Author Topic: Shutterstock's support lack of communication (Read 14494 times)

domencolja · « **on:** August 08, 2011, 04:58 »

I've been the target of a compliance investigation that started on the 23th of June (of which I unfortunately can't disclose any information as stated/forced in the notification email received by SS - but in which I plead completely innocent and have been suffering the consequences of an instant account lockdown, forum ban and payments freeze). After swiftly replying to all the requested questions regarding that assumption that I used "elements of protected works" in one of my artworks (a simple cartoony vector face of a DJ - inherently impossible to trace or copy), I have not received no replies in over 6 weeks of consistent emails sent to both the support and compliance email addresses.

I know any type of matter even remotely linked to compliance issues is instantly deemed shady and not trustworthy and that I understand from a sociological point of view in the microstock line of work where legal infringement issues are such a delicate matter. For the same reason I took to heart both personally (because the mentioned artwork was my own drawing within no gray areas whatsoever) and broader topically the accusations against me and wanted to communicate all there is to clarify for my innocence, but was blocked by a complete lack of feedback from Shutterstock's support.

Is this type of communication speed to be expected? Am I supposed to wait more for one single honest personalized reply to all the questions I have regarding the matter? Or is this lack of replies a simple strategy to ignore everything compliance related?

Hopefully one of the Shutterstock's employees notices the thread and sparks a bump in the matter, but I also wanted to get your, contributors, sincere opinion on the matter and your experiences with the quality of communication expected from Shutterstock.

I still have faith in the company, although I can't wrap my head around why such a treatment is happening, especially considering the fact I truly am not hiding behind half-truths and violation cover-ups, have tried to contact them several times (6 emails) and have not had any "strikes" or previous complaints on my account for over 3 years and 1500 files submitted.

Thanks for listening out and sharing your opinions.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** August 08, 2011, 05:15 »

That seems like a horrible situation. Have you tried talking to them on the phone? Don't think I could take my portfolio being down for that long, I would have to do more than send emails and wait for a response.

domencolja · « **Reply #2 on:** August 08, 2011, 05:36 »

I have not tried to contact them because they, at least to my knowledge, have no compliance support phone line. All they list as contact options are the email addresses and a phone number for sale support matters. Is there any?

Unfortunately I think, from my interpretation of their one and only notification email (where it was stated that the investigation is underway and my account is being suspended for the time being), that I can't disclose the contents of said email, I do not know though if I can legally at least explain the details of the matter (specifically which image is the target of the investigation and on which they're building their claims).

I forgot to mention that as a consequence I have also had their parent company's Bigstock account suspended. I've written to them as well and was I guess fortunate enough to get a reply from BigStock's support saying that that account's suspension is linked to the Shutterstock's investigation process and that until that is resolved they can't proceed with the reactivation. Both monthly payment routines (from SS and BigStock) have also been stopped for the second month now.

I understand the process and I, however crazy it might sound taken that I've been the target of such action, support global infringement procedures where they're rightful, but I'm honestly baffled as to why there is a complete lack of communication. I can't say I approve whole portfolio deactivation because of a claim of a part of an image being "protected works", but I accept the process (however unfounded it might feel to me) if this is what they deem necessary to fight copyright infringements. What worries me the most though is that they have not had the decency of replying, not even once... for over 6 weeks.

I will in the future, if somehow I realize this act of ignoring is a consequence and/or proof of their tactic to suspend accounts "under the radar" without any type of honest communication attempt, disclose all the details, all the emails sent to them and of course also post the image in question.

Cogent Marketing · « **Reply #3 on:** August 08, 2011, 05:53 »

It would appear to be a very heavy handed approach if the only 'offending item' is in only one image. Surely it would have been better to inform you of the issue and simply remove that one image from your portfolio on both BigStock and the SS site and then conduct an investigation. Good luck with it, I hope it is not too long before the matter is resolved.

sharpshot · « **Reply #4 on:** August 08, 2011, 06:17 »

Hopefully someone will PM you a number to ring, I've never had to use it but I know some people have called them about other things. They should at least respond to your emails and it seems like a long time to take over something like this without at least letting you know why there's a delay.

domencolja · « **Reply #5 on:** August 08, 2011, 06:39 »

Thank you both for your words.

Hope is kind of running out as of late. I have given them the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, since July is known to be slow, maybe their support staff partially on vacation, plus I've read threads around the internet of their reply times known for being somewhat "delayed". Also I've considered the thought of the investigation process truly being thorough and laborious, so a span of a couple of weeks would've been understandable (given that I've listed them 15 links to other agencies selling that particular image as they requested), but this silence is getting out of anything rational and possible explanations are running seriously wild.

Hopefully though this public outing will yield something.

p.s.: To be exactly precise I did receive one sort of keep-alive signal from their part and that was an automated message noting my support ticket numbers have been merged to the former number. Someone must've interpreted my emails as linked by content and decided to unite them under one ticket ID, but no reply regarding the specific matter.

Slovenian · « **Reply #6 on:** August 08, 2011, 07:26 »

I'd try to call them and then wait for a couple of weeks at most to "wikileak" them

. It's a shame it happened with SS which was probably your top earner.

Upam, da se reši zadeva čimprej in uspešno

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** August 08, 2011, 10:03 »

I would absolutely get on the phone to the number listed for sales and support on the web site.

You should be able to discuss the progress of what they're doing and what else they need from you to assure themselves that you have not copied the work. You could also ask about whether there is some way they can suspend just the image in dispute instead of your whole portfolio and whether, even if you are 100% in the right and SS is 100% in the wrong about this image being based on protected content, they would accept deleting that image as a resolution to this dispute.

Unless this one image is a runaway bestseller, I assume you have a lot more to gain from getting the rest of your portfolio back online than fighting a prolonged battle over one image.

However it really does rattle me that something of this sort could go on so long with no communication, resolution, or clear idea of what process is going on. Good luck.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 08, 2011, 10:11 »

hope you get things running again soon, 6 weeks is just too long to check whatever the "issue" is, not to mention $$, best of luck

sharpshot · « **Reply #9 on:** August 08, 2011, 12:22 »

Did this one ever get resolved?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/huh-can-they-do-it-like-this/msg173368/#msg173368

domencolja · « **Reply #10 on:** August 08, 2011, 13:26 »

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll just try to get through on that sales support number and see if they deal with compliance ticket subjects as well.

I'll let you know if I can get a hold of someone via phone and/or if there's any news. Also if I'm unable to achieve anything I'll just post the whole story with all the details out. I'm sincerely discomforted and surprised about it. A big letdown.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #11 on:** August 08, 2011, 13:44 »

Shutterstock is well known for this type of behaviour. These kinds of account locks are quiet random and you cannot count on their support. Try to call them. The only thing you can do....or ask a lawyer.

Don`t count on community support. There had been more cases like this on this board and people here sadly welcome shutterstocks attitude. In the last case there had been a poll and most people (over 50%) had been on shutterstocks side. I repeatedly asked for their reasons but no one was able to give a proper answer to backup their decision. Many here seem to think "Big companies are always right because that is where the money comes from" or "I do everything for a dime".

sharpshot · « **Reply #12 on:** August 08, 2011, 15:29 »

There have been a few cases where people have told us they have done nothing wrong but then we find out they have. I'm not implying that has happened here. I don't think anyone here would want an innocent person to have their account closed. There are also cases where the person that has complained about SS here has then stopped posting, so we then wonder what's going on. I believe in innocent until proven guilty and that only the image involved should be deleted to start with. I'm not sure if SS has done anything wrong so far because we don't usually hear their side of the story. Perhaps they have sent replies to the wrong email address or they have been blocked by a spam filter? I would want to talk to someone on the phone about this, they really should have a phone contact for contributors, email can be unreliable.

Slovenian · « **Reply #13 on:** August 08, 2011, 15:36 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on August 08, 2011, 13:44

Don`t count on community support. There had been more cases like this on this board and people here sadly welcome shutterstocks attitude. In the last case there had been a poll and most people (over 50%) had been on shutterstocks side. I repeatedly asked for their reasons but no one was able to give a proper answer to backup their decision. Many here seem to think "Big companies are always right because that is where the money comes from" or "I do everything for a dime".

It's really rather simple; everybody wants less competition, so some ppl welcome such port deactivations. Think about how much would your earnings rise if they were to close over half of the accounts? Or at least a few percent of the top earners. It's not nice, but that's just how it is, money corrupts ppl, makes them greedy, envious and actually blind and (almost) inhumane.

disorderly · « **Reply #14 on:** August 08, 2011, 16:05 »

Quote from: Slovenian on August 08, 2011, 15:36

It's really rather simple; everybody wants less competition, so some ppl welcome such port deactivations. Think about how much would your earnings rise if they were to close over half of the accounts? Or at least a few percent of the top earners. It's not nice, but that's just how it is, money corrupts ppl, makes them greedy, envious and actually blind and (almost) inhumane.

I don't buy that for a second. A much more likely argument, and the one I would make if I felt the need, is that the agency in question has always treated me with fairness. And I'd rather believe that they are doing so now, and that the recipient of harsh justice has indeed made a bad mistake that he's paying for. The alternative is that agency I rely upon is arbitrary, vicious and incompetent, and even if I keep my nose clean, I'm at risk of losing everything I've built up over the past six years. Think of it as a variation on Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation that fits the available facts is most likely the right one. In any event, I have no wish at all to see another submitter suffer undeservedly. My financial benefit from the lack of competition would be barely noticeable, and my karma would take a hit I can little afford.

(Unignored one of Slovenian's posts out of curiosity. Should have known better.)

domencolja · « **Reply #15 on:** August 08, 2011, 16:52 »

I honestly am not looking for compassion nor am I trying to fight a battle against Shutterstock in front of an interested audience (all of us being submitters and I presume devoted ones - in the monetary aspect of it). I can understand easily that some of you just don't buy the story with only one party speaking and that is just plain common sense and epistemological fairness. I might as well just be covering up my infringements, but why? Why publicly and why "piss in a court of law", so to speak, if I am innocent. Wouldn't make any sense.

I would gladly uncover the details, however scarce they might be coming from one email and the image in question, and I certainly will if this doesn't resolve in a welcome, for me at least, outcome. I am prohibited though to do so for now by this legal addendum from their email: "Under no circumstances may the contents hereof be disclosed to the public without the sender's prior written permission." As I said, I accept their business practices and I've undeniably signed a contract with them by joining Shutterstock, so I will stand by the rules for now. I'm not sure though they're doing it as well.

I'll keep you posted. As I said, I still hope I'm being "treated with fairness" as well, to paraphrase.

leaf · « **Reply #16 on:** August 08, 2011, 17:13 »

Quote from: disorderly on August 08, 2011, 16:05

Quote from: Slovenian on August 08, 2011, 15:36
It's really rather simple; everybody wants less competition, so some ppl welcome such port deactivations. Think about how much would your earnings rise if they were to close over half of the accounts? Or at least a few percent of the top earners. It's not nice, but that's just how it is, money corrupts ppl, makes them greedy, envious and actually blind and (almost) inhumane.

I don't buy that for a second. A much more likely argument, and the one I would make if I felt the need, is that the agency in question has always treated me with fairness. And I'd rather believe that they are doing so now, and that the recipient of harsh justice has indeed made a bad mistake that he's paying for. The alternative is that agency I rely upon is arbitrary, vicious and incompetent, and even if I keep my nose clean, I'm at risk of losing everything I've built up over the past six years. Think of it as a variation on Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation that fits the available facts is most likely the right one. In any event, I have no wish at all to see another submitter suffer undeservedly. My financial benefit from the lack of competition would be barely noticeable, and my karma would take a hit I can little afford.

(Unignored one of Slovenian's posts out of curiosity. Should have known better.)

very well said disorderly..

to domencolja - I sure hope this gets resolved quickly and please keep us posted.

domencolja · « **Reply #17 on:** August 08, 2011, 17:27 »

Nice! I have just received a reply email from Shutterstock's compliance team saying they will contact me if additional information is needed or when they reach a resolution.

At least now I know they're working on it, that's hope.

p.s.: I won't be dropping in until further steps in the procedure clear up. Hopefully you understand my concerns. Thanks though for all the reads and opinions/support. Will keep you posted when news arise.

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** August 08, 2011, 19:07 »

Good luck with it mate. You sound straight-up and I'm minded to believe you. Keep us posted and fingers crossed for a rapid resolution in your favour.

Slovenian · « **Reply #19 on:** August 08, 2011, 20:18 »

Quote from: disorderly on August 08, 2011, 16:05

Quote from: Slovenian on August 08, 2011, 15:36
It's really rather simple; everybody wants less competition, so some ppl welcome such port deactivations. Think about how much would your earnings rise if they were to close over half of the accounts? Or at least a few percent of the top earners. It's not nice, but that's just how it is, money corrupts ppl, makes them greedy, envious and actually blind and (almost) inhumane.

I don't buy that for a second. A much more likely argument, and the one I would make if I felt the need, is that the agency in question has always treated me with fairness. And I'd rather believe that they are doing so now, and that the recipient of harsh justice has indeed made a bad mistake that he's paying for. The alternative is that agency I rely upon is arbitrary, vicious and incompetent, and even if I keep my nose clean, I'm at risk of losing everything I've built up over the past six years. Think of it as a variation on Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation that fits the available facts is most likely the right one. In any event, I have no wish at all to see another submitter suffer undeservedly. My financial benefit from the lack of competition would be barely noticeable, and my karma would take a hit I can little afford.

(Unignored one of Slovenian's posts out of curiosity. Should have known better.)

What a load of BS, nobody was even mentioning the agency, so I don't see any reason for brown nosing.

(tnx for reminding me of the ignore function, I'll have to use it more frequently so I won't waste my time with such pointless posts)

gbg2000 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 22, 2011, 19:05 »

Shutterstock does not provide phone support for the contributors, only for the clients. I called their client line to resolve my contributor problem but the guy just said he will 'put a not in the system'.. their system seems to be they can do whatever they want to the people that depend on them

RacePhoto · « **Reply #21 on:** August 23, 2011, 00:11 »

Quote from: gbg2000 on August 22, 2011, 19:05

Shutterstock does not provide phone support for the contributors, only for the clients. I called their client line to resolve my contributor problem but the guy just said he will 'put a not in the system'.. their system seems to be they can do whatever they want to the people that depend on them

So my reply to a question,

Thank you for contacting Shutterstock. A member of our friendly and knowledgeable support staff will respond to your message within one business day.

We are also available by phone 24 hours a day on weekdays, beginning at 8 p.m. Sunday through 7 p.m. Friday, New York Time. Call us toll free from the U.S. at 1-866-663-3954 or +1-646-419-4452.

Is a lie or the number isn't for contributor support? Why did they send it to me when I asked a contributor question?

gbg2000 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 23, 2011, 10:28 »

That's just an automated algorithm. It never worked properly to begin with. Those numbers are for clients only. You will be told to write an email when you call them.

cathyslife · « **Reply #23 on:** August 23, 2011, 14:17 »

Quote from: gbg2000 on August 23, 2011, 10:28

That's just an automated algorithm. It never worked properly to begin with. Those numbers are for clients only. You will be told to write an email when you call them.

Hmmm, I've called them directly before and talked about contributor problems. It's been a while though. And today I notice that they no longer list a phone number on their Contact Us page. Shady Sue found it on the Privacy page, though. I called that number (1-866-663-3954) and you can choose Support from the menu. I did that and got a recording saying that all representatives were busy. I could have stayed on the line, but since I was just checking the validity of the number, I hung up. (Not to mention I don't want to waste my minutes on nothing.)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #24 on:** August 24, 2011, 12:27 »

Quote from: gbg2000 on August 23, 2011, 10:28

That's just an automated algorithm. It never worked properly to begin with. Those numbers are for clients only. You will be told to write an email when you call them.

Did you just make that up because you are unhappy? There are now two active threads with all the numbers and contacts and people who tried those and got immediate answers.

Do they still use checks in your country, where are you? I wrote a check last month, or was it the month before.

Checks can take up to 4 weeks to arrive at their destination and 6 weeks if sent internationally. If you still do not have your check 6 weeks after the end of the calendar month, please e-mail [email protected] and we will send you a new check.

Here's some help, there's something called electronic payments where the money goes straight into your account, whether it's PayPal or MoneyBookers. You don't have to wait a month and a half for a check or maybe get them re-issued which now means three months! That would really suck.

I suppose you are in one of those places where there is no PayPal or MoneyBookers? (Canada they have it, even Vancouver

) Or do they charge you a fee to get your money? Which I wouldn't like either. Paying for my own money?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock's support lack of communication (Read 14494 times)

domencolja

sharpshot

domencolja

Cogent Marketing

sharpshot

domencolja

Slovenian

Jo Ann Snover

luissantos84

sharpshot

domencolja

velocicarpo

sharpshot

Slovenian

disorderly

domencolja

leaf

domencolja

gostwyck

Slovenian

gbg2000

RacePhoto

gbg2000

cathyslife

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors