If the files were stolen, why should the photographer be punished?
Indeed, if her files were stolen and her account was frozen while the matter was investigated, she should be recompensed for the time her images were offline.

If the files were stolen, why should the photographer be punished?
Indeed, if her files were stolen and her account was frozen while the matter was investigated, she should be recompensed for the time her images were offline.

They weren't stolen. She forgot to deactivate them.
1) The account membership dates for iStock and Canstock are the same
2) The user names are the same
3) The files were uploaded at Canstock almost as soon as the member joined
4) Canstock says the photographer has deactivated them, not that they have been deactivated by the site.

There is no room for thinking they are stolen unless you believe that someone stole her identity the day she signed on to iStock, knowing that she would soon upload stuff worth stealing, and then decided to steal only 20 files to post on CanStockPhoto and, after hearing that she had got into trouble, in a fit of remorse the thief deactivated them. I've yet to hear of a stock photo thief who is also an identity thief and able to receive payment under the victims name.

No, it was her own fault but probably not malicious.

Sorry, Sue, I thought what I said to start with was clear enough. I still do think it is . You're misreading it (did your eye skip the word "NOT"?).

Sorry, Sue, I thought what I said to start with was clear enough. I still do think it is . You're misreading it (did your eye skip the word "NOT"?).

Total unreserved apology. I did miss the word 'not'.

Quote

The files on Canstock have been "deactivated by the photographer" not removed from the site because they were stolen.

I don't know why it's so hard for some to comprehend the above sentence.  What he is saying is that canstock would have removed the files if they were stolen.  They were not stolen and not removed.  Instead they were deactivated by the photographer.  

BT deserves an apology for you being so bloody rude!  

It's no wonder a good majority of people read these forums but don't want to participate.  Every second person seems to have a stick up their arse in here.

You've just reminded my why I had your former incarnation on Ignore.

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 18, 2010, 04:44

Quote

The files on Canstock have been "deactivated by the photographer" not removed from the site because they were stolen.

I don't know why it's so hard for some to comprehend the above sentence.  What he is saying is that canstock would have removed the files if they were stolen.  They were not stolen and not removed.  Instead they were deactivated by the photographer.  

BT deserves an apology for you being so bloody rude!  

It's no wonder a good majority of people read these forums but don't want to participate.  Every second person seems to have a stick up their arse in here.

You've just reminded my why I had your former incarnation on Ignore.

I find it incredibly amusing when some dull and insignificant person who I don't read or interact with decides to formally advise me that they "ignored" me.  The only use I've found for you is that you've just confirmed statistically in this thread that every second person here has a stick up their arse 

How many years ago did that person go exclusive?  Amazing this wasn't spotted before.  Just goes to show buyers don't shop around, only sold a few on CanStockPhoto with prices a fraction of Vetta.

It's rather a sad reflection on CanStockPhoto's "reach" and shows that iStock's position is primarily due to superior marketing skills.

Whether it's skills or cash, the result is the same. DT seemed to manage better from an equally weak starting point, and they both began in June  2004, didn't they?