MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Who copied whom?  (Read 26573 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: March 03, 2011, 08:10 »
0
I deleted that photo.

But what is the real story behind the image?


grp_photo

« Reply #51 on: March 03, 2011, 09:10 »
0
I was looking for years for a picture like this - but I need it with a red apple! Anyone can execute it for me? I will buy it immediately ;D

Microbius

« Reply #52 on: March 03, 2011, 09:12 »
0
turned 18 today?? dont agree on the copying but this is just silly
  :'(

Microbius

« Reply #53 on: March 03, 2011, 09:13 »
0
I was looking for years for a picture like this - but I need it with a red apple! Anyone can execute it for me? I will buy it immediately ;D
rotfl  :D

« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2011, 09:34 »
0
turned 18 today?? dont agree on the copying but this is just silly
  :'(
dont please!  ;D

traveler1116

« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2011, 10:10 »
0
That was my point, not showing your port because someone might "knock off" your image while saying that the second photo was ok seemed a little funny to me.  

I say it's ok legally, maybe not morally or ethically. And it also could be just a coincidence, I have at least once "copied" a concept unintentionally. Only afterwards I saw an older, similar image with similar angle, similar concept and similar background. I couldn't remember seeing the image before, but I still made a very similar image (luckily, my was much better :))

(Okay I'm wiser now, I didn't see that also the keywords were copied)

I have also "copied" some concepts, but I have always tried to make them better or different. I think copying (both intentional and unintentional) happens all the time. The most important thing is to make your images 1) first  2) hard to copy 3) better
Isn't the concept "healthy eating", "dieting", or "apples are great for weightloss"?  The similarities seem to go beyond a concept to me.

« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2011, 14:44 »
0
That was my point, not showing your port because someone might "knock off" your image while saying that the second photo was ok seemed a little funny to me.  

I say it's ok legally, maybe not morally or ethically. And it also could be just a coincidence, I have at least once "copied" a concept unintentionally. Only afterwards I saw an older, similar image with similar angle, similar concept and similar background. I couldn't remember seeing the image before, but I still made a very similar image (luckily, my was much better :))

(Okay I'm wiser now, I didn't see that also the keywords were copied)

I have also "copied" some concepts, but I have always tried to make them better or different. I think copying (both intentional and unintentional) happens all the time. The most important thing is to make your images 1) first  2) hard to copy 3) better
Isn't the concept "healthy eating", "dieting", or "apples are great for weightloss"?  The similarities seem to go beyond a concept to me.

I see pretty young blond women carrying a scale around all the time while they eat their apple.  it's a common scene, isn't it?  ;)

RT


« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2011, 15:46 »
0
But in court I'd think that the ruling would be that someone intentionally created a derivative, which is illegal. 

Couple of minor points, firstly both parties would have to be from the same country otherwise no court would have juristiction and secondly and most importantly one party would have to prove that the other party had seen the original image in question before they created their "copy" (virtually impossible to prove unless the "copier" downloaded the image) for any possibility of a court case. Add to the fact that the images in question here are similar but not identical and as frustrating as it may make you feel but this wouldn't ever make it into a court.

To put this into perspective I have a shot of an apple on a white background, should I consider suing everyone else that uploaded a similar one after mine?

It's a similar shot, it's not a copy and nobody has broken any laws. That's not to say that a site may consider removing one of the images but that's nothing to do with the law.

In the early days of microstock there were a fair few traditional stock shooters who were accusing Yuri of the exact same thing  ;)

« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2011, 15:52 »
0
I once saw some fairly compelling evidence on a different forum that another microstock superstar started out systematically copying work from traditional collections. The superstar was most likely aware that these allegations were being made but did not respond to them in any way.

« Reply #59 on: March 03, 2011, 17:21 »
0
But in court I'd think that the ruling would be that someone intentionally created a derivative, which is illegal. 

Couple of minor points, firstly both parties would have to be from the same country otherwise no court would have juristiction and secondly and most importantly one party would have to prove that the other party had seen the original image in question before they created their "copy" (virtually impossible to prove unless the "copier" downloaded the image) for any possibility of a court case. Add to the fact that the images in question here are similar but not identical and as frustrating as it may make you feel but this wouldn't ever make it into a court.

To put this into perspective I have a shot of an apple on a white background, should I consider suing everyone else that uploaded a similar one after mine?

It's a similar shot, it's not a copy and nobody has broken any laws. That's not to say that a site may consider removing one of the images but that's nothing to do with the law.

In the early days of microstock there were a fair few traditional stock shooters who were accusing Yuri of the exact same thing  ;)

Well, these are pretty valid points and like I said I am not an attorney.  Just my interpretation of the PACA copyright Commandments.  Thanks for your point of view.

« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2011, 18:31 »
0
Good heavens, this guy too!!  Blatant copying!  At least he threw in the tape measure to throw you off of Yuri's.

http://en.fotolia.com/id/17224202

RT


« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2011, 18:54 »
0
Well, these are pretty valid points and like I said I am not an attorney.  Just my interpretation of the PACA copyright Commandments.  Thanks for your point of view.

Sure no problem, one thing to remember when quoting the PACA commandments is that those commandments are...well they are not commandments they are the PACA interpretation. There is no international copyright commandments, we have the Berne convention which is a type of international recognition of common copyright law although even within itself it states the copyright law of the country in which the copyright is held will apply i.e. PACA can write whatever they like but it's pretty much irrelevant to anyone outside of the US.

Personally I think it comes down to a matter of opinion whether this person has a) copied, b) been inspired by the concept, c) created a derivative work or d) just had the same idea for a photo.

« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2011, 19:10 »
0
Well, these are pretty valid points and like I said I am not an attorney.  Just my interpretation of the PACA copyright Commandments.  Thanks for your point of view.

Sure no problem, one thing to remember when quoting the PACA commandments is that those commandments are...well they are not commandments they are the PACA interpretation. There is no international copyright commandments, we have the Berne convention which is a type of international recognition of common copyright law although even within itself it states the copyright law of the country in which the copyright is held will apply i.e. PACA can write whatever they like but it's pretty much irrelevant to anyone outside of the US.

Personally I think it comes down to a matter of opinion whether this person has a) copied, b) been inspired by the concept, c) created a derivative work or d) just had the same idea for a photo.

Some of your arguments might be on point but you have ignored the bigger picture, the whole picture.  he not only copies the concept, the idea, the pose but also THE KEYWORDS AND TITLE.  No court in any land would ignore this fact; he saw the image, he copied the image, he copied the keywords and he copied the title.

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2011, 19:28 »
0
Good heavens, this guy too!!  Blatant copying!  At least he threw in the tape measure to throw you off of Yuri's.

http://en.fotolia.com/id/17224202


LOL - If not for the tape measure I would have thought it was the same exact photo!  ;D

jbarber873

« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2011, 19:52 »
0
Well, these are pretty valid points and like I said I am not an attorney.  Just my interpretation of the PACA copyright Commandments.  Thanks for your point of view.

Sure no problem, one thing to remember when quoting the PACA commandments is that those commandments are...well they are not commandments they are the PACA interpretation. There is no international copyright commandments, we have the Berne convention which is a type of international recognition of common copyright law although even within itself it states the copyright law of the country in which the copyright is held will apply i.e. PACA can write whatever they like but it's pretty much irrelevant to anyone outside of the US.

Personally I think it comes down to a matter of opinion whether this person has a) copied, b) been inspired by the concept, c) created a derivative work or d) just had the same idea for a photo.

Some of your arguments might be on point but you have ignored the bigger picture, the whole picture.  he not only copies the concept, the idea, the pose but also THE KEYWORDS AND TITLE.  No court in any land would ignore this fact; he saw the image, he copied the image, he copied the keywords and he copied the title.

 Keywords and titles cannot be copyrighted. They can be trademarked, but none of this rises to that level of unique and original creation.There is no court that would take any consideration of the keywords and title in this case. As for the photo, microstock photographers have to realize that they are building on a visual language that predates the entire industry. I'm sure a careful image search could find something that was done before Yuri's shot. If the second shot was simply copied electronically and sold as his own, that would be infringement. But the second shot is a completely different image. The Idea, the concept, cannot be copyrighted, only the image as it exists. A derivative work is something created in another medium with clear direct reference to the original. The best known case of this is probably the Hal Davis image copied by the painter Jack Mendenhall. Davis won a judgement in his favor in that case. Davis had a favorable judge and a lot of money to pursue the artist. That isn't always the case. Could the image be removed at Yuri's request from other agencies- probably, but I don't think that he would waste the time on it. In the end, the better image will sell, whether it's the original or the copy. Whether it's done intentionally or subconsciously, everyone is beholden to artists that come before them, including Yuri. The point is to add something to make it special and with your own personal style. Yuri's work is a clear example of that ethic.

« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2011, 20:26 »
0
I agree that keywords and titles are not copyrighted but they can be use to show intent and previous knowledge of the image.  Where we disagree is: Clearly, this image is a copy as evidence by the concept, and copy of keywords and titles.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2011, 21:04 »
0
I see pretty young blond women carrying a scale around all the time while they eat their apple.  it's a common scene, isn't it?  ;)
I thought I must be the only person who wondered what that was all about!


« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2011, 00:04 »
0
I agree that keywords and titles are not copyrighted but they can be use to show intent and previous knowledge of the image.  Where we disagree is: Clearly, this image is a copy as evidence by the concept, and copy of keywords and titles.

The clear message from this is: when copying, do your own title and keywords.  ;D

« Reply #68 on: March 04, 2011, 01:02 »
0
  So, how many different ways are there to pose this concept (scale in other hand and eating an apple with the other hand)?
three? five?

You're joking, right.  I can think of 10 or more just off the top of my head.

I can even think of inverse ideas that match this concept.  What about a big girl or guy in a tight exercise suit with scale and snickers bar?

maybe that would be a good avenue for a microstocker: do Yuri parody shots; be the Weird Al Yankovick of Microstock

RT


« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2011, 02:25 »
0
Some of your arguments might be on point but you have ignored the bigger picture, the whole picture.  he not only copies the concept, the idea, the pose but also THE KEYWORDS AND TITLE.  No court in any land would ignore this fact; he saw the image, he copied the image, he copied the keywords and he copied the title.

I haven't ignored any bigger picture, and I'm not trying to justify what he/she has done, just pointing out that no laws have been broken. And for reference keywords and titles are not copyright protected.

ginasanders

« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2011, 07:13 »
0
Because the keywords:   Maybe he use Yuri's Keyword-Tool... 

Gina

« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2011, 07:39 »
0
Because the keywords:   Maybe he use Yuri's Keyword-Tool... 

Gina

Hehe. I remember a post in dt's forum where people were fuming that they had their keywords stolen. Then Yuri developed a keyword tool (which I use myself) which basically takes keywords from images already online and noone said anything.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #72 on: March 04, 2011, 08:59 »
0
Because the keywords:   Maybe he use Yuri's Keyword-Tool... 

Gina
Good point!

« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2011, 09:27 »
0
Because the keywords:   Maybe he use Yuri's Keyword-Tool... 

Gina
Good point!

Not so great.  Using Yuri's tool you're likely to end up with an amalgamation of keywords from many related images.  What you won't get is exactly the same list as another single images, along with exactly the same title and description, and exactly the same pose.  It may not be illegal, and it's unlikely to be litigated even if it were, but it's blatant copying all the same.  And it doesn't have to be illegal for one or more of the agencies to decide it's bad business to encourage such behavior and to take action against the one who copied.

« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2011, 10:15 »
0
...And now for something completely different: woman with scale and apple on video.
http://www.canstockphoto.com/fit-young-asian-woman-holding-scale-4241403.html


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
11747 Views
Last post January 20, 2010, 20:44
by a.k.a.-tom
5 Replies
2928 Views
Last post June 24, 2015, 10:01
by tickstock
8 Replies
4077 Views
Last post March 06, 2018, 19:39
by namussi
2 Replies
4543 Views
Last post October 05, 2019, 06:05
by Niakris

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors