MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: FD on December 04, 2010, 12:59
-
I don't have any idea what they are talking about, but my entire port at Bigstock and Shutterstock was removed suddenly. I must have made some serious enemies here or elsewhere.
What bothers me most is that there is no indication at all about the images I should have infringed upon, since of course I have all the raws and more factual info that all images I uploaded are mine. I also don't understand why they would just block a contributor of more than 5 years without asking an explanation first. I can easily prove the images are mine of course.
I'm still waiting for the reply of "Glynnis Jones" so I will refrain of any other comment now. I'll just reflect the response here, but it makes me wonder about the morality of microstock in general. Let's see...
In accordance with Paragraph 2-6 of the Terms and Conditions you agreed to when you became a submitter at Bigstock, you warranted and represented that you are the owner of the copyright thereto of any image files uploaded to Bigstock.
Paragraph 10-1 of the Bigstock Terms of Service states Bigstock, in its sole discretion, may remove any content uploaded to the Website including that appearing to infringe the intellectual property rights of other entities.
We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC.
As Bigstock is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shutterstock Images, LLC, your Bigstock portfolio has now been terminated. You may not open up a new account.
Regards,
Glynnis Jones
Sr. Review Coordinator
Bigstock
-
Speechless :o
Without contacting you in advance, many people rely on their Microstock-income moves like that can easily destroy lives
-
Wow. This has to be some sort of mistake. I hope they are able to sort it out for you before you lose too much income ???
-
Can you ring them, talk to them directly?
Hope this gets sorted quickly for you
-
It seems to me that there should be a well defined process - and it would be one of those issues where it'd be great if all the micros would work together to have common handling of such situations - where contributors who've come "under suspicion" have notice given them and a process for demonstrating that the accusations are false, if that's the case.
Pulling the portfolio temporarily while they investigate might be fine if there's a need, but when you're not a newbie at a site, it does seem completely wrong to send out a letter like that as if the whole discussion is over before anyone even contacted you to ask about whatever accusation has been made.
Sounds like the Court of Star Chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber) to me.
-
Sounds ridiculous, and especially since we are real businesses, borderline unethical to do this without initiating contact.
-
Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
I certainly agree that they should have opened a dialogue with you regarding their concerns before accusing you in this way.
-
who is going to compensate your loss? if the mistake is on them?
-
May be unethical but probably not illegal based on the contract.
Assuming you didn't infringe, it sounds like you really made somebody pretty angry over there and this is retaliation.
If it's just a misunderstanding on their part, that's pretty scary.
-
I'd hope at the very least they should explain in detail what exactly they're suspecting/accusing you of and give you a chance to prove your innocence.
But, sadly, I expect it's buried somewhere in their t&c that they can terminate your account at any time. >:(
Ideal soution/pipedream: Then, when/if you establish your innocence, they should have to pay you e.g. the average pay per day of the two weeks surrounding your suspension for each day you were suspended, for goodwill.
-
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.
-
It certainly reflects badly on Bigstock. I recently had a bunch of sales thrown out with a very lame excuse, but to their credit they looked into it and made it ( almost) right. I'm sure this was just some middle level person out of their mind for a while. Hopefully someone from Bigstock will make this right. It really is a business based on trust, and that's a two way street.
-
Yikes!
-
Not fair at all. Hope you'll be able to work it out.
-
You are a respected man around here and I believe you when you say you didn't infringe. I hope it was only a misunderstanding and everything will be fine soon. Good luck!
-
It looks ridiculous indeed. They could block your account and inhibit your images if there was a something they considered suspicious, but close accounts without any previous inquiry?
-
Big Stock and ShutterStock have always been the most fair agencies for me, and not knowing the OP, I will withhold judgement until I know more.
-
This is ridiculous...
That remind me our government tax police. They initiate contact by letter looking the same as your email.
-
Wow FD...who did you pi** off. Good business practice would be to notify you about their concerns and since you've been there so long I can't imagine why they wouldn't have done it just that way. Question is if they find it to be a mistake will they let you reopen your account. From that e-mail it sure sounds like they aren't even willing to listen.
-
Big Stock and ShutterStock have always been the most fair agencies for me, and not knowing the OP, I will withhold judgement until I know more.
I agree, BigStock and Shutterstock are wonderful agencies and have always been fair to me too.
However, the OP is extremely well-known around here, and has been a well respected microstock photographer for over 5 years. There is absolutely no doubting his veracity.
This has to be some misunderstanding, and I am certain it will be cleared up soon.
-
You know what's the scary part...if all it took was some angry contributor accusing another contributor of copyright infringement and then you get kicked in the a** right out the door without explanation.
-
Big Stock and ShutterStock have always been the most fair agencies for me, and not knowing the OP, I will withhold judgement until I know more.
I agree, BigStock and Shutterstock are wonderful agencies and have always been fair to me too.
However, the OP is extremely well-known around here, and has been a well respected microstock photographer for over 5 years. There is absolutely no doubting his veracity.
This has to be some misunderstanding, and I am certain it will be cleared up soon.
I guess it's just a matter of opinion, from what I remember of OP posts, they have a slant against corporations, who dare to try to make money from their software, and is always trying to justify others use of pirated software.
I'm not saying he is guilty and it could very well be a mistake, but I'm not giving someone with those views the benefit of the doubt when it comes to copyright infringement, over the views of companies who have always been fair with me. If OP is innocent, then yes, Big Stock has handled it the wrong way.
-
, and is always trying to justify others use of pirated software.
Huh? Can you point me to some post of his where he did that?
-
, and is always trying to justify others use of pirated software.
Huh? Can you point me to some post of his where he did that?
Here you go, even implies Adobe are sociopaths for not giving more back to the people who steal their programs:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/the-logics-behind-the-pirates/msg170419/#msg170413 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/the-logics-behind-the-pirates/msg170419/#msg170413)
"I will be crucified probably, like Ivan (Dreamframer) a few months ago. The world is larger, strange but true, than the industrialized high-wages West. In the Philippines (but the same is true for Indonesia, as I heard), 40% of the people have an income of <2$ per day. The monthly wage for a grade school teacher is 6000php = 140$. Yet many PC's I saw have the latest Office, PS and Windows Ultimate. When back in 2007, I bought my first local PC, they told me that for a legal Windows (the CD with the laser hologram) I would have to wait 7 weeks. In the whole Philippines (94 million people) not one legal copy present of Windows was my conclusion. When I fetched my PC after a couple of days and I wanted to install Linux-Ubuntu, I found out it had XP Ultimate, Photoshop, Office, Pro CD-burning software and "sample music" that filled up the rest of the disc. Courtesy of one of the country's largest PC chains. Don't ask don't tell.
When I bought a replacement system disk earlier this year, as an "added service", the vendor included the same software, even if I didn't ask for it.
All recent software and games are sold in markets and booths in malls, for 5$ or less. All in the open. The games have "installers" that create a virtual CD-drive mimicking the original circumventing the copy-protection. In principle it's illegal but a government that would dare to bust this home-grown industry would lose a lot of votes and would be faced with a major foreign currency drain.
Last week I tried to buy Photoshop for my photography partner that is a full-time university student. I had the enrollment proofs ready. On the site of Adobe for the Philippines, it said you couldn't pay and download from the Philippines and you should order in Australia. Yeah right, the postal services open all the snail mail from abroad in the hope to find money in it. Last month I got a letter from Moneybookers with no external marks. The mailman told me with a cheesy wink that it was about money. How could he know? Ah, the letter had been opened. If you order something in Australia, be sure the CD will be missing or copied at least.
Fair chance the customs will block the CD in their custody until you come with "proof" it's genuine. They will need months to "examine" the proof unless you give the decisive "proof" under the form of a banknote. Then you can take it right away. No thanks.
In fact, you can't buy any software here legally unless you import it yourself. My Windows is legal (OEM on my new PC I brought from Belgium) but I'm quite sure I'm the only one in continents around. And before the moral rants start, my PS is a legal CS2 from long ago. It does what I want but of course the RAW handlers are not updated.
My photography partner had to make a movie for a class assignment. He used Adobe Premiere CS4. He got it from the Chinese torrents, he told. Is he a sociopath? The price is a full year income of a school teacher and you can't even buy it in the Philippines. No movie = assignment failed = the college enrollment fee wasted. Sociopath, huh?
When Microsoft did an audit years ago on the Indonesian government PC's, they found none of the Windows were genuine. They made a settlement with the Indonesian government to legalize these installs for 1$ per copy so they had access to all upgrades. After that, they poured the money x 10 back in scholarship grants to Indonesia. That's the right way to go. Adobe has no such program, as far as I know. I wonder who the real sociopaths are."
-
Again, not trying to say OP is guilty, just that I'm definitely not giving him the benefit of the doubt over BS/SS
-
Again, not trying to say OP is guilty, just that I'm definitely not giving him the benefit of the doubt over BS/SS
Hmmmmm... then what are you saying?
Looks like you are saying, "guilty until proven innocent" to me.
-
Holy **** FD. I'm truly shocked. I hope they clear this up quickly and offer you a more detailed explanation. That is completely unreasonable.
-
There has to be some mistake, but I agree that it seems like there should be a better way to do this and give you more answers and details before just pulling everything down. I hope it gets sorted right away, FD.
-
From the reply you got from them I'm guessing that it could be that one of the models in your portfolio has a grudge against you and has contacted the agency in question, or that you've uploaded some shots from a commissioned shoot maybe?
The action the agencies have taken may appear drastic but they have to take immediate action as soon as an allegation like this is made, otherwise they leave themselves liable. Hope you get it sorted asap.
-
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
-
I hope it get sorted out justly...I'd hate to think of this happening unjustly to any contributor. someone posted above that they suspend judgment based on the OP's previous opinions about some other issue. sorry, but that's BS and censorship in its ugliest form. no one should be punished for their opinion on anything if their business practices are sound.
I don't know the OP and I'm not a contributor on SS or BS. I just wandered in and happened to read this. if he did nothing wrong, then he should have nothing to worry about and hopefully he's back online soon. crumby.
-
I gotta say something...FD has been in microstock for a good while. I personally don't think he stole anyone's pictures.....That post that nruboc quoted didn't say he supported pirated software. He was just pointing out that in some countries legal versions are hard to come by and you don't know if what you're getting on a new computer is legal or not. If I misunderstood this please explain.
-
Using pirated software has nothing to do with image copyright.
-
Using pirated software has nothing to do with image copyright.
Exactly. Should be obvious.
-
I gotta say something...FD has been in microstock for a good while. I personally don't think he stole anyone's .... (...). If I misunderstood this please explain.
No you did not misunderstand. FD never said he agree on such a situation. He said he has to deal with such situation. Describing a situation has nothing to do with opinion.
And trying to ignore this kind of problems never solved them...
Back to the topic, I'm pretty sure that with some explanations betwen FD and SS-BS everything will be back to normal...
Claude
-
Nice of them to do it right before the weekend. Hope you get it sorted soon or you might have to become an istock exclusive.
-
Nice of them to do it right before the weekend. Hope you get it sorted soon or you might have to become an istock exclusive.
Out of the frying pan into the fire ;D
-
Nice of them to do it right before the weekend. Hope you get it sorted soon or you might have to become an istock exclusive.
Out of the frying pan into the fire ;D
LOL... :D
-
Wow!
This has to be a mistake. No question about it.
Don't give up FD!
I stand by you 100% and I'm sure that every single one of your images is yours. I have no doubt whatsoever.
Contact them and ask for more information. Right away.
Let's hope this gets sorted out as fast as possible.
Good luck !
-
...I do not understand why they would not just suspend "offending" pictures...
I don't understand either. Yesterday I got an email from SS that they had deleted one of my images. "We have removed the following images that you uploaded.... deleted because: Quality control - Removed per legal. Do not resubmit."
A potential copyright/trademark issue. I understand their reasons though I don't agree with them in the case of the image they removed. No big deal, not worth arguing about or getting upset. But I sure am glad that they didn't turn off my whole port! Then I would have freaked out for sure!!
-
Using pirated software has nothing to do with image copyright.
Exactly. Should be obvious.
Please explain the difference in your mind, IStock schill's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_software)
-
...I do not understand why they would not just suspend "offending" pictures...
I don't understand either. Yesterday I got an email from SS that they had deleted one of my images. "We have removed the following images that you uploaded.... deleted because: Quality control - Removed per legal. Do not resubmit."
That happened to me as well with a car that was barely identifiable. No logos, no frontal or rear shot - and it was reason enough for SS's legal department to remove it. Image was removed - no harm done.
FD, I hope this works out for you asap. We can all just speculate at this point and I don't know how much this is helping you but also to me it sounds like that it might be a model/property release issue. Either a model didn't understand the contract when signing or someone doesn't like their property in your images (for whatever reason).
I really wish you all the best. First and foremost stay polite with SS's staff and I'm 100% sure that they will explain it to you in all detail!
-
...I do not understand why they would not just suspend "offending" pictures...
I don't understand either. Yesterday I got an email from SS that they had deleted one of my images. "We have removed the following images that you uploaded.... deleted because: Quality control - Removed per legal. Do not resubmit."
That happened to me as well with a car that was barely identifiable. No logos, no frontal or rear shot - and it was reason enough for SS's legal department to remove it. Image was removed - no harm done.
FD, I hope this works out for you asap. We can all just speculate at this point and I don't know how much this is helping you but also to me it sounds like that it might be a model/property release issue. Either a model didn't understand the contract when signing or someone doesn't like their property in your images (for whatever reason).
I really wish you all the best. First and foremost stay polite with SS's staff and I'm 100% sure that they will explain it to you in all detail!
We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC.
I'm not seeing how this could be a MR or PR issue.
-
I would like to know why they take down all the portfolio and what happens to people that are away for a long time or don't get the email?
I really think they should just remove the images they think have a problem until they have had the contributors explanation.
I hope FD can sort this out without too much stress, I don't think I would cope with it too well. Do they realize how much some of us rely on this income? They might have the right to do this but surely there must be a better option than removing entire portfolios before the contributor knows about it?
-
From the reply you got from them I'm guessing that it could be that one of the models in your portfolio has a grudge against you and has contacted the agency in question, or that you've uploaded some shots from a commissioned shoot maybe?
The action the agencies have taken may appear drastic but they have to take immediate action as soon as an allegation like this is made, otherwise they leave themselves liable. Hope you get it sorted asap.
this seems like a logical explanation as RT points out and it sure makes a difference from which side you look at it. If we had discovered a thief portfolio who stole all our pictures and uploaded them we would be angry with SS if they didn't remove the portfolio immediately. The fact that FD has been a submitter for so long though hopefully gives him the benefit of the doubt and it is strange, like other have said, that they couldn't just remove the offending pictures.
I hope this gets sorted out soon!
-
Back in the day before there was an exclusive photographer program at FT I had an account with Shutterstock. One day, out of the blue they closed my account and pulled all of my photos. Didn't bother to give the courtesy of an email, phone call..nothing. I finally got through to them and was told that because I was a moderator on the FT forum they did not want me there. Took about 6 months to get my money from them as I recall and getting through to anyone was like pulling teeth.
That really sucks for you dude and I'm sorry it has happened.
Good luck,
Mat
-
that's awful. But you guys alwasy look for a very rational explanation as if ppl worked that way. god knows what happened, someone at SS doing a secondary inspection with a lightyear long que might just be a bit too conservative, etc... BUT seeing the 'range' of pictures thriving on SS, this supposed to a some misunderstanding.
-
Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
thats criminal law, not business : )
-
I couldn't believe it when I saw this thread. Totally unbelievable.
I hope they sort this soon.
Can't say I'm surprised that SS has acted like this though, given the other threads about contributors having work taken down without any investigation.
-
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!!!!
-
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.
-
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?)
-
Pretty scary stuff, :ohope you get that sorted, good luck and keep us informed
-
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 (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 (http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/5230491/Jimi+Hendrix.jpg)
or this:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-grunge-portrait-image3462999 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-grunge-portrait-image3462999)
or this:
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-skaband-image3216544 (http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-skaband-image3216544)
or this:
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-artistic-stencil-image11640554 (http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-artistic-stencil-image11640554)
or this
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-retro-portrait-image3936012 (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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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
-
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!)
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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 (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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
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
-
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".
-
Hehe, both work! ;D
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?!
-
I think some of the Shutterstock ninja's or secret agents got FD...
-
If he talked to a lawyer he may have been advised to stop posting in public forums.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
^^^
and I would like to know what the heck has happened to FD? Leaf, has he been banned here?
-
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.
-
^^^
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.
-
^^^
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
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
Thanks Patrick.
Must be frustrating, having to move (lose internet) at a time like this.
Anxious to hear updates and details.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency, http://www.flemishdreams.com/ (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
-
^^^^ hang on, do we know you?
-
FD any updates and/or progress?
-
FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency, [url]http://www.flemishdreams.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.flemishdreams.com/[/url]) 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 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 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=3370)
-
FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency, [url]http://www.flemishdreams.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.flemishdreams.com/[/url]) 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?
-
I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.
I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.
-
FD,...a quick look at your website & competing licensing agency, [url]http://www.flemishdreams.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.flemishdreams.com/[/url]) 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?
A number of the biggest contributors to microstock sites have their own agencies / collections that they sell and market from their own site or through other sites. Selling your own images from your own site surely shouldn't be a problem.
-
I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.
I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.
I see. Don't you just love anonymity on the net?
-
A number of the biggest contributors to microstock sites have their own agencies / collections that they sell and market from their own site or through other sites. Selling your own images from your own site surely shouldn't be a problem.
That's what I thought, too. I can't imagine that that is FD's problem.
-
A number of the biggest contributors to microstock sites have their own agencies / collections that they sell and market from their own site or through other sites.
Oh yes, sometimes even when ingested into the iStock supposedly 'exclusive' Agency programme.
-
...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've been the one doing the notification at one time in the past, and I'd rather have seen slow deliberate justice than the quick account termination response that was handed down. I think there's a better middle ground here. SS should suspend only the images in question, and then give the accused a week to respond to the accusation and provide proof of image ownership. Only after that point should an entire account be suspended or deleted.
The current SS policy assumes that the accuser is always right, which is scary. It puts any one of us at risk of having our accounts suspended for some period of time. Make an enemy in the forum and the next thing you know you could be shut down at SS just because that enemy fired off an accusatory email suggesting you stole some images.
-
SS should suspend only the images in question, and then give the accused a week to respond to the accusation and provide proof of image ownership. Only after that point should an entire account be suspended or deleted.
I'm not on SS, but why only 'a week'. I travel in places without internet (in vast swathes of the sparsely-populated Scottish highlands as well as developing counhtries), or would have to go way out of my way to find it, for longer periods. That would be almost as unfair as instant closure.
-
I'm not on SS, but why only 'a week'. I travel in places without internet (in vast swathes of the sparsely-populated Scottish highlands as well as developing counhtries), or would have to go way out of my way to find it, for longer periods. That would be almost as unfair as instant closure.
It could be more. I sort of just threw one week out there arbitrarily. The point being that some period of time is given for the accused to defend themselves before they lose their entire account.
So let's say 20 days then, hypothetically. The allegedly infringing images are suspended immediately, notice is sent to the contributor that they have 20 days in which to contact SS and advise them that they plan to dispute the claim and can provide proof of image ownership. They have some period of time to submit that proof, otherwise the account is completely suspended. During the period in which the case is open, no payouts can be received, and earnings are held until the matter is resolved and released in the next payout cycle. If the accused is unable to prove image ownership and found to be guilty of the infringement, they lose all earnings accrued from the date of the initial image suspension and their account is closed.
It ain't perfect, but it sort of covers all bases. A copyright holder with a legitimate complaint against an SS user is able to protect their copyright by having the images in question immediately suspended. But the contributor is also able to remain active and continue earning on the remainder of their portfolio while the case is open, so at least if they are found innocent of any wrong-doing they don't lose out on weeks of earnings. And it's not much of a hassle for SS. They pretty much follow the same procedure as they do now, only instead of just suspending an entire account they suspend individual images. Then they still fire off the same email informing the contributor of the accusation, and wait to hear back from them. The one thing they'd have to change, however, is their response time. Right now it's just unacceptable.
-
--
-
I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.
I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.
I wonder if this person has anything to do with the original complaint to SS? Why would someone open a new account just to dog FD?
-
Just ban the new poster - you don't have to give any reason by all accounts - that's the way it works.
Oldhand
-
Long, interesting and alightly scary thread. There are 2 fundemental problems with what has happened:
1. Zero due process
2. Not a question of suspension - seems he's been permanently kicked off the site.
-
I think the poster was trying to imply that FD was running a competing agency, just to get him into further trouble.
I suspect that poster is someone who has recently been arguing with FD under a different name.
I wonder if this person has anything to do with the original complaint to SS? Why would someone open a new account just to dog FD?
+1
-
OMG I hadn't thought of that, the person I suspect that is was extremely rude to FD recently, but surely he's not that much of a **** (insert expletive here)
-
Do you really think a company like SS would remove someones entire profitable gallery without justification?
This is simply a fact/fantasy issue, and no one is being rude, merely stating the facts.
Anyone who steals any others copyrighted material for their personal gain is nothing more than a thief. If he did not do anything wrong then he could have easily cleared the issue in dialing 10 digits and talking with the agencies.
SS & BS are reputable business' who are not in the habit of arbitrarily removing member's images without just cause. To imply otherwise is naive.
ten
-
So not truer. I don't even know where to begin. They remove ports and investigate later. It has happened before. When and if the accused party is found innocent, they put everything back with an " oops, sorry."
-
ten, you may not be aware of the cyber war currently raging because some large companies (Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard etc) closed accounts without actually having legal justification. I notice other agencies haven't been so quick to close FD's accoumts.
-
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.
Thanks for posting Patrick. At least that explains why we haven't heard back from him. :)
-
I hope we get good news from FD soon, but meanwhile we may entertain ourselves with fun theories. Maybe be is actually Julian Assange? ;D
-
I hope we get good news from FD soon, but meanwhile we may entertain ourselves with fun theories. Maybe be is actually Julian Assange? ;D
You do make me laugh!! ;D ;D
-
@madelaide: :D
-
I hope we get good news from FD soon, but meanwhile we may entertain ourselves with fun theories. Maybe be is actually Julian Assange? ;D
LOL!!
-
...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've been the one doing the notification at one time in the past, and I'd rather have seen slow deliberate justice than the quick account termination response that was handed down. I think there's a better middle ground here. SS should suspend only the images in question, and then give the accused a week to respond to the accusation and provide proof of image ownership. Only after that point should an entire account be suspended or deleted.
The current SS policy assumes that the accuser is always right, which is scary. It puts any one of us at risk of having our accounts suspended for some period of time. Make an enemy in the forum and the next thing you know you could be shut down at SS just because that enemy fired off an accusatory email suggesting you stole some images.
I do agree with you. Offending image or whatever the complaint includes should be locked, while the investigation is on, for anyone, any complaint. Not closing a whole account, just because someone complains. I'll assume the complaint had some meat or it's even worse.
Now that someone says it's revenge, it's even scarier that FD is being personally attacked.
Lets hope that somehow SS must explain why and what caused this and the person behind the attack (if that's what it is) gets outed!
I would seriously doubt that FD would even use a part of someone else's work, let alone infringe on anything, in a photo and try to sell it. He's just way too straight forward from everything I've even seen from him and any communications. I just couldn't believe it's true.
-
Its been 10 days now since FD made the first post, still no sign of his portfolio being reinstated. I can understand if he can't give us information for legal reasons but couldn't he just let us know that's why there's not been a follow up post? Perhaps he is just too busy doing other things.
I really don't think we should speculate too much what the reasons are for shutterstock to take down his portfolio. I just think if they have justification or not, they should still just take down the relevant images and make contact with the contributor before removing all their portfolio. In a bad year for microstock, this is yet another reason to be concerned for contributors.
