Author Topic: Another thief (Read 21609 times)

Lizard · « **on:** September 28, 2008, 20:00 »

Well just wanted to say I found one of my borders in another portfolio so you may want to check for your work.

Anyway here It is on Fotolia forums

http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=14358

If someone can find the same guy on another sites , please let me know

petrol · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2008, 00:22 »

Your post was deleted, so maybe post the link of that guys portfolio here?

Lizard · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2008, 05:58 »

Mine : http://www.fotolia.com/id/2992335

His: http://eu.fotolia.com/id/9288214

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2008, 06:06 »

did you contact fotolia support?

Lizard · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2008, 06:10 »

Yes I did

leaf · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2008, 06:18 »

Quote from: Lizard on September 29, 2008, 06:10

Yes I did

let us know what you find out

Susan S. · « **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2008, 08:27 »

Given that the person concerned has a Peanuts cartoon copy in his portfolio,
http://eu.fotolia.com/id/9512176
one can only surmise (a) that Fotolia reviewers need a quick visual education (b) the contributor's command over the intricacies of copyright law is rather limited!

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #7 on:** September 29, 2008, 08:50 »

This is an image of the Character Emily the Strange. http://eu.fotolia.com/id/9288122

There is someone on DT with the same name but they don't have any vectors so I don't know if it's the same person or not.

Susan S. · « **Reply #8 on:** September 29, 2008, 08:53 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 29, 2008, 08:50

This is an image of the Character Emily the Strange. http://eu.fotolia.com/id/9288122

There is someone on DT with the same name but they don't have any vectors so I don't know if it's the same person or not.

The black cats are also from Emily le Strange (I was trying to hunt down the exact images he's ripped off before I posted publicly, but I'm sure you are right)

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #9 on:** September 29, 2008, 09:21 »

I've seen an uncropped version of that image on t-shirts at Hot Topics. I can't find an image on the web to link to for it though.

The cat's were most likely isolated from this image. http://bp1.blogger.com/_bS346TZfR38/RtRhoxUIZyI/AAAAAAAAAVA/S36wyV_GZ50/s1600-h/20050216-emily_the_strange.png

I found it on a blog site using google image search. Tineye is down right now so I can't use that to find the other image.

Microbius · « **Reply #10 on:** September 29, 2008, 10:13 »

wow, this is crazy, how did the reviewers let this guy's portfolio slide?! $:-\$

grp_photo · « **Reply #11 on:** September 29, 2008, 11:26 »

LOL

that is really funny and the contributor is probably a 13old hacker from siberia

.
I doubt that a fraud like this is possible at places like Corbis or Getty so maybe another reason why buyers prefer places like this.

Fred · « **Reply #12 on:** September 29, 2008, 11:54 »

Quote from: Susan S. on September 29, 2008, 08:27

Given that the person concerned has a Peanuts cartoon copy in his portfolio,
http://eu.fotolia.com/id/9512176
one can only surmise (a) that Fotolia reviewers need a quick visual education (b) the contributor's command over the intricacies of copyright law is rather limited!

This should make it very clear that someone needs to get FT's reviewers under control. I mean - a Peanuts Cartoon! Really!

fred

Pixart · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2008, 13:33 »

OMG you are right... that's Linus... the clever addition of the word DEVOTION just makes it look so different I never would have recognised them!

Bateleur · « **Reply #14 on:** September 29, 2008, 13:38 »

Things are getting out of control when someone can submit a Peanuts cartoon, copyrighted to himself (though I guess ClickClack would probably argue that it's perfectly okay because the word 'Devotion' has been added).

It doesn't matter if it's an artist ripping off a photographer's work, or a photographer ripping off an artist's work. The thief should get hammered.

In this free-for-all that's developing we're all in danger of losing.

Anyone know who holds the copyright to Charles Schultz's work? They should be told.

Pixart · « **Reply #15 on:** September 29, 2008, 13:46 »

I just sent a screenprint to the official Peanuts webpage per the last question on their faqs page.

Q. As a Peanuts fan, I often come across content on the internet that uses the Peanuts copyrights and trademarks in an unfavorable fashion, and I don't think it is authorized by United Media. What actions does United Media take to protect the work of Charles Schulz and the Peanuts property?

A. Read in over 2400 newspapers in 75 countries and 25 languages, Peanuts is truly a global presence. As you can imagine, United Media must fight copyright infringements on an on-going basis in almost every territory worldwide; a constant challenge, and an issue we take very seriously. United Media's legal team, assisted by vigilant Peanuts fans around the globe, is constantly learning of and reviewing various unauthorized content and, within the bounds of the copyright law, takes action where appropriate.

Lizard · « **Reply #16 on:** September 30, 2008, 05:28 »

Quote from: leaf on September 29, 2008, 06:18

Quote from: Lizard on September 29, 2008, 06:10
Yes I did

let us know what you find out

Just got the e-mail from Chad and he deleted that portfolio

leaf · « **Reply #17 on:** September 30, 2008, 05:33 »

Quote from: Lizard on September 30, 2008, 05:28

Quote from: leaf on September 29, 2008, 06:18
Quote from: Lizard on September 29, 2008, 06:10
Yes I did

let us know what you find out

Just got the e-mail from Chad and he deleted that portfolio

thanks for the feedback and nice to see that fotolia took quick action on this.

I wonder what happens to the earnings of a portfolio that is deleted. The earnings should go to the original creator of the content but that would obviously be a lot of work and perhaps not even practical in some cases, however it could technically add up to a bit of $$

Bateleur · « **Reply #18 on:** September 30, 2008, 10:42 »

I wonder if the perpetrator ... in this case a guy who calls himself Alexey Popov ... gets hammered.

It seems to me that it's no great loss to him if his balance is withheld. He's probably earned a fair bit from his ripoffs already, and he may well start up doing the same thing somewhere else.

I know that, at one point, Getty were sending sizeable bills to people they found using their images illegally.

If a few of these image thieves get a big bill for copyright infringement slapped on them, with a bit of high-profile publicity attached, it may make others think twice about it.

The practice seems to be becoming more common.

vikavalter · « **Reply #19 on:** September 30, 2008, 12:03 »

how it's even possible that something like this gets through review? howcome a person with acces to Internet and somekind of IT skills can be so separated from outside world, like for example not recognizing famous cartoons characters. And you can't blame on geography. I'm from Europe as well and I own panties with Emily's cat on myself. Never hold a newspaper with Peanuts strip in my hands and still recognize it. Where do they get such people for reviewers?

travelstock · « **Reply #20 on:** October 11, 2008, 14:38 »

Quote from: Bateleur on September 30, 2008, 10:42

I wonder if the perpetrator ... in this case a guy who calls himself Alexey Popov ... gets hammered.

It seems to me that it's no great loss to him if his balance is withheld. He's probably earned a fair bit from his ripoffs already, and he may well start up doing the same thing somewhere else.

I know that, at one point, Getty were sending sizeable bills to people they found using their images illegally.

If a few of these image thieves get a big bill for copyright infringement slapped on them, with a bit of high-profile publicity attached, it may make others think twice about it.

The practice seems to be becoming more common.

Getty still do send sizable bills for copyright infringement. Problem is that they often send them to the wrong people and sometimes in respect of work that they don't hold copyright to. You can't assume just because its Getty that they're always right.

Still these cartoons should be highly embarrassing to any stock site. It seems to be Fotolia that has the biggest problems with their inspection process. Yes they're rejecting a lot - problem is they're not rejecting the things they should. Ouch.

For contributors ripping off material in such blatant fashion and trying to make a profit from them, in some cases it amounts to fraud. I personally hope that the sites actually report these people to the authorities in the country that they're registered. If they're receiving payments, presumably there would be a money trail to follow.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #21 on:** October 11, 2008, 14:46 »

Quote from: leaf on September 30, 2008, 05:33

I wonder what happens to the earnings of a portfolio that is deleted. The earnings should go to the original creator of the content...

I agree with this sentiment.

I would hope that those artists that have their images stolen and sold, would be given the earnings that are seized.

I would also hope that the buyers would be reimbursed and notified that they cannot use some of the images that they purchased (e.g., the Peanuts characters discussed above). If the original artist was compensated for the sale, then (I would think) that the buyer should be able to use the image (since it is now a legitimate sale) and this is a compelling reason for the stock agencies to transfer the funds that they have seized.

This brings up a good question:

Lizard (and any others that have had their images stolen):

Have any of you been reimbursed for stolen images (by the stock agencies)?

Bateleur · « **Reply #22 on:** October 11, 2008, 17:02 »

Quote from: holgs on October 11, 2008, 14:38

You can't assume just because its Getty that they're always right.

I'm not assuming that "... just because it's Getty they're always right."

All I'm saying is that they're trying to take some action about it, however right or wrong that action is.

As an individual photographer, with limited means (and I guess that's like most of us on here), there's not an awful lot I can do if I find someone illegally using my images. I can ask them to stop, and that's about it. I don't have the resources to risk legal action and claims for copyright infringement ... especially if it's taking place in another country.

And the copyright infringers know this.

I'll lay money that this guy pops up somewhere else, doing the same thing. It's too easy to get away with it. What about that painter woman who won $4000 (and loads of kudos) for combining two photographs (apparently from Shutterstock) and claiming it as her own work.

What's needed if for some of these blatant thieves to get hammered, big time, to get the message across that it's unacceptable. The music industry is doing it, and the publishing industry will do it too. Why not the photographic industry?

Lizard · « **Reply #23 on:** October 11, 2008, 18:36 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on October 11, 2008, 14:46

Quote from: leaf on September 30, 2008, 05:33
I wonder what happens to the earnings of a portfolio that is deleted. The earnings should go to the original creator of the content...

I agree with this sentiment.

I would hope that those artists that have their images stolen and sold, would be given the earnings that are seized.

I would also hope that the buyers would be reimbursed and notified that they cannot use some of the images that they purchased (e.g., the Peanuts characters discussed above). If the original artist was compensated for the sale, then (I would think) that the buyer should be able to use the image (since it is now a legitimate sale) and this is a compelling reason for the stock agencies to transfer the funds that they have seized.

This brings up a good question:

Lizard (and any others that have had their images stolen):

Have any of you been reimbursed for stolen images (by the stock agencies)?

You know what is funny , he got that image from flickr probably , cause some kid got it somewhere and put a small resolution there few months ago , and it was quite popular there if I may add

.

Anyway he resided the image from about 300 pix longest to about 3000 and it got accepted on Fotolia recently , it was totally blurry , total crap quality , Im ready to bet that reviewer didn't even checked that image in a size larger than thumbnail cause a blind man can see that.

Probably those cartoons went in the same way.

About your question , the answer is no , but it wasn't sold a single time

stormchaser · « **Reply #24 on:** October 11, 2008, 19:40 »

I'm almost willing to bet the reviewer was in on it and passed the image(s). A thief this year at DT was on the faves list for one of the admins, and every piece of sh&t he submitted got passed. And some of it was really bad.

Which is why I hate that reviewers are in most cases also agency contributors.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another thief (Read 21609 times)

Lizard

petrol

Lizard

leaf

Lizard

leaf

Susan S.

NancyCWalker

Susan S.

NancyCWalker

Microbius

grp_photo

Fred

Pixart

Bateleur

Pixart

Lizard

leaf

Bateleur

vikavalter

travelstock

GeoPappas

Bateleur

Lizard

stormchaser

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors