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 69664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 17, 2011, 16:42 »
0
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.

Hmmm. But isn't every digital image 'just a set of instructions', i.e. a series of 1's and 0's, like everything else on a computer? I guess the problem occurs when you incorporate someone else's 'set of instructions' in such a way that the original source is obvious and detectable. You can claim authorship of a book or a song you have written but not if you have incorporated large chunks of others' work (if the original source is obvious and detectable).


lisafx

« Reply #51 on: May 17, 2011, 16:57 »
0

It looks to me like Shutterstock 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.

Yes, absolutely agree.  Having one's account terminated is a big deal and wouuld be very upsetting. 

I don't really think Photoshop is an accurate comparison.  We are talking about a preset, group of filters here.  Ones which are readily visible and identifiable.  Not really comparable to the vast set of capabilities in Photoshop. 

However, if you want to talk about specific actions sets created by PS users and shared or marketed online, that could be a similar situation.  Particularly if the resulting images were obviously identifiable as coming from that action set. 

helix7

« Reply #52 on: May 17, 2011, 17:01 »
0

...I don't really think Photoshop is an accurate comparison.  We are talking about a preset, group of filters here.  Ones which are readily visible and identifiable.  Not really comparable to the vast set of capabilities in Photoshop. 

However, if you want to talk about specific actions sets created by PS users and shared or marketed online, that could be a similar situation.  Particularly if the resulting images were obviously identifiable as coming from that action set. 

Right. There's a huge difference between using some standard Photoshop functions (sharpening, blurring, etc) and using the filters in question here. In this case, the folters pretty much are the image. Hence the issue SS has with them and the reason that so many images using the same filter look pretty much the same.

« Reply #53 on: May 17, 2011, 17:07 »
0
The complexity of the tool should not be at issue, especially since they have no issue and permit such a use.  SS can choose not to accept it because they are easy and they have too many, but it should be evenly applied and not a reason for suspension.

lisafx

« Reply #54 on: May 17, 2011, 17:14 »
0
The complexity of the tool should not be at issue, especially since they have no issue and permit such a use.  Shutterstock can choose not to accept it because they are easy and they have too many, but it should be evenly applied and not a reason for suspension.

I agree it should be evenly applied.  I am not going to assume it isn't being. 

I remember when Istock stopped accepting photos where the main subject was a car.  People uploading cars were getting rejections and pointing out all the cars in the existing collection.  Eventually all those existing cars were purged too, but it took time. 

It certainly seems as though account termination was an over-reaction, but such account terminations are rare at Shutterstock.  They are not typically a reactionary type of site,  so there may be more to this situation than meets the eye.

« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2011, 17:15 »
0
If the software license says you can use it for commercial use, then Shutterstock 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.
You can't argue with this statement - this is the legal position regardless what anyone thinks of the originality of the result.  If we get really basic, the vast majority of stock images are the result of pointing a tool at something not created by the photographer.  Was this situation due to someone, having produced images using the same 3rd party tool, complaining that the OP had ripped off his work - or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2011, 18:54 »
0
Right. There's a huge difference between using some standard Photoshop functions (sharpening, blurring, etc) and using the filters in question here. In this case, the folters pretty much are the image. Hence the issue Shutterstock has with them and the reason that so many images using the same filter look pretty much the same.

And I HAVE gotten rejections for overfiltering when I hadn't used ANY at all. And I only ever process in Photoshop.

Suspending someone's account for one problem image seems drastic. But again, we don't know the whole story. There has to be more to it. And if there isn't, then I suspect the OP's account will be reinstated.

Wasn't the whole Russell Tate thing something similar? Wasn't there some question about the tutorials he used or filters or something like that? Look how long he was suspended for. Not at Shutterstock, I know, but the same sort of situation. Shutterstock isn't the only company that has this policy.

« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2011, 19:38 »
0
If the software license says you can use it for commercial use, then Shutterstock 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.

+1

helix7

« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2011, 20:42 »
0
...Suspending someone's account for one problem image seems drastic...

Can't argue with that. SS has a history of that sort of thing, taking unnecessarily drastic measures for single image situations.

« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2011, 01:46 »
0
Shutterstock employee names have been removed from the thread

Microbius

« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2011, 02:02 »
0
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.

Woa, that's really shocking. I haven't read that stuff for years but I am really blown away by this.
There's absolutely truck loads of public domain and out of copyright content on Shutterstock!!!

It seems really underhanded to allow public domain content on the site but keep that clause in so you can easily show contributors the door if they get to be a nuisance, but I can't think what other reason there is for such a massive difference between what's officially allowed and what reviewers let into the site everyday.

eggshell

« Reply #61 on: May 18, 2011, 07:20 »
0
To OP - Are you sure you had no previous warnings or other interactions with the SS staff ? Closing an 2800 images account for one not even approved image - it's obvious that they were just looking for some excuse to kick you out .
SS needs to step up and release a clear statement what precisely is allowed and what not . Then do a massive clean out . There are so many people trying to abuse their system - I've seen a portfolio of 5000+ images composed of about 100 originals that have been replicated in all kind of variations ( reversed vertcally,horizontally ,with different color gradients , cropped etc ) . I've also seen Evermotion's entire model collection released as clip art .

"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." -  apparently this is open to interpretation since it is clearly violated by a huge amount of images on SS

« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2011, 07:52 »
0
There's gotta be more to this. Period.  We are hearing one side, and perhaps, one selective piece of one side, and not the other. I do feel for the guy....2800 images is a lot, especially if they were sellers.

« Reply #63 on: May 18, 2011, 07:52 »
0
To OP - Are you sure you had no previous warnings or other interactions with the Shutterstock staff ? Closing an 2800 images account for one not even approved image - it's obvious that they were just looking for some excuse to kick you out .
Shutterstock needs to step up and release a clear statement what precisely is allowed and what not . Then do a massive clean out . There are so many people trying to abuse their system - I've seen a portfolio of 5000+ images composed of about 100 originals that have been replicated in all kind of variations ( reversed vertcally,horizontally ,with different color gradients , cropped etc ) . I've also seen Evermotion's entire model collection released as clip art .

"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." -  apparently this is open to interpretation since it is clearly violated by a huge amount of images on Shutterstock

I didn`t receive nothing before this email, no warnings, nothing, they didn`t  told me nothing. I send about 10 photos for review, and after few days, i received this warning email, and i saw disabled account, no new photos were approved, i didn`t post nothing on forum, i didn`t say nothing, everything was fine before this email. I don`t know what was wrong? they can ask me nice, please remove this photo, or this image use is not allowed, or you can`t use filter forge, or something like that. They just looking any reason to terminate me. Then i discovered same photos created with filter forge, and for them it`s allowed but fo me not. My photo was never approved but someone make a complaint? That is another question? ???

« Reply #64 on: May 18, 2011, 08:40 »
0
- There are tens of thousands scanned vintage illustrations from artists whose copyright expired sold as RF

- There are more than 10,000 images online with the use of the water reflection plugin sold as RF

I think Shutterstock has just started to create a big mob against itself.

Microbius

« Reply #65 on: May 18, 2011, 08:43 »
0
Been thinking a bit more about this.

It's all very weird, so they just now disabled your account even though they originally asked you to respond by 30th December to avoid account closure?
Are you sure the two things are related and they didn't just shut you down for another reason altogether.
I mean it seems all the Filter Forge stuff was going on 5 months ago or more. Shutterstock are usually very quick to shut down an account if they even get a sniff of a problem.

I think that the email posted in the original post may be a bit of a red herring.

I reckon someone made a new complaint about another file and SS just figured "this guy's getting to be more trouble than he's worth, bye"
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 08:46 by Microbius »

Microbius

« Reply #66 on: May 18, 2011, 08:47 »
0
- There are tens of thousands scanned vintage illustrations from artists whose copyright expired sold as RF

- There are more than 10,000 images online with the use of the water reflection plugin sold as RF

I think Shutterstock has just started to create a big mob against itself.

That's what I thought too, it's really suspect having the "no public domain" clause in their terms then letting in so much public domain content. All very weird. Maybe there should be a new thread about this as there are two conversations going on here now?


helix7

« Reply #67 on: May 18, 2011, 08:50 »
0
- There are tens of thousands scanned vintage illustrations from artists whose copyright expired sold as RF

- There are more than 10,000 images online with the use of the water reflection plugin sold as RF

I think Shutterstock has just started to create a big mob against itself.

I know I won't win over any fans with this comment, but to be honest here I really wouldn't feel too bad for anyone who got reprimanded or suspended by SS for using any of the above type of images. Using that stuff despite the clear warning on the Upload page that your work should be 100% your own, that's the risk they take when they upload.

There may be a big angry mob in the works here, but I'm not sure they really have much of an argument when they knowingly ignored the site policies and submitted work that wasn't entirely their own. Is SS wrong for allowing this stuff and then going back on it in some cases? Sure. But it's not like they changed the policy after allowing this type of work. It was always there, and some folks chose to ignore it.

velocicarpo

« Reply #68 on: May 18, 2011, 08:53 »
0
Well, for me personally, Shutterstocks behaviour is quite unprofessional. Especially since others have Images online using the same Filter. I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.

helix7

« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2011, 08:56 »
0
Well, for me personally, Shutterstocks behaviour is quite unprofessional. Especially since others have Images online using the same Filter. I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.

Just to add to my previous post, I also wouldn't say that what SS is doing is very professional. But they're also not operating outside their rights in this matter since the actions they're taking are based on pre-existing policy.

They may not be 100% right in this, but neither are the contributors who use other people's work in their images, even if those other people authorize, license, or no longer have rights to that work.

« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2011, 08:58 »
0
Doesn't this sentence say that it is allowed to use these filters? I'm afraid that my English is not good enough for understanding of these "slight differences"

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;

Microbius

« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2011, 09:00 »
0
They may not be 100% right in this, but neither are the contributors who use other people's work in their images, even if those other people authorize, license, or no longer have rights to that work.

I would agree if their behavior matched what they say in their policy document. But you can't let people upload stuff that clearly says in the description "scanned from book from 18XX and out of copyright" then turn around and ban them from the site.

Microbius

« Reply #72 on: May 18, 2011, 09:02 »
0
Doesn't this sentence say that it is allowed to use these filters? I'm afraid that my English is not good enough for understanding of these "slight differences"

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;

Yup, 100% I would agree this means use of Filter Forge is okay if you check that it's legally above board. But again, I'm beginning to doubt that the Filter Forge controversy of last year could have been the main reason for the OP's account suspension.

« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2011, 09:02 »
0
I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.

Oh don't be such a big girl's blouse. This is a discussion forum and 'the community' is discussing the merits or otherwise of the case. We only know one side of the story and even then it is hardly black or white. By his own admission the OP clearly broke the 'Submission Guidlelines' and SS have terminated his account. Those are the only known facts.

« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2011, 09:03 »
0
Been thinking a bit more about this.

It's all very weird, so they just now disabled your account even though they originally asked you to respond by 30th December to avoid account closure?
Are you sure the two things are related and they didn't just shut you down for another reason altogether.
I mean it seems all the Filter Forge stuff was going on 5 months ago or more. Shutterstock are usually very quick to shut down an account if they even get a sniff of a problem.

I think that the email posted in the original post may be a bit of a red herring.

I reckon someone made a new complaint about another file and Shutterstock just figured "this guy's getting to be more trouble than he's worth, bye"

I received warning email 23.december 2010. I wrote immediate to them, same day, and explainded its created by photoshop filter forge.  My account was disabled or blocked,  then i received this answer 27. december

This issue is currently being reviewed with our legal department.  Be advised that this may take some time.  Your portfolio will remain suspended until the investigation is complete.  I will be contacting you if we require any additional information.

and this email is from 25. february 2011 , after 2 months

As originally stated, this issue is under review by our Legal department.  It
is not necessary to continually send emails.  You need to be patient while
your issue is reviewed & you will be contacted when a decision is made.

Consider this matter closed and you will hear from us when a decision is made
regarding your account.

I was patient 4 months. i just asked about my case, nothing else, because i saw on forum that shutterstock sometimes not receive emails from submiters. So now its forbidden to ask?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4409 Views
Last post August 20, 2009, 09:11
by bittersweet
48 Replies
24288 Views
Last post January 11, 2013, 20:52
by EmberMike
46 Replies
19308 Views
Last post December 10, 2017, 20:33
by cathyslife
71 Replies
19767 Views
Last post October 27, 2018, 08:09
by alan b traehern
4 Replies
4746 Views
Last post March 21, 2020, 08:08
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors