Just to show, SS don’t care about how big you are! If you violate Terms of service...you’re in trouble.

I feel bad for Pat and BB (not getting into weather BB is the place to go to or not)
The guy tries his best to run a clean operation.

I’m also glad to see that SS takes things very professionally. 900K clips, gone, I think it’s temporary.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After reading the other version of this, somewhere else, I think your observations are more logical and fair. If true, someone uploaded through Blackbox and submitted stolen clips, so the whole account was locked. Pretty tough deal, since that means everyone else just got punished for what one dipstick did.

Kind of makes you wonder about others like this, say Wirestock? I have nothing sent to SS, but others have that for the faster gain in rank and higher commissions, even with giving away 15% to the distribution agent.

So it's like.. Share the profit, share the punishment. If its true then it teaches that if you can take benefits of higher commission by uploading in a mass, you will have to bear its side effects too as a group.

Well stated.

SS don’t care about how big you are!

i think that much was clear when they told that danish knob to feck off when he demanded a higher pay out

Seems like only the negatives get posted now?

30/12/20

This notification is to inform you that one of our agency partners, Shutterstock, temporarily suspended the BlackBoxGuild contributor account on December 15, 2020 as a result of a DMCA Copyright claim.

The matter is now resolved, the account is restored and is repopulating for sales.

Sorry guys, but which way around is it now?

Usually, when a port is found to have stolen content, everyone gets upset that only the stolen images/videos get taken down, but the thief's account with the rest of the (usually also most likely stolen) content stays online.

And now Shutterstock took the whole account down because it containt stolen content and you are also upset about it?

You have one account, you post stolen content, your account gets taken down - that's how it should be.

And if you have a joined account, because you want to profit from it by higher ranks, you also have the risk and the possible consequences that comes along with it. You expect SS to always know when someone submits stolen content and take actions, but you don't make the same expectations of someone who creates a joined account and accepts content from other people - basically exactly what SS is doing, just on a lower scale. Whoever uploads these images is responsible for the content and has to make sure it's not stolen. And if you fail at that, you also have to deal with the consequences.
 I am rather surprised that they took down the whole account, because unfortunately that's exactly what they don't do with ports with stolen content.

Sorry guys, but which way around is it now?

Usually, when a port is found to have stolen content, everyone gets upset that only the stolen images/videos get taken down, but the thief's account with the rest of the (usually also most likely stolen) content stays online.

And now Shutterstock took the whole account down because it containt stolen content and you are also upset about it?

You have one account, you post stolen content, your account gets taken down - that's how it should be.

And if you have a joined account, because you want to profit from it by higher ranks, you also have the risk and the possible consequences that comes along with it. You expect SS to always know when someone submits stolen content and take actions, but you don't make the same expectations of someone who creates a joined account and accepts content from other people - basically exactly what SS is doing, just on a lower scale. Whoever uploads these images is responsible for the content and has to make sure it's not stolen. And if you fail at that, you also have to deal with the consequences.
 I am rather surprised that they took down the whole account, because unfortunately that's exactly what they don't do with ports with stolen content.

Yes and no and maybe and, I don't know because it doesn't matter. Someone will be upset if they do act and then be upset if they don't act fast enough.  I think you have it right. I'll put it this way, "damned if you do and damned if you don't" anything Shutterstock does will be flawed or attacked.

Someone filed a DMCA, that's different from us writing and complaining to compliance, when It's not our images. Pretty straight forward. So SS took down the portfolio that had the illegal content. After they investigated. Doesn't matter if it's me or Mr. Big or a group or a submission agency, we're all the same. If there are stolen images, the whole account is responsible.

Blackbox is just another user.  If that user has stolen content, the account gets blocked.
There's nothing else they can do - they dont know what actual person was responsible for the upload and the legal contract is between SS and Blackbox.

Its a risk you run if you cede all control of your content and earnings to a 3rd party.

They are "slow to act" because they error on the side of caution, protecting people from false claims or frivolous attacks, where someone could be reporting just getting revenge. Would any of the people claiming they are slow, like it personally, if anyone can write and say "this is stolen from me" and the first thing SS did was shut down the portfolio and then ask questions later.

Hey wait, when people do get shut down, what the first thing they do? Come here and write there and say "SS shut me down for no reason, I did nothing wrong!" and then people pile on how SS is unfair and shut down an innocent person.

Which way do we want it? Hang em and have a fair trial later, or have an investigation and see what the situation is, then act? There is no both or depends on personal feelings. One or the other.

4-6 weeks of accounts containing 100% stolen items isnt "slow to act".  Its unwilling to act.

No, slow to act is never removing someone like the blurred images from videos. Bad taste is when they have (I don't know if this actually happened?) only remove the offending image. Bad ethics is when they hide behind a DMCA notice which needs to come from the artist, or the response that is vaguely disguised as a threat towards people who file

But we're talking about Blackbox and the facts not assorted history.

I'll take your response as they should close accounts as soon as they get a complaint, and investigate for facts later? In which case you also agree that the Blackbox account being closed was the right way to handle this?

Adobe stock username: blackboxguild contain lot of stolen work, hundred of my work there too, pretty sure not just mine!