This is unreasonable for a site like shutterstock, can you please post those stolen pictures to see the difference, thanks

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.

Quote from: panicAttack on February 14, 2020, 07:17

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. 

Sorry, back to the original.

Quote from: daveh900 on February 14, 2020, 10:18

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.

Quote from: panicAttack on February 14, 2020, 15:09

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 14, 2020, 14:37

Quote from: panicAttack on February 14, 2020, 07:17

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. 

Sorry, back to the original.

Quote from: daveh900 on February 14, 2020, 10:18

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?

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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!

Quote from: panicAttack on February 14, 2020, 07:17

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?

Quote from: Mrblues101 on February 21, 2020, 17:28

Quote from: panicAttack on February 14, 2020, 07:17

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"

 

Quote from: Julied83 on December 17, 2019, 11:21

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."