pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

how shutterstock works?

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

Total Members Voted: 60

Author Topic: shutterstock account terminated  (Read 57769 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: June 03, 2011, 16:17 »
0
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?

contributors are like cockaroaches.  ;) too * many. if u have to use a filter, its a pretty good indicator your not even worth a second look to an agency that is predominantly subscriptions based.


« Reply #176 on: July 13, 2011, 09:19 »
0
i called shutterstock 2 times and nothing, first they said they don`t have support for submiters, i left my phone, and they said they gonna try to find someone who can help me, they said if i have any questions i need to write email to suppot, until now nothing. second time, same answer,

« Reply #177 on: July 13, 2011, 09:53 »
0
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?

if u have to use a filter, its a pretty good indicator your not even worth a second look to an agency that is predominantly subscriptions based.

+1

velocicarpo

« Reply #178 on: July 13, 2011, 11:25 »
0
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?

if u have to use a filter, its a pretty good indicator your not even worth a second look to an agency that is predominantly subscriptions based.

+1

Then they have to say so in their TOS. Your argument is missing logic. Beyond that, do you wanna delete everyones Portfolio who "has to use a filter". I am under the impression that your argument is rather based on emotions than logic.

RacePhoto

« Reply #179 on: July 13, 2011, 15:51 »
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?

The question was: (vague and unclear, but...)

how shutterstock works?

I answered yes, because i interpreted it to be, [Is this] how shutterstock works?

The answer is yes, that's how they work?  ???

I have no clue how this has anything to do with filters, which wasn't the question, or friends and relatives, which wasn't the question, and the story keeps coming out in dribbles, which makes it difficult to understand what the real issue was in the first place.  ;D

Others had the first answer and the right one. Phone SS and talk to them. The forums have no power and SS doesn't read here.

velocicarpo

« Reply #180 on: July 13, 2011, 16:59 »
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?

The question was: (vague and unclear, but...)

how shutterstock works?

I answered yes, because i interpreted it to be, [Is this] how shutterstock works?

The answer is yes, that's how they work?  ???

I have no clue how this has anything to do with filters, which wasn't the question, or friends and relatives, which wasn't the question, and the story keeps coming out in dribbles, which makes it difficult to understand what the real issue was in the first place.  ;D

Others had the first answer and the right one. Phone SS and talk to them. The forums have no power and SS doesn't read here.

Wow. You just vote for shutterstock undermining contributor rights and haven`t even read what all this was about?
Not a surprise that Agencies do with us what they want...

RacePhoto

« Reply #181 on: July 13, 2011, 17:14 »
0
Just figure I didn't understand the question.

As for rights, we have rights with the agencies? When? I figure they just make up the rules as they go along. Change commissions, add or remove images. (this isn't just SS, they are actually one of the best and open about their policies) Change canisters or jewels or whatever stupid carrot they put out for the donkey's and then take away when someone reaches it. So what rights do we have actually, that's an interesting question. They own the agency and can do whatever they want, I wonder if we have any legal rights past ownership of our images?

Is that what you were asking?


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?

The question was: (vague and unclear, but...)

how shutterstock works?

I answered yes, because i interpreted it to be, [Is this] how shutterstock works?

The answer is yes, that's how they work?  ???

I have no clue how this has anything to do with filters, which wasn't the question, or friends and relatives, which wasn't the question, and the story keeps coming out in dribbles, which makes it difficult to understand what the real issue was in the first place.  ;D

Others had the first answer and the right one. Phone SS and talk to them. The forums have no power and SS doesn't read here.

Wow. You just vote for shutterstock undermining contributor rights and haven`t even read what all this was about?
Not a surprise that Agencies do with us what they want...

« Reply #182 on: July 13, 2011, 17:29 »
0
So I have a question for the ones who voted that shutterstock was right to terminate the account:
Why did you vote so?

if u have to use a filter, its a pretty good indicator your not even worth a second look to an agency that is predominantly subscriptions based.

+1

Then they have to say so in their TOS. Your argument is missing logic. Beyond that, do you wanna delete everyones Portfolio who "has to use a filter". I am under the impression that your argument is rather based on emotions than logic.

I think you have it backwards my friend. your argument is based on ideology and mine is based on reality. im being LOGICAL and seeing it from the agencies point of view. SS currently has more than enough contributors. Enough talent is already in SS. They will not waste time and resources on certain types of contributors (low performing).
What are they going to re-write on their TOS? "We used to beg for images and accepted almost anybody before, but due to our success and the amount of quality images in our library, if your portfolio falls below a certain standard we see fit for our library, we will find faults in ur images and reject your photos and delete your account if there is any slight breach of contract."

The only people that HAS to use a filter are the types that really cant create it on their own. Or their lazy, and it doesn't pay to be lazy in micro.

velocicarpo

« Reply #183 on: July 13, 2011, 18:21 »
0


I think you have it backwards my friend. your argument is based on ideology and mine is based on reality.

No. Read the Shutterstock FAQ and Agreement. They state that the use of Software and filters is allowed as the OP did. This is quoted in this thread a couple of times.

You cannot say to your Contributors/Customers that you want to have it this way and then throw them out and punish them for doing so....lol....Please think and read before you type.

Maybe it would satisfy all the "Yes" voters if qwe agree that any Agency can do whatever they want with Contributors?
God I don`t understand this Forum....
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 18:23 by velocicarpo »

« Reply #184 on: July 14, 2011, 16:55 »
0
this is a really hot topic!


I was thinking about submitting to Shutterstock first... anyway after reading all the pages of this thread - someone mentioned about the blog this guy had and I think this all really weird: shutterstockisbad.blogspot.com/


there's gotta be another side to this... ??? ???

Do accounts get closed often at Shutterstock??
 

« Reply #185 on: July 14, 2011, 17:45 »
0
There is no problem with scratches, problem is both of them use same fake film strip which looks like film strip only if you are to young or naive. Both of them deserves to be hung by the balls on they village square at least.
Next case please...

velocicarpo

« Reply #186 on: July 14, 2011, 19:52 »
0
On this board alone we know at least about two cases. This one and another one with a member called FD-Regular. He too assured us he didn`t do any violation at all and had a very good standing with the forum.

So, both cases in which the affected contributors posted their cases in public here had been somehow questionable. We don`t know how many Contributors in total are affected, but it may be a larger number ...

« Reply #187 on: July 15, 2011, 00:52 »
0
At the risk of appearing a half wit - what are "Filters"

« Reply #188 on: July 15, 2011, 07:48 »
0
At the risk of appearing a half wit - what are "Filters"

Plugins that apply an effect to an image.  Blur, sharpen, various enhancement effects; these are all filters.  In Photoshop they appear on the Filters menu.

As best we can tell (the story is somewhat muddled), the individual in question used a filter to create his images.  He started with a blank canvas or a stock image and applied multiple effects from the same filter application.  That he provided no content of his own in the process may have led to his termination.  But we can't be sure, since his English isn't the greatest and we have only his own explanation for what happened.

« Reply #189 on: July 15, 2011, 07:59 »
0
Ah I see  :)

« Reply #190 on: July 15, 2011, 11:31 »
0
yeah and so this guy is saying he can use the filmstrip filter -http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html

but was his whole gallery different renditions of the filmstrip? there seems to be a lot of other filters that make pictures on filterforge?

velocicarpo

« Reply #191 on: July 15, 2011, 12:34 »
0
yeah and so this guy is saying he can use the filmstrip filter -http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html

but was his whole gallery different renditions of the filmstrip? there seems to be a lot of other filters that make pictures on filterforge?


huhu? velossaraptor? I guess I got a Fanboy here :o


« Reply #192 on: July 15, 2011, 13:58 »
0
yeah and so this guy is saying he can use the filmstrip filter -http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html

but was his whole gallery different renditions of the filmstrip? there seems to be a lot of other filters that make pictures on filterforge?


huhu? velossaraptor? I guess I got a Fanboy here :o


if only there were real dinosaurs to photograph, my friend...sigh 8)

velocicarpo

« Reply #193 on: July 15, 2011, 18:48 »
0
yeah and so this guy is saying he can use the filmstrip filter -http://www.filterforge.com/filters/2190.html

but was his whole gallery different renditions of the filmstrip? there seems to be a lot of other filters that make pictures on filterforge?


huhu? velossaraptor? I guess I got a Fanboy here :o


if only there were real dinosaurs to photograph, my friend...sigh 8)


Haha, this would be definitly a real new niche in stock photography.....time for Jurassic park!

« Reply #194 on: July 15, 2011, 20:51 »
0
On this board alone we know at least about two cases. This one and another one with a member called FD-Regular. He too assured us he didn`t do any violation at all and had a very good standing with the forum.

So, both cases in which the affected contributors posted their cases in public here had been somehow questionable. We don`t know how many Contributors in total are affected, but it may be a larger number ...

Whatever happened with FD-Regular. I read that thread with interest and have not seen or heard about it, or from him, in a long while.

Anyone know anything?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 20:54 by wiser »

« Reply #195 on: July 16, 2011, 00:44 »
0
I'm confused - did you get your account terminated even though you didn't break the Terms of Service?

So, everyone who uses a legal font should go, so should anyone using the high pass filter in PS,  people who add motion blur, in fact anyone who uses software at all instead of digging their picture out of sand with a stick.

So is it true  that our accounts can get terminated for arbitrary reasons, without a robust appeals process?

RacePhoto

« Reply #196 on: July 17, 2011, 19:43 »
0
On this board alone we know at least about two cases. This one and another one with a member called FD-Regular. He too assured us he didn`t do any violation at all and had a very good standing with the forum.

So, both cases in which the affected contributors posted their cases in public here had been somehow questionable. We don`t know how many Contributors in total are affected, but it may be a larger number ...

Whatever happened with FD-Regular. I read that thread with interest and have not seen or heard about it, or from him, in a long while.

Anyone know anything?

I don't know for a fact that he was suspended for using filters, maybe someone else has more information. All I know is he was suspended and decided to ignore SS. I don't even know if he appealed or just said, screw it, I'm going independent. :D

I can't see any great offense in using a film rebate filter, especially since the people who sell it, approve and obviously SS has been accepting these for some time.

I'm suspicious that there's more to this and we aren't getting the whole story. Otherwise as the OP has pointed out, about 100 more people should be suspended.

As for rights, someone show me the photographers bill of rights, where it says we have some. I don't like it, but that's the way it seems to work. They (the agencies) hold all the cards, change the rules on a whim, and can do whatever they want.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3687 Views
Last post August 20, 2009, 09:11
by bittersweet
48 Replies
19453 Views
Last post January 11, 2013, 20:52
by EmberMike
46 Replies
14218 Views
Last post December 10, 2017, 20:33
by cathyslife
71 Replies
13095 Views
Last post October 27, 2018, 08:09
by alan b traehern
4 Replies
3182 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