MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Were SS right to shut down the weekly Thieves Thread Update Project?

Yes
3 (3.6%)
No
72 (86.7%)
Don't know
8 (9.6%)

Total Members Voted: 81

Author Topic: Shutterstock suspicious accounts "wackamoles" update  (Read 25757 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #100 on: April 16, 2019, 08:19 »
+2
Spent just 30 mins and already spotted some 15 thieves, including these geniuses:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/karachi-sindh-pakistan-may-31-2018-1101771029?src=gW2s6BjR-o8_aY0xI0kRUw-1-2


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #101 on: April 16, 2019, 12:59 »
+1
It's a sickness? in order 1 - 10



1101771029 Syeda Kulsoom (8 )
1277732206 Doni Asparingga (120)
1299157720 NI3EN (2)
1174873663 Chrysanthem (0)
1146621716 Rb Gowthamon (66)
  456947011 Sebastian Voortman (28)
1287319801 Akash Srivastav (54)
1233320311 404 error
1245865771 Alex-Photography (519)
  719612071 fatchul (0)

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #102 on: April 16, 2019, 13:04 »
+1
It's a sickness? in order 1 - 10



1101771029 Syeda Kulsoom (8 )
1277732206 Doni Asparingga (120)
1299157720 NI3EN (2)
1174873663 Chrysanthem (0)
1146621716 Rb Gowthamon (66)
  456947011 Sebastian Voortman (28)
1287319801 Akash Srivastav (54)
1233320311 404 error
1245865771 Alex-Photography (519)
  719612071 fatchul (0)

Pretty confident that https://www.shutterstock.com/g/sebastianvoortman is the copyright owner as he's got many legitimate model-released images. What are the chances he wakes up to see his image has been stolen and files a claim? That's the only way SS have made it possible to wack these moles.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #103 on: April 18, 2019, 09:22 »
+3
.

« Reply #104 on: April 18, 2019, 10:24 »
0

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2019, 10:41 »
+2

« Reply #106 on: April 18, 2019, 12:05 »
0
Unbelievable, but believable
Know what I mean?

« Reply #107 on: April 19, 2019, 03:19 »
0
Well someone have to say if not pay "thank you Alex for your time". You could do so many things from work to spare free time for your own rest or enjoyment and you only got " thank you" and frustrating threds deletions.

Here is an idea.
Make a Patreon profile and get people to pay a monthly subscription to get updated profiles of thieves. It is one thing to help or inform the community and another to work for free and see your efforts to be deleted in a snap.

« Reply #108 on: April 19, 2019, 04:10 »
+4
I recently found a person stealing much of my work and uploaded in his portfolio.
Having sent a DMCA to SS, they did took action but... but they only deleted the mentioned images which I complained for, the profile is still active.

I complained for about 10-12 images as a ref out of 100s and they only took action for complained images. I mentioned in the DMCA that the entire portfolio is full of copyrighted content.
Its little worrying that company don't respects artists.

dpimborough

« Reply #109 on: April 19, 2019, 04:19 »
0
It appears they took your thread down at ShutterStock.  :( :(

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97032-name-your-ss-copyright-thief-mole-of-the-day/

Disappointing yet expected.

You want something done? Send a PM direct to Jon Oringer on facebook

It seems to be the only way to get anything done these days and shoot him some examples

https://www.facebook.com/joringer

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #110 on: April 19, 2019, 10:06 »
+1
Good tips above.

I'll put together a YT video soon.

Need to tell the whole story from the beginning and then share it with their top management so they take action.

At the moment, they rather sweep this under the carpet...until it blows up...

« Reply #111 on: April 19, 2019, 13:07 »
0
.

Regarding the Ansel Adams image, I would be careful about reporting that as copyright infringement.

I spoke to a young lady recently who worked on app that encourages people to follow Ansel Adams's footsteps and recreate his photos. This project was sponsored by Adams' relatives. This particular photo may have been the result of that.

While Adams own the original photo he took, he doesn't own the landscape. Unless the photo on SS is the exact same photo he took, I'm not sure SS is obligated to take it down. The composition is similar, but the lighting in the mountains is different and the clouds are different. It may not be original, but the contributor probably owns the photo.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 13:11 by Minsc »

« Reply #112 on: April 19, 2019, 13:11 »
0
I recently found a person stealing much of my work and uploaded in his portfolio.
Having sent a DMCA to SS, they did took action but... but they only deleted the mentioned images which I complained for, the profile is still active.

I complained for about 10-12 images as a ref out of 100s and they only took action for complained images. I mentioned in the DMCA that the entire portfolio is full of copyrighted content.
Its little worrying that company don't respects artists.

Based on my own experience, they seem to have kind of strike rule. If 1 person submit a DMCA takedown letter against a contributor, SS usually take the images down. If 2 or more people submit DMCA takedown letters against the same contributor, they usually take the entire portfolio down.

« Reply #113 on: April 19, 2019, 14:11 »
+7
.

Regarding the Ansel Adams image, I would be careful about reporting that as copyright infringement.

I spoke to a young lady recently who worked on app that encourages people to follow Ansel Adams's footsteps and recreate his photos. This project was sponsored by Adams' relatives. This particular photo may have been the result of that.

While Adams own the original photo he took, he doesn't own the landscape. Unless the photo on SS is the exact same photo he took, I'm not sure SS is obligated to take it down. The composition is similar, but the lighting in the mountains is different and the clouds are different. It may not be original, but the contributor probably owns the photo.

Gotta imagine some parts of the landscape, tree placement, tree size, foliage, even the flow of the river, would look a little, if not dramatically different than it did in 1942 when Ansel Adams took that image. Not to mention the shadows, reflections, lighting, ripples in the water, etc. Unless this Shutterstock contributor took this image around 80 years ago and in the exact same spot at the exact same time of day, I'm not buying this theory. The Shutterstock image replaced the clouds from the Ansel Adams shot and darkened the rest.

Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 14:17 by Daryl Ray »

« Reply #114 on: April 19, 2019, 17:55 »
0
.


Regarding the Ansel Adams image, I would be careful about reporting that as copyright infringement.

I spoke to a young lady recently who worked on app that encourages people to follow Ansel Adams's footsteps and recreate his photos. This project was sponsored by Adams' relatives. This particular photo may have been the result of that.

While Adams own the original photo he took, he doesn't own the landscape. Unless the photo on SS is the exact same photo he took, I'm not sure SS is obligated to take it down. The composition is similar, but the lighting in the mountains is different and the clouds are different. It may not be original, but the contributor probably owns the photo.


Gotta imagine some parts of the landscape, tree placement, tree size, foliage, even the flow of the river, would look a little, if not dramatically different than it did in 1942 when Ansel Adams took that image. Not to mention the shadows, reflections, lighting, ripples in the water, etc. Unless this Shutterstock contributor took this image around 80 years ago and in the exact same spot at the exact same time of day, I'm not buying this theory. The Shutterstock image replaced the clouds from the Ansel Adams shot and darkened the rest.

Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.


Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:

http://shop.anseladams.com/v/vspfiles/photos/1502016-2.jpg

There was no cloud replacement or alterations. Brasilnut compared the wrong image.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #115 on: April 19, 2019, 21:34 »
0
double post.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 21:36 by Brasilnut »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #116 on: April 19, 2019, 21:35 »
+1
Quote
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.

It's been agreed between contributors that once a thread has been taken down, another one will re-appear ad nauseam.

Quote
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:

FML, worse than I thought.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #117 on: April 21, 2019, 12:27 »
0
The Ansel Adams image of the grand Tetons, with altered clouds

https://www.doi.gov/photos/news/photos/Ansel-Adams-Mural-Project-Opens-at-Interior-Department

While it is public domain, SS stopped accepting those around 2012 images numbered 100,000,000 and lower would be before that "No public domain" accepted rule.

It is an Ansel Adams photo, it is owned by the United States and is public domain. There is of course the whole new case where someone is filing against Getty for licensing PD images and charging a fee, claiming the rights.

dpimborough

« Reply #118 on: April 21, 2019, 12:39 »
+2
Quote
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.

It's been agreed between contributors that once a thread has been taken down, another one will re-appear ad nauseam.

Quote
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:

FML, worse than I thought.

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle

Can I submit work that contains copyrighted material for commercial use?
 
You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock. This means that you cannot submit work obtained from other sources such as free image websites or public domain, or incorporate such work into your content submissions, unless you have permission to do so. This includes, but is not limited to artwork, photos, sculptures, architecture, exhibits or audio which are copyrighted.

Why is it so f***ing hard for Shutterstock to apply their own rules?

