Quote from: qunamax on December 25, 2017, 06:18

Quote from: niktol on December 25, 2017, 05:00

Quote from: qunamax on December 25, 2017, 04:54

Well it might be, maybe somehow they detected something fishy going on with your mac adresses and it raised a red flag for them, so they just disabled the account. I doubt they even elaborated, they just play safe and don't have time to investigate every such event, hence the paragraph in their tos about account disabling with no questions asked. I think...

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

As far as I know mac addresses aren't communicated unless there is an app installed on the client mac. Do mac users have to download an app from SS to communicate with the site? If it's just through browser, unless it's IE supposedly there isn't anything providing SS with this info.

You are right. I thought it's not usually done but possible to extract mac if wanted.

Is it important?
Is this possibly the reason for my account being disabled?

I'm not suggesting that them extracting the mac address has anything to do with that but, why would you change it? I'm suggesting that if you're going through the trouble to change that, you're probably going through the trouble to use a proxy server or any other number of confusing questionable actions as well.

As for what you should do in the future, just create new profiles at other sites (shutterstock will close it again if they find out it's you) and share your stuff the way the rest of us do. It's really that easy ... No "marketer" is just going to show up one day and increase sales 1000% but, if you just share your new files and new sales and whatever sometimes you'll catch an extra customer or two from your followers. It seems like most of them have a way to pretty much share them automatically ... if not try IFTTT or something.

Good luck, don't cheat the system too badly.

None of this actually bothers me. I was only in it for the lens cap money anyway

I too, have lost far too many lens caps.

Quote from: cicerocastro on December 23, 2017, 07:35

And about the other answers that I got to my simple question? I will not lose my precious time to comment the stupid answers!!

Because it's a 'simple question' like 'what camera should I buy' is a simple question.  Because the simple answer is the obvious one.   "What kind of content should I upload?"  Whatever kind you have that they take.  If you wanted a more in depth discussion you should have asked a more in depth question.  ( and not late on a Friday night )

Mat gave some good info though.  He's an Adobe rep and a cool guy. 

I actually like the camera question a lot better, and did the same a couple years ago when trying to decide. Plus, the other contributors here are very knowledgeable and say things like "save it for the glass" and "get a nifty fifty" lol.

Mat's the bee's knees, one of the most helpful assets that Adobe/Fotolia could have if you consider that we're the content providers, and the customers are there for content. He's been our soul communication really since he started frequenting here.

Although, if you want to be picky, if you want to watch Game of Thrones (HBO), Breaking Bad (Netflix) or Seinfeld (Hulu) there aren't really any competitors, as each company mostly has exclusive content.

I see them more as complementing each other rather than competing.

If I want Jessica Jones and Narcos I can't just look for the cheapest alternative. Netflix is the only choice. And if I want Game of Thrones, HBO is the only choice.

Meh, if it's not on Amazon we just don't watch it or rent ... We pay for prime. There's no reason to worry about which specific show/movie we're wasting time with ... there are tons of content providers and tons of content. We could almost just watch YouTube.

Quote from: RAW on December 17, 2017, 14:24

It's obvious from some of the posts in this thread that several of you are Republicans so I won't bother mentioning how much net neutrality helps low income families not just with education but also healthcare.

Things are not as black and white as you think.
For the record, I'm registered independent and I voted democrats in the past elections.
Yet I see no problem in abolishing NN as long as it is done when competition is strong enough to protect consumers. And I want to see even more regulations abolished to reach that level of competition.

Registered republican. Voted Independant ... I would have voted for the bern if dems hadn't handed the nomination to that hag. I'm in a red state so it really doesn't matter.

Quote from: Mantis on December 15, 2017, 09:36

Yes but we have laws on the books today to manage monopolies and oligopolies.

LOL. They just split them off into subsidiaries and pretend that it's all new and okay ... think Exxon Mobile ... Alphabet Inc. and Chinese Telecommunications.
We already live in an oligocracy ... the voting and many little brands and decisions basically just give us the illusion of choice.

I'd dare go on to say that even the nation that we live is part of that illusion. Things like the UN and other Intergovernmental Agencies have the power and the motive to control all of the pawns on the board.

Quote from: qunamax on December 14, 2017, 19:51

Is it the actual law that will forbid internet providers to supply internet as they did up to now or they are changing the law/regulation to let them charge extra if they please?

They have voted to change a rule (not a law) that categorized ISPs as common carriers, which are not permitted to charge differing rates based on what content or which provider you're accessing - they can charge for more speed, but not charge more for accessing Netflix (for example) than the ISPs own streaming video service. The new category of information service is very lightly regulated and will free up the larcenous scum that run the local monopolies to charge consumers more.

Like many areas in the US, there is a monopoly for my local broadband provider - it's Comcast or nothing (there's a very slow copper wire service but nothing fast). If they behave badly I can move or stop using broadband internet. Verizon's no better and is likewise a monopoly in many areas.

Comcast is a horrible company with wretched customer service but we're stuck. I don't believe for one second the rubbish about how they have no interest in making customers unhappy now the rules are gone - their whole business model is based around maximizing revenue from angry and dissatisfied customers

I loved Comcast back about 10 years back. Now they're absolutely the worst ... and the thing is, they've got their staff and half their customers duped into thinking that they're for Net Neutrality. (Meanwhile, lubing them up for their streaming video service.) I wouldn't be surprised to see them be the first ones to take advantage of this and start bottlenecking Netflix and the like.

Our local provider isn't the best here in Central Utah but, I think I can deal with a dropped connection every week or so while knowing (or at least as far as they've announced) that they don't really have big media ties.

That's entertaining ... the few clients that host I everything set to bill my credit card in case I forget ... and I'm one man in an office. You'd think someone somewhere in that organization is there to plan/pay bills, and I'd think some IT guy was like ... "yo, you * idiot. You forgot to pay this."

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on December 09, 2017, 10:34

Quote from: cathyslife on December 09, 2017, 10:28

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on December 09, 2017, 10:04

Quote from: cathyslife on December 09, 2017, 08:04

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 09, 2017, 03:12

Quote from: cathyslife on December 08, 2017, 09:48

Quote from: JimP on December 08, 2017, 09:30

  What kind of people here give a plus defending someone who steals images and uploads them to SS?

Other thieves, maybe?

Cathy you really are the worst troll. You've stalked more than one person off of this forum. At least one that was genuinely bringing something unique to the community. I've never ignored anyone on here but * it you've finally made me push that button.

And I bet you got a plus for this post from a fellow thief.    I love you men who call me out as a troll after seeing some of the crap you guys post. Gotta love forums.

Misandry at it's finest 

Not "you men" just one person of indeterminate gender

True, but why not call JimP a troll too? I am pretty sure "Jim" is a man's name. Misandry, or misogyny? 

Far as I can see it was only "Justanotherphotgrapher" who called you a "troll" Cathy.

JimP didn't seem to..

Misogyny? Where did I say any thing rude about "you women"?

Never mind. You "guys" crack me up. Quite entertaining. And quite the deflection from the actual problem related to this topic...thievery of other peoples images.    Happy holidays!

This just in, Fozzcan is a man ... who inappropriately touched me 20 years ago on set after a few cocktails.

Hello my friends,

I have been using shutterstock since about 5 months. They asked me some questions about of my work. They sent me this email.

Dear F. OZCAN,

We have discovered that you are submitting content, or elements in your content, to which you may not own the copyright.

The original image(s) are located at:

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Atat%C3%BCrk_TBMM%27den_%C3%A7%C4%B1karken.jpg>

Currently, we have suspended your Shutterstock account. Prior to taking any further steps, we are inviting you to respond to this claim.

At the minimum, please let us know:

1) where, when and by whom the image(s) in question was created; and

2) how you obtained the idea for the image

If it turns out that the claim is without merit we will not take any further action and your account will remain active.


Then i answered their questions like this.

1) I got this picture from the Atat�rk archive. I don't know when time this photo took. But older than 79 years. Because of ATAT�RK died in 1938. The copyright is 70 years in Turkey. You can check these links "https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telif_hakk%C4%B1" "http://www.telifhaklari.gov.tr/Telif-Hakki-Kac-Yil-Sureyle-Korunur"  so I thought it would not be a problem.

2) I thought of the idea myself.

I made such a study based on official sources at hand. If it's a problem, I can delete these works.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best Regards,

Then they sent me this email

Dear F. OZCAN,

Pursuant to Paragraph 14(d) of Shutterstock's Submitter Terms & Conditions, when you became a Shutterstock submitter you warranted and represented that: "the Content and all parts thereof are owned and/or controlled by you, unencumbered and original works and are capable of copyright protection in all countries where copyright or similar protection is available�.

We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images. Specifically, your image 729587650 originally found here:<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Atat%C3%BCrk_TBMM%27den_%C3%A7%C4%B1karken.jpg>. Based upon our investigation, we have determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock.

Paragraph 4 of the Submitter Terms & Conditions gives Shutterstock the right to terminate any existing account " . . . for fraud, intellectual property infringement, violation of a third party's rights including those of privacy or publicity, artificially inflating downloads, submission of material that is obscene in nature, violent or that might be construed as defamatory, failure to comply with Shutterstock's guidelines as may be amended from time to time, or for any breach of the terms of this or any other agreement that you have with Shutterstock.�

As a result of the foregoing, Shutterstock has terminated your account.

If you have earned commissions at the time of this closure, you are not entitled to these earnings per the Shutterstock Terms & Conditions you agreed upon when you became a Shutterstock contributor.

Paragraph 9(d) of the Submitter Terms & Conditions states that "If your account is terminated for a breach of the material terms of the TOS, in addition to its other rights at law or in equity, Shutterstock shall have the right to retain any royalties and/or other compensation otherwise payable to you hereunder as liquidated damages."

Consider this matter closed. Your account will not be reinstated and you do not have permission to create a new account. If you try to open another account, our system will automatically reject you.

Regards,

By the way they have terminated my account. But i answered their questions. Copyrights is 70 year in Turkey. It happened 79 years.  I sent them link for about these copyright. They're saying me "you stole photo from wikipedia" İt couldn't impossible. Cos there was no Wikipedia at that time. Wikipedia couldn't take this photo.

What can i do now? I want to use every way. Do you have any suggestions to me? I want to back my account back.

Please help me this subject!

Best Regards,

LOL. BAHAHA.

YES! Thank you SHUTTERSTOCK!

Dammit, Shutterstock.  I've been with you for over a decade.

Today, I disabled all my images. (we'll see if they actually vanish like they're supposed to, or I have to be more aggressive)

There's a lot of abuse I'll put up with as a stock contributor, but don't devalue my work by giving it away.

I was actually making money from, them, too.

Ya know, I think I might do the same. I haven't had a single sale since my payout anyway ... and I can't bring myself to keep uploading to them with Adobe performing better for me :/

The bubble will probably pop the day that I grab some. I farmed like a quarter once though. lol