OT: Why would anyone even want to use that filter, the results doesn't even look like real film, at least the perforation doesn't look like 35mm film.

I think SS have done wrongly here; if the filter site says it's okay to use the filters for commercial use, then it is.

Quote from: copyrightdesign on May 17, 2011, 18:18
And my photo was never approved, only reviewers could see. I know it`s bad and not moral, but all others are using without limit. I saw that from them. And always wonder is this allowed or not? Now i know it`s allowed for most users, but only for me it`s forbidden.  

You don't know that. There might have been many others terminated too and maybe more to come. All stock agencies take a very harsh line on issues of this nature. They may have taken the overall quality of your portfolio into account when making their decision. How original was your work? Have you been habitually using filters and/or uploading repetitions of others' best-selling images? Could there have been an 'accumulation of offences'?

You have dedicated time and effort to grow a portfolio there, the site has benefited of that. Now, you lose all. Read your contract with Shutterstock; if there says that they can sack you with no need for a reason, or if you see you have really broken some written rule, there's nothing to do. In the opposite case, you would have grounds for suing.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 17, 2011, 18:23

Quote from: velocicarpo on May 17, 2011, 18:15
This may be a valid moral statement, but as the OP outlined, the license of the software permits the use of Images on shutterstock. Therefore he did legally nothing wrong but nevertheless gets punished and prejudged by shutterstock. And this is IMHO plain wrong.

Nope, you're wrong. It's Oringer's agency. It's his money, he takes the risks, he writes the rules and he has those rules applied as he sees fit __ all perfectly legally. If you don't like the way he runs his business you are under no obligation to participate in it.

I disagree. Sure it is his agency. But if we even check to not violate any copyright and then suddenly "custom rules" pop out which may lead to our accounts terminated it is not right. If Oringer does not want it he has to outline his custom rules clearly to the people. As long as he does not, I think we all agree that we follow the comon copyright law. We have to rely on that if we do NOT violate any copyright our behaviour is fine.

Sometimes I don`t understand the people on this board here, they continuously shoot themselves in the foot ... it is to the benefit of all of us if we demand the Agencies to follow the laws and official copyrights and licenses. Off course he has the possibility to exclude sorts of content from his site. But shutterstock has to make this clear. If not, we follow the law and it has to be fine.

Quote from: Perry on May 17, 2011, 18:27
OT: Why would anyone even want to use that filter, the results doesn't even look like real film, at least the perforation doesn't look like 35mm film.

I think Shutterstock have done wrongly here; if the filter site says it's okay to use the filters for commercial use, then it is.

What if its a competing filter product that looks similiar to this filter. Their license prevents commercial usage. Whos going to police all this BS. Make is simple. if it aint yours, dont use it to make money off.

Quote from: VB inc on May 17, 2011, 18:49

What if its a competing filter product that looks similiar to this filter. Their license prevents commercial usage. Whos going to police all this BS. Make is simple. if it aint yours, dont use it to make money off.

Then it is a legal issue between the two filter developers. Easy.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 17, 2011, 18:31

Quote from: copyrightdesign on May 17, 2011, 18:18
And my photo was never approved, only reviewers could see. I know it`s bad and not moral, but all others are using without limit. I saw that from them. And always wonder is this allowed or not? Now i know it`s allowed for most users, but only for me it`s forbidden.  

You don't know that. There might have been many others terminated too and maybe more to come. All stock agencies take a very harsh line on issues of this nature. They may have taken the overall quality of your portfolio into account when making their decision. How original was your work? Have you been habitually using filters and/or uploading repetitions of others' best-selling images? Could there have been an 'accumulation of offences'?

Yes, i don`t know that, but this submiters with same or similar photos created with this filter are still online, since i am blocked, and i discovered this photos, it was 5 months ago, for them is allowed to use that filter and to have that photos, i don`t have nothing against them, they can do what they want. I had metal backgrounds, textures, i tried to be original, i finished 3d studio max course, i had business charts, and that`s it, nothing special, only backgrounds, i received a lot rejections, if metal plate is best-selling image, or wooden background, or blue sky, i had, like many others, i had few isolations, money background, grunge background, paper, blue sea.....

Quote from: velocicarpo on May 17, 2011, 18:50

Quote from: VB inc on May 17, 2011, 18:49

What if its a competing filter product that looks similiar to this filter. Their license prevents commercial usage. Whos going to police all this BS. Make is simple. if it aint yours, dont use it to make money off.

Then it is a legal issue between the two filter developers. Easy.

wouldnt it be a legal issue with the filter company protecting their IP and SS who is making money from a file that mainly consists of their IP?

Seems like you should call them and try to sort things out, if they say they don't want those files then agree not to submit them.  If this is the only issue I would guess that they would let you back.

Did you use a filter that comes packages with Filter Forge/ create your own filter or use a filter created by another person using filter forge?

Also I have found with Shutterstock they don't really care enough about individual contributors to spend too much time looking into these things.
If it looks like it's gonna get messy they will just cut everyone involved loose, innocent or guilty. If you are in the right I'd say that you're doing the right thing by publicizing the problem, as it seems like the only way to get them to pay attention sometimes!

If the software license says you can use it for commercial use, then SS is in the wrong to suspend this guy.  They could reject the image as a matter of editing policy (but they should be consistent which they obviously aren't) but they shouldnt suspend him.

I don't think Shutterstock is wrong. This is the first line of the Submitter Agreement:

"Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it."

Even if the filter license allows for commercial work, Shutterstock doesn't allow submission of anything that you do not have the complete rights to. You must own everything you submit.

ETA: I think Sean is correct. Shutterstock maybe shouldn't have suspended the guy, but my point above is probably still accurate. They have the right to refuse anything not fully owned by the Submitter.

Still, I think anyone using anything they didn't fully create and submitting it to any agency is crazy. It's not worth the risk.

Quote from: velocicarpo on May 17, 2011, 18:47

I disagree. Sure it is his agency. But if we even check to not violate any copyright and then suddenly "custom rules" pop out which may lead to our accounts terminated it is not right. If Oringer does not want it he has to outline his custom rules clearly to the people. As long as he does not...(snip)

But here's the thing - he does.  The number one bullet point in Shutterstock's Submitter Guidelines appears to cover this issue:

Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it.

Although the filter owners may have given permission for their filters to be used in stock submissions, it is pretty clear that they are not "wholly owned" by the OP, and therefore a violation of Shutterstock policy.  

FWIW, most of the other sites contain similar clauses that we all have to check off each time we upload.  

ETA:  Darn, Mike beat me to it

It all sounds a bit similar to the issue with those clipart 'brushes' that were being uploaded a few years ago. Contributors weren't being terminated but were being severely warned if I remember correctly. I don't think SS can be bothered nowadays to spend too much time on such cases. If they have proof that their rules have been broken then they just close the account.

Quote from: lisafx on May 17, 2011, 21:05

Quote from: velocicarpo on May 17, 2011, 18:47

I disagree. Sure it is his agency. But if we even check to not violate any copyright and then suddenly "custom rules" pop out which may lead to our accounts terminated it is not right. If Oringer does not want it he has to outline his custom rules clearly to the people. As long as he does not...(snip)

But here's the thing - he does.  The number one bullet point in Shutterstock's Submitter Guidelines appears to cover this issue:

Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it.

Although the filter owners may have given permission for their filters to be used in stock submissions, it is pretty clear that they are not "wholly owned" by the OP, and therefore a violation of Shutterstock policy.  

FWIW, most of the other sites contain similar clauses that we all have to check off each time we upload.  

ETA:  Darn, Mike beat me to it

So this means i can`t use photoshop or 3d studio max or filter forge, because i didn`t create that by myself. This photo is not public, was created with filter forge, it`s software that creates that kind of photos, so filter forge EULA is not working, i don`t have full rights with final image render? So all this time i was in delusion. Filter Forge said that i have full rights with final image render. I am really confused...

Sorry.  A filter is just a set of instructions.  It's just a tool.  I buy a hammer, I make a chair, I own the chair.  No different here.  I use a tool to make an image, I am the owner of that image.

Now, again it is up to Shutterstock to decide if they want art of that type in their collection, but they must be consistent and not terminate an account over their editing choice.  

Again, the OP wholly owns his content.

Quote from: lisafx on May 17, 2011, 21:05

Quote from: velocicarpo on May 17, 2011, 18:47

I disagree. Sure it is his agency. But if we even check to not violate any copyright and then suddenly "custom rules" pop out which may lead to our accounts terminated it is not right. If Oringer does not want it he has to outline his custom rules clearly to the people. As long as he does not...(snip)

But here's the thing - he does.  The number one bullet point in Shutterstock's Submitter Guidelines appears to cover this issue:

Submissions must be wholly owned by the submitter. Found or public domain images or footage cannot be submitted under any circumstances. If you do not have complete rights to the submission, you may not submit it.

Although the filter owners may have given permission for their filters to be used in stock submissions, it is pretty clear that they are not "wholly owned" by the OP, and therefore a violation of Shutterstock policy.  

FWIW, most of the other sites contain similar clauses that we all have to check off each time we upload.  

ETA:  Darn, Mike beat me to it

Then I am wrong :-(
Nevertheless I think they should have warned him before suspending his account since he didn`t violate intentionally any copyright...
Beyond that, if you take this serious you should not use Photoshop anymore?

Quote from: sjlocke on May 17, 2011, 21:31
Sorry.  A filter is just a set of instructions.  It's just a tool.  I buy a hammer, I make a chair, I own the chair.  No different here.  I use a tool to make an image, I am the owner of that image.

Now, again it is up to Shutterstock to decide if they want art of that type in their collection, but they must be consistent and not terminate an account over their editing choice.  

Again, the OP wholly owns his content.

+1

The question is where to draw the line...

This is email from filter forge support

What concerns your rights to use Filter Forge in commercial purposes, according to our EULA you are free to do it -- filter authors hold the copyright to the filter files proper (.ffxml files), while the copyright to the final rendered images belongs to the end user, i.e. you.

However, I'd recommend that you read the microstock regulations and terms of use carefully -- perhaps, they somehow specify and restrict the use of images made with third-party filters. I'd also recommend that you contact them directly -- hopefully they'll be able to explain the situation and take into account our policy regarding the end user's copyright to the rendered images.

From the original post:

QuoteShutterstock Images LLC ("Shutterstock") has discovered that an image you are attempting to submit to your portfolio has elements that are copies of another person's work and, therefore, belong to that individual or entity:

67635457 -- "film frame" (see attached thumbnail)
Original image here -- http://www.123rf.com/photo_2196537_retro-filmstrip.html

The person making the complaint is requesting that Shutterstock take appropriate steps against you. Prior to taking any further steps, we are inviting you to respond to this claim.

At the minimum, please let us know:

a) where and when the image(s) in question was taken or created;
b) what program, if any, was used to generate or modify the image(s); and
c) if the image(s) was modified, where the original image was obtained.

If it turns out that the claim is without merit we will not take any further action and your account will remain active.

Please respond to this email by December 30, 2010. If you fail to respond by said date with the information we outline above, your Shutterstock.com submitter account may be closed.

It looks to me like SS DID give him notice before terminating his account. And it looks like there are more questions about the image besides the use of a filter in some software. The questions are also about the original image that has been modified, too.

I'm not sticking up for either side, because I don't have all the facts. I can sympathize with the contributor because having your account terminated stinks. But according to the posts by Lisa and others, the first sentence clearly states their policy. They don't seem to ever institute the same policy consistently, much like life outside of micro. I'm pulling a Switzerland.

Seems ridiculous to me. Even more so if you compare the situation to http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?sort_method=popular&gallery_username=akaiser where PD imagery is used extensively!

Quote from: cclapper on May 17, 2011, 21:50
the first sentence clearly states their policy. They don't seem to ever institute the same policy consistently, much like life outside of micro. I'm pulling a Switzerland.

Then you have to delete every image which had been processed by any photoshop filter. Good luck.

Right.  Including Gaussian blur.  Or high pass.  Sharpen too.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 17, 2011, 22:05
Right.  Including Gaussian blur.  Or high pass.  Sharpen too.

would you have an end product without the filter being used? in the examples shown by the author, i think not.