MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I'm not surprised this contributor couldn't get a model release! Seriously?!  (Read 6348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2019, 12:42 »
+4
I think its a caching issue. When I click on the link to the images I can still see them but, if I then click on the contributors name, I get the, "that was unexpected" message and no port.


« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2019, 02:25 »
+3
Quote
"that was unexpected"

Rather "uninspected" would fit better!?

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2019, 10:03 »
+2
Childish attitude by SS...


« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2019, 11:14 »
+17
Childish attitude by SS...

Looks like youre better off being a thief on SS rather than a helpful member of the community there

SS is really messed up on so many levels

dpimborough

« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2019, 03:37 »
+2
Childish attitude by SS...

So true ~ they can't handle the truth its a kindergarten attitude not at all worthy of a so-called professional company

« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2019, 14:52 »
+3
Heres another profile:-  https://www.shutterstock.com/g/patrick+littles

Its most likely the same group.  Travel a lot, all editorial, illiterate captions that have no relevance to the images.
So far images on there are stolen from Getty, Universal studios, a few glamour collections and even some from personal blogs and trip reports.

SS yet again pathetic in its lack of reviewing and verification.

Given how much Getty love to lawyer up you have to wonder how long it'll be for them to have large scale selling of their images by a competitor before they choose to act.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2019, 15:34 »
+2
Heres another profile:-  https://www.shutterstock.com/g/patrick+littles

Its most likely the same group.  Travel a lot, all editorial, illiterate captions that have no relevance to the images.
So far images on there are stolen from Getty, Universal studios, a few glamour collections and even some from personal blogs and trip reports.

SS yet again pathetic in its lack of reviewing and verification.

Given how much Getty love to lawyer up you have to wonder how long it'll be for them to have large scale selling of their images by a competitor before they choose to act.

True wackamole style. New one pops up as soon as another gets wacked!

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2019, 15:47 »
+3
Heres another profile:-  https://www.shutterstock.com/g/patrick+littles

Its most likely the same group.  Travel a lot, all editorial, illiterate captions that have no relevance to the images.
So far images on there are stolen from Getty, Universal studios, a few glamour collections and even some from personal blogs and trip reports.

SS yet again pathetic in its lack of reviewing and verification.

Given how much Getty love to lawyer up you have to wonder how long it'll be for them to have large scale selling of their images by a competitor before they choose to act.

I've emailled the author of the Mardi Gras images, or at least one that I checked. He's a Reuters 'tog.
And a Getty tog who took one of the others.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 16:01 by ShadySue »

« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2019, 15:50 »
+5
True wackamole style. New one pops up as soon as another gets wacked!

...and promptly passes quality control review and images go live.  THAT to me is the most frustrating part.  Its not the thieves themselves, its the system that SS has created that allows them to get these large scale stolen images on sale in the first place.

« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2019, 16:21 »
+3

« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2019, 10:21 »
+1
The portfolio is still there, so I replied to the "we're working on it" email with two examples of Getty images work the thief has claimed were his - along with a suggestion they need to look more closely at initial uploads of new contributors to stop this crazy behavior.


A Boston Dynamics robot that is by LAURA CHIESA/PACIFIC PRESS/GETTY IMAGES and first appeared in October 2018, and was not shot in June 2019 as claimed by the thief

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-yorknew-york06082019-photo-capable-robot-1467273704

https://www.wired.com/story/boston-dynamics-is-prepping-its-robot-dog-to-get-a-job/

And this is from Getty Images from 2017, shot in Tokyo, not shot in New York in 2019 as the thief claims

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-yorknew-york06082019-photo-capable-robot-1467273707

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/softbank-group-corp-chief-executive-officer-masayoshi-son-news-photo/819235032?


Edited to add that the port is still up on Tuesday afternoon, so I wrote to the blogger, Lauren, with the Christmas image suggesting she contact Shutterstock compliance directly. That seemed to work well with the other blogger I contacted...
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 16:52 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2019, 10:59 »
+4
Would be fun to get Getty involved as theyre losing sales to shutterstock because of that. It might speed up the process if lawsuits are involved.

« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2019, 18:47 »
+4
Wednesday afternoon I'm getting a 404 error on these pages, so it appears SS has taken the thief's work down. Finally.

If I were a betting person, I'd take odds on how long before a contributor spots another of these portfolios - but at least there are two down...

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2019, 06:41 »
+1
Wednesday afternoon I'm getting a 404 error on these pages, so it appears SS has taken the thief's work down. Finally.

If I were a betting person, I'd take odds on how long before a contributor spots another of these portfolios - but at least there are two down...

To be fair, they do wack these accounts eventually, but what troubles me is that there's no system in place them being accepted in the first place. I know it's RF and non-exclusive which makes it more difficult but the current system isn't working. 

« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2019, 09:09 »
+5
...what troubles me is that there's no system in place them being accepted in the first place. I know it's RF and non-exclusive which makes it more difficult but the current system isn't working.

I don't think it's difficult at all. It just requires more careful (and largely automatic) monitoring of the uploads of new accounts. Probably just monitoring the first 100 uploads would do it - at least it would weed out the vast majority of the professional thieves. I included that suggestion in my emails to compliance

You would have to have been purposefully asleep at the wheel to allow what's been going on to occur.

« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2019, 10:23 »
0
Reading comments i cannot justify the "kindergarten" attitude.
Everything is monitored and issues immediately dissolved in kindergartens i think.

It is more like big shopping mall parking where security people walk around
but also signs "not responsible for damages, secure your goods' do exist.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2019, 13:58 »
+3
Thread on thieves taken down and comment wasn't even accepted. Predictable.


« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2019, 13:37 »
+4
The portfolio is still there, so I replied to the "we're working on it" email with two examples of Getty images work the thief has claimed were his - along with a suggestion they need to look more closely at initial uploads of new contributors to stop this crazy behavior.
...

As noted above, the portfolio did come down, but today, a week and a half later, I received snotty email from Shutterstock compliance saying that they (1) had taken down the images; (2) rely on the integrity of their contributors not to infringe others' copyright; (3) were a "service provider" (their quotes) and would respond to proper DMCA take down notices;

(4) "Though your correspondence did not adhere to the strict statutory requirements of the DMCA, we elected to treat it as a proper notice and expeditiously removed the image(s) in question."

Very big of them to do me a favor that way...

This is a pathetic, butt-covering piece of corporate word barf apparently disavowing any and all responsibility for vetting their uploads and leaving it to copyright holders to submit streams of DMCA notices when thieves have uploaded their content to Shutterstock.

Tossers!

« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2019, 15:07 »
+2
The portfolio is still there, so I replied to the "we're working on it" email with two examples of Getty images work the thief has claimed were his - along with a suggestion they need to look more closely at initial uploads of new contributors to stop this crazy behavior.
...
As noted above, the portfolio did come down, but today, a week and a half later, I received snotty email from Shutterstock compliance saying that they (1) had taken down the images; (2) rely on the integrity of their contributors not to infringe others' copyright; (3) were a "service provider" (their quotes) and would respond to proper DMCA take down notices;

(4) "Though your correspondence did not adhere to the strict statutory requirements of the DMCA, we elected to treat it as a proper notice and expeditiously removed the image(s) in question."

Very big of them to do me a favor that way...

This is a pathetic, butt-covering piece of corporate word barf apparently disavowing any and all responsibility for vetting their uploads and leaving it to copyright holders to submit streams of DMCA notices when thieves have uploaded their content to Shutterstock.

Tossers!


Pffft.....can it get any worse at Shitterstock?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
6275 Views
Last post June 23, 2006, 04:27
by leaf
16 Replies
8381 Views
Last post March 03, 2008, 18:02
by HermanM
17 Replies
8217 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
4 Replies
3904 Views
Last post June 28, 2016, 12:39
by PhotoLA
11 Replies
1487 Views
Last post April 08, 2019, 13:53
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results