-
I just think if they have justification or not, they should still just take down the relevant images and make contact with the contributor before removing all their portfolio.
I'm with you helix7 and everyone else on the point of only removing or blocking the offending image(s).
What I was writing about in the past is, people complain if they act too slowly when it's their photos being stolen, and now complain if they act too fast, when it's someone we know. Can't have it both ways? But only taking out the individual complaint images is the way it should be done.
If the problem is a competing agency, that seems unusual, since FD doesn't really run an agency (that I know of?), he has a website to promote his own images and links to other agencies for sales. SS being one of them!
Waiting for the electricity to come back or FD to come back... :D
-
Its been 10 days now since FD made the first post, still no sign of his portfolio being reinstated. I can understand if he can't give us information for legal reasons but couldn't he just let us know that's why there's not been a follow up post? Perhaps he is just too busy doing other things.
I really don't think we should speculate too much what the reasons are for shutterstock to take down his portfolio. I just think if they have justification or not, they should still just take down the relevant images and make contact with the contributor before removing all their portfolio. In a bad year for microstock, this is yet another reason to be concerned for contributors.
There was a post stating that FD was in the middle of relocating ... and internet access is spotty at best, even on the good days.
-
Waiting for the electricity to come back or FD to come back... :D
It could take some time for him to get a new internet connection. He moved to a new house, and knowing how companies work over there it could take a while before he gets a new connection. When he was here a few months ago i heard some amazing stories etc....
Patrick.
-
He was talking on the DT forums a couple of days ago so my guess is that he has been advised not to talk publicly about what happpened.
-
He was talking on the DT forums a couple of days ago so my guess is that he has been advised not to talk publicly about what happpened.
Most probably logged in from an internet café.
Patrick.
-
Reading your other post with all you have going on with your own site I would guess strongly that had a lot to do with your removal. As I mentioned before, they booted me out for being perceived as a part of Fotolia. I don't think they like any form of competition or potential conflicts of interest. They did me the same way, no notice..just closed the account. Wasn't nearly as dramatic for me though as I only had a handful of images up as a test to see how they did there.
Screw em dude, it's their loss.
Mat
-
Screw em dude, it's their loss.
No, it's not their loss. They won't feel it, he unfortunetaly will.
Hope everything will be eventually OK.
-
Reading your other post with all you have going on with your own site I would guess strongly that had a lot to do with your removal. As I mentioned before, they booted me out for being perceived as a part of Fotolia. I don't think they like any form of competition or potential conflicts of interest. They did me the same way, no notice..just closed the account. Wasn't nearly as dramatic for me though as I only had a handful of images up as a test to see how they did there.
Screw em dude, it's their loss.
Mat
I don't understand why they would do that. there is no exclusivity requirement. they would be out of business if they booted everyone who has multiple accounts. ???
-
^^^ It's not about having 'multiple accounts', it's about being perceived to be a member of staff or at least on the payroll of a competing agency (such as being a reviewer for example). IS takes the same view and will close the account of any contributor who they discover working for another agency.
It's one reason why starting a 'contributor-owned agency' would be so difficult as everyone joining it risks having all other accounts closed by the various agencies.
-
^^^ It's not about having 'multiple accounts', it's about being perceived to be a member of staff or at least on the payroll of a competing agency (such as being a reviewer for example). IS takes the same view and will close the account of any contributor who they discover working for another agency.
It's one reason why starting a 'contributor-owned agency' would be so difficult as everyone joining it risks having all other accounts closed by the various agencies.
Well then I guess they have everyone right where they want them.
-
^^^ It's not about having 'multiple accounts', it's about being perceived to be a member of staff or at least on the payroll of a competing agency (such as being a reviewer for example). IS takes the same view and will close the account of any contributor who they discover working for another agency.
It's one reason why starting a 'contributor-owned agency' would be so difficult as everyone joining it risks having all other accounts closed by the various agencies.
Well then I guess they have everyone right where they want them.
Not really. Everyone would just have to take a major leap of faith in the new contributor-owned agency and be prepared to lose the other agency(ies). The prospect of making 80% of a sale over less than 20% seems like it would more than make up the losses, no?
-
FWIW, FD's site is not a competing agency at all. It just shows images and when you click on them it directs you to one of the existing agencies. It isn't competing with the agencies. It's providing free advertising for them!
-
It isn't competing with the agencies. It's providing free advertising for them!
And it isn't forbidden in any site I know!
-
Not really. Everyone would just have to take a major leap of faith in the new contributor-owned agency and be prepared to lose the other agency(ies). The prospect of making 80% of a sale over less than 20% seems like it would more than make up the losses, no?
I think it is quite possible that within another year or two we may have no choice other than to start our own agency. By then virtually the only people making any money in microstock will be the agencies themselves. Over-supply is outstripping demand by such a huge margin that at some point in the near future it will be difficult to survive for all but a very few. Microstock in another 5 years time may be very different.
-
FWIW, FD's site is not a competing agency at all. It just shows images and when you click on them it directs you to one of the existing agencies. It isn't competing with the agencies. It's providing free advertising for them!
I'd agree with that __ I was just answering jbarber's point. FD states specifically on his site that he only sells images via the linked agencies.
-
FWIW, FD's site is not a competing agency at all. It just shows images and when you click on them it directs you to one of the existing agencies. It isn't competing with the agencies. It's providing free advertising for them!
I'd agree with that __ I was just answering jbarber's point. FD states specifically on his site that he only sells images via the linked agencies.
Same here. FD's site sends buyers over to one of the microstock's. Not a competing agency at all.
I was just talking hypotheticals.
edit: typo
-
Reading the original message from BigStock, it is clear it doesn't have anything to do with posting/selling images from his web site.
Why no update, for the past couple days the OP profile has had an active status, even if he can't talk about the case, he can at least say he can't talk about the case, I think that's the least he can say to all the people that responded in his defense.:
Last Active: Today at 21:07
-
^^
Yes, I think we are letting ourselves get carried away with very few facts.
The initial message says quite clearly it's for copyright infringement.
We need to wait and see.
-
The rumors do raise a good question: is it safe to open your own site to actually sell your own images, or do you risk getting kicked out of SS and the others? Clearly this isn't the case with FD. But have there been real cases of this happening? I am exploring setting up a site to sell my own images, but the risk of getting kicked out of the agencies for doing this is giving me serious pause.
-
The rumors do raise a good question: is it safe to open your own site to actually sell your own images, or do you risk getting kicked out of SS and the others? Clearly this isn't the case with FD. But have there been real cases of this happening? I am exploring setting up a site to sell my own images, but the risk of getting kicked out of the agencies for doing this is giving me serious pause.
No, there isn't any risk of getting kicked out because you sell your images from your own site. Tons of photographers do it already. The risk comes when you start inviting others to sell from one site...that's like an agency.
-
The rumors do raise a good question: is it safe to open your own site to actually sell your own images, or do you risk getting kicked out of SS and the others? Clearly this isn't the case with FD. But have there been real cases of this happening? I am exploring setting up a site to sell my own images, but the risk of getting kicked out of the agencies for doing this is giving me serious pause.
No, there isn't any risk of getting kicked out because you sell your images from your own site. Tons of photographers do it already. The risk comes when you start inviting others to sell from one site...that's like an agency.
So if this is true, I guess it would be important to not make it look like an agency. My ideas for the site would probably give the buyer the same type of experience as an agency, with some of the same bells and whistles. It would be a professional looking site to give the buyer confidence. But if I go too far with this approach the agencies could think I'm setting up a competing site and close my accounts on their sites. Anyone else have experience with this? Heard of anyone who ran into problems doing something like this?
-
Isn't our friend Jonathan an agency owner /co-owner? ???
-
OMG! Only just saw this thread. Sorry to hear this, FD!
Why terminating his account should have anything to do with any opinions FD has voiced over here on topics that have nothing to do with what he is being accused of, is beyond me. I hope he'll be able to sort it all out.
What about independants that are inspectors, say at Fotolia? Aren't they allowed to submit to SS? And is that stated somewhere in the SS contract?
-
The rumors do raise a good question: is it safe to open your own site to actually sell your own images, or do you risk getting kicked out of SS and the others? Clearly this isn't the case with FD. But have there been real cases of this happening? I am exploring setting up a site to sell my own images, but the risk of getting kicked out of the agencies for doing this is giving me serious pause.
No, there isn't any risk of getting kicked out because you sell your images from your own site. Tons of photographers do it already. The risk comes when you start inviting others to sell from one site...that's like an agency.
So if this is true, I guess it would be important to not make it look like an agency. My ideas for the site would probably give the buyer the same type of experience as an agency, with some of the same bells and whistles. It would be a professional looking site to give the buyer confidence. But if I go too far with this approach the agencies could think I'm setting up a competing site and close my accounts on their sites. Anyone else have experience with this? Heard of anyone who ran into problems doing something like this?
Many photographers sell their own photos from their own sites. What cclapper is saying that unless you recruit a bunch of photographers, then that would be a agency type site. Just selling your own photos on there wouldn't make it a competitor site. You own the copyright.
-
C’mon, Hugo, explain what’s going on here, you post this provocative post declaring your innocence, then disappear? If it’s all a big mistake, say something, it’s obvious you’re reading.
Why wait, and have your buddies personal message me?
-
OMG! Only just saw this thread. Sorry to hear this, FD!
Why terminating his account should have anything to do with any opinions FD has voiced over here on topics that have nothing to do with what he is being accused of, is beyond me. I hope he'll be able to sort it all out.
What about independants that are inspectors, say at Fotolia? Aren't they allowed to submit to SS? And is that stated somewhere in the SS contract?
me too!
I'm so sorry FD. We are with you!
-
C’mon, Hugo, explain what’s going on here, you post this provocative post declaring your innocence, then disappear? If it’s all a big mistake, say something, it’s obvious you’re reading.
Why wait, and have your buddies personal message me?
Give the guy a break. He's moved to a new house and it takes time to get internet in Asia, so I am sure he is seldom online these days. He said in another thread he needs time to win another trial, which I think is referring to this incident. When he's good and ready he will reply here if he wants and if he doesn't want to, that's his prerogative.
-
I'm sure he's been told not to say anything about this until its been sorted out. It might of been a mistake to start this thread in the first place but I would probably do the same thing if it happened to me. I hope his portfolio gets reinstated and I also hope this doesn't happen to anyone else here.
-
C’mon, Hugo, explain what’s going on here, you post this provocative post declaring your innocence, then disappear? If it’s all a big mistake, say something, it’s obvious you’re reading.
Well said. This thread is now two weeks old and if you start something like this then you need to provide an update. SS/BS haven't publically accused anyone of anything but FD has chosen to accuse them of unfairness and also publish their private correspondence to him. After this amount of time I don't buy the 'moving house' excuse any more especially when he's been popping up here and elsewhere to discuss other issues. He's not Julian Assange.
This is a black & white issue. He's either totally guilty or completely innocent, there's nothing in between. Until now I've always given FD the benefit of the doubt and hoped it really was a mistake however with the deafening silence I am starting to lose confidence in him.
-
Well... he does state in his initial post that he will 'refrain from further comment' until he receives a reply from the letter's author.
I'm assuming that he's just wary of saying too much until the story unfolds, and that he still hasn't received that reply.
-
Well... he does state in his initial post that he will 'refrain from further comment' until he receives a reply from the letter's author.
I'm assuming that he's just wary of saying too much until the story unfolds, and that he still hasn't received that reply.
If it has indeed turned legal, he has likely been advised about posting in this thread. I don't take his lack of absence here in this thread as anything but a smart move. That he is posting in other threads on the forum means he has not been advised about appearing in forums at all, just about talking about the matter at hand. I think we can take that as a clue. I am, anyway.
-
Yes, that may well be the case. I have been picturing him reading this thread and wanting to say something... but biting his lip 'til it bleeds instead.
-
Just re-read what he has been accused of;
"We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC."
He's had at least two weeks (we don't actually know when this all started) to convince SS of his innocence without any apparent success so far despite assuring us that "I can easily prove the images are mine of course.".
Those are the only facts we know. Everything else is just speculation.
-
MSG is speculation city... perhaps Leaf could rename it 'Microstock Speculation Group' :D
But just to speculate a little further... it may be that he's made a representation and they're taking a long time to look into it and get back to him. I'm sure he'll tell us all about it one day...
-
Just re-read what he has been accused of;
"We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC."
He's had at least two weeks (we don't actually know when this all started) to convince SS of his innocence without any apparent success so far despite assuring us that "I can easily prove the images are mine of course.".
Those are the only facts we know. Everything else is just speculation.
Well, the other part has had two weeks to to post and clarify, all msites owners read here?
-
Just re-read what he has been accused of;
"We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC."
He's had at least two weeks (we don't actually know when this all started) to convince SS of his innocence without any apparent success so far despite assuring us that "I can easily prove the images are mine of course.".
Those are the only facts we know. Everything else is just speculation.
Well, the other part has had two weeks to to post and clarify, all msites owners read here?
If I understand the question, Yes, BigStock makes an occasional visit here; I've never seen anything from Shutterstock.
I agree that they also have had two weeks to offer a resolution but doubt anything would be posted here.
-
C’mon, Hugo, explain what’s going on here, you post this provocative post declaring your innocence, then disappear? If it’s all a big mistake, say something, it’s obvious you’re reading.
Well said. This thread is now two weeks old and if you start something like this then you need to provide an update. SS/BS haven't publically accused anyone of anything but FD has chosen to accuse them of unfairness and also publish their private correspondence to him. After this amount of time I don't buy the 'moving house' excuse any more especially when he's been popping up here and elsewhere to discuss other issues. He's not Julian Assange.
This is a black & white issue. He's either totally guilty or completely innocent, there's nothing in between. Until now I've always given FD the benefit of the doubt and hoped it really was a mistake however with the deafening silence I am starting to lose confidence in him.
since when does he owe you or the rest of the bench birds any 'clarification' in a semi seriuos matter like this? interesting how some ppl seem to take the side of the ms sites after those have been raping them so hard for years a freight train could pass thru their aholes : > stockholm syndrome?
-
Well, the other part has had two weeks to to post and clarify, all msites owners read here?
If you know all the msite owners well enough to know that they read here. Your Acceptance Ratio must be fantastic.
-
Well, the other part has had two weeks to to post and clarify, all msites owners read here?
If you know all the msite owners well enough to know that they read here. Your Acceptance Ratio must be fantastic.
You must be kidding. Or did you mean "fantastic" as in ridiculously low? ??? :P
-
Well, the other part has had two weeks to to post and clarify, all msites owners read here?
If you know all the msite owners well enough to know that they read here. Your Acceptance Ratio must be fantastic.
It seems you weren't able to see the question mark.
-
Well, the other part has had two weeks to to post and clarify, all msites owners read here?
If you know all the msite owners well enough to know that they read here. Your Acceptance Ratio must be fantastic.
It seems you weren't able to see the question mark.
More likely he had difficulty parsing your fractured English. I know I did.
-
Well, the other part has had two weeks to to post and clarify, all msites owners read here?
If you know all the msite owners well enough to know that they read here. Your Acceptance Ratio must be fantastic.
It seems you weren't able to see the question mark.
More likely he had difficulty parsing your fractured English. I know I did.
A question mark is a question mark, here and in Sebastopol.
(And sorry if I speak a somewhat broken english... but I speak other five languages as well (being english my worst). So, let's go on with the discussion with the language of your election... I'm sure it won't be difficult to you.
-
Well, the other part has had two weeks to to post and clarify, all msites owners read here?
If you know all the msite owners well enough to know that they read here. Your Acceptance Ratio must be fantastic.
And two sentences connected with a comma? Are they both questions? Is either one?
Since both your first and second clauses read as statements rather than questions, it was easy to miss the punctuation or at least its intent. Which I did, and I suspect others did as well. So your intent was unclear and subject to misinterpretation.
It seems you weren't able to see the question mark.
More likely he had difficulty parsing your fractured English. I know I did.
A question mark is a question mark, here and in Sebastopol.
(And sorry if I speak a somewhat broken english... but I speak other five languages as well (being english my worst). So, let's go on with the discussion with the language of your election... I'm sure it won't be difficult to you.
-
It's funny, first I get site mailed, now I am getting belligerent emails from a '[email protected]' concerning this thread, so something I probably would have let go, now has turned into something I'm not going to let go, so sorry to disappoint you ajoule. Your anonymous insults are pathetic, and if you ever have the courage to say them to my face, or reveal who your true identity is, just let me know. Until then, grow up.
Still waiting Hugo, hope your not waiting for this thread to die, your pals just assured it won't.
-
It's funny, first I get site mailed, now I am getting belligerent emails from a '[email protected]' concerning this thread, so something I probably would have let go, now has turned into something I'm not going to let go, so sorry to disappoint you ajoule. Your anonymous insults are pathetic, and if you ever have the courage to say them to my face, or reveal who your true identity is, just let me know. Until then, grow up.
Still waiting Hugo, hope your not waiting for this thread to die, your pals just assured it won't.
Nice. How about we grow up? Obviously I'm not talking about you nruboc.
-
Nice. How about we grow up? Obviously I'm not talking about you nruboc.
What or who are you talking about? Who needs to 'grow up' and why?
Steve, quite appropriately IMHO, has asked for a progress report from the OP after two weeks of silence. Those of us who earn our livings from microstock naturally want to know if SS/BS has acted badly, as the OP has accused them of, or is in fact acting to protect the copyright and interests of legitimate contributors. Right now the ball is very much in the OP's court to justify his accusations __ and obviously I'm not alone in starting to seriously doubt his ability to do so.
-
Nice. How about we grow up? Obviously I'm not talking about you nruboc.
What or who are you talking about? Who needs to 'grow up' and why?
Steve, quite appropriately IMHO, has asked for a progress report from the OP after two weeks of silence. Those of us who earn our livings from microstock naturally want to know if SS/BS has acted badly, as the OP has accused them of, or is in fact acting to protect the copyright and interests of legitimate contributors. Right now the ball is very much in the OP's court to justify his accusations __ and obviously I'm not alone in starting to seriously doubt his ability to do so.
Agree 100%.......
-
If we want to speculate, why not speculate about what copyright infringements they would talk about? His portfolio is at DT if anyone wants to see.
Now, would make sense to someone who is culprit of copyright infringement to come here and start a thread about this as FD did? Unless this infringement is something that he wasn't aware of - hard to imagine from someone with the knowledge he has ever shown here - and therefore probably something any of us would be unaware of.
I still believe he is not culprit and it's not his current silence that will make me believe otherwise. Having no reason to believe SS/BigStock are right, those believing his silence is a sign of guilt are just speculation indeed.
I'm sorry about the harassment, nruboc, it's completely uncalled for, even if I disagree with your position.
-
I was referring to the emails that nruboc eluded to. No matter what anyones opinions are, agree, disagree, no one should be harassed by email stemming from discussion at this site. It's childish.
-
Back OT, i can wait patiently for FD to explain. There is probably a very good reason for his silence regarding this issue. 2 weeks is really not that long regarding this type of serious issue.
-
Back OT, i can wait patiently for FD to explain. There is probably a very good reason for his silence regarding this issue. 2 weeks is really not that long regarding this type of serious issue.
Two weeks is ages. I could provide ample providence of any my images within a few minutes, unless I happened to be on my travels, in which case I would then state an expectation of the date by which I could do so.
Why start a thread complaining about an agency's 'unfair' action unless you are prepared to back up your words __ even if it is only to say that you are prevented from talking details?
-
If we want to speculate, why not speculate about what copyright infringements they would talk about? His portfolio is at DT if anyone wants to see.
Ok, I'll bite since this is my favorite topic now. I'll venture a guess, because until OP reports back there is no way to know. Looking at his portfolio, and ruling things out, maybe he had an agreement with a friend to share shots, and there was a falling out. He is moving, where such a situation might arise. Maybe the friend is now arguing over copyright, and agreement wasn't in writing or is otherwise invalid.
If the friend submitted the RAWs of his files and there is a significant quantity, there might be enough justification to take his whole portfolio down while the matter gets sorted out. Granted if it's only a few shots, then agency is in the wrong in my opinion because they could just deactivate those files. The point being, we don't know the facts, and to jump down the agencies throat without knowing the facts is premature. As gostwky elegantly stated, the OP chose to bring this into a public forum (NOT the agency), and proclaim his innocence, giving good cause for other contributors to question the agencies action, now it is the OP responsibility to give an update to either alleviate or validate these concerns, not just let everyone hang on his one and only post, even if it's just to say "The case is ongoing" or something like that.
I'm sorry about the harassment, nruboc, it's completely uncalled for, even if I disagree with your position.
Thanks, and it's totally OK if you disagree with me. My opinion on Hugo remains unchanged however. His anti-corporation rant against a company I used to work for, one which I know does a significant amount of community outreach, implying their sociopaths for not giving more back to the people who steal their software, formed my opinion about the guy, and however the case turns out, I’ll still feel the same way. For me it smacks of hypocrisy to state those feelings and then have a large "copyright education" section on his own web site:
http://tinyurl.com/2658hcl (http://tinyurl.com/2658hcl)
I guess when it comes to his own work is where he draws the line on copyright infringement since apparently he has no problem if it’s perpetrated against corporations. That’s my opinion, and I can respect people who feel otherwise, but if you’re going to tell me I can’t express my opinion, your wasting your time (not referring to you madelaide)
-
If we want to speculate, why not speculate about what copyright infringements they would talk about? His portfolio is at DT if anyone wants to see.
Now, would make sense to someone who is culprit of copyright infringement to come here and start a thread about this as FD did? Unless this infringement is something that he wasn't aware of - hard to imagine from someone with the knowledge he has ever shown here - and therefore probably something any of us would be unaware of.
I still believe he is not culprit and it's not his current silence that will make me believe otherwise. Having no reason to believe SS/BigStock are right, those believing his silence is a sign of guilt are just speculation indeed.
I'm sorry about the harassment, nruboc, it's completely uncalled for, even if I disagree with your position.
+1
-
I'm sorry about the harassment, nruboc, it's completely uncalled for, even if I disagree with your position.
+1
+2
It's totally uncalled for, they should have the guts to say it here if they disagree rather than insulting anyone by PM or email, grow up!
My opinions are very much in line with nruboc with regards to copyright infringement and disagreeing strongly with what FD said in the other thread. But I got the distinct impression that FD was playing devil's advocate there, giving a perspective that's prevalent in the part of the world where he lives, rather than putting forward the opinions as his own.
-
snip
My opinions are very much in line with nruboc with regards to copyright infringement and disagreeing strongly with what FD said in the other thread. But I got the distinct impression that FD was playing devil's advocate there, giving a perspective that's prevalent in the part of the world where he lives, rather than putting forward the opinions as his own.
What other thread? I'm lost. Can you link to that so I know what you guys are referring to? Thanks.
I remember one lengthy discussion on stealing software in other parts of the world, but that was dreamframer, not FD. so you must be referring to something different.
-
Yes it was a lot more recent then that. FD said that Adobe was repricing software for some markets where piracy was the norm.
I'll dig out the link and update this post.
ETA, here you go:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/the-logics-behind-the-pirates/msg170413/#msg170413 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/the-logics-behind-the-pirates/msg170413/#msg170413)
Double ETA: I reread the thread and realised it was jbarber873 that made the comments in response to FD that I agree with, not nruboc!!! I guess they are broadly in line?
-
Yes it was a lot more recent then that. FD said that Adobe was repricing software for some markets where piracy was the norm.
I'll dig out the link and update this post.
ETA, here you go:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/the-logics-behind-the-pirates/msg170413/#msg170413[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/the-logics-behind-the-pirates/msg170413/#msg170413[/url])
Double ETA: I reread the thread and realised it was jbarber873 that made the comments in response to FD that I agree with, not nruboc!!! I guess they are broadly in line?
Microbius, I think we are on the same page about piracy and corruption. I got the feeling in that discussion that FD was trying for a more nuanced position than the mostly black and white argument i was making. And it's possible that he was partially correct, at least for his life experiences and point of view. That's the hard part in all of this, the fact that we all come from different worlds, but we are all becoming part of one world. As for this thread, until I see evidence to the contrary, my base assumption is that the stock agency over reacted and threw a contributor to the wolves. My life experience tells me that this is the more likely truth here, which is sadly in line with a great deal of what FD was writing about in the past. As for harassment of nruboc, these tiny minds are not worth considering. I look forward to the continued posts by nruboc, however this all plays out.
-
Amazing how a little tease can make such a commotion.
-
Well said, JBarber... and I agree also on the harassment issue. That's out of order.
-
His anti-corporation rant against a company I used to work for, one which I know does a significant amount of community outreach, implying their sociopaths for not giving more back to the people who steal their software, formed my opinion about the guy, and however the case turns out, I’ll still feel the same way.
I didn't understand what he said this way, to me he was just explaining how things worked in reality. Explaining, not justifying it. It's worse than in Brazil, but in many cases not much different (a lot of foreign mail disappears along the way).
MS doesn't sell upgrades for Windows XP to Windows 7 here because "Brazilians don't like to upgrade software, they prefer to get a new system with the new OS". In fact I'm sure they just don't want to make the upgrade available because it will be highly pirated.
A colleague wanted to buy the student version of a technical software and it is simply not available from their local distributor, but it also can not be purchased from their website.
BBC website blocks many of their video content to Brazilian viewers.
These are examples of defenses companies do because of infractors, but then the ones who want to do the right thing are the only ones punished: infractors will get a copy of the latest OS (many use the English version already, so they may just only upgrade with a pirate copy from the USA), will use a "free" copy of the technical software and will download BBC videos from rapidshare & such.
Hmm, I think I've diverted too much from the original thread.
-
Not sure why this thread veered so totally OT?
I am interested, like others, in hearing what the progress is on this situation. I have always been treated extremely fairly by SS, so I won't assume they acted badly. But at the same time, Hugo has a long enough history in micro that I don't believe he stole anybody's work, either. Big misunderstanding still seems like the most plausible explanation to me.
I am very curious to know what actually happened, but I can understand if Hugo can't comment. If I were in his situation, with so much money on the line, I would not want to do anything to further jeopardize my situation with SS, even if that meant leaving the rest of us in the dark for awhile.
-
...BBC website blocks many of their video content to Brazilian viewers.
Don't they do that in all countries outside the UK? We have to pay a licenses fee, £142.50, paid by anyone that owns a screen, even if they never watch the BBC. I think most people in the UK don't mind paying the fee, there's no adverts and the BBC make a lot of good programmes.
-
BBC website blocks many of their video content to Brazilian viewers.
As far as I know, a lot of their video is locked outside the UK, as it's intended for licence payers, though I don't think they can check on whether you have a licence in the UK before you can access it. But abroad, it (virtually?) no-one will have paid for the licence.
Probably (?) they make any BBC worldwide materials available abroad.
-
Yes... It seems a lot of people don't realise that Brits pay for the BBC via annual licence fee - which is why programmes aren't interrupted by adverts.
Looks as though they are planning a subscription service for international viewers though:
http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-bbc-plans-subscription-only-u.s.-iplayer-on-ipad/ (http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-bbc-plans-subscription-only-u.s.-iplayer-on-ipad/)
-
We only got the first two seasons of Being Human.... would be sooo worth a subscription!!!
-
Amazing how a little tease can make such a commotion.
True, let's chill down, it's becoming ridiculous
-
Amazing how a little tease can make such a commotion.
True, let's chill down, it's becoming ridiculous
+1
Or maybe start a new thread to talk about the OT stuff.
-
BBC website blocks many of their video content to Brazilian viewers.
As far as I know, a lot of their video is locked outside the UK, as it's intended for licence payers, though I don't think they can check on whether you have a licence in the UK before you can access it. But abroad, it (virtually?) no-one will have paid for the licence.
Probably (?) they make any BBC worldwide materials available abroad.
The BBC TV programmes are subject to various rights issues which is why they are restricted to a UK audience and available on-line for one week only. The unions would want more money for the performers if it were to be extended for example. A lot of the Beeb's content is made by external production companies too so again where the programme is shown, how often, etc are all price issues.
The Beeb pays about $300M (of license-payers' money) annually in support of it's website but that is available for free all over the world.
-
Funny world - one annoucement leads to 8 pages of speculation without a second post.
The accused would do well to make an appearance if only to say, "thank's for the support - keep you posted".
I'm intrigued - but not not enough to speculate further at this point
-
Most agencies are reading here and the links to his portfolios are under his posts. He is not trying to be anonymous. If you are intelligent (and I don't know FD, but he is for sure) should you cry out on a forum to all other agencies where he has a portfolio too: "Look: SS and BS found out that I'm cheating..."?
Sounds not very logical. No one is going to undermine his own bussiness.
I am sure there must be a misunderstanding.
But let's stop this!
It seems to me that this discussion 'behind his back' is not fair to someone who write on this forum for years.
Like someone earlier wrote: Innocent until proven guilty.
-
It seems to me that this discussion 'behind his back' is not fair to someone who write on this forum for years.
How is this discussion 'behind his back' - he started the discussion!
-
Most agencies are reading here and the links to his portfolios are under his posts. He is not trying to be anonymous. If you are intelligent (and I don't know FD, but he is for sure) should you cry out on a forum to all other agencies where he has a portfolio too: "Look: SS and BS found out that I'm cheating..."?
Sounds not very logical. No one is going to undermine his own bussiness.
I am sure there must be a misunderstanding.
But let's stop this!
It seems to me that this discussion 'behind his back' is not fair to someone who write on this forum for years.
Like someone earlier wrote: Innocent until proven guilty.
I agree. FD is not new here, until nothing is proved he has my trust.
-
It seems to me that this discussion 'behind his back' is not fair to someone who write on this forum for years.
How is this discussion 'behind his back' - he started the discussion!
Yeah, amazing isn't it, not to mention his account here has been active for the last week or so.... wow speechless
Last Active: Today at 12:26 ->>>> the next thing they will say is maybe he is loggin in but not reading this thread.
-
Most agencies are reading here and the links to his portfolios are under his posts. He is not trying to be anonymous. If you are intelligent (and I don't know FD, but he is for sure) should you cry out on a forum to all other agencies where he has a portfolio too: "Look: SS and BS found out that I'm cheating..."?
Sounds not very logical. No one is going to undermine his own bussiness.
I am sure there must be a misunderstanding.
But let's stop this!
It seems to me that this discussion 'behind his back' is not fair to someone who write on this forum for years.
Like someone earlier wrote: Innocent until proven guilty.
I agree. FD is not new here, until nothing is proved he has my trust.
And who are you exactly?.... lol
-
^ Sorry, actually I don't mind if people are anonymous, as long as they are not attacking people. At the time I wrote that I just happened to notice an anonymous person replyng to an anonymous person saying how they agree. I started to think that what if all these Anonymous accounts are the same person, sorry it was funny while I was thinking it, but didn't come out that way. My bad.
-
If we want to speculate, why not speculate about what copyright infringements they would talk about? His portfolio is at DT if anyone wants to see.
Ok, I'll bite since this is my favorite topic now. I'll venture a guess, because until OP reports back there is no way to know. Looking at his portfolio, and ruling things out, maybe he had an agreement with a friend to share shots, and there was a falling out. He is moving, where such a situation might arise. Maybe the friend is now arguing over copyright, and agreement wasn't in writing or is otherwise invalid.
If the friend submitted the RAWs of his files and there is a significant quantity, there might be enough justification to take his whole portfolio down while the matter gets sorted out. Granted if it's only a few shots, then agency is in the wrong in my opinion because they could just deactivate those files. The point being, we don't know the facts, and to jump down the agencies throat without knowing the facts is premature. As gostwky elegantly stated, the OP chose to bring this into a public forum (NOT the agency), and proclaim his innocence, giving good cause for other contributors to question the agencies action, now it is the OP responsibility to give an update to either alleviate or validate these concerns, not just let everyone hang on his one and only post, even if it's just to say "The case is ongoing" or something like that.
I'm sorry about the harassment, nruboc, it's completely uncalled for, even if I disagree with your position.
Thanks, and it's totally OK if you disagree with me. My opinion on Hugo remains unchanged however. His anti-corporation rant against a company I used to work for, one which I know does a significant amount of community outreach, implying their sociopaths for not giving more back to the people who steal their software, formed my opinion about the guy, and however the case turns out, I’ll still feel the same way. For me it smacks of hypocrisy to state those feelings and then have a large "copyright education" section on his own web site:
[url]http://tinyurl.com/2658hcl[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/2658hcl[/url])
I guess when it comes to his own work is where he draws the line on copyright infringement since apparently he has no problem if it’s perpetrated against corporations. That’s my opinion, and I can respect people who feel otherwise, but if you’re going to tell me I can’t express my opinion, your wasting your time (not referring to you madelaide)
No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?
-
No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?
It strikes me as plausible. The charge was copyright violation, wasn't it? That suggests use of material to which someone else claims ownership. And it was likely willful violation to justify canceling his account. I have a hard time believing SS and BigStock would take such extreme action for anything less.
-
No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?
It strikes me as plausible. The charge was copyright violation, wasn't it? That suggests use of material to which someone else claims ownership. And it was likely willful violation to justify canceling his account. I have a hard time believing SS and BigStock would take such extreme action for anything less.
Yes, they said "serious copyright infringement issues". But do you think it justifies removing the whole portfolio if it's a business disagreement? Maybe he uploaded in good faith thinking he acquired the copyright. That's why I thik it would come down to the amount of content in question, a few shots would be easy to disable, if it's a significant amount I can see why they would take everything down and sort it out after the fact.
-
No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?
It strikes me as plausible. The charge was copyright violation, wasn't it? That suggests use of material to which someone else claims ownership. And it was likely willful violation to justify canceling his account. I have a hard time believing SS and BigStock would take such extreme action for anything less.
The OP says this - I have all the raws and more factual info that all images I uploaded are mine. I also don't understand why they would just block a contributor of more than 5 years without asking an explanation first. I can easily prove the images are mine of course.
Their version says this: We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC.
As Bigstock is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shutterstock Images, LLC, your Bigstock portfolio has now been terminated. You may not open up a new account.
Does anyone see a right to appeal or specifics of what the charges are? There's something bothers me about the right to know what you are being charged with, specifics and the right to a defense, before the summary dismissal and decision. This isn't about who it is at all, but the point is, if it was anyone here, I'd say the same things.
I'd guess it's a matter of someone complaining about something on SS and BS hung him. Now all we need is a fair trial and conviction to go with the termination. ;)
-
No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?
It strikes me as plausible. The charge was copyright violation, wasn't it? That suggests use of material to which someone else claims ownership. And it was likely willful violation to justify canceling his account. I have a hard time believing SS and BigStock would take such extreme action for anything less.
I'm not sure where your faith in SS comes from. Look back at some of the threads on this forum if you want to see how much the worry about shutting down contributors' accounts and deleting images.
It seems that most of the people who think SS treats them well have never had to deal with their contributor support (not that I think they actually have a separate contributor support team).
Wait till you run into any sort of problem and have to contact them then see how they treat you.
-
He could have the RAWs, have taken the pictures in question and still not be the copyright holder. They might have been a work for hire or someone thought they were anyway or, as has been suggested, the copyright could be/was owned by a previous partnership/ corporation of which he was part.
It's very possible that the situation is more of a legal "misunderstanding" than misrepresnetation and lawyers have been called in to sort through the paperwork.
I wouldn't expect FD to be back anytime soon with answers. Even when everything is sorted out, he might be restrained from commenting.
-
I'm not sure where your faith in SS comes from. Look back at some of the threads on this forum if you want to see how much the worry about shutting down contributors' accounts and deleting images.
It seems that most of the people who think SS treats them well have never had to deal with their contributor support (not that I think they actually have a separate contributor support team).
Wait till you run into any sort of problem and have to contact them then see how they treat you.
Since I don't know the particulars of this case, I can't comment on how SS acted.
But to answer your question, I have been at SS six years now, and in that time I have had a number of interactions with their customer service dept. and been treated fairly each time.
I'm not sure which threads you are referring to (other than this one) where people are having trouble with Shutterstock. A few links to those discussions might help. From my reading of these forums, Shutterstock seems the least complained about of the Big Four.
I'm sorry if you had a bad experience with SS, but don't make the assumption that all of us who are satisfied with them have never had any problems there or any dealings with support.
-
http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/yet-another-infringement!/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/yet-another-infringement!/)
Here's the most recent one. There's a few people on that thread that complain about treatment by SS
Whenever I have had dealings with them the impression I got was that they were more interested in washing their hands of the situation and throwing all involved to the dogs then actually bothering to look into anything.
In my opinion the only reason they get complained about less is that they keep their head down and don't do much in terms of changing their policies/ the site etc.
All well and good when everything's running smoothly but when something goes wrong they don't seem to have the will/ capacity to deal with it.
I don't want to go into detail about my situation as I might jeopardize my anonymity here (I've just gone into more detail in a PM to someone who PMd me about this thread).
-
Sorry Microbius, didn't know you were dealing with a first hand situation. Hope it gets resolved for you.
I have never (knock wood!!) had a copyright issue at SS so perhaps that is where the problems come in...
-
Once I had editorial images removed for copyright. Thankfully my account wasn't closed!
-
This lengthy thread might best serve as a lesson and reminder to “all”, that we enjoy a strong protection for our intellectual property rights, Trademarks, and Patents. And that reputable Stock Agencies are sternly enforcing investigated infringements as required by law.
It is now widely recognized that as we rebuild our international economy it is imperative that we identify and crack down on any/all copyright and IP violators. Only then can we respark the true creative and artistic flow in our once praiseworthy industry.
-
What amazes me, ten, is that you have only commented on this forum three times, all in this particular thread...
-
This lengthy thread might best serve as a lesson and reminder to “all”, that we enjoy a strong protection for our intellectual property rights, Trademarks, and Patents. And that reputable Stock Agencies are sternly enforcing investigated infringements as required by law.
It is now widely recognized that as we rebuild our international economy it is imperative that we identify and crack down on any/all copyright and IP violators. Only then can we respark the true creative and artistic flow in our once praiseworthy industry.
I don't need a lecture from you about copyright protection. This industry has not become less "praiseworthy" because contributors are rampantly violating copyright laws, and to imply that that is the problem with this industry is wrong. The problem with this industry has a whole lot more to do with the gatekeepers, the agencies, and their monolithic arrogance than it does with any contributor. I can tell you with 40 years experience in this industry that the microstock contributors work with and care about intellectual property a whole lot more than most traditional stock shooters, and benefit from their efforts a whole lot less than those shooters. To your point about our strong protection, there are also plenty of laws on the books about contract law, about the requirements of a contract on BOTH parties and how large companies cannot use their size and power to run over an individual. Someday, the wrong person is going to be pushed around, and take it to court, and we'll see about this "respark".
-
Don't feed a single troll and of course not ten of them too! ;D
-
Still nothing from FD?
Com'on Hugo ... whazzup?
-
Still no news from the OP?
Out of topic : funny, after bashing "anonymity" of other members FD became anonymous...
-
How about an update on this thread since OP appears to be back?????????????????????????
-
even just a "i can't reply to this thread" post?
-
after the ban thread at istock I started thinking about this one at SS -- FD--did you ever find out the reason for this? or are you not at liberty to discuss it?
-
I was wondering too, but he seems to be completely MIA for 2 months.
-
Yes, I have emailed him privately a couple of times. One time he said he would get back to me and he did not. Dropped off the face of the earth, I guess.
-
He posts occasionally at Dreamstime. As recent as a couple of days ago.