dnavarrojr ....that's been on the 'to do' list for a while, now.  It is often found handy on Deviantart.com ....

Um, since when do I relinquish my rights whether or not my property is being sold?  By giving away my property he is interfering with my business and by accepting money for better access WinCustomize is profiting on the distribution of my property.

Also, this is from YOUR OWN Upload Guidelines:

Ripping/Art Theft

Also to be referred to as copyright theft. No uploads containing in part or in totality another artist's work will be accepted without a written authorization from the original author.  Permissions for use must be included in a .zip file with your upload.  Repeated offenses can result in removal of uploading privelages.

Copyrights/Trademarks

Images taken from other sources cannot be accepted without permission, including but not limited to pictures taken from movies, television shows, games, web sites, magazines, celebrity pictures. However, although they are theoretically also copyrighted, we will be lenient concerning corporate logos and OS ports, unless we are approached by the companies and asked to remove them. An exception: sports logos. Sport organization make money selling the right to use their logos and explicitly forbid the distribution of art containing their logo unless a license is purchased.

According your your guidelines the submitter needs to provide you with WRITTEN PERMISSION to use my property.  I assure you, if he did, it's a forgery.

And if I actually have to get a lawyer involved in this, I not going to settle for just removal of my property. I going after monetary damages.  This is my livelihood we're talking here and I take it VERY seriously.

Some of my items are still in his account, but I'll wait another hour before I email Spencer about them. 

I am curious as to what the threshold is for removing an account.  There are at least another 40+ products with footage from other artists still in his account (stuff that I recognize and found the originals on Pond5, ShutterStock and or Istock).  I've emailed all of the artists whose stuff I recognize, so I'm sure you'll wait until they contact you directly.  But at what point do you realize this guy is a thief and remove everything...?

Okay, thanks Spencer, I'll wait.

Alright, I found a bug...

When I use your search engine to locate one of my items, it does not show up.  Great!  When I browse the offenders profile, it no longer shows up. Woohoo!

When I go to the direct link I saved in my bookmarks, it's still there and can still be downloaded.  And when I search Google for that particular file, I find the direct link which takes me right to the supposedly deleted file and lets me download it.  The same goes for all of my items that were removed.  They don't appear when you search on the site or browse for them.  But if you know the product URL it's still valid and the file can still be downloaded.

Only "if".

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

Dumping from site DB takes time...

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.

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 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.

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...

 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.