I would agree with you but Duncan from CanStockPhoto say the Extended Licence does allow print on demand?

I think it is worth taking a look at the CanStockPhoto forum, as there is a discussion going on today about what exactly constitutes print on demand. Maybe it's me but I'm still none the wiser!

I didn't think CanStockPhoto allowed print on demand?

Is there a way to upload EPS files? I can't find a way but I see images described 'vector art' and the keyword 'vector' returns 3693 items. Maybe I'm missing something but on the upload screen it states 'we only accept .JPG files'

Oh, that kinda makes sense....

..but they would still be buying the image with a Royalty Free non-exclusive licence?

Thanks for clarifying

Any suggestions anyone? I want to start a thread but can't 

Is FTP working Yet? Also, is there a stock-specific EULA in place yet?

I'm holding off uploading until I am sure  all is in order, and could do with some reassurance before involving myself further.

Where is the 'payment for contributors' info?

Do you pay in �'s or $'s? Do you make payment by paypal? What is the minimum payout level?

Thanks

Maybe you could site mail the person who got ripped off, letting them know?

I tried but couldn't tract artist down on Shutterstock due to _ in username.

Off to work no so can't do anything until this evening, but tonight I will see if I can track the original artist as a contributor on a different site, and try and contact them that way.

Whilst we are on the subject of copycats, you may want to check and see if your work has been ripped off by this contributor.

Original:http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/108913/108913,1193033497,1/stock-vector-glamour-girl-on-a-white-background-6294709.jpg

Copy:http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/435955/435955,1259949586,2/stock-vector-the-person-of-the-girl-green-locks-and-flower-in-a-hair-42177367.jpg

I am amazed by the audacity of some 'artists'.

Thank you, Slovenian 

Quote from: KuriousKat on May 19, 2011, 02:33

I have been reading this forum for a long time but haven't contributed before now. However, I have been following this thread with interest, as I guess everyone of us worries about the possibility of this happening to us....

You don't have to worry about this happening to you if you don't use 3rd party filters, fonts, or anything else made by someone other that you in your images. I think that should be the lesson learned here. Make your own textures, frames, backgrounds, effects, filters, etc.

If you rely on someone else's filters, effects, brushes, etc. to make your images, it will just result in rejections, closed accounts (like in this case), or accepted images that look like lots of other images and won't sell well anyway.

Don't bother. Just make your own stuff and you don't have to worry about any of this.

My concerns are not because I am using anything I shouldn't be, but more a concern that if someone decided to be spiteful and stir up trouble for a competitor, it can be difficult to defend a position with Stock sites who don't really want to enter into too much dialogue over the matter. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? I know there are many thieves and copycats in this industry but I also don't think that everyone who is accused is necessarily guilty.

I appreciate that we are only getting one view in this particular case but if what the OP has said is correct and is the full story, it seams very harsh that a Stock site can remove a whole portfolio and affect someone's livelihood without taking all the evidence into account. The OP has effectively been fired by his employer and, on the face of it, without the case being fully proven. In any other industry, if you were innocent, you would have the right to pursue the matter via some sort of Tribunal or Employment court.