Author Topic: Copycats (Read 16072 times)

picomatic · « **on:** April 16, 2010, 17:48 »

It’s really sad to see the growth of creative rip-offs in microstock. More and more NEW submitters seem to have no talent other than looking at successful work done by others. They then create a slightly different style of inferior quality of the original. I guess some wackos just enjoy stealing ideas and money from others. If you’re a copycat reading this SHAME ON YOU, and _________________________________ !

cthoman · « **Reply #1 on:** April 16, 2010, 17:59 »

This sounds like a spillover from the cupcake discussion on SS. That definitely opened my eyes to what other people actually think is copying or not.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #2 on:** April 16, 2010, 21:47 »

I wouldn't say so ... considering that our fearless leaders styles were not original to begin with and simply copycats of what was already the mainstream style for advertising for ... hmmmm ... more years than I can remember. LOL .. Micro has always been pretty sterile IMO and when you do come across something new and semi-groundbreaking it usually doesn't sell enough or at all and is there basically for other photographers to surf by and say that's cooooool ... and it ends there.

red · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2010, 22:45 »

Add to that all the "how to make money in microstock" sites who advise new comers to "study" the images of the top sellers...

sweetgirll · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2010, 23:00 »

I see more and more copycats in vectors....

People blatantly copying the top earners....

There is an illustrator that I love, he kinda set a trend some time ago,
drawing some beautiful "showgirls",
and ends up, his style has been copied by others now ...
I'm not talking about subject, or idea...I'm talking about artistic style...
and every illustrator has a particular style, that is like a tradedress,
with the exception of the ones that copy others...off course.

so I guess is a no man land now...that's really sad.

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2010, 02:35 »

It is annoying when you think of an original idea and have the only available image on the sites, then see other people making very similar versions. I complained once but never had a reply, the sites don't seem to care at all. I am guilty of looking at the top sellers and getting "inspiration", so perhaps I shouldn't complain when it happens to me.

Istock have an exclusive collection but how many of those images have similar copies available on the other sites?

Eireann · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2010, 05:20 »

@Picomatic,
does this have anything to do with SS's cupcake?
Just to remind you that the guy who did it is far from being a newbie.
He has a very large port, has been at it for a long time and has a billion silhouettes and icons and the such.
Plenty experienced, plenty of choice, plenty of sales, no need to resort to such methods.

Nothing wrong with being inspired. I do it all the time.
But that's a copy, plain and simple and he should take it . down.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2010, 05:46 »

I know a guy who was struggling to be accepted as vector artist at IS. When he finally made it, he started to upload hundreds of his vectors, but IS started to send him warnings that he is gonna be banned from Istock because his vectors were copycats of already existing work at Istock. So, he replied that problematic vectors are actually his original work, copied by other artists and uploaded to IS. He also gave few examples of his vectors, uploaded to StockXpert even before similar vectors from other artists appeared in IS database, but he was finally banned from Istock.
Now, who was right...IS or the artist, I don't know. It's possible they both had right at some degree.

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2010, 06:10 »

Quote from: picomatic on April 16, 2010, 17:48

It’s really sad to see the growth of creative rip-offs in microstock. More and more NEW submitters seem to have no talent other than looking at successful work done by others. They then create a slightly different style of inferior quality of the original. I guess some wackos just enjoy stealing ideas and money from others. If you’re a copycat reading this SHAME ON YOU, and _________________________________ !

The micro sites even suggest studying the best seller in order to learn what to submit. IE: They are asking new member to copy the best.
This is not new to micro or to photography in general, in fact any of the arts, COPY the other guy is the name of the game. To beat them ... out do them with better stuff and submit it before they do. Early bird gets the worm.

-Larry

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2010, 07:15 »

I went to look for this thread on SS, but what is the first thing I come upon?

"Learn How To Earn Money from Microstock at a Panel Sunday" : http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt80513.html
Speakers: Daryl Lang, Elizabeth Engle, Yuri Arcurs, Cathy Yeulet

Sigh.

The cupcake is obviously copied. There's not even a chance it wasn't.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt80527-0-asc-0.html

sharpshot · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2010, 08:14 »

Quote from: Whitechild on April 17, 2010, 05:46

I know a guy who was struggling to be accepted as vector artist at IS. When he finally made it, he started to upload hundreds of his vectors, but IS started to send him warnings that he is gonna be banned from Istock because his vectors were copycats of already existing work at Istock. So, he replied that problematic vectors are actually his original work, copied by other artists and uploaded to IS. He also gave few examples of his vectors, uploaded to StockXpert even before similar vectors from other artists appeared in IS database, but he was finally banned from Istock.
Now, who was right...IS or the artist, I don't know. It's possible they both had right at some degree.

I don't think the person who created the original images that were then later copied should be punished like that. Would be interesting to see how original these vectors are and what the copies look like. It is hard to judge without seeing them and if this is true, I wouldn't of accepted istock's decision without appealing it and asking them why they would allow this to happen.

melastmohican · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2010, 09:47 »

I do not know if you can protect something so simple like cupcake in example. Anybody who can draw can copy it in 5 minutes. This discussion is a pointless as problem of patents for software or business processes. If you allow them it would hurt innovation in long run.

loop · « **Reply #12 on:** April 17, 2010, 10:56 »

Quote from: Whitechild on April 17, 2010, 05:46

I know a guy who was struggling to be accepted as vector artist at IS. When he finally made it, he started to upload hundreds of his vectors, but IS started to send him warnings that he is gonna be banned from Istock because his vectors were copycats of already existing work at Istock. So, he replied that problematic vectors are actually his original work, copied by other artists and uploaded to IS. He also gave few examples of his vectors, uploaded to StockXpert even before similar vectors from other artists appeared in IS database, but he was finally banned from Istock.
Now, who was right...IS or the artist, I don't know. It's possible they both had right at some degree.

If they banned him, tey had to be pretty sure that he was the copycat, no matter what he said. While is true that IS has answered to complains sometimes removing copycat images, it is also true that if the plagiarized work it isn't too obvius, they tend to overlook the complaint. I'm talking of my own experiencie.

Klauts · « **Reply #13 on:** April 17, 2010, 11:32 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 17, 2010, 07:15

The cupcake is obviously copied. There's not even a chance it wasn't.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt80527-0-asc-0.html

Glad you think so, I thought I was going mad.

VB inc · « **Reply #14 on:** April 17, 2010, 11:42 »

Quote from: Whitechild on April 17, 2010, 05:46

I know a guy who was struggling to be accepted as vector artist at IS. When he finally made it, he started to upload hundreds of his vectors, but IS started to send him warnings that he is gonna be banned from Istock because his vectors were copycats of already existing work at Istock. So, he replied that problematic vectors are actually his original work, copied by other artists and uploaded to IS. He also gave few examples of his vectors, uploaded to StockXpert even before similar vectors from other artists appeared in IS database, but he was finally banned from Istock.
Now, who was right...IS or the artist, I don't know. It's possible they both had right at some degree.

I would tend to think he was most likely the copycat by your statement. If he was any good, he wouldn't have a problem getting accepted by IS. People usually copy other peoples work because they are usually in the dark for what makes an image a hot seller. This is a combination of skills and a general knowledge of stock industry. This guy abviously doesnt have the skills to get accepted into the IS library and without the skills, i would bet no knowledge of the industry either.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #15 on:** April 17, 2010, 12:32 »

He is a good illustrator, but I didn't really examine if his work is original or not. That was last year. I tried to find some examples to show you guys, but StockXpert is closed, and IS rejected him. I tried to find some of his illustration on SS, but I am not even sure if he submits there, so I gave up. I remember there was some tree with swirls, and some illustration of few leaves in a glass sphere. Of course there are many illustrations with these concepts, but the ones he showed me were obviously copied. They looked almost the same. And for these two examples his illustrations were almost a year older than the same illustrations of another guy, but.... maybe IS found some of his illustrations that were newer than some others... So, anyway, what I wanted to point is that ye there are many, many similar images, but I guess agencies (at least Istock) tries to keep an eye on this problem. I honestly doubt this can be stopped. We have to live with this because it's that kind of a business.

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #16 on:** April 17, 2010, 13:20 »

Quote from: Whitechild on April 17, 2010, 12:32

He is a good illustrator, but I didn't really examine if his work is original or not. That was last year. I tried to find some examples to show you guys, but StockXpert is closed, and IS rejected him. I tried to find some of his illustration on SS, but I am not even sure if he submits there, so I gave up. I remember there was some tree with swirls, and some illustration of few leaves in a glass sphere. Of course there are many illustrations with these concepts, but the ones he showed me were obviously copied. They looked almost the same. And for these two examples his illustrations were almost a year older than the same illustrations of another guy, but.... maybe IS found some of his illustrations that were newer than some others... So, anyway, what I wanted to point is that ye there are many, many similar images, but I guess agencies (at least Istock) tries to keep an eye on this problem. I honestly doubt this can be stopped. We have to live with this because it's that kind of a business.

Sounds like Milinz (MilsiArt on Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#gallery_username=milinz). I believe he posts in here as well

picomatic · « **Reply #17 on:** April 17, 2010, 17:35 »

Hi

No this was not about "cupcake" but i have looked at the issue and looks like
a copy to me!
Dates of creation are where the truth lies. SS offers no public info on dates, i prefer they would.

Whats interesting to me is that most the people copying my videos & images styles are not from the USA.

thanks for all your chats here........

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #18 on:** April 20, 2010, 22:14 »

Hi All,

Picasso once said " A good artist copies, a great artist steals ". This has been going on a lot longer than stock from writing to architecture and on and on. You name it if someone comes up with a good idea people try to copy and cash in. Look at it as the greatest form of flattery because getting frustrated will never change the outcome it will only make your life more stressful. There isn't an image idea I have seen in Micro that wasn't already done by someone else in RF or RM Macro time and time again years ago.

Good Luck,
Jonathan

Phil · « **Reply #19 on:** April 21, 2010, 00:58 »

to me the cupcake is to close, Milinz's stuff inspired me to do some fire. Some concepts are the similar but I'm not the same league and there is no way they could be a considered a copy (if I got that close I'd be pleased with myself, but wouldnt submit to sale anywhere).

but we have 'draganizing' an image, 'the dave hill' style, ring flash fads etc etc. I'm sure now with PS5 we'll see a big run on grunge hdr / tonemapped images.

i have magazines from the 50's & 60's with pretty girls holding phones doing the 'our operators are waiting to take your call', the clothing / hair etc styles are different but it is the same concepts etc. I dont think stock was around then but they may as well be stock shots. Not much is new...

PixelBitch · « **Reply #20 on:** April 21, 2010, 01:33 »

It's all been done before...we just need to do it our way to reflect our times...and those that can't do that copy those who can.

Quote from: Phil on April 21, 2010, 00:58

to me the cupcake is to close, Milinz's stuff inspired me to do some fire. Some concepts are the similar but I'm not the same league and there is no way they could be a considered a copy (if I got that close I'd be pleased with myself, but wouldnt submit to sale anywhere).

but we have 'draganizing' an image, 'the dave hill' style, ring flash fads etc etc. I'm sure now with PS5 we'll see a big run on grunge hdr / tonemapped images.

i have magazines from the 50's & 60's with pretty girls holding phones doing the 'our operators are waiting to take your call', the clothing / hair etc styles are different but it is the same concepts etc. I dont think stock was around then but they may as well be stock shots. Not much is new...

Randy McKown · « **Reply #21 on:** April 21, 2010, 02:03 »

Quote from: PixelBitch on April 21, 2010, 01:33

It's all been done before...we just need to do it our way to reflect our times...and those that can't do that copy those who can.

and those who can simply copy it by watching TV and looking at mall/catalog displays to see what the non-stock pro assignment shooters are doing. LOL

LadyDart · « **Reply #22 on:** April 21, 2010, 02:13 »

What do you think about this situation: one girl - a very popular illustrator on SS, decides to make some Christmas baubles only to find out that there is very similar photo allready on line - by another girl -very popular photographer on SS, then she contact her by pm, and gets "..it is OK, upload it.." answer from her. So, now you have unintentional copy on line and everything is fine...nobody complains, and you can choose between photo and vector.

ifongokea · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2010, 01:51 »

Hi all,
I'm not very new in microstock, but only active for 18 months or so.
I need some advice in this situation,
My image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/water-image2922941
and others image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-water-image10005785

What do you think?
Thanks in advanced

fotografer · « **Reply #24 on:** April 23, 2010, 02:04 »

I really don't see your point here. They are both images of water like 1000's of other similars. Nothing new or original in either and they aren't even very alike..

Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 01:51

Hi all,
I'm not very new in microstock, but only active for 18 months or so.
I need some advice in this situation,
My image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/water-image2922941
and others image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-water-image10005785

What do you think?
Thanks in advanced

ifongokea · « **Reply #25 on:** April 23, 2010, 02:28 »

Sorry for not describe in details.
Did see the splash on the right ? It's exactly a duplicate of my image.

Thanks

fotografer · « **Reply #26 on:** April 23, 2010, 03:14 »

The 2 images that you have put links to are totally different. Are you saying that in the place where it says "similar images" that your photo was showing there because now it isn't? In that place images from different photographers are shown so maybe it was just a link to your image. Try clicking on it and see if it takes you to your portfolio.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #27 on:** April 23, 2010, 03:32 »

Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 01:51

Hi all,
I'm not very new in microstock, but only active for 18 months or so.
I need some advice in this situation,
My image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/water-image2922941
and others image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-water-image10005785

What do you think?
Thanks in advanced

Not even close to copy...
Only concept is the same!
It is just my humble 'dinosaur' opinion.

gostwyck · « **Reply #28 on:** April 23, 2010, 04:24 »

Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 02:28

Sorry for not describe in details.
Did see the splash on the right ? It's exactly a duplicate of my image.

I see your point. They have taken your image and combined it with others. That's not 'copying' __ that's plain theft. You need to contact DT and report it immediately (check to see if Xetra is on other sites too).

Dook · « **Reply #29 on:** April 23, 2010, 04:36 »

Contact support! That is the best way to solve this problem.The right half of the image is the exact copy of your image.

gostwyck · « **Reply #30 on:** April 23, 2010, 04:58 »

They've used your image within other compositions elsewhere too. Here's an example at SS;

http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#photo_id=32359321

ifongokea · « **Reply #31 on:** April 23, 2010, 05:18 »

Thanks Gostwyck.
At first i just noticed the file at Istock, and when i see that he/she only have 4+ files, i did contact Istock support.
And the respond from Istock:

"I would first like to say that I do understand your concern regarding this matter and we do take this seriously.

In order to protect works in such a way that doesn’t preempt future works, copyright protects the expression of an idea, yet not the idea itself. If copyright extended to the underlying idea and granted exclusive rights in an idea to one author, it would ultimately discourage thousands of original works for every other person.

Some of the very first “water on white background concept” images on our site date back to June of 2005.
Examples are 654751 and 656608.
Your portfolio starting adding this concept of files approximately August of 2007.

As I am sure you can understand, this is a very difficult situation for iStockphoto to enforce. We are not in a position to say that member’s cannot submit an image because another came up with the idea or concept before they did. I do hope that you understand this position and that this email has provided clarification on this matter."

After that i did go to other sites(at least 10 others sites) to check... and found at least 8 others images from 2 of my images at all sites.
I post it here just to see whether anyone of you have your image taken by him/her.
If only mine was taken, then i might send her a mail ask her to take down those affected images, because i found that she has 2+++ files at SS.
Because of a few not good seller, she might has to pay a heavy price....(2000 files is not easy).
Is this good?

Thanks

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** April 23, 2010, 05:33 »

Seriously, what Xetra is doing is about the most serious offence in stock __ essentially they are claiming copyright and selling imagery that they don't own. That extends to parts of the image too if they are composites.

If they are doing it to you there is a strong likelihood that they are doing it to others or using other sources of copyright material.

Istock's response suggests to me that they did not understand the true nature of your complaint __ just as the first few responses here misunderstood you. Xetra is not copying your image, they are actually using it. Big difference.

Please report this individual to all agencies in which they are using your image.

Here they are with another variation of your image on FT;

http://en.fotolia.com/id/14836599

ifongokea · « **Reply #33 on:** April 23, 2010, 06:14 »

This is a combine of my photo: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4071685-water-splash.php
and the other guys': http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4585588-ice-splash-in-the-glass-of-water.php

became this : http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-12459445-water.php

Do you all agree ? (before i contact support again!)

Thanks

Perry · « **Reply #34 on:** April 23, 2010, 07:00 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 03:32

Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 01:51
Hi all,
I'm not very new in microstock, but only active for 18 months or so.
I need some advice in this situation,
My image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/water-image2922941
and others image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-water-image10005785

What do you think?
Thanks in advanced

Not even close to copy...
Only concept is the same!
It is just my humble 'dinosaur' opinion.

You should really look more carefully... the splashes are identical.

Ifongokea, you should contact the support.

gostwyck · « **Reply #35 on:** April 23, 2010, 07:05 »

Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 06:14

This is a combine of my photo: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4071685-water-splash.php
and the other guys': http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4585588-ice-splash-in-the-glass-of-water.php

became this : http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-12459445-water.php

Do you all agree ? (before i contact support again!)

Thanks

Very well spotted __ no doubt at all. Get on to Support straight away and also the other agencies too.

click_click · « **Reply #36 on:** April 23, 2010, 07:18 »

You are absolutely correct, this is theft and against the contributing terms.

Write to all agencies involved with links to the image and if necessary make a layered PSD showing their image and yours on a separate layer aligned so it can be easily verified. Shutterstock once asked me to do that for them.

This is a no brainer. Those IS images have been uploaded recently as well.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #37 on:** April 23, 2010, 08:21 »

I'm sure X-etra will be gone before the day is done.

yupiramos · « **Reply #38 on:** April 23, 2010, 08:37 »

what ¿? is an identical copy, look at the right margin.....

Quote from: fotografer on April 23, 2010, 02:04

I really don't see your point here. They are both images of water like 1000's of other similars. Nothing new or original in either and they aren't even very alike..
Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 01:51
Hi all,
I'm not very new in microstock, but only active for 18 months or so.
I need some advice in this situation,
My image:
newbielink:http://www.dreamstime.com/water-image2922941 [nonactive]
and others image:
newbielink:http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-water-image10005785 [nonactive]

What do you think?
Thanks in advanced

fotografer · « **Reply #39 on:** April 23, 2010, 09:00 »

Apologies, you are absolutely right. I looked at it first thing this morning while half asleep and assumed at first glance that the OP was complaining about a concept being copied.

Quote from: yupiramos on April 23, 2010, 08:37

what ¿? is an identical copy, look at the right margin.....

Quote from: fotografer on April 23, 2010, 02:04
I really don't see your point here. They are both images of water like 1000's of other similars. Nothing new or original in either and they aren't even very alike..
Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 01:51
Hi all,
I'm not very new in microstock, but only active for 18 months or so.
I need some advice in this situation,
My image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/water-image2922941
and others image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-water-image10005785

What do you think?
Thanks in advanced

lisafx · « **Reply #40 on:** April 23, 2010, 09:02 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 23, 2010, 02:04

I really don't see your point here. They are both images of water like 1000's of other similars. Nothing new or original in either and they aren't even very alike..

I completely agree^^. There is nothing original about either your image or the other one, and they don't look alike.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #41 on:** April 23, 2010, 09:09 »

Pssst.... Lisa, read the rest of the thread (X-tera is using this other guy's images to create "new" work).

click_click · « **Reply #42 on:** April 23, 2010, 09:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2010, 09:02

Quote from: fotografer on April 23, 2010, 02:04
I really don't see your point here. They are both images of water like 1000's of other similars. Nothing new or original in either and they aren't even very alike..

I completely agree^^. There is nothing original about either your image or the other one, and they don't look alike.

Lisa I think you misunderstood. X-tera used parts of the original image for their own work. It's like using your hubbie in a pic with another person (and reselling it). That's not right.

UncleGene · « **Reply #43 on:** April 23, 2010, 09:28 »

Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 05:18

In order to protect works in such a way that doesn’t preempt future works, copyright protects the expression of an idea, yet not the idea itself. If copyright extended to the underlying idea and granted exclusive rights in an idea to one author, it would ultimately discourage thousands of original works for every other person.

I think you should re-submit your request ti IS - you probably worded it similarly to one here and left space for misunderstanding. Emphasize that it is not idea, but image copy, and add 1-to-1 comparison of fragments.

More we catch such guys (and advertise catching), less (I hope) we'll see new attempts

UncleGene · « **Reply #44 on:** April 23, 2010, 09:35 »

I have a different question. Recently I saw an example of a clear copycat (not one but multiple photos have exactly the same composition, people in the same postures, very similar props, etc.), but done with far superior quality comparing to original (sorry for not giving examples, original author may read this thread, I do not want him to be insulted)

From one side - this is clear theft (I know that author did not give any approval because he found and posted examples himself on other forum), that has to be punished

From other - we care about art and industry level, and this thief clearly helps to raise it.

What do you think?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #45 on:** April 23, 2010, 10:14 »

Looks like Mr. X-etra's images have been removed from iStock.

gostwyck · « **Reply #46 on:** April 23, 2010, 10:32 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 23, 2010, 10:14

Looks like Mr. X-etra's images have been removed from iStock.

Another thief bites the dust. Very silly __ so little to gain and so much to lose.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #47 on:** April 23, 2010, 12:52 »

Quote from: yupiramos on April 23, 2010, 08:37

what ¿? is an identical copy, look at the right margin.....

Quote from: fotografer on April 23, 2010, 02:04
I really don't see your point here. They are both images of water like 1000's of other similars. Nothing new or original in either and they aren't even very alike..
Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 01:51
Hi all,
I'm not very new in microstock, but only active for 18 months or so.
I need some advice in this situation,
My image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/water-image2922941
and others image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-water-image10005785

What do you think?
Thanks in advanced

In this case YES... That is obvious RIP - not copy! Or should I say clean steal!

Albert Martin · « **Reply #48 on:** April 23, 2010, 12:57 »

Quote from: Perry on April 23, 2010, 07:00

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 03:32
Quote from: ifongokea on April 23, 2010, 01:51
Hi all,
I'm not very new in microstock, but only active for 18 months or so.
I need some advice in this situation,
My image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/water-image2922941
and others image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-water-image10005785

What do you think?
Thanks in advanced

Not even close to copy...
Only concept is the same!
It is just my humble 'dinosaur' opinion.

You should really look more carefully... the splashes are identical.

Ifongokea, you should contact the support.

Well... After some more consideration it turned to be very similar part... The question is if that is or isn't allowed.

epantha · « **Reply #49 on:** April 23, 2010, 13:12 »

It is against the rules to download other people's photos and use them in your work.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #50 on:** April 23, 2010, 16:30 »

Quote from: epantha on April 23, 2010, 13:12

It is against the rules to download other people's photos and use them in your work.

Yes... If you don't have license which allows that... Some micro agencies have such allowance in their licenses ;-)

[ADDED] I think it is called 'ELECTRONIC ITEMS FOR RESALE' License... Thus as Macrostock dinosaur I really don't understand it...

qwerty · « **Reply #51 on:** April 23, 2010, 17:29 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 16:30

Quote from: epantha on April 23, 2010, 13:12
It is against the rules to download other people's photos and use them in your work.

Yes... If you don't have license which allows that... Some micro agencies have such allowance in their licenses ;-)

[ADDED] I think it is called 'ELECTRONIC ITEMS FOR RESALE' License... Thus as Macrostock dinosaur I really don't understand it...

I don't think that it true, electronic items for resale is for web templates, screen savers and alike.

Otherwise you could buy a few extended licences of the best sellers in microstock and submit them you could easy make a profit with a couple of hundred downloads on Istock. If this was possible people would be doing it. The only option I think that you can do this is buy the copywrite.

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #52 on:** April 23, 2010, 17:40 »

Quote from: qwerty on April 23, 2010, 17:29

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 16:30
Quote from: epantha on April 23, 2010, 13:12
It is against the rules to download other people's photos and use them in your work.

Yes... If you don't have license which allows that... Some micro agencies have such allowance in their licenses ;-)

[ADDED] I think it is called 'ELECTRONIC ITEMS FOR RESALE' License... Thus as Macrostock dinosaur I really don't understand it...

I don't think that it true, electronic items for resale is for web templates, screen savers and alike.

Otherwise you could buy a few extended licences of the best sellers in microstock and submit them you could easy make a profit with a couple of hundred downloads on Istock. If this was possible people would be doing it. The only option I think that you can do this is buy the copywrite.

Definitely. No license allows this kind of usage on any of the agencies I know, also that would suck.

I've seen some examples of people using the same public domain images for their works, e.g. old illustrations from graphic design books that were made for the purpose. I never acquainted myself for the rules on this though.

lisafx · « **Reply #53 on:** April 23, 2010, 18:00 »

Quote from: click_click on April 23, 2010, 09:11

Lisa I think you misunderstood. X-tera used parts of the original image for their own work. It's like using your hubbie in a pic with another person (and reselling it). That's not right.

Oh, wow. I totally missed that part

. My apologies to Ifongokea.

That's what I get for trying to read a thread on my phone. The screen is so small I must be missing posts when I scroll.

Then it really isn't an issue of copycatting, is it? It's more an issue of outright theft/copyright infringement, right?

click_click · « **Reply #54 on:** April 23, 2010, 18:51 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2010, 18:00

...Then it really isn't an issue of copycatting, is it? It's more an issue of outright theft/copyright infringement, right?

Yep, pretty hard to spot as well but the OP did a good job finding this stuff.

ifongokea · « **Reply #55 on:** April 25, 2010, 03:37 »

Thanks you all guys for the support.
to Lisafx and Fotografer, you don't have to apologies i think. After all we are in the same boat and it's really not easy for others to notice.
I can spot it just because i spend many hours on this file, and it's my very 1st file approved in microstock .

At Istock his files has gone. i received a 2nd mail from admin, (thanks Mr.Locke ! i think its you.)
Still no respond from others agencies yet.
Will update you all if you still want to know the outcome.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #56 on:** April 25, 2010, 14:25 »

Quote from: ThomasAmby on April 23, 2010, 17:40

Quote from: qwerty on April 23, 2010, 17:29
Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 16:30
Quote from: epantha on April 23, 2010, 13:12
It is against the rules to download other people's photos and use them in your work.

Yes... If you don't have license which allows that... Some micro agencies have such allowance in their licenses ;-)

[ADDED] I think it is called 'ELECTRONIC ITEMS FOR RESALE' License... Thus as Macrostock dinosaur I really don't understand it...

I don't think that it true, electronic items for resale is for web templates, screen savers and alike.

Otherwise you could buy a few extended licences of the best sellers in microstock and submit them you could easy make a profit with a couple of hundred downloads on Istock. If this was possible people would be doing it. The only option I think that you can do this is buy the copywrite.

Definitely. No license allows this kind of usage on any of the agencies I know, also that would suck.

I've seen some examples of people using the same public domain images for their works, e.g. old illustrations from graphic design books that were made for the purpose. I never acquainted myself for the rules on this though.

I think you are thinking about German author which name begins on "A"?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Copycats (Read 16072 times)

red

Dook

lisafx

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors