MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: alexandra on May 18, 2017, 15:21
-
Hello,
I was a contributor of Shutterstock fo about 6 years and I posted there about 266 vectors.
Last week I received a mail from them where they wrote me this:
Shutterstock, Inc. ("Shutterstock") has discovered
that an image or images in your portfolio appears to have
elements that are copies of another individual or
entity's work and, therefore, belong to that individual
or entity.
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:
a) where, when and by whom the image(s) in question was
created;
b) how you obtained the idea for the image; and
c) what program, if any, was used to generate or modify the
image(s)
If it turns out that the claim is without merit we will not
take any further action and your account will remain
active.
Please respond to this email within three (3) days. If you
fail to respond by said date with the information we outline
above, your Shutterstock.com submitter account may be
closed.
My response to this was:
Hello,
I am VERY surprised that after 4 years you consider that my images are not original.
Regarding your questions, here are my answers:
a) my image was created by ME, in 25.01.2013, on my computer
b) my gallery is full of silhouettes of very different animals, in different postures; I think that is a good ideea because they can be used isolated in many compositions, so they are very usefull; they are inspired by photos of real animals
c) my images are all created in Adobe Illustrator - in time I used different versions of this software
I am sure that my sillhouettes look alike the ones that you send me, because are the same animals (bulls), but they are not the same drawings. Because my sillhouettes were created very long time ago, I don't remember exactly were from I saw them.
And know, after a week, look what I received:
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 126231425 originally found here:
<http://phan-tom.deviantart.com/art/The-Aurochs-164868105
<http://phan-tom.deviantart.com/art/aurochs-cow-263718979>
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.
What can i do??????
I have worked for all my images and know I have no account.
What can I do????
Please help me!
Thank you,
Alexandra
-
You can only trace silhouettes of photos you took or in some other way own the copyright for. If you found them on the internet anywhere else it's grounds to shut your account down for infringement.
-
Did you create your silhouettes based on those illustrations? They're not photos...they're photorealistic illustrations of an extinct species.
-
If you traced a photo/drawing, that photo/drawing must belong to you. If you traced a photo you found from the internet, then you are at risk for getting your portfolio removed.
-
I looked at your silhouettes and the work on Deviant Art, and it does seem that they have caught you red handed.
Are you suggesting that you created all those silhouettes without having seen the Deviant Art images? They are exact.
-
I did a comparison and it's a 1:1 trace. The green area is your silhouette. It matches the bull perfectly. I don't think you can overturn your suspension.
-
"they are inspired by photos of real animals"
"Because my sillhouettes were created very long time ago, I don't remember exactly were from I saw them".
Ay, there's the rub.
-
Your a thief... and thats no bull
-
On a side note: there are an awful lot of non-aurochs in the SS search for 'auroch', and some of the 'related search terms' - hyrax, aura and horse make no sense. SS's search used to be far cleaner, and the more relevant images were generally found at the top.
-
i do not see a posted link to alexandras portfolio. ???
How you know?
I looked at your silhouettes and the work on Deviant Art, and it does seem that they have caught you red handed.
Are you suggesting that you created all those silhouettes without having seen the Deviant Art images? They are exact.
-
i do not see a posted link to alexandras portfolio. ???
How you know?
I looked at your silhouettes and the work on Deviant Art, and it does seem that they have caught you red handed.
Are you suggesting that you created all those silhouettes without having seen the Deviant Art images? They are exact.
Do a Google image search for the shutterstock image number in the ops post and the file still comes up.
-
OMG >:(
Why do you compain alexandra? It`s clearly stolen.
i do not see a posted link to alexandras portfolio. ???
How you know?
I looked at your silhouettes and the work on Deviant Art, and it does seem that they have caught you red handed.
Are you suggesting that you created all those silhouettes without having seen the Deviant Art images? They are exact.
Do a Google image search for the shutterstock image number in the ops post and the file still comes up.
-
Should go without saying, but if you have these images on any sites other than Shutterstock, I strongly suggest you remove them. Not just because you risk getting your accounts shut down there, but so you're no longer infringing the rights of others. Might be worth going through the rest of your portfolio as well, double check there aren't any other images that you can't remember exactly what imagery you saw that 'inspired you' to create them.
-
You have been a contributor for 6 years and you dont know that you cant sell silhouettes you created from the images you dont have copyright to? That is not some newbie mistake, after 6 years you should have known better.. if you are with some other agencies and have the silhouettes in your portfolio there, delete them and never do this practice again.
-
Caught red handed. And this is why I always see stay away from those CC0 licenses or any kind of free resource available on the internet. You never know when they will change their terms and ask for the claim.
Use 100% your content, it may take a little time but it will be your forever.
-
First of all, you should admit your fault then ask for the account to be reinstated. Also, consider their point of view: how could they be sure that not all your illustrations are copies of others work? The main problem is that you did not accepted your fault from the first message.
Shutterstock is not bad at all, it might reconsider reinstating your account but you must assure them that you are really sorry, that the situation is unique, that it would not happen again.
Wish you good luck!
-
Gosh, how hard can it be (to not use other peoples' work)? Ive managed perfectly fine so far using my own creations.
-
So at the time you 'created' this auroch silhouette, you already were a contributor for 2 years at SS, and you didn't know you could use other peoples' drawings or photos for tracing?
That means you probably did it more than once, without realising it's not allowed by SS (or any other agency).
Since you're acting so surprised, I assume you didn't do this with malicious intent, but there's not much you can do. SS has every reason (and rightly so) to shut down your account.
-
the fault is shutterstock.
clearly tracing a photo is a derivative work and falls under "Fair Use" and is not a copyright violation.
this is very very clear in copyright law and has been upheld again and again and again.
tracing a photo is "fair use". "fair use" is a legal term that is specified in copyright law.
you created a new creative work and only used a minimal amount from a previous work. this is 100% legal and falls under fair use.
-
If SS decides they don't want photos of aurorchs, auroras or authors, that's their prerogative, not a 'fault'. Similarly, if they want to build a fence around the Law. Who wants to waste time and energy on a potential court case, even if you might win?
-
the fault is shutterstock.
clearly tracing a photo is a derivative work and falls under "Fair Use" and is not a copyright violation.
this is very very clear in copyright law and has been upheld again and again and again.
tracing a photo is "fair use". "fair use" is a legal term that is specified in copyright law.
you created a new creative work and only used a minimal amount from a previous work. this is 100% legal and falls under fair use.
you kidding?
-
you said: "you kidding?"
do yourself a favor and go read copyright laws before you post ignorant comments
-
you said: " Who wants to waste time and energy on a potential court case, even if you might win?"
you are completely wrong, and this is a nonsense argument.
any manufactured product in the world, by the definition of the ignorant, is 'copyrighted and trademarked', and therefor it would be illegal to sell any photo with any manufactured product. which means all legal photos would have to be naked people and nature.
the original poster was within his legal rights and an educated stock agency is better than an ignorant stock agency.
-
you said: "you kidding?"
do yourself a favor and go read copyright laws before you post ignorant comments
There may be law, but this is strictly not allowed in microstock agencies, why don't you try and get your portfolio banned and then fight for the right law and ask for claim.
Get some fresh air.
-
We all sign off on the contract saying that all work uploaded is our own and not copied/ traced. What you think the law is is irrelevant here. I for one wouldn't be uploading to an agency that accepts work traced from other people's work. It's out of order, whatever the law is.
-
you said: " Who wants to waste time and energy on a potential court case, even if you might win?"
you are completely wrong, and this is a nonsense argument.
any manufactured product in the world, by the definition of the ignorant, is 'copyrighted and trademarked', and therefor it would be illegal to sell any photo with any manufactured product. which means all legal photos would have to be naked people and nature.
[\quote]
Quote me the relavent rules in Ss TOS that allows this
Your outrageous
-
May I ask...about flags, take the Egyptian national flag...you wanna tell me that everyone drew the same one? My guess is that they all took it from WIkipedia. Is that legit? I'm asking for real, cause if it is, I want a piece of the action.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
the fault is shutterstock.
clearly tracing a photo is a derivative work and falls under "Fair Use" and is not a copyright violation.
this is very very clear in copyright law and has been upheld again and again and again.
tracing a photo is "fair use". "fair use" is a legal term that is specified in copyright law.
you created a new creative work and only used a minimal amount from a previous work. this is 100% legal and falls under fair use.
Yeah, ok. If I ever see you trace one of my images and sell them in your portfolio claiming it's 'fair use', I'll have your account closed. It's not allowed and copyright infringement. Easy as that.
-
hard to believe the BS some people are coming with to defend themselves... but that reminds me I should report one thief who traced one of my images to SS. I was postponing it as I dont like reporting but this thread pushed me. Thanks.
-
May I ask...about flags, take the Egyptian national flag...you wanna tell me that everyone drew the same one? My guess is that they all took it from WIkipedia. Is that legit? I'm asking for real, cause if it is, I want a piece of the action.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's slightly differenct, as the flag on Wikipedia is a CC0 image in the public domain. Although one thing to note, maybe not with that image, but with anything tagged as CC0 or being in the public domain... that doesn't necessarily mean it is. For example, somebody other than the author of the work may have uploaded it. Or... I could trace that dudes bulls and tag them as CC0 or public domain, so I'm certifying that anybody can do whatever they want with them, both non-commercially and commercialy (with no need for attribution), but as I've breached the copyright of somebody else then I don't have permission to do that.
I mean, you never know... the Egyptian government might have registered the copyright of the flag, it's still current, and they actively pursue people who use it. I'm sure we would have heard if that was the case, but it's just an example.
So yeah, it's a bit of a minefield... so if you are planning to use any CC0 images, always try and double check they actually are... so you don't get your account shut down further down the line!
-
the original poster was within his legal rights
No, because they signed that they agreed to Shutterstock's Terms of service, which includes, inter alia:
5a. Shutterstock has the right to refuse to accept or to remove Content from the Shutterstock Websites for any reason. Shutterstock will remove Content if Shutterstock believes that such Content may (in Shutterstock's sole discretion) subject Shutterstock ... to legal action or if the Content violates the TOS.
and the Submission and Account Guidelines, which includes, inter alia:
You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock. This means that you cannot submit work obtained from other sources (e.g., online image search results or websites), or incorporate such work into your content submissions, unless you have permission to do so.
and incidentally:
Public domain content cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the conent, you may not submit it.
That's their contract. If people don't like it, don't submit there. End of.
-
May I ask...about flags, take the Egyptian national flag...you wanna tell me that everyone drew the same one? My guess is that they all took it from WIkipedia. Is that legit? I'm asking for real, cause if it is, I want a piece of the action.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's slightly differenct, as the flag on Wikipedia is a CC0 image in the public domain. Although one thing to note, maybe not with that image, but with anything tagged as CC0 or being in the public domain... that doesn't necessarily mean it is. For example, somebody other than the author of the work may have uploaded it. Or... I could trace that dudes bulls and tag them as CC0 or public domain, so I'm certifying that anybody can do whatever they want with them, both non-commercially and commercialy (with no need for attribution), but as I've breached the copyright of somebody else then I don't have permission to do that.
I mean, you never know... the Egyptian government might have registered the copyright of the flag, it's still current, and they actively pursue people who use it. I'm sure we would have heard if that was the case, but it's just an example.
So yeah, it's a bit of a minefield... so if you are planning to use any CC0 images, always try and double check they actually are... so you don't get your account shut down further down the line!
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
May I ask...about flags, take the Egyptian national flag...you wanna tell me that everyone drew the same one? My guess is that they all took it from WIkipedia. Is that legit? I'm asking for real, cause if it is, I want a piece of the action.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's slightly differenct, as the flag on Wikipedia is a CC0 image in the public domain. Although one thing to note, maybe not with that image, but with anything tagged as CC0 or being in the public domain... that doesn't necessarily mean it is. For example, somebody other than the author of the work may have uploaded it. Or... I could trace that dudes bulls and tag them as CC0 or public domain, so I'm certifying that anybody can do whatever they want with them, both non-commercially and commercialy (with no need for attribution), but as I've breached the copyright of somebody else then I don't have permission to do that.
I mean, you never know... the Egyptian government might have registered the copyright of the flag, it's still current, and they actively pursue people who use it. I'm sure we would have heard if that was the case, but it's just an example.
So yeah, it's a bit of a minefield... so if you are planning to use any CC0 images, always try and double check they actually are... so you don't get your account shut down further down the line!
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And note, particularly in relation to Shutterstock, as I copied above, "Public domain content cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the conent, you may not submit it."
-
"Public domain content cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the content, you may not submit it."
Really? Try typing "NASA image" into the search.....
-
"Public domain content cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the content, you may not submit it."
Really? Try typing "NASA image" into the search.....
So they don't enforce their own guidelines. ::)
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000006656 (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000006656)
When it suits them.
-
They accept images that include elements from NASA as long as your title says some elements have been furnished by NASA. (It's pretty difficult to shoot or sketch a map of the world yourself, unless you're somehow able to go up in space.) I'm not sure why elements from NASA are an exception to the rule, but it's been that way for a while.
-
Yes, NASA images are exception, though according to their own terms it is not allowed, you still have to mention about it in the title. Did you ever see any person copied silhouette from public domain images and mention the original source in the title?
We are working as per SS terms, use your own created work and stay safe always, is it very difficult? you never know that one fine morning you wake up and see SS has just banned your portfolio.