Don't even try taking my lawnmower he-he-he.. 

Thanks for advice, i have deleted those files from other stocks and certainly agree that other people's work should not be copied, but better used as reference and inspiration. Copying is boring and creating new is cool. Wish good sales to everyone!

Quote from: horrorshow on July 31, 2012, 17:53

... and certainly agree that other people's work should not be copied, but better used as reference and inspiration. Copying is boring and creating new is cool...

Actually, you shouldn't use other people's work as reference material. If you're creating something for stock that is based on another work, such as a reference photo, illustration, or any other visual reference, that reference material must be your own creation as well. In fact, some companies like istock require you to show your reference material when uploading an image that appears to have been derived from another image.

Copying isn't just boring. It's illegal. And in this business, it will get you shut down quickly.

EmberMike, whether you meant to or not, you've got me thinking. I'm sure this has been debated and argued before courts many times, but how much referencing is too much?  I think most photographers look at the works of others and glean ideas and inspiration from them.  When does it become copying?  In the realm of stock, is there a difference when the subject is a simple object (eg., the infamous isolated tomato) and when the subject portrays a concept in a particular way (an isolated apple wrapped with measuring tape to illustrate the idea of dieting)?

These questions are currently bothering me quite a bit as I find myself in that exact situation. Awhile back, I saw a photo in a magazine which illustrated a concept in a way that I really liked (for discussion sake, let's pretend it was the apple wrapped in measuring tape -- the actual concept is roughly that simple).  At that point, I marked that as an idea I would to try.  Several months have passed, and just this week I got around to shooting the image.  I've mostly completed the editing, and I've taken a quick look to see how saturated the market is with similar images.  There are not a whole lot, but there are definitely a handful of other photographers who have also implemented the concept in the same or very similar way (okay, the apple concept has many more occurrences than the image I have taken).  Now, I read your comment, and I pause.  I hadn't considered uploading this image to be a violation of anyone else's work, but I am no longer entirely sure.  The idea definitely came from the work of someone else. In that since it is copying.  However, it most definitely is not unique.  I could have come up with the idea on my own, and it would have been fine then.  But, I didn't.

Anyway, I am not trying to detract from the OP's topic, but your comment has me thinking.  I certainly do not want to be stealing anyone else's creative work, and I definitely want my work to be ethically created.  I may hold off on uploading this image until I have thought through where the boundaries are a bit more.

EmberMike, whether you meant to or not, you've got me thinking...

...I am not trying to detract from the OP's topic, but your comment has me thinking.  I certainly do not want to be stealing anyone else's creative work, and I definitely want my work to be ethically created...

My comment was actually more about vector images, since that is the type of work the OP was doing. When I think of "reference material" as it relates to vector images and illustration, it's more to do with using an existing image as the basis for a new image. Creating an illustration from a photo, for example. In that regard, it is 100% not allowed in stock. Even if the resulting image is significantly different, we are not supposed to use any reference material in any way that isn't our own.

As it relates to photography, it seems like more of a gray area. A "reference" in illustration could be something that you literally trace over. Obviously that's a copy. A "reference" in photography can't be traced per se, but it can be the basis for a new photo, setting up a shot similarly, using similar props, models, etc. In a sense, it's a tracing as well. But it's harder to define and harder to identify than a straight tracing.