MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

how shutterstock works?

right
36 (51.4%)
wrong
34 (48.6%)

Total Members Voted: 60

Author Topic: shutterstock account terminated  (Read 57753 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: May 19, 2011, 11:12 »
0
The way you keep posting the name of the filter and links to it is actually making me think that perhaps this has all been made up just to get traffic to the filter site! You don't have any links to YOUR portfolio, only to someone else's. Or maybe the someone else's port on 123 is in fact your port and you have also improved traffic to your own port.

edit: in fact, you are even telling US to go download the filter to see how it works when we're saying stay away from 3rd party filters!

You certainly got a lot of people talking about this. I'm smelling something fishy.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 11:14 by cclapper »


« Reply #151 on: May 19, 2011, 11:24 »
0
The way you keep posting the name of the filter and links to it is actually making me think that perhaps this has all been made up just to get traffic to the filter site!

Same thing pops into my mind also. ZEPHOS (with capital letters!) and Filter Forge is mentioned in almost every message, without it being necessary at all.
(Except this case would be bad advertisement for microstock submitters!)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 11:30 by Perry »

« Reply #152 on: May 19, 2011, 11:51 »
0
The way you keep posting the name of the filter and links to it is actually making me think that perhaps this has all been made up just to get traffic to the filter site! You don't have any links to YOUR portfolio, only to someone else's. Or maybe the someone else's port on 123 is in fact your port and you have also improved traffic to your own port.

edit: in fact, you are even telling US to go download the filter to see how it works when we're saying stay away from 3rd party filters!

You certainly got a lot of people talking about this. I'm smelling something fishy.


how many people said that this is mine portfolio
Original image here -- http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html

a lot, see my forum or thread, i don`t know how is calling, so this 123rf portfolio is not mine. read carefully,
this 123r portfolio is not mine

second, do you now what is filter forge, if you know, there is no more need to mention, ok , i didn`t copy elements, i didn`t trace or whatever, you all know what is that software, so now there is no need to mention. or its more easy to tell that i copied.

Now you all now what is this software and how this filters work, now there is no need to mention ever again.

ok

« Reply #153 on: May 19, 2011, 11:56 »
0
look at it from an agency point of view. how much value does this portfolio bring to the agency. I am betting any mediocre portfolio these days would be terminated in an instant due to oversupply.
So for all the hobbyists out there. dont take shortcuts. hard work pays off

Everybody should be treated the same when it comes to legal issues.

i bolded it for emphasis. reality doesnt work like that. ideally yes, everybody should be treated the same. Just like all babies should be cute.

I thoughtt SS has the right to terminate anyones contract if they feel theres a breach of contract. i dont think theres any legal issue here.

« Reply #154 on: May 19, 2011, 13:16 »
0
I have been reading this forum for a long time but haven't contributed before now. However, I have been following this thread with interest, as I guess everyone of us worries about the possibility of this happening to us....

You don't have to worry about this happening to you if you don't use 3rd party filters, fonts, or anything else made by someone other that you in your images. I think that should be the lesson learned here. Make your own textures, frames, backgrounds, effects, filters, etc.

If you rely on someone else's filters, effects, brushes, etc. to make your images, it will just result in rejections, closed accounts (like in this case), or accepted images that look like lots of other images and won't sell well anyway.

Don't bother. Just make your own stuff and you don't have to worry about any of this.

My concerns are not because I am using anything I shouldn't be, but more a concern that if someone decided to be spiteful and stir up trouble for a competitor, it can be difficult to defend a position with Stock sites who don't really want to enter into too much dialogue over the matter. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? I know there are many thieves and copycats in this industry but I also don't think that everyone who is accused is necessarily guilty.

I appreciate that we are only getting one view in this particular case but if what the OP has said is correct and is the full story, it seams very harsh that a Stock site can remove a whole portfolio and affect someone's livelihood without taking all the evidence into account. The OP has effectively been fired by his employer and, on the face of it, without the case being fully proven. In any other industry, if you were innocent, you would have the right to pursue the matter via some sort of Tribunal or Employment court.

velocicarpo

« Reply #155 on: May 19, 2011, 13:40 »
0
look at it from an agency point of view. how much value does this portfolio bring to the agency. I am betting any mediocre portfolio these days would be terminated in an instant due to oversupply.
So for all the hobbyists out there. dont take shortcuts. hard work pays off

Everybody should be treated the same when it comes to legal issues.

i bolded it for emphasis. reality doesnt work like that. ideally yes, everybody should be treated the same. Just like all babies should be cute.

I thoughtt Shutterstock has the right to terminate anyones contract if they feel theres a breach of contract. i dont think theres any legal issue here.

Shutterstock terminated the account for copyright violation. This is a legal issue.

helix7

« Reply #156 on: May 19, 2011, 13:56 »
0

My concerns are not because I am using anything I shouldn't be, but more a concern that if someone decided to be spiteful and stir up trouble for a competitor, it can be difficult to defend a position with Stock sites who don't really want to enter into too much dialogue over the matter. What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? I know there are many thieves and copycats in this industry but I also don't think that everyone who is accused is necessarily guilty.

I appreciate that we are only getting one view in this particular case but if what the OP has said is correct and is the full story, it seams very harsh that a Stock site can remove a whole portfolio and affect someone's livelihood without taking all the evidence into account. The OP has effectively been fired by his employer and, on the face of it, without the case being fully proven. In any other industry, if you were innocent, you would have the right to pursue the matter via some sort of Tribunal or Employment court.

Sure, that's totally possible. I've mentioned that very scenario in these forums before, that someone could spitefully accuse someone of stealing an image just to have that person's account shut down. That's a whole other situation, though, and while it's possible that it could happen to anyone, I think we can mitigate the risks associated with account suspension/termination in at least not using questionable materials and filters in our images. My point was that while anyone can be the victim of a false accusation, only those who choose to rely on other people's work to create their own images are at risk of suspension due to a legal claim.

In this particular situation I think I'd be a little more proactive than the OP has been here and do more than send a few emails. SS is a significant part of my daily income, and if that were jeopardized in any way from any sort of accusation, you can bet that I'd be on the phone with SS HQ immediately. I'm not waiting for an email response when it comes to something that important. I can't help feeling like there was more the OP could have done if they really wanted to get this resolved immediately and get their account reinstated, if they truly believed that they were innocent of any wrongdoing.

helix7

« Reply #157 on: May 19, 2011, 14:03 »
0
Just saw on facebook, an Shutterstock contributor and full-time microstocker just had images deleted from his portfolio that they feel were created using "simple filters."
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 20:08 by helix7 »

« Reply #158 on: May 19, 2011, 14:39 »
0

Just saw on facebook, an Shutterstock contributor and full-time microstocker just had 700 images deleted from his portfolio that they feel were created using "simple filters."

Without terminating of his account?

« Reply #159 on: May 19, 2011, 15:50 »
0
this gone too far, so people do not use filters, i think the case is closed, i did something wrong, and that`s it i am terminated. do not use filters

helix7

« Reply #160 on: May 19, 2011, 15:53 »
0


Without terminating of his account?

Yep.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 20:08 by helix7 »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #161 on: May 19, 2011, 17:44 »
0
From an idealist pov, I peronally wouldn't mind if they getting rid of the "I keep pressing the randomize fractla seed" stuff, but I heaqrd it sells, and these ppl only care about money, so this mgit indicate some future price rasie? Even if so I hifhly doubt the contributors will see more money.

« Reply #162 on: May 20, 2011, 12:35 »
0
So I see the title changed from "Shutterstock account terminated" to just plain "Shutterstock account". Does that mean they reinstated your account, copyright design?

« Reply #163 on: May 20, 2011, 12:41 »
0
From my point of view the guy did not breach any copyright law nor the Agreement of shutterstock. It is possibly just an missunderstanding and the inspector thought he stole the Image from someone else and did not realize that it is a filter.

I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.

« Reply #164 on: May 20, 2011, 13:11 »
0
From my point of view the guy did not breach any copyright law nor the Agreement of shutterstock. It is possibly just an missunderstanding and the inspector thought he stole the Image from someone else and did not realize that it is a filter.

I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.

How do you know this? Have you heard Shutterstock's side of the story too or are you just jumping to conclusions without actually knowing the facts of the case?

« Reply #165 on: May 20, 2011, 13:47 »
0
From my point of view the guy did not breach any copyright law nor the Agreement of shutterstock. It is possibly just an missunderstanding and the inspector thought he stole the Image from someone else and did not realize that it is a filter.

I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.

How do you know this? Have you heard Shutterstock's side of the story too or are you just jumping to conclusions without actually knowing the facts of the case?

Well, I cannot make statements based on unknown things. Nor anybody can do so. I do not like to speculate not against nor in favor of the OP. My posting is based on the known. It would be very interesting to hear shutterstocks side! Anybody listening :-) ?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 13:50 by Michaelp »

« Reply #166 on: May 20, 2011, 13:54 »
0
So I see the title changed from "Shutterstock account terminated" to just plain "Shutterstock account". Does that mean they reinstated your account, copyright design?

No, i didn`t receive nothing, still terminated, i will call them next time, and i will inform you what answer i received, i need to take a brake, i can wait, i don`t like when same things are delayed, like wait, we are working on your case, wait, and wait, how long, so i asked few questions, because i read on forum that there are cases when they didn`t receive mail.


helix7

« Reply #167 on: May 20, 2011, 14:54 »
0
No, i didn`t receive nothing, still terminated, i will call them next time, and i will inform you what answer i received, i need to take a brake, i can wait, i don`t like when same things are delayed, like wait, we are working on your case, wait, and wait, how long, so i asked few questions, because i read on forum that there are cases when they didn`t receive mail.

I gotta ask... Is this really all that important to you? I mean, it's been months already since this all happened, you never even picked up the phone to try and get it straightened out, and now you're just ready to give up.

My advice is if you really want to get your account reinstated, talk to someone about it. SS HQ can be reached at 1-866-663-3954. Sending a couple of emails and ranting about this in the forums obviously hasn't gotten you anywhere. Call them, explain to them what happened and ask if you can speak to someone who can help get your account fixed.

« Reply #168 on: May 20, 2011, 16:08 »
0
copyrightdesign, don't get me wrong, but are you afraid that something will be discovered if you call SS? Maybe something else, and not this thing about filter forge.
If you are not located in USA you can use your google email account to call any US or Canada number for free. I do that all the time. They have a promotional period till the end of the year, and they give free phone calls to any number in USA and Canada. Just set your email account language to English, and enable phone call option.

It's that simple. I don't understand why you posted your question here, when there is no one competent who can answer your question here. Just call SS, and tell us what happened.

lisafx

« Reply #169 on: May 20, 2011, 16:15 »
0

I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.

Right.  No law has been determined to have been broken. OTOH, nobody is being sent to jail either.  Just an account closed by one privately owned business.  

The OP may not have violated any laws.  It appears the reason his account was terminated is because SS concluded he violated its submission guidelines.  They are perfectly within their rights to terminate his account, although it was a bit harsh.  

I keep reading these posts that if no law was violated then the account shouldn't have been closed.  There are other reasons to close accounts, and violation of submission terms is an appropriate reason for closure.  

So in answer to your question - that's what many of those "shutterstock did right" votes are about.  

« Reply #170 on: May 20, 2011, 17:35 »
0

I don`t know why so many People think that Shutterstock was doing right. No law had been broken. No bad intention had been included. Nothing to discuss about. Morally it may be a different thing.

Right.  No law has been determined to have been broken. OTOH, nobody is being sent to jail either.  Just an account closed by one privately owned business.  

The OP may not have violated any laws.  It appears the reason his account was terminated is because Shutterstock concluded he violated its submission guidelines.  They are perfectly within their rights to terminate his account, although it was a bit harsh.  

I keep reading these posts that if no law was violated then the account shouldn't have been closed.  There are other reasons to close accounts, and violation of submission terms is an appropriate reason for closure.  

So in answer to your question - that's what many of those "shutterstock did right" votes are about.  

Lisa. By "law" I refer too to Shutterstocks own TOS/ guidelines, not only to the governmental law.

Please read this from their agreement:
e.  if the Submitted Content consists in whole or in part of design elements, fonts, clipart, sprites, vectors, brush tools and the like that are included in design programs (e.g., Photoshop, Daz, Illustrator) by uploading such Submitted Content to Shutterstock, you warrant and represent that the end user license agreement, terms of service or the equivalent license held by you does allow you to incorporate such elements in Submitted Content created by you, and to license such Submitted Content to Shutterstock for the purposes set forth herein;

As such, I am unsure on what basis the account had been closed. A contract has to be valid for both parties, not only from one. A
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 17:40 by Michaelp »

lisafx

« Reply #171 on: May 20, 2011, 18:34 »
0

Lisa. By "law" I refer too to Shutterstocks own TOS/ guidelines, not only to the governmental law.

Please read this from their agreement:
e.  if the Submitted Content consists in whole or in part of design elements, fonts, clipart, sprites, vectors, brush tools and the like that are included in design programs (e.g., Photoshop, Daz, Illustrator) by uploading such Submitted Content to Shutterstock, you warrant and represent that the end user license agreement, terms of service or the equivalent license held by you does allow you to incorporate such elements in Submitted Content created by you, and to license such Submitted Content to Shutterstock for the purposes set forth herein;

As such, I am unsure on what basis the account had been closed. A contract has to be valid for both parties, not only from one. A

Ah.  Okay.  I keep reading the term "law" as meaning something you can get arrested for breaking. 

You are certainly right that the above clause muddies the waters of the first paragraph in their submitter guidelines. 

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #172 on: May 21, 2011, 02:59 »
0
I would also think that the "agreement" should prevail over "guidelines" in case of doubt.

« Reply #173 on: May 21, 2011, 15:32 »
0
The more ramble, the more publicity, the more they are anxious to comply ..... :-X

velocicarpo

« Reply #174 on: June 03, 2011, 15:15 »
0
Soooo......status quo:

- Shutterstock states in this Terms that it is OK to use Filters etc as long as you have the right to.
- The filter producer says it is ok to sell the result as stock.

Surely it may be moraly wrong, but from a legal point of view Shutterstock did wrong.
As many here I LOVE shutterstock BUT, by accepting such behaviour of any agency we weaken our own rights.
Or is it just because the OP has a bad english and gets easily emotional?

So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3685 Views
Last post August 20, 2009, 09:11
by bittersweet
48 Replies
19439 Views
Last post January 11, 2013, 20:52
by EmberMike
46 Replies
14207 Views
Last post December 10, 2017, 20:33
by cathyslife
71 Replies
13086 Views
Last post October 27, 2018, 08:09
by alan b traehern
4 Replies
3180 Views
Last post March 21, 2020, 08:08
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle