MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How does this stuff get through?  (Read 2909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2021, 04:38 »
0
It looks like the reviewer is an uneducated person. It will be down soon, I guess.

« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2021, 08:19 »
+3
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/best-great-pumpkin-halloween-design-2020683800
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/best-dog-christmas-vector-design-2030172422

Amazing, isnt it? But then SS hasnt really been picky about what gets through for years now. Stolen work, pages and pages of the almost-same pics of marijuana, the list goes on. Its kind of a cesspool now.

« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2021, 11:20 »
0
I'm not getting. What's wrong?

SVH

« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2021, 11:27 »
+1
I'm not getting. What's wrong?

Something with copyright. Or did you not recognize the well known cartoon characters?

« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2021, 12:03 »
+2
Stolen illustrations of very famous cartoon characters.

Also pretty sure whole portfolio is lifted from various sources, these two just hit me as they are so blatant and you'd think any reviewer would pick them up.

« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2021, 12:22 »
0
Now I see. It's strange

« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2021, 19:14 »
+3
Looks that they are already down.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2021, 20:01 »
+4
I can still see it.
SS has been lax about copyright for years.

« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2021, 09:21 »
+1
Yes down for me too now. I found them because I was looking for an artist whos work was stolen and posted on Etsy, but instead found this other theif on SS who had stolen their work too!
 >:(

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2021, 11:29 »
+1
Down for me now too.

« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2021, 03:20 »
0
It looks like the reviewer is an uneducated person. It will be down soon, I guess.
I told you so. Quoting my own post, haha

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2021, 07:49 »
+3
Does anyone have a screenshot of what these images were? Or a description?

Edit: nvm, Google still has them indexed: Charlie Brown characters and Tazmanian Devil, the audacity.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2021, 07:52 by Noedelhap »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2021, 10:31 »
0
It looks like the reviewer is an uneducated person. It will be down soon, I guess.
I told you so. Quoting my own post, haha

AI = the reviewer isn't a person, and that's the problem.

They do check, I don't know how much, but I had a rejection for "this image was accepted in error" last year.

« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2021, 02:43 »
0
It looks like the reviewer is an uneducated person. It will be down soon, I guess.
I told you so. Quoting my own post, haha

AI = the reviewer isn't a person, and that's the problem.

They do check, I don't know how much, but I had a rejection for "this image was accepted in error" last year.

They probably just check when someone complains.....

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2021, 10:07 »
+2
They probably just check when someone complains.....

Highly unlikely.

Image uploaded, accepted, two days later, rejected because it was accepted in error, no stolen graphic or infringing anything. Nothing for someone to complain. Plus I think you should think back, how fast does SS do anything, including removing stolen or infringing images.  :)

« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2021, 08:47 »
0
"They do check, I don't know how much, but I had a rejection for "this image was accepted in error" last year."

Ive seen that where things such as national trust properties and certain buildings got through and then a routine search (or complaint later) means they do.

There was a huge purge years ago when the UK National Trust when full gestapo against stock agencies.  Quite a few people had that reason for removed content.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2021, 11:10 »
0
"They do check, I don't know how much, but I had a rejection for "this image was accepted in error" last year."

Ive seen that where things such as national trust properties and certain buildings got through and then a routine search (or complaint later) means they do.

There was a huge purge years ago when the UK National Trust when full gestapo against stock agencies.  Quite a few people had that reason for removed content.

Interesting, but that's not the only one. When someone comes to SS and files a complaint, they will go back and purge images. If not, old examples where SS changed the rules, are left. That's why we have seen so many, "mine was rejected, but there are thousands of these" and the answer is, what was uploaded 8 years ago? NT has been pushing hard to get their properties and images of the sites, off the stock sites.

Mine was something that I know they used to take and I know they don't now. I just dropped it in with a batch that was going to Adobe, where they do take those. But also in true SS style, another one that should have been rejected for the same reasons, they don't take those anymore, was accepted and lucky me, has already sold.

Example: "Blueprints are subject to copyright and, therefore, require a property release signed by the architect/original designer of the blueprint in order to be acceptable for commercial use" note, even if the blueprint is from the 1800s? Well then clause 2 kicks in. "Content in the public domain or content incorporating elements from public domain content, such as scans of photographs or copies of public domain artwork or footage, cannot be accepted for commercial or editorial use"



« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2021, 12:23 »
+2

Example: "Blueprints are subject to copyright and, therefore, require a property release signed by the architect/original designer of the blueprint in order to be acceptable for commercial use" note, even if the blueprint is from the 1800s? Well then clause 2 kicks in. "Content in the public domain or content incorporating elements from public domain content, such as scans of photographs or copies of public domain artwork or footage, cannot be accepted for commercial or editorial use"



Except when they choose to ignore that it's public domain:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/yogyakarta-indonesia-2-june-2021-joe-1984253228

I found the original photo credited to a Getty photographer. I wonder if he knows that it's been transferred to the public domain?

More and more I'm seeing that there are double standards with reviewing rules on Shutterstock, and some contributors seem to have a free pass regardless.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2021, 13:07 »
+1

Example: "Blueprints are subject to copyright and, therefore, require a property release signed by the architect/original designer of the blueprint in order to be acceptable for commercial use" note, even if the blueprint is from the 1800s? Well then clause 2 kicks in. "Content in the public domain or content incorporating elements from public domain content, such as scans of photographs or copies of public domain artwork or footage, cannot be accepted for commercial or editorial use"



Except when they choose to ignore that it's public domain:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/yogyakarta-indonesia-2-june-2021-joe-1984253228

I found the original photo credited to a Getty photographer. I wonder if he knows that it's been transferred to the public domain?

More and more I'm seeing that there are double standards with reviewing rules on Shutterstock, and some contributors seem to have a free pass regardless.

Sure stinks doesn't it? Legal images, rejected, stolen images, accepted.  :o

« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2021, 13:35 »
+1

Example: "Blueprints are subject to copyright and, therefore, require a property release signed by the architect/original designer of the blueprint in order to be acceptable for commercial use" note, even if the blueprint is from the 1800s? Well then clause 2 kicks in. "Content in the public domain or content incorporating elements from public domain content, such as scans of photographs or copies of public domain artwork or footage, cannot be accepted for commercial or editorial use"



Except when they choose to ignore that it's public domain:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/yogyakarta-indonesia-2-june-2021-joe-1984253228

I found the original photo credited to a Getty photographer. I wonder if he knows that it's been transferred to the public domain?

More and more I'm seeing that there are double standards with reviewing rules on Shutterstock, and some contributors seem to have a free pass regardless.

Sure stinks doesn't it? Legal images, rejected, stolen images, accepted.  :o

Yes, it really smells bad.

Shutterstock publish these rules, so either the review team are very poorly trained or are just turning a blind eye to content coming from their friends or maybe even their own images?

[Edited to remove example]

Is it incompetence or bias? Either way, it stinks.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2021, 18:48 by KuriousKat »

« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2021, 03:52 »
0
I guess agencies don't bother selling images that are free somewhere else (public domain)..
Blueprints are drawings, a big no-no to use if you don't have a signed authorization.

« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2021, 05:37 »
0
I guess agencies don't bother selling images that are free somewhere else (public domain)..
Blueprints are drawings, a big no-no to use if you don't have a signed authorization.

I think the problem with public domain stuff is more to do with verifying whether that actually is the case. There is little point in trying to sell something that can be obtained elsewhere for free, but it also isn't allow to incorporate PD content into new and unique work that could have a value.

However, with Shutterstock, this 'no Public Domain conten' applies to some contributors but not others, as per the example above. There are some double standards going on for one reason or another.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2021, 13:20 »
0
I guess agencies don't bother selling images that are free somewhere else (public domain)..
Blueprints are drawings, a big no-no to use if you don't have a signed authorization.

Yes, I think when they did take them, like SS and IS did, they started to realize that people were going to upload thousands of the same image, because it's free online somewhere and PD. Thus the NASA credits rule, and not just copied, but part of a composite. How many of the same shot of the Moon or the Earth does any agency need, before it's just Spam?  :)

Getty sells PD images and charges for them. SS doesn't take any now. DT and a flock of others will still take PD images. I'm not saying they will sell, or a smart person can't just go find them free on their own. With a little bit of effort, there are entire collections online of images with no copyright protection. Maybe the point could be, hypothetically, I edit an old photo and upload it and save the buyer all the time and effort, restoring it and making a fine copy, better than the original or the free archive example.

But how much need is there for those?

When I mentioned blueprints, I meant from before 1926. Watch the sparks fly because, Mickey Mouse is set to enter the public domain in 2024. But Disney is a big corporation and like the recent past changes, in the 70s, laws were adjusted. Lets just say money can buy change?

This image is public domain, I have a much larger example, but small for the forum purposes. I can make 11 x 14 prints and sell them, if I wanted, or sell digital versions for license. 100% legal.



The reason SS and possibly other places, miss an obvious copyrighted image and also one created from a copyrighted image, which is also illegal, is they use AI or offshore reviewers and computers can't know every celebrity likeness. Biden is a public figure, there are some legal differences, but if the image is autotraced or somehow created from a real image, then that's illegal use. I mean, that's an obvious misuse that almost anyone here would recognize.

If this all bothers you, don't look at FAA because you'll hurt yourself when you fall off your chair. Sorry to pick on the little mouse character, but it's just an easy target.  https://fineartamerica.com/shop/framed+prints/mickey+mouse



SVH

« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2021, 16:18 »
+1
How many of the same shot of the Moon or the Earth does any agency need, before it's just Spam?  :)

My moon photo sells pretty well.But then it's maybe better then the free pics :)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2021, 09:53 »
+1
How many of the same shot of the Moon or the Earth does any agency need, before it's just Spam?  :)

My moon photo sells pretty well.But then it's maybe better then the free pics :)

LOL Yeah, amazing how that works, isn't it? Sometimes people don't know where to look for the free, and sometimes edited versions with keywords are easier to find, when someone searches. I have to admit, I don't use many images, but if I did, there are so many free, I'd probably never need to download from an agency.

Exception might be something specific, plant, animal, subject, or a location, and even with those, people travel and post those. Hard time to be selling quality images when so many people are willing to give them away for recognition or their pride when someone "likes" their image.

Here's one of mine, the Moon, which I admit I do some "far out" things and they don't sell. But... I do have fun?




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
5420 Views
Last post December 11, 2006, 14:49
by GeoPappas
What is this stuff?

Started by RacePhoto Off Topic

22 Replies
14420 Views
Last post March 05, 2010, 22:17
by RacePhoto
5 Replies
5609 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 07:50
by ProArtwork
7 Replies
2581 Views
Last post July 14, 2011, 10:30
by cobalt
27 Replies
6573 Views
Last post October 09, 2011, 15:47
by cthoman

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle