MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: pixsol on October 21, 2015, 09:41
-
Just about 30 minutes ago, I am beginning to see an icon in the shape of an eye named 'Preview' appear on the bottom right of each image in SS on the detail page. On click, it brings a real large preview. Anyone else see it ?
-
I just looked after I read your post, and I can see it too. Very nice.
-
Well, it is better for buyers to check pictures on details... but it is also easy to copy the large preview and eventaully remove the watermark (specially with some illustrations)
-
I just looked after I read your post, and I can see it too. Very nice.
Yes Jo Ann; I think it is a nice feature. But, the larger preview looks a little less sharp than the similar sized version of same image from my laptop. Do you also see it that way ?
-
It was about time.
D-amn, this preview is huge.
I don't like this. Preview is f*cking huge and you can remove watermark in PS like in 5 minutes. And there is no protection if you click with a righ mouse button and try to save image.
-
I just looked after I read your post, and I can see it too. Very nice.
Yes Jo Ann; I think it is a nice feature. But, the larger preview looks a little less sharp than the similar sized version of same image from my laptop. Do you also see it that way ?
I looked at several of the images and my browser (Chrome, Mac) appears to scale the image to the full width of my window, which means for a preview of a vertical image, I'm seeing it at way more than 100%, which does look a bit squishy and has artifacts. If I Save As the image - which has the image ID and a a note to download from SS at the bottom, so it's not creating orphans that a buyer will have a hard time tracking later - at 100% it looks as I think it should.
I'm seeing 1500 pixels on the long edge as the size they're generating
-
Yep, click that "eye" and a ginormous image appears full screen. Little bits of WM float around, but nothing to stop a thief.
Geez.
-
what?? I just clicked on a random halloween background vector image on my iPad, and I got a nice, big preview image WITH NO WATERMARK WHATSOEVER.
-
OK...I see. It's clearer now that I've moved to my laptop. There is a very subtle watermark. But I still can't believe how easy it would be to remove in Photoshop. It would take me three minutes to have a usable, large, free image.
What. The. Heck.
-
I just looked after I read your post, and I can see it too. Very nice.
Yes Jo Ann; I think it is a nice feature. But, the larger preview looks a little less sharp than the similar sized version of same image from my laptop. Do you also see it that way ?
I looked at several of the images and my browser (Chrome, Mac) appears to scale the image to the full width of my window, which means for a preview of a vertical image, I'm seeing it at way more than 100%, which does look a bit squishy and has artifacts. If I Save As the image - which has the image ID and a a note to download from SS at the bottom, so it's not creating orphans that a buyer will have a hard time tracking later - at 100% it looks as I think it should.
I'm seeing 1500 pixels on the long edge as the size they're generating
Thanks Jo Ann :) I see all that you have described happen on both IE & Chrome on Windows 8. The vertical images seem to suffer more than the horizontal ones due to the scaling of the image to fit the screen.
-
A more invasive watermark is urgently needed
-
OK...I see. It's clearer now that I've moved to my laptop. There is a very subtle watermark. But I still can't believe how easy it would be to remove in Photoshop. It would take me three minutes to have a usable, large, free image.
What. The. Heck.
Agree. And if a thief wanted to use the image as a small jpg for a website, why bother to remove those tiny WM-webs at all? They would just about disappear on screen.
Geez.
-
A more invasive watermark is urgently needed
+100
-
Vincent, are you still here???
-
That watermark is an absolute joke. It is almost like they do not know what they are doing. I would not expect this kind of mistake from them.
-
Holy crap.
-
I just checked the iStock large preview (zoom) and noticed that (1) the large preview image is smaller than the one at SS at 1235 pixsels, (2) the large preview definitely has a stronger watermark and (3) the preview image does not autostretch to the size of the computer screen.
One hopes that SS will do something quickly about the watermark strength and the autostretch issue that renders the images (looking) very unsharp.
-
I downloaded one of my own images. It's huge. This is very, very bad.
-
That's a terribly bad watermark, why are they doing this? At least think about image theft before doing large previews >:(
-
WATERMARK IS TOO SMALL!
-
To me, what's most aggravating about this is that there's no need for this kind of overkill. It's not like SS needed to add something to make the images it sells look more appealing. It's been doing just fine without this non-improvement.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Geez.
-
I don't hang out on the SS forums, but I'm curious to know if contributors are screaming about this over there. If not, they outta be!
-
They are. I posted there as well. Annoying to have to sign in.
-
Here's the thread on their forum
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/86995-new-preview-on-images/ (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/86995-new-preview-on-images/)
-
I didnt sign up to give my images away for free. They need to fix this. Any new thing or change is for the worse, they really cant do anything positive for contributors anymore.
-
I didnt sign up to give my images away for free. They need to fix this. Any new thing or change is for the worse, they really cant do anything positive for contributors anymore.
Agree, they can make a "partial" zoom, like iStock... or just put a more invasive watermark... or something!!
Hackers can also download your full gallery by using a simple "robot" or program!! :( :(
-
This is definitely one thing which iStock handled much better than SS. And that is a strange thing to say... I hope they will do something about it ASAP.
-
I just send a mail to SS support via "contact us" about this because now I heard from some group of buyer that plan to save image directly from the preview and delete the watermark with photoshop!!
Everyone, please constant SS support.
-
For all you guys complaining the watermark is too small. STOP YOUR COMPLAINING. it might be problematic for vectors or illustrations with lots of solid shape areas but for photos, it is very effective watermark as you see the image and also doesnt deter from it.
I have spent 30 mins cleaning one photo up with lots of solid areas so its easier to cleanup but it is still a lot of time consuming work to clean. I am an expert at photoshop and illustrator and know what I am doing and to get a photo to a point where the watermark isnt detectable requires a lot of work. It isn't worth the effort to erase the watermark so it is doing a good job IMO.
Before you complain, try cleaning up one yourself and you will quickly realise it is good enough.
-
For all you guys complaining the watermark is too small. STOP YOUR COMPLAINING. it might be problematic for vectors or illustrations with lots of solid shape areas but for photos, it is very effective watermark as you see the image and also doesnt deter from it.
So you don't care about the problem for vectors (such as graphic icons) and illustration?
-
For all you guys complaining the watermark is too small. STOP YOUR COMPLAINING. it might be problematic for vectors or illustrations with lots of solid shape areas but for photos, it is very effective watermark as you see the image and also doesnt deter from it.
I have spent 30 mins cleaning one photo up with lots of solid areas so its easier to cleanup but it is still a lot of time consuming work to clean. I am an expert at photoshop and illustrator and know what I am doing and to get a photo to a point where the watermark isnt detectable requires a lot of work. It isn't worth the effort to erase the watermark so it is doing a good job IMO.
Before you complain, try cleaning up one yourself and you will quickly realise it is good enough.
Why don't you share your portfolio and let us give it a try?
-
Well you might be the expert. But I'm no expert and I'll tell you, I could remove this watermark from image in 5 minutes.
-
Well you might be the expert. But I'm no expert and I'll tell you, I could remove this watermark from image in 5 minutes.
Watermark is so week anybody can remove it in just a few minutes, i also see a lot of SS, DT, etc images used with watermark in a lot of sites, if they use a week watermark with a hi-resolution image, they will use it more and more without buying anything :( this is bad for the business :(
-
I think the watermark looks good. It would take quite a while to remove it yet it is certainly obvious enough to see if people try to use the images with the watermark still there. If you are going to go to all the work of removing the watermark, it would be a lot simpler to just grab an image from google and get an image without a watermark in the first place.
People who steal photos are going to go to Google for their searches, not download Shutterstock images and spend 20 minutes removing a watermark - people steal because they are lazy.
-
there is no need to search photo, a lot of images buyers need with resolution 300x200, they just downsize and few brush tool clicks and is finished.
I think the watermark looks good. It would take quite a while to remove it yet it is certainly obvious enough to see if people try to use the images with the watermark still there. If you are going to go to all the work of removing the watermark, it would be a lot simpler to just grab an image from google and get an image without a watermark in the first place.
People who steal photos are going to go to Google for their searches, not download Shutterstock images and spend 20 minutes removing a watermark - people steal because they are lazy.
-
That watermark doesn't really serve its purpose on images like these
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-312063164.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-312063164.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-316072910.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-316072910.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-294187370.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-294187370.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296280893.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296280893.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-306799715.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-306799715.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-220400083.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-220400083.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296785538.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296785538.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-313342280.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-313342280.jpg)
-
I think the watermark looks good. It would take quite a while to remove it yet it is certainly obvious enough to see if people try to use the images with the watermark still there. If you are going to go to all the work of removing the watermark, it would be a lot simpler to just grab an image from google and get an image without a watermark in the first place.
People who steal photos are going to go to Google for their searches, not download Shutterstock images and spend 20 minutes removing a watermark - people steal because they are lazy.
Well, in part you are right; who buy microstock images wants a licence to use it in commercial use and those who just steal images use it for very low qualiy websites, youtube amateur video, slides, etc... anyway MicroStock images are usually better that random google images, so if you give they the chance, they will download the SS preview...
-
That watermark doesn't really serve its purpose on images like these
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-312063164.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-312063164.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-316072910.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-316072910.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-294187370.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-294187370.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296280893.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296280893.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-306799715.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-306799715.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-220400083.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-220400083.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296785538.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296785538.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-313342280.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-313342280.jpg[/url])
WOW preview is huge when you download it!!
-
I chose a background image of mine that's white in the middle. It's fine to use as is. The watermark just looks like I meant to place little bubbles around the perimeter of the image, and on the white portion it just disappears. I dropped some text from another image into the center, and here it is with no retouching whatsoever.
-
you know leaf this image? one minute of work
i will delete post after 20 minut
-
For all you guys complaining the watermark is too small. STOP YOUR COMPLAINING. it might be problematic for vectors or illustrations with lots of solid shape areas but for photos, it is very effective watermark as you see the image and also doesnt deter from it.
So you don't care about the problem for vectors (such as graphic icons) and illustration?
I care more for vectors as thats the only thing i contribute. But i tire of the non stop complaining posts in here. My point was for the photgraphers who might be getting overly worried that they might lose some penny sale because an image thief will really come to shutterstock and steal these photos and then spend at minimum 15 minutes to clean up photos that are bigger than the blog small size.
Just count how many small shutterstock logo that you can see on shelmas red bg background. then there the actual word shutterstock then theres all these lines. just pretend you have to spend 5-10 seconds on each element. Even that simple background is time consuming to clean up. Not worth the effort a thief is gonna do to clean that. Any image 300x200 pixels is a non starter. do it full size and see how long it takes you to clean and view it at 100%
-
That watermark doesn't really serve its purpose on images like these
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-312063164.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-312063164.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-316072910.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-316072910.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-294187370.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-294187370.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296280893.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296280893.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-306799715.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-306799715.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-220400083.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-220400083.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296785538.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296785538.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-313342280.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-313342280.jpg[/url])
Wow. Even worse than my example. You can't see the watermark at all.
-
What a stupid move
Very contributer unfriendly move SS
Disappointing
-
Preview system in FT is much better.
-
That watermark doesn't really serve its purpose on images like these
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-312063164.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-312063164.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-316072910.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-316072910.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-294187370.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-294187370.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296280893.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296280893.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-306799715.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-306799715.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-220400083.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-220400083.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296785538.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-296785538.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-313342280.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/uselesswatermark-313342280.jpg[/url])
Wow. Even worse than my example. You can't see the watermark at all.
Yes, ok . Point taken.
Perhaps they should add a shadow to all their lines so it shows up on both black and while backgrounds!
-
On most images the watermark is invisible due to image color, texture, subject.......You don't have to remove anything for web use, just downsize.
If nothing else, this will sure kill both sales and competition. Who on earth will buy images ever again from FT, IS..... when they can have them for free from SS.
The he.l with contributors! Nice stab in the back of (raising) competitors as well. You are the star SS!
-
Just in...new CTO in the house...
http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz/mobile-digital/151020-shutterstock-names-anshu-aggarwal-chief-technology (http://www.radioandmusic.com/biz/mobile-digital/151020-shutterstock-names-anshu-aggarwal-chief-technology)
-
Expected with last changes there. Easy removeable watermark will attract huge traffic. For agencies which regularly demand for free contribution from photographers with false statement that this will increase their income, now open another way - not needed to ask, just take and share. With rotations and play with search agencies will keep their favorited suppliers selling, for them no problem. For false accounts with stolen images, no matter to whom they belong to in reality, no problem too.
-
I'm happy to preview image before buying, but watermark is almost invisible in many photos.
-
Still can't quite believe they didn't test this and see how useless it is for a lot of images. And not withdrawing it when they now know for sure that a lot of images are unprotected makes this worse. At a time when so many contributors are quitting microstock, this just isn't good enough.
-
Someone in the room should have pointed out the emperor had a bare arse.
I'm surprised at SS - this is amateurish.
-
forum is not working on SS... i tried to post there
-
forum is not working on SS... i tried to post there
It is working for me.
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/86995-new-preview-on-images/ (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/86995-new-preview-on-images/)
-
For vector people - I found out that my older vectors dont have this huge preview option because in the past I uploaded only very small JPG thumbnail together with the EPS file. So they cannot enlarge this small thumbnail and the little eye icon is not there...
If this is the only way how to protect my files from being stolen or copied and traced, then I will be sending them only small thumbnails in future again even if it means that I will be losing potential sales from bigger JPGs. The way they chose might work for some photos but for vectors it is a complete disaster. Only Dreamstime handles this well and I doubt SS will follow their way.
-
They don't accept small jpgs any more.
-
They don't accept small jpgs any more.
Really? So it is 2000x2000 pix minimum?
-
Someone in the room should have pointed out the emperor had a bare arse.
I'm surprised at SS - this is amateurish.
You are very polite. I would say: this is incompetence, like in so many other cases lately on SS.
-
For my texture/pattern images, I hardly see any watermark! This is very bad. Watermark must be stronger. I don't understand how they can't see this?..Unbelievable!...
-
Is there anyone who has sent a claim?
:-\
-
I saw this reply from SS in their forum
vincent shutterstock
Admin/Moderator
Administrators
1,558 posts
LocationShutterstock Mothership
Posted Today, 12:00 AM
As always we appreciate feedback from our contributor community on changes we make in our marketplace. To drive more download opportunities, we are implementing a new watermark design. The new design, which we collaborated on with members of our contributor community, provides additional protection for your images that have an off-center focal point and for vector images overall.
While we’ve found that the new watermark provides additional protection we’ve also identified a small sub-set of images where the watermark could be more pronounced. We are adjusting the watermark on these images.
Our goal is to protect your content and drive value in our marketplace. We will keep you updated on progress as we continue to implement this change
No idea why the members of the contributor community or themselves didn't see that some images are unprotected by this watermark but hopefully they will fix it quick.
-
Is there anyone who has sent a claim?
:-\
Many.
-
They don't accept small jpgs any more.
Really? So it is 2000x2000 pix minimum?
They had a thread about it...I don't remember the exact dimensions. But if you're getting 2000x2000 accepted, that must be it.
-
Is there anyone who has sent a claim?
:-\
I emailed support to tell them I've stopped uploading until they fix it. I wasn't happy with their answer, that it only affects a small subset of images. We've all easily found many images where the watermark is invisible.
-
Is there anyone who has sent a claim?
:-\
I emailed support to tell them I've stopped uploading until they fix it. I wasn't happy with their answer, that it only affects a small subset of images. We've all easily found many images where the watermark is invisible.
Even say if 1000 images is affected, this is no excuse!
-
A fresh new day!
- 10 sub sales
- 2 On Demand sales
- 1 footage sale
- 638 steals
At least one of those numbers is going up.
-
I dont like image theft any more than anyone else. But I need to ask how this is going to hurt me? Legitimate SS customers are high volume consumers. They are not going to cancel their accounts and start pirating images. The criminals who do this are not our customers. No I dont want them stealing my work, but I see it as a risk of doing business. I would rather a buyer see my work in full size and look for more of my content risking some theft. Just another opinion.
-
Something tells me that sales will be at much the same, will not explode.
Maybe I'm wrong... I hope I'm wrong
-
But it's not either/or. It's and. You can have a large preview AND an effective watermark. They just need to fix it.
-
The watermark is too weak. Shutterstock sells high quality images and the buyers know that. Buyers do not need to "review" the images. They are protected enough, they have the right for returns etc. but what are our rights? To work hard and let people steal our images?
Anyone who is serious about buying doesn't need this giant nearly-no-watermark preview. Who makes use of this novelty are those who would not buy in the first place, but who copy paste our work on websites, social media, blogs, etc etc, illegally.
The preview image is very easy to use in a small size, because in small sizes the watermark does not show. There is no need to start removing it because it simply does not show. If the background is light, or in vectors, nada.
Email the support or write on the SS forum and demand them to fix this! I just did that.
-
I dont like image theft any more than anyone else. But I need to ask how this is going to hurt me? Legitimate SS customers are high volume consumers. They are not going to cancel their accounts and start pirating images. The criminals who do this are not our customers. No I dont want them stealing my work, but I see it as a risk of doing business. I would rather a buyer see my work in full size and look for more of my content risking some theft. Just another opinion.
If you don't mind seeing your images being sold on DVD's on ebay or being uploaded to sites by theives as if they created them or any of the other ways image thieves make money then fine but I think it should be possible to have a large preview that still has a visible watermark on all images.
-
They don't accept small jpgs any more.
Really? So it is 2000x2000 pix minimum?
They had a thread about it...I don't remember the exact dimensions. But if you're getting 2000x2000 accepted, that must be it.
Thanks. For a while now I have been submitting 2800x2800 or so, to fit also iStock requirements. But now I tried submitting an EPS with small JPG (500x500) through web upload and it went through, both to Content Editor and then to review queue. I had to delete it then because it was not a new image I would like to submit, just one of the old I already had there and I wanted to try it. I wonder if a reviewer would reject it for having a thumbnail too small.. well.. anyway, Im surprised they consider most vectors to be "a small subset of images". I wonder how they would like if this small subset of images was removed from their site.
-
The images in which the background is an important part of the image (ie landscapes with sky) it is okay. But for the isolated on whites with a little bit texture on the subjects, with textures, with patterns, the current system is ineffective. It needs to be at least black.
-
They are working on it now?? When i click on of my images it show me a "out of service" page
-
They don't accept small jpgs any more.
Really? So it is 2000x2000 pix minimum?
They had a thread about it...I don't remember the exact dimensions. But if you're getting 2000x2000 accepted, that must be it.
Thanks. For a while now I have been submitting 2800x2800 or so, to fit also iStock requirements. But now I tried submitting an EPS with small JPG (500x500) through web upload and it went through, both to Content Editor and then to review queue. I had to delete it then because it was not a new image I would like to submit, just one of the old I already had there and I wanted to try it. I wonder if a reviewer would reject it for having a thumbnail too small.. well.. anyway, Im surprised they consider most vectors to be "a small subset of images". I wonder how they would like if this small subset of images was removed from their site.
Especially with Halloween and Christmas coming up, which are dominated by vectors.
-
They are working on it now?? When i click on of my images it show me a "out of service" page
Yes, mine too. Let's hope they're fixing this disaster.
-
They are working on it now?? When i click on of my images it show me a "out of service" page
Yes, mine too. Let's hope they're fixing this disaster.
I can access it and not yet fixed :-[ >:(
-
I can access it too, nothing has changed.
-
I can access it too, nothing has changed.
Agreed. I just looked again and the same crummy WM is still there… just barely.
-
If you don't mind seeing your images being sold on DVD's on ebay or being uploaded to sites by theives as if they created them or any of the other ways image thieves make money then fine but I think it should be possible to have a large preview that still has a visible watermark on all images.
I don't disagree with you at all, and SS clearly has an obligation to do a better job. I am just saying that theft has very little impact on sales on any major site. No legitimate user of stock content wants be associated with anything illegal so we are not loosing business. What is to stop the bad guys from pulling images off of site that have bought and use my content? I know there is a resolution issue, but my point is you will never stop this stuff. SS is on the right track in making an easier and better experience for the people that put money in our pockets, it just needs some tweaking.
-
Heres the big Picture. It is known that 80% of all Images used worldwide are stolen to begin with. we don't need that number bigger. There are kids in china making a dollar an Hour removing watermarks and up rezing Images with Genuine Fractals to make the front of T-shirts to ship around the world selling to tourists. been this way long Before Microstock. I can and have proven I can remove just about any watermark in 5 min or less. will it be Perfect? Doesn't have to be with the right Image say an Illustration which are the biggest sellers worldwide Blk Market. Peer to Peer File sharing is a 60 Billion a year Business, Headed by the wireless carriers. Film makers, Image makers and Music makers are in deep trouble and getting worse every year. This is just another small Nail in the coffin. But a nail None the less.
ya know , when a site comes along that understands us and cares about what we do, And realizes we own everything. That site will Be the winner. Haven't seen One yet.Probably Never will.
-
We can all remove a watermark theres no skill in that
a winner for who? for us? because i would say all agencies have won already
-
If you don't mind seeing your images being sold on DVD's on ebay or being uploaded to sites by theives as if they created them or any of the other ways image thieves make money then fine but I think it should be possible to have a large preview that still has a visible watermark on all images.
I don't disagree with you at all, and SS clearly has an obligation to do a better job. I am just saying that theft has very little impact on sales on any major site. No legitimate user of stock content wants be associated with anything illegal so we are not loosing business. What is to stop the bad guys from pulling images off of site that have bought and use my content? I know there is a resolution issue, but my point is you will never stop this stuff. SS is on the right track in making an easier and better experience for the people that put money in our pockets, it just needs some tweaking.
I disagree. I think many of the people who buy the large subscription do it so they can download a variety of unwatermarked images to present to clients. If they can get those images with an invisible watermark, why would they subscribe when they can just use those mages in their layouts and only license the one the client ends up choosing?
But even if that's not the case, why shouldn't SS simply create a stronger watermark? It may deter thieves and won't stop legit buyers from seeing what they need to.
-
Preview is to huge, good watermark or bad, doesn't matter. You can remove also stronger watermarks.
Its 1500px on the wider side! It should be like 900 the most.
It should be like the way, fotolia has it.
-
If they can get those images with an invisible watermark, why would they subscribe when they can just use those mages in their layouts and only license the one the client ends up choosing?
Makes sense. Perhaps the underlying concept is to make downloading comp images more "user friendly" for the clients… at the contributors' expense.
-
Please e-mail your complaints to [email protected]. The forums are probably not being read by the people in charge, so better let them know via the official channels.
-
Please e-mail your complaints to [email protected]. The forums are probably not being read by the people in charge, so better let them know via the official channels.
Done.
Let's all email them! Shutterstock needs to fix this.
-
Please e-mail your complaints to [email protected]. The forums are probably not being read by the people in charge, so better let them know via the official channels.
Done! 8)
-
Please e-mail your complaints to [email protected]. The forums are probably not being read by the people in charge, so better let them know via the official channels.
Done! 8)
Done
-
I emailed them too. Anyone got any response?
SS must disable this feature until it's fixed. >:(
-
I noticed that 123RF had a similar preview system. But the previews are smaller and have very intense watermarks. This is very naive from SS. FT and IS do better in this regard.
-
What make me feel bad is that ss didn't even try to test it properly before launching it to the market place and cause destruction to contributors or the company itself.
Apart from that, they are taking so long to solve this problem or not shutting it down instantly!
-
Please e-mail your complaints to [email protected]. The forums are probably not being read by the people in charge, so better let them know via the official channels.
done
-
I've emailed them and got this reply:
There's hope at least
We recognize that our new watermark was not effective for a small subset of images and after receiving your feedback and incorporating your insights, we will begin implementing a new watermark that will roll out over the next week.
Thank you again for your continued support, your feedback is welcome and appreciated as always.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support
-
new watermark that will roll out over the next week...! they don't give a f
-
Hey, they listened. It undoubtedly takes time to re-render a jillion billion images with a new watermark. I wish they'd disable the preview in the meantime, but at least they did hear our concerns and responded with a new watermark.
-
Hey, they listened. It undoubtedly takes time to re-render a jillion billion images with a new watermark. I wish they'd disable the preview in the meantime, but at least they did hear our concerns and responded with a new watermark.
Well, we haven't seen that new watermark yet. I'll hold off cheering until I see it's actually there, offering meaningful protection.
-
Agreed. I'm still not submitting until I see what they come up with.
-
Give them a chance. The image preview is very big, maybe too big, but its a good thing for credit image buyers, they see now what they buy! :-)
-
Give them a chance. The image preview is very big, maybe too big, but its a good thing for credit image buyers, they see now what they buy! :-)
I think we already gave too many chances for any sort of agencies during these years. They know exactly reaction of different types of buyers on different layout and presentation. The trend is to grow their own content and not depend from contributors, and any ways are good for them
-
I just got this reply from SS. Nice that they're responding!
Dear Martha,
We recognize that our new watermark was not effective for a small subset of images and after receiving your feedback and incorporating your insights, we will begin implementing a new watermark that will roll out over the next week.
Thank you again for your continued support, your feedback is welcome and appreciated as always.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support
-
...there is a change - a preview is now vary small - they reacted...
-
Well done to SS for responding
-
The preview is much smaller, which is good, but that watermark is still virtually invisible on a lot of my stuff. Looking forward to the stronger watermark; no submitting till it's effective.
-
The preview is the same size - it just no longer upsizes to fit the browser width
-
I received the same robot answer:
Me: New preview image feature is so unsafe for all of us, contributors and shutterstock, right now there are people downloading previews of shutterstock images, watermark is not enough protection please consider this seriously.
answer: We recognize that our new watermark was not effective for a small subset of images and after receiving your feedback and incorporating your insights, we will begin implementing a new watermark that will roll out over the next week.
Thank you again for your continued support, your feedback is welcome and appreciated as always.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support
Meanwhile our images remain unprotected, besides they are focused on watermark and no on the preview size. do you think we need to continue emailing complains? may be that's enough, by the way, larger images have a larger preview
-
The preview is the same size - it just no longer upsizes to fit the browser width
Thats correct. If you click on "show image" it's still 1500px on the wider side.
-
The preview is the same size - it just no longer upsizes to fit the browser width
True, if you right click on preview and click on option "View Image" then you can see the preview in full size... :(
-
I received the same robot answer:
I got the same answer. This is really annoying now.
Meantime, I only got subs today (Friday), currently 51 subs in a row >:(
-
I got a standard reply as well. I do hope they actually fix this watermark in the next couple of days.
-
The preview is the same size - it just no longer upsizes to fit the browser width
Thats correct. If you click on "show image" it's still 1500px on the wider side.
+1
-
Actually, I think that bigger preview might help to increase the sales, although there may by more people stealing images. As an independent web and graphic designer I don't like to use the small preview images from stock agencies to show how the final product will look like to the customers. Customers wants to see the quality preview and are deterred by the lowres watermarked pictures, so I rather look for some free source of quality pictures, or stock agencies with the higher quality previews as I can't afford to waste money and buy something which I will not use in the final design. There is an increasing number of photographers who offer their pictures with Creative Commons or Public Domain license. And you can find their pictures on portals with such self-explanatory names like deathtothestockphoto or gratisography. So blaming the agencies that they are trying to give your pictures for free doesn't make any sense. They want to earn something in the constantly changing world same as the photographers do. You can't expect increasing income if the offer starts to exceed the demand. It's simple economy. Adapt or die. This is how nature works.
-
Actually, I think that bigger preview might help to increase the sales
Vertical previews are blurry , how this helps for sales ?
It's just amateur job, zoom in its the best solution but they do not care
-
Actually, I think that bigger preview might help to increase the sales
SS already has enough sales, they just don't pay us enough.
Vertical previews are blurry , how this helps for sales ?
It's just amateur job, zoom in its the best solution but they do not care
Spot on. Just an amateur job from SS, difficult to believe.
-
The new watermark (v2):
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330848195.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330848195.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330863216.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330863216.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330787895.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330787895.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330836732.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330836732.jpg)
- http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330818534.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330818534.jpg)
:-\
-
They need to get some vector artists involved in this process. Illustrations with a lot of white space, textured backgrounds, silhouettes, all easy to steal even with this new watermark. Didn't anyone there look at this new watermark on images that are problematic? People did a lot of the work for them here.
I see that iStock now has a similar preview (almost identical, in fact), but it seems to me their watermark is a bit more effective. I seem to have missed the introduction of that...when did it happen?
I'm still not hitting submit with this new watermark. Come on, SS.
-
Actually, I think that bigger preview might help to increase the sales, although there may by more people stealing images. As an independent web and graphic designer I don't like to use the small preview images from stock agencies to show how the final product will look like to the customers. Customers wants to see the quality preview and are deterred by the lowres watermarked pictures, so I rather look for some free source of quality pictures, or stock agencies with the higher quality previews as I can't afford to waste money and buy something which I will not use in the final design. There is an increasing number of photographers who offer their pictures with Creative Commons or Public Domain license. And you can find their pictures on portals with such self-explanatory names like deathtothestockphoto or gratisography. So blaming the agencies that they are trying to give your pictures for free doesn't make any sense. They want to earn something in the constantly changing world same as the photographers do. You can't expect increasing income if the offer starts to exceed the demand. It's simple economy. Adapt or die. This is how nature works.
What you are saying here doesn't make sense either. If you only show highrez images to your clients than you are not a SS client. No other agency has highrez preview. SS has never shown any preview to buyers before this calamity hit us contributors, still sales were good. Now instead, it is public domain, how convenient for an independent web designer.
May I ask why do you need highrez images for web design? I can understand that it suits you but it's painful for us, even if it doesn't make sense to you.
-
The new watermark (v2):
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330848195.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330848195.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330863216.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330863216.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330787895.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330787895.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330836732.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330836732.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330818534.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330818534.jpg[/url])
:-\
Where did you find this new watermark? My images are still with old (no) watermark.
-
I see that iStock now has a similar preview (almost identical, in fact), but it seems to me their watermark is a bit more effective. I seem to have missed the introduction of that...when did it happen?
From what I see, only the grid is similar but the logo is much bolder and prominent. Preview image is also smaller (1.235px × 819px) though some textures are unprotected with that one too (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/travertine-stone-image-4987439?st=8a1982f). I could almost accept this version but SS had to exaggerate one more time.
-
Where did you find this new watermark? My images are still with old (no) watermark.
New watermarks are on the new images (http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=K8dQ6oGzOS2wTI1E0V21RQ&searchterm=animal&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=).
-
New watermarks are on the new images ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=K8dQ6oGzOS2wTI1E0V21RQ&searchterm=animal&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=[/url]).
No preview button on some of the new images (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-131433113/stock-vector-set-of-animals-silhouettes.html?src=Opnr9cpSobnO5WYAF_PDSg-1-1). Good to see that they are working on it. However, why they cannot remove that preview thing from old images till they fix it? :(
-
Where did you find this new watermark? My images are still with old (no) watermark.
New watermarks are on the new images ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=K8dQ6oGzOS2wTI1E0V21RQ&searchterm=animal&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=[/url]).
I checked a few of your images on the first page (New) and there is no preview button at all. Is this applied only for illustrations (vectors)? I have the button even on new images.
-
I'm getting mixed results. Some images have no preview button, others do but the preview is broken, and most still have the bad almost-invisible watermark.
-
why they cannot remove that preview thing from old images till they fix it? :(
ShutterStock is certainly capable of removing all 'Preview' links and disabling all images (within 5 minutes time) but they choose not to.
In the meantime, Google's publishing the "small subset of images" (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:image.shutterstock.com/z&biw=1920&bih=878&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI646Z4ejdyAIVRRYeCh3fswNH#q=site:shutterstock.com&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,qdr:w&tbm=isch).
-
In the meantime, Google's publishing the "small subset of images" (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:image.shutterstock.com/z&biw=1920&bih=878&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI646Z4ejdyAIVRRYeCh3fswNH#q=site:shutterstock.com&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,qdr:w&tbm=isch).
OMG. This is all over now. SS, are you awake?
I don't think I'll submit anymore after seeing this (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,qdr:w,ic:gray&tbm=isch&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0CBIQpwVqFQoTCM7K287w3cgCFeI3pgod13oG2g&dpr=1&biw=1600&bih=742&gws_rd=cr&ei=9e0sVvvXIKTDmwXaqoy4CA).
-
why they cannot remove that preview thing from old images till they fix it? :(
ShutterStock is certainly capable of removing all 'Preview' links and disabling all images (within 5 minutes time) but they choose not to.
In the meantime, Google's publishing the "small subset of images" (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:image.shutterstock.com/z&biw=1920&bih=878&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI646Z4ejdyAIVRRYeCh3fswNH#q=site:shutterstock.com&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,qdr:w&tbm=isch).
How do you got this search result page? This is not just any search but a custom one, this is what you mean by "small subset"? Did you search for all the keyword contained in the URL of this page? G00gle search result doesn't come in subsets, unless you put the keyword in there.
I'm with you but to stress fellow contributors with such a search result is going too far. They'll take you at your word, without checking. Sorry, and again, I'm with you and unhappy concerning the preview and watermark.
-
Actually, I think that bigger preview might help to increase the sales, although there may by more people stealing images. As an independent web and graphic designer I don't like to use the small preview images from stock agencies to show how the final product will look like to the customers. Customers wants to see the quality preview and are deterred by the lowres watermarked pictures, so I rather look for some free source of quality pictures, or stock agencies with the higher quality previews as I can't afford to waste money and buy something which I will not use in the final design. There is an increasing number of photographers who offer their pictures with Creative Commons or Public Domain license. And you can find their pictures on portals with such self-explanatory names like deathtothestockphoto or gratisography. So blaming the agencies that they are trying to give your pictures for free doesn't make any sense. They want to earn something in the constantly changing world same as the photographers do. You can't expect increasing income if the offer starts to exceed the demand. It's simple economy. Adapt or die. This is how nature works.
BS.
If photographers offer their photos for free, they earn nothing.
Even photographers need to pay bills!
We don't live by just the fun of taking photos.
-
How do you got this search result page? This is not just any search but a custom one, this is what you mean by "small subset"? Did you search for all the keyword contained in the URL of this page? G00gle search result doesn't come in subsets, unless you put the keyword in there.
As I think, Kenny just wanted to mean that Google haven't indexed all those preview images yet. (Just my guess)
-
How do you got this search result page? This is not just any search but a custom one, this is what you mean by "small subset"? Did you search for all the keyword contained in the URL of this page? G00gle search result doesn't come in subsets, unless you put the keyword in there.
As I think, Kenny just wanted to mean that Google haven't indexed all those preview images yet. (Just my guess)
Thanks 60 D, I didn't mean to hurt Kenny. G00gle doesn't index all images anyway, that is to our advantage now.
-
Shutterstock.com team: Protecting of copyright on Shutterstock.
link to the petition ---
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
Dear Shutterstock.com team,
At the moment, the watermark used in the preview function recently implemented on shutterstock site actually has failed in its main purpose: it is hardly visible, if at all, and it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image.
As a result, we feel that our works are now unprotected, exposed to public access and available for download to anyone.
We have specified the list of proposals that we would like to see implemented as soon as possible:
1. Make watermarks larger and more noticeable:
• Reduce the pitch of the watermark grid to 100 pixels for more reliable protection of icon sets.
• Increase the width of the grid lines to 5 pixels.
• The lines of the watermark should be contrast to the background. The pixels of the lines should have at least 15 levels of brightness in contrast to the surrounding pixels.
2. Inform contributors about any changes on the web site relating to copyright before such changes actually made.
Contributors who have signed this petition suspend uploading of the new images until the elimination of the negative consequences produced by Shutterstock.com.
Looking forward to your cooperation
-
and they think this will result in more sales?
-
Such a bad feature for photographers. Even the new watermark can be cleaned easily although some of big previews has no watermark.
For those who believe big preview option will increase their sales, there should be "OPT IN" button in the profile section of each user.
I want to "OPT OUT" because I definitely believe it will decrease my sales!
-
and they think this will result in more sales?
Maybe they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too.
-
Shutterstock: OPT OUT
Its the only way for now, i did it and if feel more safe for my photos, i don't want to share them for free to google
I hope they will undone all this stupid move
-
Absolutely Shameful.
-
Shutterstock.com team: Protecting of copyright on Shutterstock.
link to the petition ---
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
Dear Shutterstock.com team,
At the moment, the watermark used in the preview function recently implemented on shutterstock site actually has failed in its main purpose: it is hardly visible, if at all, and it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image.
As a result, we feel that our works are now unprotected, exposed to public access and available for download to anyone.
We have specified the list of proposals that we would like to see implemented as soon as possible:
1. Make watermarks larger and more noticeable:
• Reduce the pitch of the watermark grid to 100 pixels for more reliable protection of icon sets.
• Increase the width of the grid lines to 5 pixels.
• The lines of the watermark should be contrast to the background. The pixels of the lines should have at least 15 levels of brightness in contrast to the surrounding pixels.
2. Inform contributors about any changes on the web site relating to copyright before such changes actually made.
Contributors who have signed this petition suspend uploading of the new images until the elimination of the negative consequences produced by Shutterstock.com.
Looking forward to your cooperation
-
Under "Announcements" there's "Updated Shutterstock Watermark".
What do they say? I can't have access to that, the page reloads like forever.
They're tricking us ... the preview now is smaller yes, but when you'll just right click the image and "view" you get a huge preview with almost invisible watermark. Easy to save it in 1500*1100, a free image >:(
-
As I write this, Shutterstock has reverted to the way previews were shown a couple of months ago. Meanwhile, this is the first time that I haven't met my own minimum in over 2 years by the middle of the month...and I still haven't today.
Oh - and my Fotolia sales (and downloads) have consistently stayed 20%-25% ahead of Shutterstock this entire month. Well over my minimum for more than a week.
I feel a change in the air, and it ain't Autumn.
-
No change for me, SS is doing great while FT is almost dead.
-
Link to the petition.
Shutterstock.com team: Protecting of copyright on Shutterstock.
link to the petition ---
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
Dear Shutterstock.com team,
At the moment, the watermark used in the preview function recently implemented on shutterstock site actually has failed in its main purpose: it is hardly visible, if at all, and it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image.
As a result, we feel that our works are now unprotected, exposed to public access and available for download to anyone.
We have specified the list of proposals that we would like to see implemented as soon as possible:
1. Make watermarks larger and more noticeable:
• Reduce the pitch of the watermark grid to 100 pixels for more reliable protection of icon sets.
• Increase the width of the grid lines to 5 pixels.
• The lines of the watermark should be contrast to the background. The pixels of the lines should have at least 15 levels of brightness in contrast to the surrounding pixels.
2. Inform contributors about any changes on the web site relating to copyright before such changes actually made.
Contributors who have signed this petition suspend uploading of the new images until the elimination of the negative consequences produced by Shutterstock.com.
Looking forward to your cooperation
-
Link to the petition.
I signed the petition tonight. Hope it helps!
-
Done !
-
Signed.
Number of signatures over 400 now
-
Done.
-
It would be just as effective if every contributor (how many...tens of thousands?) stopped uploading, rather than worry about a petition with 400 names. I realize that signing a petition is at least doing something, and I can appreciate that, but these things have never been effective, because some people say they are going to do something, but never really follow through, and some people never do it in the first place. Shutterstock pretends to appear like they are listening, but in the end, they will do whatever makes them the most money. If clients don't want big watermarks, they aren't going to put big watermarks, no matter how much contributors scream. It's all about the $$.
I will give them until after the next payout to come up with a better solution for that watermark. If they don't, I will just close my account. I am sick and tired of these people making billions of dollars, with my help, and them not even having the least bit of respect for me and my property. I only have my images at 2 places now, and I am winding down my participation anyway. I make pennies as it is. When my stuff starts being given away, I'm out. >:(
-
I'll never understand people saying these things have never been effective. We were given an opt out of DPC because of group action, and DPC is now on its way out. SS has already responded with a new (but still ineffective) watermark, and hopefully will strengthen it further.
My neighbors are the same way. A few of us are fighting expansion of a nearby neighborhood noise nuisance, and everyone I talk to will say our efforts have been ineffective because the noise hasn't completely disappeared, even though it's been reduced by about 80%.
Just because the response isn't instantaneous or 100% doesn't mean it's ineffective.
-
I sign the petition
-
I disagree.
Group action can make a difference. This is why it is important that people sign the petition _and_ do not upload. We have to be consistent to protect our content the best we can. We need to think long term, not just this week's sales.
I signed the petition yesterday and will not upload until the watermark is safe enough.
Like you all, I work hard for my images and do not want somebody stealing them. Currently anybody can save 1500*1100 image with nearly invisible watermark. They do not even have to be logged in users.
It would be just as effective if every contributor (how many...tens of thousands?) stopped uploading, rather than worry about a petition with 400 names. I realize that signing a petition is at least doing something, and I can appreciate that, but these things have never been effective, because some people say they are going to do something, but never really follow through, and some people never do it in the first place. Shutterstock pretends to appear like they are listening, but in the end, they will do whatever makes them the most money. If clients don't want big watermarks, they aren't going to put big watermarks, no matter how much contributors scream. It's all about the $$.
I will give them until after the next payout to come up with a better solution for that watermark. If they don't, I will just close my account. I am sick and tired of these people making billions of dollars, with my help, and them not even having the least bit of respect for me and my property. I only have my images at 2 places now, and I am winding down my participation anyway. I make pennies as it is. When my stuff starts being given away, I'm out. >:(
-
The horror continues, i don't understand , they don't care ?
-
Signed - up to 436 now.
-
Signed - up to 436 now.
Good for you, Martin! Happy to see somebody from the UK on the list.
I've been watching this petition since it was announced. Spotted a bunch of signatures from Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Thailand, etc, but not a whole lot (yet) from the USA.
C'mon, fellow Americans, let's add our voices to this effort.
-
I'll never understand people saying these things have never been effective. We were given an opt out of DPC because of group action, and DPC is now on its way out. SS has already responded with a new (but still ineffective) watermark, and hopefully will strengthen it further.
My neighbors are the same way. A few of us are fighting expansion of a nearby neighborhood noise nuisance, and everyone I talk to will say our efforts have been ineffective because the noise hasn't completely disappeared, even though it's been reduced by about 80%.
Just because the response isn't instantaneous or 100% doesn't mean it's ineffective.
And all of those things that have happened, happened without having to sign a petition. To me, it seems just as effective to write to support, or complain on the forums. Whatever SS is going to do, they are already doing it, without the petition. That's all I'm saying. I wasn't saying it isn't effective to complain. I sure do my part on that!
but these things have never been effective, because some people say they are going to do something, but never really follow through, and some people never do it in the first place.
My statement was a little misworded. I apologize, had a tooth pulled this morning and took some hydrocodone. Feeling a little loopy...will shut up now. :)
-
And all of those things that have happened, happened without having to sign a petition. To me, it seems just as effective to write to support, or complain on the forums. Whatever SS is going to do, they are already doing it, without the petition.
So far 440 people disagree with you. ;)
-
Signed.
Signed - up to 436 now.
I've been watching this petition since it was announced. Spotted a bunch of signatures from Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Thailand, etc, but not a whole lot (yet) from the USA.
C'mon, fellow Americans, let's add our voices to this effort.
That is what I had on my mind too. Except Laurin, veterans are very quiet now, when they are needed.
-
to me, the old size is enough with the magnifying glass to a certain area. no need for the whole picture disponible encouraging pirates.
don't ss give comps to long-standing big corporations who are regular customers with history of
loyalty ??? i think that should be the only people given special treatment,
so if you are one of those regular customers or firm with loyalty patronage to ss,
you can see this very large preview.
but for the rest of the audience, no can do. this is my thought.
-
Signed.
Signed - up to 436 now.
I've been watching this petition since it was announced. Spotted a bunch of signatures from Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Thailand, etc, but not a whole lot (yet) from the USA.
C'mon, fellow Americans, let's add our voices to this effort.
That is what I had on my mind too. Except Laurin, veterans are very quiet now, when they are needed.
Probably afraid to screw their relationship with their best agency. I had that thought too.
But then… what kind of people are we if we're afraid to speak up when the need is urgent?
-
Un-FREAKEN-Believable!
What is the point anymore when they are just giving my images away! I'm in total shock they did this.
-
Un-FREAKEN-Believable!
What is the point anymore when they are just giving my images away! I'm in total shock they did this.
So… send SS that loud-and-clear "Un-FREAKEN-Believable!" message ([email protected]) and then sign the petition:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock (https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock)
-
I'm not one of the big portfolios - although with 66 million in the collection, I'm not sure who is these days :) - but I have been around SS a long time. I haven't signed the petition because I think they're aware of the problem and making a fix. This feels very different from situations were the agency has told us to pound sand.
I think it's important they fix this watermark - even the new one isn't adequate. I have two images with the black-bottom (V2) watermark; one is OK and the other - on a white background - isn't.
I've written to support with these images as examples asking that they fix this. I think they've had other examples sent to them showing the V2 watermark needs some work, but if anyone thinks there's a good example in one of their own images, send the information to support to help them see all the problems.
If Shutterstock says they won't improve the V2 watermark, I think it'd be time for me to sign the petition. If they fix the problem, then I hope they've learned their lessons: (1) that they need to do better quality control when making a change like this; and (2) they should improve the frequency and scope of contributor communications so they tell us about stuff like this versus we find out about it from each other. None of this would have been such a mess if they'd told us what was going on directly.
It's hard to rank the various agency shenanigans in terms of severity, but I do think there's a difference between dealing with thieves - enabling them or not pursuing them vigorously enough - and setting onerous terms and conditions of sale - reducing royalties, giving away more rights for the same royalty, etc.
It's unfortunate that SS's success has made them a target of thieves and pirates for years. I'm not the only one who has contacted SS about sites like Fiverr with stolen SS images (I just checked and I can get 50 SS images for $5 from Fiverr - I just searched for Shutterstock on the site). Watermarks won't help with this theft as people buy subscriptions and then resell. If I had to rate the current poorly watermarked preview against the lack of effort shutting down Fiverr gigs reselling SS content, I think I'd rate the Fiverr problem as a bigger threat to our income. One of the gigs I just found had an "extra" that for $40 the guy would teach me how to download any Shutterstock image free!! There have been all sorts of sites offering free Shutterstock vectors and images for years - I've stopped reporting them to Shutterstock but a quick search reveals there are still plenty around.
Most legitimate businesses will not do an end run around licensing work they just because there's a poor watermark any more than when it's on a scummy free content site. They don't want the legal risk.
We don't need to make life easy for thieves, but given all the other piracy of work that has been going on for years, I find it hard to see this watermark issue as more than something that needs to be dealt with. Given that it's wholly within SS's control (unlike the piracy issue) I expect we'll see a resolution (although we may have to do their QA and show them the problems, which we shouldn't have to)
-
I sent them an email and singed the petition!
We really need to get more people to know about this.
-
If Shutterstock says they won't improve the V2 watermark, I think it'd be time for me to sign the petition.
It seems they don't want to improve V2 watermark. I got an email reply from them saying that they have started to publish V2 new watermark across all images. I think that's it from them. So disappointing. :'(
-
If Shutterstock says they won't improve the V2 watermark, I think it'd be time for me to sign the petition.
It seems they don't want to improve V2 watermark. I got an email reply from them saying that they have started to publish V2 new watermark across all images. I think that's it from them. So disappointing. :'(
The previews are smaller, but the "new and improved" WM still doesn't offer much protection.
Click the "preview" link on these to see why I'm still unhappy:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=301581569 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=301581569)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=309471632 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=309471632)
-
This is not V2 watermark, it comes with a black footer, but the watermarks are not much different.
Previews are not smaller either, you can get a larger preview by just right-clicking and select 'view image'.
-
The previews are smaller, but the "new and improved" WM still doesn't offer much protection.
Click the "preview" link on these to see why I'm still unhappy:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=301581569[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=301581569[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=309471632[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=309471632[/url])
This is not V2 watermark, it comes with a black footer, but the watermarks are not much different.
Previews are not smaller either, you can get a larger preview by just right-clicking and select 'view image'
Guess I haven't seen the "V2" watermark yet. Can you point me toward one?
And thanks for showing me those ultra-huge images w/virtually no WM protection. Doesn't look to me like anything is better.
(Also… please do go ahead and delete those links.)
-
The previews are smaller, but the "new and improved" WM still doesn't offer much protection.
Click the "preview" link on these to see why I'm still unhappy:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=301581569[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=301581569[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=309471632[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=309471632[/url])
This is not V2 watermark, it comes with a black footer, but the watermarks are not much different.
Previews are not smaller either, you can get a larger preview by just right-clicking and select 'view image'
Guess I haven't seen the "V2" watermark yet. Can you point me toward one?
And thanks for showing me those ultra-huge images w/virtually no WM protection. Doesn't look to me like anything is better.
(Also… please do go ahead and delete those links.)
As a PS… I just looked again at those large previews and also spotted a magnifying glass that let me enlarge them even more. Gigantic images, actually. This wasn't something I'd seen before.
I see no evidence that the problem is being fixed.
-
I just sent SS a demo of what I can do to their images if they don't change the watermark. This is a sample of what I did in 45 seconds of photoshop.
original
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-game-control-over-gray-background-vector-illustration-162639971.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-game-control-over-gray-background-vector-illustration-162639971.jpg)
modified
http://i.imgur.com/gxjvKfQ.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/gxjvKfQ.jpg)
I've completely removed the watermark and I sent them the new image just to show that I can steal their many of their images at will. I wonder if these silly decisions are made out of desperation or out of stupidity. Sometimes an angry/fearful CEO can make the dumbest decisions just because their stock is not performing well.
-
Guess I haven't seen the "V2" watermark yet. Can you point me toward one?
Here are some of those:
The new watermark (v2):
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330863216.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330863216.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330787895.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330787895.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330836732.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330836732.jpg[/url])
- [url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330818534.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/new-watermark-version-two-330818534.jpg[/url])
-
As a PS… I just looked again at those large previews and also spotted a magnifying glass that let me enlarge them even more. Gigantic images, actually. This wasn't something I'd seen before.
Google index all those gigantic images (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,qdr:w,ic:gray&tbm=isch&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0CBIQpwVqFQoTCM7K287w3cgCFeI3pgod13oG2g&dpr=1&biw=1600&bih=742&gws_rd=cr&ei=9e0sVvvXIKTDmwXaqoy4CA#q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,ic:gray,qdr:d&tbm=isch&imgrc=_).
-
I just sent SS a demo of what I can do to their images if they don't change the watermark. This is a sample of what I did in 45 seconds of photoshop.
original
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-game-control-over-gray-background-vector-illustration-162639971.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-game-control-over-gray-background-vector-illustration-162639971.jpg[/url])
modified
[url]http://i.imgur.com/gxjvKfQ.jpg[/url] ([url]http://i.imgur.com/gxjvKfQ.jpg[/url])
I've completely removed the watermark and I sent them the new image just to show that I can steal their many of their images at will. I wonder if these silly decisions are made out of desperation or out of stupidity. Sometimes an angry/fearful CEO can make the dumbest decisions just because their stock is not performing well.
In the petition it says "it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image. (https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock)"
I haven't tried it though.
-
I just sent SS a demo of what I can do to their images if they don't change the watermark. This is a sample of what I did in 45 seconds of photoshop.
original
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-game-control-over-gray-background-vector-illustration-162639971.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-game-control-over-gray-background-vector-illustration-162639971.jpg[/url])
modified
[url]http://i.imgur.com/gxjvKfQ.jpg[/url] ([url]http://i.imgur.com/gxjvKfQ.jpg[/url])
I've completely removed the watermark and I sent them the new image just to show that I can steal their many of their images at will. I wonder if these silly decisions are made out of desperation or out of stupidity. Sometimes an angry/fearful CEO can make the dumbest decisions just because their stock is not performing well.
In the petition it says "it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image. ([url]https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock[/url])"
I haven't tried it though.
Just tried it. On photos, I can make it disappear by downsizing it. With vectors, it's a bit trickier...I need to downsize it to 64x64 to make it disappear. There are so many ways to do it when you have a high resolution image like that.
-
...Guess I haven't seen the "V2" watermark yet. Can you point me toward one?
Here's one where it works well:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-open-layout-kitchen-with-family-room-adjacent-back-in-use-following-an-extensive-remodel-331838918.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-open-layout-kitchen-with-family-room-adjacent-back-in-use-following-an-extensive-remodel-331838918.jpg)
And one where it doesn't:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg)
-
And all of those things that have happened, happened without having to sign a petition. To me, it seems just as effective to write to support, or complain on the forums. Whatever SS is going to do, they are already doing it, without the petition.
So far 440 people disagree with you. ;)
Excellent! Hope it changes the watermarks. ;)
-
It's unfortunate that SS's success has made them a target of thieves and pirates for years. I'm not the only one who has contacted SS about sites like Fiverr with stolen SS images (I just checked and I can get 50 SS images for $5 from Fiverr - I just searched for Shutterstock on the site). Watermarks won't help with this theft as people buy subscriptions and then resell. If I had to rate the current poorly watermarked preview against the lack of effort shutting down Fiverr gigs reselling SS content, I think I'd rate the Fiverr problem as a bigger threat to our income. One of the gigs I just found had an "extra" that for $40 the guy would teach me how to download any Shutterstock image free!! There have been all sorts of sites offering free Shutterstock vectors and images for years - I've stopped reporting them to Shutterstock but a quick search reveals there are still plenty around.
Most legitimate businesses will not do an end run around licensing work they just because there's a poor watermark any more than when it's on a scummy free content site. They don't want the legal risk.
I agree with you on those points. And another problem is clients buying the largest size available, using it in a website or blog article, then google indexes the large size. Free high resolution image for all!
I just checked 20 or so of my best sellers. The watermark is more than effective on some, and on others, barely visible. I know it is difficult to get a watermark to be effective on ALL images, from my experience in trying to create one for my personal site. The ones that are problematic seem to be images with a lot of white, like the isolated images. Sometimes the shutterstock word completely misses the image. Seems like they should be able to code an algorithm to apply a few different watermarks, i.e. if 50% of the image is white, use this one, etc.
-
Worst idea ever!!!!! Now it's so easy to save the image and the watermark doesn't cover very much, because is thin and transparent ... They should have kept the watermark in the center of the picture as in normal preview
I just signed the petition .... Do you think they will fix it?
-
This is the official reply from shutterstock .... ( on shutterstock forum , on 21 October.)
"As always we appreciate feedback from our contributor community on changes we make in our marketplace. To drive more download opportunities, we are implementing a new watermark design. The new design, which we collaborated on with members of our contributor community, provides additional protection for your images that have an off-center focal point and for vector images overall.
While we’ve found that the new watermark provides additional protection we’ve also identified a small sub-set of images where the watermark could be more pronounced. We are adjusting the watermark on these images.
Our goal is to protect your content and drive value in our marketplace. We will keep you updated on progress as we continue to implement this change. "
-
I don't think they will fix it. They do what customers ask them to do, not contributors.
BTW, where is Vincent? :P
-
I told my husband about this and he said "won't SS lose money if people can just steal the images?" Doesn't ss realize THEY will lose money too in the long run by doing this?
I couldn't sleep last night over this ...
-
I told my husband about this and he said "won't SS lose money if people can just steal the images?" Doesn't ss realize THEY will lose money too in the long run by doing this?
I couldn't sleep last night over this ...
Yes, i cannot understand why they make this big mistake; SS is a big company with a lot of experience in the market of microstock, no other company gives you the chance to download a hi-quality preview with just a week watermark... of course this is bad for the business... i just want to believe that they know about this big mistake and they are working on it... that delay is because it is not easy to change it and that in a few days we will see more invasive watermark
-
I don't think they will fix it. They do what customers ask them to do, not contributors.
BTW, where is Vincent? :P
And this is good for the business (to hear customers) but if customers ask to get images for free, or to reduce half of price... it is crazy to hear them... So it is ok to hear customers suggestions but there is a limit of course
-
I told my husband about this and he said "won't SS lose money if people can just steal the images?" Doesn't ss realize THEY will lose money too in the long run by doing this?
I couldn't sleep last night over this ...
or those "customers" and even some of the other controlling shareholders of ss are actually sleeping partners of Getty ;)
-
Here's the link to the petition one more time. Current count 469.
Let's do this!!
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock (https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock)
-
petition signed
-
Signed it. There's no reason why they can't do this properly, to give their buyers a good preview but stop people just taking large images for free. Sites much smaller than SS have achieved this. If they can't sort something as basic as this out, I really do wonder about the future of SS.
-
I don't think they will fix it. They do what customers ask them to do, not contributors.
BTW, where is Vincent? :P
I think your correct. We Cave in pretty easy throughout History. Don't talk about it and they will go away. Don't think so On this One. Of course we need a LOT more Folks.
-
Wait wait wait... Are you telling me that there's the chance SS won't fix this issue?? ...can't believe it! If so, subscribers first, and then all the rest of the world will pick and choose everything they want to... Just right click and save... I can't believe SS can actually think this is ok... Ok for us , or at least , for them.
They are also quite demanding on almost everything and.... How possible they don't see the stupidity with this?
If so, keeping uploading to SS does not make more sense anymore... What do you guys think?
I checked many of my pics and the watermark is visible only on darker areas..... I think it's a week now they have this new preview ... How long will this take to be fixed?
-
If so, keeping uploading to SS does not make more sense anymore... What do you guys think?
I'm thinking that if this problem doesn't get fixed very soon, like within a week, I'll start pulling my images out of SS and going exclusive with FT.
ETA: To go exclusive with FT, I'd have to pull out of DT too, but that wouldn't be hard to do. I'm getting close to a payout there. Could happen!
-
If so, keeping uploading to SS does not make more sense anymore... What do you guys think?
I'm thinking that if this problem doesn't get fixed very soon, like within a week, I'll start pulling my images out of SS and going exclusive with FT.
This does make sense ... At least you will protect your work! I'm going to remember your advice I guess... I am very disappointed. Look I'm not a photographer I'm just an illustrator but getting accepted in SS Was one of my goals 2 years ago.. Now I'm very frustrated and disappointed
-
I don't think they will fix it. They do what customers ask them to do, not contributors.
BTW, where is Vincent? :P
I think your correct. We Cave in pretty easy throughout History. Don't talk about it and they will go away. Don't think so On this One. Of course we need a LOT more Folks.
please take a look at my new thread
this is something that could happen with this large preview size (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/hope-this-dude-is-not-using-your-stock-photo-for-the-abuse/msg435435/?topicseen#new[/url)
-
Wait wait wait... Are you telling me that there's the chance SS won't fix this issue?? ...can't believe it! If so, subscribers first, and then all the rest of the world will pick and choose everything they want to... Just right click and save... I can't believe SS can actually think this is ok... Ok for us , or at least , for them.
They are also quite demanding on almost everything and.... How possible they don't see the stupidity with this?
If so, keeping uploading to SS does not make more sense anymore... What do you guys think?
I checked many of my pics and the watermark is visible only on darker areas..... I think it's a week now they have this new preview ... How long will this take to be fixed?
They are reluctant to change anything, which is why this is taking so long and our work goes unprotected.
BUT we can email Shutterstock support, write on the SS forum, sign the petition, stop uploading our work. Maybe use social media! How they have exposed our work is not acceptable - Let's make sure they know that! Let's tell them what we think!
This is not the time to wait and to be silent!
When SS practically offers our work for free, that means less sales in other agencies as well. It's easy enough to click and save, so why would anybody actually purchase images when you get them free? (Especially if you need a small Image for web.)
Don't let this happen to your new most recent work, don't upload it on SS.
-
I'm not uploading to SS anymore until this problem is fixed. I have a whole new batch I was going to upload but now I really don't see the point. My heart hurts because I enjoy doing stock.
DT has a feature where you can zoom in on parts of the image. Couldn't they do something like that? There has got to be another way(e)!
-
I don't think they will fix it. They do what customers ask them to do, not contributors.
BTW, where is Vincent? :P
That's what I'm thinking too. At the moment all my images are still with version 1, no protection at all after a week of waiting.
Can anyone tell me please, what is that opt in/out button good for? If I opt out:
- does SS stop sales on the site?
- does SS stop sales at partners as well?
- can I opt in back without consequences ?
I just want to know, I shall still wait a week or so before I decide.
I am more concerned about sales on FT. As Martha said, I prefer to go exclusive (or partial) on FT if SS continues to give out images for free.
Please, don't use social media, you are just attracting even more scumbags.
-
They'll fix the problem. It's only a matter of time.
When they see the download numbers fall, they won't have much of a choice.
-
It's very arrogant from SS not to deactivate their preview system until it's fully fixed. Google has already indexed those unprotected large images. Their behavior shows that they don't care about protecting our content if those big companies keep buying their subscriptions. Now anyone can download those images for free, remove so-called watermarks and use/resell them. When SS notice a drop, it will be too late. SS couldn't do anything to stop unauthorized image reselling in the past. Best thing they can do is protecting our content when they are at their hand. So pity to see that their worry has only limited to those fancy emails.
-
I can only says that it's bad news. There won't be anymore watermark update now.
-
I can only says that it's bad news. There won't be anymore watermark update now.
Sure doesn't look like it.
-
Petition signed. C-man Guys Be a voice Not just a post if ya Care.
-
I don't know what do / think....
I just can't believe this is really happening.... Now it's been like ten days or something and nothing has changed... Makes me think that they won't fix it.. Am I right?
-
Can anyone see anything on iStock? I can't see any of the images when I click on them in the search.
-
Great, now our photos are all over google 1500px with invisible watermarks.
I really don't mind large previews, as long as there are HUGE SHUTTERSTOCK letters in front.
Unbelievable.
-
Am I right?
I have a strong hunch that you are right.
-
Can anyone see anything on iStock? I can't see any of the images when I click on them in the search.
I can. Not a good watermark (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/black-and-white-retaining-wall-xl-5720291?st=89b31d1) that one either but at least the image is smaller.
-
Here's that petition link again:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
475 signatures at present. Thanks, Laurin, for signing!
-
I signed this morning. I added this note (and used my full name):
"Theft of images is an old problem, but helping thieves with huge previews and a weak watermark is not in contributor interests. Shutterstock has been shown the problems and is consciously ignoring contributor interests while lamely claiming this will help our sales. Fix the watermark Shutterstock!"
They replied to my support ticket which gave them examples of how the V2 watermark failed with isolated on white images with a boilerplate blurb about how the new watermark provides better protection while serving the needs of customers. They clearly can't even be bothered to write a specific reply (in which case why did I have to wait? If it's just an automated spew of canned text it should be immediate!).
Tossers!
-
I signed this morning. I added this note (and used my full name):
"Theft of images is an old problem, but helping thieves with huge previews and a weak watermark is not in contributor interests. Shutterstock has been shown the problems and is consciously ignoring contributor interests while lamely claiming this will help our sales. Fix the watermark Shutterstock!"
They replied to my support ticket which gave them examples of how the V2 watermark failed with isolated on white images with a boilerplate blurb about how the new watermark provides better protection while serving the needs of customers. They clearly can't even be bothered to write a specific reply (in which case why did I have to wait? If it's just an automated spew of canned text it should be immediate!).
Tossers!
Thanks, Jo Ann, for doing that!
I would really hate to leave SS, but right now it's looking like I'll do that pretty soon.
-
Here's that petition link again:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
475 signatures at present. Thanks, Laurin, for signing!
475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!
-
“This new watermark and larger image preview is designed to drive more download opportunities for your creative work while protecting it.”
1) if a customer needs/likes a pic, he will just buy it anyway without staring at the large preview
2) if a customer does not like a pic, he will take it anyway since it is for free now…:D
what a shame...
(petition signed)
-
475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!
A huge portion of the 60K will be inactive or with fewer than 100 images. Don't be discouraged by the proportions seeming to be so small. There are probably more like 6K - 10K active contributors. The poll numbers are still small, I grant you, but not as bad as the overall contributor number makes it look
-
475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!
A huge portion of the 60K will be inactive or with fewer than 100 images. Don't be discouraged by the proportions seeming to be so small. There are probably more like 6K - 10K active contributors. The poll numbers are still small, I grant you, but not as bad as the overall contributor number makes it look
I'm just sad that we are not able to be more united in everyone's interest.
-
Did you guys read the topic in SS forum???
They say the new watermark will be different from now because it's going to have a black footer instead of white ( mine are whit white footer) and they say it will take few days to change the watermark...
This was wrote on 26th October ... Let's wait and see what happen... meanwhile I have wrote to support ... Let's see
-
Did you guys read the topic in SS forum???
They say the new watermark will be different from now because it's going to have a black footer instead of white ( mine are whit white footer) and they say it will take few days to change the watermark...
This was wrote on 26th October ... Let's wait and see what happen... meanwhile I have wrote to support ... Let's see
Yes we did, did you? Let's see what? They gave us three examples with the black footer in the very first post of that thread. Not much of a difference, still not visible on white background or texture.
Good morning sunshine!
-
Did you guys read the topic in SS forum???
They say the new watermark will be different from now because it's going to have a black footer instead of white ( mine are whit white footer) and they say it will take few days to change the watermark...
This was wrote on 26th October ... Let's wait and see what happen... meanwhile I have wrote to support ... Let's see
A few pages back I posted two of the new (black footer) images as examples - one that is OK and one not. These are the ones I sent to SS support to show them what needed fixing - and to which I got a boilerplate reply this morning saying it was better protection for us as well as good previews for buyers
Here's one where it works well:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-open-layout-kitchen-with-family-room-adjacent-back-in-use-following-an-extensive-remodel-331838918.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-open-layout-kitchen-with-family-room-adjacent-back-in-use-following-an-extensive-remodel-331838918.jpg)
And one where it doesn't:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg)
-
@Dodie ..... Don't talk to me like that ok? I am in Italy and it's possible that I read after you because of the time and things like this ... I saw the previews .... The aviation one looks ok to me... And the other one... Looks good but not perfect yet...
They say they need some time to make this change , so the only thing we can do know is actually .... Wait. That was posted three days ago..
@Jo Anne yes, I already saw you're post and looked at the pics...
-
@Dodie ..... Don't talk to me like that ok? I am in Italy and it's possible that I read after you because of the time and things like this ... I saw the previews .... The aviation one looks ok to me... And the other one... Looks good but not perfect yet...
They say they need some time to make this change , so the only thing we can do know is actually .... Wait. That was posted three days ago..
@Jo Anne yes, I already saw you're post and looked at the pics...
It's OK, sorry. This entire chaos began on the 21st morning (in Europe), more than a week now. How long do you think it would be polite to wait for this watermark?
-
Look, I don't know! BUT... Since SS is always quite demanding with contributors , I guess they won't be so stupid to leave an ineffective watermark and let people take what they like like in a supermarket ...
For the moment I'm not going to upload anything ... I really want to understand what is the next move they will take
-
There really is not much difference between the old watermark and the new (black footer) watermark.
Both are too weak and you can save too large images on your computer. Both watermarks are easy to remove, if you ever need to, and if the background is light or textured it doesn't show.
Shutterstock has to fix this. What can wake them up is NO NEW UPLOADS coming in. Write them, contact the support. Write on the SS forum. Even if they send out robotic emails they will get a lot of mail and they'll see we are furious.
I too got a robot reply to recent email.
"This new watermark and larger image preview is designed to drive more download opportunities for your creative work ..."
Yep, that's what it does.
What other trade is expected to work for free??
Please sign the petition if you haven't already (I have signed) ... let's reach 500!!
-
Link to the petition again:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock (https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock)
Thank you for signing!
-
Link to the petition again:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock (https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock)
Thank you for signing!
I just checked the survey, which is now up to 482… including three more from the USA.
Thanks, Todd, Cheryl, and Susan, for signing on!
-
I've just been randomly checking my best sellers to see if any of them now show improved protection. Answer: NO.
This one, when clicked through to preview mode, shows virtually no WM whatsoever.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218274493/z/stock-photo-ornate-box-turtle-crosses-a-gravel-road-at-quivira-national-wildlife-refuge-in-kansas.html?src=QxIjgs2m2cbHVmO7eDSTcQ-1-18 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218274493/z/stock-photo-ornate-box-turtle-crosses-a-gravel-road-at-quivira-national-wildlife-refuge-in-kansas.html?src=QxIjgs2m2cbHVmO7eDSTcQ-1-18)
Aargh!!!
-
475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!
yes, and 9 pages on this forum. i can see where this is going to get ss management off their moforearends to acknowledge there is an issue to be implemented urgently.
consider there were a lot more pages re the other contributors relations matter on ss forum which were also ignored by management.
time to face up to the truth, ppl 8)
-
Forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying, but
this is not the time for negativity or sarcasm. They don't help.
They make money out of OUR work, they can't ignore us forever, if we stop uploading and will not upload until this problem is fixed.
We have to think long term and not just this day and week. Let's be consistent.
475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!
yes, and 9 pages on this forum. i can see where this is going to get ss management off their moforearends to acknowledge there is an issue to be implemented urgently.
consider there were a lot more pages re the other contributors relations matter on ss forum which were also ignored by management.
time to face up to the truth, ppl 8)
-
Forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying, but
this is not the time for negativity or sarcasm. They don't help.
They make money out of OUR work, they can't ignore us forever, if we stop uploading and will not upload until this problem is fixed.
We have to think long term and not just this day and week. Let's be consistent.
Are you all prepared to delete your images if they don't comply? It's easy to go sign a petition, but when it comes to doing what is REALLY necessary, most won't bother. "I can't afford to take my images down, I have a family to feed" or "well, they DID improve the watermark a little bit." It's not negativity or sarcasm, it's history and fact. Documented right here on this forum. Look how many people still upload to istock, after years of complaining!
And yes, they can ignore you forever. If they lose even 1,000 out of 10, 20 or 30 thousand contributors, do you think they care? Its a rhetorial question...the answer is no. And I would bet they don't even lose that many!
if we stop uploading
Another easy (yet temporary) solution. They don't care about that. how many images get uploaded every day?
I was on board with all of these demonstrations once upon a time. Nothing major ever changed (notice Shelma1 and marthamarks (my two archenemies, who just HAVE to dispute everything I say ;) ), I said major. sure, contributors might have won some skirmishes, but the war goes on). They still make billions and we still make pennies.
But I admire all of your rebelliousness. :)
-
Forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying, but
this is not the time for negativity or sarcasm. They don't help.
They make money out of OUR work, they can't ignore us forever, if we stop uploading and will not upload until this problem is fixed.
We have to think long term and not just this day and week. Let's be consistent.
Are you all prepared to delete your images if they don't comply? It's easy to go sign a petition, but when it comes to doing what is REALLY necessary, most won't bother. "I can't afford to take my images down, I have a family to feed" or "well, they DID improve the watermark a little bit." It's not negativity or sarcasm, it's history and fact. Documented right here on this forum. Look how many people still upload to istock, after years of complaining!
And yes, they can ignore you forever. If they lose even 1,000 out of 10, 20 or 30 thousand contributors, do you think they care? Its a rhetorial question...the answer is no. And I would bet they don't even lose that many!
if we stop uploading
Another easy (yet temporary) solution. They don't care about that. how many images get uploaded every day?
I was on board with all of these demonstrations once upon a time. Nothing major ever changed (notice Shelma1 and marthamarks (my two archenemies, who just HAVE to dispute everything I say ;) ), I said major. sure, contributors might have won some skirmishes, but the war goes on). They still make billions and we still make pennies.
But I admire all of your rebelliousness. :)
i am in line with cathyslife on this. it is not negativity or sacarcsm but reality check.
in latin lucha sounds like loser, winner in english sounds like whiner, ...
which is all much like what we reach after pages in ss forum and here with no response from ss
mgmt.
it is like a dinosaur refusing to change instead waiting until the boat sinks before realising everyone will perish.
the old bear knows when to quit while the silly bear think a gun pointed in its way is a stick with food on it. we all went that way about optimism here 10 years ago, and nothing 's changed except
new issues of whogivesashitwhatuthink popping out each time.
but this is a forum, and free speech is ok .
-
I've noticed this large preview a few days ago...
I usually make my vector images very fast, so it's not a huge problem for me if somebody downloads a few of them without paying. But I know, there are many of contributors who put large amount of time into their works.
(The images I've put the most work into are never purchased...)
Am I right, that now previews are not as large as a few days ago?
-
I've noticed this large preview a few days ago...
I usually make my vector images very fast, so it's not a huge problem for me if somebody downloads a few of them without paying. But I know, there are many of contributors who put large amount of time into their works.
(The images I've put the most work into are never purchased...)
Am I right, that now previews are not as large as a few days ago?
Don't know about size, but I see a lattice, criss-crossing the photos, many watermarks on the crossings, writing on the lines. The color of the bottom doesn't make any difference.
-
The new watermark is just as useless http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html)
-
The new watermark is just as useless [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html[/url])
That's not the new one. New ones have a black bar at the bottom
-
Ok
-
(notice Shelma1 and marthamarks (my two archenemies, who just HAVE to dispute everything I say ;) )
Wow. Just wow.
-
The new watermark is just as useless [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html[/url])
You have to check those who have the black footer ... In my port there just three files with the second version filigree
-
The new watermark is just as useless [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html[/url])
You have to check those who have the black footer ... In my port there just three files with the second version filigree
So… we have to browse through our entire portfolios on SS to find which images have the "new and improved" V2 WM?
Really, Shutterstock? This is the best you can do?
-
Next SS message to us will be:
"Considering your expressed discontent about watermark, SS team has decided to listen you and take an action about this. Therefore we have decided to remove the watermark from high quality previews.
Yours, SS Team."
-
(notice Shelma1 and marthamarks (my two archenemies, who just HAVE to dispute everything I say ;) )
Wow. Just wow.
Lol.
-
Here's the thing...if people start stealing our images and not buying, Shutterstock will lose even more money than we will. After all, they keep 72%. The minute they start losing a penny of moola-la they'll jump right into action to strengthen that watermark. I just hope it's soon enough that all our images aren't indexed by Google and spread all over the place.
I was the first to speak in their defense when they started offering unwatermarked images to large enterprises for comps, because I could see the potential for large sales in a controlled environment (which has panned out). But I really don't see an upside to allowing the general public to download a large percentage of our work for free.
-
in answer to the comment ...
" how long do we have to wait for an effective watermark and
a non-canned response to joanne and all"...
dear faithful contributors of ss,
the effects of marijuana can linger from hours to a lifetime.
pls be assured we are taking your concerns seriously.
we are servicing concerns on a priority basis.
(huh, what??? oh, ok... sorry i haven't inhale enuff of the stuff yet. because i needed to type this email to those msg buggers. ..
wow, this is really good stuff !!! where did you get it???...
-
I've noticed this large preview a few days ago...
I usually make my vector images very fast, so it's not a huge problem for me if somebody downloads a few of them without paying. But I know, there are many of contributors who put large amount of time into their works.
(The images I've put the most work into are never purchased...)
Am I right, that now previews are not as large as a few days ago?
Yep, they look smaller
Anyway it’s not a problem of sales only… it’s a problem of copyright…
I don’t like the idea of some random people saving image with invisible filigree by right-clicking on it and put it on fb cover :)
-
I'm thinking that if this problem doesn't get fixed very soon, like within a week, I'll start pulling my images out of SS and going exclusive with FT.
I don't believe any single agency. Who knows what FT will do in future? May be they are to follow SS. We (at least I) had more faith with SS before, but they ruined it.
-
Next SS message to us will be:
"Considering your expressed discontent about watermark, SS team has decided to listen you and take an action about this. Therefore we have decided to remove the watermark from high quality previews.
Yours, SS Team."
I guessed they have already sent something similar to their beloved customers.
Next msg to customers would be:
We have large previews with no watermarks, but you need to buy monthly subscription to see those previews and save them.
Then SS doesn't have to pay their contributors at all. All in one bag...
-
I'm thinking that if this problem doesn't get fixed very soon, like within a week, I'll start pulling my images out of SS and going exclusive with FT.
I don't believe any single agency. Who knows what FT will do in future? May be they are to follow SS. We (at least I) had more faith with SS before, but they ruined it.
Anathaya, I totally agree with that! And it's one big reason I may not jump. SS has always treated me (and most/all of us, I think) very well. Hard to leave them for the unknown.
I also have resisted exclusivity. It just goes against my grain.
So, for now, I'm sitting tight.
-
Yep, they look smaller
They made them, indeed, look smaller. Because the shown picture is resized just prior to the actual display.
If you right-click on the previewed image and save it, the image will be saved as 1500 pixels on the longer side.
-
Yep, they look smaller
They made them, indeed, look smaller. Because the shown picture is resized just prior to the actual display.
If you right-click on the previewed image and save it, the image will be saved as 1500 pixels on the longer side.
So, Les, is the intent to deceive us so we feel more confident? Lull us into complacence? Sure seems like that.
Geez.
-
The petition now has 486 signatures. Surely we can get to 500!
Come on, folks:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
-
Yep, they look smaller
They made them, indeed, look smaller. Because the shown picture is resized just prior to the actual display.
If you right-click on the previewed image and save it, the image will be saved as 1500 pixels on the longer side.
So, Les, is the intent to deceive us so we feel more confident? Lull us into complacence? Sure seems like that.
Geez.
Martha, I wouldn't want to speculate about the intent, but some may interpret it that way.
And then there will be others, who won't bother figuring out the intent at all, but will get busy saving those large images.
-
And then there will be others, who won't try to figure out the intent at all, but will get busy saving those large images.
Agreed. Which is why it's really hard to stick with SS.
Why do they have to put us in such a bind? The only answer has to be that they just don't give a d*mn about us.
Geez.
-
The support reply me back by saying there is no plan of improving another watermark.... and when I ask them the time when the new watermark will change over the old one in my portfolio (which they say all will be finish this weekend), they say that they can not pin point the date because the process is complicate.
By the way, the latest version of watermark completely giveaway my vector icon and illustration for free. >:(
-
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are. Are you guys worried that registered buyers or contributors on this site will take time out to cover up and steal your images? I'm probably gonna get flamed but i think theres a bit of over reaction going on over here.
I am one of those that get really irritated by seeing obnoxious watermarks. At some point it really starts to affect the image and i think thats a fine line that is different depending on who you ask.
HOWEVER, I do believe that they have to make the watermark better for the vectors and photos that is mainly flat shapes as that is real simple to level out in photoshop.
-
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.
How do you know that?
It's a serious question. Not snark. Please clarify.
-
Consider yourself corrected - you do not have to be signed in to see the large preview.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.
-
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.
I just went to a browser I don't use so that I wasn't logged in with my "buyer" account and I was able to see previews just fine
-
Consider yourself corrected - you do not have to be signed in to see the large preview.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.
Just Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,qdr:w,ic:gray&tbm=isch&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0CBIQpwVqFQoTCM7K287w3cgCFeI3pgod13oG2g&dpr=1&biw=1600&bih=742&gws_rd=cr&ei=9e0sVvvXIKTDmwXaqoy4CA#q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,ic:gray,qdr:w&tbm=isch), you will find them :P
-
Just Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,qdr:w,ic:gray&tbm=isch&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0CBIQpwVqFQoTCM7K287w3cgCFeI3pgod13oG2g&dpr=1&biw=1600&bih=742&gws_rd=cr&ei=9e0sVvvXIKTDmwXaqoy4CA#q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,ic:gray,qdr:w&tbm=isch), you will find them :P
Yikes! That's quite a collection you've got in that link. I'm curious to know what keywords you Googled to turn all those up.
After seeing that, I took your advice and Googled a couple dozen of my own images, unusual ones without thousands of competitors that I could hone in on precisely.
Maybe half of them turned up from FT (but not from SS), and those were clearly watermarked by FT.
But several others that did turn up from SS showed the "black footer" v2 WM… and they actually were much better protected! The WM was stronger and more visible. Not all had that, but about 1/3 did.
So… now I'm beginning to think that SS actually is rolling out a version that may help at least some of us (or at least some of our images), if not all.
It would be nice to think that all may be better protected soon. Holding my breath and crossing my fingers…
-
Just Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,qdr:w,ic:gray&tbm=isch&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0CBIQpwVqFQoTCM7K287w3cgCFeI3pgod13oG2g&dpr=1&biw=1600&bih=742&gws_rd=cr&ei=9e0sVvvXIKTDmwXaqoy4CA#q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,ic:gray,qdr:w&tbm=isch), you will find them :P
Looking at this search result, I just found out that square images are even bigger, 1500px x 1600px. I didn't know that before.
-
Yikes! That's quite a collection you've got in that link. I'm curious to know what keywords you Googled to turn all those up.
Just type
site:shutterstock.com "Yous SS credit line"
in Google image search and then select image size "Larger than 1024x768"
-
Looking at this search result, I just found out that square images are even bigger, 1500px x 1600px. I didn't know that before.
Yes, there are many such jumbo previews (https://www.google.com/search?q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=isz:lt,islt:xga,qdr:w,ic:gray&tbm=isch&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0CBIQpwVqFQoTCM7K287w3cgCFeI3pgod13oG2g&dpr=1&biw=1600&bih=742&gws_rd=cr&ei=9e0sVvvXIKTDmwXaqoy4CA#q=site:shutterstock.com&tbas=0&tbs=qdr:w,isz:lt,islt:2mp,imgo:1&tbm=isch).
-
The petition now has 486 signatures. Surely we can get to 500!
Come on, folks:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
491!
We can do this today!
Say NO to stealing!
-
Nothing major ever changed
Doing something may achieve nothing, doing nothing will definitely achieve nothing or, in the oft-quoted words of Edmund Burke, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'.
-
Nothing major ever changed
Doing something may achieve nothing, doing nothing will definitely achieve nothing or, in the oft-quoted words of Edmund Burke, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'.
Exactly! When we do what we can, there is hope for the better. We know nothing for sure but only action can make a difference. Group action is what is most effective.
I only need to look at my Gigantic free images all under the v1 watermark and I know Exactly what to do. And what not to.
-
Nothing major ever changed
Doing something may achieve nothing, doing nothing will definitely achieve nothing or, in the oft-quoted words of Edmund Burke, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'.
If you read carefully, i didnt say do nothing. :) Actually, i sent an email when this thread first started, along with others, which is when ss starting working on changing the watermark.
if you seriously think a petition with 500 names is going to change something further, then for sure, sign it! We will see what happens.
@martha and shelma ;)
-
30th october 2015, 14:15 in Rome, Italy. The preview with white footer is still there...among million of images.
next step: they will show the large preview directly on the sky like the Bat-Signal :)
-
Whatever they decide, I would like to hear their final word about this subject. I have a bad feeling about something much bigger being cooked here for us and this watermark scandal is just the first step of it.
Think!
They implemented the first version instantly, for everyone, so why is such a long delay needed for the second one? Why let Google index all highrez images with version 1 when it will be changed? It almost looks like they are deliberately delaying to implement (at least) version two in order to distract us from the big picture.
Who could benefit the most of this huge favor SS is doing?
-
Whatever they decide, I would like to hear their final word about this subject. I have a bad feeling about something much bigger being cooked here for us and this watermark scandal is just the first step of it.
Think!
They implemented the first version instantly, for everyone, so why is such a long delay needed for the second one? Why let Google index all highrez images with version 1 when it will be changed? It almost looks like they are deliberately delaying to implement (at least) version two in order to distract us from the big picture.
Who could benefit the most of this huge favor SS is doing?
Creepy comment :(
I think that it take a long time to implement the week (mistaked) watermark, of course we just saw the change in moment, but it must take long time to them...
-
I am one of those that get really irritated by seeing obnoxious watermarks. At some point it really starts to affect the image and i think thats a fine line that is different depending on who you ask.
LMAO to the red remark.
depending on who you ask, you say?
that is like asking the petty thieves in my neighbourhood do they really feel it is necessary for us to have barbed wire around our property 6 foot walls to deter them from breaking into our homes.
the only ppl who consider watermarks obnoxious are the ones who do not think it is important to protect someone's else property , in this case, the photographers and vector artists.
are you by any chance one of the mgt fellas of ss who implemented this obnoxious idea of making it easier for ppl to steal our work???
-
Whatever they decide, I would like to hear their final word about this subject. I have a bad feeling about something much bigger being cooked here for us and this watermark scandal is just the first step of it.
Think!
They implemented the first version instantly, for everyone, so why is such a long delay needed for the second one? Why let Google index all highrez images with version 1 when it will be changed? It almost looks like they are deliberately delaying to implement (at least) version two in order to distract us from the big picture.
Who could benefit the most of this huge favor SS is doing?
Creepy comment :(
I think that it take a long time to implement the week (mistaked) watermark, of course we just saw the change in moment, but it must take long time to them...
Yes, creepy, it's almost Halloween. What if I'm right?
-
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldn’t be “thieves”…they are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS
-
Whatever they decide, I would like to hear their final word about this subject. I have a bad feeling about something much bigger being cooked here for us and this watermark scandal is just the first step of it.
Think!
They implemented the first version instantly, for everyone, so why is such a long delay needed for the second one? Why let Google index all highrez images with version 1 when it will be changed? It almost looks like they are deliberately delaying to implement (at least) version two in order to distract us from the big picture.
Who could benefit the most of this huge favor SS is doing?
Creepy comment :(
I think that it take a long time to implement the week (mistaked) watermark, of course we just saw the change in moment, but it must take long time to them...
Yes, creepy, it's almost Halloween. What if I'm right?
Which would be the worst scenario?
Maybe SS will pay us just a few cents for our images ... Oh... Wait a second... they actually pay us a few cents for our images...
-
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldn’t be “thieves”…they are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS
Yes, and don't forget, most web surfers are neither photographers, nor designer. Most people, still think that all what's on Google is free stuff. A good example for that is Pinterest with many backlinks to Google, not to mention other social media.
-
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldn’t be “thieves”…they are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS
except that
1) Santa has his elfs and wife to make the toys he gives away; not someone else's toys
2) even the Santa at the shopping center asks for money from moms
before their child sits on his lap to get a gift from Mrs Claus.
there is nothing wrong with giving away free stuff, so long as
like dt,
the contributor chooses the option; not the agency sneakily creepily doing it on the sly
simply because , perharps, eg fotolia with adobe is gaining foothold of their market.
whatever the reason, ss is definitely not the #1 agency it used to be...
and the market (the other stock market) reflects this.
-
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldn’t be “thieves”…they are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS
Yes, and don't forget, most web surfers are neither photographers, nor designer. Most people, still think that all what's on Google is free stuff. A good example for that is Pinterest with many backlinks to Google, not to mention other social media.
yes, like those ppl who profess, " i paid for the dvd/cd, so i bought the rights to give away the movie or music "...
i also read somewhere , in a photo magazine, some editor (believe it or not), discussing rights
saying rights-free means you can do anything you want with the photos
without having to pay for it.
imagine how that would translate to many of those ppl using watermarked, or none ,
following his professional advice.
the problem of stealing , no doubt, is due to misinformation, rather than a blogger,etc deliberately
stealing your work.
-
perharps , another option would be having a bubble , like you get from some sites, informing you that you cannot copy or use this image without paying for it.
this way, it will not be misconstrued it is ok to use the large preview for free
-
I just had a friend post on FB this morning that she saw a commercial on TV for a local college. The stock video they used still had the istockvideo logo on it. Even colleges seem to be saying it's ok to use copyrighted material. >:(
-
the problem of stealing , no doubt, is due to misinformation, rather than a blogger,etc deliberately
stealing your work.
I agree when we talk about simple bloggers but many, like domain resellers are stealing everything with special software, no mercy.
-
I just had a friend post on FB this morning that she saw a commercial on TV for a local college. The stock video they used still had the istockvideo logo on it. Even colleges seem to be saying it's ok to use copyrighted material. >:(
yes, and they all graduate to perpetuate the idea it's ok to use rights-free photographs from ss etc
... worse, find a job with ss to implement more new ways to give away our work 8)
-
Please sign, Let's reach 500 today!
If we speak our mind AND stop uploading and they get no new images they will have to change their attitude towards us contributors and develop a protective enough watermark. Sure everyone is used to contributing to SS and making money. That used to be comfortable. However that was BEFORE they put all our images out there for everyone to download and use for free. People love free stuff and think that everything they Google is free. So goodbye nice money in the future.
Don't forget that what SS did to us diminishes our sales in other agencies as well.
Every trade demands more pay but stock photographers are expected to donate their work away, free. You are giving your work free you continue to upload to SS. Free work day in day out. Just think. Who wants to do THAT?
The petition now has 486 signatures. Surely we can get to 500!
Come on, folks:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
491!
We can do this today!
Say NO to stealing!
-
We should be at a 1000 and More by Now. C-mon Guys support. Im writing everyone I know.
-
Currently 494 have signed on. Most seem to be from Russia, Ukraine, Romania, etc. And good for them! But…
C'mon, Americans. Let's do our part!
-
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are.
How do you know that?
It's a serious question. Not snark. Please clarify.
If i just type in shutterstock in my web browser and the website comes up. I am still able to search images without logging in. When I click on the small image preview box, the new window i get is to subscribe to one of their image plans. Am I the only one getting this and not the image preview box that most of you guys see? Maybe you guys have cookies that the website remembers who you are even if not logged in.
-
If i just type in shutterstock in my web browser and the website comes up. I am still able to search images without logging in. When I click on the small image preview box, the new window i get is to subscribe to one of their image plans. Am I the only one getting this and not the image preview box that most of you guys see? Maybe you guys have cookies that the website remembers who you are even if not logged in.
Common, those large previews are publicly available. Otherwise, how can Google index them?
-
The reason many may not be signing is that they have to sign up with AVAAZ first. In this day and age with internet hackers running rampant, people are understandably reluctant to sign on to a site they are not familiar with.
-
I am one of those that get really irritated by seeing obnoxious watermarks. At some point it really starts to affect the image and i think thats a fine line that is different depending on who you ask.
LMAO to the red remark.
depending on who you ask, you say?
that is like asking the petty thieves in my neighbourhood do they really feel it is necessary for us to have barbed wire around our property 6 foot walls to deter them from breaking into our homes.
the only ppl who consider watermarks obnoxious are the ones who do not think it is important to protect someone's else property , in this case, the photographers and vector artists.
are you by any chance one of the mgt fellas of ss who implemented this obnoxious idea of making it easier for ppl to steal our work???
I actually buy pictures. Do you? Or are you actually a content producer who has no clue about the other side(buyer). I've actually stated my case against vectors and simple shapes as this new watermark isn't good enough for those. You sound like you have never bought a picture ever before. Tell me you haven't seen ridiculous watermarks that even a 90 yr old person can see without glasses. And more often than not, no thief would like to steal that image anyways. Microstock is filled with mediocrity because so many who submit never buy and have little clue.
If your a buyer of images, the more subtle the watermark it is the better. If your a thief, you would want none what so ever. But really what percentage are we crying about anyways thats gonna steal your precious images? I would probably say the percentage of people stealing images would be less than 5% and do you think shutterstock will cater to the less than 5% chance of thieves stealing content that they don't own or catering to the other 95% of buyers who dont give a rats ass if the watermark is too subtle. Look at the watermark at stocksy. subtle and barely seen. ::)
-
I would probably say the percentage of people stealing images would be less than 5%
You may be right, but then, again… you come out with statements that don't seem to have any specific information behind them, just your hunches.
Do you have any facts to back up that 5% statement?
-
I actually buy pictures. Do you?
Oh, you are a buyer, that's why you love it. You don't have to pay anymore. BTW, do you sell pictures?
Look at the watermark at stocksy. subtle and barely seen. ::)
But much smaller image sizes.
You just keep expressing vague ideas without any justification.
-
I actually buy pictures. Do you?
Oh, you are a buyer, that's why you love it. You don't have to pay anymore. BTW, do you sell pictures?
Look at the watermark at stocksy. subtle and barely seen. ::)
But much smaller image sizes.
You just keep expressing vague ideas without any justification.
Im both buyer and contributor but mainly vectors. I discovered istock as a designer for a client i was doing website for back in 2005. I started to contribute both photos and vectors around 2008-9 as exclusive contributor. I joined SS around 2 years ago as a contributor. I hardly make anything new for the micro in the last 2 years but i still come here to check out any news on this industry as it still gives me a nice amount each month.
What is a vague idea? I just don't have any more time to worry about another stupid issue thats worth my time to get all upset over. Misery loves company so keep being miserable if that makes you feel better.
The real issue is how many of you is thieves in here? "Oh your a buyer, that's why you love it"... that's you thinking that all/most buyers are thieves.... again clueless over reaction. So your basically saying that if you are a buyer yourself, you would just be stealing these images.
-
The reason many may not be signing is that they have to sign up with AVAAZ first. In this day and age with internet hackers running rampant, people are understandably reluctant to sign on to a site they are not familiar with.
That's not true, you can sign with any existing account. I did it with (one of ) my Facebook accounts which is more likely to be hacked as anything else.
-
I actually buy pictures. Do you?
Oh, you are a buyer, that's why you love it. You don't have to pay anymore. BTW, do you sell pictures?
Look at the watermark at stocksy. subtle and barely seen. ::)
But much smaller image sizes.
You just keep expressing vague ideas without any justification.
Im both buyer and contributor but mainly vectors. I discovered istock as a designer for a client i was doing website for back in 2005. I started to contribute both photos and vectors around 2008-9 as exclusive contributor. I joined SS around 2 years ago as a contributor. I hardly make anything new for the micro in the last 2 years but i still come here to check out any news on this industry as it still gives me a nice amount each month.
What is a vague idea? I just don't have any more time to worry about another stupid issue thats worth my time to get all upset over. Misery loves company so keep being miserable if that makes you feel better.
The real issue is how many of you is thieves in here? "Oh your a buyer, that's why you love it"... that's you thinking that all/most buyers are thieves.... again clueless over reaction. So your basically saying that if you are a buyer yourself, you would just be stealing these images.
Oh....you're a buuuuuuuyyyyyyer. I see. So you know more than any of us simpletons. Like me, for example. I've been on the buying side for three decades, back from when Tony Stone was still a thing. And I want a stronger watermark. Lots of people are buyers here. Many for much longer than you.
-
But really what percentage are we crying about anyways thats gonna steal your precious images? I would probably say the percentage of people stealing images would be less than 5% and do you think shutterstock will cater to the less than 5% chance of thieves stealing content that they don't own or catering to the other 95% of buyers who dont give a rats ass if the watermark is too subtle. Look at the watermark at stocksy. subtle and barely seen. ::)
90% of bloggers using pictures are stealing them with or without watermark, regardless of quality. Many of them are even bragging about it and call you stupid if you mention buying images.
I could prove this (but I don't) with my long list to DMCA of thousands of link to stolen images and the action taken:
We have received your DMCA take-down notice dated xxxxx
regarding the following:
[url]http://YYYYYYYYhtml[/url] ([url]http://YYYYYYYYhtml[/url])
We have reviewed the allegedly infringing content in question. In
accordance with our policies, we have taken the content offline and
notified the blogger of the complaint. Should the allegedly infringing
content reappear at this post, please let us know and we will take further
action.
Of course it will reappear but at that time you are too tired to care. That doesn't mean we should make things easier for them.
-
I don't think it's about us, buyers or contributors stealing from each other. We all are just a drop in the ocean compared to trillions that search the web.
-
that's you thinking that all/most buyers are thieves.... again clueless over reaction. So your basically saying that if you are a buyer yourself, you would just be stealing these images.
This is where you go off the rails, VB.
Nobody is saying "all/most buyers are thieves". By definition, a "buyer" is not a "thief."
The thieves are those out in the great cyber-universe who would never buy an image in their lives, but they will happily steal—and thus devalue—other people's intellectual property.
Why is that concept so hard for you to understand?
-
that's you thinking that all/most buyers are thieves.... again clueless over reaction. So your basically saying that if you are a buyer yourself, you would just be stealing these images.
This is where you go off the rails, VB.
Nobody is saying "all/most buyers are thieves". By definition, a "buyer" is not a "thief."
The thieves are those out in the great cyber-universe who would never buy an image in their lives, but they will happily steal—and thus devalue—other people's intellectual property.
Why is that concept so hard for you to understand?
Martha scroll up to where 60D says I am a buyer, then assumes i will be happy because i will steal it. :o
Am i the one going off the rails? I think I am the one being entertained by people on this thread going off the rails and excuse me if i have a differing opinion. This is where I get attacked cus im not freaking the eff out. Oh god, another tony stone remark... ;D
-
I actually buy pictures. Do you? Or are you actually a content producer who has no clue about the other side(buyer).
no, i do not buy pictures, i produce them. no i am not clueless like you claim to be so know all the facts... but i do not claim to be a smartass either.
if you are a producer too, i don't see why you are so against watermarks...
not unless you think giving away your own products is a good way to become popular.
whatever your motive, bully for you. but as you can see, we all besides yourself
choose to have a better watermark, obnoxious as it may be to you.
-
But really what percentage are we crying about anyways thats gonna steal your precious images? I would probably say the percentage of people stealing images would be less than 5%...
so, because 5% according to your substantiated figure is not enough to warrant a better mark.
where do you live in this world? if 5% drivers actually cause death DUI, would you think it is silly to have a law forbidding us to drive under the influence?
or given that in your number, 5% of travellers are actually terrorists, airports are wasting their time to have all our baggage and self under the xray machine.
-
But really what percentage are we crying about anyways thats gonna steal your precious images? I would probably say the percentage of people stealing images would be less than 5%...
lastly, 5% of annual income from ss of 30k =1500 dollars
and on the lower end annual income of 3k = 150 dollars
please let us all here know how you intend to compensate us for that "little amount"
...since you obviously don't think 5% shortfall in our account is anything to cry about.
-
12 pages in and the watermark still look like crap on my screen - even DP has done a better job and if SS can't or won't see that then they need to put away their ping pong paddles, stop drinking the lapsang souchong and shave their ridiculous beards off.
-
SS appears to be moving forward with getting the black bottom previews on more images. I just did a check of a few areas and some newer images (not all and not in any apparent order) have a black bottom preview plus some really old images - 548809 which I uploaded in September 2005, for example.
Certainly the black bottom preview is better than the white bottom one, so perhaps it's good that they proceed with this update. However, they need something better for the predominantly white/light background images and the background patterns/textures:
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87012-updated-shutterstock-watermark/?p=1511557 (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87012-updated-shutterstock-watermark/?p=1511557)
-
Other than fixing this watermark, SS should also mention in the footer that it's copyright protected, who is the copyright owner, and direct link to buy it.
-
Please sign, Let's reach 500 today!
If we speak our mind AND stop uploading and they get no new images they will have to change their attitude towards us contributors and develop a protective enough watermark. Sure everyone is used to contributing to SS and making money. That used to be comfortable. However that was BEFORE they put all our images out there for everyone to download and use for free. People love free stuff and think that everything they Google is free. So goodbye nice money in the future.
Don't forget that what SS did to us diminishes our sales in other agencies as well.
Every trade demands more pay but stock photographers are expected to donate their work away, free. You are giving your work free you continue to upload to SS. Free work day in day out. Just think. Who wants to do THAT?
The petition now has 486 signatures. Surely we can get to 500!
Come on, folks:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
491!
We can do this today!
Say NO to stealing!
Just few names missing. Come on!
-
It will be on Google for free. That's the real problem.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in order to see the big watermark preview, you have to be signed into shutterstock where the company knows who you are. Are you guys worried that registered buyers or contributors on this site will take time out to cover up and steal your images? I'm probably gonna get flamed but i think theres a bit of over reaction going on over here.
I am one of those that get really irritated by seeing obnoxious watermarks. At some point it really starts to affect the image and i think thats a fine line that is different depending on who you ask.
HOWEVER, I do believe that they have to make the watermark better for the vectors and photos that is mainly flat shapes as that is real simple to level out in photoshop.
-
Signed.I feel betrayed :-[
-
Signed.I feel betrayed :-[
Thank you, Thomas! Your signature brought the number up to 496.
Surely we can find four more to get it to 500!
-
Signed.I feel betrayed :-[
Thank you, Thomas! Your signature brought the number up to 496.
Surely we can find four more to get it to 500!
I think you would get more signatures if you start a new thread with a link to the petition as the first entry. I found the link by chance because I did not read every entry in this thread and rarely do because I am busy!
-
Signed.I feel betrayed :-[
Thank you, Thomas! Your signature brought the number up to 496.
Surely we can find four more to get it to 500!
I think you would get more signatures if you start a new thread with a link to the petition as the first entry. I found the link by chance because I did not read every entry in this thread and rarely do because I am busy!
500, 5000, 50,000 it won't matter.
a long time ago, i was gathering petitions for a telemarketing agency. the boss,team-leads,dept mgrm, threatened to fire me if i kept going. i overstepped all of them and went straight to the CEO office.
she came downstairs and transfered the boss,etc to another dept and we got what we wanted.
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site
because i am confident he does not know what is really happening down the ladder.
most CEOs do not have the time to come downstairs ; they rely on the ppl down the ladder.
if they are sleeping on the job, no one will get fired because the CEOs assumed they are doing the job they are hired to do.
-
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site
you did it ?
-
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site
Can you provide his Twitter username?
-
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site
Can you provide his Twitter username?
https://twitter.com/jonoringer
-
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site
Can you provide his Twitter username?
https://twitter.com/jonoringer
Thanks!
Has anybody tried contacting Jon this way? Does he respond?
-
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site
Can you provide his Twitter username?
https://twitter.com/jonoringer
Thanks!
Has anybody tried contacting Jon this way? Does he respond?
Jon does not have to respond. we only twit him under a pseudonym (if you are concern of being another joanne-canva victim)... or use a friend's twitter ...
let him be aware of the matter.
if after a month, nothing's changed,
then we know it's time to move on and find closure that he too does not give a hoot.
.. which i do not believe he does not give a hoot,
he just does not know his ppl are as reddove so humourously but no doubt accurately put it
.. spending office time flipping ping pong paddles, drinking the lapsang souchong ... and wanking with their ridiculous beards .
all that i am sure Jon has not subsidized.
-
500 signatures reached. Thanks to all colleagues, mainly from Russia!
-
So the black footer watermark is on , and that's it I guess... They won't change it again .... All of my pictures are totally exposed , and now I only want to understand if and how this will affect sales/ subscriptions in the future at least.
Honestly, I feel betrayed ... But that's it, end of the story I guess..
That watermark is so easy to remove!! It's ridiculous.
-
There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.
I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932 (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932)
I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention
-
I like the way alamy have done it, big preview but with a clear watermark. There's no reason why SS can't get this right. They have been my favourite microstock site from day 1 but this makes them look incompetent. Reminds me so much of how istock started to ruin their reputation, I still hope SS don't make the same mistakes but the most basic of things, a watermark, should be easy to get right.
-
I like the way alamy have done it, big preview but with a clear watermark. There's no reason why SS can't get this right. They have been my favourite microstock site from day 1 but this makes them look incompetent. Reminds me so much of how istock started to ruin their reputation, I still hope SS don't make the same mistakes but the most basic of things, a watermark, should be easy to get right.
yes, if alamy can do it, why not ss?
unless as you say, they are following the footstep of istock to ruin the company.
which as i said before too... when all this ss mid-mgt's mismanagement started, with istock rejection review similarities and forum ignoring..etc
that they had parachuted some istock ppl over to ss. so the same culture begins at ss.
-
There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.
I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.
[url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932[/url] ([url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932[/url])
I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention
as always joanne leading the front.
maybe Jon is watching you too
but this time with more appreciation of your feedback than Canva ;)
-
...maybe Jon is watching you too
but this time with more appreciation of your feedback than Canva ;)
If Shutterstock wants to remove me as a contributor for suggesting to them that their watermarks need to be improved, then they'd really have jumped the shark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark). Go right ahead (although I once read some police report that said that it was a very common occurrence for the last words of a shooting victim in an altercation to be some variation of 'go ahead then, shoot me'...).
I think that even though they're now a public company, Shutterstock is basically a straightforward organization. They've always paid us on time and have, until now, been remarkably free of shenanigans. Their near-total mangling of their review system is a problem, but that's harder to get them to fix as there are substantial, on-going costs attached to having a good, consistent review system.
Fixing this preview problem, if we can get them to agree that it needs fixing, is a one-time cost and it's just automated from here on out.
-
500 signatures reached. Thanks to all colleagues, mainly from Russia!
What next ?
-
There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.
I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.
[url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932[/url] ([url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932[/url])
I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention
The internet is amazing. One click on one of your examples, and I start getting SS ads all over facebook with that image.
-
There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.
I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.
[url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932[/url] ([url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932[/url])
I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention
In this thread, SS forum users are talking about V3 watermark. What is this V3 watermark? Isn't it same as V2 with that black bottom?
-
I came across the new watermark today and it's a HUGE improvement over the previous one. It seems like it's only on a small percentage of images so far, but I expect a bigger migration in the next week or so.
The logo much larger and it's covers the image very well.
Here is an example of the new one:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-the-sunset-highway-pavement-224655796.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-the-sunset-highway-pavement-224655796.jpg)
Compare to the old one:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-traffic-on-the-highway-blurred-image-background-concept-about-transportation-267385760.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-traffic-on-the-highway-blurred-image-background-concept-about-transportation-267385760.jpg)
-
This this thread, SS forum users are talking about V3 watermark. What is this V3 watermark? Isn't it same as V2 with that black bottom?
There are only two versions of the new enlarged preview:
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511983 (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511983)
ruxpriencdiam is just adding more heat than light to the discussion, which is a shame.
-
There are only two versions of the new enlarged preview:
[url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511983[/url] ([url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511983[/url])
ruxpriencdiam is just adding more heat than light to the discussion, which is a shame.
Very true. It seems like he has nothing else to do other than washing dirty laundry of SS.
-
I came across the new watermark today and it's a HUGE improvement over the previous one. It seems like it's only on a small percentage of images so far, but I expect a bigger migration in the next week or so.
The logo much larger and it's covers the image very well.
Here is an example of the new one:
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-the-sunset-highway-pavement-224655796.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-the-sunset-highway-pavement-224655796.jpg[/url])
Compare to the old one:
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-traffic-on-the-highway-blurred-image-background-concept-about-transportation-267385760.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-traffic-on-the-highway-blurred-image-background-concept-about-transportation-267385760.jpg[/url])
I could and have many times removed watermarks like this in under 90 Seconds. The smaller the image overall. the harder it is. 1500 size Images are childs Play.
-
I came across the new watermark today and it's a HUGE improvement over the previous one. It seems like it's only on a small percentage of images so far, but I expect a bigger migration in the next week or so.
The logo much larger and it's covers the image very well.
Here is an example of the new one:
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-the-sunset-highway-pavement-224655796.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-the-sunset-highway-pavement-224655796.jpg[/url])
Compare to the old one:
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-traffic-on-the-highway-blurred-image-background-concept-about-transportation-267385760.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-traffic-on-the-highway-blurred-image-background-concept-about-transportation-267385760.jpg[/url])
Your new one is the very old V2 announced on 24the Nov. and criticized here on all these pages.
Still good that you finally came across it too.
-
Okay so who is going through uploading withdrawal waiting for them to fix this?
I really don't like them putting the high resolution images online at all! No watermark will make me feel safe because they are so easy to remove ...
-
Okay so who is going through uploading withdrawal waiting for them to fix this?
I really don't like them putting the high resolution images online at all! No watermark will make me feel safe because they are so easy to remove ...
Correct.
-
V2 offers slightly better protection, but not good enough. The gigantic preview and save feature are still there. Why can't they make a watermark which has a large central SS logo on it?
Don't understand why this is taking so long. They introduced the crap watermark overnight but fixing the issue takes forever.
Won't upload until they can offer protection for my images.
-
Okay so who is going through uploading withdrawal waiting for them to fix this?
I really don't like them putting the high resolution images online at all! No watermark will make me feel safe because they are so easy to remove ...
First I want to make it clear I think the SS watermark on the large previews could and should be better.
I also think it’s about time someone figured out a way to protect our image rights in a way that makes it difficult for unauthorized use.
But I’m confident that as soon as somebody came up with a way to do that some low-life would figure out a way around it.
That said, I think everyone who is up-in-arms over this has forgotten one thing:
The moment you uploaded your images to Shutterstock or to any other stock site you gave up all control of how your images would be used and abused, now and forever.
The SS watermarked preview image for your most popular image (girl with camera, teddy bear and balloons) is 1500x1087.
A quick google search finds that image without watermark (without attribution to you) and at a size of 2900x2109.
So it’s already out there in a larger size without watermark and no copyright notice attached.
Which is more likely to be stolen and misused, a smaller one with watermark or a bigger one without watermark?
I know when to let go of something I have no control over.
If I had an image I thought so highly of that I’d be devastated if it was stolen, it wouldn’t be on the internet.
-
The grid of the preview v2 (black footer) is not even visible on black backgrounds....
-
Why dont you guys write something On the SS forums. they dont think we care. They don't come here that much Guys.
-
And then get slated for complaining no thanks
-
And then get slated for complaining no thanks
They practically donate all your images free.
What do you got to lose?
-
Why dont you guys write something On the SS forums. they dont think we care. They don't come here that much Guys.
Some of us did.
What's with the petition, anybody knows something? How many signatures do they need?
-
I understand your point, yes, many of my images are on blogs, facebook etc without watermarks but with the SS watermark someone can just click on my entire portfolio and steal the images right at their fingertips and assume it is okay because they are just "stock images". I think theft occurs more with stock images because people assume it is okay. The "photo robbers" probably don't just take images off random facebook pages and blogs - they go to stock agencies and then remove the watermark. Just my thoughts... Correct me if I am wrong...
-
Why dont you guys write something On the SS forums. they dont think we care. They don't come here that much Guys.
I haven't been able to get on the forum in months - every since they changed it I get errors. (I'm on Firefox) Wish I knew what was going on over there.
-
I understand your point, yes, many of my images are on blogs, facebook etc without watermarks but with the SS watermark someone can just click on my entire portfolio and steal the images right at their fingertips and assume it is okay because they are just "stock images". I think theft occurs more with stock images because people assume it is okay. The "photo robbers" probably don't just take images off random facebook pages and blogs - they go to stock agencies and then remove the watermark. Just my thoughts... Correct me if I am wrong...
I can't correct you - I'm not an image thief or buyer. But buyers will buy and thieves will thieve, whether it photos, music, clothes, cars or groceries -- whatever. The problem is much deeper than a weak watermark. The term 'Royalty-Free' is no help, and that so many think that everything on the internet is or should be free. I just don't think anybody is going to wholesale copy your portfolio and sit there and remove 1200 watermarks. Doesn't sound cost effective. They'd probably get a subscription and just download the whole lot without watermark, or more likely use Google to find un-watermarked images.
It's just one opinion but I think those who are suspending uploads, deleting images and even whole portfolios are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face".
If anyone thinks all this hubbub will really affect the way SS does business is sadly wrong. They will do the things they decide will help their business, not your business. We are not partners, their success is not dependent on any 1 or 500 contributors. They spent the time and money to give us a 'final' watermark - don't expect anything more.
-
Why dont you guys write something On the SS forums. they dont think we care. They don't come here that much Guys.
Agree.
-
I can't correct you - I'm not an image thief or buyer. But buyers will buy and thieves will thieve, whether it photos, music, clothes, cars or groceries -- whatever. The problem is much deeper than a weak watermark. The term 'Royalty-Free' is no help, and that so many think that everything on the internet is or should be free. I just don't think anybody is going to wholesale copy your portfolio and sit there and remove 1200 watermarks. Doesn't sound cost effective. They'd probably get a subscription and just download the whole lot without watermark, or more likely use Google to find un-watermarked images.
It's just one opinion but I think those who are suspending uploads, deleting images and even whole portfolios are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face".
If anyone thinks all this hubbub will really affect the way SS does business is sadly wrong. They will do the things they decide will help their business, not your business. We are not partners, their success is not dependent on any 1 or 500 contributors. They spent the time and money to give us a 'final' watermark - don't expect anything more.
If all of us think as you do, of course, SS will do whatever they want. Fortunately, everyone is not like you. It's pathetic to see contributors like you.
-
I can't correct you - I'm not an image thief or buyer. But buyers will buy and thieves will thieve, whether it photos, music, clothes, cars or groceries -- whatever. The problem is much deeper than a weak watermark. The term 'Royalty-Free' is no help, and that so many think that everything on the internet is or should be free. I just don't think anybody is going to wholesale copy your portfolio and sit there and remove 1200 watermarks. Doesn't sound cost effective. They'd probably get a subscription and just download the whole lot without watermark, or more likely use Google to find un-watermarked images.
It's just one opinion but I think those who are suspending uploads, deleting images and even whole portfolios are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face".
If anyone thinks all this hubbub will really affect the way SS does business is sadly wrong. They will do the things they decide will help their business, not your business. We are not partners, their success is not dependent on any 1 or 500 contributors. They spent the time and money to give us a 'final' watermark - don't expect anything more.
If all of us think as you do, of course, SS will do whatever they want. Fortunately, everyone is not like you. It's pathetic to see contributors like you.
They are already doing what they want.
I was probably one of the first to write support directly when the 1st new watermark came out.
You're entitled to your opinion - I just think you're getting your blood pressure up over something you can't change.
-
What's with the petition, anybody knows something? How many signatures do they need?
the number is pointless. as i said, twit jon oringer at his twitter site. only this would make a difference.
why i say that?
it takes as much time and effort to make a 2nd, 3rd, 4th...etc etc etc watermark.
if the dept wanted to fix it , it would have been done first time correct.
it's like the old age homes where they serve tea and coffee to the seniors who suffer from incontinence. why? when all these nurses and doctors know from nursing 101 that coffee/tea is a diuretic and the last thing someone with incontinence needs it tea or coffee.
still , they do it... because they are not interested in humanity or saving lives; only making money off you for your granny and grand-dad.
same applies for the dept doing the watermark for ss. the more overtime they do to re-improve the watermark, the more they get paid.
only jon oringer is unaware of this.
..the last line, i am sure of it. so, forums and wailing wall is useless. 28 pages, 5 million signed petition
etc... nothing will get done other than what you see is being done..
ie. "let's do another stupid one so they are dumb enough to think we are listening"
-
Bottom Line...all I want is a Opt out option for a gigantic preview. Dont care about whatever watermark They come up With. Stealing and removing stuff is a 1000 Times easier on the huge preview. For * sake it's our work and our copyrights at stake. Not theres.
-
Bottom Line...all I want is a Opt out option for a gigantic preview. Dont care about whatever watermark They come up With. Stealing and removing stuff is a 1000 Times easier on the huge preview. For * sake it's our work and our copyrights at stake. Not theres.
agree
-
I can't correct you - I'm not an image thief or buyer. But buyers will buy and thieves will thieve, whether it photos, music, clothes, cars or groceries -- whatever. The problem is much deeper than a weak watermark. The term 'Royalty-Free' is no help, and that so many think that everything on the internet is or should be free. I just don't think anybody is going to wholesale copy your portfolio and sit there and remove 1200 watermarks. Doesn't sound cost effective. They'd probably get a subscription and just download the whole lot without watermark, or more likely use Google to find un-watermarked images.
It's just one opinion but I think those who are suspending uploads, deleting images and even whole portfolios are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face".
If anyone thinks all this hubbub will really affect the way SS does business is sadly wrong. They will do the things they decide will help their business, not your business. We are not partners, their success is not dependent on any 1 or 500 contributors. They spent the time and money to give us a 'final' watermark - don't expect anything more.
Their success IS dependent on each of those 500 contributors, because every contributor is important, your work is important and must be protected. If a big company can’t protect/represent your work because there is a watermark that everybody can clean up in a minute with the clone stamp tool or even the brush, they are failing in their job.
remember: chance of stealing decreases = more $$$$ in your bank account
-
Still nothing? Just checked again, now it's small preview with no watermark (at least I can't see it).
-
Why dont you guys write something On the SS forums. they dont think we care. They don't come here that much Guys.
I haven't been able to get on the forum in months - every since they changed it I get errors. (I'm on Firefox) Wish I knew what was going on over there.
I have the same problem before. All you have to do is click "sign in" on the top-right corner of the forum page and you will be able to get in each section. :)
-
This company is sounding more evil everyday!
-
Bottom Line...all I want is a Opt out option for a gigantic preview. Dont care about whatever watermark They come up With. Stealing and removing stuff is a 1000 Times easier on the huge preview. For * sake it's our work and our copyrights at stake. Not theres.
+10
it's the least they can do to reflect good faith on this issue. no need for their mofos to bleed ss out of their paycheck to do more overtime creating even more asinine watermarks.
just give us the option to opt out , dudes...
*.... there i said it for rinderart 8)
-
Ok it'sprobably not because we're signing or tweeting or emailing that we'll get something, but if we do nothing we will get nothing.
petition :
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock (https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock)
tweet
https://twitter.com/jonoringer (https://twitter.com/jonoringer)
mail :
[email protected]
>:(
-
Still nothing? Just checked again, now it's small preview with no watermark (at least I can't see it).
Yes no watermark on small previews at all.
-
Actually with rotations, search manipulations and exposure there is a real reason to worrry with news on SS. Somebody will have his port under danger, somebody stay protected.
-
They have almost completed rolling out V2 watermark. Only few images left in my port with V1 watermark.
When you click preview button, it shows a medium size preview. I'm OK with that size of preview. But one can easily get that large preview (1500px) just by right clicking on that medium size preview. If SS just wants to show a medium size preview, what's the point of releasing those large images?
If it is medium size preview, I think current watermark is effective on most of the images, but definitely not on all. I don't want them to have those 1500px previews by any means. So, I too think an opt out option is essential.
-
They have almost completed rolling out V2 watermark. Only few images left in my port with V1 watermark.
When you click preview button, it shows a medium size preview. I'm OK with that size of preview. But one can easily get that large preview (1500px) just by right clicking on that medium size preview. If SS just wanted to show a medium size preview, what's the point of releasing those large images.
If it is medium size preview, I think current watermark is effective on most of the images, but definitely not all. I don't want them to have those 1500px previews by any means. So, I too think an opt out option is essential.
I sent another email to support yesterday because some of my images have the latest and some do not. Since your port is the same way, i guess they are still in the midst of changing over. I will double check again today.
I agree with you. The huge previews are unnecessary. We need an opt out.
edit: Just sent another email to support complaining about...can't get to the forum to see the Progress thread on the watermark either.
-
Ok it'sprobably not because we're signing or tweeting or emailing that we'll get something, but if we do nothing we will get nothing.
petition :
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock (https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock)
tweet
https://twitter.com/jonoringer (https://twitter.com/jonoringer)
mail :
[email protected]
>:(
"If we do nothing we will get nothing"
Exactly!
We need to keep telling them what we think. It is OUR WORK.
-
edit: Just sent another email to support complaining about...can't get to the forum to see the Progress thread on the watermark either.
It works for me on chrome and IE, have you tried those?
Try them if you want to read stupid black burnt comments ;D
-
edit: Just sent another email to support complaining about...can't get to the forum to see the Progress thread on the watermark either.
It works for me on chrome and IE, have you tried those?
Try them if you want to read stupid black burnt comments ;D
No, I use firefox, and I refuse to have to change what browser I use, especially for multi-million dollar companies who can afford to build their sites to work on all the major browsers. If I can't read it, then whatever. And I am on a mac, so IE is out anyway. And if there are stupid comments, probably best I don't read anyway then. My blood would probably just start to boil. :-)
-
I use firefox it works fine and has since the open. It's not a firefox problem. Where are small previews no watermark, I don't see any with missing. Screen capture example please.
-
many of my images are still with v1 watermark :'(
Am I alone ?
-
many of my images are still with v1 watermark :'(
Am I alone ?
I still have a fair number - based on a spot check, I can't go look at them all - that are still white bottom preview. I have images from 2005 through 2015 and I can't figure out any pattern to the order in which they're doing the conversions. It clearly isn't be image number or sales or size or....
It really shouldn't be taking this long. Not sure if the issue is making the previews or propagating them out to the various caches of data worldwide, but either way it's been too long.
-
many of my images are still with v1 watermark :'(
Am I alone ?
No, unfortunately. I still see a lot of the V1 WM on my images, although some do have the newer version.
I can't understand why this is taking so long. The original large V1 preview WM rolled out overnight, didn't it?
For those who haven't seen/signed it yet, here's the online petition about this:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
-
I went to see if there was any update on this from SS in their forums. There isn't, but I did get a chuckle over this guy's post
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865 (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865)
For those who can't read the forums there...
"Vincent ...my sexy ladies are still unprotected...
Can we please do something about it finally???
You clean photo like this under 2 minutes.
What's your opinion on this? Do you think that's OK to give them free? Why SS is doing this? I really would like to know the answer.
And not the usual one " our goal is excellence ...bla bla" but just the straight forward honest one.
Like....... "We have no idea how to reverse it, out technician guy is on vacation"
Or......... "Jon told us we gonna be OK, he has a plan"
or......... " the person who designed the new watermark is Jon's girlfriend and we can not tell her that she sucks"
something like this..."
-
I went to see if there was any update on this from SS in their forums. There isn't, but I did get a chuckle over this guy's post
[url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865[/url] ([url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865[/url])
For those who can't read the forums there...
"Vincent ...my sexy ladies are still unprotected...
Can we please do something about it finally???
You clean photo like this under 2 minutes.
What's your opinion on this? Do you think that's OK to give them free? Why SS is doing this? I really would like to know the answer.
And not the usual one " our goal is excellence ...bla bla" but just the straight forward honest one.
Like....... "We have no idea how to reverse it, out technician guy is on vacation"
Or......... "Jon told us we gonna be OK, he has a plan"
or......... " the person who designed the new watermark is Jon's girlfriend and we can not tell her that she sucks"
something like this..."
kamikaze. now watch his earnings dive dive and dive.
i would not be that foolhardy to do that on ss forum. maybe here where i "wear a condom" practising safe s*x 8)
-
I went to see if there was any update on this from SS in their forums. There isn't, but I did get a chuckle over this guy's post
[url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865[/url] ([url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1512865[/url])
For those who can't read the forums there...
"Vincent ...my sexy ladies are still unprotected...
Can we please do something about it finally???
You clean photo like this under 2 minutes.
What's your opinion on this? Do you think that's OK to give them free? Why SS is doing this? I really would like to know the answer.
And not the usual one " our goal is excellence ...bla bla" but just the straight forward honest one.
Like....... "We have no idea how to reverse it, out technician guy is on vacation"
Or......... "Jon told us we gonna be OK, he has a plan"
or......... " the person who designed the new watermark is Jon's girlfriend and we can not tell her that she sucks"
something like this..."
Really funny! Probably really dangerous too.
Thanks, Jo Ann, for sharing.
-
I got this reply from support yesterday, after sending another email...
Dear Cathleen,
As you noted, we have now implemented our new watermark with the black bar on many of the images and we are nearing completion of applying this new watermark to all images.
We expect to be finished with this soon. We will provide additional updates on our forum as we complete the roll out of the new watermark on the balance of all images.
Best regards,
Shutterstock
Contributor Support
So really, nothing new.
-
we have now implemented our new watermark with the black bar on many of the images and we are nearing completion of applying this new watermark to all images.
The "black bar" in the following image is rendering as "very dark grayish blue" on my screen. It has a hex value of #282f39. Black should have a hex value of #000000.
mal-fuhngk-shuh-3217510.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/mal-fuhngk-shuh-3217510.jpg)
-
excuse me if i am wrong. but i just checked the watermark and i cannot see anything wrong with it.
there are 3 bands of transparent watermark on my larger preview. and you say that it will get a bigger image if i click the large preview. i don't see that.
from where i am today, the large preview is about what? 600 by 300 or something.
that is not that big. to print an 8 by 10 ins print you need at least 3MP
. 600 by 300 won't even print anything risky.
unless you mean the use of it on the web for such a size.
really, with the 3 bands of watermark i don't think it is that bad.
not unless i am seeing the wrong thing.
pls confirm if i am seeing the wrong watermarked size.
but whatever, i also agree with laurent that there should be an opt-out
for a larger 600 by 300 px preview, so it's up to us to decide if we agree to let themn
see a bigger one or not. i think the magnifying glass should be the best way to go...
so the client can check for fringe, noise , etc at a specific edge or whatever.
-
my previous comment is to show good faith to oringer 's ppl, that we at least are not out to
have them all fired; but to get a winwin solution.
of course, i still want that rogue reviewer of poor lighting, out of focus,etc to be fired
for favoritism of weed buddies;)
-
Opt out will never happen. How can they explain to customers why only certain images can be viewed larger?
It will be all or nothing.
-
from where i am today, the large preview is about what? 600 by 300 or something.
that is not that big. to print an 8 by 10 ins print you need at least 3MP
. 600 by 300 won't even print anything risky.
I hate to repeat myself, but you see 600 pixels because the browser was instructed to scale it down. If you right-click on Save or Inspect image, you'll see that the retrieved image is actually 1500 pixels wide or high.
-
from where i am today, the large preview is about what? 600 by 300 or something.
that is not that big. to print an 8 by 10 ins print you need at least 3MP
. 600 by 300 won't even print anything risky.
I hate to repeat myself, but you see 600 pixels because the browser was instructed to scale it down. If you right-click on Save or Inspect image, you'll see that the retrieved image is actually 1500 pixels wide or high.
oh, that's not good news. considering if the person also know this...
so is ss intent on fooling us???
-
excuse me if i am wrong. but i just checked the watermark and i cannot see anything wrong with it.
Take a look at these (black bottom, V2 watermark) previews of mine:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-illustration-of-holly-leaves-and-berries-in-a-frame-87078218.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-illustration-of-holly-leaves-and-berries-in-a-frame-87078218.jpg)
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-christmas-collage-of-drawn-elements-with-foliage-frame-86921119.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-christmas-collage-of-drawn-elements-with-foliage-frame-86921119.jpg)
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg)
They're very large - 1500 pixels on the long edge - and the watermark is near useless.
There are many images for which the new black bottom preview works very well, but they can and need to do better.
Here's a good example:
http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-paper-and-plastic-masking-for-spray-painting-of-kitchen-during-a-remodel-330050414.jpg (http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-paper-and-plastic-masking-for-spray-painting-of-kitchen-during-a-remodel-330050414.jpg)
It's clearly possible to remove the watermark, but I think the above is a decent balance that's sufficient to deter the casual and barely skilled thief who's looking for a quick route to an image.
-
excuse me if i am wrong. but i just checked the watermark and i cannot see anything wrong with it.
Take a look at these (black bottom, V2 watermark) previews of mine:
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-illustration-of-holly-leaves-and-berries-in-a-frame-87078218.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-illustration-of-holly-leaves-and-berries-in-a-frame-87078218.jpg[/url])
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-christmas-collage-of-drawn-elements-with-foliage-frame-86921119.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-christmas-collage-of-drawn-elements-with-foliage-frame-86921119.jpg[/url])
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg[/url])
They're very large - 1500 pixels on the long edge - and the watermark is near useless.
There are many images for which the new black bottom preview works very well, but they can and need to do better.
Here's a good example:
[url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-paper-and-plastic-masking-for-spray-painting-of-kitchen-during-a-remodel-330050414.jpg[/url] ([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-paper-and-plastic-masking-for-spray-painting-of-kitchen-during-a-remodel-330050414.jpg[/url])
It's clearly possible to remove the watermark, but I think the above is a decent balance that's sufficient to deter the casual and barely skilled thief who's looking for a quick route to an image.
*, that is frigging large and yes, absolutely like as if no watermark
that is frigging insane. now i get it. ss is frigging totally stoned .
who is running the business these days at ss??? is oringer aware of this???
-
I think watermark not too bad on most of the medium size previews. I really don't understand the point behind releasing large size previews if they only want to show a medium size preview. SS is not gonna correct this. They seem to be too arrogant and sound like, hey, we are the market leaders, whatever we do will generate more sales. They drive me crazy.... I just want to opt out of this thing...
-
Another issue. Thieves are gonna steal Images that they can use. Posting examples of stuff they don't care about is useless. They want T-shirts and Prints. and stuff they can change in sec to sell as Prints on POD sites or to a million Tourists on cruse ship stopovers. Thats a billion dollar industry.. a Interior Kitchen redo doesn't qualify.
We lost Guys and they don't get it because it's not there work anyway. *.
-
For those who thinks that previews are now smaller: one click - yes you have a small preview. Then you can save it at size 1600x1164,
1500x1086, etc, drag/drop. Compression is not enough done, IMHO. Now it is no matter was this an intention of the management or it is a qualification of a programmer "hired because he is from my village". All is attached to the name "Shutterstock". SS gave a huge field to play for competitors. Other names will grow. This industry even oversaturated by supply has niches which are in the same demand as usual every day goods.
-
For those who thinks that previews are now smaller: one click - yes you have a small preview. Then you can save it at size 1600x1164,
1500x1086, etc, drag/drop. Compression is not enough done, IMHO. Now it is no matter was this an intention of the management or it is a qualification of a programmer "hired because he is from my village". All is attached to the name "Shutterstock". SS gave a huge field to play for competitors. Other names will grow. This industry even oversaturated by supply has niches which are in the same demand as usual every day goods.
sounds like they hired the company who design the page for flickr
because flickr also let you download in every size possible.
only thing is that wihen you put your work on flickr, you know it is going to be downloadable
or you can choose not to be downloadable...
and you can embed your own watermark all over the photo if you don't give a hoot
what those others consider watermark as "tacky".
-
For those who thinks that previews are now smaller: one click - yes you have a small preview. Then you can save it at size 1600x1164,
1500x1086, etc, drag/drop. Compression is not enough done, IMHO. Now it is no matter was this an intention of the management or it is a qualification of a programmer "hired because he is from my village". All is attached to the name "Shutterstock". SS gave a huge field to play for competitors. Other names will grow. This industry even oversaturated by supply has niches which are in the same demand as usual every day goods.
sounds like they hired the company who design the page for flickr
because flickr also let you download in every size possible.
Well, yeah, but only if you choose to upload your files to Flickr in large sizes.
Uploading in small sizes, appending a huge ugly watermark and disabling right-click save a lot of misuses, but absolutely not all. Though so far I've only seen my Flickr images misused on porn sites (wildlife pics, I don't shoot porn or 'glamma'); but I've seen various iStock files, with watermarks, on a range of very-low-class commercial sites. However, someone else showed me some commercial sites using his Flickr files, protected as I noted above.
These are serious thieves, not just the genuinely clueless, 'if it's on the internet it's OK to use it' types.
-
Side by side comparisons.
v1 vs v2
sample-1-o5753.jpg (http://b21.imgup.net/sample-1-o5753.jpg)
sample-2-odb2b.jpg (http://v02.imgup.net/sample-2-odb2b.jpg)
sample-3-o44c2.jpg (http://g38.imgup.net/sample-3-o44c2.jpg)
sample-4-o6433.jpg (http://y22.imgup.net/sample-4-o6433.jpg)
-
Another issue. Thieves are gonna steal Images that they can use. Posting examples of stuff they don't care about is useless. They want T-shirts and Prints. and stuff they can change in sec to sell as Prints on POD sites or to a million Tourists on cruse ship stopovers. Thats a billion dollar industry.. a Interior Kitchen redo doesn't qualify.
We lost Guys and they don't get it because it's not there work anyway. *.
I am surprised that your site doesn't have any watermarks to protect your images. most of them appear to be 800 by 650 px. It is very easy to copy these images on a mac. pressing command and shift and 4 at same time brings up a rectangular box you can adjust where you can screen capture any image.
Just giving you a heads up if you are not aware of this capability on a mac.
-
I'm chiming in late, been busy lately and hadn't notice the big change in the preview size...OMG! Why did the have to change this, it was fine before. OK, maybe make it a little larger but not humongous...it's insanely large! The watermark for this size is useless.
WTH are they thinking! :(
Here is a preview one of mine:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-327930608/stock-photo-rustic-door-opening-into-a-room-decorated-for-christmas.html?src=kYzuUqqj9Zsdan9V1r57wQ-1-0 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-327930608/stock-photo-rustic-door-opening-into-a-room-decorated-for-christmas.html?src=kYzuUqqj9Zsdan9V1r57wQ-1-0)
-
I'm chiming in late, been busy lately and hadn't notice the big change in the preview size...OMG! Why did the have to change this, it was fine before. OK, maybe make it a little larger but not humongous...it's insanely large! The watermark for this size is useless.
WTH are they thinking! :(
Here is a preview one of mine:
[urlhttp://www.shutterstock.com/pic-327930608/stock-photo-rustic-door-opening-into-a-room-decorated-for-christmas.html?src=kYzuUqqj9Zsdan9V1r57wQ-1-0][/url]
Sandralise, your image is downloadeable with size 1261x1600.
-
I know that is why I'm freaking out!! :(
-
I know that is why I'm freaking out!! :(
i can see your concern, considering that this is good enough to print a christmas card without paying you :(
it won't make a very good 8 by 10 print, but who makes 8 by 10 christmas cards???
-
* this is annoying. Anyone else considering deleting half their port from SS? I'm seriously ready to hit the button.
-
I’m looking to do the right thing so look to this forum for views.
The original large preview and weak watermark were inadequate and wrong. I signed the petition and have not uploaded since. For me, the new watermark works fine with all my, admittedly very limited, number of images on SS.
That’s not what a petition is about. The recent postings about “Dreamstime is socialism” regarding image rotation turn my stomach. Socialism is an uninformed US English term for “I don’t understand what it means but it may hit my pocket so I oppose it”. I now live in Romania which did not have the best of experiences of “socialism” but I grew up in Scotland where every right, every holiday, every benefit was fought for and dragged from the ruling class by socialism and by sacrifice from those least able to afford it. Throughout my career I have refused to cross a picket line, even as a CTO. I see the forum petition in the same terms. If you feel SS has not done enough with their “improved” watermark, I will do what little I can to support you by not uploading, and the principle is that if a 100, 1000, 10000 people follow suit, it eventually makes a difference.
-
Thank you Douglas. Plus One Million.
-
It's interesting. Today, for the first time in eons I had an EL sale. $28 for this image, which a buyer obviously found worth some money:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=77533273 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=77533273)
If you go to that page and click the Preview button, you'll pull up an image with the old V1 watermark (note the white bar at the bottom) and thus not even the "new and improved" protection of the V2 WM.
I dragged the image off the SS page onto my desktop, where it now sits as an 821 KB file, displaying virtually no evidence of a watermark.
Sure, I'm happy for the EL sale, especially on a Sunday. However, I'm quite unhappy that the image that produced that sale has no visible watermark protection.
-
I have your image on my HD at 1500 x 1100 with a very weak watermark I can erase in maybe 40 secs. There ya go.
-
I have your image on my HD at 1500 x 1100 with a very weak watermark I can erase in maybe 40 secs. There ya go.
Isn't that the old watermark? Until every image has the new watermark, I'm not going to judge it. No idea why its taking them so long to change them all. I have no problem with big preview images with a good watermark, like alamy has.
-
I have your image on my HD at 1500 x 1100 with a very weak watermark I can erase in maybe 40 secs. There ya go.
Isn't that the old watermark? Until every image has the new watermark, I'm not going to judge it. No idea why its taking them so long to change them all. I have no problem with big preview images with a good watermark, like alamy has.
I just spot checked some of my images, including best sellers, and it looks like the new watermark is making progress. Some that used to have the old one have now changed. If I sort by popular, at least the first three pages have been changed. I spot checked some of the last pages of that sort, and some still have the old watermark. I will continue to monitor. I don't know what is taking so long, either. But it IS a lot of images to crunch through.
I am ok with how the new watermark looks. I'm glad they at least listened and made a good effort to make a change. A whole lot more than some of the other agencies.
-
I have your image on my HD at 1500 x 1100 with a very weak watermark I can erase in maybe 40 secs. There ya go.
Yup. Just ducky.
I just checked my EL history, and this is the second time that Wild Turkey image (photographed in the Texas Panhandle) has been sold as an EL, plus lots of subs & SODs… making it one of my better sellers on SS.
Sure would be nice to see it better protected one of these days!
-
Isn't that the old watermark? Until every image has the new watermark, I'm not going to judge it.
Yes, it's the old WM for sure, which is why it's invisible. You can judge that, I'm sure.
No idea why its taking them so long to change them all.
This thread has been going since October 21. Nineteen days, and one of my best-selling images still isn't decently protected.
It surely didn't take this long to roll out the original large preview w/ this feeble WM. Did it?
-
Isn't that the old watermark? Until every image has the new watermark, I'm not going to judge it.
Yes, it's the old WM for sure, which is why it's invisible. You can judge that, I'm sure.
No idea why its taking them so long to change them all.
This thread has been going since October 21. Nineteen days, and one of my best-selling images still isn't decently protected.
It surely didn't take this long to roll out the original large preview w/ this feeble WM. Did it?
If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?
-
If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?
Gee, Cathy, thanks for that helpful suggestion! :-*
Very early in this thread, I said I might do just that and go exclusive with FT. But I also said it would be hard to do because SS is my best earner (as it is for most of us) and I've resisted being exclusive anywhere because all agencies tend to screw up sooner or later. Diversity is a better strategy, methinks.
So, anyway, please know that I appreciate your always-useful comments!
-
If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?
Gee, Cathy, thanks for that helpful suggestion! :-*
Very early in this thread, I said I might do just that and go exclusive with FT. But I also said it would be hard to do because SS is my best earner (as it is for most of us) and I've resisted being exclusive anywhere because all agencies tend to screw up sooner or later. Diversity is a better strategy, methinks.
So, anyway, please know that I appreciate your always-useful comments!
Yes, you did say that you were going to delete your portfolio if they didn't do anything about the watermark. Sounds like you still aren't happy with it. Just curious. :D
I am so glad you appreciate my useful comment. ;)
-
If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?
Gee, Cathy, thanks for that helpful suggestion! :-*
Very early in this thread, I said I might do just that and go exclusive with FT. But I also said it would be hard to do because SS is my best earner (as it is for most of us) and I've resisted being exclusive anywhere because all agencies tend to screw up sooner or later. Diversity is a better strategy, methinks.
So, anyway, please know that I appreciate your always-useful comments!
Yes, you did say that you were going to delete your portfolio if they didn't do anything about the watermark. Sounds like you still aren't happy with it. Just curious. :D
I am so glad you appreciate my useful comment. ;)
Always do! :D
ETA: actually, what I believe I said earlier was that I might delete my port. But since most of my images now have the "new and improved" V2 wm, that's not looking so likely.
It did surprise me, though, when I saw this EL come through yesterday, to find that image still wasn't better protected. Now, really… can you blame me for being unhappy 'bout that?
-
The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.
-
The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.
I like the new V2 wm also. Just am getting anxious to see it on all my images!
-
The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.
What's a V1 look like compared to V2 or V3?
-
The problem is the super huge preview. You can download the image at 1500 * 1100 which is insane. The v2 watermark is too weak on many images.
-
The problem is the super huge preview. You can download the image at 1500 * 1100 which is insane. The v2 watermark is too weak on many images.
I disagree. I think v2 works just fine on the large previews. As Martha said, I am still waiting for all my images to switch. I only saw 1 still not switched on my random check this morning, but there are probably more.
-
The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.
What's a V1 look like compared to V2 or V3?
There is no V3. There was the original preview that you saw a year ago. Then, on October 21st, they rolled out a new larger preview with weak watermark. (version 1 of the new) Then on October 24, they rolled out a newer version with a better and larger watermark. (version 2 of the new)
V2 is easily recognizable by the dark grey footer.
-
I am wondering if the larger preview is maybe a necessary step to work on their rejection policies.
For instance if SS was to introduce a real mobile stock collection, they would have to accept all these things they now don´t like: brutal lighting, out of focus, bad compositions, "creative" overfiltering and visible artifacts...all these things that make a mobilestock image look like an "authentic" mobile stock image.
If they have much larger previews, the customer can look more closely and decide for themselves if the quality is good enough for them.
Or maybe I am just hoping that they will find a solution to their photo rejections and I can start uploading again :)
-
I am wondering if the larger preview is maybe a necessary step to work on their rejection policies.
For instance if SS was to introduce a real mobile stock collection, they would have to accept all these things they now don´t like: brutal lighting, out of focus, bad compositions, "creative" overfiltering and visible artifacts...all these things that make a mobilestock image look like an "authentic" mobile stock image.
If they have much larger previews, the customer can look more closely and decide for themselves if the quality is good enough for them.
Or maybe I am just hoping that they will find a solution to their photo rejections and I can start uploading again :)
if that is true, that is even more proof that the lower management decision makers are all bloody stoned smoking too much of that weeds that is spamming allowably in ss.
because it is putting all the good work at risk to being stolen for free
just to placate for their totally effed-up reviewing system caused no doubt by one or a handful of f****up reviewers.. at the expense of the majority good reviewers that once made ss the
enviable site to contribute to.
it would be like saying, "ok, because our neighbourhood is so full of dope fiends and drug addicts
we will legalize drugs and needles and let you decide if you want to live in this neighbourhood
with all this and make it a dive...
if you don't like it, you can move out of this neighbourhood because we declare it
open season for all kinds of deviant and undesirable .
what kind of logic is that???
-
The watermark that I see on my images looks good and covers the whole image. I suppose I am seeing the new version.
What's a V1 look like compared to V2 or V3?
You can take a look at some previews of my images in this dropbox folder
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public/SSpreviews (https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public/SSpreviews)
Some I have both the V1 (white bottom) and V2 (almost black bottom) there is a "-v2" suffix on the latter file name. You'll see what an improvement the V2 preview is in most cases
Some images I didn't get a copy of the V1 but you can see the problems with some of the V2 versions, particularly on white backgrounds or medium toned busy backgrounds, for example:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-morning-newspapers-in-a-snowy-driveway-2533761-v2.jpg (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-morning-newspapers-in-a-snowy-driveway-2533761-v2.jpg)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-airbrush-abstract-of-leaves-in-shades-of-green-81634708-v2.jpg (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-airbrush-abstract-of-leaves-in-shades-of-green-81634708-v2.jpg)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-detail-of-a-wall-in-the-nunnery-quadrangle-uxmal-mexico-80026621-v2.jpg (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-detail-of-a-wall-in-the-nunnery-quadrangle-uxmal-mexico-80026621-v2.jpg)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-sketch-of-spring-flowers-in-a-vase-78964114-v2.jpg (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-sketch-of-spring-flowers-in-a-vase-78964114-v2.jpg)
If there is only a V1 preview, it hasn't been updated yet. I can't see how they are taking so long. And the V1 preview was truly terrible
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-front-of-suburban-home-in-a-snow-storm-78866146.jpg (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-front-of-suburban-home-in-a-snow-storm-78866146.jpg)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-inner-face-of-the-mayan-vaulted-arch-labna-mexico-188788217.jpg (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12956972/SSpreviews/stock-photo-inner-face-of-the-mayan-vaulted-arch-labna-mexico-188788217.jpg)
-
If you are that worried about it, why not just delete your portfolio?
Gee, Cathy, thanks for that helpful suggestion! :-*
Very early in this thread, I said I might do just that and go exclusive with FT. But I also said it would be hard to do because SS is my best earner (as it is for most of us) and I've resisted being exclusive anywhere because all agencies tend to screw up sooner or later. Diversity is a better strategy, methinks.
So, anyway, please know that I appreciate your always-useful comments!
Yes, you did say that you were going to delete your portfolio if they didn't do anything about the watermark. Sounds like you still aren't happy with it. Just curious. :D
I am so glad you appreciate my useful comment. ;)
Always do! :D
ETA: actually, what I believe I said earlier was that I might delete my port. But since most of my images now have the "new and improved" V2 wm, that's not looking so likely.
It did surprise me, though, when I saw this EL come through yesterday, to find that image still wasn't better protected. Now, really… can you blame me for being unhappy 'bout that?
Reading this forums for over six years it seems like a lot of us complains and for good reason in this case. I never found the response 'why don't you just delete your portfolio ' to be helpful or realistic and I never saw a case where it was meant to be.
Some of the worst complainers are the least sympathetic when the others have problems.
-
Well the alternative is to open a seperate agency for mobile stock, would that really be better for the customer?
There is a lot of money in this new genre, it is up to them if they want to have the money or leave it to Adobe, eyeem and all the others with dedicated mobile stock collections.
I am not a hipster and feel no connection to the hipster vibe what so ever, but will suffer in silence until the trend ends. However, I won´t demand that companies don´t carry hipster content because I personally have no connection to it.
But leaving easy money to other companies, not sure if that is the clever thing to do.
Who knows, maybe they have other ideas, I am just wondering why they haven´t joined the mobile stock vibe yet. Personally, I am in love it. I haven´t had this much fun since discovering stock photography.
-
The dark gray bar at the bottom in V2 can easily be cropped. I think, V2 brings maybe %20 improvement at max. Or am I missing something?!
-
Reading this forums for over six years it seems like a lot of us complains and for good reason in this case. I never found the response 'why don't you just delete your portfolio ' to be helpful or realistic and I never saw a case where it was meant to be.
Some of the worst complainers are the least sympathetic when the others have problems.
Actually, I have photos at SS, too, so this is actually also my problem. And I do have sympathy, when the companies where we have our images do nothing. But that isn't the case in this instance. SS started doing something about it a few weeks ago, and have come up with a pretty good solution for the problem in v2. Will it solve 100% of the problem on 100% of everyone's images? No. But they have certainly made an effort. If someone is still not pleased with the outcome, the only thing left to do is to delete your portfolio. Bottom line. ;)
Mostly I am glad that the watermark has been improved and I don't have to delete MY portfolio.
-
But they have certainly made an effort. If someone is still not pleased with the outcome, the only thing left to do is to delete your portfolio. Bottom line. ;)
Mostly I am glad that the watermark has been improved and I don't have to delete MY portfolio.
Cathy, you seem very cavalier in recommending drastic measures like "delete your portfolio" to other people.
It's nice that every single watermark on your images apparently has now been upgraded to V2. But for those of us who haven't seen that magic happen yet, a bit of pointing that fact out doesn't hurt.
-
I never found the response 'why don't you just delete your portfolio ' to be helpful or realistic and I never saw a case where it was meant to be.
My Thank you! to Cathy for her "helpful" suggestion was entirely sarcastic. Tongue in cheek. And she knew it. ;)
-
Will it solve 100% of the problem on 100% of everyone's images? No. But they have certainly made an effort. If someone is still not pleased with the outcome, the only thing left to do is to delete your portfolio. Bottom line. ;)
😯
Is it really something about to be happy or upset?
V3 would be easier and safer for us and SS 😉
-
And NO HUGE PREVIEWS. I think were losing this fight guys. They really do Just Ignore and we just go away. The reality Is. we can be replaced in a week and probably are anyway. By Folks that simply don't care or have no clue what this is about. wish it wasn't so...But, Im getting the vibe thats the way it is. wish it wasn't.
-
And NO HUGE PREVIEWS. I think were losing this fight guys. They really do Just Ignore and we just go away. The reality Is. we can be replaced in a week and probably are anyway. By Folks that simply don't care or have no clue what this is about. wish it wasn't so...But, Im getting the vibe thats the way it is. wish it wasn't.
by the red line of your statement... i have to agree with you that
maybe the 500 signers are the only ones with a clue. i too was clueless what the fuss is all about until joanne showed me the problem.
so the question is how do you inform the other x,000, 000 of the clueless ones???
if you let it out of the problem, you also give the potential thieves the key to steal more.
losing proposition.
-
Will it solve 100% of the problem on 100% of everyone's images? No. But they have certainly made an effort. If someone is still not pleased with the outcome, the only thing left to do is to delete your portfolio. Bottom line. ;)
😯
Is it really something about to be happy or upset?
V3 would be easier and safer for us and SS 😉
Yes. V3 would be safer, less photos would end up stolen, and both contributors and SS would make more money.
-
The problem is the super huge preview. You can download the image at 1500 * 1100 which is insane. The v2 watermark is too weak on many images.
I disagree. I think v2 works just fine on the large previews. As Martha said, I am still waiting for all my images to switch. I only saw 1 still not switched on my random check this morning, but there are probably more.
Yes it does work fine with the large preview.... for thieves!
-
The thumbnail images on iStock's pages just grew by 50%, and the large preview is gigantic. Looks like a preview war is on.
-
The thumbnail images on iStock's pages just grew by 50%, and the large preview is gigantic. Looks like a preview war is on.
or let's see which agency is better at scr*wing our contributors???
-
So big previews are in...
I think SS is the largest - 1,500 pixels on the long edge. alamy, 123rf and DT are tied at 1,300 pixels, iStock 1,235, Deposit Photos around 1,024, AdobeStock at 1,000 (but with a very weak watermark) and 500px at 900 (but their current watermark is tiny), Getty is small but around 500 to 650 pixels on the long edge and a very minimalist watermark.
Before this rush to bigger previews, Shutterstock's old image was 450 on the long edge, same as 123rf, DT, iStock and most of the other other sites (give or take 20 or so pixels; Fotolia's is 500 pixels).
Some images don't do well with 123rf's watermark, but in general, it's pretty good - better than SS v2 IMO.
If you look at a google image search - for some terms and stock photograph - I don't yet see any of the new larger SS previews, and for DT and 123rf which have had their larger previews for years, some images show up in a search with those and some with the 450 pixel smaller one. I guess google takes a while to index things, or chooses only a subset?
It'd be nice to get an ISO standard for watermark size and configuration (with each agency's logo in the center) - about 1,100 pixels on the long edge? Banner at the bottom with agency, image ID, contributor name.
-
The thumbnail images on iStock's pages just grew by 50%, and the large preview is gigantic. Looks like a preview war is on.
or let's see which agency is better at scr*wing our contributors???
At the moment it's SS. Both IS and 123RF provide large previews, but with far better watermarks compared to SS.
-
So big previews are in...
DT and 123rf which have had their larger previews for years
is that so for dt? i dont know about 123, but if they had larger previews for years, that explains why my dls have been comatose in dls for years
-
If someone is still not pleased with the outcome, the only thing left to do is to delete your portfolio. Bottom line. ;)
Mostly I am glad that the watermark has been improved and I don't have to delete MY portfolio.
SS definitely made some effort, but it's not enough. Even they didn't give proper responses to contributors complains rather than sending same email to everyone. Just because of watermarks look better on your photos doesn't mean that others have no right to complain about theirs. Would you delete your port if you were a victim? If so, you should be ashamed to complain about anything here, but just delete your port.
-
I've recently been trying to design a watermark for my images and it's actually tough to get one that works well in all circumstances. Seems to be a case of now you see it now you don't depending on the image makeup.
-
So big previews are in...
DT and 123rf which have had their larger previews for years
is that so for dt? i dont know about 123, but if they had larger previews for years, that explains why my dls have been comatose in dls for years
Back in Jan - Mar 2014 I was doing a lot of test searches to see how images from my own site fared versus my images on agency sites. 123rf and DT had some of their images using their new larger previews then, but not all of them. Not sure when prior to that they were introduced, but I seem to recall these things were new around the end of 2013
-
So big previews are in...
DT and 123rf which have had their larger previews for years
is that so for dt? i dont know about 123, but if they had larger previews for years, that explains why my dls have been comatose in dls for years
Back in Jan - Mar 2014 I was doing a lot of test searches to see how images from my own site fared versus my images on agency sites. 123rf and DT had some of their images using their new larger previews then, but not all of them. Not sure when prior to that they were introduced, but I seem to recall these things were new around the end of 2013
well that explains it. it took me 2 years to reach payout , while it takes me a month to reach payout with ss.
now, let's hope something is done before ss go the way of comatose like dt with this large preview.
well, it's good to know the kill date is 2 years. it gives me some time to take up a new
skill... maybe learn how to use a squeegee ;)
-
If someone is still not pleased with the outcome, the only thing left to do is to delete your portfolio. Bottom line. ;)
Mostly I am glad that the watermark has been improved and I don't have to delete MY portfolio.
SS definitely made some effort, but it's not enough. Even they didn't give proper responses to contributors complains rather than sending same email to everyone. Just because of watermarks look better on your photos doesn't mean that others have no right to complain about theirs. Would you delete your port if you were a victim? If so, you should be ashamed to complain about anything here, but just delete your port.
I disagree. And if i thought the results werent good enough, i would have deleted my account. But thanks to all of you who just keep complaining and dont do anything meaningful. You are the reason they just keep $crewing contributors. ;)
-
I've recently been trying to design a watermark for my images and it's actually tough to get one that works well in all circumstances. Seems to be a case of now you see it now you don't depending on the image makeup.
Same here, i have tried creating one in the past for myself. It never works well on 100% of the images, 100% of the time.
-
My current watermark is really, really in your way, but it has helped. With a normal watermark right across my image I was still finding my images being used elsewhere. But since I made it allover and totally ugly it has stopped. I am sorry for the designers visiting, but I am sure they can still get an idea of what I do and I don´t have a webshop on the site.
I think some people mistakingly believe that if they use my image with the watermark and my name on it, it is ok...you know...just sharing and advertising for me...
-
I've recently been trying to design a watermark for my images and it's actually tough to get one that works well in all circumstances. Seems to be a case of now you see it now you don't depending on the image makeup.
Same here, i have tried creating one in the past for myself. It never works well on 100% of the images, 100% of the time.
My favorite solution so far, is iStock's watermark. I've tried to duplicate it in style and preview size, on my web page. (watermark opacity is set at 35%)
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Watermark_zpsrf6syevh.jpg)
-
The issue with the first SS watermark was that it was all white and sparse, so it disappeared on white areas completely and also didn't cover enough of the image when the image was complex, like a pattern for example. They've now added a few black areas (the square background behind the SS logo) and more coverage. You need to have a combination of both transparent black and white in enough coverage to show up against different tints and tones.
-
The issue with the first SS watermark was that it was all white and sparse, so it disappeared on white areas completely and also didn't cover enough of the image when the image was complex, like a pattern for example. They've now added a few black areas (the square background behind the SS logo) and more coverage. You need to have a combination of both transparent black and white in enough coverage to show up against different tints and tones.
rimglow's illustration is a good idea. but even if there is black or white, on clear space like in rimglow's foto, it does not take much to remove the wm. the x x lines are effective too, but once again, on a foto like this one , it does not take much to remove all the wm black white grey or x'ed.
maybe there is no solution. not even if our camera's embedded exif to prevent theft. but i would think, for most cases , theft would be more likely in tourist attraction images like travel, more than
say rimglow's image of a cup isolation.
in general i think most commercial work will not be stolen by a customer as you and i , as business ppl will not have that sort of mentality to steal.
but more likely the teen wanting something for his/her blog would do that... although not deliberately
thinking it is theft, due to misinformation of the word "royalty-free".
but the problem is mainly those sites that outrightly steal full portfolio "for a cup of coffee" and
traffic , getting paid from ads and traffic to their site.
am i right to think this way???
-
If someone is intent on stealing images, then yes, anyone can spend time removing any watermark, though they'd have to be pretty talented with a strong watermark on a complex image. But it does make it more tempting and easier when you offer a very large preview with a weak watermark...you get a nice big, image for your project and even a dolt like me can remove a weak watermark in a few minutes.
-
Google is helpful .... Search ' how to remove watermark photo ' and you come up with plenty of results and there are even software for this thieving. Knowledge of Photoshop tools isn't necessary.
There are sites that sell stolen images. Check out Fiverr."I will give you x amount of stock photos for 5$.
-
...Check out Fiverr."I will give you x amount of stock photos for 5$.
Fiverr is a disgrace - and I'm pretty disappointed that Shutterstock hasn't shut down the gigs that openly advertise resale of SS images. I have reported this to them (late last month I did again as I happened to notice over a dozen results if you search for Shutterstock at Fiverr).
However, I don't think these resales are a result of the preview, I think people who have a subscription are loading up and reselling in violation of license terms.
It's a problem, but I don't think it's an issue with the image previews.
-
Google is helpful .... Search ' how to remove watermark photo ' and you come up with plenty of results and there are even software for this thieving. Knowledge of Photoshop tools isn't necessary.
There are sites that sell stolen images. Check out Fiverr."I will give you x amount of stock photos for 5$.
while googling for a certain photos of an actress, i actually found more fake nudes of her than the dressed photos of her. she's never done nude, not even in a bikini.
but there are lots of her nude. one site even has a series of "his photo session" of her nude.
amazing , isn't it. this one blog called it his "series" and even has his copyright on the nude poses she "did" with him.
i guess we are not the only ones with problems of infringement .
-
So is it safe to say all stock sites are going to offer the gigantic previews now? Removing the watermark on small images offered some safety because thieves couldn't print it very well but now they can because the resolution is so high.
I'm trying to find websites that don't offer the big preview (DT has a good solution but low sales). Not sure what to do. The new preview definitely threw a curve ball at me.
-
...DT has a good solution but low sales..
What solution is that? DT offers the same size (1300 pixels on the long edge) as 123rf and that's not a lot smaller than SS's 1500 pixels. DT's watermark is decent, but still fails on isolated images in many cases.
I agree about DT sales though - have dropped off a lot and I'm not assuming a connection with the previews.
-
Oh goodness you are right! I didn't even see the comp image preview download. I like the zoom in feature on the image. Why is that not good enough for them?
This is upsetting too...
-
...DT has a good solution but low sales..
What solution is that? DT offers the same size (1300 pixels on the long edge) as 123rf and that's not a lot smaller than SS's 1500 pixels. DT's watermark is decent, but still fails on isolated images in many cases.
I agree about DT sales though - have dropped off a lot and I'm not assuming a connection with the previews.
awhile ago, or more , when i first started microstock, i spoke to myfriends' grand-dad who was a retired business man. when i told him how much we get paid per download, he thought 25 dollars, not 25 cents. his prophesy to me was , if you let them keep going like this, they will give your work away for free. if i run my shop like you do, i won't be sitting here comfortable and retired.
you don't give away your merchandise for free...
when you do, your customers will go elsewhere because they feel your products no longer have any value.
-
So true! People see my photos in ads and they think I'm joking when I tell them I get less than $1 for the download.
I am self-employed and have zero retirement...
-
I don't like large previews with weak watermarks because they are pretty easy to steal but if I were into stealing images I am guessing that many can be found in similar or larger resolutions without the watermark in other ways and people set against buying images are unlikely to buy much. The serious thieves have sub accounts or fake credit cards or just get images from other sources.
I wonder if the real issue and reason that sites are going this way is because now users can just grab the watermarked previews and no longer need to even get subs for their previews. Especially with the push towards pseudo sub plans where every use costs this could be a way to attract buyers with our content without having to pay us for their use (at least at first). Once the project gets the go ahead we get a few sales but perhaps in the past we would have more sales with multiple previews. I suppose it also serves as site advertising (without paying us) if the comp images are seen widely.
-
Oh goodness you are right! I didn't even see the comp image preview download. I like the zoom in feature on the image. Why is that not good enough for them?
This is upsetting too...
Yes, I like that too. Wonder why they all don't just use that?
-
Oh goodness you are right! I didn't even see the comp image preview download. I like the zoom in feature on the image. Why is that not good enough for them?
This is upsetting too...
Yes, I like that too. Wonder why they all don't just use that?
yes, as they say ...if it's not broken, what eff-arround with it???
the magnifying glass allows you to check for noise, fringe, etc at close range. why do you need to give away our work large enough to print a 5 by 7???
boycott is the only way to go... continue to stop uploading until they remove that
-
Oh goodness you are right! I didn't even see the comp image preview download. I like the zoom in feature on the image. Why is that not good enough for them?
This is upsetting too...
Yes, I like that too. Wonder why they all don't just use that?
yes, as they say ...if it's not broken, what eff-arround with it???
the magnifying glass allows you to check for noise, fringe, etc at close range. why do you need to give away our work large enough to print a 5 by 7???
boycott is the only way to go... continue to stop uploading until they remove that
How is it a boycott when you still have images there, and you are still taking money from them, and making money for them?
-
Oh goodness you are right! I didn't even see the comp image preview download. I like the zoom in feature on the image. Why is that not good enough for them?
This is upsetting too...
Yes, I like that too. Wonder why they all don't just use that?
yes, as they say ...if it's not broken, what eff-arround with it???
the magnifying glass allows you to check for noise, fringe, etc at close range. why do you need to give away our work large enough to print a 5 by 7???
boycott is the only way to go... continue to stop uploading until they remove that
How is it a boycott when you still have images there, and you are still taking money from them, and making money for them?
why? you expect me to give up my money and listen to you to delete my port ??? LMAO
-
Oh goodness you are right! I didn't even see the comp image preview download. I like the zoom in feature on the image. Why is that not good enough for them?
This is upsetting too...
Yes, I like that too. Wonder why they all don't just use that?
yes, as they say ...if it's not broken, what eff-arround with it???
the magnifying glass allows you to check for noise, fringe, etc at close range. why do you need to give away our work large enough to print a 5 by 7???
boycott is the only way to go... continue to stop uploading until they remove that
How is it a boycott when you still have images there, and you are still taking money from them, and making money for them?
why? you expect me to give up my money and listen to you to delete my port ??? LMAO
You are misusing the word boycott. Boycott means you wouldnt have anything to do with them. But you do. Not uploading is just a convenient thing for you to do, to pretend like you are making a difference, but you aren't. ;)
And no, i dont expect you to do anything...which is exactly what you are doing.
-
Oh goodness you are right! I didn't even see the comp image preview download. I like the zoom in feature on the image. Why is that not good enough for them?
This is upsetting too...
Yes, I like that too. Wonder why they all don't just use that?
yes, as they say ...if it's not broken, what eff-arround with it???
the magnifying glass allows you to check for noise, fringe, etc at close range. why do you need to give away our work large enough to print a 5 by 7???
boycott is the only way to go... continue to stop uploading until they remove that
How is it a boycott when you still have images there, and you are still taking money from them, and making money for them?
why? you expect me to give up my money and listen to you to delete my port ??? LMAO
You are misusing the word boycott. Boycott means you wouldnt have anything to do with them. But you do. Not uploading is just a convenient thing for you to do, to pretend like you are making a difference, but you aren't. ;)
And no, i dont expect you to do anything...which is exactly what you are doing.
lol anger damages your spleen. anger-management is overdue for you .
nitpicking what i say is pretty petty of you 8)
from what i see in the past pages
Reply #386 on: November 09, 2015, 12:51 » with marthamarks,
you seem to have a case with anyone who says anything regarding this matter.
i am not even say where you are going with this nitpicking with marthamarks,
and now me. are you for or against us speaking out re the issue...
or is nitpicking what we say personally just a side-line for you here on this forum???
i won't go any further with you, as you obviously woke up from the wrong side of the bed 8)
-
;)
-
I have not uploaded in weeks but it would be insane to delete my entire portfolio - all the images are in the wild anyway. I'm hoping my new images will find a nice home somewhere...
-
I have not uploaded in weeks but it would be insane to delete my entire portfolio - all the images are in the wild anyway. I'm hoping my new images will find a nice home somewhere...
+10
just because you don't like something that's being done, you don't just pack up your things and leave home or file for a divorce. but some ppl do ;)
jokes aside, i looked at the preview and the watermark does not seem that bad.
still, i think the downloadable size enough for a high res 5 by 7 print is not a good idea...
absolutely marijuana-induced insanity
-
I have not uploaded in weeks but it would be insane to delete my entire portfolio - all the images are in the wild anyway. I'm hoping my new images will find a nice home somewhere...
Agree. I haven't uploaded anything either and I will not upload, if they'll keep insane preview & save feature.
I work hard for my images and the free download 1500X1100 with that pathetic watermark makes me feel sick.
-
I just came home from a fine weekend "shoot" at a national wildlife refuge. Found some exciting new-for-me birds and made a bunch of good images.
I'm planning to upload those brand-new images as exclusives to FT. Not yet happy enough with SS to let 'em have 'em.
-
Like if they care...
-
Well it looks like they finally converted my whole portfolio over to the new V2 watermark. I'm happy with it now.
-
Like if they care...
Well, no, they don't care. But I do! ;D
-
Well it looks like they finally converted my whole portfolio over to the new V2 watermark. I'm happy with it now.
Of my spot check images, there is one that is still the V1 watermark. Other images around the same group of ID numbers have been converted...perhaps they're not done?
-
I just checked the one in my port that hadnt changed last time I checked, and now it's changed. I checked a few others, and they are changed to v2, so maybe they have slogged through a good portion of them.
-
It appears that all my images now carry the improved V2 watermark. Finally!
So now I'm back to uploading to SS again.
-
It appears that all my images now carry the improved V2 watermark. Finally!
So now I'm back to uploading to SS again.
So you don't mind large previews?
-
It appears that all my images now carry the improved V2 watermark. Finally!
So now I'm back to uploading to SS again.
So you don't mind large previews?
good point 60d,, are we protesting the poor wm or the large dl-able preview?
i personally prefer to go back to just the magnifying glass.
maybe we should be specific if we are asking for a better wmark or to do away with
the dl-able 5 by 7 printable preview
-
It appears that all my images now carry the improved V2 watermark. Finally!
So now I'm back to uploading to SS again.
So you don't mind large previews?
Guess I haven't been too focused on that. The invisible V1 wm was my biggest concern.
So… what are you and others doing about the large previews? Are you taking Cathy's advice and pulling your ports out of SS?
-
For me the huge preview is the primary concern. Due to that, I am not uploading to SS. There are other agencies and other ways to earn with photography, and this is actually a great opportunity to discover them, maybe move on to the better. SS was my comfort zone.
Also....I signed the petition and feel that since I did that, it means something.
-
Also....I signed the petition and feel that since I did that, it means something.
I signed it too, but didn't go back to check the specifics. I thought it was the wm that was of greatest concern.
But seriously… are you going to pull your port from SS if the preview isn't reduced in size?
-
For me the huge preview is the primary concern. Due to that, I am not uploading to SS. There are other agencies and other ways to earn with photography, and this is actually a great opportunity to discover them, maybe move on to the better. SS was my comfort zone.
Also....I signed the petition and feel that since I did that, it means something.
I totally agree with you! But what other websites are there to "discover"? Most of them are offering big previews now it seems. Bigstock doesn't but I'm sure they will soon ...
-
So… what are you and others doing about the large previews? Are you taking Cathy's advice and pulling your ports out of SS?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D x100
-
… are you going to pull your port from SS if the preview isn't reduced in size?
Don't know just yet. Pulling the entire port would be drastic. Depends if there are other changes coming.
-
I totally agree with you! But what other websites are there to "discover"? Most of them are offering big previews now it seems. Bigstock doesn't but I'm sure they will soon ...
Don't know if there are any 'new' websites to discover, was thinking of doing more freelance work and selling directly. I do these from time to time.
SS has the largest preview from any other agency and the weakest watermark on top of that. At least there is more time now to do the Fotolia and IStock keywording properly, ☺ enjoy both of these sites.
-
… are you going to pull your port from SS if the preview isn't reduced in size?
Don't know just yet. Pulling the entire port would be drastic. Depends if there are other changes coming.
drastic, or as another colleague said insane.
i got this from wiki...
Unaddressed protests may grow and widen into civil resistance, dissent, activism, riots, insurgency, revolts, and political and/or social revolution. Some examples of protests include:
Northern Europe in the early 16th century (Protestant Reformation)
North America in the 1770s (American Revolution)
France in 1789 (French Revolution) etc etc etc
(perharps this one... apolitical protest...
shutterstock contributors protest against over large preview and dl. 8)
for now, we are in the protest stage, ...
but we still have many other stages to go if the protest is unaddressed
... before we reach insanity or stupidity as to delete our portfolio ;D
-
SS really behave like the government of my country.
Contributors are unhappy, but they left with no options. SS did what they want. The end of yet another story.
-
There is always an option to walk away.
-
SS really behave like the government of my country.
Contributors are unhappy, but they left with no options. SS did what they want. The end of yet another story.
you know, i was just in to see the big preview. sure i don't like the idea of letting the ppl download the 1.5MP or whatever size. but the watermark works well with most images .. ie the shutterstock grey and the x 's . but for some , it appears to be transparent and yes, it's almost non-existent , like jo ann pointed out.
maybe they should make one black and one grey , and then give us the option to place the black or the grey like they do with the position of the watermark.
it's no point hoping for the old magnify glass anymore. so maybe we ask them for this option.
-
Shutterstock.com team: Protecting of copyright on Shutterstock.
link to the petition ---
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock
Dear Shutterstock.com team,
At the moment, the watermark used in the preview function recently implemented on shutterstock site actually has failed in its main purpose: it is hardly visible, if at all, and it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image.
As a result, we feel that our works are now unprotected, exposed to public access and available for download to anyone.
We have specified the list of proposals that we would like to see implemented as soon as possible:
1. Make watermarks larger and more noticeable:
• Reduce the pitch of the watermark grid to 100 pixels for more reliable protection of icon sets.
• Increase the width of the grid lines to 5 pixels.
• The lines of the watermark should be contrast to the background. The pixels of the lines should have at least 15 levels of brightness in contrast to the surrounding pixels.
2. Inform contributors about any changes on the web site relating to copyright before such changes actually made.
Contributors who have signed this petition suspend uploading of the new images until the elimination of the negative consequences produced by Shutterstock.com.
Looking forward to your cooperation
What happened to this petition? Was it delivered to SS?
-
Yes what happened to the petition? Please post if you know.