Stupid question. Is it just Shutterstock or is it also other MS sites too?

Facebook name Shutterstock and no one else as the supplier of images for their ads in the link that I posted above.

there are not only that website there keepshutterstock and mmo-tool[dot]com/shutter 

Quote from: obj owl on September 19, 2017, 14:26

Quote from: niktol on September 19, 2017, 07:15

Anyone can make sense out of this?

The site is legal

Why shutterdowner is legal ? Because it uses Facebook Business Robot to pull images and use them in ads for Facebook ads we dont steal any pictures because its free in facebook and anyone can get the pictures for free and shutterdowner.com create his robot to making it easy for all without facebook account, We are not responsible for any use other than Facebook Ads For [More Information Link].

Sense no, they are using an illogical argument derived from the way Facebook sell their ads.  If you take out a Facebook ad you can use an image within that ad which comes from Shutterstock at no extra cost, it is in the price of the ad, this is where the tiny SODs come from.  Problem occurs in the way Facebook pushes this as a free stock image for your ad, but the wording is important, see https://www.facebook.com/business/a/carousel-stock-photo.  It is specific in saying "Free stock images for your carousel ads" or whatever type of add it is, not as they say " its free in facebook and anyone can get the pictures for free".  Yes Facebook would have you believe it's free, but only for use in their ads, effectively a single use licence not an RF licence.  By their own addmission shutterdowner are responsible for distributing stock images to non Facebook account holders who therefore cannot be using them in Facebook ads. 

What to do about it? Take it up with Facebook or stop supplying Shutterstock and let them know why.

Thank you. But how about the Gettydowner beta version of this thief site? And editorial images, which are not allowed for (Facebook) advertising?

Nice 1024 x 682 images to steal, anything on Getty. I tried an editorial and it said no longer available. Make this Getty Security Issues and more to come.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 19, 2017, 09:05

Okay I just went on the site for the first time, didn't want to give them traffic and increase their visibility.

The have Google ads still running on it!

Has no one reported the site to google ads for illegal content?
Makes me wonder if anyone has DMCA'd their host even?

There's no point trying to contact the owners of a site like this. Go after all their revenue streams and people they rely on to run their service.

Click the google ads icon and get reporting everyone please!!!

ETA you can also report them to google for encouraging clicking the ads in their terms, and for any other violations you can find.

What Google Add?
Sorry I don't see it.

The advertisements on the site are provided by google ads. It's is how they make their money for the site. If you click the little arrow in the corner of one of the ads you can report the site for violating Google ads policy.

Quote from: Chichikov on September 20, 2017, 00:46

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 19, 2017, 09:05

Okay I just went on the site for the first time, didn't want to give them traffic and increase their visibility.

The have Google ads still running on it!

Has no one reported the site to google ads for illegal content?
Makes me wonder if anyone has DMCA'd their host even?

There's no point trying to contact the owners of a site like this. Go after all their revenue streams and people they rely on to run their service.

Click the google ads icon and get reporting everyone please!!!

ETA you can also report them to google for encouraging clicking the ads in their terms, and for any other violations you can find.

What Google Add?
Sorry I don't see it.

The advertisements on the site are provided by google ads. It's is how they make their money for the site. If you click the little arrow in the corner of one of the ads you can report the site for violating Google ads policy.

Thank you for the answer.
I don't see the ads: I use Add Block, Add Block + and Ghostery�
So I will disable them and report the crime to Google

Stupid question. Is it just Shutterstock or is it also other MS sites too?

Getty also, and why fish in the little pond when these thieves can go to the biggest and best? iStock and Shutterstock. Who wants to steal from places with nothing to offer like 123RF, DP or DT, when all the same images are everywhere, including SS and IS, plus IS exclusives. Do you think Bigstock has anything better or different from SS or IS? They steal our work from the biggest and best.

This stealing site is alive and well at xdownder dot com

I reported this to SS but I'm done, I will not upload to SS. People not uploading may be the only thing SS will understand. Stop uploading, upload to other sites only, and let SS know why.

WE contributors are what makes the stock sites "good". SS is not a "good site" without our content, so lets show them!

I'm with you. Taking a break from them until they can truly clean up this trouble and not drag their feet.
I have nothing to loose. 

There was a thread on SS contributor forum "Stealing SS images big time", but can't find it any more. What's happened, have they removed it?

.

Excellent! Keep adding more links. Let's keep helping the freebie sites! 

Since SS took action to stop xxxdowner, I have removed the link.

Just for the record!  they steel images all the time from SS!  and there is fat all SS can do anything about it!

Checked today and the sites x*downder and sh*tterdowner are both functioning. Both.

SS is well aware of them (also, notified them again about these sites) and let people steal our work.

I have not uploaded to SS for a couple of weeks. If more people stopped uploading, SS would actually had to DO SOMETHING.

Cathyslife here is right, functional links to these crap sites help thieves. Google will find these discussions anyway, so please do not post direct links.

It is strange though that SS have removed discussions about stealing our work. By that, they're saying that it is worse for us, copyright holders, to complain about stealing, than for these scumbags to actually steal!