Travers Lewis Posted Saturday at 08:46 PM Share Posted Saturday at 08:46 PM So I just decided to google my name to see if anything came up and came across one of my pictures on the Daily Mail website. The funny thing is I haven't sold that picture but they have credited myself and Shutterstock. Could this be one of SS's free images or has it indeed been stolen? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8803317/Up-350-000-London-motorists-facing-12-50-DAY-charge-Ultra-Low-Emission-Zone-expanded.html Link to post Share on other sites
Former_Poster Posted Saturday at 10:25 PM Share Posted Saturday at 10:25 PM Surely even SS giving our images away free we get *some* commission? Are you sure it hasn't sold? Don't rely on the app - its useless. Use the actual monthly list on the website to see if its sold. And if it hasn't contact them. FWIW google image search shows this image on Alamy too. Was it from there? Its also being used by stateindia, dailystarpost and plenty of other sites with the same SS creditation. (Do a google reverse image search). It would appear to have sold at least 10 times. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Travers Lewis Posted Saturday at 11:02 PM Author Share Posted Saturday at 11:02 PM I didn't realise other sites were using it as well. Thanks for the info. I've been through my earnings summery on the website just now, month by month and that image definitely hasn't sold. I also have it on alamy as can be seen by the google reverse search but it hasn't sold there either. Plus its credited shutterstock on all of the sites, if it is indeed stolen, why would they credit who they stole it from? I have emailed infringementclaims@shutterstock.com with my findings and waiting for a reply. Link to post Share on other sites
Elliott Cowand Jr Posted Sunday at 12:02 AM Share Posted Sunday at 12:02 AM 42 minutes ago, Travers Lewis said: I didn't realise other sites were using it as well. Travers, I've had two similar situations. No sale on an image used twice by one website. I contacted the user directly and after some double talk payment suddenly appeared. In the second example, a photo sold exactly once for use on a radio station website. Their network forwarded the story onto almost 85 seperate local radio station websites. For that I was got paid just 10 cents! Something else to watch for, apparently buyers have the right to reuse your photo over and over without repurchase. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Travers Lewis Posted Sunday at 11:34 AM Author Share Posted Sunday at 11:34 AM Thanks. I have emailed the Daily Mail to get their response as it looks like the article originated from there. Now it's just a waiting game to see who responds first, SS or the Mail. 11 hours ago, Elliott Cowand Jr said: Something else to watch for, apparently buyers have the right to reuse your photo over and over without repurchase. I've found that too with an image I sold of a theatre, it keeps appearing on "The Stage" website multiple times, Ironically on stories about performance artists rights. Link to post Share on other sites
Alexandre Rotenberg Posted Sunday at 11:51 AM Share Posted Sunday at 11:51 AM Daily Mail is part of a large group and one of the sister companies may have purchased a license, which can be used across all the companies under the RF model 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Travers Lewis Posted Sunday at 11:58 AM Author Share Posted Sunday at 11:58 AM It could've but the image hasn't sold, at least from what I can see from my contributor dashboard. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
HodagMedia Posted Sunday at 04:10 PM Share Posted Sunday at 04:10 PM 4 hours ago, Travers Lewis said: It could've but the image hasn't sold, at least from what I can see from my contributor dashboard. That's what makes this most interesting. Credited to SS and never downloaded. I look forward to seeing what you find out. Just for interest, look at the last page and move forward. Any 10c downloads will be there, as it was only downloaded one time, if you are correct? https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings/top-performers?page=1&date_range=0&sort_direction=desc&per_page=100&language=en Of course I could be mistaken and it was downloaded before June and for more money? Just an idea. Not only that, sometimes it's fun to look back at what has sold. 15 hours ago, Elliott Cowand Jr said: ... a photo sold exactly once for use on a radio station website. Their network forwarded the story onto almost 85 seperate local radio station websites. For that I was got paid just 10 cents! Something else to watch for, apparently buyers have the right to reuse your photo over and over without repurchase. That's called syndicated feed, also you mention network? See if the license allows that. (I'm a bit busy to always be finding answers in the TOS) It's not another use, it's one use. And of course, that stinks for 10¢ but just pointing out, it could be perfectly allowed use. 4 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said: Daily Mail is part of a large group and one of the sister companies may have purchased a license, which can be used across all the companies under the RF model Quite true, but the odd detail is, the image has no recorded downloads at all. I'm assuming that the daily mail doesn't have some plan, where all downloads are reported once a month. I always thought that SS downloads were relatively, real time, or at least the same day. I hope @Travers Lewis gets a clear answer. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
oleschwander Posted Sunday at 08:32 PM Share Posted Sunday at 08:32 PM 23 hours ago, Travers Lewis said: The funny thing is I haven't sold that picture but they have credited myself and Shutterstock. It happens now and then (too often!) that images which haven’t been sold suddently pops up in a media. I think it’s like goods disappears from shoops without getting paid for - I think it’s called ‘shrinkage’. Do you have the image on other sites ..? Link to post Share on other sites
Travers Lewis Posted Sunday at 08:44 PM Author Share Posted Sunday at 08:44 PM 10 minutes ago, oleschwander said: It happens now and then (too often!) that images which haven’t been sold suddently pops up in a media. I think it’s like goods disappears from shoops without getting paid for - I think it’s called ‘shrinkage’. Do you have the image on other sites ..? Only on Alamy but not sold there. It's not on any of my social media either. Link to post Share on other sites
oleschwander Posted Monday at 06:23 AM Share Posted Monday at 06:23 AM 9 hours ago, Travers Lewis said: Only on Alamy but not sold there. I would go after Daily Mail first to get an answer where they got it from and then contact SS again. I have the idea that SS eventually pays out when they realize it’s their fault? God knows how many ‘slips’ there are ...? Lot of work for 10 cent, but I think this is about principles ... Link to post Share on other sites
oleschwander Posted Monday at 06:26 AM Share Posted Monday at 06:26 AM On 11/22/2020 at 1:02 AM, Elliott Cowand Jr said: apparently buyers have the right to reuse your photo over and over without repurchase Yes they have. By the way - in your first example you must have got the money from SS ..? Link to post Share on other sites
Former_Poster Posted Monday at 12:42 PM Share Posted Monday at 12:42 PM Reuse is quite common (i see the same few images of mine show up on BBC and other places regularly and they were bought *years ago*). The main problem is if SS hasnt paid him for it. Is it an oversight and if it is, how many other images and people is this happening to with nobody noticing? Link to post Share on other sites
oleschwander Posted Monday at 01:23 PM Share Posted Monday at 01:23 PM 44 minutes ago, Former_Poster said: The main problem is if SS hasnt paid him for it. Is it an oversight and if it is, how many other images and people is this happening to with nobody noticing? Exactly. This can make a huge profit with 200 millions images. Link to post Share on other sites
Former_Poster Posted Monday at 01:26 PM Share Posted Monday at 01:26 PM Its not the first time its been heard of either - admittedly rate but there are a few forum and MSG forum posts from people with the same. Most people wouldn't know - if an image has ever sold before, as you don't know who bought it, you have no idea if where you're seeing it was from that sale or not. You can only track images for this use if they've never sold. That makes me uncomfortable. I've got a moderately sized portfolio - of the media thats sold, most have sold 10s or hundreds of times. There's no way i can tell if any have been sold and not been paid for. Link to post Share on other sites
Travers Lewis Posted Monday at 05:23 PM Author Share Posted Monday at 05:23 PM UPDATE: I've just received an email response from the Daily Mail. "Thank you for your email. It may help to know that we have an account with Rex Shutterstcok for images used. I'm afraid we are unable to comment on any arrangement you may have with them regarding payment - they are not a part of our publishing group. We respectfully suggest that you take up this issue directly with them, as you advise you are doing." Still nothing heard from Shutterstock yet. @Kate Shutterstock Can you look into this please? Link to post Share on other sites
Travers Lewis Posted Monday at 10:02 PM Author Share Posted Monday at 10:02 PM Iv'e just received an update from Shutterstock saying "There is no record of anyone downloading this image, including a comp". I replied asking how to go forward as that's literally all the email said and didn't seem remotely interested that the image may have been stolen. Link to post Share on other sites
oleschwander Posted Monday at 10:29 PM Share Posted Monday at 10:29 PM 30 minutes ago, Travers Lewis said: Iv'e just received an update from Shutterstock saying "There is no record of anyone downloading this image, including a comp". I replied asking how to go forward as that's literally all the email said and didn't seem remotely interested that the image may have been stolen. Nice that you got an answer from SS. Then I would go for Daily Mail - a lot more profit than SS 10 cent ...! An interesting case ... Link to post Share on other sites
Former_Poster Posted Monday at 11:03 PM Share Posted Monday at 11:03 PM 1 hour ago, Travers Lewis said: Iv'e just received an update from Shutterstock saying "There is no record of anyone downloading this image, including a comp". I replied asking how to go forward as that's literally all the email said and didn't seem remotely interested that the image may have been stolen. Next step i'd be sending them direct links and google image search hits showing that image along with the SS/yourname credit that appears. They got it from somewhere and the Daily Mail isnt buying stolen SS images from Pakistanis on facebook - it has legal, paid for accounts. This is entirely SS problem - it came from them for sure. Again, if SS has missed this then how many more is it missing... Link to post Share on other sites
oleschwander Posted yesterday at 07:53 AM Share Posted yesterday at 07:53 AM 8 hours ago, Former_Poster said: They got it from somewhere and the Daily Mail isnt buying stolen SS images I’m sure you’re right. But the Travers have to have some evidence from Daily Mail when SS claimes that it’s not sold vua them. Embarrasing for SS if they are wrong and something that will not keep Daily Mail to buy images here. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip Armitage Posted yesterday at 08:57 AM Share Posted yesterday at 08:57 AM could be DM just did a right click copy and thought seeing as they were crediting SS and yourself it was all legit. I had something similar uplifted from Dreamstime, never paid for but just credited. I tried to set "copytrack" onto them but they weren't all that interested Link to post Share on other sites
Former_Poster Posted yesterday at 12:50 PM Share Posted yesterday at 12:50 PM 4 hours ago, oleschwander said: I’m sure you’re right. But the Travers have to have some evidence from Daily Mail when SS claimes that it’s not sold vua them. Embarrasing for SS if they are wrong and something that will not keep Daily Mail to buy images here. It's not just the DM though - its on about 15 different unrelated sites in many different countries (not just the same group) all with his SS credit tag. Very unlikely that someone stole it from one place and spread it to all those unconnected users. Ultimately the image is only on Alamy or SS (not social media) so it had to originate from one of those. And all the credit tags say it was SS. This has happened before and eventually the bug got "fixed" for someone who got credited after complaining a lot so its not the first time this has been heard of. Link to post Share on other sites
oleschwander Posted yesterday at 03:41 PM Share Posted yesterday at 03:41 PM 2 hours ago, Former_Poster said: This has happened before and eventually the bug got "fixed" for someone who got credited after complaining a lot so its not the first time this has been heard of. Yes - shit happens ... 😁 Link to post Share on other sites
Emily Veinglory Posted 18 hours ago Share Posted 18 hours ago If SS insists they didn't buy it you might cause a heated exchange between them and the customer by sending a DMCA takedown notice. Taken SS at their word ... Link to post Share on other sites
paula french Posted 6 hours ago Share Posted 6 hours ago I sold photos to REX Shutterstock directly a few years ago - they contacted me , and from memory they paid really well - maybe contact them directly? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now