Author Topic: "It's not stock, it's Shutterstock" (Read 28712 times)

cathyslife · « **Reply #100 on:** January 20, 2019, 19:54 »

Quote from: RAW on January 20, 2019, 19:35

India population 1.339 billion and has free healthcare for all.
USA population 325 million and just can't afford universal healthcare.

Sure, we can afford it. But it won’t leave anything in the coffers to be raided by #traitor and his buddies.

Not Today · « **Reply #101 on:** January 21, 2019, 03:50 »

Quote from: jonbull on January 20, 2019, 12:01

i don't know if i am wrong or not, but ss in my opinion could face a jury trial for misconduct...if i find my images sold by some other contributor be sure i will see if i can move against ss...they are selling something against the rule and contracts i signed...for sure theft are going much further

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elephant-forest-1211469475?src=BGwqzCGGTdSjRtcncjs-1g-6-39

using such a famous and bestseller image is not like using a * snapshots of some unnow people in sss...i email david of this...who know if he react legally against ss...

I do think SS can be sued by the contributor in this case, but that would probably mean that the contributor won't be able to work with them ever again. SS clearly has the tools to find thieves, as images appear in 'similar images' for everyone to see, and by not using these tools to find and ban thieves, they are allowing these thieves to illegally resell a contributor's work through their platform.

They might even be eligible for a class action lawsuit, since I'm guessing more than 40 contributors have had their work stolen and resold through them.

Hopefully the sooner they realise that and the sooner they will take action against thieves.

gnirtS · « **Reply #102 on:** January 21, 2019, 04:16 »

A lot of the stolen images appear to be 2013 - 2016.
Chances are they images have sold thousands of times and the original author maybe unware its been stolen. SS doesn't make it easy to contact the contributor directly (for obvious business reasons) and if they use an alias as a username google isnt much help either so its hard to bring their attention to it.

The one attached is one of my favourite thieves.

Descriptions are written like a 6 year old.
I particularly like "The cow is big, white and black".

And just for annoyance,the first "similar images" it suggests is the original authors from several years ago he stole. Yet this stuff still gets through the new review.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/this-cow-big-white-black-1239674482?src=TBkIqjuWdNhYQCM4gAehIw-1-26

The whole port is comedy in terms of descriptions (and every single image is stolen).

Pauws99 · « **Reply #103 on:** January 21, 2019, 04:41 »

Quote from: Not Today on January 21, 2019, 03:50

Quote from: jonbull on January 20, 2019, 12:01
i don't know if i am wrong or not, but ss in my opinion could face a jury trial for misconduct...if i find my images sold by some other contributor be sure i will see if i can move against ss...they are selling something against the rule and contracts i signed...for sure theft are going much further

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elephant-forest-1211469475?src=BGwqzCGGTdSjRtcncjs-1g-6-39

using such a famous and bestseller image is not like using a * snapshots of some unnow people in sss...i email david of this...who know if he react legally against ss...

I do think SS can be sued by the contributor in this case, but that would probably mean that the contributor won't be able to work with them ever again. SS clearly has the tools to find thieves, as images appear in 'similar images' for everyone to see, and by not using these tools to find and ban thieves, they are allowing these thieves to illegally resell a contributor's work through their platform.

They might even be eligible for a class action lawsuit, since I'm guessing more than 40 contributors have had their work stolen and resold through them. Hopefully the sooner they realise that and the sooner they will take action against thieves.

I would imagine there would be possible case for negligence how much it might cost and the chances of success I don't know and I doubt it will ever happen. Sadly theft of "stuff" on the internet is widely accepted as a cost of doing business.

jonbull · « **Reply #104 on:** January 21, 2019, 09:01 »

i'm not talking about us i'am talking about the big photographer with photos sold in gallery for thousand of dollar which works is stolen by some indian idiot and resold in sss...i mean this is another level of problem...soon will have salgado work in ss?

or the famous kiss of cartier bresson with a great description

"jim and kelly loves to kiss in black and white"

jonbull · « **Reply #105 on:** January 21, 2019, 09:05 »

it's unbelievable those account are still alive...depsite all...ss is a coworkers of theists...they earn money and resell stolen items, a crime in y crime don't know yours...it's unbelievable this especially for a quoted company....we not talk about 100 photos, we talk about millions items stolen and resold..

Pauws99 · « **Reply #106 on:** January 21, 2019, 10:28 »

Quote from: jonbull on January 21, 2019, 09:01

i'm not talking about us i'am talking about the big photographer with photos sold in gallery for thousand of dollar which works is stolen by some indian idiot and resold in sss...i mean this is another level of problem...soon will have salgado work in ss?
or the famous kiss of cartier bresson with a great description

"jim and kelly loves to kiss in black and white"

If they make thousands I doub't they'd be troubled enough to worry about a few "knock offs" on Shutterstock and if its a noted photo SS would soon take it down. The problem is with the fairly average decent selling stuff.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #107 on:** January 22, 2019, 09:29 »

Coming soon to SS...

Dumc · « **Reply #108 on:** January 22, 2019, 10:37 »

"It's not Stock, it's Thievestock, and we dont care."

Some bad publicity would maybe force SS to do something about it. Like for example an article about situation on Petapixel or similar. That kind of stuff usually helps.

Brasilnut, you're good with words, becuase of your blogs, etc....

dpimborough · « **Reply #109 on:** January 22, 2019, 10:38 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on January 22, 2019, 09:29

Coming soon to SS...

I hope that is a freaking joke! !!!!

Steve McCurry should sue the krap out of SS and that would teach them a lesson!

P.S. Ahhh it is a joke but I wouldn't put anything past these thieving Aholes

P.P.S. Then again I see the thieving moron has stolen an image by Seth Casteel

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/puppy-swimming-pool-1226453080?src=TZnhMdFdbFAyH2X2KaAMsg-5-52

I'm going to email Seth and let him know where his stuff is being sold.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #110 on:** January 22, 2019, 10:50 »

Quote from: Dumc on January 22, 2019, 10:37

"It's not Stock, it's Thievestock, and we dont care."

Some bad publicity would maybe force SS to do something about it. Like for example an article about situation on Petapixel or similar. That kind of stuff usually helps.

Brasilnut, you're good with words, becuase of your blogs, etc....

To be fair, today I noticed that SS has shut down about 15 of the 100 flagged accounts. It's a drop in the ocean, of course.

Yes, it's a interesting/relevant topic and looking at some angles to pitch to major publications, along with updates on my blog. Gathering evidence at the moment...maybe once we get to 1,000 suspicious accounts it will be turn some heads and this goes viral. This stuff isn't immune to SS and wouldn't mind doing a similar investigation on other agencies, except iStock / Getty which are simply bad for the industry with their pathetic fees and don't deserve my help.

Thanks for the compliment on my writing.

Quote

I'm going to email Seth and let him know where his stuff is being sold.

Nice spot!

jonbull · « **Reply #111 on:** January 22, 2019, 10:54 »

what is unbelievable is that they reacted a lifestyle photo of a girl playing basketball because on the ball there was what look like a black stripe part of graffiti....they reject for potential copyright infringement..ahahaha...really the most stupid company in the universe...i wish every night the next q4 is appalling with 30% drop of stock ...but i know it's a dream.

dpimborough · « **Reply #112 on:** January 22, 2019, 11:17 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on January 22, 2019, 10:50

Quote from: Dumc on January 22, 2019, 10:37
"It's not Stock, it's Thievestock, and we dont care."

Some bad publicity would maybe force SS to do something about it. Like for example an article about situation on Petapixel or similar. That kind of stuff usually helps.

Brasilnut, you're good with words, becuase of your blogs, etc....

To be fair, today I noticed that SS has shut down about 15 of the 100 flagged accounts. It's a drop in the ocean, of course.

Yes, it's a interesting/relevant topic and looking at some angles to pitch to major publications, along with updates on my blog. Gathering evidence at the moment...maybe once we get to 1,000 suspicious accounts it will be turn some heads and this goes viral. This stuff isn't immune to SS and wouldn't mind doing a similar investigation on other agencies, except iStock / Getty which are simply bad for the industry with their pathetic fees and don't deserve my help.

Thanks for the compliment on my writing.

Quote
I'm going to email Seth and let him know where his stuff is being sold.

Nice spot!

Glad to see Shutterstock have finally started to remove the ports you highlighted I was especially pleased to see that cheeky SOB VipinGaud has finally gone!

Good work Alex

Not Today · « **Reply #113 on:** January 23, 2019, 04:12 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on January 22, 2019, 10:50

Quote from: Dumc on January 22, 2019, 10:37
"It's not Stock, it's Thievestock, and we dont care."

Some bad publicity would maybe force SS to do something about it. Like for example an article about situation on Petapixel or similar. That kind of stuff usually helps.

Brasilnut, you're good with words, becuase of your blogs, etc....

To be fair, today I noticed that SS has shut down about 15 of the 100 flagged accounts. It's a drop in the ocean, of course.

Yes, it's a interesting/relevant topic and looking at some angles to pitch to major publications, along with updates on my blog. Gathering evidence at the moment...maybe once we get to 1,000 suspicious accounts it will be turn some heads and this goes viral. This stuff isn't immune to SS and wouldn't mind doing a similar investigation on other agencies, except iStock / Getty which are simply bad for the industry with their pathetic fees and don't deserve my help.

Thanks for the compliment on my writing.

Quote
I'm going to email Seth and let him know where his stuff is being sold.

Nice spot!

Very well done, that's nice to see they're taking action.

And this might explain why reviewers don't really care about doing their job properly:
https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-shutterstock-misclassifies-content-reviewers-owes-unpaid-wages

''The lawsuit alleges the digital content platform misclassifies its image reviewers, vector and illustration reviewers, footage reviewers, and similar content checkers as independent contractors. As a result of this misclassification, Shutterstock content reviewers, tasked with combing through content on the site to ensure it’s in line with company guidelines, have been denied proper overtime wages and meal and rest break premiums owed under California law, the complaint claims.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff, on a typical day, would review roughly 2,000 images to ensure they meet detailed guidelines specifying, for instance, the number of “characteristics a piece of content may share with protected intellectual property.” Depending on the review, Shutterstock may then determine a piece of content poses a high risk of intellectual property infringement, the suit notes.

The plaintiff argues that at no point in the course of their daily work were Shutterstock content reviewers free from the company’s control and direction, with supervisors continually spot checking the workers while keeping a particular eye on compliance. The suit claims content reviewers regularly put in eight hours per day without time-and-a-half overtime pay during weeks in which they worked upward of 40 hours.''

dpimborough · « **Reply #114 on:** January 23, 2019, 04:44 »

What a classy outfit.

No wonder reviewing has gone down the tubes

Pauws99 · « **Reply #115 on:** January 23, 2019, 06:55 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on January 23, 2019, 04:44

What a classy outfit.

No wonder reviewing has gone down the tubes

It must be a horrible job to do full time that will drive you crazy in a short time. So if we are to believe that all images are reviewed currently they are getting about 200,000 submissions daily so 1,000 reviewers required each day. So assuming they allow such luxuries as leave/weekends that must be about 1,200 Full Time Equivalent reviewers h'mmmm.

davidbautista · « **Reply #116 on:** January 23, 2019, 06:56 »

Quote from: jonbull on January 22, 2019, 10:54

what is unbelievable is that they reacted a lifestyle photo of a girl playing basketball because on the ball there was what look like a black stripe part of graffiti....they reject for potential copyright infringement..ahahaha...really the most stupid company in the universe...i wish every night the next q4 is appalling with 30% drop of stock ...but i know it's a dream.

This is so true hahaha

Not Today · « **Reply #117 on:** January 23, 2019, 07:41 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 23, 2019, 06:55

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on January 23, 2019, 04:44
What a classy outfit.

No wonder reviewing has gone down the tubes
It must be a horrible job to do full time that will drive you crazy in a short time. So if we are to believe that all images are reviewed currently they are getting about 200,000 submissions daily so 1,000 reviewers required each day. So assuming they allow such luxuries as leave/weekends that must be about 1,200 Full Time Equivalent reviewers h'mmmm.

Seems about right, it says 1001-5000 employees here:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Shutterstock-EI_IE270840.11,23.htm

Pauws99 · « **Reply #118 on:** January 23, 2019, 08:33 »

Quote from: Not Today on January 23, 2019, 07:41

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 23, 2019, 06:55
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on January 23, 2019, 04:44
What a classy outfit.

No wonder reviewing has gone down the tubes
It must be a horrible job to do full time that will drive you crazy in a short time. So if we are to believe that all images are reviewed currently they are getting about 200,000 submissions daily so 1,000 reviewers required each day. So assuming they allow such luxuries as leave/weekends that must be about 1,200 Full Time Equivalent reviewers h'mmmm.

Seems about right, it says 1001-5000 employees here:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Shutterstock-EI_IE270840.11,23.htm

25% of the workforce inspectors? Possible I suppose it seems an awfully expensive overhead. Here's an idea introduce a stringent application process to become a contributor and you could reduce the cost of inspecting useless images ;-). Actually my figures are wrong as it assumes 100% acceptance ;-).

cathyslife · « **Reply #119 on:** January 23, 2019, 08:35 »

The last I knew, they hired people that worked via telecommuting from all over the US (or world), so yes, they would be independent contractors working from home who got paid X amount of cents per image, which they agreed to up front. If SS actually has 1000+ employees working in an office or warehouse somewhere, being supervised and being treated like slaves, then that is a new thing, and they should go down.

jonbull · « **Reply #120 on:** January 23, 2019, 08:48 »

the last i got rejected tell me that is not a machine or a boot, only a man could have seen the reason for reject.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #121 on:** January 23, 2019, 08:51 »

Quote from: cathyslife on January 23, 2019, 08:35

The last I knew, they hired people that worked via telecommuting from all over the US (or world), so yes, they would be independent contractors working from home who got paid X amount of cents per image, which they agreed to up front. If SS actually has 1000+ employees working in an office or warehouse somewhere, being supervised and being treated like slaves, then that is a new thing, and they should go down.

I assume the vast majority are indeed working from home (using state of the art monitors ;-). The issue is though whether the nature of their contract means they should be classed as employees regardless of location. In the UK for example there have been a number of cases where it was deemed "contractors" were actually employees. I guess this is going to vary a lot from nation to nation and their employment law. However you look at it that number of inspectors who would need supervisors and other support such as Payroll represents a big overhead.

jonbull · « **Reply #122 on:** January 23, 2019, 08:52 »

by the way i had hundreds of photos in unfinished and some in pending...now they are 0 and 0....considering my ads connection is slow as hell is not a bad thing.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #123 on:** January 23, 2019, 09:07 »

Quote from: jonbull on January 23, 2019, 08:52

by the way i had hundreds of photos in unfinished and some in pending...now they are 0 and 0....considering my ads connection is slow as hell is not a bad thing.

You and a load of other photographers no word as yet on a fix.

jonbull · « **Reply #124 on:** January 23, 2019, 09:13 »

back to normal seems...low sales probably due to this after two very god sales...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: "It's not stock, it's Shutterstock" (Read 28712 times)

cathyslife

Not Today

gnirtS

Pauws99

jonbull

jonbull

Pauws99

Brasilnut

Dumc

dpimborough

Brasilnut

jonbull

dpimborough

Not Today

dpimborough

Pauws99

davidbautista

Not Today

Pauws99

cathyslife

jonbull

Pauws99

jonbull

Pauws99

jonbull

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors