Author Topic: Huh? Can they do it like this? (Read 59760 times)

molka · « **Reply #50 on:** December 05, 2010, 07:03 »

Most people seem to think IS is (or was) the 'pro' site, but SS have been 100 times smarter going about their business. They seem to realize that mopst ppl's perception and deduction powers are weak, and they opted to keep a super low profile which makes the workings of their site almost invisible to them, but that comes with having little to no personal contact with contributors.

Perry · « **Reply #51 on:** December 05, 2010, 07:10 »

List of sites that doesn't screw their contributors:
~~iStockphoto~~
~~Dreamstime~~
~~Fotolia~~
~~Shutterstock~~

Hmm... nothing left...

I hope this one clears up, I would be very furious if this happened to me... I can't understand why SS hasn't sent even an email. (has the OP checked his junk mail folder?)

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #52 on:** December 05, 2010, 07:26 »

Pretty scary stuff, :ohope you get that sorted, good luck and keep us informed

Microbius · « **Reply #53 on:** December 05, 2010, 07:34 »

Quote from: kamphi on December 05, 2010, 06:38

they did the same thing to me....account suspended temporarly because of a possible copyright infridgement of some images...

so I tried several times to mail them and get no respond. Seems like they are looking to kick out some contributors

they worte me an email where they gave me a week to explain how I did some illustrations...So I ve tried to explain them carefully every single
work they where refering to

THE RESULT: no answer, no advisement...nothing! they simple disabled all my images and that`s it

that`s how the treat us contributors! hope you guys will not have any problems with them...and good luck with this GREAT + NICE AGENCIE!!!!

Please start a new thread with examples of the work you are referring to.
Another aspect of SS's tendency to not pay much attention to the integrity of their collection in my opinion is that a lot of the content, ironically, does infringe other members work.
When they aren't wrongly banning people they seem to be wrongly letting any old crap onto their site.
The reason the community is up in arms on this thread is that we know FD well enough to know that a violation is extremely unlikely in his case.
Given this he deserves the benefit of the doubt, and if SS would look into their contributor's history before dishing out bans they would be giving him the benefit of the doubt too.
I just don't want to see the waters muddied by having lots of people come on saying they have also been treated badly when so often these claims turn out to be ...ahem... dubious.
I'd say the problem isn't just that they ban people out of hand, but rather that they don't really care too much about what is and isn't legit content. Only interested in covering their ass. Let everything on, till there's a complaint then just ban everyone involved rather than even doing a cursory investigation first. See the recent thread where they couldn't even be bothered to read it properly before dishing out bans. What happens to the buyers that bought the dodgy content before it was revealed or the contributors that had work stolen and reposted (from what I remember about that thread the contributors involved certainly didn't get the money transferred to them, so I guess win win for SS when the violators don't get paid)
If they really cared they would have some of the same safeguards that agencies like IStock have (uploading photos silhouettes are based on, screen grabs of illustrations in progress etc.)

ETA actually don't bother, if you cant work out why this:
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-expressive-portrait-image5913092
is not allowed (see here:)
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/5230491/Jimi+Hendrix.jpg

or this:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-grunge-portrait-image3462999
or this:
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-skaband-image3216544
or this:
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-artistic-stencil-image11640554
or this
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-retro-portrait-image3936012

etc. etc. (I assume all your hundreds of silhouettes are just traced from photos you didn't take too no?)
Then there's not a lot of point in getting into this, you'd be wasting your time starting another thread.

cathyslife · « **Reply #54 on:** December 05, 2010, 08:20 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 05, 2010, 07:34

Please start a new thread with examples of the work you are referring to.
Another aspect of SS's tendency to not pay much attention to the integrity of their collection in my opinion is that a lot of the content, ironically, does infringe other members work.
When they aren't wrongly banning people they seem to be wrongly letting any old crap onto their site.
The reason the community is up in arms on this thread is that we know FD well enough to know that a violation is extremely unlikely in his case.
Given this he deserves the benefit of the doubt, and if SS would look into their contributor's history before dishing out bans they would be giving him the benefit of the doubt too.
I just don't want to see the waters muddied by having lots of people come on saying they have also been treated badly when so often these claims turn out to be ...ahem... dubious.
I'd say the problem isn't just that they ban people out of hand, but rather that they don't really care too much about what is and isn't legit content. Only interested in covering their ass. Let everything on, till there's a complaint then just ban everyone involved rather than even doing a cursory investigation first. See the recent thread where they couldn't even be bothered to read it properly before dishing out bans. What happens to the buyers that bought the dodgy content before it was revealed or the contributors that had work stolen and reposted (from what I remember about that thread the contributors involved certainly didn't get the money transferred to them, so I guess win win for SS when the violators don't get paid)
If they really cared they would have some of the same safeguards that agencies like IStock have (uploading photos silhouettes are based on, screen grabs of illustrations in progress etc.)

That's what I think is happening. Someone has claimed something, and rather that sort first, ask questions later, they just take the whole thing down. CYA all the way.

Perry · « **Reply #55 on:** December 05, 2010, 09:19 »

I just checked the OP's Dreamstime portfolio, I couldn't find anything suspicious. This will be very interesting to follow.

In the other hand - Kamphi's portfolio is suspicious with tracings of well known photographs, for example Jimi Hendrix, Blues Brothers, Clint Eastwood / Dirty Harry, James Bond / Pierce Brosnan etc.

Microbius · « **Reply #56 on:** December 05, 2010, 09:21 »

Yup, that's why I as scared of the thread getting off track.
For me this sort of thing is a symptom of the same problem at SS (no oversight) rather than the opposite of what happened to FD

Anyka · « **Reply #57 on:** December 05, 2010, 11:24 »

Amai, da's serieus ambetant!!
Back to English : from other posts I understand that SS does NOT close down portfolios when the copyright infringement is about one or a few subjects in photos (like a car or logo). They just remove the image and give you a warning.
If it were an angry model, you'd know - as models usually talk to the photographer first when they get mad.
I believe for 100% that you did not steal any (raw) images from anybody.
A false accusation? I can hardly believe someone is accusing you of copying, since copying ideas of bestsellers is done by every newcomer (a group you don't belong to).
So what's left except a complete misunderstanding for which SS should apologize, and maybe even redeem by choosing one of your images as photo-of-the-week ...
(ik zal duimen hoor!)

stockastic · « **Reply #58 on:** December 05, 2010, 11:39 »

Well, nuts. Just when I was toying with the idea of taking another run at microstock and doing some more images... I see this, and I'm reminded what a risk it is, investing my time and money on unstable, irresponsible "partners" like Shutterstock, where someone might decide to completely shut you down on any given day - maybe by mistake, or just on a whim. And no explanation, no response. How many ways can they find to say "we don't need you, photographers are a dime a dozen"?

Digital66 · « **Reply #59 on:** December 05, 2010, 14:20 »

Well, with so many images purveyors, and more and more coming in, we (individually) have become disposable pawns for the agencies.

FD, I am sorry for what has happened to you. Wish you good luck.

rubyroo · « **Reply #60 on:** December 05, 2010, 17:10 »

FD - your plight has been on my mind all weekend now. Hoping you'll receive both clarification and better news as the new week begins...

helix7 · « **Reply #61 on:** December 06, 2010, 04:01 »

SS has a rather ridiculous procedure of terminating an entire portfolio without contacting the contributor when they receive a report of any copyright infringement. I reported a contributor once for a single image that was infringed upon, and SS closed the entire account without giving the contributor a chance to explain themselves.

In that case I think it was just a single instance of poor judgement on the contributor's part, but that they were overall an upstanding member of the microstock business and certainly did not deserve to lose their entire account. Fortunately in that case the account was eventually reinstated, but it makes me question now whether I'd ever report a contributor again for a single image infringement.

It's way too harsh of an action to take to just immediately terminate an account based on the suggestion of infringement. It seems that anyone can report anyone else to SS and their account will be shut down. Best not to make any enemies around here or you might be on the receiving end of a false accusation and find your account closed down.

sharpshot · « **Reply #62 on:** December 06, 2010, 04:39 »

I want to find out what's happened to FD but if it's like ^^^, I think we should all get together and send an email to SS asking them to review this policy.

I wouldn't mind so much if the pay full compensation when the contributor is found innocent. Going through this must be a nightmare and could be very costly, it doesn't motivate me to keep working with microstock. SS are my favourite of the big sites, they are so good to their contributors in most respects but this really is a horrible way to deal with people.

Microbius · « **Reply #63 on:** December 06, 2010, 05:24 »

I have never found SS to be good to their contributors.
The best you can say about them is that they keep their head down. But when you do have to communicate with them you are lucky to even get a reply (that's why so many people have to resort to embarrassing them into action by posting in their forums).
The best thing about them was that they used to give us yearly raises, now even that's stopped.
It's time for a new generation of MS sites to take over, ones that know how to treat contributors.
Down with SS and IS up with on Graphic Leftovers and Stockfresh etc.

helix7 · « **Reply #64 on:** December 06, 2010, 10:02 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 06, 2010, 04:39

...I wouldn't mind so much if they pay full compensation when the contributor is found innocent. Going through this must be a nightmare and could be very costly, it doesn't motivate me to keep working with microstock...

Right now, SS is my primary source of income. It's my top earning microstock site and my other business (freelance graphic design) is slow this month. So SS is likely to be my #1 source of money for now. If that got taken away because of some random accusation, I'd be crushed. I'd still have my other microstock income to help keep things going, but without SS, let's just say that there'd be some bills not getting paid this month.

What I think a lot of microstock companies seem to forget these days is that this isn't just a hobby for some people. It may seem like the easiest thing to do is to have a "zero tolerance" policy regarding copyright infringement accusations, but that policy can really screw over the accused if the accusations turn out to be false. Microstock is some people's livelihood, it pays the mortgage, bills, puts food on the table. It's irresponsible to take that away based on such flimsy accusations.

@FD (and anyone else who might go through this) if you haven't already, you should try calling SS. There are several phone numbers here: http://www.shutterstock.com/contactus.mhtml as well as additional email contacts. If this ever happened to me, that would be the first thing I'd do, and not even bother with email.

Microbius · « **Reply #65 on:** December 06, 2010, 10:48 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 06, 2010, 10:02

What I think a lot of microstock companies seem to forget these days is that this isn't just a hobby for some people.

I don't think they forget, I just think they don't give a sh*t.

jamirae · « **Reply #66 on:** December 06, 2010, 16:24 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 06, 2010, 10:48

Quote from: helix7 on December 06, 2010, 10:02
What I think a lot of microstock companies seem to forget these days is that this isn't just a hobby for some people.

I don't think they forget, I just think they don't give a sh*t.

funny! but sadly, I think you are spot-on!

Artemis · « **Reply #67 on:** December 06, 2010, 17:00 »

Holy...
Any news yet FD? This is just outrageous.
Just another proof of how rights-less (im sure theres a better word for it in english

) we are in this microstock industry. We just get toyed around, have no rights, and little-to-no ways to fight back; i hate having to explore other options but c'mon...
Hope this gets sorted out for you quick and decently mister!

jbarber873 · « **Reply #68 on:** December 06, 2010, 17:43 »

Quote from: Artemis on December 06, 2010, 17:00

Holy...
Any news yet FD? This is just outrageous.
Just another proof of how rights-less (im sure theres a better word for it in english ) we are in this microstock industry. We just get toyed around, have no rights, and little-to-no ways to fight back; i hate having to explore other options but c'mon...
Hope this gets sorted out for you quick and decently mister!

translation: screwed

grp_photo · « **Reply #69 on:** December 07, 2010, 06:56 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 06, 2010, 17:43

Quote from: Artemis on December 06, 2010, 17:00
Holy...
Any news yet FD? This is just outrageous.
Just another proof of how rights-less (im sure theres a better word for it in english ) we are in this microstock industry. We just get toyed around, have no rights, and little-to-no ways to fight back; i hate having to explore other options but c'mon...
Hope this gets sorted out for you quick and decently mister!

translation: screwed

We are certainly screwed but I think Artemis meant "without any rights".

Artemis · « **Reply #70 on:** December 07, 2010, 07:13 »

Hehe, both work!

It's insane what companies get away with when there's no union or contract with employees rights...
ah well, barking to the moon, we all surely know that already

Any news yet FD?!

vonkara · « **Reply #71 on:** December 07, 2010, 18:01 »

I think some of the Shutterstock ninja's or secret agents got FD...

stockastic · « **Reply #72 on:** December 07, 2010, 19:04 »

If he talked to a lawyer he may have been advised to stop posting in public forums.

yuliang11 · « **Reply #73 on:** December 07, 2010, 20:00 »

Quote from: Perry on December 05, 2010, 07:10

List of sites that doesn't screw their contributors:
~~iStockphoto~~
~~Dreamstime~~
~~Fotolia~~
~~Shutterstock~~

Hmm... nothing left...

I hope this one clears up, I would be very furious if this happened to me... I can't understand why SS hasn't sent even an email. (has the OP checked his junk mail folder?)

maybe at the very end , it will be the best for contributors to become their own agency.

SNP · « **Reply #74 on:** December 07, 2010, 22:44 »

I certainly think it's harsh. at the same time, playing devil's advocate....an agency must protect its artists and its guarantees to customers....if it's a slap on the wrist, what's to deter contributors from copyright infringement? in publishing, plagiarism can result in fraud charges and potentially imprisonment. again, no insinuation about the case at hand....just saying, I don't think it's as easy as calling it unfair.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Huh? Can they do it like this? (Read 59760 times)

molka

Perry

MicrostockExp

Microbius

cathyslife

Perry

Microbius

Anyka

stockastic

Digital66

rubyroo

helix7

sharpshot

Microbius

helix7

Microbius

jamirae

Artemis

jbarber873

grp_photo

Artemis

vonkara

stockastic

yuliang11

SNP

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors