MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Examples of blatant copycat stock-photo plagiarism  (Read 27717 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2012, 20:28 »
0
Were all assuming they didn't come up with these designs on their own... which is perfectly possible.
The example of the US flag is a good example.

I do believe that's too close for comfort. I think it's no coincidence that the second image was created without any "inspiration".

The waves of the flag, lighting and the placement of the stars and texture is so close to the first image that it's hard to prove that there is no plagiarism involved.


Noodles

« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2012, 20:37 »
0
The example of the US flag is a good example.

I do believe that's too close for comfort. I think it's no coincidence that the second image was created without any "inspiration".

The waves of the flag, lighting and the placement of the stars and texture is so close to the first image that it's hard to prove that there is no plagiarism involved.

for argument sake, lets say the new version was a huge improvement over the original. Then what?

« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2012, 20:42 »
0
Were all assuming they didn't come up with these designs on their own... which is perfectly possible.

are you serious?

« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2012, 20:48 »
0
The example of the US flag is a good example.

I do believe that's too close for comfort. I think it's no coincidence that the second image was created without any "inspiration".

The waves of the flag, lighting and the placement of the stars and texture is so close to the first image that it's hard to prove that there is no plagiarism involved.

for argument sake, lets say the new version was a huge improvement over the original. Then what?
That is an icky topic as the "improvement factor" sometimes lies in the eyes of the beholder.

Would you consider it an improvement that the image has more of a 3D feel to it? Because that's about it.

I overlayed the two images in Photoshop and it appears that the second ("other") image has 99% the same geometry as the first one. Just the texture has been slightly reworked.

That's hardly a coincidence. Images of flags can surely be very, very close to each other, but the placement of the folds are usually always quite different. Even if the folds are almost identical in one half of the image, to have the folds match up for the rest of the image is virtually impossible.

I'm not judging - just saying that there is a very low possibility that the "other" image wasn't inspired (knocked off) the "original".

None of the two images are "bad". They both deserve sales. But as a creator of the "other" image I wouldn't be too proud of "my" work...

« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2012, 21:57 »
0
Were all assuming they didn't come up with these designs on their own... which is perfectly possible.

are you serious?

100 Percent. If you dig around you can find famous examples of isolated people discovering the same thing at the same time.

Derivative works is another area where IP law really starts to look... iffy, assuming you still accept the notion of "owning ideas". It's usually where people start to wake up to reality.

« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2012, 23:12 »
0
nobody better submit any photos of goldfish. Search on istock and you'll see the biggest example of copying in the history of microstock.

An tehere are millions oh photos of people too. Subject is irrelevant, is perfectly possible generating ypour own concept with goldfish.

My point was that there are plenty goldfish concepts that have been "repeated" time and time again by new artist inspired by the existing collection. (gold fish jumping from bowls into computers and alike)

Much the same as the example highlighted to start this thread.

« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2012, 02:58 »
0
Either someone from MSG reported this thread to SS or someone from SS has read it because I just revisited the Marcel Schauer portfolio and all four of his 'finger face' images are now unavailable. Caps attached. The filename is incorrect btw, it should be file suspended not account suspended.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2012, 03:12 »
0
I would have gone about this in a slightly different way and think it would have been far classier, safer and a better thing to contact SS directly with concerns instead of straight away shame him in public. No matter how evident something looks there is still a huge scope for mistakes and someone could quite easily have their reputation tarnished permanently.

I presume I'm not the only one that from time to time upload old images (several years old), therefore something of mine could quite easily look like it was inspired by something newer when in fact I did first. I don't really check for similars before uploading, I also don't look actively at other images for inspiration nor to better someone's existing work or to copy.

« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2012, 03:29 »
0
I would have gone about this in a slightly different way and think it would have been far classier, safer and a better thing to contact SS directly with concerns instead of straight away shame him in public. No matter how evident something looks there is still a huge scope for mistakes and someone could quite easily have their reputation tarnished permanently.

I presume I'm not the only one that from time to time upload old images (several years old), therefore something of mine could quite easily look like it was inspired by something newer when in fact I did first. I don't really check for similars before uploading, I also don't look actively at other images for inspiration nor to better someone's existing work or to copy.
It was noted how quick out of the blocks you came rebuking. I am afraid you mis-judged any motive in this particular case. And, just because you would do something different is frankly, irrelevant. The circumstances regarding this blatant copycat were looked into as thoroughly as possible before the message here was posted. If you read the entire thread you will see that. This is not a case of 'creative or inspired' interpretation. Only a completely blind person would not see the complete copycat style of the image, the titles and the keywords. All identical. Add to that the copy image was taken, uploaded and accepted into the SS library three to four weeks after the original was posted is more than compelling information. You can be in denial all you like, you're in a minority, but you're probably used to that. You are missing the point completely.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2012, 03:47 »
0
I would have gone about this in a slightly different way and think it would have been far classier, safer and a better thing to contact SS directly with concerns instead of straight away shame him in public. No matter how evident something looks there is still a huge scope for mistakes and someone could quite easily have their reputation tarnished permanently.

I presume I'm not the only one that from time to time upload old images (several years old), therefore something of mine could quite easily look like it was inspired by something newer when in fact I did first. I don't really check for similars before uploading, I also don't look actively at other images for inspiration nor to better someone's existing work or to copy.
It was noted how quick out of the blocks you came rebuking. I am afraid you mis-judged any motive in this particular case. And, just because you would do something different is frankly, irrelevant. The circumstances regarding this blatant copycat were looked into as thoroughly as possible before the message here was posted. If you read the entire thread you will see that. This is not a case of 'creative or inspired' interpretation. Only a completely blind person would not see the complete copycat style of the image, the titles and the keywords. All identical. Add to that the copy image was taken, uploaded and accepted into the SS library three to four weeks after the original was posted is more than compelling information. You can be in denial all you like, you're in a minority, but you're probably used to that. You are missing the point completely.

I don't think I've missed any point. I'm not denying that it looks likely to be a case of a copy-cat - just puzzled as to why you thought it would be better to post it in a forum instead of notifying SS - the only ones that could do something about it.

Of course you are allowed and entitled to deal with these matters as how you please - still wanted to point out the hazards of doing so, and this is a forum so don't shy away from or get aggravated with opinions that differ from your own.

You couldn't have known that the image that you label as the copy wasn't in fact an old image coincidently uploaded a short time after the image you label as the original. Also there is absolutely no shortage of these "finger type" images scattered all around the internet, in fact both could be copy-cats... You see where I'm going? Therefore I think it would be better to have notified SS who would have more info available to them regarding these two images, at the bare minimum the EXIF info to see the dates when the images were taken, not just when they were uploaded.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 04:01 by CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production »

CarlssonInc

« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2012, 04:03 »
0
You can be in denial all you like, you're in a minority, but you're probably used to that. You are missing the point completely.
What am I denying? In which circumstances am I a minority and why should I be used to that?

« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2012, 04:19 »
0
"at the bare minimum the EXIF info to see the dates when the images were taken, not just when they were uploaded."

DT used the EXIF data for their entry line stating when a picture was take. 3 February 2012. (As mentioned before in this very thread yesterday). Original image uploaded week of 7 January 2012 to SS.

Please, try and keep up.

« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2012, 04:29 »
0
"at the bare minimum the EXIF info to see the dates when the images were taken, not just when they were uploaded."

DT used the EXIF data for their entry line stating when a picture was take. 3 February 2012. (As mentioned before in this very thread yesterday). Original image uploaded week of 7 January 2012 to SS.

Please, try and keep up.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2012, 04:42 »
0
"at the bare minimum the EXIF info to see the dates when the images were taken, not just when they were uploaded."

DT used the EXIF data for their entry line stating when a picture was take. 3 February 2012. (As mentioned before in this very thread yesterday). Original image uploaded week of 7 January 2012 to SS.

Please, try and keep up.

Can I ask you a question? What is up with your bloody attitude? "Please, try and keep up" pffff

Anyway, another evidence supporting this being a copy-cat, but still doesn't answer these two questions:
1. There are plenty of "finger type" images scattered around the internet, some very similar, some less. What makes the one you state as "original" so very original - quite easy to make a case for both being copy-cats. This is also the case with sooo many images that we all make.
2. Why do you think it is better to go straight to a forum instead of contacting SS? You are taking a huge risk of making a mistake of pointing fingers at someone without even having heard them or their agent (SS). Innocent before being proven guilty - or as I said earlier who gave you the right to appoint yourself as prosecutor, court and judge? What is really your aim here? If you wanted rid of the image surely it would be quicker to send SS an e-mail instead of them finding this thread or someone else having to report their suspicions? How come you didn't report it to SS straight away instead? I don't get that.

I don't think for a second that a "name and shame" thread on a online forum is going to deter someone that is deliberately setting out to copy others work. Only thing I can think of that would combat this type of problems would be that the stock libraries used image recognition software that flagged an upload as being similar (like Google image search type where you can just drop an image into it and it return similars) to an existing image and then the inspector would have to judge whether the image close enough to being a copy or let it through.

wut

« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2012, 04:55 »
0
Either someone from MSG reported this thread to SS or someone from SS has read it because I just revisited the Marcel Schauer portfolio and all four of his 'finger face' images are now unavailable. Caps attached. The filename is incorrect btw, it should be file suspended not account suspended.

I agree with account suspension, they should be all thought a lesson and show all the eager copycats that their days are numbered. If you don't copy, you've got nothing to fear. Sure, I thought I made something original a few times and then found out, the exact same concept was already done. But it never was the same, usually even though someone tries to copy something it's not really a copy since he either mistakenly makes something different, or even possesses some originality or talent do alter the concept himself or because he's just not up to it. However blatant copycats should be punished in this fashion. It's better for most of us, since our work won't get copied and we'll get rid of some competition (they usually don't represent much of a competition, but still)

Noodles

« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2012, 05:16 »
0
I tend to agree with Carlsson on this one. Those finger faces are very common and have been around for a few years. Apart from the finger faces this guys portfolio is almost entirely unique. It seems like SS have now suspended his account.

Some finger face examples

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/finger-faces/id482533023?mt=8

http://www.facebook.com/pages/-FUNNY-FINGER-FACES-FUNPAGE-/140273172657727

CarlssonInc

« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2012, 05:16 »
0
Either someone from MSG reported this thread to SS or someone from SS has read it because I just revisited the Marcel Schauer portfolio and all four of his 'finger face' images are now unavailable. Caps attached. The filename is incorrect btw, it should be file suspended not account suspended.

I agree with account suspension, they should be all thought a lesson and show all the eager copycats that their days are numbered. If you don't copy, you've got nothing to fear. Sure, I thought I made something original a few times and then found out, the exact same concept was already done. But it never was the same, usually even though someone tries to copy something it's not really a copy since he either mistakenly makes something different, or even possesses some originality or talent do alter the concept himself or because he's just not up to it. However blatant copycats should be punished in this fashion. It's better for most of us, since our work won't get copied and we'll get rid of some competition (they usually don't represent much of a competition, but still)

A lot of the copying could be stemmed if the stock libraries weren't so keen to show their highest sellers, displaying download number on every file etc. That surely is extremely valuable info for copy-cats.

Also the bigger picture discussion is where is the line drawn for when something is a copy or not - we all know it is somewhere between the idea/concept and more or less a carbon copy, but where exactly is it? Attached to the problem is that everyone probably has slightly different views/tolerances for what is a copy and what is not. There are many niches that long ago had no competition, now they are filled with similars...I've experienced it and it has already been pointed out that there are only so many ways that you can shoot the goldfish concept, the handshake or apples on white without it being looked at as copy. The line needs to be drawn, self regulation won't work, only they libraries will have the ability to do something real about it, but how interested are they? They don't care whether the "original" or the "copy" sells. They seem to do the bare minimum, which is to delete whatever is brought to their attention and "clearly" is a copy.


CarlssonInc

« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2012, 05:33 »
0
I tend to agree with Carlsson on this one. Those finger faces are very common and have been around for a few years. Apart from the finger faces this guys portfolio is almost entirely unique. It seems like SS have now suspended his account.

Some finger face examples

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/finger-faces/id482533023?mt=8

http://www.facebook.com/pages/-FUNNY-FINGER-FACES-FUNPAGE-/140273172657727


This is the danger. People get all worked up, claiming someone's image is "original" and someone else's is a copy. They get reported to a stock library who probably don't really care (there is no money in investigating these things thoroughly) and someone has their account suspended. So forgive me for not woo-haying that someone just had their account terminated, lost income for being too close for comfort for some anonymous forum poster's taste without it being clear who was first with the concept/idea and where exactly the line for copying is - it is quite evident that there is more than one copy-cat in this case, who is really the original, who was first, whom inspired whom.... This is a minefield,  similarities can be deliberate or coincidental - I don't support DELIBERATE copy-cats, but leave room for honest mistakes, error in judgement as to where the line is is really drawn.

Microbius

« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2012, 05:56 »
0
We could be jumping to yet more conclusions here, the portfolio could be suspended for other reasons, or just pending the investigation rather than being an outright ban.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2012, 05:58 »
0
We could be jumping to yet more conclusions here, the portfolio could be suspended for other reasons, or just pending the investigation rather than being an outright ban.

True. Let's just hope that fair action will be taken, whatever fair is.

RT


« Reply #45 on: March 10, 2012, 06:01 »
0
This is the danger. People get all worked up, claiming someones image is "original" and someone else's is a copy. They get reported to a stock library who probably don't really care (there is no money in investigating these things thoroughly) and someone has their account suspended. So forgive me for not woo-haying that someone just had their account terminated, lost income for being too close for comfort for some anonymous forum poster's taste without it being clear who was first with the concept/idea and where exactly the line for copying is - it is quite evident that there is more than one copy-cat in this case, who is really the original, who was first, whom inspired whom.... This is a minefield,  similarities can be deliberate or coincidental - I don't support DELIBERATE copy-cats, but leave room for honest mistakes, error in judgement as to where the line is is really drawn.

This is the real danger, I've seen images of my own being used for 'creative inspiration' some of which were done by someone extremely well known in microstock, and I've created images that I've later seen are very similar to someone else's. Like many other I don't advocate taking somebody else's work and making an identical copy however I challenge anybody here (most notably the OP) to put up their portfolio for scrutiny by others to see if any of their images are similar to another - "original" - image somewhere on the internet.

And I firmly believe that any agency that publishes 'most popular', 'best sellers' or displays the download figures of images but then takes the easy way out by just closing/suspending accounts that are challenged are the real culprits in the alledged 'copy-cat' fiasco.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #46 on: March 10, 2012, 06:13 »
0
This is the danger. People get all worked up, claiming someones image is "original" and someone else's is a copy. They get reported to a stock library who probably don't really care (there is no money in investigating these things thoroughly) and someone has their account suspended. So forgive me for not woo-haying that someone just had their account terminated, lost income for being too close for comfort for some anonymous forum poster's taste without it being clear who was first with the concept/idea and where exactly the line for copying is - it is quite evident that there is more than one copy-cat in this case, who is really the original, who was first, whom inspired whom.... This is a minefield,  similarities can be deliberate or coincidental - I don't support DELIBERATE copy-cats, but leave room for honest mistakes, error in judgement as to where the line is is really drawn.

This is the real danger, I've seen images of my own being used for 'creative inspiration' some of which were done by someone extremely well known in microstock, and I've created images that I've later seen are very similar to someone else's. Like many other I don't advocate taking somebody else's work and making an identical copy however I challenge anybody here (most notably the OP) to put up their portfolio for scrutiny by others to see if any of their images are similar to another - "original" - image somewhere on the internet.

And I firmly believe that any agency that publishes 'most popular', 'best sellers' or displays the download figures of images but then takes the easy way out by just closing/suspending accounts that are challenged are the real culprits in the alledged 'copy-cat' fiasco.

Whole-heartedly agree. The line between original and copy is very undefined. Only the ones accused of copying truly know the truth whether it is a flagrant act of copying or similarity due to pure coincidence, back of the head inspiration or deliberate copying (carbon copy or very similar). Therefore one should be very careful to judge, as always. The least the libraries could do is to that get rid of the public download data, aren't the briefs/newsletter/research-reports enough for us to create needed imagery - showing number of downloads is almost like asking contributors with a dodgy moral compass to copy.

« Reply #47 on: March 10, 2012, 06:32 »
0
This is the danger. People get all worked up, claiming someones image is "original" and someone else's is a copy. They get reported to a stock library who probably don't really care (there is no money in investigating these things thoroughly) and someone has their account suspended. So forgive me for not woo-haying that someone just had their account terminated, lost income for being too close for comfort for some anonymous forum poster's taste without it being clear who was first with the concept/idea and where exactly the line for copying is - it is quite evident that there is more than one copy-cat in this case, who is really the original, who was first, whom inspired whom.... This is a minefield,  similarities can be deliberate or coincidental - I don't support DELIBERATE copy-cats, but leave room for honest mistakes, error in judgement as to where the line is is really drawn.

This is the real danger, I've seen images of my own being used for 'creative inspiration' some of which were done by someone extremely well known in microstock, and I've created images that I've later seen are very similar to someone else's. Like many other I don't advocate taking somebody else's work and making an identical copy however I challenge anybody here (most notably the OP) to put up their portfolio for scrutiny by others to see if any of their images are similar to another - "original" - image somewhere on the internet.

And I firmly believe that any agency that publishes 'most popular', 'best sellers' or displays the download figures of images but then takes the easy way out by just closing/suspending accounts that are challenged are the real culprits in the alledged 'copy-cat' fiasco.

Whole-heartedly agree. The line between original and copy is very undefined. Only the ones accused of copying truly know the truth whether it is a flagrant act of copying or similarity due to pure coincidence, back of the head inspiration or deliberate copying (carbon copy or very similar). Therefore one should be very careful to judge, as always. The least the libraries could do is to that get rid of the public download data, aren't the briefs/newsletter/research-reports enough for us to create needed imagery - showing number of downloads is almost like asking contributors with a dodgy moral compass to copy.

Totally agree also far too many villagers with pitchforks.  If people proven guilty are punished, the accuser should be similarly punished where its not proven.

rubyroo

« Reply #48 on: March 10, 2012, 07:14 »
0
And I firmly believe that any agency that publishes 'most popular', 'best sellers' or displays the download figures of images but then takes the easy way out by just closing/suspending accounts that are challenged are the real culprits in the alledged 'copy-cat' fiasco.

This is a very good point.  Actually the 'original' image in question is one that I noticed myself, as I was looking at the best seller list a couple of weeks ago.  I actually showed that picture to some relatives who were visiting at the time and they all loved it and thought it was inspired.  Of course 'finger faces' are nothing new (My Mum and Dad used to draw faces on their fingers to make stories for us as children), but it did seem to all of us that having the arms reach across from one finger to the other was very original.

Now I've seen the link to that 'fun page' it seems the old adage is still true 'There's nothing new under the sun'.  I find it all quite disheartening, tbh.

« Reply #49 on: March 10, 2012, 07:29 »
0
And this image has been floating around in the internets at least since 2010
http://1funny.com/finger-hugs/

I don't know if this image has some connection (same photographer?) to the images in the original post, but it seems both might have copied this one instead of copying eachother.

If photographer that is blamed in the original post is punished, so should the other one be too.

I think they/you should quit chasing copycats, almost every image in the world has already been done already.

I myself have a few images that someone could blame for copying. It's just bad luck my images looks like someone else's (I have noticed the similarity only afterwards)

Another finger hug from february 2010: http://supermondi.deviantart.com/art/Hug-154959456?q=boost%3Apopular%20finger%20hug&qo=15
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 07:45 by Perry »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
6276 Views
Last post December 15, 2010, 18:30
by Jonathan Ross
27 Replies
26334 Views
Last post July 24, 2011, 02:58
by rvvelde
4 Replies
3044 Views
Last post June 24, 2012, 09:52
by Microbius
3 Replies
2763 Views
Last post April 14, 2014, 10:44
by Uncle Pete
39 Replies
11371 Views
Last post August 26, 2021, 16:29
by For Real

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle