Author Topic: The plagiarism at SS isn't by accident; it's standard practice (Read 3853 times)

rcnyc · « **on:** August 17, 2023, 23:49 »

There's been a lot of justifiable anger over the rampant plagiarism that keeps happening at SS, along at other microstock sites.

Just know that the plagiarism isn't happening in spite of every agency's best efforts to prevent it, but openly tolerated by Big Tech, including YouTube. The plagiarism is a form of insurance in case of a popular contributor closes their account. If they, for instance, happened to do very well in a niche topic or image and they leave, the derivative content takes their place.

It's amazing to me that creatives don't realize this. Until laws are passed heavily legislating platforms like SS and Big Tech in general, there will never be such a thing as not being ripped off. The entire ecosystem is designed for it.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2023, 02:45 »

The crazy thing to me is that they also get to pocket the cash. If they don't want to give it the original artist (could incentivise false accusations etc.) There should be a fund that's distributed to all contributors based on dls over the past month. Letting the agency keep the money is nuts.

cobalt · « **Reply #2 on:** August 18, 2023, 04:26 »

Very good point. Never looked at this way.

I would have thought that the usual similar copycat images are more than enough.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2023, 07:07 »

How do 34 different ports (full of stolen images) have the same goddamn image of an elephant?

Professional negligence by SS.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/2279987071

rcnyc · « **Reply #4 on:** August 18, 2023, 07:14 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 18, 2023, 02:45

The crazy thing to me is that they also get to pocket the cash. If they don't want to give it the original artist (could incentivise false accusations etc.) There should be a fund that's distributed to all contributors based on dls over the past month. Letting the agency keep the money is nuts.

Funny you should say that, because I was thinking about something similar! I think that's a great idea. Every single person who contributes to any site--be it microstock, YouTube, Etsy, whatever--should get a monthly stipend on top of whatever B.S. "commission" or ad revenue share they are promised.

rcnyc · « **Reply #5 on:** August 18, 2023, 08:49 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on August 18, 2023, 07:07

How do 34 different ports (full of stolen images) have the same goddamn image of an elephant?

Professional negligence by SS.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/2279987071

I'll be called a conspiracy theorist, but I'll say this anyway: I don't believe this is professional negligence. It's, like I said, by design, most likely. Those images are what's known as SEO spam; SS might be allowing it because having so many images of that one elephant helps gain visibility in Google and Bing Images.

Another thing: the copycats could very well be SS itself hiring people to rip contributors off. Other platforms have been caught red-handed doing this type of thing. For example, Amazon invited designers to sell their original products on the platform. The next thing they knew, their products were ripped off and being resold for cheap by Amazon. As it turned out, Amazon was using in-house staff to rip these designs off and produce its own line of products.

Ditto, Etsy. Etsy invited all of these original designers to sell, then turned around and invited third party Chinese sellers to make rips of their products.

So, those "34 ports" could be managed by SS itself. Who knows?

I think that all creatives--be it artists, photogs and even writers--should try to restart a movement back to print and other analog forms of selling. Digital selling has become disastrous. There's no transparency at all as to how and why your work gets ripped off on a platform, and it seems as if there are no longer any protections.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #6 on:** August 18, 2023, 09:50 »

Quote from: rcnyc on August 18, 2023, 08:49

Quote from: Brasilnut on August 18, 2023, 07:07
How do 34 different ports (full of stolen images) have the same goddamn image of an elephant?

Professional negligence by SS.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/2279987071

I'll be called a conspiracy theorist, but I'll say this anyway: I don't believe this is professional negligence. It's, like I said, by design, most likely. Those images are what's known as SEO spam; SS might be allowing it because having so many images of that one elephant helps gain visibility in Google and Bing Images.

Another thing: the copycats could very well be SS itself hiring people to rip contributors off. Other platforms have been caught red-handed doing this type of thing. For example, Amazon invited designers to sell their original products on the platform. The next thing they knew, their products were ripped off and being resold for cheap by Amazon. As it turned out, Amazon was using in-house staff to rip these designs off and produce its own line of products.

Ditto, Etsy. Etsy invited all of these original designers to sell, then turned around and invited third party Chinese sellers to make rips of their products.

So, those "34 ports" could be managed by SS itself. Who knows?

I think that all creatives--be it artists, photogs and even writers--should try to restart a movement back to print and other analog forms of selling. Digital selling has become disastrous. There's no transparency at all as to how and why your work gets ripped off on a platform, and it seems as if there are no longer any protections.

Interesting theory, I don't know what to make of that but what I do know is that I have been in direct contact with some thieves and they had nothing to do with working at SS...some were deliberately stealing, while most were just plain ignorant (either "Oh I purchased a license so thought i could re-sell or I got the image from one of the free sites so thought it was mine").

I had one guy that I reported that was shut down actually plead directly with me to try to have his account re-instated. Like I could do anything.

cascoly · « **Reply #7 on:** August 18, 2023, 13:49 »

Quote from: rcnyc on August 18, 2023, 08:49

Quote from: Brasilnut on August 18, 2023, 07:07
How do 34 different ports (full of stolen images) have the same goddamn image of an elephant?

Professional negligence by SS.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/2279987071

I'll be called a conspiracy theorist, but I'll say this anyway: I don't believe this is professional negligence. It's, like I said, by design, most likely. Those images are what's known as SEO spam; SS might be allowing it because having so many images of that one elephant helps gain visibility in Google and Bing Images.

Another thing: the copycats could very well be SS itself hiring people to rip contributors off. Other platforms have been caught red-handed doing this type of thing. For example, Amazon invited designers to sell their original products on the platform. The next thing they knew, their products were ripped off and being resold for cheap by Amazon. As it turned out, Amazon was using in-house staff to rip these designs off and produce its own line of products.

Ditto, Etsy. Etsy invited all of these original designers to sell, then turned around and invited third party Chinese sellers to make rips of their products.

So, those "34 ports" could be managed by SS itself. Who knows?

I think that all creatives--be it artists, photogs and even writers--should try to restart a movement back to print and other analog forms of selling. Digital selling has become disastrous. There's no transparency at all as to how and why your work gets ripped off on a platform, and it seems as if there are no longer any protections.

ok - it is a conspiracy theory with much simpler explanations (cf Occam's Razor) - no evidence it's by design or that SS is using its own employees.

piracy is definitely a problem but blaming SS eliminates any possibility of rational talk (however slim)

as far as eliminating digital selling, that's a pipedream. you might as well ask for the internet to be replaced by the telegraph.

Mimi the Cat · « **Reply #8 on:** August 19, 2023, 04:58 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on August 18, 2023, 07:07

How do 34 different ports (full of stolen images) have the same goddamn image of an elephant?

Professional negligence by SS.

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/2279987071

Or joint criminal enterprise?

cobalt · « **Reply #9 on:** August 19, 2023, 05:59 »

I would think it is some kind of crime ring, that got themselves a batch of files from somewhere and are constantly opening new accounts whenever SS shuts one down.

Then use the free file promo to download each others files. Or maybe even buy subscriptions with stolen credit card data. Then keep buying images from linked accounts for as long as possible to siphon money out of both SS and the stolen cards?

I mean, you never really know, but I think if SS was actively involved in the crime they would not limit themselves to a small group of images.

So I doubt they are actively involved.

KimC · « **Reply #10 on:** August 19, 2023, 06:49 »

Shutterstock added that feature that tells if an image is often used or what. It is a "great help" for content thieves or copycat photographers.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2023, 11:51 »

Quote from: rcnyc on August 18, 2023, 08:49

I'll be called a conspiracy theorist, but I'll say this...

Yes you will.

Quote from: KimC on August 19, 2023, 06:49

Shutterstock added that feature that tells if an image is often used or what. It is a "great help" for content thieves or copycat photographers.

Except the feature is broken and reports wrong. Just like most popular is wrong on SS.

waitingonthestuff · « **Reply #12 on:** September 11, 2023, 04:16 »

I do often wonder if people "legitimately" buy an image then continue to sell that "bought" image as though it was their own.

gnirtS · « **Reply #13 on:** September 11, 2023, 06:47 »

You see it fairly often being advertised on the Facebook pages - people with subs left at the end of the month buying images to boost people and/or then selling them those images to use themselves.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The plagiarism at SS isn't by accident; it's standard practice (Read 3853 times)

rcnyc

Justanotherphotographer

cobalt

Brasilnut

rcnyc

rcnyc

Brasilnut

cascoly

Mimi the Cat

cobalt

KimC

Uncle Pete

waitingonthestuff

gnirtS

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors