Doug McLean

One of my editorial images is being used on products for sale: https://www.lystsale.com/product_detail.php?c=long lineups at cannabis nb stores&p=11 Aside from misusing an editorial image (I hope I'm not legally liable), I certainly have not sold an extended license. Is it worth contacting Shutterstock or the web site that is misusing my photo?

Just blur out the private bits and leave the rest.

It's kind of hard to even guess without seeing the model release.

I don't have a large portfolio, but I do get downloads every day. I've had no downloads since Saturday, did nothing sell, or is there a glitch somewhere?

If you don't want to pay the extra and are looking for free (open source) software that gives you complete control over raw files, then take a look at RawTherapee: https://rawtherapee.com It takes a bit of learning to get used to it, but it has options and features that no other software has, and if you decide you don't like it, it didn't cost you anything and you can uninstall it.

Lots of things that are publicly accessible are not acceptable for commercial use, and many not for editorial either. It is easy to remove the names and dates, then they should be fine.

Having your account hijacked is often the result of having the same password for different multiple sites. If you use the same password everywhere, if one site gets hacked, then they have your password for everywhere. Another problem is if you get a call from "Microsoft" and let the "tech" work on your computer from remote. Microsoft will never call you, and the "tech" is a scammer who will often install malware on your computer to allow him to steal your passwords (it sends him a report regularly by email). If either of these are true for the OP, then he needs to get these issues addressed immediately or it will just happen again.

I recommend an inexpensive Nikon DSLR. The reason is that they still use the F mount which dates back to the 1960s, so if you get a D3x00 or D5x00 you can buy old manual lenses pretty cheaply and they will work fine in manual mode on the camera. It is a bit more complicated if you buy a more expensive Nikon with a aperture feeler (like a D7x00 or D500, or FX format camera), because very old lenses aren't compatible with this, but very old lenses are easily modified at home to be compatible with these as well. I bought three old primes (one was a 50mm f/1.4) and together they were still under $100, and they work fine on my Nikon DSLRs as long as you don't mind shooting manual. That's my opinion, for what it is worth.

The way I read it, if you use the image for merchandise for sale, you need an enhanced license even if less than 500,000 items. Merchandise Standard Not permitted Enhanced Permitted https://www.shutterstock.com/support/article/Standard-License-vs-Enhanced-License If the OP didn't receive royalties from an enhanced license sale, then he is owed some money. But there is no need to attribute the photo to Shutterstock or the photographer, except for editorial photos.

Well, it doesn't mention Nikon, but it works with all of mine. It does work with most cameras, and the price is right.

Does RawTherapee support your camera? RawTherapee is very powerful and gives you control over raw processing that no other software does, and it is free (open source), so if it doesn't work with your camera, or if you don't like it, you aren't out any money. https://rawtherapee.com/

Also, I think you have too many similar photos in your portfolio. Some of your photos are identical or nearly identical to some other.

As of yesterday, I've sold over 30 duck photos in just the last three months. No idea why, they didn't sell much before.

What's with the ducks lately? In the last three months, my best seller is ducks, both in numbers and dollars. I wasn't even going to upload any duck pictures because there are over 470,000 duck photos available already, but I'm glad I did!

I am happy for the sales, but I don't want any legal liability for mis-use. As long as I'm not responsible, I won't worry about it.