Author Topic: Shutterstock don't take stolen work seriously (Read 32084 times)

ouatedeP · « **Reply #75 on:** April 27, 2022, 18:08 »

Quote from: tätarätä on April 27, 2022, 10:51

For an abo microstock agency i can't see any reason to take stolen images seriously.
These images (work) could be also available at free images site.
So what ?

because it makes the licence nul and void, and exposes the clients to potential legal hassle, and cost if the have to pull stuff from production.

Phil_Lowe · « **Reply #76 on:** April 27, 2022, 19:43 »

Quote

For an abo microstock agency i can't see any reason to take stolen images seriously.
These images (work) could be also available at free images site.
So what ?

Ever work in a company that has an office refrigerator? I did. People would put food and drinks in there all the time only to find it missing later in the day. One day, I heard one co-worker ask another, "Did you take my diet coke?" The thief replied, "I'm sorry. I didn't know it was yours." That "excuse" pissed me off for two reasons. The first, because the thief admitted stealing his co-worker's drink. But when I heard his "apology", I wanted to interject, "But you KNEW it wasn't yours, so why did you take it?"

Let's call copyright infringement what it is: theft. Once upon a time, possessing and selling stolen property was a crime in its own right. It doesn't matter if the actual copyright holder wants to display his/her images on a free site or Flickr: it's completely irrelevant what a copyright holder does with their images. What is patently illegal is for someone else or a company, like Shutterstock, to distribute or sell images that neither have the permission to possess or sell, or have the copyrights to. I don't care what Shutterstock's defense is: they KNEW at least after the first cease and desist order, the images were not licensed for sale by them. So I would ask them the same thing I would've asked that co-worker: you KNEW the images weren't yours to sell, so why did you sell them?

If people don't protect their copyrights, then they lose them. The plaintiff in this case is protecting his right to sell, distribute, and display his images as HE sees fit. He should be applauded. If Shutterstock loses this case, it's a win for all of us. IMHO.

Wilm · « **Reply #77 on:** April 28, 2022, 01:15 »

Quote from: Phil_Lowe on April 27, 2022, 19:43

Quote
For an abo microstock agency i can't see any reason to take stolen images seriously.
These images (work) could be also available at free images site.
So what ?

Ever work in a company that has an office refrigerator? I did. People would put food and drinks in there all the time only to find it missing later in the day. One day, I heard one co-worker ask another, "Did you take my diet coke?" The thief replied, "I'm sorry. I didn't know it was yours." That "excuse" pissed me off for two reasons. The first, because the thief admitted stealing his co-worker's drink. But when I heard his "apology", I wanted to interject, "But you KNEW it wasn't yours, so why did you take it?"

Let's call copyright infringement what it is: theft. Once upon a time, possessing and selling stolen property was a crime in its own right. It doesn't matter if the actual copyright holder wants to display his/her images on a free site or Flickr: it's completely irrelevant what a copyright holder does with their images. What is patently illegal is for someone else or a company, like Shutterstock, to distribute or sell images that neither have the permission to possess or sell, or have the copyrights to. I don't care what Shutterstock's defense is: they KNEW at least after the first cease and desist order, the images were not licensed for sale by them. So I would ask them the same thing I would've asked that co-worker: you KNEW the images weren't yours to sell, so why did you sell them?

If people don't protect their copyrights, then they lose them. The plaintiff in this case is protecting his right to sell, distribute, and display his images as HE sees fit. He should be applauded. If Shutterstock loses this case, it's a win for all of us. IMHO.

Absolutely correct!

dirkr · « **Reply #78 on:** April 28, 2022, 02:02 »

It will be interesting to see if and how the Digital Service Act decided by the EU a few days ago will impact stock agencies.

While I certainly don't understand all the details, one of the points in this legislation is to make online marketplaces responsible for fake/stolen goods sold on their platforms. This may be applicable for stock agencies as well, and could make shutterstock's current behavior clearly illegal in the EU.

More details on the Digital Service Act: https://ec.europa.eu/info/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en

Still needs time to be implemented in local law of the EU member states, but it could provide better protection of our work in the future...

Lowls · « **Reply #79 on:** April 28, 2022, 06:02 »

And another George Steinmetz v. Shutterstock, Inc., et al., 21-cv-7100 (Hellerstein)

Phil_Lowe · « **Reply #80 on:** April 28, 2022, 08:57 »

It looks like 2021 was a bumper crop year for suits against Shutterstock.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #81 on:** April 28, 2022, 10:03 »

Quote from: dirkr on April 28, 2022, 02:02

It will be interesting to see if and how the Digital Service Act decided by the EU a few days ago will impact stock agencies.

While I certainly don't understand all the details, one of the points in this legislation is to make online marketplaces responsible for fake/stolen goods sold on their platforms. This may be applicable for stock agencies as well, and could make shutterstock's current behavior clearly illegal in the EU.

More details on the Digital Service Act: https://ec.europa.eu/info/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en

Still needs time to be implemented in local law of the EU member states, but it could provide better protection of our work in the future...

I'm sure there's much more to that, which I don't understand either. But these two might apply?

measures to counter illegal goods, services or content online, such as a mechanism for users to flag such content and for platforms to cooperate with “trusted flaggers”

new obligations on traceability of business users in online market places, to help identify sellers of illegal goods or reasonable efforts by online market places to randomly check whether products or services have been identified as being illegal in any official database

Quote from: Lowls on April 28, 2022, 06:02

And another George Steinmetz v. Shutterstock, Inc., et al., 21-cv-7100 (Hellerstein)

https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-george-steinmetz-v-shutterstock-inc-et-al-995509

May need to register: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.law360.com/dockets/download/6123f67683b2a8009e96494c?doc_url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.nysd.uscourts.gov%2Fdoc1%2F127129677208&label=Case+Filing

22. Due to Defendants’ acts of copyright infringement as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, have obtained direct and indirect profits they would not otherwise have realized but for their infringement of Steinmetz’s rights in the Subject Photograph. As such, Steinmetz is entitled to disgorgement of Defendants’ profits directly and indirectly attributable to Defendants’ infringement of his rights in the Subject Photograph in an amount to be established at trial.

23. Steinmetz registered the Subject Photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office before the commission of the infringement at issue and on that basis seeks statutory damages in an amount up to $150,000.00 per photograph per the Copyright Act.

and 22-CV-905 (GHW) Elliot McGucken v. Shutterstock, Inc. et al

Diana Herrmann · « **Reply #82 on:** February 10, 2023, 11:20 »

Quote from: panicAttack on February 14, 2020, 07:17

not only that, this user is using 2 worded keywords for all of his keywords on all of his work without any consequences, reported it long time ago.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/fizkes

unfortunately, SS dont care anymore

No he's not first on every search. He is using phrases instead of keywords. Maybe I should do that?