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 24381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #150 on: June 16, 2019, 04:13 »
+2
They did take down that Ansel Adam's iconic shot after I shamed them on social media. They will make exceptions.

My level of apathy towards this issue has reached a new all-time high. If they don't care, why should I?

Nevertheless, just tweeted this to both SS and Oringer. I was going to @ the copyright owner of the monkey-selfie, @davidjslater but opted against it. Who knows, they might shoot the messenger!
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 08:06 by Brasilnut »


ShadySue

« Reply #151 on: June 16, 2019, 07:54 »
+2
Nevertheless, just tweeted this to both SS and Oringer. I was going to @ the copyright owner of the monkey-selfie, @davidjslater but opted against it. Who knows, they might shoot the messenger!
I tweeted him (I think, I hardly use Twitter!), I have no skin in SS to worry about.

« Reply #152 on: June 16, 2019, 08:00 »
+4
They did take down that Ansel Adam's iconic shot after I shamed them on social media. They will make exceptions.

My level of apathy towards this issue has reached a new all-time low. If they don't care, why should I?

Nevertheless, just tweeted this to both SS and Oringer. I was going to @ the copyright owner of the monkey-selfie, @davidjslater but opted against it. Who knows, they might shoot the messenger!

Not long ago I did just that with  an account on SS that was selling stills from Dustin Farrell time lapses. Contacted Dustin and let him know what was going on. I felt he had an absolute right to know. He was extremely appreciative (as would I be if the shoe were on the other foot).

I understand your apathy but I think the only way SS will ever put an end to this once and for all is if enough external pressure as possible is applied. One way to accomplish this is by letting well known copyright holders in particular know about infringements taking place on the site. After all, they are the ones in the best position to affect change - with the resources and influence to bring this issue to light in a more public way.

It is abundantly clear to me now that SS no longer has the best interests of contributors or even the industry as a whole in mind; clearly evidenced by their refusal to remove accounts known to contain demonstrably infringing content. Opting instead to straddle the thin legal line of DMCA language which allows them to conveniently ignore illegal content unless notified by the copyright holder exclusively. Shameful.

Obviously contributors no longer matter nor do the rights of content creators outside of their platform, but I am willing to bet that buyers still matter. And the more buyers that can be made aware of Shutterstock's rapid decline into the Pirate Bay of microstock the better in my opinion.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 08:03 by DavidK »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #153 on: June 16, 2019, 11:18 »
+4
It is abundantly clear to me now that SS no longer has the best interests of contributors or even the industry as a whole in mind;

Obviously contributors no longer matter nor do the rights of content creators outside of their platform,

They never had our interests in mind. It's a big multi-million dollar corporation with clockwork monkeys with no authority, responsibility or care about the industry as a whole. The only thing that matters is the bottom line, i.e. shareholders' revenue.

« Reply #154 on: June 16, 2019, 11:23 »
0
Logically, it is a download of an image that is not with the right rights to the sale, or with a million images, affects the pie to distribute among the creators. True. But it is something temporary, soon it will be something ephemeral, a memory this topic.

A campaign of an important company, with a theoretically legal license for that campaign, and a file that lacks the appropriate rights, and the courts will speak. From that moment, it will be a memory.

In addition, it is a matter of time that the EU law that makes companies responsible for ensuring and protecting each stored file ensures itself as directly responsible for verifying and putting all means at their disposal to protect copyright. They have a deadline to invest material, technology and resources to ensure that all the content displayed on the internet has the right to exhibit. A company that is also your business, will need many resources to ensure that the archives have appropriate and timely rights.

We cannot carry a backpack with a weight that does not correspond with us. It should not be a problem for us, more than temporary. In case it is true that there are images with licenses of rights not valid in the agency, which are generating a benefit, it will be a problem that will cost them a lot to recover, after the sanctions and compensate the damage to the affected ones.

It's a matter of time. It is temporary for us, for the agencies, bread for today, hunger for tomorrow.

The companies are responsible for ensuring copyright. It does not serve any norms, regulations and internal customs nor clauses of responsibility to third parties,......... they stop having value before a Law and a judge.

And this must be our position, those affected are the agencies, not us. To study, to ignore the law does not exempt them from responsibility.

« Reply #155 on: June 16, 2019, 11:35 »
+2

Nevertheless, just tweeted this to both SS and Oringer. I was going to @ the copyright owner of the monkey-selfie, @davidjslater but opted against it. Who knows, they might shoot the messenger!

Yesterday I sent him an email with the links

« Reply #156 on: June 16, 2019, 12:13 »
+2
It is abundantly clear to me now that SS no longer has the best interests of contributors or even the industry as a whole in mind;

Obviously contributors no longer matter nor do the rights of content creators outside of their platform,

They never had our interests in mind. It's a big multi-million dollar corporation with clockwork monkeys with no authority, responsibility or care about the industry as a whole. The only thing that matters is the bottom line, i.e. shareholders' revenue.

I get what you are saying but to be fair I can recall a time when even the hint of copyright infringement was taken very seriously by SS. With entire portfolios subject to immediate suspension while a thorough investigation was initiated. Those days are gone. Part of my point was that there was a time when the interests of both agencies and contributors were much more in line - with their success tied directly to ours and vice versa. Now it is just a crap show where even fundamental concepts like copyright are ignored with impunity.

« Reply #157 on: June 16, 2019, 12:38 »
0
The "TudoVale" is all worth it, it is a martial art, where it has its rules, and EVERYTHING IS NOT VALID.

The USA gives priority to the rights of individuals and transferred to business, grants rights to companies.

Receiving a reward for work is a fundamental right in business.

USA is not alien to the rights to be current in its OBLIGATIONS, and it is very hard when it enters to sanction with dollars. Very hard.


It is not our problem.

« Reply #158 on: June 16, 2019, 13:40 »
0
If there are portfolios with fraudulent files, if it is better generalized, the more channels exist, the problem is solved first. If two channels are closed, that 200 new portfolios appear is the best way for the problem to go away.

I put myself in the client's place, and I think that the fear of accessing something that may not be valid, only gives me the possibility of accessing new markets with a guarantee that what I acquire is valid. We must not do the work or solve the problems of the agencies, they, the agencies know what they have to do, they will do it. In addition, they must communicate to customers, by obligation, that they have acquired fraudulent licenses. They can not look the other way.

It is a very serious problem for the agencies that must solve and they will do it in case there are stolen and copyrighted files.



 :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X

« Reply #159 on: June 16, 2019, 15:05 »
+1
If there are portfolios with fraudulent files, if it is better generalized, the more channels exist, the problem is solved first. If two channels are closed, that 200 new portfolios appear is the best way for the problem to go away.

I put myself in the client's place, and I think that the fear of accessing something that may not be valid, only gives me the possibility of accessing new markets with a guarantee that what I acquire is valid. We must not do the work or solve the problems of the agencies, they, the agencies know what they have to do, they will do it. In addition, they must communicate to customers, by obligation, that they have acquired fraudulent licenses. They can not look the other way.

It is a very serious problem for the agencies that must solve and they will do it in case there are stolen and copyrighted files.



 :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X

All very natural assumptions to make, but unfortunately not necessarily the case. You have to remember that ultimately buyers are licensing these files in "good faith"  from an agency that has agreed to represent these files in "good faith" from contributors who have contractually sworn to the fact that they either own or legally represent the copyright for these files. In other words in the event of litigation it could be successfully argued that neither the buyer nor the agency have acted inappropriately and therefore the only accountable party is the fraudulent contributor. Fraudulent contributors incidentally who overwhelmingly hail from countries which do not have reciprocal IP treaties with the US and who would be incredibly difficult and costly to prosecute.

I am confident by now that SS have done their risk assessments and cost benefit analysis to the nth degree and have settled on a formula which leaves them maximum profit at minimum legal exposure. So yes,  I do think it is our problem since the only ones this really affects are the little guys like David Slater who by his own admission doesn't  have two sticks to rub together let alone the resources to take on a multi-national  corporation.

« Reply #160 on: June 16, 2019, 16:28 »
+1
This is great (in a tragic way).

One of the most well known wildlife images of the last few years, accepted onto the site, presumably with no checking or verification:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279



Obviously the poster only has 200 images, of a wide variety of topics.  All of which are stolen.

Im just waiting for tank man or afghan girl to make an appearance.

 This ultra famous black macaque monkey from Indonesia in now a grey gorilla from Africa, or is it a bird?  So much for keywords on Shutterstock. 

This must be one of the most reported copyright cases the world has ever known. This image has appeared on every major and minor news channel, not once, but several times during the court case and shared by all and sundry on social media.  Yet, it still remains on Shutterstock despite being informed of the infringement, it beggars belief. 

« Reply #161 on: June 16, 2019, 18:58 »
0
If there are portfolios with fraudulent files, if it is better generalized, the more channels exist, the problem is solved first. If two channels are closed, that 200 new portfolios appear is the best way for the problem to go away.

I put myself in the client's place, and I think that the fear of accessing something that may not be valid, only gives me the possibility of accessing new markets with a guarantee that what I acquire is valid. We must not do the work or solve the problems of the agencies, they, the agencies know what they have to do, they will do it. In addition, they must communicate to customers, by obligation, that they have acquired fraudulent licenses. They can not look the other way.

It is a very serious problem for the agencies that must solve and they will do it in case there are stolen and copyrighted files.



 :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X

All very natural assumptions to make, but unfortunately not necessarily the case. You have to remember that ultimately buyers are licensing these files in "good faith"  from an agency that has agreed to represent these files in "good faith" from contributors who have contractually sworn to the fact that they either own or legally represent the copyright for these files. In other words in the event of litigation it could be successfully argued that neither the buyer nor the agency have acted inappropriately and therefore the only accountable party is the fraudulent contributor. Fraudulent contributors incidentally who overwhelmingly hail from countries which do not have reciprocal IP treaties with the US and who would be incredibly difficult and costly to prosecute.

I am confident by now that SS have done their risk assessments and cost benefit analysis to the nth degree and have settled on a formula which leaves them maximum profit at minimum legal exposure. So yes,  I do think it is our problem since the only ones this really affects are the little guys like David Slater who by his own admission doesn't  have two sticks to rub together let alone the resources to take on a multi-national  corporation.




We all know the history of illegal downloads. We know the history of those who seemed untouchable at a very hard time for the music industry or the movies.

The laws are no longer set so much in the downloads, now a target is set, the uploads, Responsible, anyone who does not monitor for their stored material, and may cause harm, for example, for reasons of copyright. Has a lawyer, or a thousand law firms of expert lawyers. Responsibility, the web that stores and exposes files without ensuring copyright, with a period of adaptation that is underway, and with adequate time for them to execute the labor.

By much good faith agreement that exists. It is no longer about faith, but reality, they must and are obliged to ensure compliance and the obligation not to store files that violate copyright. If it's a problem for google, YouTube, Facebook, .......... etc. Agencies can already be strong, and an army of attorneys' eminent, to get rid of respecting the rights of authorship Microstock Agencies, sheltering in contracts of good faith.


We directly affect contributors today, currently, temporarily. The problem is with the Agencies, a very serious problem.

I do not have the power of divination in the event that a "contract of good faith" exempts the agencies from unlawful enrichment in a court of law.

Here, it is making public the possible notice to the Agencies, of the possible damage on copyright on some files.

This thread must be placed fixed, with thumbtack, in the forum. To keep it strong, and reach the largest possible number of readers.

Once you lose trust in your partner, family, vehicle, company, residential area, supermarket, city, country, ..... you do not recover so easily. Security, an intangible good that lacks value until it is lacking. An important blog linking to this thread, an important means of communication reflecting our concerns, and regain the trust of customers towards the "good faith" of an Agency, will be an impossible stigma to overcome.

The real problem, the one that will pay, is the Agency. And so we must transmit it in each post of this thread to the world. The responsible to their clients is the Agency, always. We are collateral damage, passenger.

We move between peanuts, the real problem is for those who move the dollars.

It does not matter if they come from countries without laws, if they are criminal organizations, the same agency or a teenager without resources. All the same, the one that is going to pay the consequences, is the Agency, always, as long as they do not solve the problem.

The favor, you owe it to your clients. The favor is due to your peace of mind. The favor they owe to themselves, we are not the real ones affected. The agencies are the victims of this big problem, which they will solve, very soon.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #162 on: June 16, 2019, 21:24 »
+2
It's sad too because it puts real Buyers in jeopardy. They assume if they are buying the image from Shutterstock (a professional company) with the proper license, it must be a legitimate legal purchase. They can use it according to the license terms but then get slammed with a lawsuit because they don't actually have the rights to use the stolen photo.

ShadySue

« Reply #163 on: June 17, 2019, 16:06 »
0
This is great (in a tragic way).

One of the most well known wildlife images of the last few years, accepted onto the site, presumably with no checking or verification:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279


Obviously the poster only has 200 images, of a wide variety of topics.  All of which are stolen.
Something is happening: the pic is still on sale as of 2203 BST, but there is no photographer credited. After "By:" the alleged author's name is blanked out. Hopefully they would give the actual author any royalties raised. But still, without his permission, they can't sell it. Unless he contacted them and they persuaded him to sign up (but in that case, his name should be credited).

dpimborough

« Reply #164 on: June 17, 2019, 16:53 »
+1
No the monkey has gone now

"Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.
Error code: 404"

What makes me curdle is that they can obviously spot "similar" images uploaded by  a contributor as I've had a few rejections recently but they aren't smart enough to spot similars across the database?


ShadySue

« Reply #165 on: June 17, 2019, 17:21 »
+1
No the monkey has gone now
"Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.
Error code: 404"
Oh, I'm still getting it with the name blanked out, both on FF after three refreshes and in Edge with all cookies/history deleted:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a5xe1c1i1nmnwzk/MonkeySelfieSS.jpg?dl=0

Maybe different servers updating at different times?

« Reply #166 on: June 17, 2019, 18:05 »
0
This is great (in a tragic way).

One of the most well known wildlife images of the last few years, accepted onto the site, presumably with no checking or verification:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/animal-monkey-primate-1379276279


Obviously the poster only has 200 images, of a wide variety of topics.  All of which are stolen.
Something is happening: the pic is still on sale as of 2203 BST, but there is no photographer credited. After "By:" the alleged author's name is blanked out. Hopefully they would give the actual author any royalties raised. But still, without his permission, they can't sell it. Unless he contacted them and they persuaded him to sign up (but in that case, his name should be credited).




The best thing that can happen to everyone is that there are no sales. Financial operation in law fraud. You must contact all affected parties and determine a solution agreed with each affected party.

Take note of the fact. Communicate it to the competent authority.

I am convinced that they have been there for a long time...
with the analysis, study, and protocol of action for the new cases that are detected.

A department that evaluates the situation. Deciding the measures to take. And analyzing the results obtained in each activated plan.

All this, someone will ask sooner or later, to which they will have to give answers.

Surely they are ready to explain when they have knowledge of the situation, the measures taken and the result of the measures applied.

And sure that by allocating a percentage of the billing before the possibility of new agreements with affected futures, claims and / or economic sanctions.


dpimborough

« Reply #167 on: June 18, 2019, 01:27 »
+3
I think using Google translate is not helping to get your point across Tenebroso :(

Sorry but your posts are very difficult to understand

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #168 on: June 18, 2019, 04:38 »
+1
No the monkey has gone now

"Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.
Error code: 404"


Received this email yesterday.

"Thanks, Alexandre. We appreciate you alerting us to this issue. Please know that this portfolio was reported earlier to our team, and has been suspended.

IP Team
Shutterstock, Inc."

ShadySue

« Reply #169 on: June 18, 2019, 06:39 »
0
Monkey pic is still 'up' and visible from here, with name blanked.

« Reply #170 on: June 18, 2019, 11:00 »
0
Sammy the Cat,  I understand you very well.




Customers pay for a guarantee that gives them the peace of mind of using files with guarantees and without any mishap. This tranquility of purchase, can be reduced by a fact that points directly to the epicenter of the business in which agencies work, providing images for the correct work of each client.

Given the possibility of an immense unstoppable snowball, with alleged fraudulent images, before the possibility that a YouTuber in search of votes and thousands of visits makes a video of some images put up for sale in an agency, before the possibility of articles In specialized blogs, local press and national news, in view of this possibility, I am convinced that soon they will give an official statement alleging the appropriate clarifications in this regard, and the agency will publicly thank each user who has disinterestedly collaborated in detecting this possible infringement.

They must move very fast, any day, the customer en masse, can choose to find an agency that gives real guarantees of purchase.

This issue is a very damaging topic for an agency, if the client perceives that what he buys may or may not be optimal for his work.

« Reply #171 on: June 18, 2019, 11:48 »
0
Monkey pic is still 'up' and visible from here, with name blanked.

Name is blanked, but clickable, but when you click on it, it shows "Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections."

« Reply #172 on: June 18, 2019, 13:12 »
+3
No the monkey has gone now

"Well, this is unexpected...
Sorry, we can't find what you're looking for. While you're here, take a look at our hand-picked Collections.
Error code: 404"


Received this email yesterday.

"Thanks, Alexandre. We appreciate you alerting us to this issue. Please know that this portfolio was reported earlier to our team, and has been suspended.

IP Team
Shutterstock, Inc."

Which begs the question why was the offending portfolio still up many hours after you alerted them?

« Reply #173 on: June 18, 2019, 18:31 »
0
You'd like to think theres a reviewer ID embedded in their database for who approved an image.
If so, you'd also like to think they can go through to see these people approving clearly stolen images/not checking similar and so on and "re-educating" them.

Then again, im fairly sure SS dont really want to do that.  They've done the maths and the benefits of not bothering to check outweight the risks.

« Reply #174 on: June 18, 2019, 19:11 »
0
You'd like to think theres a reviewer ID embedded in their database for who approved an image.
If so, you'd also like to think they can go through to see these people approving clearly stolen images/not checking similar and so on and "re-educating" them.

Then again, im fairly sure SS dont really want to do that.  They've done the maths and the benefits of not bothering to check outweight the risks.


No, to them, a sale is a sale. Who cares if the image is stolen. Follow the money.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
11231 Views
Last post August 19, 2009, 15:03
by RacePhoto
1 Replies
4014 Views
Last post September 10, 2010, 22:47
by bobbigmac
25 Replies
14650 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
12 Replies
3209 Views
Last post March 16, 2014, 09:38
by StockPhotosArt.com
6 Replies
2158 Views
Last post June 14, 2015, 10:28
by WeatherENG

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results