*, the "Thumbnail" quality on PBASE is quite inviting to do exactly such a thing. I guess that is why the real stock agencies work with watermarks. Sorry to hear about this scam, but besides telling the sites to remove the images. Did you register copyright for these images? That might help to recover some damages.

Good luck

They are vectors, but it's obvious that your photos were used as source material. This guy has some nice stuff up on istock, but not these in particular -- probably because they are sticklers for verifying the copyright holder of the source material.

Those large unwatermarked images are really asking to be stolen by those who are so inclined.

Good luck!

I have all the originals at full size, with metadata. I don't hope to ever find this person. Just want him off StockExpert.

I don't think my images, on pBase are large enough for anybody to do anything serious with. Under 2MB.

well let us know how it turns out.

I would also really like to know where the $$ goes that people who stole images 'earned'

I have heard about accounts being closed and images removed which were stolen, which is good, but have never heard that the original artist is given the earnings... which i think we should, especially when we often are the ones who take the hit for credit card fraud.

the stolen images have sold 13 times... i hope you get the 13 sales worth of earnings.

good point.
is the thief ever even charged for theft?  if not, there is really nothing to deter them from doing it again.

You must be totally pissed off. I hate when people do such things. I don't know how people can risk so much... Every since and then we found some thief, and people still doing this. Does anyone know what happened to that woman "watercolor artist" that stole few images from SS?

...I don't know how people can risk so much... Every since and then we found some thief, and people still doing this...

They do it because they know that sometimes they will get away with it. In this case, they pretty much did. Those images were uploaded by the thief in May, and were only found out about now. Sure they'll be taken down soon, but who knows how much money this thief already got from these and possible other stolen images. Probably enough for a payout. They know that sometimes they'll get caught fast, and sometimes they'll be able to leave stolen images up for months at a time.

With people in so different locations, it is really difficult to go after someone doing this. You could sue him, and I think StockXpert would have the legal obligation of disclosing his personal data - if it's not fake.  But then, what if he is in another country?  It is probably more like "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm going to delete them" and get away with it.  Like if someone stole your car and you find him in the mall's parking, you approach him and he returns you the keys and walks away.

I don't think StockXpert can be asked to pay rimglow the amount earned by the thief, because it's not their fault that the guy committed a fraud.  Maybe if he has funds to be cashed, then they might, but I suspect they can not without legal order.

Regards,
Adelaide

I just discovered the same stolen images on Shutterstock!
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-p1.html?gallery_id=83940

Man, I'm going to have to go through every microstock site to hunt this down. What a drag.

It's actually a good thing that this guy is distributing your images on microstock sites. At least then you can do something about it, and the sites will delete the images. There is this guy Garcya, selling and giving away vectors from microstock sites on his own website, based in Russia. He's been at it for over a year now, he's been reported to all the microstock sites, and yet there's no way to shut him down. He still has some of the top selling vectors from SS on his site as free downloads. It's ridiculously blatant, yet there is very little anyone can do about it.

I wonder if I should notify all the sites that he appears on? He's only using my stuff on StockXpert & Shutterstock. Waste of time? Would they even care?

Shutterstock is known to be very rigid about it.  I'm almost sure they take action on him even probably erase his portfolio

Said he never realized they were copyright protected. (even though it clearly states such, under each title)

I think it is possible he actually did not realize the copyright issue even if he knows that your PHOTO are copyrighted.

My opinion is that many vector artists do not know (or prefer not to think about it) that it is not allowed to trace a photo as this is a derivative work.

If one look at some vector artists portfolio with many silhouettes of people, one can wonder whether they actually own the copyright on the original photo. Is it really believable that a pure vector artist with no photo in his portfolio shoot photos of so many beautiful girls as a source for their tracing?

I agree that some very talented artists may draw the silhouette by hand or use a 3D character as a reference, but I guess that many do use photo they did not shoot themselves.

But I may be wrong 

...If one look at some vector artists portfolio with many silhouettes of people, one can wonder whether they actually own the copyright on the original photo. Is it really believable that a pure vector artist with no photo in his portfolio shoot photos of so many beautiful girls as a source for their tracing?...

Why is it so unbelievable that someone would shoot photos just as reference material? Maybe some people have good shots of people walking in profile, suitable for a nice silhouette, but the rest of the photo isn't suitable for stock? Or the overall size of the image is too small for stock?

I've got a decent camera, but I don't shoot photos for stock. Just for reference material. Nice to know you'd just assume that I'm a thief, though.

Why is it so unbelievable that someone would shoot photos just as reference material? Maybe some people have good shots of people walking in profile, suitable for a nice silhouette, but the rest of the photo isn't suitable for stock? Or the overall size of the image is too small for stock?

You you read at my post carefully, you will see that I never said that all vector artists are thefts. I'm quite sure that most actually shoot photos as references. But I also suspect that some don't.

Silhouettes are quite often young and sexy women in various studio poses: do you really think that ALL vector artists which have hundreds of different silhouettes in their portfolio are also photographers and hire so many different models to shoot only references for their vector tracing and do not try to also produce stock photos which would sell a lot?

I have some doubt, but I may indeed be wrong.

Concerning your vectors, I don't understand why you take my remark for yourself as you have only one or two silhouette in your portfolio 

You you read at my post carefully, you will see that I never said that all vector artists are thefts. I'm quite sure that most actually shoot photos as references...

Concerning your vectors, I don't understand why you take my remark for yourself as you have only one or two silhouette in your portfolio...

I read and re-read your post. You said, " Is it really believable that a pure vector artist with no photo in his portfolio shoot photos of so many beautiful girls as a source for their tracing?" To me, that says that someone without photos in their portfolio (such as me) likely doesn't use their own source material. If that's not what you meant, then fine, no harm. But that's what you said: "...a pure vector artist with no photo in his portfolio..."

I know you didn't mean anything directly towards anyone in particular. It just came across as generalizing vector artists who do silhouettes as being thieves. 

...I like this one...

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-5422147-hundreds-dogsilhouettes.html

ps not one photo in the collection...

Again, I ask, why is it so unbelievable that someone might use legit source material and never upload a photo? And how hard would it be to go to a park for a couple hours and get plenty of source photos of dogs? No releases needed for silhouette work. Just walk around and snap photos. Get shots of people walking dogs. Two silhouettes out of each photo. It's not hard to do. I'm working on some silhouette sets right now, and I've got hundreds of source images. I just spent some time recently in a mall parking lot getting good shots of people walking, car silhouettes, trees, (malls are great for getting isolated tree shots in those parking islands), etc. And I don't need model releases if I'm only going to make silhouettes with them, so the process goes quickly. Some people ask what I'm doing, but most don't mind and most don't even pay any attention to me.

My point is that getting this material for silhouettes is easy and fast, and it's very easy to believe that these guys with tons of silhouettes have their own source material to work from. If they are uploading to istock, they have to have it. I'm a bit surprised that everyone wants to call these guys thieves without having any reason to doubt the legitimacy of their work.

My point is that getting this material for silhouettes is easy and fast, and it's very easy to believe that these guys with tons of silhouettes have their own source material to work from. If they are uploading to istock, they have to have it. I'm a bit surprised that everyone wants to call these guys thieves without having any reason to doubt the legitimacy of their work.

Of course you are correct: it is easy to believe that many vector artists use their own references for silhouettes.

But this thread concern one vector artist who trace some vegetables from copyrighted photos: everybody call him a thief  because it was obvious that he use photos from another artist as references. It was a mistake, but if you look at his portfolio (which has been disabled at StockXpert now), he has only a few stolen images amongs many quite nice vectors.

When reading this thread, I was just surprised how easy it was to call somebody a thief because he has used a few copyrighted references while it is quite obvious to me that some "silhouette artists" do the same.

And if IS now require the source to be given when uploading traced vectors it may be because they have the same opinion.

It may be the reason why a search on IS with the keywords "silhouette women group vector" return 115 images while the same search on SS return 4000 results 

Silhouettes are quite often young and sexy women in various studio poses: do you really think that ALL vector artists which have hundreds of different silhouettes in their portfolio are also photographers and hire so many different models to shoot only references for their vector tracing and do not try to also produce stock photos which would sell a lot?

Why do you think taking a shot of your girlfriend or mate and vectorizing it is so impossible. After all, while looking at silhouette, you don't know if that person is young, sexy, if there was proper light or proper studio conditions. You see only outline.

Quote from: araminta on December 04, 2008, 17:23

Silhouettes are quite often young and sexy women in various studio poses: do you really think that ALL vector artists which have hundreds of different silhouettes in their portfolio are also photographers and hire so many different models to shoot only references for their vector tracing and do not try to also produce stock photos which would sell a lot?

Why do you think taking a shot of your girlfriend or mate and vectorizing it is so impossible. After all, while looking at silhouette, you don't know if that person is young, sexy, if there was proper light or proper studio conditions. You see only outline.

Outlines can be more or less sexy I would say 

And please, read me carefully: I never say it is impossible to vectorize your girlfriend. But have a look at the link I give as an illustration: those vector artists should have dozens of different girlfriends as well as dozen of different (boy)friends (for businessman silhouettes) and have enough time to shoot all those peoples in so many different poses and then trace them all... which is definitively POSSIBLE.

Getting reference images from google search is also very possible and a lot easier.

I just think that SOME (not ALL) vector artists choose the easiest way even if it is also the forbidden way.

Do you think that this is not possible?

I wonder if he is allowed to use these photos of Tiger Woods and Phil Michelson?  I am not a huge golf fan but these are very recognizable.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-18653608-golf-player-silhouette-vector.html

wow, wipe that egg off your face helix.
Is it possible that the artists own the original photo reference: yes.
Is it likely: not in the case of the Shutterstock guys who submit those files featuring hundreds of silhouettes. That's why the same artists don't have those silhouettes on other sites that require the upload of source material (e.g. IS)

don't waste your time here, report him to SS and he will be gone in seconds

--

oops thought I was on the SS forum.  Well anyway, I can't imagine StockXpert won't take the same action ... could only take a little longer.

wow, wipe that egg off your face helix.
Is it possible that the artists own the original photo reference: yes.
Is it likely: not in the case of the Shutterstock guys who submit those files featuring hundreds of silhouettes. That's why the same artists don't have those silhouettes on other sites that require the upload of source material (e.g. IS)

Excuse me?

My whole argument in this thread was that it shouldn't be so unbelievable that there are legitimate artists submitting legit vectors from their own source material. I responded to a claim on page 1 that vector artists without photos in their portfolios likely stole the source material for their vector silhouettes. Did I ever say that everyone on SS was on the up-and-up with their silhouettes? All I responded to was the implication that most vector artists steal source material. If you want to take this one case of true theft and assume that those claims about vector artists generally being a bunch of thieves was correct, then I think you'll be the one wearing egg.

Nothing here proves that vector artists are largely stealing source materials. Show me something that proves otherwise, and I'll gladly admit my wrong. Convince me that I'm wrong that the majority of the thousands of vector artists operating legitimately. But don't act like one case of real theft makes me some kind of fool for believing that this problem isn't the epidemic that some would like to make it seem to be.

And don't even try to act like this prove that most vector artists with any number of black silhouettes in their port are thieves. Who are you to make that kind of generalization?

Settle down with the mud slinging guys...Helix isn't defending every single individual with a silhouette in their port.  You can't stereotype every single artists as a thief, just because they have silhouettes in their portfolio.

Silhouettes are just too easy to steal - and it's too tempting for artists like the one that we caught in this thread.  It's not that most vector artists don't the right thing and use their own source material.  There are some cases when uncreative individuals that are hard up for money will do whatever they have to in order to try and make a buck. This was the case here. 

One guy on fotolia was proud of his (ugly ) works and putted it on the forum, i said it was a stolen image taken from internet but moderator said there was no problem.
So (i have a bad character)  i put links of that picture you can find on internet.
Result?
I have been banned.

P.S. Fotolia is full of traced image stolen and they sell a lot.