Author Topic: Shutterstock don't take stolen work seriously (Read 27781 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #50 on:** September 03, 2020, 11:10 »

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

cathyslife · « **Reply #51 on:** September 03, 2020, 13:29 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 03, 2020, 11:10

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.

cascoly · « **Reply #52 on:** September 03, 2020, 13:54 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 02, 2020, 18:29

...
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 $$

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #53 on:** September 03, 2020, 16:20 »

Quote from: cathyslife on September 03, 2020, 13:29

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 03, 2020, 11:10
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)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #54 on:** September 03, 2020, 16:26 »

Quote from: cascoly on September 03, 2020, 13:54

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 02, 2020, 18:29
...
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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #55 on:** September 03, 2020, 18:09 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 03, 2020, 16:20

Quote from: cathyslife on September 03, 2020, 13:29
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 03, 2020, 11:10
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!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #56 on:** September 04, 2020, 11:08 »

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 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 04, 2020, 11:08

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)

gnirtS · « **Reply #58 on:** September 05, 2020, 13:28 »

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.

Recards · « **Reply #59 on:** February 22, 2022, 17:24 »

I am shocked by tons of repetitive content, the author copies other people's designs and uploads thousands!
SS replies that it is not identical content

Help report spam!

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Giamportone?searchterm=click+here&sort=newest

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Giamportone?searchterm=heart&sort=newest

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Giamportone?searchterm=house&sort=newest

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Giamportone?searchterm=check+mark&sort=newest

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #60 on:** February 22, 2022, 18:08 »

Quote from: Recards on February 22, 2022, 17:24

... the author copies other people's designs and uploads thousands!
SS replies that it is not identical content

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 · « **Reply #61 on:** February 23, 2022, 09:19 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 22, 2022, 18:08

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.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #62 on:** February 23, 2022, 10:14 »

Quote from: Hannafate on August 25, 2020, 07:45

Quote from: Digital on August 24, 2020, 11:00
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?).

Souf10 · « **Reply #63 on:** February 23, 2022, 15:34 »

Quote from: panicAttack on June 09, 2020, 05:59

Quote from: Snow on June 09, 2020, 01:50
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"

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

Phil_Lowe · « **Reply #64 on:** April 26, 2022, 13:55 »

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

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #65 on:** April 26, 2022, 17:03 »

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

Phil_Lowe · « **Reply #66 on:** April 26, 2022, 19:32 »

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 · « **Reply #67 on:** April 26, 2022, 19:55 »

Quote from: Phil_Lowe on April 26, 2022, 13:55

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.

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

Phil_Lowe · « **Reply #68 on:** April 26, 2022, 20:41 »

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 · « **Reply #69 on:** April 26, 2022, 21:00 »

Quote from: Phil_Lowe on April 26, 2022, 20:41

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.

Phil_Lowe · « **Reply #70 on:** April 26, 2022, 21:03 »

All I can say is that I am so glad to be out of Shutterstock.

pancaketom · « **Reply #71 on:** April 26, 2022, 22:27 »

I bet SS will try to pay them 10 cents per infringement. I hope they get totally cleaned out.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #72 on:** April 27, 2022, 06:03 »

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 · « **Reply #73 on:** April 27, 2022, 10:28 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 27, 2022, 06:03

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.

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 Río 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?

tätarätä · « **Reply #74 on:** April 27, 2022, 10:51 »

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 ?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock don't take stolen work seriously (Read 27781 times)

Jo Ann Snover

cathyslife

cascoly

Jo Ann Snover

Jo Ann Snover

cathyslife

Jo Ann Snover

OM

gnirtS

Recards

Jo Ann Snover

Uncle Pete

Justanotherphotographer

Souf10

Phil_Lowe

Jo Ann Snover

Phil_Lowe

Uncle Pete

Phil_Lowe

Uncle Pete

Phil_Lowe

pancaketom

Brasilnut

Uncle Pete

tätarätä

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors