MicrostockGroup

Whoa. I just saw a couple of his files come through the recent uploads.

My "Vector Text" lightbox will soon have 20% fewer files. I don't know how he was able to get away with stuff like that so often.

"We're sorry but iStock does not accept illustrations containing text as a primary focal point within a composition"

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/3815234#108d6921

Well, a tut published over internet is supposedly to be used, but i think some IS rule must be broked, because images are almost the same. It's strange, because Russel have a very original work and don't need to do this kind of thing.

I wouldn't have thought you couldn't use methods taught in a tutorial. Not that I do, and if I did, I wouldn't make them so much 'the same'; but still, it's surely not illegal or unethical if you create them yourself using the tut?

It's frightening how much power the microstock agencies have in this regard.  It is great that portfolio's are pulled very quickly when a thief is found - but when the photographer / illustrator is innocent and there is just a misunderstanding or some other problem is creates a scary situation.

Sean said he didn't leave

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319712&messageid=6204822&source=rssforums

If I hear more from him, I'll post.

another contributor whose profile went offline is back...Maravic. Though when I click through to his port, it doesn't populate. I can view his images again though. A thread was started about him too in the iStock forums. I guess they take your port offline until they investigate. scary though that you lose your income indefinitely.

Tutorials are sort of a gray area as I understand them. And I always thought it was sort of an unwritten law that you learn from tutorials but don't actually use the resulting images in stock. Use the methods to create something totally unique.

The tutorial crowd is especially vicious when it comes to people using images created from tutorials for profit. I was accused of ripping off a tutorial image a while back, but in my case the tutorial was written long after my image was created. Might have been a case of the tutorial writer being a little too inspired by my image instead of the other way around. The trouble I had was that on the site where the accusation was brought up, public comments are visible on the image page. So I had to contact the site and have the accusatory comments removed so as not to damage my sales of that image.

What I took away from that experience is that the tutorial community are vicious with tracking down copy-cats, and my policy of not using tutorial-derived images as stock seems to be a good way to go. It's surprising that a guy like Russell would dare put his portfolio and income at risk by using tutorial-based images like that.

How can someone prove that you used the tutorial to create your files? It is somehow scary, there must be tons of images in tutorials over the internet that are similar to stock images and it is impossible for an artist to know every single tutorial out there.

Or this is a case of a tutorial were you had to signup and there is no doubt that at least you had notice of the tutorial and that your file was made after you had access to it. Even then, are ideas protected? Where is the line? What if you refine the technique learnt, get better results and use them?

I never heard from Istock: "Well, we don't accept images created from internet tutorials"

Wow, i was just looking for the thread in the illus forums and its disappeared. Hope russell manages to clear his name.