MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: LAWYERS, CLASS ACTION, NAOMI KLEIN  (Read 2224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2020, 08:01 »
+4
I'll tell you what I want to sue Shutterstock for.  Using my images to promote their site more than a year after I closed my account.



Because pages like this still exist on their site, Google still links to them, and people searching for my work get directed to Shutterstock.

I have contacted them several times about this, and they always play dumb and blame Google.

No, they're not selling my images, but they are still USING them, and I believe that's actionable.

I bet they are still using everyone else's the same way, and I am willing to add my name to a large suit about that.


Shelma1

« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2020, 08:10 »
+1
It's possible they licensed your image, which would give them the right to use it, I guess, though why they'd want to use an image no longer on their site is beyond me.

whtvr2

« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2020, 08:19 »
0
It takes time for google to remove invalid entries. Even deleting a site takes weeks or months to disappear from search. I remember deleting a video from everywhere SS AS etc and searching by exact title in Google  in order to secure nowhere apeears by any chance of resellers or so. Surprise! It took months for AS result and thumbnail to be removed byGoogle. Of course the Adobe google search result in my case link drove to a generic master keyword search results.

« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2020, 15:23 »
0
What would you sue them for?

if this would be possible, starting with the "no-class action" clause, because if you insert THIS, there is space exactly for this: there was no point in inserting some like this.

They take very LITTLE responsibilities, but there are chances in discovering illegal activities (non reported sales?) that could have some impact ONLY if used with great power of numbers.

Work with lawyers as a unique-mass could have some chances in creating a two-way contract, not "do what I say, accept or leave" as a basis.

But of course there is no point in a "sue" action itself. It could be useful to see they're neither untouchable, nor in the ivory tower peak.

Of course the third point should be most powerful: let the world know they treat us as little crap, not as partners, not as value-creators ... when they sell OUR content.

« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2020, 15:27 »
0
To sue you would have to show damages. SS gave you fair warning they were dropping payment to you the seller . Yes they drooped payment to almost zero. No one forced you to stay and get almost no money. I see no damages. I do see a company that is bad...but no damages.

they could have used some illegal terms or practices starting from the "no-class action" in contracts. Is this legal? If it's not: let's start from this.

And: YOU don't see, but I started saying: ask a lawyer, we are not legal experts. They have legal experts and they tried the "no-class action" way. We didn't challenge this. We don't know if we could challenge this. A lawyer should know this. No one seems to have contacted some legal expert and keeps saying "I" ... well, you. And what about an expert?

« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2020, 07:38 »
0
It's possible they licensed your image, which would give them the right to use it, I guess, though why they'd want to use an image no longer on their site is beyond me.

All 2500 of my images?  No. What I think is going on is that, even though I asked for my account to be deleted, they just deactivated it.  So, technically, my images are still part of their total count of images, even though they can not be purchased.


« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2020, 21:40 »
0


I say it does.

If we would just use SS to sell our work we would be able to determine the prices of our work and yet the prices are determined by SS so they are clearly in charge here setting standards and defining rules.

[/quote]
The way I see it, no lawyer will take a case against SS, because there is no money to be made. There needs to be some kind of federal legislation protecting the content creators. We are the artists, we produce a product and SS is simply giving us a platform to sell our product. SS doesn't own the product, so why do they have 100 % control over the price of the product? I've been working in ecommerce business for the past 15 years, and I can't imagine if the platforms like eBay or Amazon attempt setting prices of my product without asking me. When I started selling my works on SS, IS and other agencies I was very surprised to see that the market is so nontransparent... how can we even be sure that the sales they are reporting to us are legit, there is no way to see who the buyer is and maybe there are sales that SS is simply not telling us about?
Internet is a highly regulated environment these days, all websites require consumers now to opt in or out their privacy polices and many of them ask you to agree with all sorts of terms and conditions, so why are we not allowed to opt out of 0,10 prices? This is beyond my understanding. Correct me if I am wrong but there needs to be a law protecting the artist from the abuse by the corporation (who is essentially a monopolist in the market) in terms of not allowing the artist to opt out of sales that the artist feels unfair to him/her.

« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2020, 00:45 »
0
What would you sue them for?

if this would be possible, starting with the "no-class action" clause, because if you insert THIS, there is space exactly for this: there was no point in inserting some like this.

They take very LITTLE responsibilities, but there are chances in discovering illegal activities (non reported sales?) that could have some impact ONLY if used with great power of numbers.

Work with lawyers as a unique-mass could have some chances in creating a two-way contract, not "do what I say, accept or leave" as a basis.

But of course there is no point in a "sue" action itself. It could be useful to see they're neither untouchable, nor in the ivory tower peak.

Of course the third point should be most powerful: let the world know they treat us as little crap, not as partners, not as value-creators ... when they sell OUR content.

Well, if you pay the lawyers, you have my moral support!

« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2020, 03:28 »
0
We are all self-employed!!  we have appointed SS as our agent distributor and to sell our images against royalty! there is no way you can pin them down for minimal earnings.

During the "war" with Istock many years ago there was a Lawyer who was also a contributor as a hobby of course and he came to the conclusion that the only two criteria you could point at legally was: skewing the algorithm to favour certain members or businesses i.e. favourism or if they used pictures in some derogatory manner.

whtvr2

« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2020, 06:00 »
0
Wrong post

« Reply #35 on: June 25, 2020, 11:52 »
+2
To sue you would have to show damages. SS gave you fair warning they were dropping payment to you the seller . Yes they drooped payment to almost zero. No one forced you to stay and get almost no money. I see no damages. I do see a company that is bad...but no damages.

What about people working for SS being payed under minimal hour wage and SS selling their work in your market?

Do you see the damage now ?

Is this some sort of a joke?

You know what? You don't work for Shutterstock. They work for YOU. They provide a market and they find buyers for your images. Their prices they pay you are set by them because they have the negotiating leverage. If you don't like it, you can use someone else's services. Or you can just hang on to your images and get nothing for them. You are a manufacturer of widgets with no ability to sell them (minimal ability anyways). You are using Shutterstock to help move otherwise valueless product.

You want to "demand" minimum wage (for a passive income source, good luck with that one)? Go for it. If they refuse to pay it you will have to look elsewhere. They hold the cards when it comes to their payout scheme.

Don't like it? Pull your port and park it elsewhere. Many others have. You wouldn't be the first.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
8793 Views
Last post May 06, 2009, 02:03
by leaf
13 Replies
6820 Views
Last post April 28, 2011, 20:00
by jbarber873
4 Replies
2319 Views
Last post November 23, 2012, 14:07
by tab62
11 Replies
2946 Views
Last post July 27, 2018, 11:51
by cfhdesign
3 Replies
3078 Views
Last post November 06, 2019, 08:08
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle