MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: They disabled my account with(out) any notice  (Read 17530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 05, 2009, 04:52 »
0
Since feb. 21 my account suddenly was disabled. Just like that. No notice. No warnings or anything.

My uploading has been disabled. My gallery is empty. Banned from forum. No reaction from helpdesk.

I am waiting for three days now for an answer. I searched several sites and forums for information about what I can do. But it seems that photographers have not many rights or voice at Shutterstock.

Does anyone have a clue or have the same experience about what's happening at Shutterstock? Please let me know.

Thank you!
Mark
« Last Edit: March 08, 2009, 13:14 by mark »


e-person

« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2009, 04:57 »
0
Copyright infringment?

« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2009, 05:09 »
0
Copyright infringment?


All photo's were made by myself or were constructed by myself in Illustrator. If it's a copyright issue, why don't they notify me first about anything?

They just shut me off! What can I do?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 05:11 by mark »

« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2009, 05:11 »
0
perhaps they sent an email without you getting it?

Have you tried calling them on the phone?

« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2009, 05:13 »
0
perhaps they sent an email without you getting it?

Have you tried calling them on the phone?

Did not receive any email and can't find a phone number at their site. Just email addresses they don't reply on.

Does anyone have a phone number?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 05:15 by mark »

« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2009, 05:22 »
0
Sales and Support:
1-866-663-3954
(646) 419 4452 (US)
support@shutterstock.com

« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2009, 05:26 »
0
Thank you Mellimage.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 06:59 by mark »

« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2009, 06:57 »
0
Does anyone have the same experience?
How did you get back online again?
« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 07:00 by mark »

bittersweet

« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2009, 07:15 »
0
Does anyone have the same experience?
How did you get back online again?

I'm sure that would depend on why you were kicked off. It's hard to say whether someone had the "same experience" when you've given us very little information about what action was taken, other than that your account was disabled. Perhaps after you speak with SS and they explain why, you can come back and give more details.

It seems strange to me that you have waited since Feb 21 with no understanding of what happened, yet have not attempted to contact them other than through email. I would have been on the phone within 5 minutes of making the discovery, regardless of long distance charges.

helix7

« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2009, 08:30 »
0

If there is a claim of copyright infringement made by another user, even if it's just one image, the SS policy is to immediately suspend your account. You will need to contact them to find out if that was the reason or if it was something else, but your story does sound like other copyright-related suspensions that I've heard about in the past.


« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2009, 09:25 »
0
I'm sure that would depend on why you were kicked off. It's hard to say whether someone had the "same experience" when you've given us very little information about what action was taken, other than that your account was disabled.

I also wish I had more information, otherwise I wouldnt be here. :)

Perhaps after you speak with SS and they explain why, you can come back and give more details.

I will.

It seems strange to me that you have waited since Feb 21 with no understanding of what happened, yet have not attempted to contact them other than through email. I would have been on the phone within 5 minutes of making the discovery, regardless of long distance charges.

I only discovered it 3 days ago (lucky me I don't have to live from that income). For whatever reason they don't put their phone number online...

If there is a claim of copyright infringement made by another user, even if it's just one image, the SS policy is to immediately suspend your account.

Thank you. Is this the way to make clear that there's a problem with a photo. Just to shut off an account.? SS policy really s*cks then.  ??? What kind of respect is that.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 09:31 by mark »


« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2009, 12:09 »
0
They did the exact same thing to me when they learned I am a moderator on the forum at Fotolia.  No warning, no email, no phone call, nothing.  It took me about 5 months to get my $12 payment from them.  The owner refused to take my calls, would not respond to my emails, nothing.  Their response was about worthless. 

They were nothing if not diligent in their communication when asking me to fax my tax information to them though.  Must've received 15 emails, a couple of phone calls, all sorts of communication when they needed something from me.  I informed them that their threat to close my account if I didn't hurry and get their paperwork to them was a disincentive for me to hurry it along.  I did of course send them their stuff but was very unimpressed with their communication.

Mat

Mat  :)

So, it is ok to speak bad of shutterstock.. You seem very contributor friendly when it comes to other sites..

I think it is totally reasonable what they did in your case as you were moderating fotolia forum.. That is kind of understandable.. I am not a moderator on any site, yet still banned from fotolia forum for telling my opinion..
Edit: That may be too far. Sorry, I couldn't resist a little joke  :)

That is not good for any business model.. I am a supplier and should be taken as seriously as customers.. Not more, only as much..

I didn't want anything special from fotolia.. I just wanted things to stay the way they were.. Apparently that is a sin, I am a bad apple, and fotolia is my lord..  :D
« Last Edit: March 05, 2009, 12:48 by cidepix »

« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2009, 12:21 »
0
I think it is totally reasonable what they did in your case as you were moderating fotolia forum.. That is kind of understandable.. I am not a moderator on any site, yet still banned from fotolia forum for telling my opinion..

I beg to differ. Being banned from a forum is much less serious than a portfolio being banned from sales. A forum is just trivial, since nobody gets paid to post.

A site forum is private and it is part of the site's interface to the market. A ranting post can damage the site easily, as it is picked up by Google. In French they say "Dans la maison du pendu on ne parle pas de la corde" (Never mention rope in the house of a man who has been hanged). That's why I never bother to post at site forums. For rants, we have the Microstockgroup.  :P

« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2009, 12:37 »
0
Another reason why I will not send in 10 images to them and beg to be accepted there. They are not the only fish in the ocean.

Hint: Do not bite the hand that feeds you.  ;D
Not funny but I just had to say it.

-Larry

« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2009, 12:46 »
0
I think it is totally reasonable what they did in your case as you were moderating fotolia forum.. That is kind of understandable.. I am not a moderator on any site, yet still banned from fotolia forum for telling my opinion..

I beg to differ. Being banned from a forum is much less serious than a portfolio being banned from sales. A forum is just trivial, since nobody gets paid to post.

A site forum is private and it is part of the site's interface to the market. A ranting post can damage the site easily, as it is picked up by Google. In French they say "Dans la maison du pendu on ne parle pas de la corde" (Never mention rope in the house of a man who has been hanged). That's why I never bother to post at site forums. For rants, we have the Microstockgroup.  :P

Sorry, you are right. I am a little angry at what they did but kind of understand. That is not Mat's fault either. It is their policy which is wrong.

« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2009, 13:09 »
0
I am a little angry at what they did but kind of understand. That is not Mat's fault either. It is their policy which is wrong.

I didn't say you were wrong. Actually you were right, but the Fotolia site forum is probably not the best place to complain about it. Hundred or more years of trade union activism has teached us that an individual robot is powerless against the moguls, and when he sticks his neck out, he gets beheaded.



« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2009, 13:35 »
0
Hundred or more years of trade union activism has teached us that an individual robot is powerless against the moguls, and when he sticks his neck out, he gets beheaded.

Great analogy!  I'll have to remember that.

« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2009, 17:17 »
0
Great analogy!  I'll have to remember that.

It has been around for a while, but I guess that with Obama, you finally discovered socialism in the US.  ;D

« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2009, 19:20 »
0
Now thats really funny to hear Mat talking about 'bad communication'

never heard about the -$- issue, just to say the last? we all are still waiting for an answer, and all they can do is closing threads about that issue

btw - as someone wrote - profiting on the currency issue is FRAUD, so this is another job for the photographers' union; maybe it's time to start taking legal actions against agencies instead of just posting our thoughts on forums: any solicitors out there among microstock contributors?

They did the exact same thing to me when they learned I am a moderator on the forum at Fotolia.  No warning, no email, no phone call, nothing.  It took me about 5 months to get my $12 payment from them.  The owner refused to take my calls, would not respond to my emails, nothing.  Their response was about worthless. 

They were nothing if not diligent in their communication when asking me to fax my tax information to them though.  Must've received 15 emails, a couple of phone calls, all sorts of communication when they needed something from me.  I informed them that their threat to close my account if I didn't hurry and get their paperwork to them was a disincentive for me to hurry it along.  I did of course send them their stuff but was very unimpressed with their communication.

Mat
« Last Edit: March 07, 2009, 19:27 by an0nym0us »

« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2009, 03:37 »
0
Since feb. 21 my account suddenly was disabled. Just like that. No notice. No warnings or anything.

My uploading has been disabled. My gallery is empty. Banned from forum. No reaction from helpdesk.

I am waiting for three days now for an answer. I searched several sites and forums for information about what I can do. But it seems that photographers have not many rights or voice at Shutterstock.

Does anyone have a clue or have the same experience about what's happening at Shutterstock? Please let me know.

Thank you!
Mark

Not the first time this has happened, and probably not the last. It's difficult for a bystander to know who's at fault for the lockout, but SS' lack of communication in cases like this leaves me speechless every time. It's as if they are unable to understand that people are sometimes not guilty, in spite of what they think they've found. But since they are both police, judge and jury, they have the right to be right, every time, and whatever the truth may be.

« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2009, 04:22 »
0
Now thats really funny to hear Mat talking about 'bad communication'

[/quote]

Dear "Anonymous" (your courage is admirable),

While I appreciate the fact you went to the trouble to set up your account yesterday so that you could make your point, I am having a tough time finding the irony you intended.  I have been accused of many things, called many names on multiple occasions but for the most part, people don't think I am a bad communicator.  I'm pretty much an open book as far as letting you know what's on my mind.  If I know something, I'm happy and more-than-willing to share it.  The cool thing about it is that I'm also willing to sign my real name to whatever it is I have to say.

Have a spectacular day and go shoot some pics would ya?

Mat

« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2009, 06:37 »
0
'The cool thing about it is that I'm also willing to sign my real name to whatever it is I have to say.'; Mat, you are exclusive to Fotolia, and never said a bad thing against them, so it's not so cool to use your real name. I'm afraid I am forced to post as 'anonymous' instead - not a thing I usually do - after reading all that bad stories about accounts being closed, posts being deleted, threads being closed on the official Fotolia forum, and I don't wish to put at risk my hard work there.
On most other microstock sites -except perhaps IS- contributors are allowed to speak freely provide they are being polite, while at Fotolia everything which is slightly critical is being censored - by you, by the way  :)
I could have chosen a fake username looking real, but I preferred making clear that I am forced to be 'anonymous'.

Now, regarding 'bad communication', I was not accusing you - sorry for being unclear - but the Fotolia strategy of not announcing bad news for contributors, hoping we will not realise by ourselves: a long row of bad news in the last few years, and never a good one. And the few announcements are flawed with 'errors', such as the wrong -3% percentage and the exclusive price reduction (soon 'corrected'), which is ridiculous.

Finding always new ways of reducing existing revenues for contributors, and sharing in exchange a minor part of revenues coming from new features, is something unheard of at other major sites.
I know this is a 'voluntary' business and we as contributors accepted that agencies are taking a great share of earnings, but changing rules all the time for the worst after we accepted is - although probably not illegal given the conditions we signed - at least highly disregardful towards contributors.

'Have a spectacular day and go shoot some pics would ya?' Thanks! of course I will, since reading forums is making me nervous. Have a nice day as well.


Dear "Anonymous" (your courage is admirable),

While I appreciate the fact you went to the trouble to set up your account yesterday so that you could make your point, I am having a tough time finding the irony you intended.  I have been accused of many things, called many names on multiple occasions but for the most part, people don't think I am a bad communicator.  I'm pretty much an open book as far as letting you know what's on my mind.  If I know something, I'm happy and more-than-willing to share it.  The cool thing about it is that I'm also willing to sign my real name to whatever it is I have to say.

Have a spectacular day and go shoot some pics would ya?

Mat
« Last Edit: March 08, 2009, 07:01 by an0nym0us »

« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2009, 12:11 »
0
'The cool thing about it is that I'm also willing to sign my real name to whatever it is I have to say.'; Mat, you are exclusive to Fotolia, and never said a bad thing against them, so it's not so cool to use your real name. I'm afraid I am forced to post as 'anonymous' instead - not a thing I usually do - after reading all that bad stories about accounts being closed, posts being deleted, threads being closed on the official Fotolia forum, and I don't wish to put at risk my hard work there.
On most other microstock sites -except perhaps IS- contributors are allowed to speak freely provide they are being polite, while at Fotolia everything which is slightly critical is being censored - by you, by the way  :)
I could have chosen a fake username looking real, but I preferred making clear that I am forced to be 'anonymous'.

[/quote]

I'll tell you one thing that I know...Perception is reality.  I realize that what you wrote is your perception and that it's shared by many others.  My belief is that it isn't reality as there is a difference between a complaint and an attack and that most people know when they are crossing that line.  That being said, I am sorry that you feel that way and wish you well.

Mat


« Reply #24 on: March 08, 2009, 12:38 »
0
Great analogy!  I'll have to remember that.

It has been around for a while, but I guess that with Obama, you finally discovered socialism in the US.  ;D

:lol:

« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2009, 13:13 »
0
Not the first time this has happened, and probably not the last. It's difficult for a bystander to know who's at fault for the lockout, but SS' lack of communication in cases like this leaves me speechless every time. It's as if they are unable to understand that people are sometimes not guilty, in spite of what they think they've found. But since they are both police, judge and jury, they have the right to be right, every time, and whatever the truth may be.

Well, I got contact to SS finally. It looks like I missed their e-mail where they ask to respond to a copyright issue. I appologized for not having seen their email and asked them to put me back online again, if necessary without the trouble making photograph. Unfortunately untill now without any positive result. Guess I'll have to wait what they decide. :-\
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 13:45 by mark »

« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2009, 14:19 »
0
glad you found out what the problem was.

I have a feeling you might have to prove the photo was yours... but I am not sure what the process is.


« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2009, 15:49 »
0
Well, I got contact to SS finally. It looks like I missed their e-mail where they ask to respond to a copyright issue. I appologized for not having seen their email and asked them to put me back online again, if necessary without the trouble making photograph. Unfortunately untill now without any positive result. Guess I'll have to wait what Their Highnesses decide for me... to be or not to be online again :-\

So did you find what illustration caused the problem? And why? In my similar case it was "logo" of green punkt (recycle symbol) - i really didn't know, that it is a logo, I thought that it is just a common symbol... And the first email from Shutterstock I didnt get either.

« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2009, 18:31 »
0
So did you find what illustration caused the problem? And why? In my similar case it was "logo" of green punkt (recycle symbol) - i really didn't know, that it is a logo, I thought that it is just a common symbol... And the first email from Shutterstock I didnt get either.


Hi Orson. Yes it's about an optical illusion graphic I constructed in Illustrator. It looks like someone claims it to be his/her copyright. But SS won't/can't tell me who or what is the exact claim here. After some searching at SS, I found some more graphics like mine in the SS database that appearently are no problem. Quite strange:

http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#photo_id=23246977

I'm sorry. Can't show mine... it's offline.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2009, 18:39 by mark »

digiology

« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2009, 22:10 »
0

http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#photo_id=23246977

I'm sorry. Can't show mine... it's offline.


OMG, that example just bugged my eyes out  :o How does someone even work on artwork like that without going crossed-eyed?

Good luck with SS. Hope it all works out for you.  :)

« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2009, 01:32 »
0
So did you find what illustration caused the problem? And why? In my similar case it was "logo" of green punkt (recycle symbol) - i really didn't know, that it is a logo, I thought that it is just a common symbol... And the first email from Shutterstock I didnt get either.


Hi Orson. Yes it's about an optical illusion graphic I constructed in Illustrator. It looks like someone claims it to be his/her copyright. But SS won't/can't tell me who or what is the exact claim here. After some searching at SS, I found some more graphics like mine in the SS database that appearently are no problem. Quite strange:

http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#photo_id=23246977

I'm sorry. Can't show mine... it's offline.


Interesting -- a tineye search on that turns up 477 hits!  Good seller I guess.

c h e e r s
fred

« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2009, 03:16 »
0
So did you find what illustration caused the problem? And why? In my similar case it was "logo" of green punkt (recycle symbol) - i really didn't know, that it is a logo, I thought that it is just a common symbol... And the first email from Shutterstock I didnt get either.


Hi Orson. Yes it's about an optical illusion graphic I constructed in Illustrator. It looks like someone claims it to be his/her copyright. But SS won't/can't tell me who or what is the exact claim here. After some searching at SS, I found some more graphics like mine in the SS database that appearently are no problem. Quite strange:

http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#photo_id=23246977

I'm sorry. Can't show mine... it's offline.


I remember seeing something that looks similar to this in a book years ago.  Can't remember the exact book but there are a series full of optical illusions.  Perhaps they hold the copyright and complained to SS?

« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2009, 06:20 »
0
I remember seeing something that looks similar to this in a book years ago.  Can't remember the exact book but there are a series full of optical illusions.  Perhaps they hold the copyright and complained to SS?

That is possible. I already suggested to SS not to make a big issue about it and delete it from my gallery. Allthough I did the vector construction totally by myself, it's not worth any fuss.

« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2009, 14:27 »
0
Mark, I guess your work was too similar to the illusion of Japanese Professor of Psychology Akiyoshi Kitaoka, who won the Gold prize of the 9th L'ORAL Art and Science of Color Prize, in 2006 in Tokyo with the similar image.
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html

PS: Don't miss the warning on that page: This page contains some works of "anomalous motion illusion", which might make sensitive observers dizzy or sick. Should you feel dizzy, you had better leave this page immediately. :)
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 14:31 by maigi »

« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2009, 15:19 »
0
Mark, I guess your work was too similar to the illusion of Japanese Professor of Psychology Akiyoshi Kitaoka, who won the Gold prize of the 9th L'ORAL Art and Science of Color Prize, in 2006 in Tokyo with the similar image.
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html

PS: Don't miss the warning on that page: This page contains some works of "anomalous motion illusion", which might make sensitive observers dizzy or sick. Should you feel dizzy, you had better leave this page immediately. :)


Okay thank you Maigi. Didn't know about the professor story though. SS showed me the page also. It looks like this is the claimer at SS who claims all the official rights to this effect. SS should remove the image then. Too bad for the good vector quality I made...   ::)

« Reply #35 on: March 09, 2009, 15:41 »
0
Did you checked his other works too? This guy is genius! I got too dizzy , but you might find a lot of inspiration there and think out your own original patterns. He has lots of great illusions. And there's a logic in there. No need to copy, but the inspiration is the thing you can definitely find. Good luck!
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 15:57 by maigi »

DanP68

« Reply #36 on: March 09, 2009, 23:14 »
0
'The cool thing about it is that I'm also willing to sign my real name to whatever it is I have to say.'; Mat, you are exclusive to Fotolia, and never said a bad thing against them, so it's not so cool to use your real name. I'm afraid I am forced to post as 'anonymous' instead - not a thing I usually do - after reading all that bad stories about accounts being closed, posts being deleted, threads being closed on the official Fotolia forum, and I don't wish to put at risk my hard work there.


This is a fair point.  Chad Bridwell threatened contributors on the Yahoo Micropayment group last year that anyone critical of Fotolia on a private forum such as MSG and Micropayment could have their accounts deleted without warning.  I don't blame anyone for wanting to maintain anonymity so that they can speak freely on sensitive subjects. 

Sorry Mat, but the company you moderate for has thrown down the gauntlet.  "Criticize us, anywhere or anytime, and we will close you down immediately."  So now we have an increasing amount of anonymous posters.  Doesn't seem fair to blame someone for maintaining anonymity when he/she is just reacting to agency threats.


« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2009, 01:22 »
0
'The cool thing about it is that I'm also willing to sign my real name to whatever it is I have to say.'; Mat, you are exclusive to Fotolia, and never said a bad thing against them, so it's not so cool to use your real name. I'm afraid I am forced to post as 'anonymous' instead - not a thing I usually do - after reading all that bad stories about accounts being closed, posts being deleted, threads being closed on the official Fotolia forum, and I don't wish to put at risk my hard work there.

Dan, I just went through the Micropayment group archive and could not find the message you are paraphrasing.  Could you provide the exact quote or a link or reference that I could use to read the actual message.  Thanks and

c h e e r s
fred


This is a fair point.  Chad Bridwell threatened contributors on the Yahoo Micropayment group last year that anyone critical of Fotolia on a private forum such as MSG and Micropayment could have their accounts deleted without warning.  I don't blame anyone for wanting to maintain anonymity so that they can speak freely on sensitive subjects. 

Sorry Mat, but the company you moderate for has thrown down the gauntlet.  "Criticize us, anywhere or anytime, and we will close you down immediately."  So now we have an increasing amount of anonymous posters.  Doesn't seem fair to blame someone for maintaining anonymity when he/she is just reacting to agency threats.

« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2009, 03:12 »
0
Did you checked his other works too? This guy is genius! I got too dizzy , but you might find a lot of inspiration there and think out your own original patterns. He has lots of great illusions. And there's a logic in there. No need to copy, but the inspiration is the thing you can definitely find. Good luck!


Haha, one thing I learned is not to get inspired by anyone anymore... you'll get deleted before you know it...  ;) ...after a few requests my SS gallery still won't be set back online... I give up here.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 03:20 by mark »

DanP68

« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2009, 06:49 »
0
Fred,

From Chad Bridwell on June 13 2008:
In concern to the discussions happening in various forums, we believe the majority of these discussions are not constructive and organized by a few to cause riots in the community. We also believe there are those who seek after selfish means of popularity and personal gain. Such discussions are dangerous not only to Fotolia but the entire community because we know that many buyers read and research your words. We believe in free speech but we will not tolerate such discussions from people who benefit from Fotolia’s success by day and tear us down at night. We will not allow this to continue. If we believe a members actions or comments (on or off Fotolia) are detrimental to the growth of Fotolia we will not hesitate to take action and remove their account regardless of their rank or past success. 


http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/message/20539

Because of this we have an increase in anonymous posters.  And as you can clearly read above, Bridwell and Fotolia do not consider much of what we say to be "constructive."  So when Mat Hayward slinks his way on to this message board and complains about someone's anonymity, anyone who has been following this situation for the past year is probably going to rightfully tell Hayward where to stick his opinion.

« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2009, 11:10 »
0
Fred,

From Chad Bridwell on June 13 2008:
In concern to the discussions happening in various forums, we believe the majority of these discussions are not constructive and organized by a few to cause riots in the community. We also believe there are those who seek after selfish means of popularity and personal gain. Such discussions are dangerous not only to Fotolia but the entire community because we know that many buyers read and research your words. We believe in free speech but we will not tolerate such discussions from people who benefit from Fotolias success by day and tear us down at night. We will not allow this to continue. If we believe a members actions or comments (on or off Fotolia) are detrimental to the growth of Fotolia we will not hesitate to take action and remove their account regardless of their rank or past success. 


http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/message/20539

Because of this we have an increase in anonymous posters.  And as you can clearly read above, Bridwell and Fotolia do not consider much of what we say to be "constructive."  So when Mat Hayward slinks his way on to this message board and complains about someone's anonymity, anyone who has been following this situation for the past year is probably going to rightfully tell Hayward where to stick his opinion.


Oh brother.  I think you think about me too much Dan. 

Mat


« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2009, 17:29 »
0
Today I asked SS to set my account ready for payment of my latest earnings. I used to be able to do this myself, but they made it impossible for me by deleting my portfolio from SS.

The reaction I received at my request from SS:

You may not amend anything to your account until my investigation is complete.

Do not try to circumvent the process again.


I excused myself for my not being aware that I was subject of an investigation...

OMG; is this the way you treat a contributor or a criminal?  :o
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 17:33 by mark »

« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2009, 17:55 »
0
Oh, Mark. Maybe you got too inspired from the work of somebody else beside Mr Kitaoka? and now you just have to wait, what they gonna decide. Yes it's really hard to find out where lies that fragile line between getting inspired and copying, if you have adventurous soul and you like to test limits. Sad, that you have to learn it in a hard way. Hope you solve it out. Let them know that you have learned your lesson, maybe that can soften the ground.

« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2009, 18:02 »
0
Why do they then accept this photo:

http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#photo_id=23246977

which in your opinion is also a copy of:

http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 18:07 by mark »

« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2009, 18:19 »
0
You are right and I have no idea... :-\

« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2009, 13:40 »
0
Must be some investigation... still waiting for any sign of life

« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2009, 20:21 »
0
Why do they then accept this photo:

http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#photo_id=23246977

which in your opinion is also a copy of:

http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html


Mark, I haven't seen your image, (the one they deleted) but when yours was similar to this one (which definitely should be deleted also IMO) then its a clear copyright violation!
Tracing an existing image with only minor alterations, is copyright theft!
If I where you I would go down on my knees and start begging to Shutterstock if they would please forgive the stupid mistake not reading the Submitter Terms of Service properly, and assure them it will never happen again!
Hopefully they will restore your portfolio!
And yes, they should delete that other one as well!


« Reply #47 on: March 23, 2009, 13:30 »
0
Thanks Gregor.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 13:42 by mark »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
5820 Views
Last post May 16, 2008, 23:37
by timburton
55 Replies
24654 Views
Last post August 07, 2008, 15:46
by leaf
3 Replies
1351 Views
Last post December 09, 2014, 15:28
by Sammy the Cat
91 Replies
18024 Views
Last post January 05, 2018, 08:12
by smcbuki
14 Replies
4433 Views
Last post January 19, 2018, 04:53
by qunamax

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results