Author Topic: I used custom shapes to create content and now account is blocked. help / advice (Read 20227 times)

fujiko · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2012, 12:42 »

Quote from: CD123 on February 12, 2012, 08:43

Quote from: fujiko on February 12, 2012, 04:19
If a license is non perpetual, once the license is terminated the licensee must stop use and distribution (depending on license terms). Past use was right but future use includes continuing sales on an agency, so distribution through agency must be terminated also.
Never seen the use of any element being licensed like that. It will defeat the end of the license in respect of artistic use.
To use or not to use externally created elements and ad-ons is a question of personal choice. Just make sure you are covered well when you do, else, like with this poster, you may be placed in a very compromised position.

But depending on license terms, it is possible to revoke re-distribution rights of already created products. You said it was not possible, but it is.
Hard to make any judgement without seeing the original elements, the license terms and the derived product created with those elements.

CD123 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2012, 12:56 »

Quote from: fujiko on February 12, 2012, 12:42

Quote from: CD123 on February 12, 2012, 08:43
Quote from: fujiko on February 12, 2012, 04:19
If a license is non perpetual, once the license is terminated the licensee must stop use and distribution (depending on license terms). Past use was right but future use includes continuing sales on an agency, so distribution through agency must be terminated also.
Never seen the use of any element being licensed like that. It will defeat the end of the license in respect of artistic use.
To use or not to use externally created elements and ad-ons is a question of personal choice. Just make sure you are covered well when you do, else, like with this poster, you may be placed in a very compromised position.
But depending on license terms, it is possible to revoke re-distribution rights of already created products. You said it was not possible, but it is.
Hard to make any judgement without seeing the original elements, the license terms and the derived product created with those elements.

You can not revoke previously granted rights unless reimbursing anyone who acted in good faith on your license and has now suffered damage. Else no issue of rights can ever be taken seriously and no business will ever be possible. It is called right certainty - go ask any lawyer.

I'll be scared to ask help around here:
Scenario - I borrowed a tire and now the owner say I stole it, what should I do?
Response: You stole a tire and now wants our help?
Next response: We should establish if he did not steel the tire.
Next response: Did he have the right to use the tire?
Next response: I do not think one should borrow tires.
Next response: I never borrow tires.
Next response: Do not make assumptions, the guy must tell us if he stole the tire!
Next response: Show us the tire.....
............................

fujiko · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2012, 13:20 »

Quote from: CD123 on February 12, 2012, 12:56

Quote from: fujiko on February 12, 2012, 12:42
Quote from: CD123 on February 12, 2012, 08:43
Quote from: fujiko on February 12, 2012, 04:19
If a license is non perpetual, once the license is terminated the licensee must stop use and distribution (depending on license terms). Past use was right but future use includes continuing sales on an agency, so distribution through agency must be terminated also.
Never seen the use of any element being licensed like that. It will defeat the end of the license in respect of artistic use.
To use or not to use externally created elements and ad-ons is a question of personal choice. Just make sure you are covered well when you do, else, like with this poster, you may be placed in a very compromised position.
But depending on license terms, it is possible to revoke re-distribution rights of already created products. You said it was not possible, but it is.
Hard to make any judgement without seeing the original elements, the license terms and the derived product created with those elements.
You can not revoke previously granted rights unless reimbursing anyone who acted in good faith on your license and has now suffered damage. Else no issue of rights can ever be taken seriously and no business will ever be possible. It is called right certainty - go ask any lawyer.

I'll be scared to ask help around here:
Scenario - I borrowed a tire and now the owner say I stole it, what should I do?
Response: You stole a tire and now wants our help?
Next response: We should establish if he did not steel the tire.
Next response: Did he have the right to use the tire?
Next response: I do not think one should borrow tires.
Next response: I never borrow tires.
Next response: Do not make assumptions, the guy must tell us if he stole the tire!
Next response: Show us the tire.....
............................

So, in your world, all licenses are perpetual and non-revokable. There are not limited time licenses and commercial use means you can redistribute the elements forever and a day, right?
Being able to grant/revoke distribution rights is the core of this business and it's the only reason we can stop pirates from redistributing our works as free once they download it. It's also the only reason a buyer cannot upload an image he bought for commercial use to agencies and compete with us with our own images.

jm · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2012, 13:24 »

Quote

Scenario - I borrowed a tire and now the owner say I stole it, what should I do?
Response: You stole a tire and now wants our help?
Next response: We should establish if he did not steel the tire.
Next response: Did he have the right to use the tire?
Next response: I do not think one should borrow tires.
Next response: I never borrow tires.
Next response: Do not make assumptions, the guy must tell us if he stole the tire!
Next response: Show us the tire.....
............................

OP's question is:
I borrowed a tire and now the owner say I stole it. Is it resolved if I bolt them to car of my father? Or change my cars license number?

gemmy12 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2012, 13:43 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on February 11, 2012, 17:51

Quote from: CD123 on February 11, 2012, 16:33
The legal situation should be quite clear and obvious, if the issue is not totally missed by over opinionated member(s) with vivid imaginations in this forum.

So how? I posted the link to the shutterstock TOS and the important section already 2 times. Look for yourself. They do not prohibit the use of third party software or elements as long as you have the right to.
I do not use any third party stuff either, but I do not bother if someone does so as long as he ahs the right to.

We license Software and sometimes content like textures, filters and use them to create our artwork. Stockers use public domain images (check istock....soooo many scanned images of old drawings), procedural shaders of various software packages, premade PS actions. There are thousand of NASA visual earth images on sale and incorporated, not to talk about 3D models from Turbosquid or DAZ.

And all this within the green light of the various license agreements.
How do you come to such a fast and subjective judgement?

Just to make it clear: personally, I do not use any of them. But I think what is right is right and I have a true problem with the subjective and "not thought through" legal viewpoint of some people here.

agreed. One more thing to author(autumnlover)- did you not get any warning from SS (about the matter or asking you to remove such content ) before they blocked your account ?

CD123 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 12, 2012, 13:47 »

Quote from: fujiko on February 12, 2012, 13:20

So, in your world, all licenses are perpetual and non-revokable. There are not limited time licenses and commercial use means you can redistribute the elements forever and a day, right?
Being able to grant/revoke distribution rights is the core of this business and it's the only reason we can stop pirates from redistributing our works as free once they download it. It's also the only reason a buyer cannot upload an image he bought for commercial use to agencies and compete with us with our own images.

Here we go again. I did not say a right can not be revoked, but there will be consequences if you did not reserve the right to revoke it in the first place. Did I say there are not limited time licenses in the industry (did the original poster mention limited time license? No, so you are busy making conversation with yourself)?
Ok, so you stop "pirates" (thieves) from stealing your work by revoking their rights...

?? "It's also the only reason" - what "it". Nobody is disputing the existence of copyright.
This arguments is now going round and round and nowhere closer to the posters question and this is not Law 101 for beginners, so end of lesson.

fujiko · « **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2012, 14:09 »

Quote from: CD123 on February 12, 2012, 13:47

Here we go again. I did not say a right can not be revoked, but there will be consequences if you did not reserve the right to revoke it in the first place. Did I say there are not limited time licenses in the industry (did the original poster mention limited time license? No, so you are busy making conversation with yourself)?
Ok, so you stop "pirates" (thieves) from stealing your work by revoking their rights...?? "It's also the only reason" - what "it". Nobody is disputing the existence of copyright.
This arguments is now going round and round and nowhere closer to the posters question and this is not Law 101 for beginners, so end of lesson.

I was careful to say at the beginning that all depended on the terms of the license. I'm glad to see you know the existence of licenses that can be revoked depending on the terms stated on the license.

The pirates do not have the right in the first place, regardless of the license they bought if they bought it. Some pirates buy a commercial license and then redistribute the work or download from sites that state the image is free to use but it's not. From what I have seen, some pirates buy the image and then upload it to sites stating that it is free to use even for commercial use. Then it spreads to other sites that download from the first pirate site and continue stating that it is free to use or even saying it is creative commons or public domain. If you talk to the last pirate it will say the image was downloaded from a site stating it was allowed for commercial use.

So, going back to OP, it sounds fishy to me. Too many questions on how he can continue to use shapes copyrighted by someone else even after getting in trouble because of them. Going as far as asking if using another ID would help. I think it's very legit to ask about the license terms in detail and what shapes were used.

CD123 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 12, 2012, 14:37 »

All of these arguments are of zero use if the poster can not prove that he had any right of use in the first place.
Law 101:
If you want to legally stand on a right, you have to prove that you had such a right.
If you can not prove that you had such a right, you could just as well not have had it in the first place.
If you do not have the explicit right to use another's work (copyright) and/or can not prove that you did, you may not use it.

My first post on this topic (new underlining):
"The legal situation should be quite clear and obvious, if the issue is not totally missed by over opinionated member(s) with vivid imaginations in this forum.

The use of the shapes are not only prohibited by SS, but, if you are not able to supply proof that you had the legal right to use them, they will not be acceptable to any law abiding website.

If there is any way in which you can obtain a copy of the original page with the disclaimer giving you the right to use it, it might help (try the website owners, there might be a remote chance they might be prepared to assist you and get the data from old backups). If this is not possible, I am afraid you will not be able to sell those images any more."

Is there any one here who think the poster has the right to sell those images or use them further? Has any "new evidence" came to light from the original poster changing the legal position?

If not, this topic is really getting over trotted, highly boring and time wasting. Please continue at own leisure and enjoyment without me....