It looks like the reviewer is an uneducated person. It will be down soon, I guess.

I'm not getting. What's wrong?

Stolen illustrations of very famous cartoon characters.

Also pretty sure whole portfolio is lifted from various sources, these two just hit me as they are so blatant and you'd think any reviewer would pick them up.

Looks that they are already down.

Yes down for me too now. I found them because I was looking for an artist whos work was stolen and posted on Etsy, but instead found this other theif on SS who had stolen their work too!
 

It looks like the reviewer is an uneducated person. It will be down soon, I guess.

I told you so. Quoting my own post, haha

Quote from: dook1000 on October 27, 2021, 04:38

It looks like the reviewer is an uneducated person. It will be down soon, I guess.

I told you so. Quoting my own post, haha

AI = the reviewer isn't a person, and that's the problem.

They do check, I don't know how much, but I had a rejection for "this image was accepted in error" last year.

They probably just check when someone complains.....

Highly unlikely.

Image uploaded, accepted, two days later, rejected because it was accepted in error, no stolen graphic or infringing anything. Nothing for someone to complain. Plus I think you should think back, how fast does SS do anything, including removing stolen or infringing images. 

"They do check, I don't know how much, but I had a rejection for "this image was accepted in error" last year."

Ive seen that where things such as national trust properties and certain buildings got through and then a routine search (or complaint later) means they do.

There was a huge purge years ago when the UK National Trust when full gestapo against stock agencies.  Quite a few people had that reason for removed content.

Interesting, but that's not the only one. When someone comes to SS and files a complaint, they will go back and purge images. If not, old examples where SS changed the rules, are left. That's why we have seen so many, "mine was rejected, but there are thousands of these" and the answer is, what was uploaded 8 years ago? NT has been pushing hard to get their properties and images of the sites, off the stock sites.

Mine was something that I know they used to take and I know they don't now. I just dropped it in with a batch that was going to Adobe, where they do take those. But also in true SS style, another one that should have been rejected for the same reasons, they don't take those anymore, was accepted and lucky me, has already sold.

Example: "Blueprints are subject to copyright and, therefore, require a property release signed by the architect/original designer of the blueprint in order to be acceptable for commercial use" note, even if the blueprint is from the 1800s? Well then clause 2 kicks in. "Content in the public domain or content incorporating elements from public domain content, such as scans of photographs or copies of public domain artwork or footage, cannot be accepted for commercial or editorial use"

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 10, 2021, 11:10

Example: "Blueprints are subject to copyright and, therefore, require a property release signed by the architect/original designer of the blueprint in order to be acceptable for commercial use" note, even if the blueprint is from the 1800s? Well then clause 2 kicks in. "Content in the public domain or content incorporating elements from public domain content, such as scans of photographs or copies of public domain artwork or footage, cannot be accepted for commercial or editorial use"

Except when they choose to ignore that it's public domain:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/yogyakarta-indonesia-2-june-2021-joe-1984253228

I found the original photo credited to a Getty photographer. I wonder if he knows that it's been transferred to the public domain?

More and more I'm seeing that there are double standards with reviewing rules on Shutterstock, and some contributors seem to have a free pass regardless.

Sure stinks doesn't it? Legal images, rejected, stolen images, accepted. 

I guess agencies don't bother selling images that are free somewhere else (public domain)..
Blueprints are drawings, a big no-no to use if you don't have a signed authorization.

I guess agencies don't bother selling images that are free somewhere else (public domain)..
Blueprints are drawings, a big no-no to use if you don't have a signed authorization.

Yes, I think when they did take them, like SS and IS did, they started to realize that people were going to upload thousands of the same image, because it's free online somewhere and PD. Thus the NASA credits rule, and not just copied, but part of a composite. How many of the same shot of the Moon or the Earth does any agency need, before it's just Spam? 

Getty sells PD images and charges for them. SS doesn't take any now. DT and a flock of others will still take PD images. I'm not saying they will sell, or a smart person can't just go find them free on their own. With a little bit of effort, there are entire collections online of images with no copyright protection. Maybe the point could be, hypothetically, I edit an old photo and upload it and save the buyer all the time and effort, restoring it and making a fine copy, better than the original or the free archive example.

But how much need is there for those?

When I mentioned blueprints, I meant from before 1926. Watch the sparks fly because, Mickey Mouse is set to enter the public domain in 2024. But Disney is a big corporation and like the recent past changes, in the 70s, laws were adjusted. Lets just say money can buy change?

This image is public domain, I have a much larger example, but small for the forum purposes. I can make 11 x 14 prints and sell them, if I wanted, or sell digital versions for license. 100% legal.



The reason SS and possibly other places, miss an obvious copyrighted image and also one created from a copyrighted image, which is also illegal, is they use AI or offshore reviewers and computers can't know every celebrity likeness. Biden is a public figure, there are some legal differences, but if the image is autotraced or somehow created from a real image, then that's illegal use. I mean, that's an obvious misuse that almost anyone here would recognize.

If this all bothers you, don't look at FAA because you'll hurt yourself when you fall off your chair. Sorry to pick on the little mouse character, but it's just an easy target.  https://fineartamerica.com/shop/framed+prints/mickey+mouse