Author Topic: Weird complaint from shutterstock. Someone else is claiming my images. (Read 20473 times)

txking · « **on:** July 16, 2013, 20:26 »

I'm baffled by a complaint I just recieved from shutterstock. Someone it seems currently sent a complaint to shutterstock either claiming that they are the subject in my photo's or that they took the images. I'm not sure which as shutterstock hasn't clarified too much just that they want some sort of proof that the images are of me and taken by me.

The image that was mentioned was this one http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=107540021&src=id though they also said that the complain was of many other images of the same model.

Here is a listing of all images of me currently on shutterstock.
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?models=12913051&models=13473221&context_photo=107540021

I'm not sure how someone can mistake these images thinking that they might be the subject of these images or confusing their own work thinking that they might be the photographer on these images.

Does anyone have an idea as to what might be going on why someone or for that matter how someone can even claim these images might be of them or by them? I'm at a total loss as to why someone would do this when most anyone would know if they took a picture of themself wearing a santa hat grabbing their nipples or know if they took multiple pictures of a fat guy grabbing their nipples.

Anyone?

JPSDK · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2013, 21:03 »

Its a scam.
Someone found the pictures and thought they could put pressure on somebody.
But since it is you who is both the photog and the model, the easiest is to walk up to the shutterstoch office in NY and say you are yourself.
Next best step is to skype video them at shutterstock and show your face.

EmberMike · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2013, 21:35 »

You know, I mentioned a similar sort of hypothetical scenario to a Shutterstock employee once. I mentioned that I was a bit concerned that it doesn't seem to take much more than an email with an accusation to get someone's portfolio suspended. They didn't seemed too concerned about it, though.

And yet here we are, with something like this happening where someone is wrongly claiming ownership of an image. Fortunately they didn't shut down your port, txking, while they investigate the matter. But it's still concerning that this kind of stuff can so easily happen.

And I think SS still handles these cases backwards. Shouldn't the burden be on the accuser to prove ownership first, and then contact the contributor to see how they respond?

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2013, 21:50 »

Quote from: EmberMike on July 16, 2013, 21:35

You know, I mentioned a similar sort of hypothetical scenario to a Shutterstock employee once. I mentioned that I was a bit concerned that it doesn't seem to take much more than an email with an accusation to get someone's portfolio suspended. They didn't seemed too concerned about it, though.

And yet here we are, with something like this happening where someone is wrongly claiming ownership of an image. Fortunately they didn't shut down your port, txking, while they investigate the matter. But it's still concerning that this kind of stuff can so easily happen.

And I think SS still handles these cases backwards. Shouldn't the burden be on the accuser to prove ownership first, and then contact the contributor to see how they respond?

I for one certainly agree.

txking · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2013, 21:59 »

So far I admit that I pushed back. I'm asking to see the complaint itself as I believe the complaint is filed in bad faith. Asked to see what proof the person who filed the complaint gave to show that this is his work. We will see what they say.

What is the scam with this though? It doesn't let them use the images right just takes down my version of the images. So what is it they gain by this?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

pancaketom · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2013, 23:19 »

SS took down a property pic I had citing a complaint from a company that as far as I could tell is not the owner of the property or the architect or builder (but an entity that does have similar properties). I asked about that from SS, and as far as they were concerned the complaint was close enough. oh well. It was a good seller too.

I think in cases where there is a real dispute they should put the pics into some sort of escrow and then when it is sorted out the owner gets the sales $. They do seem to swing either too far towards removing ports or just ignoring the problem though.

Good luck getting it sorted out. At least in this case it should be easy for you.

Reef · « **Reply #6 on:** July 16, 2013, 23:53 »

Quote from: txking on July 16, 2013, 21:59

What is the scam with this though? It doesn't let them use the images right just takes down my version of the images. So what is it they gain by this?

Not having to see your imagery on the web?

txking · « **Reply #7 on:** July 17, 2013, 00:27 »

Quote from: Reef on July 16, 2013, 23:53

Quote from: txking on July 16, 2013, 21:59
What is the scam with this though? It doesn't let them use the images right just takes down my version of the images. So what is it they gain by this?

Not having to see your imagery on the web?

Hey now I know I really need to work on my lighting and modeling skills. Otherwise these are good pics. They can't be that bad :p

robhainer · « **Reply #8 on:** July 17, 2013, 02:07 »

I think the Santa hat-nipples photo caused me to go blind for a few minutes.

Carl · « **Reply #9 on:** July 17, 2013, 06:20 »

I think if it were me, I'd send them a scan of my driver's license to prove that I'm who I say I am, and ask them to have the person who filed the complaint to do the same. I might even run a check on the license number, which anyone can do on my state's web site, and take a screen shot, in case the complainant photoshopped a DL.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #10 on:** July 17, 2013, 09:45 »

Quote from: Carl on July 17, 2013, 06:20

I think if it were me, I'd send them a scan of my driver's license to prove that I'm who I say I am, and ask them to have the person who filed the complaint to do the same. I might even run a check on the license number, which anyone can do on my state's web site, and take a screen shot, in case the complainant photoshopped a DL.

SS should already have a copy of the Drivers licenses since it is required for proof when you join if you are from the states other then that it would be a passport but either way they can plainly see that you are who you are.

stockastic · « **Reply #11 on:** July 17, 2013, 11:24 »

What's a "compaling"?

Pixart · « **Reply #12 on:** July 17, 2013, 12:34 »

Could this be a vendetta? Do you know anyone else who knows the workings of Shutterstock who understands that indicating a theft could cause you a whole lot of frustration?

txking · « **Reply #13 on:** July 17, 2013, 14:08 »

Nope no vendetta that I'm aware of. Most people don't know where I submit my images or the name that I put my images under. Shouldn't be anyone that I'm aware of who would even know where to start to cause my problems.

As far as the images I recieved a call from shutterstock today (big thumbs up for shutterstock being proactive and not shutting me down right then and there and instead trying to get to the bottom of things first) and the person who filed the complaint as I understand it thinks I took their face and transposed it on someone elses body. I ended up finding and sending the RAW over to SS and hopefully this goes away soon enough.

I can sadly say that face and that sexy body is mine. Who really would want to claim both of those :p. As a side note if you do the search for just the word nipple on SS and have it sorted by popular I hold three of the top 6 images.

noodle · « **Reply #14 on:** July 17, 2013, 15:15 »

thanks... now I'm going to have to stick a hot poker in my eye...

JPSDK · « **Reply #15 on:** July 17, 2013, 15:24 »

Its probably some ½ idiot who thought he could make a buck on suing someone.

But there are also real wierdos out there that dont know what they do.
He might actually have believed it was him. Paranoia, skitzofrenia, anciety, desperation?

I had a guy who cut all the electrical wires that ran outside my house, because he thought his dead wife talked to him in the television.

Lots of sparks, kind of dangerous, and what cut had I not found?

djpadavona · « **Reply #16 on:** July 17, 2013, 15:43 »

Quote from: JPSDK on July 17, 2013, 15:24

I had a guy who cut all the electrical wires that ran outside my house, because he thought his dead wife talked to him in the television.

And you doubted him?

JPSDK · « **Reply #17 on:** July 17, 2013, 15:50 »

I must admit I did, but that was mostly because he had no television and sat and looked at a cardboard box full of cucumbers.
And everybody knows that dead wives do not appear at such places.

leaf · « **Reply #18 on:** July 17, 2013, 16:08 »

Perhaps it's someone who looks like you and whose friends saw the images and laughed at them (him). He then made a complaint to Shutterstock. Not saying he is in the right (obviously he isn't) but just trying to think of some logical explanation for a crazy accusation.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** July 17, 2013, 16:38 »

Quote from: leaf on July 17, 2013, 16:08

Perhaps it's someone who looks like you and whose friends saw the images and laughed at them (him). He then made a complaint to Shutterstock. Not saying he is in the right (obviously he isn't) but just trying to think of some logical explanation for a crazy accusation.

Sounds plausible.

Ron · « **Reply #20 on:** July 17, 2013, 17:17 »

Txing, you are a legend, and I applaud you. And you could be my brother, we look a lot alike. I dont know where you live, but if I ever get there I hope you will let me buy you a pint.

CD123 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 17, 2013, 18:03 »

Unfortunately this is how big business work. They have a name to protect, court cases and lawyers cost a lot and legal pursuits are time consuming. So, although the norm in the legal environment is "who claims has to prove", in this environment it is more like, "this guy might have a legal claim, so take down the possible offending port and get the truth from the party under our control" (cost, perhaps $400 p.m. versus legal actions costing thousands and waste of time and possible blemish on business's name). This is a complete $ perspective and has nothing to do with what is right or just.

gillian vann · « **Reply #22 on:** July 17, 2013, 19:47 »

I know you'll look back and laugh at this (I've found it v amusing so far) thanks for sharing so much of yourself.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 17, 2013, 21:01 »

Are you sure it's from Shutterstock? What sort of "proof" are they looking for? It could be a scammer trying to get your SS# or credit card # or something.

txking · « **Reply #24 on:** July 18, 2013, 00:00 »

It was an email that came directly from shutterstock then mixed with a phone call plus they knew that the person in the picture and the photographer are one in the same. I'm doubting it's a scam at this point.

Ron I'm not quite sure why you think I'm a legend. I'm just some guy who is too broke to hire real models and figured lets see how a quick and easy shot works out.

Leaf thank you for the idea. It's not true but at least it does sound like something that might be in the realm of somewhat realistic.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Weird complaint from shutterstock. Someone else is claiming my images. (Read 20473 times)

txking

JPSDK

EmberMike

WarrenPrice

txking

pancaketom

Reef

txking

robhainer

Carl

ruxpriencdiam

stockastic

Pixart

txking

noodle

JPSDK

djpadavona

JPSDK

leaf

ShadySue

Ron

CD123

gillian vann

Shelma1

txking

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors