Author Topic: Examples of blatant copycat stock-photo plagiarism (Read 39588 times)

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #100 on:** March 13, 2012, 12:26 »

Exactly, what is done is done, right or wrong.

@Roxxstock - for the sake of argument. I know you go on about the keywords and titles being identical. They are all editable...I often go over my keywords, titles, categories years after original upload...hypothetically the "original" could have done just that, searched for similars and copied the "copy-cat". Perhaps far-fetched, but weirder things have happened. Do I check other images for keywords I might have missed, yes...don't a lot of us? Could he have had a really lazy day and found an image that was very similar and just copied the keywords...sure...bad of him, yes, enough to have his account terminated, not in my opinion. And there are only so many ways to keyword images that are quite simple and quite similar.

Roxxstock, would you like to show off your port(s) and are you certain that your portfolio would stand the scrutiny of not having been copied/been inspired by anyone else's concepts/ideas/models/props/style of editing/composition etc.?

The images in question are similar, not identical - and both images are similar to a lot of images scattered around the internet - still you single out one as a copy-cat and one as the original.... There are not steadfast rules regarding this, just arbitrary opinions, your action of labelling someone as a copycat set the wheel in motion for someone to have a source of income lost - I hope they didn't really need it, I really hope they were a bad deliberate copy-cat.

Fact still remains that he got "named and shamed" by you without a chance to explain himself....he could be guilty as hell or innocent like an angel...no-one should be presumed guilty without haven been proven to be so. In my opinion you never managed to get him "proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt", but you did manage to assist in getting him convicted - had you done nothing, nothing would have happen.

RT · « **Reply #101 on:** March 13, 2012, 12:34 »

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:09

I did respond to your scenario:

The 'original' poster is a resident in the Russian Republic. The copycat poster is a German guy. I checked as I have stated a few times before posting the OP (aka Original Post)

I checked the people were not the same.

And regarding the link, it is the same actually. The person was named exactly the same.

So are you saying only the affected artist can identify a copycat on this forum site and no-one else can?

I read that but it doesn't respond to my scenario, all that shows is that it's two different artists and that one uploaded the image to SS before the other, it doesn't show who created the original image first, which, if you read my scenario carefully it may make sense - in short my scenario asks - what if the Russian guy had copied the image from the German guy who used to be an exclusive on iStock.

As for your last line, it's not my forum but if you applied those rules at least it would lessen the chance of wrongly accusing someone.

FTR - I don't think what you've done is morally wrong and I'm sure you had good intent for something that the majority of us agree in, I just think it's risky to 'out' someone like this unless you are 100% certain of the facts, which, when it concerns images appearing on stock photography agencies is very hard to judge for sure.

And as I and others have noticed from this and other examples the agencies just appear to make snap, possibly income affecting decisions and then ban someone.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #102 on:** March 13, 2012, 12:46 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on March 13, 2012, 12:26

Exactly, what is done is done, right or wrong.

@Roxxstock - for the sake of argument. I know you go on about the keywords and titles being identical. They are all editable...I often go over my keywords, titles, categories years after original upload...hypothetically the "original" could have done just that, searched for similars and copied the "copy-cat". Perhaps far-fetched, but weirder things have happened. Do I check other images for keywords I might have missed, yes...don't a lot of us? Could he have had a really lazy day and found an image that was very similar and just copied the keywords...sure...bad of him, yes, enough to have his account terminated, not in my opinion. And there are only so many ways to keyword images that are quite simple and quite similar.

Roxxstock, would you like to show off your port(s) and are you certain that your portfolio would stand the scrutiny of not having been copied/been inspired by anyone else's concepts/ideas/models/props/style of editing/composition etc.?

The images in question are similar, not identical - and both images are similar to a lot of images scattered around the internet - still you single out one as a copy-cat and one as the original.... There are not steadfast rules regarding this, just arbitrary opinions, your action of labelling someone as a copycat set the wheel in motion for someone to have a source of income lost - I hope they didn't really need it, I really hope they were a bad deliberate copy-cat.

Fact still remains that he got "named and shamed" by you without a chance to explain himself....he could be guilty as hell or innocent like an angel...no-one should be presumed guilty without haven been proven to be so. In my opinion you never managed to get him "proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt", but you did manage to assist in getting him convicted - had you done nothing, nothing would have happen.

Normally I would ignore such a response. But I'll indulge myself as your points are completely ridiculous.

1. Keywords. Yes, everyone amends, adjusts and updates keywords to get a premium position in certain sites best match/Relevant matches etc. But these keywords were exactly the same, to the point they were in the same order and line breaks matched perfectly. You are also (probably deliberately) ignoring the time-frames in this case, they are far too close to the 'original' posting and the copycat version. Are you really so naive?

2. I have already stated (and will yet again) I do not agree that his portfolio should not have been closed completely, only the 'alleged image infringement' images until SS could have investigated.

3. There is no question that my portfolio contains images that others have created before. I do not need to give specific reasons as I know what type of images my portfolio contains - and they are completely unique, one-off's you might say.

Finally, I find it just a little odd that a Swede can lecture anyone about wrongful accusations without any evidence, how do you know my real name isn't Julian Assange?

Roxxstock · « **Reply #103 on:** March 13, 2012, 12:53 »

Quote from: RT on March 13, 2012, 12:34

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:09
I did respond to your scenario:

The 'original' poster is a resident in the Russian Republic. The copycat poster is a German guy. I checked as I have stated a few times before posting the OP (aka Original Post)

I checked the people were not the same.

And regarding the link, it is the same actually. The person was named exactly the same.

So are you saying only the affected artist can identify a copycat on this forum site and no-one else can?

I read that but it doesn't respond to my scenario, all that shows is that it's two different artists and that one uploaded the image to SS before the other, it doesn't show who created the original image first, which, if you read my scenario carefully it may make sense - in short my scenario asks - what if the Russian guy had copied the image from the German guy who used to be an exclusive on iStock.

As for your last line, it's not my forum but if you applied those rules at least it would lessen the chance of wrongly accusing someone.

FTR - I don't think what you've done is morally wrong and I'm sure you had good intent for something that the majority of us agree in, I just think it's risky to 'out' someone like this unless you are 100% certain of the facts, which, when it concerns images appearing on stock photography agencies is very hard to judge for sure.

And as I and others have noticed from this and other examples the agencies just appear to make snap, possibly income affecting decisions and then ban someone.

I did read your post carefully. Can I say if you had read my posts carefully you would have seen that "the German guy" took his picture on 3 February 2012. I even posted a screen grab off the DT page which listed this date from the EXIF data. Not even Houdini could have posted an image before it was even in his camera.

*. This is getting to a point where I wish someone would lock this thread.

jm · « **Reply #104 on:** March 13, 2012, 13:09 »

There can be some "warnings" sent by SS - so I think emphatic warning would be enough if someone has problem with one or two images of entire portfolio.

Seemingly OT:

heywoody · « **Reply #105 on:** March 13, 2012, 13:22 »

As pointed out there are any number of reasons why the guy could be innocent despite the evidence and, even if guilty, I'm not aware that picture ideas are copyrighted or there would be a hell of a lot of people in big trouble. The real issue though is that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that an accusation is enough to condemn someone and that is just not right. I wouldn't finger a pickpocket in Saudi even if he had robbed me because I know what would happen to him.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #106 on:** March 13, 2012, 13:38 »

Quote from: heywoody on March 13, 2012, 13:22

As pointed out there are any number of reasons why the guy could be innocent despite the evidence and, even if guilty, I'm not aware that picture ideas are copyrighted or there would be a hell of a lot of people in big trouble. The real issue though is that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that an accusation is enough to condemn someone and that is just not right. I wouldn't finger a pickpocket in Saudi even if he had robbed me because I know what would happen to him.

Who mentioned copyright, one time, ever in this thread?
It's plagiarism.

Completely different thing. That's what is not acceptable to most libraries, and artists too for that matter.

Case in point, if you don't think that in this case there is not very convincing even if it not 'overwhelming evidence' I give up.

RT · « **Reply #107 on:** March 13, 2012, 13:38 »

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:53

I did read your post carefully. Can I say if you had read my posts carefully you would have seen that "the German guy" took his picture on 3 February 2012. I even posted a screen grab off the DT page which listed this date from the EXIF data. Not even Houdini could have posted an image before it was even in his camera.

According to the 'EXIF data' on one of my latest images uploaded to DT the photo was taken in 2009, it was taken and uploaded last month.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #108 on:** March 13, 2012, 13:43 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 13, 2012, 09:06

Well here's your 'original' image on FT;

http://en.fotolia.com/id/38938520

... and here's another very similar image that was uploaded a little while earlier by another contributor;

http://en.fotolia.com/id/38775456

Funnily enough they both appear to have almost identical keywords too! Could it be that the 'original' contributor, whose work you were defending, is just as guilty as the contributor who your actions caused to be banned from SS?

Those are completely different. The first shows a couple clamoring for support while dealing with, what must be, some sort of inflamed liver or gastric issue, thus, the large glowing tumors in their stomach area. The latter appears to be a male and female alien, the male with a fork where his reproductive organ should be - anyways, they both appear to be suffering from massive head wounds, no doubt inflicted upon a rough earth entry, which has appeared to kill the female alien.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #109 on:** March 13, 2012, 13:47 »

Quote from: RT on March 13, 2012, 13:38

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:53
I did read your post carefully. Can I say if you had read my posts carefully you would have seen that "the German guy" took his picture on 3 February 2012. I even posted a screen grab off the DT page which listed this date from the EXIF data. Not even Houdini could have posted an image before it was even in his camera.

According to the 'EXIF data' on one of my latest images uploaded to DT the photo was taken in 2009, it was taken and uploaded last month.

There must be either something wrong with your camera then or DT are publishing inaccurate information on their site. Take the matter up with them. I am sure they'll be interested to know something is a miss.

gostwyck · « **Reply #110 on:** March 13, 2012, 13:48 »

Quote from: RT on March 13, 2012, 13:38

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:53
I did read your post carefully. Can I say if you had read my posts carefully you would have seen that "the German guy" took his picture on 3 February 2012. I even posted a screen grab off the DT page which listed this date from the EXIF data. Not even Houdini could have posted an image before it was even in his camera.

According to the 'EXIF data' on one of my latest images uploaded to DT the photo was taken in 2009, it was taken and uploaded last month.

Why not adjust your camera to ensure today's images are taken in 2014 instead? Keeps your portfolio fresher for longer __ a bit like a good deodorant.

RT · « **Reply #111 on:** March 13, 2012, 14:32 »

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 13:47

Quote from: RT on March 13, 2012, 13:38
Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:53
I did read your post carefully. Can I say if you had read my posts carefully you would have seen that "the German guy" took his picture on 3 February 2012. I even posted a screen grab off the DT page which listed this date from the EXIF data. Not even Houdini could have posted an image before it was even in his camera.

According to the 'EXIF data' on one of my latest images uploaded to DT the photo was taken in 2009, it was taken and uploaded last month.
There must be either something wrong with your camera then or DT are publishing inaccurate information on their site. Take the matter up with them. I am sure they'll be interested to know something is a miss.

Actually it's neither and I know why it appears like that, but my point to you once again is this - you do not know 100% of the facts about the two images in your OP.

OT FYI - I did a hard reset on my camera and didn't reset the date hence it shows the wrong date on that image, but as gostwyck points out above I could put in any date I wanted, the EXIF data only shows info that the user has set, it's not something that can be relied upon.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #112 on:** March 13, 2012, 14:38 »

Actually it's neither and I know why it appears like that, but my point to you once again is this - you do not know 100% of the facts about the two images in your OP.

OT FYI - I did a hard reset on my camera and didn't reset the date hence it shows the wrong date on that image, but as gostwyck points out above I could put in any date I wanted.
[/quote]

Of course. You're absolutely right. The copycat photographer deliberately set his camera to show the 3rd February 2012 to show he took his image one month after the 'original image' was uploaded. Just in case no one noticed the keyword, title, and oh, of course, the exact same image similarity did not give him away. Way to go RT. Great work!

Thanks for your post - I think everyone here now knows one thing 100%

RT · « **Reply #113 on:** March 13, 2012, 14:55 »

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 14:38

Thanks for your post - I think everyone here now knows one thing 100%

Yep despite being shown by various people that not everything you see on the internet is fact, you're stubbornly sticking to the self belief that you're right about everything

And it appears you've decided to start insulting people based on the country they come from:

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:46

Finally, I find it just a little odd that a Swede can lecture anyone about wrongful accusations without any evidence, how do you know my real name isn't Julian Assange?

Which ironically is something people have been banned from this forum for, so on that note I'm done with this thread.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #114 on:** March 13, 2012, 15:11 »

Quote from: RT on March 13, 2012, 14:55

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 14:38
Thanks for your post - I think everyone here now knows one thing 100%

Yep despite being shown by various people that not everything you see on the internet is fact, you're stubbornly sticking to the self belief that you're right about everything

And it appears you've decided to start insulting people based on the country they come from:

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:46
Finally, I find it just a little odd that a Swede can lecture anyone about wrongful accusations without any evidence, how do you know my real name isn't Julian Assange?

Which ironically is something people have been banned from this forum for, so on that note I'm done with this thread.

I'm sure your contributions to what is actually a serious issue won't be missed. But thanks for stopping by.

gostwyck · « **Reply #115 on:** March 13, 2012, 15:26 »

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 15:11

Quote from: RT on March 13, 2012, 14:55
Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 14:38
Thanks for your post - I think everyone here now knows one thing 100%

Yep despite being shown by various people that not everything you see on the internet is fact, you're stubbornly sticking to the self belief that you're right about everything

And it appears you've decided to start insulting people based on the country they come from:

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:46
Finally, I find it just a little odd that a Swede can lecture anyone about wrongful accusations without any evidence, how do you know my real name isn't Julian Assange?

Which ironically is something people have been banned from this forum for, so on that note I'm done with this thread.
I'm sure your contributions to what is actually a serious issue won't be missed. But thanks for stopping by.

^^^ Your ignorance and arrogance is truly breathtaking. I'd think you were doing it for comedic effect but unfortunately it appears that you are just being yourself.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #116 on:** March 13, 2012, 16:12 »

^^^ Your ignorance and arrogance is truly breathtaking. I'd think you were doing it for comedic effect but unfortunately it appears that you are just being yourself.
[/quote]
That's a little rich coming from an infamous contributor that is both derided (and blocked) as much as you are. The truth is, the 'resident' alpha males that think they own this site and all the content posted herein fall substantially short when it comes to debating serious issues that affect all stock photographers. You cannot substantiate your arguments, you fail miserably in getting your point across articulately and convince nobody. You do not have to look too deeply to see what I mean, even within this thread. And as for arrogance Joe, that really is calling the pot black!

Anyka · « **Reply #117 on:** March 13, 2012, 16:43 »

Quote from: heywoody on March 13, 2012, 13:22

The real issue though is that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that an accusation is enough to condemn someone and that is just not right. I wouldn't finger a pickpocket in Saudi even if he had robbed me because I know what would happen to him.

200% agree.
If the punishment (by SS) is worse than the crime, I would not finger the thief either.

lisafx · « **Reply #118 on:** March 13, 2012, 17:17 »

Quote from: Anyka on March 13, 2012, 16:43

Quote from: heywoody on March 13, 2012, 13:22
The real issue though is that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that an accusation is enough to condemn someone and that is just not right. I wouldn't finger a pickpocket in Saudi even if he had robbed me because I know what would happen to him.

200% agree.
If the punishment (by SS) is worse than the crime, I would not finger the thief either.

This really sums up the whole thread nicely. I don't think that the real issue is pointing out suspected copycats or not. It's that the response seems to be so extreme.

Members ought to be allowed to discuss possible instances of copying without fear of hasty and draconian measures being taken.

We should all be able to have confidence that our agents will do a thorough and fair investigation in response to accusations of copying. Unless they do, anyone who shoots popular subject matter is in potential jeopardy.

klsbear · « **Reply #119 on:** March 13, 2012, 17:30 »

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:46

1. Keywords. Yes, everyone amends, adjusts and updates keywords to get a premium position in certain sites best match/Relevant matches etc. But these keywords were exactly the same, to the point they were in the same order and line breaks matched perfectly.

Setting aside the clear "coincidence" of exactly the same keywords for a moment, there is a reason they were in the same order - SS automatically resorts the keywords into alphabetical order. Any group of keywords that just happened to be the same would be in the same order.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #120 on:** March 13, 2012, 17:34 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 13, 2012, 17:17

Quote from: Anyka on March 13, 2012, 16:43
Quote from: heywoody on March 13, 2012, 13:22
The real issue though is that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that an accusation is enough to condemn someone and that is just not right. I wouldn't finger a pickpocket in Saudi even if he had robbed me because I know what would happen to him.

200% agree.
If the punishment (by SS) is worse than the crime, I would not finger the thief either.

This really sums up the whole thread nicely. I don't think that the real issue is pointing out suspected copycats or not. It's that the response seems to be so extreme.

Members ought to be allowed to discuss possible instances of copying without fear of hasty and draconian measures being taken.

We should all be able to have confidence that our agents will do a thorough and fair investigation in response to accusations of copying. Unless they do, we are all potentially in jeopardy.

And why are you automatically assuming that SS did not do such due diligence in this case? You don't know, I don't know if they did or did not. How do any of us even know if in fact the photographer closed his own account in advance of any investigation? Most posters on this forum are 'assuming' SS closed his account. This is pure speculation. The only thing that is clear (for me) is that there is a very persistent view that SS admin have 'over-reacted' in this matter. That is unfair and completely unsubstantiated. SS is not the world's number one agency by some accident. They are where they are because they are the best at what they do, and I (for one) do not believe they 'automatically' disconnect their contributors on a mere whim. SS are better than that.

If this were a thread about an iStockphoto contributor being cut loose I would probably agree with the current sentiment but please, SS do not behave like iStockphoto and hopefully never will, that is why they are the number one agency.

I have tried to present information that I can substantiate in this particular matter, for all we know the 'culprit' (if he is) has cut himself loose and run-free before any action has been taken. You know as well as I do, you can close your account in a few moments, and bang, you're gone. And FTR - if this guy had been a istock contributor i probably would never have exposed him as a copycat - I always believed that within the SS environment he would have at least have had a chance of fair assessment, and for all we know, he has.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #121 on:** March 13, 2012, 17:39 »

Quote from: klsbear on March 13, 2012, 17:30

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:46

1. Keywords. Yes, everyone amends, adjusts and updates keywords to get a premium position in certain sites best match/Relevant matches etc. But these keywords were exactly the same, to the point they were in the same order and line breaks matched perfectly.

Setting aside the clear "coincidence" of exactly the same keywords for a moment, there is a reason they were in the same order - SS automatically resorts the keywords into alphabetical order. Any group of keywords that just happened to be the same would be in the same order.

Correct they do. But 'setting aside' dismisses the fact they are exactly the same. Come on. This is not a co-incidence.

klsbear · « **Reply #122 on:** March 13, 2012, 18:00 »

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 17:39

Quote from: klsbear on March 13, 2012, 17:30
Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:46

1. Keywords. Yes, everyone amends, adjusts and updates keywords to get a premium position in certain sites best match/Relevant matches etc. But these keywords were exactly the same, to the point they were in the same order and line breaks matched perfectly.

Setting aside the clear "coincidence" of exactly the same keywords for a moment, there is a reason they were in the same order - SS automatically resorts the keywords into alphabetical order. Any group of keywords that just happened to be the same would be in the same order.
Correct they do. But 'setting aside' dismisses the fact they are exactly the same. Come on. This is not a co-incidence.

Setting it aside because I wasn't debating the issue of the sameness. They are. But you are making an issue about them being in the same order too and I was pointing out that it's because it's alphabetized. The order and the line breaks cannot be considered proof the words were cut and paste copies because any group of keywords that were the same would be in the same order.

Roxxstock · « **Reply #123 on:** March 13, 2012, 18:03 »

Quote from: klsbear on March 13, 2012, 18:00

Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 17:39
Quote from: klsbear on March 13, 2012, 17:30
Quote from: Roxxstock on March 13, 2012, 12:46

1. Keywords. Yes, everyone amends, adjusts and updates keywords to get a premium position in certain sites best match/Relevant matches etc. But these keywords were exactly the same, to the point they were in the same order and line breaks matched perfectly.

Setting aside the clear "coincidence" of exactly the same keywords for a moment, there is a reason they were in the same order - SS automatically resorts the keywords into alphabetical order. Any group of keywords that just happened to be the same would be in the same order.
Correct they do. But 'setting aside' dismisses the fact they are exactly the same. Come on. This is not a co-incidence.

Setting it aside because I wasn't debating the issue of the sameness. They are. But you are making an issue about them being in the same order too and I was pointing out that it's because it's alphabetized. The order and the line breaks cannot be considered proof the words were cut and paste copies because any group of keywords that were the same would be in the same order.

.

I rest my case.

There are (apparently) 999,985 words in the English Language (we're just a few short of one million). The image keywords on the 'offending image' totalled 49. That's 49 exactly the same unique keywords out of 999,985. Yeah you do appear to be right, probably a coincidence. And they would appear in the same order, because as you rightly point out, they're alphabetized.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #124 on:** March 13, 2012, 18:17 »

Crap. I thought I was a funny guy. Rats.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Examples of blatant copycat stock-photo plagiarism (Read 39588 times)

CarlssonInc

RT

Roxxstock

Roxxstock

jm

heywoody

Roxxstock

RT

Sean Locke Photography

Roxxstock

gostwyck

RT

Roxxstock

RT

Roxxstock

gostwyck

Roxxstock

Anyka

lisafx

klsbear

Roxxstock

Roxxstock

klsbear

Roxxstock

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors