25K downloads and 45 ELs in 7 years. Now very much ULs (hattip Alexandre) since SS upped the usage of subs/ODDs from 250K to 500K and floated the price of ELs from the previously fixed$28. Almost every innovation means we earn less per dl.

You can bookmark whatever you want but it still doesn't change the fact that your landing page is the page you bookmarked on the date you bookmarked it....it doesn't update by itself!

Adobe already closed him down. Still up and running on SS though.

Quote from: Ides on January 04, 2019, 14:09

Quote from: HappyBunny on January 03, 2019, 08:20

Isn't there anything we can do about it? Who knows who took from whom?

Just send an email to Shutterstock exactly as it's being done here. link of the thief and the creator. I already did this with some of my pictures that were stolen. In few days Shutterstock will notify the thief and if he continues, they will delete his account.

And this don't need be only with stolen images. Very similar images, ideas, design, etc are also valid. I banish a guy with a portifolio bigger than mine, but because he copied the ideas from my most selling pictures. He was eliminated from Shutterstock.

Who did you write to? I wrote to compliance and got a very stock answer, like they didn't even read my question which was "doesn't anyone care about stolen works?"

Hello,

Thank you for your email. Our requirements for submitting Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") notices of infringement are below. You may send a proper notice in reply to this email.

If you misrepresent that material is infringing, Shutterstock may terminate your Shutterstock account, or you may face other legal consequences.

Infringement Notice Requirements:

1) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

2) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

3) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the Shutterstock to locate the material.

4) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the Shutterstock to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

5) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

6) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Only the copyright owner or their authorized representative may file a report of copyright infringement. If you believe content on Shutterstock infringes someone else�s copyright, you may want to let the rights owner know.

Please note that we may provide the rights owner�s name, your email and the details of your report to the person who receives the complaint.

For more information, please review Shutterstock's DMCA Copyright Infringement Notice at: www.shutterstock.com/terms/dmca-notice.

Regards,

Shutterstock Compliance Team

I give up writing and begging. Maybe that's what they wanted. 

I found this guy (India) who not only copies but modifies parts or all of original files. One of his files (modified) I recognised as being copied from anothe SS contributor I know (we've had conversations by email in the past). I asked the the original contributor to report the thief and the email that came back from 'compliance' was the same as you posted above. I outlined the portions of their mail which persuaded the genuine contributor NOT to file. They give the guy your email address and if he disputes your claim, SS make take down your account until the claim is proven (or otherwise). Everyone on SS who has a reasonable monthly income from licensing there knows only too * well what (even temporary) suspension of their account means. You never retrieve the positions you had in search and sales will seriously plummet even after only a week of suspension before re-instatement.

The same guy stole part of another contributor's photo who was not at SS but at Adobe so I contacted Adobe to ask whether they would contact their contributor to inform them. First they sent me the same advice as SS.....send a DMCA form but then I told them that I wasn't the one being infringed but another of their contributors. They (Adobe) said they'd inform their contributor but whether they did and whether she decided not to proceed, I have no idea because this guy's SS thievery account is still up and being added to regularly. Have a peek to see if you recognise any elements of your images in his?

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Krishbraden

Stolen and modied (try painting kids' hands in an identical manner...can't be done):

https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/kids-hands-painted-smile-symbol-450w-1218008479.jpg

Original:

https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/34/65/06/500_F_34650614_F3sIKjXY6ao0aQSKJNOPYqMDnQ5PFlaK.jpg

Stolen and modified:
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rear-view-young-female-legs-450w-1165318264.jpg

Original (position of shoes and specks of dirt and sand are the giveaway in the copy):

https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/runner-feet-running-on-road-450w-103383050.jpg

Gotta give the thief his due, he's not just a copyist and actually does possess some Photoshop skills but he is a thief and SS appears to be not only unwilling to put an end to this, they actually threaten the original contributor with a fate worse than death unless you're prepared to fight your case to the bitter end (and yet your victory may still be Pyrrhic if they close down your account for a week or two during investigation). BTW, in the meantime, the abovementioned thief has exceeded his 3-month waiting period from 'dubious' countries and is now presumably enjoying the fruits of his theft (as does SS whether they shut him down or not...and even if they shut him down, they confiscate the 'earnings' but don't re-distribute to the offended parties who have lost those sales.) Let's face it it'a real win-win klepto-corporate deal for all (except the actual copyright holder). 

Quote from: topol on December 05, 2018, 16:25

Which never happens. Impossible.

I think these trashy spam pics never make it to the first page, not even the first 50.

I thought we were talking about the person that literally owns the first page of each of several key search terms. Examples were given (above, I think, unless that was a different thread...) of terms and pages that were 100% all from one person on Shutterstock in particular.

That was the forum topic on  'footage'. One of their footage contributors (Crossroads) had virtually the whole of page 1 of footage with any/all most popular keywords. SS admitted that they had been fiddling with the algo ahead of the launch of Shutterstock Select footage and that it was a glitch caused by them. Almost every 4K clip featured 'shot on RED' in the title. Now all back to normal....you get $1.50/video and the Club Wot You and I Aint In gets $300+ !

It happens. Doean't necessarily lead to extra sales.

We was also approached by them to join in. Told them we don't want to support dumping prices in any way.

Chad Bridwell who is part of the team was also part of the horrible Photo Dollar Club back in the days.

Gawd!!!   Not 'THE CHAD' as he used to sign at pre-AdobeFT on the forums. I immediately take a huge dislike to people doing that as it usually says something about the size of their EGO. 

SS on a par with May 2017 and better than every other month except August 2017. Hardly added anything new since last year, so I can't be disappointed! Adobe normal month just ticks along at around 25% of SS. ~850 photos on both sites.

Thanks Mat.

Some people appear to use the site to their advantage but you have no idea whether 'the advantage' is truly profitable. At least this food photographer has no problems with model releases etc.

https://unsplash.com/@brookelark
http://brookelark.com/about/

"A Little About Lark

Brooke Lark hails from a 100-year old food photography studio located in the heart of Salt Lake City.  A professional food photographer and videographer since 2006, her client list includes General Mills, Disney, World Kitchen, Int'l Housewares Association, kitchenware giant GoodCook, NYTimes Bestselling nutritionist YuriElkaim.com, FitMenCook, Simple Green Smoothies, and NatureNates.com, she is the author of 10+ cookbooks, and her work appears in digital and paper publications around the globe. Her Food Photography and Videography FB Group has grown to be one of the largest gatherings of food creators in the industry, with more than 5000+ members and growing.

And early contributor to Unsplash (the very idea of generously giving away her photography struck a chord and she was immediately hooked), her photos viewed and downloaded millions of times monthly. Work uploaded to this site is free to download, use and share. Please feel free to capture Brooke's work there and use it wherever you like. If, however, you're looking for custom work for your brand, click here to schedule a customized client shoot."

She has photos there viewed 7 million times and downloaded 60,000 times. No wonder the bottom has dropped out of microstock.

Funny how Dutch image thieves invoke the 'no artistic merit' thing in an attempt to avoid paying for the use of an image.

In my case (around 30 years ago) someone noticed that a popular tv show was using a poster that had been printed from a commissioned photo of mine as decor in a butcher's shop set. They may have used it in 10 episodes but I was certain that they used it in one.

I got a specialised lawyer on to the TV producers. The lawyer determined that the price for use without licencing was a total of DFl. 5000 (licence fee + 200% fee as fine). At first they came with the argument that the poster content was generic/amateur and of no artistic merit and that  therefore they could just use it! I no longer had the original 6x9cm transparency material but I did have the Polaroids taken during the session. Confronted with these and the fact that it was a commissioned photo, they paid in full!

It's also funny that it's the 'royalties' from trade-marked/copyrighted wares and services which appear to be the basis for the majority of tax-avoidance schemes that the Dutch tax laws facilitate. 

It's only the forum....so it's not like it's something important.

They probably just got sick and tired of reading all the complaints about the new submissions page that they decided to end it!