MicrostockGroup

Thank you Racephoto, the link was very useful and the story instructive. I repeat once again I cannot show the images because of other persons involved, but promise to keep posted about the case if there will be developments.
Maybe I expressed badly, but my main interest was to hear opinion about a situation that basically involve copyright of ideas/concept. Then is true that a lot depends on how much similar the images are, because that can arise doubts.
I have told that honestly one of mine is similar (comparing to that Gentieu case, say the babies on white is pretty good as example of similarity), but how to prove that I didn't even know the work of this photographer? That is the main point.
My conclusion at the moment is that my portfolio should speak (if shown to a judge or jury) for itself, and demonstrate that I'm not one that have problem to have ideas... on the contrary. But this is really not a fair discussion, rightly, because we speak about 'nothing' if you cannot see my images and the images in this dispute.
I again thanks all for your interesting comments, point of view and insights about such a case. Will keep posted about developments. Still nothing from the agency...  just a short email to tell me that other images will be taken down as well (on the same case), this is the only answer they gave me still now.

P.S. the funny thing is that doing a quick search in the agency I found still several other images similar to mine (and by consequence to the one that photographer claim is his copyright...). I don't know where this whole story will bring, but the implications of it will make me change my approach to microstock. That is a sure thing.   

Quotes from here: Understanding Copyright and Related Rights

In short if you copied the original artists 'expressions of ideas' then you violated their copyright, so as said a handshake can not be IP protected as their is nothing original, there is nothing wrong in looking at other artists work for inspiration then using a number of inspirations to produce your own unique works that will identify you, but if the Photographer is know for a style of content or a particular image, if you then copy that and people could think that the work is from the original artist, you have infringed on their Intellectual Property.

There are many iconic photographs where the photographer can be identified just by the content and style, you would not copy them, just because a photographer shoot stock does not mean they should not get the same respect and protection.

Only you know how close your work was to the original, and you are correct not to link to or show this work, as public display could be a further infringement, it may be wise just to be happy that a Cease and desist route was chosen by the Photographer and not one of compensation, there are many that would have asked for a settlement.

David  

Thank you Adeptris for your ulterior information on this topic. Very very useful. I can pretty much say that no, my image is not taken from a photographer that has a unique style or unique vision. His image is particular, yes, but he has few conceptual images on his website. Surely I should not be accused of copying his style at least.

Another question arise in my mind now, because I have same images in other two microstock agencies... what should I do about them? Just sit and wait what happens?
In fact I never got a direct communication from him or his attorneys, only communication came through the agency, informing me of why they deleted some my images.

I'm still not so sure that he is not determined to go for something more than cease and desist. That is the step he took toward the agency, but about steps he could be taking then toward me personally? My images after were also sold already, so even who bought them could be at risk of some action from his part, isn't that possible?

Thank again very much for your expertise, information and advice. Must say that this thing is making me a bit anxious. Never imagined that could arise such problems from being a 'creative' person. But we always learn something in life...

 

It is not necessary to register with the copyright office in order to receive copyright protection. As soon as the work is in a fixed, tangible form, the rights are in place. Registered copyrights can, however, have an advantage in the amount of damages that are awarded in infringement cases.

Way, way better! No offense to the copier intended (in case I know him/her), but they just didn't do a very good job, compared to FD-amateur's.

And in the spirit of constructive criticism, the angle of the hammer should have been turned. It's hard to tell that it is a hammer at all. As a buyer, I can see where both images would be useful, but the execution of FD-amateurs shot is just far better.

Oh, will I be sued for copying thumbtacks on white background or for a top view of a loose red satin sheet?

The credit for this shot goes entirely to the model, it was his concept too. In fact he's a heck of a photographer and also a member on this forum. KB: I also tend to overdo expressions since they can make or break a shot.

To stay on topic: what if his copy was better? Of course you will have the advantage of being longer online, but that effect will fade out after a while. The fact stays that with the crowd-sourcing model in Microstock, derivative images as defined by PACA are de facto "legalized", so there is not much you can do against it. That's why the OP (that doesn't reveal his material) probably belongs to the Macro/RM world.

Well, it's about a month later and I see wiseguy has not returned. I wonder what the outcome of his problem was?

IS have hinted more than once that the whole business of people copying ideas is something which they are planning to address. I'm looking forward to that.

Forget the law etc - this is just about playing nice. And a company like IS is big enough and community minded enough to be able to put something in place.

Even some of the biggest contributors are likely to do a "one of those" if they see something obvious which they did'n think to.

You know who you are ....