MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock don't take stolen work seriously  (Read 19455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 17, 2019, 11:21 »
+8
It's the second time I've  got a vector download and then modify a little bit and uploaded by another contributor. I contact Shutterstock infrigment department and even with proof, then don't take it seriously. I got that answer :

As you may know, ideas cannot be protected by copyright, only the expression of the ideas may be protected by copyright. Upon reviewing these images, it appears that while the ideas between your images and the other contributor's images are similar, the expressions of the ideas are sufficiently different.

 >:(

As anyone else had this issue and this disapointed shutterstock answer ?


« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2020, 06:33 »
+1
This is unreasonable for a site like shutterstock, can you please post those stolen pictures to see the difference, thanks

« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2020, 07:17 »
+3
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore


« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2020, 10:18 »
0
Please post screenshots of the two images.

I've had many of my ideas ripped by other contributors, but I have never seen a direct copy of my work.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2020, 14:37 »
+1
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Because 50 terrible keywords isn't enough, they wanted 100.  ;D

Sorry, back to the original.

Please post screenshots of the two images.

I've had many of my ideas ripped by other contributors, but I have never seen a direct copy of my work.

Yeah, simple ideas and concepts can't be protected. Complex setups, in a photo, might be.

But no way anyone should be able to make a copy, small modifications and upload as their own. That stinks.

« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2020, 15:09 »
0
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Because 50 terrible keywords isn't enough, they wanted 100.  ;D

Sorry, back to the original.

Please post screenshots of the two images.

I've had many of my ideas ripped by other contributors, but I have never seen a direct copy of my work.

Yeah, simple ideas and concepts can't be protected. Complex setups, in a photo, might be.

But no way anyone should be able to make a copy, small modifications and upload as their own. That stinks.

I dont know if terrible but he is on first page on every single search that include one of his keywords. Try it yourself. He is doing great! Using bugs without consequences pays off great.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2020, 22:58 »
+1
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Because 50 terrible keywords isn't enough, they wanted 100.  ;D

Sorry, back to the original.

Please post screenshots of the two images.

I've had many of my ideas ripped by other contributors, but I have never seen a direct copy of my work.

Yeah, simple ideas and concepts can't be protected. Complex setups, in a photo, might be.

But no way anyone should be able to make a copy, small modifications and upload as their own. That stinks.

I dont know if terrible but he is on first page on every single search that include one of his keywords. Try it yourself. He is doing great! Using bugs without consequences pays off great.

Glad his keywords aren't in any of my page one images. Can you repeat that?  "he is on first page on every single search that include one of his keywords" really? Do you know what you just wrote?

Here's an idea, if that works and you'll be on the first page for every keyword in your images, by having 50 two word keywords, just do it. Think of all the money you'll make being on the first page of every search for 100 different words?


« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2020, 04:09 »
0
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Because 50 terrible keywords isn't enough, they wanted 100.  ;D

Sorry, back to the original.

Please post screenshots of the two images.

I've had many of my ideas ripped by other contributors, but I have never seen a direct copy of my work.

Yeah, simple ideas and concepts can't be protected. Complex setups, in a photo, might be.

But no way anyone should be able to make a copy, small modifications and upload as their own. That stinks.

I dont know if terrible but he is on first page on every single search that include one of his keywords. Try it yourself. He is doing great! Using bugs without consequences pays off great.

Glad his keywords aren't in any of my page one images. Can you repeat that?  "he is on first page on every single search that include one of his keywords" really? Do you know what you just wrote?

Here's an idea, if that works and you'll be on the first page for every keyword in your images, by having 50 two word keywords, just do it. Think of all the money you'll make being on the first page of every search for 100 different words?

Ok, now you just repeated everything I wrote.

Looks like you need some help, here it is, try this searches: "angry", "confused", "amazed", "scared", "excited", "happy", "joyful"......

just search for photos with people.

those images sells like crazy.

you don't even need to put "woman", "man" or "business" or any other filter.

if you searched for "vector icons" of course you dont find him, he doesnt do vectors.

and no, i wont do it, because it's against the rules.



« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2020, 13:05 »
+1
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Because 50 terrible keywords isn't enough, they wanted 100.  ;D

Sorry, back to the original.

Please post screenshots of the two images.

I've had many of my ideas ripped by other contributors, but I have never seen a direct copy of my work.

Yeah, simple ideas and concepts can't be protected. Complex setups, in a photo, might be.

But no way anyone should be able to make a copy, small modifications and upload as their own. That stinks.

I dont know if terrible but he is on first page on every single search that include one of his keywords. Try it yourself. He is doing great! Using bugs without consequences pays off great.

Glad his keywords aren't in any of my page one images. Can you repeat that?  "he is on first page on every single search that include one of his keywords" really? Do you know what you just wrote?

Here's an idea, if that works and you'll be on the first page for every keyword in your images, by having 50 two word keywords, just do it. Think of all the money you'll make being on the first page of every search for 100 different words?

Ok, now you just repeated everything I wrote.

Looks like you need some help, here it is, try this searches: "angry", "confused", "amazed", "scared", "excited", "happy", "joyful"......

just search for photos with people.

those images sells like crazy.

you don't even need to put "woman", "man" or "business" or any other filter.

if you searched for "vector icons" of course you dont find him, he doesnt do vectors.

and no, i wont do it, because it's against the rules.

How can he be on the first page of every word if there are 100 words?

« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2020, 14:40 »
0


How can he be on the first page of every word if there are 100 words?

Why ask if you can find out in a 10-15 seconds?

I am not talking about black holes or pulsars, while you were quoting me you could already checked that yourself.

as everyone else here.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2020, 13:01 »
0
How can he be on the first page of every word if there are 100 words?

I think PanicAttack meant for any two word search, not for all 100 words.

I checked, not true.

A couple of word pairs, the image was on page one, for the exact words.

I will suggest again, anyone who cares should add their best two words for their images, as one entry, and be on page one for that exact pair.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 13:29 by Uncle Pete »

georgep7

« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2020, 14:20 »
0
Here is a semi offtopic question.
How ethical is to use two or more words if totally submitting about 10-15 max single keywords?
Sometimes seem too logic that e.g. head must be one - three word keyword if it is
a "read write head" of a disk for example as one keyword
assuming that it is not intended to just stuff more and more keywords in the box.
Else wouldn't it be spam for searches for whatever reading, writing and heads?

???

« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2020, 14:46 »
0
Maybe the new leader of Shutterstock will recognize the benefits of removing stolen material via proactive content matching.  A contributor petition requesting this would be a nice nudge. 

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2020, 11:07 »
+1
Maybe the new leader of Shutterstock will recognize the benefits of removing stolen material via proactive content matching.  A contributor petition requesting this would be a nice nudge.

Bravo!

Here is a semi offtopic question.
How ethical is to use two or more words if totally submitting about 10-15 max single keywords?
Sometimes seem too logic that e.g. head must be one - three word keyword if it is
a "read write head" of a disk for example as one keyword
assuming that it is not intended to just stuff more and more keywords in the box.
Else wouldn't it be spam for searches for whatever reading, writing and heads?

???

Why not. If these two word keywords do give a boost for an exact match, why shouldn't any of us use that to our advantage. Yes, 100 words is abuse, I'm saying, like your example or something where the two words, or three words, would commonly be searched together.

I'm off to test a few of mine, before and after, against some others of mine. Fairest AKA scientific, way I can see, is same age, same images, same artist and the one controlled variable (as best as I can control everything) will be two words vs one word for each of those two words. Then make notes for today, and wait a few days for re-indexing, and see if anything changes. If that works, I will be giving a boost to my opinion of my best images, so they are seen before some that I don't think are as good.

I don't need to boost my best sellers, they are already on page one for their respective searches. Sometimes images sell well just because they are good images, without all the trying to game the system.  ;)

« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2020, 17:28 »
0
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Whats wrong with two worded keywords?? Did i lose something??

Based on my knowledge this will hurt your exposition on the site...

« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2020, 21:56 »
0
It's the second time I've  got a vector download and then modify a little bit and uploaded by another contributor. I contact Shutterstock infrigment department and even with proof, then don't take it seriously. I got that answer :

As you may know, ideas cannot be protected by copyright, only the expression of the ideas may be protected by copyright. Upon reviewing these images, it appears that while the ideas between your images and the other contributor's images are similar, the expressions of the ideas are sufficiently different.

 >:(

As anyone else had this issue and this disapointed shutterstock answer ?

They never solve this problem for you. Just edit or add something, it will be someone else's.

« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2020, 13:27 »
0
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

now everyone here, including Uncle Pete, Mrblues101, YadaYadaYada can se what I was talking 4 months ago

go to shutterstock, leave search field empty,  click search and select photos only. Check the name of person who have most of images in first page for most relevant and see my quote.

You have all "checked it" and didn't believe me.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 13:39 by panicAttack »


« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2020, 13:28 »
0


Glad his keywords aren't in any of my page one images. Can you repeat that?  "he is on first page on every single search that include one of his keywords" really? Do you know what you just wrote?



exactly that was what I meant!
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 13:38 by panicAttack »

whtvr

« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2020, 13:39 »
0
https://youtu.be/9DjtXHaYAJ8

Tried to report to Shutterstock live chat but i was queued long time. Check for any of your clips and report to be taken down from Youtube.

Snow

« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2020, 01:50 »
0
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Whats wrong with two worded keywords?? Did i lose something??

Based on my knowledge this will hurt your exposition on the site...

I thought about this a lot and to me it makes more sense to use white background instead of white, background but white can and should also be used.
Because an isolated image is not exactly a background or texture. Buyers would normally search on white white background or just white

Almost all images I see are with separate background keyword so if buyers look for a neat background they get isolations on white too amongst the whole library because everyone seems to use this keyword on everything.
Of course those who do it properly might get punished in search so maybe it is better to keep them separate.
Any thoughts on this?

Ps. Why is it always those from India who sell stolen images? And most of the time I deal with People from India trough SS support. Also most of them seem to be ok with SS change when I check the forums.
Or am I just imagining things?

« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2020, 02:03 »
0
They don't take seriously nothing at all, for now.

« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2020, 05:59 »
0
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Whats wrong with two worded keywords?? Did i lose something??

Based on my knowledge this will hurt your exposition on the site...

I thought about this a lot and to me it makes more sense to use white background instead of white, background but white can and should also be used.
Because an isolated image is not exactly a background or texture. Buyers would normally search on white white background or just white

Almost all images I see are with separate background keyword so if buyers look for a neat background they get isolations on white too amongst the whole library because everyone seems to use this keyword on everything.
Of course those who do it properly might get punished in search so maybe it is better to keep them separate.
Any thoughts on this?

Ps. Why is it always those from India who sell stolen images? And most of the time I deal with People from India trough SS support. Also most of them seem to be ok with SS change when I check the forums.
Or am I just imagining things?

"white background" "young adult" "full body" are fine and have meaning. check contributor from my link and see how is he misusing it and have 100 keywords on each image, never punished, and now he is one of the best sellers even tho he is not doing anything done before.

"headshot fast" "ethnic laptop" "happy indoors"

 

Snow

« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2020, 06:46 »
0
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Whats wrong with two worded keywords?? Did i lose something??

Based on my knowledge this will hurt your exposition on the site...

I thought about this a lot and to me it makes more sense to use white background instead of white, background but white can and should also be used.
Because an isolated image is not exactly a background or texture. Buyers would normally search on white white background or just white

Almost all images I see are with separate background keyword so if buyers look for a neat background they get isolations on white too amongst the whole library because everyone seems to use this keyword on everything.
Of course those who do it properly might get punished in search so maybe it is better to keep them separate.
Any thoughts on this?

Ps. Why is it always those from India who sell stolen images? And most of the time I deal with People from India trough SS support. Also most of them seem to be ok with SS change when I check the forums.
Or am I just imagining things?

"white background" "young adult" "full body" are fine and have meaning. check contributor from my link and see how is he misusing it and have 100 keywords on each image, never punished, and now he is one of the best sellers even tho he is not doing anything done before.

"headshot fast" "ethnic laptop" "happy indoors"

Is he? so it works? wow then we should all do it, well those who still want to upload that is.
If SS does nothing about stolen portfolio's and spammers you can be sure they don't care about his misuse either.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 10:28 by Snow »

« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2020, 09:20 »
0
It's the second time I've  got a vector download and then modify a little bit and uploaded by another contributor. I contact Shutterstock infrigment department and even with proof, then don't take it seriously. I got that answer :

As you may know, ideas cannot be protected by copyright, only the expression of the ideas may be protected by copyright. Upon reviewing these images, it appears that while the ideas between your images and the other contributor's images are similar, the expressions of the ideas are sufficiently different.

 >:(

As anyone else had this issue and this disapointed shutterstock answer ?

They never solve this problem for you. Just edit or add something, it will be someone else's.

I had the exact same issues with my vectors. And got the same answer.
I also reported to Adobe, Dreamstime and others, and they all deleted the image, except SS.
One time I even contacted the contributor and she also replied with "ideas can not be protected by copyright."

k_t_g

  • A little of this. A little of that.

« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2020, 06:31 »
0
There's a guy called KhoirCreative. He took one of my images, filtered it in PS or elsewhere, posted to SS and gained revenue for almost a year till i accidentally stumbled upon his portfolio. I have also recognized two images of another author and notified him immediately.
I have also written a message to SS support, but received only a generic reply. After contacting SS FB page, I was instructed to send DMCA notice, which I did - and it is a time unnecessary consuming process to complete - but no reply was given in a week. So I filed another report, and a week later stolen image was removed from thief's portfolio. Also, two images of a contributor I have contacted earlier were removed.
Final result - more than two weeks of writing e-mail and complaining, only to protect what's mine, and the thief is still there. His portfolio is not removed, they took down only reported images.
Check him out, maybe you are also bringing bread to someone else's table - https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Khoirillistration [nofollow]

Les

« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2020, 18:16 »
+3
Shouldn't be a standard practice for SS to ban thieves altogether?
If 3 images are reported as stolen, there is a good chance, he has stolen other images.


« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2020, 18:38 »
+1
Shouldn't be a standard practice for SS to ban thieves altogether?
If 3 images are reported as stolen, there is a good chance, he has stolen other images.

Certainly should be standard practice, but they dont care where they make their money from. Having an image being sold by the original artist and one or multiple thieves just increases their chance for a sale. How do you think the top brass got to be a zillionaire?

« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2020, 19:36 »
+1
Crooked money is worth the same as honest money

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2020, 19:41 »
+3
« Last Edit: August 22, 2020, 20:12 by ShadySue »

Les

« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2020, 22:47 »
0
...
Check him out, maybe you are also bringing bread to someone else's table - https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Khoirillistration
This illustration
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/lion-illustration-wallpaper-background-1585086241
is a filtered version of this photo:
https://news.sky.com/story/lioness-kills-father-of-her-three-cubs-at-indianapolis-zoo-11532092

This one:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/winter-illustration-wallpaper-background-1589482882
is a filtered version of this still from a movie:
https://growthcommissionblog.org/film/405034/jilbab-traveler-love-sparks-in-korea

This one:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/tiger-illustration-wallpaper-background-1585075810
is a filtered version of
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianscott/150007690/in/photolist-eV6aj-eibKr-eod53-efQ4u-ei9fg-2MN5YD-4BzHB1-7fQMry-5v3cLg-5v7Ekj-7fQNwA-7fQN93-7fLSbB-5v3m9n-7fLWgn-7fQSvh-7fLWJv-7fLRyD-7fLVWg-7fQNQ5-7fLWY6-7fQMVb-4Bvr6c-7fQJoE-7fLLkn-sEEGa-7fLSRn-7fLNNz-7fQL6u-7fQJBu-2giNQz

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/winter-illustration-wallpaper-background-1589481829
is a filtered version of this one:
https://www.liputan6.com/global/read/3083716/australia-bersiap-hadapi-musim-dingin-terganas

Every other file I clicked on is available on the internet, though it would take more time to identify the original author.
SS didn't even try Google Reverse Image Search. They really don't care.

This post should be sent to the SS shareholders before their next conference.

BTW, since you already did all this work identifying the stolen images, you might send this also to SS Support.

« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2020, 05:35 »
+2
I think they just don't care. It is more than obvious that everything in this port is a thievery. This guy is obviously there for easy money, but someone is getting rich even more and even easier.
ShadySue, thanks for providing those examples. I was to angry to investigate deeper into this portfolio.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2020, 10:08 »
+1
...
Check him out, maybe you are also bringing bread to someone else's table - https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Khoirillistration
This illustration
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/lion-illustration-wallpaper-background-1585086241
is a filtered version of this photo:
https://news.sky.com/story/lioness-kills-father-of-her-three-cubs-at-indianapolis-zoo-11532092

This one:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/winter-illustration-wallpaper-background-1589482882
is a filtered version of this still from a movie:
https://growthcommissionblog.org/film/405034/jilbab-traveler-love-sparks-in-korea

This one:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/tiger-illustration-wallpaper-background-1585075810
is a filtered version of
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianscott/150007690/in/photolist-eV6aj-eibKr-eod53-efQ4u-ei9fg-2MN5YD-4BzHB1-7fQMry-5v3cLg-5v7Ekj-7fQNwA-7fQN93-7fLSbB-5v3m9n-7fLWgn-7fQSvh-7fLWJv-7fLRyD-7fLVWg-7fQNQ5-7fLWY6-7fQMVb-4Bvr6c-7fQJoE-7fLLkn-sEEGa-7fLSRn-7fLNNz-7fQL6u-7fQJBu-2giNQz

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/winter-illustration-wallpaper-background-1589481829
is a filtered version of this one:
https://www.liputan6.com/global/read/3083716/australia-bersiap-hadapi-musim-dingin-terganas

Every other file I clicked on is available on the internet, though it would take more time to identify the original author.
SS didn't even try Google Reverse Image Search. They really don't care.

This post should be sent to the SS shareholders before their next conference.

BTW, since you already did all this work identifying the stolen images, you might send this also to SS Support.
As I don't have an account there, I sent a guest post, but I only had 400 characters, so just the top link then a note to say all others are findable online. Maybe others could send them more? I'm blocked from Oringer's Twitter, but maybe I can blast some quickly to SS's Twitter before being banned, and presumably also Fb. If anyone else would like to join in, feel free!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2020, 10:18 »
+3
OK, four tweets sent after the note to support, one for each of the ones I found. Also all messaged to their Facebook account.

Added: I tried to post to TrustPilot, but they don't allow links in reviews, and I thought 'this site sells stolen images' without the evidence just looked like a jilted ex, so I didn't post.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2020, 10:39 by ShadySue »

« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2020, 11:00 »
0
Do you guys think that other stocks like iStock and Adobe check contributor portfolios more carefully?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2020, 17:43 »
+1
Do you guys think that other stocks like iStock and Adobe check contributor portfolios more carefully?
Historically, iS used to ban people for posting files for which they didn't have copyright. They actually blocked ports pending enquiry following a complaint, which was a bit unfair if someone was innocent (in the days when a few days 'down' could mean a serious money loss).
However, there was definitely a time when they wouldn't investigate unless it was the actual copyright owner who contacted them.

I don't know what happens there now, haven't seen a thread here for a while.
Previous threads here have shown that SS can take weeks to take down an abuser.

Meanwhile, I got a reply from their twitter presence:
Thank you for letting us know. We've submitted this for review with our compliance team.  That was an hour ago, so you can keep checking to see how long it takes. Quite possibly/probably all of that port isn't their copyright.

« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2020, 07:45 »
+2
Do you guys think that other stocks like iStock and Adobe check contributor portfolios more carefully?

Yes, I do.  I have occasionally found stolen images on other stock sites, but never whole portfolios like this.  You would think the heavy use of filters would be a clue to the reviewers. 

Shutterstock used to reject images that relied on simple filter effects, since anyone can do them.


« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2020, 19:56 »
+2
I just found this portfolio: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/lazaralinsilviu
It looked suspicious so I checked random 5 images, they were all on pixabay (under different authors). I wonder were he gets the videos from..
I think SS does not care at all, there are I think hundreds of "contributors" like this.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: August 27, 2020, 04:38 »
0
I've just noticed, which I didn't before, that the pics I linked to above have 'signed property release on file with Shutterstock' on them.
Could it be that the author has got permission from the original photographers to use their files?
(OTOH, s/he used the OP's files without permission and I don't know if the PR note was on their file pages).

« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2020, 14:15 »
+2
I just found this portfolio: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/lazaralinsilviu
It looked suspicious so I checked random 5 images, they were all on pixabay (under different authors). I wonder were he gets the videos from..
I think SS does not care at all, there are I think hundreds of "contributors" like this.

I tweeted about this earlier today after seeing your post in the Coalition group. It's outrageous on so many levels. Usually I email Shutterstock about things like this, but at this point I decided public shaming was appropriate

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1300503016198385664

They can't take my account away twice :)

I have messaged the three artists via Pixabay. I also contacted Pixabay support to suggest they contact Sutterstock to get this portfolio taken down. Uploading to Shutterstock is a violation of the Pixabay license

https://pixabay.com/service/license/



« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 16:58 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #40 on: September 01, 2020, 03:14 »
+1
Do you guys think that other stocks like iStock and Adobe check contributor portfolios more carefully?
Yes I do but sometimes getting the account shut down is still difficult

Shouldn't be a standard practice for SS to ban thieves altogether?
If 3 images are reported as stolen, there is a good chance, he has stolen other images.

Yes they should and 3 is proof that somebody didn't make a mistake.

Do you guys think that other stocks like iStock and Adobe check contributor portfolios more carefully?
Historically, iS used to ban people for posting files for which they didn't have copyright. They actually blocked ports pending enquiry following a complaint, which was a bit unfair if someone was innocent (in the days when a few days 'down' could mean a serious money loss).
However, there was definitely a time when they wouldn't investigate unless it was the actual copyright owner who contacted them.

I don't know what happens there now, haven't seen a thread here for a while.
Previous threads here have shown that SS can take weeks to take down an abuser.

Meanwhile, I got a reply from their twitter presence:
Thank you for letting us know. We've submitted this for review with our compliance team.  That was an hour ago, so you can keep checking to see how long it takes. Quite possibly/probably all of that port isn't their copyright.
SS hides behind DMCA, they are incompetent and ignorant.

« Reply #41 on: September 01, 2020, 08:48 »
+4
oooo...lazaralinsilviu has some images with Kermit the Frog in them.

I've reported this to Disney.  BOOM!

« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2020, 12:04 »
0
Portfolio is all still there - Kermits & all - so I broke down and wrote to Compliance at Shutterstock. They're being idiotic and while I don't care if they scare buyers away from Shutterstock, an environment where buyers are leery of the legality of agency images isn't good for any of the agencies, so I think that portfolio really needs to come down.

I also think this gives an F grade to their AI review-bots, dropping a 7 of 10 new contributor requirement and absence of any program to check on the first hundred or so new uploads from a new contributor (where most of these types of scams would be caught).

OM

« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2020, 12:50 »
0
All SS cares about is that the thread exposing thieves is taken down whilst the thieves remain. As usual the thief comes to the forum asking people to show their most popular and when one of the forum regulars posts 5 photo's of the thief's next to 5 originals of theirs others chip in to show that the name and photo of the contributor are fake as is the country of residence given (USA but likely India).

Thief's port: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/design_space

Port is still up but the forum thread has been disappeared. 'Course that's the easiest thing to do...no thread, no discovery, no problem with thievery.

Profile photo fake too: https://twitter.com/amina_saidy
« Last Edit: September 02, 2020, 12:59 by OM »

« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2020, 12:52 »
0
There's another brazen thief posting over on the Contributor Experience forum over on SS. He/she/ it is asking what kinds of subjects sell. Probably looking for more photos to steal (based on recommendations of subject matter.)

Edit: woops I didn't realise that this same thread was already being discussed.

By the way, it may have been Design Space who deleted that thread. There was another thief who posted on the forum some time back and it was believed that that one was deleted by the thief himself when he was exposed by other contributors.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2020, 12:57 by dragonblade »

OM

« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2020, 13:02 »
0
There's another brazen thief posting over on the Contributor Experience forum over on SS. He/she/ it is asking what kinds of subjects sell. Probably looking for more photos to steal (based on recommendations of subject matter.)

Edit: woops I didn't realise that this same thread was already being discussed.

By the way, it may have been Design Space who deleted that thread. There was another thief who posted on the forum some time back and it was believed that that one was deleted by the thief himself when he was exposed by other contributors.

Ah! Didn't realise that that was possible. He/she was the OP but I'm surprised that it's possible to delete everything once the thread has developed. Must admit it did seem rather fast work for SS!!

« Reply #46 on: September 02, 2020, 18:29 »
+2
I have done what I can about Design Space. I've written to Kirsty Pargeter, one of the contributors whose work was stolen, and Shutterstock compliance with this list of infringing images & their originals

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/design_space



https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3d-rendering-geometric-fountain-shapes-confetti-1707075184
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3d-render-geometric-fountain-shape-background-1444945241

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/landscape-scenario-pond-fresh-water-reflecting-1631263534
https://www.eyeem.com/p/160296239

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/high-mountain-scent-tall-trees-during-1631263558
https://unsplash.com/photos/ndN00KmbJ1c

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/landscape-architectural-bridge-light-renderings-1575392185
https://stock.adobe.com/images/golden-gate-bridge-in-san-francisco/306575074

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/half-sliced-reddish-cabbage-leaves-1691385208
https://www.123rf.com/stock-photo/34631589.html

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/five-baked-muffin-cakes-basket-1686503539
https://www.123rf.com/stock-photo/34631629.html

I also tweeted about it

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1301295094738219010

If you look at the edits, they are truly dreadful. The Yosemite image has severe banding visible even in the preview - these should have been rejected for quality (given the terrible edits; there was nothing wrong with the originals).

Given at least one of the ones I found is also on Shutterstock, and that they can identify duplicates on upload in your own portfolio, it beggars belief that they don't even check against their own collection when approving images.

Another F for the Ai review-bots.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2020, 22:42 by Jo Ann Snover »


OM

« Reply #47 on: September 02, 2020, 19:41 »
+1
Thanks Jo Ann. Let's see how long it takes to remove the whole port. Knowing SS, if Kirsty Pargeter complains, they'll remove her image and leave the rest intact. They really don't give a s**t.

What always amazes me is that I've never seen a thief that isn't a serial offender yet SS will only remove the first couple of images that the real authors complain about. Only after 3+ complaints will they shut down the port. IMO if a 'subscriber' has one stolen image then the rest of their port is most likely also stolen.

The trouble is that policing image theft is not part of the profitable operation. Not preventing it is/can be profitable for SS. After all, thieves only steal good sellers and if SS can sell the same popular image twice and then withhold payment to the fraudulent contributor and not have to compensate the original author, then that's a real win-win situation for SS.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2020, 20:25 by OM »

« Reply #48 on: September 02, 2020, 22:28 »
+3
Most of these accounts with stolen work are probably operated by SS staff themselves, that's why they don't act on it. SS creates fake contributor accounts with different names and fills them up with stolen material and reaps huge profit from it. Even if 1 account is closed after repeated complaining, 10 more show up in its place,it is a big game.

« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2020, 07:53 »
0
Portfolio is all still there - Kermits & all -

It usually takes a few days for the report to get through the queue of other reports, but once it does, Disney is even more rigorous than Mattel. 

« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2020, 11:10 »
+3
I figured I'd keep "nagging" on twitter until lazaralinsilviu's portfolio is gone

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1301550615798005760

I can't tag @Shutterstock because they've blocked me, but if anyone they haven't blocked wants to retweet any of these public shaming messages, that can't hurt :)

« Reply #51 on: September 03, 2020, 13:29 »
+1
I figured I'd keep "nagging" on twitter until lazaralinsilviu's portfolio is gone

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1301550615798005760

I can't tag @Shutterstock because they've blocked me, but if anyone they haven't blocked wants to retweet any of these public shaming messages, that can't hurt :)

I will.

« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2020, 13:54 »
0
...
Given at least one of the ones I found is also on Shutterstock, and that they can identify duplicates on upload in your own portfolio, it beggars belief that they don't even check against their own collection when approving images.

Another F for the Ai review-bots.

it's likely a CPU issue - search doesnt put a lot of stress since only a few images are found. dupes w/in a portfolio are easier since total images are relatively few.  but a check dupes on everything means 300,000,000 calls to the dupe-checker.

while the thefts are egregious, again, it's a tiny fraction overall, so, as usual it's likely a matter of $$

« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2020, 16:20 »
+3
I figured I'd keep "nagging" on twitter until lazaralinsilviu's portfolio is gone

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1301550615798005760

I can't tag @Shutterstock because they've blocked me, but if anyone they haven't blocked wants to retweet any of these public shaming messages, that can't hurt :)

I will.

Whether your tweet tagging them did the trick or they just got around to my email about this, I received a message that the portfolio had been terminated. It's now down to about 400 images (from 1400)

« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2020, 16:26 »
+3
...
Given at least one of the ones I found is also on Shutterstock, and that they can identify duplicates on upload in your own portfolio, it beggars belief that they don't even check against their own collection when approving images.

Another F for the Ai review-bots.

it's likely a CPU issue - search doesnt put a lot of stress since only a few images are found. dupes w/in a portfolio are easier since total images are relatively few.  but a check dupes on everything means 300,000,000 calls to the dupe-checker.

while the thefts are egregious, again, it's a tiny fraction overall, so, as usual it's likely a matter of $$

What they need to do is closely monitor the first hundred or two of a new contributor's uploads (and put back the 7/10 acceptance for new contributors as well). That would largely weed out the thieves who won't have the patience (or competence) to deliver real images.

Think of the money involved if they get unlucky and there's a big lawsuit over something they licensed that they didn't have the rights to - Shutterstock is playing with fire by allowing almost anything into the collection.

« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2020, 18:09 »
0
I figured I'd keep "nagging" on twitter until lazaralinsilviu's portfolio is gone

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1301550615798005760

I can't tag @Shutterstock because they've blocked me, but if anyone they haven't blocked wants to retweet any of these public shaming messages, that can't hurt :)

I will.

Whether your tweet tagging them did the trick or they just got around to my email about this, I received a message that the portfolio had been terminated. It's now down to about 400 images (from 1400)

Excellent, either way!

« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2020, 11:08 »
+2
Although

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/design_space

is still visible, Shutterstock compliance just emailed me that they have disabled the portolio


OM

« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2020, 16:17 »
+1
Although

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/design_space

is still visible, Shutterstock compliance just emailed me that they have disabled the portolio

Success! Thanks Jo Ann. That's pretty fast action for them. If I click on the first image of the portfolio which is still visible I get the image but with name and profile photo blank....so that must be the first stage of disabling the port.

Edit: Now 100% gone. (9/7/20)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2020, 04:07 by OM »

« Reply #58 on: September 05, 2020, 13:28 »
+2
Quote
Ps. Why is it always those from India who sell stolen images? And most of the time I deal with People from India trough SS support. Also most of them seem to be ok with SS change when I check the forums.
Or am I just imagining things?

If you look on the SS facebook groups its full of people from there asking "why is my account suspended" or "how do i edit this picture i found elsewhere and upload".

I think a lot of it is total unawareness of what copyright and the rules are.  Some dont think theres anything wrong using someone elses image because its "on the internet".
Although i admit, some is malicious.

« Reply #59 on: February 22, 2022, 17:24 »
+1

« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2022, 18:08 »
+3
... the author copies other people's designs and uploads thousands!
SS replies that it is not identical content  :o

Help report spam!

I'm not sure what help you were looking for, but people whose work has been copied (directly; a true copy, not just "inspired by") are the only ones who can submit a DMCA takedown notice.

Shutterstock has no shame.

If you do a search for heart doodles there are nearly half a million results! Most of it looks like image spam to me. Deduct some as there are images so badly keyword spammed that vectors with no hearts or doodles show up too.

These were the keywords on a tee shirt vector about being yourself or being a bear (that showed up in a search for heart doodles):

baby, banner, birthday, black, boss, boy, brush, calligraphy, card, celebration, cute, decoration, decorative, design, doodle, element, family, funny, girl, graphic, greeting, handwritten, happy, health, hearts, holiday, illustration, infection, kids, lettering, little, mask, party, poster, princess, print, quarantine, quote, ruined, saying, shirt, sweet, symbol, t shirt, text, toilet paper, type, typography

Similar garbage for check mark, click here...

I'm honestly not sure - other than hounding them if I found someone had uploaded any of my work as their own - what we can do with an agency that doesn't care enough to properly inspect the images it accepts into the collection.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2022, 09:19 »
+1

Shutterstock has no shame.

...what we can do with an agency that doesn't care enough to properly inspect the images it accepts into the collection.


I couldn't resist the concise, abridged quote version.

« Reply #62 on: February 23, 2022, 10:14 »
0
Do you guys think that other stocks like iStock and Adobe check contributor portfolios more carefully?

Yes, I do.  I have occasionally found stolen images on other stock sites, but never whole portfolios like this.  You would think the heavy use of filters would be a clue to the reviewers. 

Shutterstock used to reject images that relied on simple filter effects, since anyone can do them.

+1 to all the sites are not the same on this. IStock (the worst in many other ways) is MUCH better at this. They even seem to proactively police the site without anyone complaining. Adobestock, better than others in some ways, is also not great at this (though I think better than SS?).

« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2022, 15:34 »
0
not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

Whats wrong with two worded keywords?? Did i lose something??

Based on my knowledge this will hurt your exposition on the site...

I thought about this a lot and to me it makes more sense to use white background instead of white, background but white can and should also be used.
Because an isolated image is not exactly a background or texture. Buyers would normally search on white white background or just white

Almost all images I see are with separate background keyword so if buyers look for a neat background they get isolations on white too amongst the whole library because everyone seems to use this keyword on everything.
Of course those who do it properly might get punished in search so maybe it is better to keep them separate.
Any thoughts on this?

Ps. Why is it always those from India who sell stolen images? And most of the time I deal with People from India trough SS support. Also most of them seem to be ok with SS change when I check the forums.
Or am I just imagining things?

"white background" "young adult" "full body" are fine and have meaning. check contributor from my link and see how is he misusing it and have 100 keywords on each image, never punished, and now he is one of the best sellers even tho he is not doing anything done before.

"headshot fast" "ethnic laptop" "happy indoors"

so there is no problem to use two words in one keyword ?

« Reply #64 on: April 26, 2022, 13:55 »
+2
Just a head's up: Shutterstock is being sued for major copyright infringement.  You can read the case filing here:

https://ia801802.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.192365/gov.uscourts.mnd.192365.1.0.pdf

« Reply #65 on: April 26, 2022, 17:03 »
+1
The date on that filing is February 2021. Any idea what has happened with the case?

I skimmed (it goes on and on...) and it appears it's a typical case of someone else uploading this photographer's work as their own and Shutterstock (a) not catching that (which would have been easy to do) and (b) ignoring the photographer's two requests to remove his images. He did register the copyright so there might be some statutory damages, but it's not clear if filing in Minnesota will work.

The suit mentions the Shutterstock forums being full of posts about stolen work - not any more :)

« Reply #66 on: April 26, 2022, 19:32 »
+1
The case is still pending.  I read most of the 66 pages of the original filing.  The evidence there presented by the plaintiff is overwhelming. 


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #67 on: April 26, 2022, 19:55 »
0
Just a head's up: Shutterstock is being sued for major copyright infringement.  You can read the case filing here:

https://ia801802.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.mnd.192365/gov.uscourts.mnd.192365.1.0.pdf

Good of you to come visit with this information. I'm going to get some scotch on one ice cube, and start reading.  ;D

395. Shutterstock continued to display each of the 111 Photographs over six
months after their receipt of the First Letter.


Still working my way down. He's asking for $150,000 per infringement which at the base level, not including attorneys fee would be $18 million dollars.

Taftlaw did a heavily serious and spectacular job of detailing and collecting information.  https://www.taftlaw.com/about/offices/minneapolis
« Last Edit: April 26, 2022, 20:56 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2022, 20:41 »
+3
Quote
The suit mentions the Shutterstock forums being full of posts about stolen work - not any more :)

Makes me wonder if that wasn't one of the reasons the forum went bye-bye.  Too much potential plaintiff material being posted there.  :)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #69 on: April 26, 2022, 21:00 »
+3
Quote
The suit mentions the Shutterstock forums being full of posts about stolen work - not any more :)

Makes me wonder if that wasn't one of the reasons the forum went bye-bye.  Too much potential plaintiff material being posted there.  :)

Opinion: the forum was exposing the escapades of SS, mistreatment and yes infringement, but also too many negatives that any new contribution (aka victim) would see and possibly scare them off?

This is impression management where hiding the inside opinions of active contractors was more desirable for the corporation. No more friendly chatter of artists, how to make money, or sharing success, it was just too negative.

« Reply #70 on: April 26, 2022, 21:03 »
+2
All I can say is that I am so glad to be out of Shutterstock.  :)

« Reply #71 on: April 26, 2022, 22:27 »
+1
I bet SS will try to pay them 10 cents per infringement. I hope they get totally cleaned out.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #72 on: April 27, 2022, 06:03 »
+2
So easy to spot the thieves since they outright tell you in the caption.

All stolen, just follow the trail:

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Turvsh+Sethi


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #73 on: April 27, 2022, 10:28 »
+2
So easy to spot the thieves since they outright tell you in the caption.

All stolen, just follow the trail:


Not appearing in the lawsuit, when members pointed out theft and copyright infringement Shutterstock warned and banned them from the forum.  ;D

Lets see...

1) Item ID: 1849557436 thick green pine forest overgrown with moss
2) Item ID: 1865472244 malang, Indonesia - December 02 th, 202 - Someone is enjoying the beauty of the forest with green trees
3) Item ID: 1870802452 TREES, SILENCE AND PEACE IN NATURE
4) Item ID: 1913656393 Person Walking Between Green Forest Trees - Photo by Luis del Ro from Pexels



Addis Ababa, Ethiopia - 12,10,2020 downloaded from pexels for a Christmas celebration decor Christmas tree Christmas background... (Editorial use only?)
Searching I found:  Photo by Laura James from Pexels https://lazyadmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/pexels-laura-james-6102004-1024x683.jpg

SS says We have more than 405 million images as of March 31, 2022.
Makes anyone who looks ask, how many are duplicates or stolen?


« Last Edit: April 27, 2022, 10:41 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #74 on: April 27, 2022, 10:51 »
0
For an abo microstock agency i can't see any reason to take stolen images seriously.
These images (work) could be also available at free images site.
So what ?

« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2022, 18:08 »
+3
For an abo microstock agency i can't see any reason to take stolen images seriously.
These images (work) could be also available at free images site.
So what ?

because it makes the licence nul and void, and exposes the clients to potential legal hassle, and cost if the have to pull stuff from production.

« Reply #76 on: April 27, 2022, 19:43 »
+6
Quote
For an abo microstock agency i can't see any reason to take stolen images seriously.
These images (work) could be also available at free images site.
So what ?

Ever work in a company that has an office refrigerator?  I did.  People would put food and drinks in there all the time only to find it missing later in the day.  One day, I heard one co-worker ask another, "Did you take my diet coke?"  The thief replied, "I'm sorry.  I didn't know it was yours."  That "excuse" pissed me off for two reasons.  The first, because the thief admitted stealing his co-worker's drink.  But when I heard his "apology", I wanted to interject, "But you KNEW it wasn't yours, so why did you take it?"

Let's call copyright infringement what it is: theft.  Once upon a time, possessing and selling stolen property was a crime in its own right.  It doesn't matter if the actual copyright holder wants to display his/her images on a free site or Flickr: it's completely irrelevant what a copyright holder does with their images.  What is patently illegal is for someone else or a company, like Shutterstock, to distribute or sell images that neither have the permission to possess or sell, or have the copyrights to.  I don't care what Shutterstock's defense is: they KNEW at least after the first cease and desist order, the images were not licensed for sale by them.  So I would ask them the same thing I would've asked that co-worker: you KNEW the images weren't yours to sell, so why did you sell them? 

If people don't protect their copyrights, then they lose them.  The plaintiff in this case is protecting his right to sell, distribute, and display his images as HE sees fit.  He should be applauded.  If Shutterstock loses this case, it's a win for all of us. IMHO.


« Reply #77 on: April 28, 2022, 01:15 »
+1
Quote
For an abo microstock agency i can't see any reason to take stolen images seriously.
These images (work) could be also available at free images site.
So what ?

Ever work in a company that has an office refrigerator?  I did.  People would put food and drinks in there all the time only to find it missing later in the day.  One day, I heard one co-worker ask another, "Did you take my diet coke?"  The thief replied, "I'm sorry.  I didn't know it was yours."  That "excuse" pissed me off for two reasons.  The first, because the thief admitted stealing his co-worker's drink.  But when I heard his "apology", I wanted to interject, "But you KNEW it wasn't yours, so why did you take it?"

Let's call copyright infringement what it is: theft.  Once upon a time, possessing and selling stolen property was a crime in its own right.  It doesn't matter if the actual copyright holder wants to display his/her images on a free site or Flickr: it's completely irrelevant what a copyright holder does with their images.  What is patently illegal is for someone else or a company, like Shutterstock, to distribute or sell images that neither have the permission to possess or sell, or have the copyrights to.  I don't care what Shutterstock's defense is: they KNEW at least after the first cease and desist order, the images were not licensed for sale by them.  So I would ask them the same thing I would've asked that co-worker: you KNEW the images weren't yours to sell, so why did you sell them? 

If people don't protect their copyrights, then they lose them.  The plaintiff in this case is protecting his right to sell, distribute, and display his images as HE sees fit.  He should be applauded.  If Shutterstock loses this case, it's a win for all of us. IMHO.

Absolutely correct!

« Reply #78 on: April 28, 2022, 02:02 »
+1
It will be interesting to see if and how the Digital Service Act decided by the EU a few days ago will impact stock agencies.

While I certainly don't understand all the details, one of the points in this legislation is to make online marketplaces responsible for fake/stolen goods sold on their platforms. This may be applicable for stock agencies as well, and could make shutterstock's current behavior clearly illegal in the EU.

More details on the Digital Service Act: https://ec.europa.eu/info/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en

Still needs time to be implemented in local law of the EU member states, but it could provide better protection of our work in the future...

« Reply #79 on: April 28, 2022, 06:02 »
0
And another George Steinmetz v. Shutterstock, Inc., et al., 21-cv-7100 (Hellerstein)

« Reply #80 on: April 28, 2022, 08:57 »
0
It looks like 2021 was a bumper crop year for suits against Shutterstock.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #81 on: April 28, 2022, 10:03 »
0
It will be interesting to see if and how the Digital Service Act decided by the EU a few days ago will impact stock agencies.

While I certainly don't understand all the details, one of the points in this legislation is to make online marketplaces responsible for fake/stolen goods sold on their platforms. This may be applicable for stock agencies as well, and could make shutterstock's current behavior clearly illegal in the EU.

More details on the Digital Service Act: https://ec.europa.eu/info/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en

Still needs time to be implemented in local law of the EU member states, but it could provide better protection of our work in the future...

I'm sure there's much more to that, which I don't understand either. But these two might apply?

measures to counter illegal goods, services or content online, such as a mechanism for users to flag such content and for platforms to cooperate with trusted flaggers

new obligations on traceability of business users  in online market places, to help identify sellers of illegal goods or reasonable efforts by online market places to randomly check whether products or services have been identified as being illegal in any official database


And another George Steinmetz v. Shutterstock, Inc., et al., 21-cv-7100 (Hellerstein)

https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-george-steinmetz-v-shutterstock-inc-et-al-995509

May need to register:  chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.law360.com/dockets/download/6123f67683b2a8009e96494c?doc_url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.nysd.uscourts.gov%2Fdoc1%2F127129677208&label=Case+Filing

22. Due to Defendants acts of copyright infringement as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, have obtained direct and indirect profits they would not otherwise have realized but for their infringement of Steinmetzs rights in the Subject Photograph. As such, Steinmetz is entitled to disgorgement of Defendants profits directly and indirectly attributable to Defendants infringement of his rights in the Subject Photograph in an amount to be established at trial. 

23. Steinmetz registered the Subject Photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office before the commission of the infringement at issue and on that basis seeks statutory damages in an amount up to $150,000.00 per photograph per the Copyright Act. 

and  22-CV-905 (GHW) Elliot McGucken v. Shutterstock, Inc. et al



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4384 Views
Last post February 03, 2013, 10:54
by ShadySue
10 Replies
6303 Views
Last post January 16, 2014, 10:51
by scottbraut
34 Replies
13816 Views
Last post March 13, 2017, 01:30
by leaf
11 Replies
5210 Views
Last post April 15, 2017, 22:03
by SpaceStockFootage
31 Replies
8758 Views
Last post March 16, 2020, 08:51
by georgep7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle