pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Huh? Can they do it like this?  (Read 59374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: December 20, 2010, 20:51 »
0
No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?

It strikes me as plausible.  The charge was copyright violation, wasn't it?  That suggests use of material to which someone else claims ownership.  And it was likely willful violation to justify canceling his account.  I have a hard time believing SS and BigStock would take such extreme action for anything less. 


nruboc

« Reply #201 on: December 21, 2010, 02:19 »
0
No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?

It strikes me as plausible.  The charge was copyright violation, wasn't it?  That suggests use of material to which someone else claims ownership.  And it was likely willful violation to justify canceling his account.  I have a hard time believing SS and BigStock would take such extreme action for anything less. 

Yes, they said "serious copyright infringement issues". But do you think it justifies removing the whole portfolio if it's a business disagreement? Maybe he uploaded in good faith thinking he acquired the copyright. That's why I thik it would come down to the amount of content in question, a few shots would be easy to disable, if it's a significant amount I can see why they would take everything down and sort it out after the fact.

RacePhoto

« Reply #202 on: December 21, 2010, 02:51 »
0
No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?

It strikes me as plausible.  The charge was copyright violation, wasn't it?  That suggests use of material to which someone else claims ownership.  And it was likely willful violation to justify canceling his account.  I have a hard time believing SS and BigStock would take such extreme action for anything less.  

The OP says this - I have all the raws and more factual info that all images I uploaded are mine. I also don't understand why they would just block a contributor of more than 5 years without asking an explanation first. I can easily prove the images are mine of course.

Their version says this: We discovered serious copyright infringement issues within your portfolio of images on Shutterstock Images, LLC. Based upon our investigation, we have determined that you made a material misrepresentation to Shutterstock Images, LLC.

As Bigstock is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shutterstock Images, LLC, your Bigstock portfolio has now been terminated.  You may not open up a new account.


Does anyone see a right to appeal or specifics of what the charges are? There's something bothers me about the right to know what you are being charged with, specifics and the right to a defense, before the summary dismissal and decision. This isn't about who it is at all, but the point is, if it was anyone here, I'd say the same things.

I'd guess it's a matter of someone complaining about something on SS and BS hung him. Now all we need is a fair trial and conviction to go with the termination. ;)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 02:57 by RacePhoto »

Microbius

« Reply #203 on: December 21, 2010, 04:45 »
0
No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?

It strikes me as plausible.  The charge was copyright violation, wasn't it?  That suggests use of material to which someone else claims ownership.  And it was likely willful violation to justify canceling his account.  I have a hard time believing SS and BigStock would take such extreme action for anything less. 

I'm not sure where your faith in SS comes from. Look back at some of the threads on this forum if you want to see how much the worry about shutting down contributors' accounts and deleting images.
It seems that most of the people who think SS treats them well have never had to deal with their contributor support (not that I think they actually have a separate contributor support team).
Wait till you run into any sort of problem and have to contact them then see how they treat you.

« Reply #204 on: December 21, 2010, 08:49 »
0
He could have the RAWs, have taken the pictures in question and still not be the copyright holder.  They might have been a work for hire or someone thought they were anyway or, as has been suggested, the copyright could be/was owned by a previous partnership/ corporation of which he was part.

It's very possible that the situation is more of a legal "misunderstanding" than misrepresnetation and lawyers have been called in to sort through the paperwork. 

I wouldn't expect FD to be back anytime soon with answers.  Even when everything is sorted out, he might be restrained from commenting.

lisafx

« Reply #205 on: December 21, 2010, 11:09 »
0

I'm not sure where your faith in SS comes from. Look back at some of the threads on this forum if you want to see how much the worry about shutting down contributors' accounts and deleting images.
It seems that most of the people who think SS treats them well have never had to deal with their contributor support (not that I think they actually have a separate contributor support team).
Wait till you run into any sort of problem and have to contact them then see how they treat you.

Since I don't know the particulars of this case, I can't comment on how SS acted.

But to answer your question, I have been at SS six years now, and in that time I have had a number of interactions with their customer service dept. and been treated fairly each time.  

I'm not sure which threads you are referring to (other than this one) where people are having trouble with Shutterstock.  A few links to those discussions might help.  From my reading of these forums, Shutterstock seems the least complained about of the Big Four.

I'm sorry if you had a bad experience with SS, but don't make the assumption that all of us who are satisfied with them have never had any problems there or any dealings with support.    
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 11:10 by lisafx »

Microbius

« Reply #206 on: December 21, 2010, 12:06 »
0
http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/yet-another-infringement!/
Here's the most recent one. There's a few people on that thread that complain about treatment by SS
Whenever I have had dealings with them the impression I got was that they were more interested in washing their hands of the situation and throwing all involved to the dogs then actually bothering to look into anything.
In my opinion the only reason they get complained about less is that they keep their head down and don't do much in terms of changing their policies/ the site etc.
All well and good when everything's running smoothly but when something goes wrong they don't seem to have the will/ capacity to deal with it.
I don't want to go into detail about my situation as I might jeopardize my anonymity here (I've just gone into more detail in a PM to someone who PMd me about this thread).
 

lisafx

« Reply #207 on: December 21, 2010, 12:09 »
0
Sorry Microbius, didn't know you were dealing with a first hand situation.  Hope it gets resolved for you.

I have never (knock wood!!) had a copyright issue at SS so perhaps that is where the problems come in...

« Reply #208 on: December 21, 2010, 12:29 »
0
Once I had editorial images removed for copyright.  Thankfully my account wasn't closed!

ten

« Reply #209 on: December 21, 2010, 19:49 »
0

This lengthy thread might best serve as a lesson and reminder to all, that we enjoy a strong protection for our intellectual property rights, Trademarks, and Patents.  And that reputable Stock Agencies are sternly enforcing investigated infringements as required by law.

It is now widely recognized that as we rebuild our international economy it is imperative that we identify and crack down on any/all copyright and IP violators.  Only then can we respark the true creative and artistic flow in our once praiseworthy industry.

« Reply #210 on: December 21, 2010, 20:10 »
0
What amazes me, ten, is that you have only commented on this forum three times, all in this particular thread...

jbarber873

« Reply #211 on: December 22, 2010, 19:09 »
0

This lengthy thread might best serve as a lesson and reminder to all, that we enjoy a strong protection for our intellectual property rights, Trademarks, and Patents.  And that reputable Stock Agencies are sternly enforcing investigated infringements as required by law.

It is now widely recognized that as we rebuild our international economy it is imperative that we identify and crack down on any/all copyright and IP violators.  Only then can we respark the true creative and artistic flow in our once praiseworthy industry.

   I don't need a lecture from you about copyright protection. This industry has not become less "praiseworthy" because contributors are rampantly violating copyright laws, and to imply that that is the problem with this industry is wrong. The problem with this industry has a whole lot more to do with the gatekeepers, the agencies, and their monolithic arrogance than it does with any contributor. I can tell you with 40 years experience in this industry that the microstock contributors work with and care about intellectual property a whole lot more than most traditional stock shooters, and benefit from their efforts a whole lot less than those shooters. To your point about our strong protection, there are also plenty of laws on the books about contract law, about the requirements of a contract on BOTH parties and how large companies cannot use their size and power to run over an individual. Someday, the wrong person is going to be pushed around, and take it to court, and we'll see about this "respark".

grp_photo

« Reply #212 on: December 23, 2010, 08:14 »
0
Don't feed a single troll and of course not ten of them too!  ;D

WarrenPrice

« Reply #213 on: December 28, 2010, 22:38 »
0
Still nothing from FD?
Com'on Hugo ... whazzup?

« Reply #214 on: January 04, 2011, 06:15 »
0
Still no news from the OP?
Out of topic : funny, after bashing "anonymity" of other members FD became anonymous...

nruboc

« Reply #215 on: January 23, 2011, 22:59 »
0
How about an update on this thread since OP appears to be back?????????????????????????

« Reply #216 on: January 24, 2011, 17:49 »
0
even just a "i can't reply to this thread" post?


« Reply #217 on: April 10, 2011, 12:25 »
0
after the ban thread at istock I started thinking about this one at SS -- FD--did you ever find out the reason for this?  or are you not at liberty to discuss it?

« Reply #218 on: April 10, 2011, 12:50 »
0
I was wondering too, but he seems to be completely MIA for 2 months.

« Reply #219 on: April 10, 2011, 14:51 »
0
Yes, I have emailed him privately a couple of times. One time he said he would get back to me and he did not. Dropped off the face of the earth, I guess.

« Reply #220 on: April 10, 2011, 15:24 »
0
He posts occasionally at Dreamstime. As recent as a couple of days ago.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors