Agency Based Discussion > New Sites - General

Image theft

<< < (15/15)

leaf:

--- Quote from: hospitalera on September 29, 2006, 18:49 ---
--- Quote from: pelmof on September 29, 2006, 15:45 ---The more I think about this situation, I believe we have all been witness to a remarkable event. Together, as a community, we have managed to expose a thief and a suspect microstock site. It is a tribute to the Internet, Tyler (leaf) as host of this forum, and all the contributers to the link that we have been able to do this. Good detective work by searching the net and ferreting out the culprit have accomplished a valuable result. It may be a link that should be preserved for historical reference. Kuddos to us all.

JMHO.

Pat

--- End quote ---

Kuddos to ALL of us??? Let's see what happened really:

1. Somebody, Deniss Whoteverhisname, was hired as a image reviewer.
2. He, as most reviewers have to do, depending on the system, had to download the pics on his computer to see them at 100%
3. And decided to keep them and resubmit them, under his name, to another site.
4. And now we blame the site he was working for, even if we have no proof that the management of this site was involved...

Justice, I don't know...
SY

PD It was NOT the first time, I know of at least two previous times more... It didn't end up in a witch hunt like this time because, perhaps, the sites involved were all "established" and none of them a newcomer...


--- End quote ---

Wether he was a reviewer or was employed in some other manner we don't know, but that isn't really relevant.

I don't think many people are considering Galastock as the criminal here.  I think what Pelmof was saying however is that galastock has done some things in the past that make a person 'question' their motives.  Since they are new, they don't have much as far as reputation to back them up to start with.  The few things that make ME question galastock are

- when they started their site out, they lifted canstock's user agreement and used it as their own (even forgetting to  take out the name 'canstock' in the wording
- their site looks fairly simple and template-ish
- they are new
- their employee was untrustworthy.

I agree it is not enough to conclude anything definate about the site itself, but it is enough to conclude that I don't want to upload there.  there are so many microstock sites to submit to, I don't need many reasons to choose one away.

CJPhoto:
Latvia is in the EU so I assume they must have a sufficent legal system.

This event points out why we mut be vigilent.  Anyone could buy a SS membership for a month and have 750 proven sellers under their name.  It is just unfortunate that it was an employee of a site (esp. a new site).

I am pending my decision on Galastock to see how this pans out.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page