dnavarrojr ...the issue is with interpretation of what constitutes:-

 "except as incorporated into Works for Distribution. Licensed Content may not be distributed to third parties as a standalone file or in a way that unreasonably permits the recipient to extract the Licensed Content for use separate and apart from the Work for Distribution"

Quoted from 3b of your site's "Royalty free licence agreement"

A person who mis-interprets that restriction and believes he is not in breach of the Licence is quite conceivably unaware of any wrong-doing on his part and may be subsequently quite mortified to discover his purchases were not suitable for his distribution as dream files, particularly with such clear references [on Pond5] to 'Royalty free licence'.

Not everyone is a Lawyer [unfortunately] and it is imperative that any online TOU such as these are as plain to all as possible...so mistakes of comprehension/language/interpretation do not arise.

I presume that the only way to obtain Pond5 'content' is via purchase which presupposes the people who have submitted 'problem' works here have purchased these works and fairly expected their use as dream content was allowed.

That does not make them deserving of the term 'thieves', it merely makes them perhaps deserving of 'got it wrong'...

Only "if".

If you don't tell anyone we won't either so they are 'gone'....

Dumping from site DB takes time...

Wow, you guys are real generous.   But once my stuff is no longer accessible, I'm happy and he's your problem.  Given he's a top contributor I can see where you'd want to try and give him some slack.  I imagine losing that many files would be a serious blow to your site. 

However, whether or not he believes it was okay for him to use my property, he represented to YOU that the works were entirely his.  If he's not a thief, then he's certainly a liar. Unless you're saying that he did provide you with the documents YOU REQUIRE in your upload guidelines in which case, it's my word that I never gave him permission against the documents he provided you and perhaps I need to call my lawyers after all.  But I doubt he provided those documents, otherwise you wouldn't have deleted the files.  Of course, if you're okay doing business with liars, that's certainly your choice.

I just hope it doesn't end up biting you in the rear because you now have precedent that he has falsified information to you.  And anyone else who comes along later can claim that you KNEW about him and did nothing.

But, like I said... once my stuff is gone, he's your problem. I do appreciate the discourse and how quickly Spencer moved on the situation.  I can see that you're good people at heart and I wish you all well.

The URLs are still in Google.  But before I switched jobs into Motion Graphics design I was a web programmer, so I know exactly of what you speak. In case any others (Brian ) are reading this, he's correct about the database issue.  So it may take a while for the URLs to become invalid.

Actually, you missed a few items I emailed you about... Resending to Spencer.

Thanks Dave. Great point about that guy being a known liar at this point. I read this one more time and when Island Dog chimed in I figured finally someone that can and will do some thing so I sent him links to the work. Also great point about if they take this seriously why is this guy still here...  Tons of work is stolen and in this guys portfolio and writing it up as a misinterpretation on his part seems grossly negligent to me. Also the amount of sticking up for him and trying to keep distributing the work with loop holes by a certain mod, not naming names was just ridiculous and infuriating to say the least. In the future I would suggest that things be handled with some understanding and compassion and less vigorous defense tactics...  

The works are/have been deleted.  

We can go back and forth about what the motives are.  Was it intentional?  Was it malicious?  I need to know all the facts before a complete action can be taken.  Coming to a site once and saying "everything has to be removed, and xxxxx member should be banned" is all well and fine, but we have to take steps to verify first.  If not, then anyone can come and accuse someone of anything and have their stuff removed.

If the person is found in the wrong, then we will act.

The issue is with the perception of reasonable expectation of rights transmitted to him through the purchase of your work/s.

"Royalty free licence" is particularly poor as a restrictor of use.

I like to think that a TOU or Copyright should have very clear and precise wording where there is exactly no opportunity for misinterpretation.

It's so easy to stipulate, along with all the groovy 'royalty free' 'compile it in whatever you like' etc you also include in really big letters...."When in doubt. Ask."

Or better yet...."No matter how you wish to use it - Ask FIRST."

My 'inherent' Architecture copyright [not legally required] is still the same as it ever was.  It has NO room for confusion.

None.

Thanks Island Dog, I feel OK leaving this in your hands and trusting you will do the right thing.

."No matter how you wish to use it - Ask FIRST."

I don't think that's totally possible in this industry, not this as in this place but as in video editing, what we cater to with our work. For me I think violations like this are pretty clearly evident. He got some thing from some place put it online some other place and said go ahead and DL it, it's mine. Right he has to say it's his when he uploads it? Your terms of use here state some thing to the extent he is the owner of said works?

I don't want to continue a back and forth I think were getting on the right foot finally, but some of the stuff that gets said is slightly offensive. I think its unintentional, but to side with this guy when there were steps he took to upload and claim rights, well that does not make any since to me. It's cool I'm done going back and forth over this, it seems like it will all be handled in an appropriate way now.

Ah, but they are only clear to those who see/access both the original and the 'rip'. When there IS only one or other of them to be seen it is reasonable to assume it's OK.

It's rare, but it does happen that a moderator checking an upload [functionality, etc] says "good try, mate...but that one's actually mine". and the upload is shown the door...

 There was no need to be insulting, rude  or immature about it to me or anyone else at WinCustomize.

Have a nice day.

 Now that we are going the right direction with this, here is a thought. WinCustomize is for and about graphics artists,and now you,  EternalSpline and dnavarrojr are members. If you would like for others to see and use your works legally, feel free to create some content for the galleries. You obviously have advanced skills in your field so if you want to be seen and recognized, WC is the place.

I think the benefits would be mutual but that decision is yours to make. At any rate, I'm glad things are being handled to your satisfaction, as I suspected they would be.

Take a look at the user numbers, 4,000,000+, and they are only the ones who register, not the millions of visitors the site gets...

I should add, my stuff has half a million downloads and I'm not even in the top 100... Where else can you get that kind of exposure?

Problem has been taken care of, no need to extend the thread beyond this.