 :(

« Reply #119 on: April 21, 2019, 12:48 »
+1
Quote
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.

It's been agreed between contributors that once a thread has been taken down, another one will re-appear ad nauseam.

Quote
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:

FML, worse than I thought.

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle

Can I submit work that contains copyrighted material for commercial use?
 
You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock. This means that you cannot submit work obtained from other sources such as free image websites or public domain, or incorporate such work into your content submissions, unless you have permission to do so. This includes, but is not limited to artwork, photos, sculptures, architecture, exhibits or audio which are copyrighted.

Why is it so f***ing hard for Shutterstock to apply their own rules?

 :(

They don't have rules only legalese, that's merely a get out clause so they can pass the buck to the uploader if the shite hits the fan.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #120 on: April 21, 2019, 22:37 »
0
Quote
Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.

It's been agreed between contributors that once a thread has been taken down, another one will re-appear ad nauseam.

Quote
Actually, the SS photo does belong to Adam:

FML, worse than I thought.

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000012476?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle

Can I submit work that contains copyrighted material for commercial use?
 
You must own or control the copyright to all content you submit to Shutterstock. This means that you cannot submit work obtained from other sources such as free image websites or public domain, or incorporate such work into your content submissions, unless you have permission to do so. This includes, but is not limited to artwork, photos, sculptures, architecture, exhibits or audio which are copyrighted.

Why is it so f***ing hard for Shutterstock to apply their own rules?

 :(

To both of you, but yours because it directly points at their own rules.

If the image was before they started enforcing"their own rules" which are not legally accurate, then that's part of the problem. They used to accept PD images, then they decided not to. But the law is (at the present) you or I can license a PD image if we want, even if, easiest example, it's a NASA photo paid for by the taxpayers of the USA.

I always wanted to ask, what if someone outside of the US wants to reproduce that same image and they aren't a taxpayer?  :)

Simple as is is, public domain, means no copyright. And no copyright means someone can make copies. So I can print a book or make copies of a photo, same thing, or sell the digital copies of a book or photo, which is unprotected.

SS has decided not to accept out of copyright materials. I think this is a wise decision, because 1,000 people or 10,000 people could all upload the same relatively unlimited supply of unprotected images, over, and over. Then what would the collection become? We can all see how spam and similars and duplicates are a problem. Now add, that anyone anywhere can legally submit every photo, published in the USA, before 1924. (before someone starts nit picking, I added the word published, which is very important to the statement)

Every image ever published in the US before 1924 is public domain. Someone interested could open and agency, hosting only those images, and probably do just fine. No royalties, no licensing, nothing. 100% PD images for license. That's not all. Anything paid for by the government, is free to use. Unrenewed copyrights, free to use. Never registered, free to use.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog


« Reply #122 on: April 22, 2019, 07:40 »
0
Is this or isn't this permitted?

I am shocked. Do they really have human reviewers?
This is definitely not allowed.

« Reply #123 on: April 22, 2019, 07:45 »
+2
Is this or isn't this permitted?

I am shocked. Do they really have human reviewers?
This is definitely not allowed.
A decent robot would spot it. I'm convinced some contributors are simply "waved through" the system.

« Reply #124 on: April 22, 2019, 22:04 »
+16
I just deleted 2700 clips off Shutterstock and terminated my account with them, $1000 a month that will hopefully shift over to other agencies.

They were repeatedly allowing the same Russian thief to upload and sell my premium clips, stonewalled me when I requested information on how many times the stolen content had licensed, refused to even have a conversation about how to try and stop this problem and chose to honour the rights of the thief over the victim in refusing to give me the user details of the thief (like email address, name etc so I could pursue them.) It was against their "privacy policy."

An absolute scumbag company without an ounce of morality - I couldn't in good conscience continue to license my work through them. It felt extremely satisfying deleting my portfolio there.

I've registered all my works with the US copyright office and next time there's an infringement lawyers will be involved.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
11358 Views
Last post August 19, 2009, 15:03
by RacePhoto
1 Replies
4078 Views
Last post September 10, 2010, 22:47
by bobbigmac
25 Replies
15226 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by pixel86
12 Replies
3270 Views
Last post March 16, 2014, 09:38
by StockPhotosArt.com
6 Replies
2203 Views
Last post June 14, 2015, 10:28
by WeatherENG

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results