock accepted it. Just appalling.

Quote from: Elmtree on October 30, 2020, 12:26
Thanks for the tip off.

Having just looked through a few pages of his blurred images I found one of mine stolen from an exclusive Getty Rights Managed, now RR, HD video.

A frame from an HD video made into a blurred still and Shutterstock accepted it. Just appalling.

Report him immediately, time to get this thief off of the platform asap.

There has been speculation for years that Shutterstock is involved in money laundering.

Quote from: Hannafate on October 30, 2020, 13:40
There has been speculation for years that Shutterstock is involved in money laundering.

Quote from: Hannafate on October 30, 2020, 13:40
There has been speculation for years that Shutterstock is involved in money laundering.

Someone should tell the FBI 

Someone should push the concept even further - blur screenshots from 4K bluray rips of iconic movies and upload them as a collection.

Great achievement all the same. If I submitted those they would be rejected for being out of focus. Before I suspended my SS account I came to the conclusion that SS had gone to war with their contributors and yet this slips through.

Quote from: noelbennett235 on October 30, 2020, 17:59
Great achievement all the same. If I submitted those they would be rejected for being out of focus. Before I suspended my SS account I came to the conclusion that SS had gone to war with their contributors and yet this slips through.

That was my point. When I was submitting, even when I would submit food shots with shallow DOFs they would get rejected for out of focus.

SS has to either be a) paying these people to create huge bogus portfolios to beef up their site totals and BS their shareholders, or b) just giving special treatment to some people, not really caring what they submit. Either way, it's garbage.

wow .... I get rejections because something is not 100% in focus and if I submit a deliberate blurred image that also get rejected for not having the main subject in focus ... how do these get accepted, regardless of how they come by the images.

I think this thread has accidentally stumbled on how to not get the ridiculous focus rejections.
Just put the word "blurred" in every description.

Unbelievable and outrageous Shuttercrap!

The theory is that there is a crooked reviewer who deliberately approves whole portfolios of images nobody would actually buy.  Then, the gang uses stolen credit card information to buy gobs of these images.  The "photographer" collects the payout as legitimate earnings.

This theory is less plausible with lowered payments, but, as has been pointed out, there are still some high dollar sales. 

Even with a very low percentage of earnings, it's still "free" money.

For those who missed it and are wondering how these could possibly have slipped past the reviewers...

There is a thing called "background blur" which is footage or stills that are intentionally blurred (while still retaining some of the information about what is actually going on in the scene). They are actually very common in ads (used for backgrounds) and if you keep your eye out for them you will see them all over the place. They were pretty hot on SS for a few weeks about two years ago.

If you can't tell the difference between this and "my full frame DSLR creates super thin DOF where 10% of the image is in near focus but the reviewers keep rejecting it Whaaaa" then you need to take a step back and think about it a bit I think.

Having said all that, this is another great example of fraudsters and thieves making money off the backs of legit contributors. Hopefully Shutterstock does something that shows they take this seriously, I've given up waiting for them to do so. This portfolio may get removed but the original creators of the material will not see a penny of what was stolen from them.

So glad I pulled my images/video from SS. Although the whole industry is not in a great place these days.

LOL yeah, we all know the difference. Those 106 pages aren't "background blur" or anything useful blur.

Its amazing what a huge garbage dump Shutterstock has become. Sad, abusive and low value.........what's not to like from this place.

Quote from: WendyT on October 30, 2020, 23:30
wow .... I get rejections because something is not 100% in focus and if I submit a deliberate blurred image that also get rejected for not having the main subject in focus ... how do these get accepted, regardless of how they come by the images.

They can be accepted, only with the support of responsable employees of SS. I don't believe that "employees games" could last so long and repeat not being noticed, then .... Do you remember discussed here multiple cases when one thief was removed immediately and to remove others the process takes months? Ask why? Who is interested? Who earns? Can we check if those ports were not heavily promoted by SS in general or per customer?