Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Copyright infringement info

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

copyright infringement[edit]

Hello,
i found copyright infringement. A lot of our FP on a pirate account on Shutterstock here:
[[1]]
If you see your own work here, you can send a claim via e-mail support[at]shutterstock.comstruck, see below. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have identified someone else's FP from a pirate, then report it to the real author on Commons please.
-- George Chernilevsky talk 21:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I found 4 my FP -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I found a few of mine: [2], [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I believe that it makes sense to have seveal people sending emails about this "artist" Poco a poco (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just sent the email, thank you, George Chernilevsky for bringing it all up! Unfortunately I know that there are tons of misuses of our work out there. I ran a statitics once and realized that that of 8 uses only 1 is properly licensed (but still not all of the I count as good are correctly licensed). Very sad all this and nobody here (I mean up there at the WMF) is willing to help Poco a poco (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Note: Per [16], looks like you should be sending w:DMCA notices to infringementclaims[at]shutterstock[dot]com instead. See [17] for more info. Here's a template (by myself, very much not legal advice, licensed CC0 1.0), that may help:
Re: DMCA notice of copyright infringement

Dear Designated Agent,

I hold the exclusive copyright(s) to the below-linked photograph(s), which are being hosted on Shutterstock without attribution or my consent.

[links to photograph(s), '''both''' on Wikimedia Commons and on Shutterstock]

My contact information is below. I believe in good faith that Shutterstock's use of this material is not authorized by myself, any agent of mine, or the law. By virtue of holding the copyright(s) to the work(s) above-listed, I am authorized to provide this notice.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the forgoing is true and correct. Executed on (current date).

Respectfully,
/s/ [Your name]

[Your name]

[Your address, email address, and telephone number]

Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Thank you for the information. I'll send an email to shutterstock. --XRay talk 05:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Found 7 photos: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] --XRay talk 08:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Found another 2 photographs: [25], [26] --XRay talk 08:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdaniels5757, George Chernilevsky, Poco a poco, and XRay: It appears that Shutterstock account has now been shut down. Thanks for your prompt action.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, it's not shut down, at least I'm currently able to access 2,476 of "Attari Qureshi"'s photographs for the first time right now. Not sure how you can claim the account has been shut down. Eissink (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Same. It isn't down. Just send the mail. --XRay talk 08:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can still see this pirate account available. In the e-mail from Shutterstock, i was just informed that the review will take about three days -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For historical reference, I archived the profile pages: Images, Videos, Collections, About, and social media: Twitter (Facebook and LinkedIn not available). I advise you to always save such sites, because when they are gone, they are gone. Eissink (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Pinging other authors who have work there:

  1. User:A.Savin[27]
  2. User:A4ernyh[28]
  3. User:Aprisonsan[29]
  4. User:Archaeodontosaurus[30][31]
  5. User:Avatea[32]
  6. User:Bgag[33]
  7. User:Charlesjsharp[34][35][36]
  8. User:Christian_Ferrer[37]
  9. User:DeFacto[38]
  10. User:Ermell[39]
  11. User:Famberhorst[40][41]
  12. User:Fgharis[42]
  13. User:Jkadavoor[43]
  14. User:Kallerna[44]
  15. User:KTC[45]
  16. User:Llez[46]
  17. User:Martin_Falbisoner[47]
  18. User:Moahim[48]
  19. User:Podzemnik[49]
  20. User:Rhododendrites[50]
  21. User:SkywalkerPL[51]
  22. User:Spurzem[52]
  23. User:Uoaei1[53]
  24. User:Vengolis[54]
  25. User:famberhorst Yesterday there were still pictures of me. Not anymore.

Most of the account is just stolen featured pictures.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second ping.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors work has been purchased and abused elsewhere:

  1. User:Yaroslav_Shuraev work[55] falsely attributed and in use here[56] and [57] and [58]
  2. User:Ermell this work is here[59].

Yaro looks inactive.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck?! Are they serious? Stealing content from Wikipedia to post on shutterstock for sale? The insanity... Anyway - thanks for pointing it out. Really appreciate it. SkywalkerPL (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a new problem. Images have been lifted from Commons and other sites for sales on stock sites for years unfortunately. -- KTC (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and link. Shutterstock have multiple subsidiaries within the EU+UK. I have used their DMCA email address but sent a notice under EU Directive instead. Let see what their response to that is. -- KTC (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco one of yours I think [61] from File:Líneas de Nazca, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 52.JPG If I've "pinged" Poco a poco incorrectly, please do correct (and I know how next time) (I'm not yet a group member) PsamatheM (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PsamatheM, I already sent an email with the first 14 I found (see the top of the page), this one was included. Poco a poco (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I have sent a mail with the reference to seven of my pictures which are used there.--Ermell (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
I complained to Shutterstock in April. They never bothered to reply. We should demand compensation and a public apology. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now the number of images in the pirate account has decreased by 6. They deleted 4 of mine and two more --George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could not perhaps WMF legal play a role here? It seems quite obvious that Shutterstock is in the wrong here, so maybe they even might get sued over it, no? WMF could do a lot of good for Commons when bringing this to the headlines. Eissink (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    This was my thought, too. But first, I'm going to send now a second notice to Shutterstock, regarding three of my pics that I found later and didn't report yet. I will then also refer to this discussion, and kindly request to delete the whole "Attari Qureshi" account + their uploads, due to obvious mass abuse and the limited possibility to report every single one of the violations. In case they ignore or refuse, this would be quite a serious issue and I would ping some of the WMF Legal staff to this discussion. --A.Savin 12:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be the royal way, thanks. Eissink (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I saw my Healey Silverstone (17.06.2007).jpg. But what can we do now? Regards -- Spurzem (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just try to send an email like the template shown before. --XRay talk 09:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterstock ID (ref) of the response[edit]

For those who sent an e-mail to Shutterstock, I suggest that you indicate your ID (ref) of the response here. This will allow us to combine our claims into one joint case. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ref:_00D301GgSC._5003Z16KalP:ref --George Chernilevsky talk 09:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ref:_00D301GgSC._5003Z16KZHL:ref --A.Savin 11:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is referred to three pictures. Meanwhile I've found further three, so I'll have to send one more notice. --A.Savin 11:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, I wonder why don't they bother to block/delete the whole account? Most likely there's everything stolen. --A.Savin 11:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? 💰💲 Or they think there is maybe one gram not stolen among the 3 tons reported? -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Two references for 9 pictures: ref:_00D301GgSC._5003Z16Kajo:ref and ref:_00D301GgSC._5003Z16Kay9:ref --XRay talk 13:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ref:_00D301GgSC._5003Z16KqnG:ref --Ermell (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other websites[edit]

Should we let the innocent customers of Shutterstock know, so they can get refunds and fix the credit?

  1. https://oceana.org/contact posted File:Нерпичий_взгляд.jpg to their Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/p/CC_L0dhAQO_/
  2. redaktion@meine-ferienregion.de at https://www.meine-ferienregion.de/region/fr%C3%A4nkische-schweiz using File:Quackenschloss mit Eiszapfen 2140120 HDR-2.jpg
  3. info@ajaska.de their page https://www.tipps-zum-reisen.de/travel/das-sind-die-schaurigsten-orte-der-welt/2/ using File:Маяк_Анива.jpg
  4. pr@vpk.name at https://vpk.name/news/365921_voennye_mayaki_na_sahaline_otremontiruyut_i_sdelayut_turisticheskimi_obektami.html using File:Маяк_Анива.jpg
  5. info AT rewizor.ru on page http://www.rewizor.ru/special-projects/revizor-travel/novosti/voennye-mayaki-na-sahaline-prevratyat-v-turisticheskie-obekty/ using File:Маяк_Анива.jpg.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning refunds: I haven't checked all, but it seems like the bulk (if not all) are provided for free, if you take a trial account. Could it be 'Attari Qureshi' is a ghost account, set up by someone who somehow profits by luring clients to Shutterstock, using quality pictures from Wikimedia Commons as bait? Eissink (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
If you take a trial account, then you can download any 10 Shutterstock photos for trial. From any account, not just from this pirate --George Chernilevsky talk 18:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but that's beside my point, which is that it might be valuable to effectively attract new subscribers. But I'm probably thinking too much of it. Eissink (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
(With no experience but personal opinion) a legal case could be PR "released" to the press and I think would stand a good chance of being reported at least in the technology sections of the press (at least in the UK where online press loves reports they can cut and past taking 10 mins). In addition to raising the profile of Commons, it might also make Shutterstock more aware of copyright and in future take a bit more care. But for a legal case, who would it be against? The account holder is likely anonymous enough to make pursuing such a case a waste of time and I suspect that Shutterstock T&Cs give them "let-outs" passing liability to the account owner (particularly if the take action in a "timely" manner). Also, I suspect that whilst this particular account may be/get closed, 10 mins later a new account under a different name will appear with a new load of images taken from Commons breaking license terms. PsamatheM (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(IANAL and all that) Shutterstock terms with its contributors requires the contributors to indemnify Shutterstock, but that's between Shutterstock and the contributor. Shutterstock is itself the one selling the image on its website under a licence from the contributor. But yes, as a host, they almost certainly have an out if they act "expeditiously". -- KTC (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's been discussed 101 times before but, just as "Copyright" is/can be embedded in EXIF/IPTC , if Commons added the "License" (code e.g. "CC-BY-SA 4.0") to the EXIF/IPTC data then Shutterstock (et. al.) would have some means to vet and reject uploads. Of course those breaking license (as per the issues raised here) could remove that embedded data but they'd have to be aware of it, it would introduce additional time/processing for each image (making it all less cost effective). But were Shutterstock (et. al.) accept an image with Creative Commons license then they would be knowingly contributing to the breach (or failing to take reasonable steps). PsamatheM (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
»if Commons added the "License" (code e.g. "CC-BY-SA 4.0") to the EXIF/IPTC data« - "Commons" shouldn't write in EXIF/IPTC data in any way. Photographers / Uploaders should do this. You can find "CC-BY-SA 4.0" in my uploaded pictures. Nobody should change the metadata directly in the pics. --Stepro (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A suit against Shutterstock and John Does for infringement, negligence, and fraud could force Shutterstock to reveal the identity of the infringing John Does in discovery, but then IANAL.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Steprore: EXIF/XMP data: If you download the original photo then the EXIF/IPTC are retained but download any of the processed versions (e.g. lower resolution) and much of the EXIF/IPTC is stripped-out (including your Right Usage field data). But it was only a thought (even if an upload option as e.g. Lightroom does not support the XMP licence fields - as far as I can see). If a common practice then maybe Shutterstock et. al. could be formally (lawyers) they should check specified fields for specified licence codes. PsamatheM (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch[edit]

Active
Inactive

Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent pirated uploads[edit]

I noticed that the number of images of this pirate account increased by 2. This is our FP again.

It looks like it won't just stop. It is necessary to make publicity in the press and other mass sources of information, primarily in the USA -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More (Another) ?[edit]

Another? [67] from File:Monasterio de la Monjía, Golmayo, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 89.jpg (@Poco a poco - can't see it mentioned anywhere and looks a newly added one in that I didn't see it the other day) PsamatheM (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PsamatheM, I also reported that one. It looks like the guy is keen on the POTD from Commons, this one was on the front page yesterday --Poco a poco (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great spot on how he is selecting the FP. A sample of those listed on this page have shown they are all POTD. -- KTC (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for WMF Legal's statement[edit]

Dear ladies & gentlemen,

I hereby request you to pay attention to this discussion and consider further steps, as the copyright violation issue is quite severe.

To summarize the problem in short:

On Shutterstock, there is an account named "Attari Qureshi", who permanently uploads pictures from Commons in order to sell them via Shutterstock, without proper attribution, under false claim of own authorship. You may see his recent uploads, and compare many of them to recent Pictures of the Day on Commons, just as example.

Several of active Commons users, including myself, who are authors of the pictures in question, have contacted Shutterstock and requested removal of copyright violating content. Shortly after, parts of the content indeed have been removed by Shutterstock. But the problem is that a) the account "Attari Qureshi" itself is still active and not blocked, and is continuing to upload images from Commons in violation of the license terms; and b) not all authors of stolen images may contact Shutterstock, since several are no longer active on Commons and will not be aware of this discussion.

With that said, some days ago I requested Shutterstock to remove the account "Attari Qureshi" completely with all their uploads (which, most likely, are all or to a big part stolen -- be it from Commons or somewhere else); but they ignored my request, and the account is still active and uploading copyright violations. That means, an official notice from WMF and/or legal actions against Shutterstock might be in place now: this account with all its uploaded content from Commons definitely needs to be deleted.

I hereby kindly request WMF Legal to consider further action, as the copyright violation issue is obviously serious, and the interests of several Commons contributors are concerned.

Pinging Mdennis (WMF), TSebro (WMF), Jbuatti (WMF). Many thanks in advance, --A.Savin 15:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idea? (I've no experience of these types of things but just an idea to consider if you were looking for thoughts) 1. Add that Shutterstock seem excessively slow at taking down some images e.g. from Poco a Poco I believe reported ages ago and still on Shutterstock. 2. Add that proper DCMA requests were submitted (i.e. not some "informal" reports). PsamatheM (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

It appears all images have been removed or disabled (probably latter) from said contributor's account within the last few hours. You can still see a few thumbnail and count of the images if you click through to the account's Collections, but there are no images visible if you click through to the individual collection. There are 19 videos still available on that account, and I'm not convinced that all of them are problems free, but at least the stolen images are no longer available.

I don't know what pushed Shutterstock over the edge to finally taking action against the account, but well done and thank you to whomever is responsible. Which is just as well as one more day and I would have send them a Letter Before Action prior to possible legal proceedings as they had refused to remove my image after I refused to go down the DMCA route instead going with a EU Directive notice. -- KTC (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting know. Not speaking for others, but a couple of my pictures are still online though: [68] [69], whatever this has to mean. --A.Savin 02:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^^ These are both broken links for me. Maybe still in your cache? — Rhododendrites talk |  02:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: I agree, it's probably a cache issue on your end.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes now they are gone, thanks. --A.Savin 10:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats from Shutterstock[edit]

I received the following brush off on 27 Julyː Hello,

Thank you for your email. Our requirements for submitting Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") notices of infringement are below. You may send a proper notice in reply to this email.

If you misrepresent that material is infringing, Shutterstock may terminate your Shutterstock account, or you may face other legal consequences.

Infringement Notice Requirements:

1) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

2) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

3) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the Shutterstock to locate the material.

4) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the Shutterstock to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

5) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

6) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Only the copyright owner or their authorized representative may file a report of copyright infringement. If you believe content on Shutterstock infringes someone else’s copyright, you may want to let the rights owner know.

Please note that we may provide the rights owner’s name, your email and the details of your report to the person who receives the complaint.

For more information, please review Shutterstock's DMCA Copyright Infringement Notice at: www.shutterstock.com/terms/dmca-notice.

Regards, Lynne Shutterstock Compliance Team

Their "we may provide the rights owner’s name, your email and the details of your report" I find quite unacceptable. They would be providing your personal details to an unknown person your have no idea about and who has been involved in copyright theft! PsamatheM (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's normal. -- KTC (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other pirates[edit]

I found two derivative works of this on Shutterstock. Our FP and POTD are in demand.
Both copies has been deleted now. One of the accounts has been total cleaned up, the second, apparently, has its own author's images. Recently deleted IDs were 1173490909 and 694379146.
I didn't have time to send complaints. It is likely that Shutterstock itself has begun to conduct checks on our joint requests.
-- George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More pirates[edit]

Hello, Here I found almost all my FPs. On closer inspection, I noticed that this provider only seems to offer masses of images from Wikimedia. How can we turn this off? --Ermell (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found my photographs too - and no easy contact to inform Shutterstock. It's annoying. --XRay 💬 20:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does Shutterstock investigate infringement claims? contains an email address. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
I've send an email to Shutterstock for user Alpio and I've found two other users. But images uploaded by these two other users are only my images. --XRay 💬 06:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, post here links to all pirates. I'll also write letters to Shutterstock about this cases. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other uploaders Haseeb ahmad702, Cristian vega chacon --XRay 💬 06:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found another pirate:
Yaroslav Antonov. Help me please with checking his landscapes, insects, etc. -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Commons_Photographers_User_Group/Copyright_infringement_info&oldid=629919248"