The portfolio:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/sentongo?sort=popular

This is the image of mine he has uploaded as his own

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/stunning-picturesque-sunrise-down-by-merrymeeting-1119292577

This is my image in my Adobe Stock portfolio

https://stock.adobe.com/images/mist-rises-from-merrymeeting-lake-as-seen-from-the-beach-by-the-marina-boat-launch-new-durham-new-hampshire-right-after-sunrise-on-a-summer-morning/133258605

The same guy has a portfolio on iStock with many of the same images, but not that image of mine.

https://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/Sentongo?mediatype=photography

You might want to check his portfolios to see if any of your images are there - it's a very odd portfolio with lots of places around the world represented, but only one image of each location.

I have written to Shutterstock compliance to tell them to remove the image and send me an accounting of how many licenses they've sold and how much I am owed (it's marked as "Commonly Used"; it really irks that they would get to keep any money buyers had paid to license this image).

compliance (at) shutterstock (dot) com is where you can write if any of your images are  there.

I noticed two images that are just a flipped version of another Shutterstock image (the image numbers make it clear who's stolen and who's the author):

Originals
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/river-thames-bridge-st-johns-lock-520443904
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sun-rising-over-river-thames-on-520443892

Stolen, flipped image from Sentongo
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mystic-early-morning-by-river-thames-1113930485
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fabulous-twilight-before-dawn-down-by-1111015958

He's done the same flips in his iStock portfolio

Originals
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/river-thames-bridge-at-first-light-gm625232702-110044607
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/sunrise-over-the-river-thames-gm625231978-110043977

Stolen
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/a-mystic-early-morning-gm977643968-265797618
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/first-light-gm973801836-264951212

It's pretty sad that neither iStock nor Shutterstock detected someone uploading a flipped version of something already on their site.

As they did for me, they will probably in the best case delete the duplicate files that you listed and let the portfolio online as if nothing happened 

yet when anyone presses SS they seem to attack the victim and take care of the criminal!

Was there a case when name of a thief on SS become public and he was prosecuted? Most of thieves accounts look like generated AI personas

At one time SS was over 90 on the Microstock Poll Results. Their lucky to be at 37.3 

It's sad to see what stock has become.

Unfortunately it's not a new issue as they've known about it for many years and have done little.

Useless greedy agency.

cannot remember who did this but a few years back someone did a wack a mole for SS and they treated them like crap instead of rewarding or even thanking them for their efforts!

Quote from: For Real on September 12, 2021, 11:08

cannot remember who did this but a few years back someone did a wack a mole for SS and they treated them like crap instead of rewarding or even thanking them for their efforts!

For real! He even got banned from the SS forum for a month lol

They would close his account with the way they behave now!

Thanks, Jo Ann. Appreciated.

I wouldn't be surprised if SS wants to charge the actual owner a fee to terminate the thief since they will loss some revenue on the sales of the criminal...

I wouldn't be surprised if SS wants to charge the actual owner a fee to terminate the thief since they will loss some revenue on the sales of the criminal...

Oh please stop. Logically SS doesn't make anything more from selling stolen work, than they do for the actual originals. We get a dime, they get the rest. There's no financial advantage to any agency condoning stolen image uploads.

Besides that, no one has shown that the copies are actually selling?

Lets stick with, wrong is wrong and stealing our images while trying to cheat and re-sell them is wrong. All agencies should remove stolen images, and not make us jump through hoops or file forms, while we get ignored. I'm also against the places that only remove the images that one of us points out, instead of closing accounts. The obvious is, if one image is stolen, it's likely that everything except the first few, are also stolen.

I know how much people love to hate Shutterstock, but this happens everywhere and so far, every agency drags it's feet in doing something to prevent or correct these image thieves.

Was there a case when name of a thief on SS become public and he was prosecuted? Most of thieves accounts look like generated AI personas

What laws and how do you prosecute a civil case, against someone who might not exist. Go read and please come back and tell me. Then prove harm and pay for an attorney to get your 10 cents?

Or did you mean charge the agency, which is protected, https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/internet-service-providers-and-protection-from-liability-international-law-essay.php

     They have the technology for spotting problems when contributors submit an image already in their portfolio but they can't spot thieves stealing your image and placing it in their own bogus portfolio? You think it might be time for a class action lawsuit?

That's what the stock coalition should have started, instead of polls, futile boycotts, and useless protests. Take some action and rattle the cage. ALL agencies, I remind you, instead of the low hanging fruit and the hated SS. A class action suit would sure be interesting and maybe get their attention, so agencies start watching for fraud accounts and stolen images.

Quote from: csm on September 12, 2021, 07:17

It's sad to see what stock has become. And how it appears the agents show no interest in protecting the copyright of artists work.
You'd think in this day and age it would be easy to monitor.

I want nothing to do with it anymore.

The problem is always with non-artists.
Non-artists are envious of our artistic talent, they crave it, they're foaming from their mouth, all my life i had to listen to their BS including statements like "if i just could draw/shoot/play/write i would do this or that and become this or that".

Sorry guys, if you're not an artist your only option is to buy $$ or shut the F up, accept it and move on with your (miserable) life.
And yet they never give up, i see plenty of people trying to become "art experts" without having ever painted anything, graphic designers who can't draw a straight line, photo experts who only shoot their dog and their girlfriend with a phone, music critics who never played an instrument and neither can play using a computer, this is the world we live in.

As a last chance they steal, copy, remix, remake, resell, and grab rights or even sales.
For millions of young people listening to music now means listening to a DJ, live bands are more and more a thing of the past.
Same for photography, everyone loves photography but try getting paid fairly and ...
Painting .. i lost count of the homes i've been where i've seen posters of Pollock, Wahrol, Banksy, or random fluid art or abstracts, because "they love colors".

What can we do ? nothing, we must accept this can only get worse and be prepared.

As a non-artist (can't draw or paint) and former paid, live musical hack for 40 years, I think you make some good points.

Small disagreement, I like Pollock, and have since the 60s. Jack the Dripper, was interesting, not sure about colors, but the patterns amuse me.

I don't own any posters of any of the above, or many others you could have listed, but Warhol, and other trendy pop artists are simply marketing wizards at best. Collectors or investors drive the prices and attraction not the lasting quality.

I also agree with you and I wouldn't hang any of that crap on the wall in the bathroom! 

You are also right that I couldn't create most of it and haven't, but I have made my own, which of course, since you don't see my name on billboards or in news magazines, obviously hasn't touched the souls of the public. However the saving point is, sometimes I like what I do, and that's the point of satisfaction. Not many, not often, but sometimes...

As for the OP, shocking. Someone stole images and the agency did nothing about it? Well this certainly is a fine mess.



2014 - https://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/copyright-infringement-by-'cluc'/msg397941/#msg397941

Hint: Only DT seems to have removed his portfolio, still on AS, IS and Bigstock.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 27, 2021, 08:19

As a non-artist (can't draw or paint) and former paid, live musical hack for 40 years, I think you make some good points.

Small disagreement, I like Pollock, and have since the 60s. Jack the Dripper, was interesting, not sure about colors, but the patterns amuse me.

I don't own any posters of any of the above, or many others you could have listed, but Warhol, and other trendy pop artists are simply marketing wizards at best. Collectors or investors drive the prices and attraction not the lasting quality.

I also agree with you and I wouldn't hang any of that crap on the wall in the bathroom! 

You are also right that I couldn't create most of it and haven't, but I have made my own, which of course, since you don't see my name on billboards or in news magazines, obviously hasn't touched the souls of the public. However the saving point is, sometimes I like what I do, and that's the point of satisfaction. Not many, not often, but sometimes...

Well at least you tried to paint something and now you know that it takes years to reach a decent level of painting skills.
The difference with you and the non-painters is that unlike you they don't even try, but this doesn't stop their rants and raves, they want to sneak in the art field no matter what and when they're in they also want to teach us what's good and what's bad.

Once you try it's very satisfying, no matter if it looks like sh.. , you've done it and it's yours forever.

I tried so many times to incite friends and relatives to draw a couple lines with paper and pencil or to play a few notes, with zero results, even their kids don't try or don't like it, i give up, i guess they just don't think visually or musically and i'm afraid there's nothing we can do, if they were even a 1% artist-oriented they would probably draw or play something by themselves without needing any external input.

Thank you for understanding. I think much of drawing or painting, involves what you say, trying and learning. It's not like anyone is really "a natural" and finds success from within, without time and effort and learning. True there are some savants, but even they start on the simple end and grow into the geniuses they are. Musicians play for hours and days and years, just to become average.  Being a drummer, people think, "oh I'd like to do that, it's easy. No Notes..."

On the other hand, my photos are sometimes "out there" and no sales, so maybe the final answer is connecting my thoughts with what someone else sees.

Meanwhile back to the topic. People have been stealing and uploading since the early days of Microstock and across all agencies. I still don't understand why the forum people appear to make it seem like a SS problem, when it's universal. I will also point out, that just like good business, the crooks also know where the money comes in easiest, and that's SS. I don't see them wasting time uploading to Canstock or the lower agencies, because return on investment isn't there.

For me, that explains why more thieves, at SS, as there's more opportunity to make money. That's why robbers go to banks, or places that have lots of cash on hand, not a dollar store? (even though the name would sound like...) 



There are stolen images on Microstock sites, and it seems more on SS than anywhere else. Now that we've been talking about that for 14 years, what's anyone going to do about it?