pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Huh? Can they do it like this?  (Read 49286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« Reply #75 on: December 08, 2010, 04:04 »
0
If copyright infringement has occurred I'm all for throwing the book at the perpetrator.
I have no sympathy for thievery.
The problem is that SS keeps demonstrating that they don't really care about infringement, they have no safeguards in place, when you complain about someone stealing your work and selling it on the site they do nothing until you embarrass them into action by posting on their forums.
And they equally don't care about their contributors, banning them without even a cursory investigation.
See the thread about zodiac signs where they took down images by someone that was being stolen from and refused to take down another work clearly infringing on a contributors copyright.


« Reply #76 on: December 08, 2010, 04:58 »
0
just saying, I don't think it's as easy as calling it unfair.

The unfair part is IMHO that they didn't show the images which are allegedly infringing. That makes it impossible to defend yourself.

« Reply #77 on: December 08, 2010, 06:03 »
0
I hope they sort it out soon. It shows how vulnerable any of us could be to a malicious complaint. I recall a top name had his account suspended because a French company that was using one of his wine pictures claimed that they had copyright on it and he was stealing it. He had to fly half-way round the world to get back to his files so he could produce the RAW file and be reinstated.
The balance of probability was so overwhelmingly against the company making the complaint that I found it hard to believe SS would act without investigating, or at least demanding proof from the complainant. But I suppose that makes them 100% safe and if someone has to buy a transatlantic ticket to prove the truth, that isn't their problem.

« Reply #78 on: December 08, 2010, 07:26 »
0
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.

Maybe yes, but the least an agency could do with a long term contributor is contact him beforehand an explain him the situation, and listen to what he has to say (not just sending a generic e-mail that doesn't explain at all what has happened).

« Reply #79 on: December 08, 2010, 09:52 »
0
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.

Maybe yes, but the least an agency could do with a long term contributor is contact him beforehand an explain him the situation, and listen to what he has to say (not just sending a generic e-mail that doesn't explain at all what has happened).

I agree. I am happy to see when an agency cracks down on infringement because it happens too rarely. I think it's the way they go about doing it that doesn't make sense. And I don't think the punishment should be a slap on the wrist at all, but knowing the facts about why you are being accused of something and which images are in question just seems like basic information that could be shared.

I do hope they get it resolved quickly.

helix7

« Reply #80 on: December 08, 2010, 10:18 »
0
I agree, the way that SS goes about handling these cases is too generic. It seems like all it takes to shut down an account is an email to SS alleging that an image is stolen. There is no consideration made for the contributor. At the very least I think the SS admins might get some idea of which side of the story is more likely true by looking at the contributor's history, how long they've been at SS, if they've had any complaints in the past, etc, before they go and suspend an entire account. And even then there needs to be some opportunity for the contributor to respond to the allegation before any action is taken.

Why not just suspend the offending image immediately, and send an email to the contributor advising them that the rest of their account is scheduled for suspension in 5 days unless they contact SS to dispute the charges? They could also suspend payouts until the matter is resolved, and at least in that case the contributor still has their money, even if they have to wait another month to get it.

« Reply #81 on: December 08, 2010, 11:09 »
0
I think these microstocks are completely overwhelmed by the volume of their business - not the total dollar amount, but the number of transactions, inquiries and problems.  They have thousands of contributors and thousands of customers, but how many employees to respond to calls and emails?  Probably a handfull, and they can't begin to keep up. 

They have a low-margin business with a huge number of customers and suppliers, and they're finding out they can't possibly respond in even a minimal way to individual problems and questions.  They make arbitrary decisions, they make mistakes, they delete everything in their in-boxes and they move on.  And the money keeps rolling in.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #82 on: December 08, 2010, 13:51 »
0
I can see action taken by them by removing the image until things are investigated, or if there is evidence of an entire port being stolen then the entire port should be deactivated on both ends until they view who is right and wrong. Good grief they could be shutting down the port of the original copyright owner, but to close the whole account down to me is a little excessive. Many years back the focus wasn't put on the copy and property rights as it is today and I'm sure there are a lot of those still floating around on all the stock sites. Now if that was the case why wasn't the image in question just removed for copy or property right infringement, especially if it was uploaded way back when rather than the whole port.

« Reply #83 on: December 08, 2010, 14:27 »
0
As a guess, maybe because the violation was seen as willful and intentional.  I've had a few images disabled on Shutterstock due to a violation, and that's all that happened: a note explaining why they were removing the image (in one case, five images) and telling me not to reupload them (which I wouldn't have done anyway).  They were right, I hadn't known, and I removed those same images from other sites.

I'd like to know what the claimed violation was, although I suspect we'll never be told.  Maybe I'm just too trusting, but I don't believe SS would take action without solid evidence. That doesn't mean they're right, but they must have believed they are before acting so decisively.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #84 on: December 08, 2010, 14:57 »
0
^^^
and I would like to know what the heck has happened to FD?  Leaf, has he been banned here?

Microbius

« Reply #85 on: December 08, 2010, 15:11 »
0
I think these microstocks are completely overwhelmed by the volume of their business - not the total dollar amount, but the number of transactions, inquiries and problems.  They have thousands of contributors and thousands of customers, but how many employees to respond to calls and emails?  Probably a handfull, and they can't begin to keep up. 

They have a low-margin business with a huge number of customers and suppliers, and they're finding out they can't possibly respond in even a minimal way to individual problems and questions.  They make arbitrary decisions, they make mistakes, they delete everything in their in-boxes and they move on.  And the money keeps rolling in.
Yes, I think this is exactly right.

lisafx

« Reply #86 on: December 08, 2010, 15:12 »
0
^^^
and I would like to know what the heck has happened to FD?  Leaf, has he been banned here?

I'm sure he hasn't.  His name still shows blue in the threads.  It goes black if the account is shut down. 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #87 on: December 08, 2010, 15:33 »
0
^^^
and I would like to know what the heck has happened to FD?  Leaf, has he been banned here?

I'm sure he hasn't.  His name still shows blue in the threads.  It goes black if the account is shut down. 
Thanks, Lisa.  I wasn't aware of the "blue" thingy.  I really wish FD would give us an update.  Silence is not his strong point.  LOL

lisafx

« Reply #88 on: December 08, 2010, 16:04 »
0
I really wish FD would give us an update.  Silence is not his strong point.  LOL

I know what you mean.  Silence from FD is a bit disconcerting ;)

« Reply #89 on: December 08, 2010, 16:30 »
0
I really wish FD would give us an update.  Silence is not his strong point.  LOL

I know what you mean.  Silence from FD is a bit disconcerting ;)

FD is moving to a new house in the Philipines, he will probably be out of internet for a few weeks.  Only connections are internet stores, but i guess he is busy now moving.

Patrick.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #90 on: December 08, 2010, 18:52 »
0
Thanks Patrick. 

Must be frustrating, having to move (lose internet) at a time like this.

Anxious to hear updates and details. 

jbarber873

« Reply #91 on: December 08, 2010, 19:24 »
0
I really wish FD would give us an update.  Silence is not his strong point.  LOL

I know what you mean.  Silence from FD is a bit disconcerting ;)

FD is moving to a new house in the Philipines, he will probably be out of internet for a few weeks.  Only connections are internet stores, but i guess he is busy now moving.

Patrick.

   This is like one of those end of season TV cliffhangers... too bad it's real life. I hope it all gets sorted out.


SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #92 on: December 08, 2010, 21:09 »
0
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.

Maybe yes, but the least an agency could do with a long term contributor is contact him beforehand an explain him the situation, and listen to what he has to say (not just sending a generic e-mail that doesn't explain at all what has happened).

yes, agreed. but I guess in theory that gives a guilty party time to cover tracks. this is a relationship we have with our agencies and I think courtesy should almost always be involved. this does seem incredibly discourteous.

RacePhoto

« Reply #93 on: December 09, 2010, 00:29 »
0
Is it possible they received a DMCA takedown notice for some of your images?  From what I've read of YouTube's response to such notices, I suspect that would require immediate action of the "shoot first, ask questions later" kind.  Still, I'd expect more detail on the specific accusations rather than a blanket "you've been a bad boy" letter.

Good point. How many times do people here complain that they wrote and nothing happened, or they filed a DMCA and the images are still up. Hang em first and have a fair trial later.

Now it's the flip-side and people want slow, deliberate justice, with notification, because it's someone we know and respect and I'd bet someone who didn't infringe on anything.

Feel free to take either side, lashing out for the way it's handled... depending on, if you are the one being notified or the one doing the notification.  ::)

I hope BS and SS management write a nice big apology when this is over. But I'd guess it's just like the rest of the CYA, avoid litigation at any cost, policies from SS.

Good luck getting it sorted out. I do not understand why they would not just suspend "offending" pictures. It would have to be some big issue for them . It is poor policy to do it without giving detailed reasons

Too logical, we're dealing with Microstock weenie attorneys here!  ;D


FD is moving to a new house in the Philipines, he will probably be out of internet for a few weeks.  Only connections are internet stores, but i guess he is busy now moving.

Patrick.

He has also mentioned that power failures are frequent. It could be any number of reasons why we are going to have to wait for the answer from FD. I hope it's good news.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 00:55 by RacePhoto »

ten

« Reply #94 on: December 09, 2010, 01:38 »
0

FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency,    newbielink:http://www.flemishdreams.com/ [nonactive]    shows "several" potential PR infringements. 

Deep pocket attempts may be with ALL the licensing agencies,...but the ultimate responsibility/liability falls on the Tog.

Great images, FD,...but I'd keep moving too,...nice knowing you!.....;-))

ten

Microbius

« Reply #95 on: December 09, 2010, 04:11 »
0
^^^^ hang on, do we know you?

« Reply #96 on: December 09, 2010, 04:25 »
0
FD any updates and/or progress?

Microbius

« Reply #97 on: December 09, 2010, 04:36 »
0

FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency,   http://www.flemishdreams.com/    shows "several" potential PR infringements. 

Deep pocket attempts may be with ALL the licensing agencies,...but the ultimate responsibility/liability falls on the Tog.

Great images, FD,...but I'd keep moving too,...nice knowing you!.....;-))

ten


And no, FD doesn't license images from his site, just drives traffic to his micro portfolio on the agencies including SS.
It's pretty low to try to make out he does.

« Reply #98 on: December 09, 2010, 06:22 »
0
^^^
and I would like to know what the heck has happened to FD?  Leaf, has he been banned here?


I'm sure he hasn't.  His name still shows blue in the threads.  It goes black if the account is shut down. 


Like Lisa said, he has not be banned or anything.

Although, the name goes black only when the account is deleted.  If a user is simply banned it still stays blue.  It seems like the last time FD was here was on the 5th.  You can see that on his profile
http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=3370

« Reply #99 on: December 09, 2010, 07:31 »
0

FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency,   http://www.flemishdreams.com/    shows "several" potential PR infringements. 

Deep pocket attempts may be with ALL the licensing agencies,...but the ultimate responsibility/liability falls on the Tog.

Great images, FD,...but I'd keep moving too,...nice knowing you!.....;-))

ten


And no, FD doesn't license images from his site, just drives traffic to his micro portfolio on the agencies including SS.
It's pretty low to try to make out he does.


And what if he did license directly from his own site. That isn't a problem either, is it? If he isn't exclusive, I was under the impression a person can sell RF anywhere he wants. No?


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle