MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Roxxstock on March 09, 2012, 00:49
-
Here is a terrible example of plagiarism I found on Shutterstock. The original image (Preto Perola) is one of the most popular images (search Valentine) on the site. Over 200,000 images later (three/four weeks?) there's the outrageous copy by Marcel Schauer posted - based on the individual file numbers. Apart from the obvious copycat photograph, the title of the image and every single keyword is identical! There is however one difference, the image quality of the plagiarised copy is rubbish which is why is does not sell so well. He has even posted a series of his copycat images absolutely identical to Preto Perola's but all equally a lower standard of technical ability.
This is the most obvious example I have seen for a while - Take a bow Marcel Schauer - and hang your head in shame!
Maybe this thread could be a 'name and shame' thread showing other such blatant examples. I hope the various library admins check in now and then to this thread and remove any such outrageous offenders images from they're own sites.
Creative inspiration is one thing but this is just taking the p-i-s-s.
-
Nobody likes copycats, but is it really right to appoint yourself as prosecutor, court and judge? Innocent before proven guilty?
Why didn't you just contact the contributor you thought were doing something wrong and/or the stock library in question (SS) before publicly and unheard accusing them?
-
Wow, that's pretty blatant.
I like IStock's "abusive inspiration" policy.
"It may not be illegal but we don't like to see other artists work being cannibalized" is a good attitude in a stock agency, as long as it is fairly applied.
-
Microbius is absoloutely correct! its blatant! and really this is what Ive been saying for years: its not the photographers fault, just trying to earn money, its the agencies, for allowing it in the first place. If youre not allowed to do it in RM, why in Micro?.
Its little wonder we have some 100 million files on line and I bet 50%, are just pure copycat work.
This however is one of the worst examples I have seen. Pugh!
I know, its impossible for agencies to police this, too time consuming, etc but the similarity in this case is incredible.
-
Nobody likes copycats, but is it really right to appoint yourself as prosecutor, court and judge? Innocent before proven guilty?
Why didn't you just contact the contributor you thought were doing something wrong and/or the stock library in question (SS) before publicly and unheard accusing them?
If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it kwaks like a duck... ;) I support the OP, I think such ppl should be put to shame, spatted on and lastly they should be hanged ;D (at least in the online sense, account locked, port erased, pending funds taken away and put towards inspectors looking for plagiarism)
-
Wow, that's pretty blatant.
I like IStock's "abusive inspiration" policy.
"It may not be illegal but we don't like to see other artists work being cannibalized" is a good attitude in a stock agency, as long as it is fairly applied.
Is it?
-
Wow, that's pretty blatant.
I like IStock's "abusive inspiration" policy.
"It may not be illegal but we don't like to see other artists work being cannibalized" is a good attitude in a stock agency, as long as it is fairly applied.
Is it?
I've never heard anyone complain about having images deleted unfairly under the policy. Plus their house their rules.
-
Wow, that's pretty blatant.
I like IStock's "abusive inspiration" policy.
"It may not be illegal but we don't like to see other artists work being cannibalized" is a good attitude in a stock agency, as long as it is fairly applied.
Is it?
I've never heard anyone complain about having images deleted unfairly under the policy. Plus their house their rules.
But is it applied at all? Surely you won't hear complaints from someone who knows he had just copied someone else's work
-
Before running to the defence of the 'original' artist who's work has been copied, you would do well to search and see if that was actually an 'original idea'. It may have become a best seller but was not necessarily unique when submitted.....
Don't get me wrong, I don't like blatant copying any more than the next person but we do need to be clear about who we are defending. Is this a case of a copycat copying another copycat?
-
Before running to the defence of the 'original' artist who's work has been copied, you would do well to search and see if that was actually an 'original idea'. It may have become a best seller but was not necessarily unique when submitted.....
Don't get me wrong, I don't like blatant copying any more than the next person but we do need to be clear about who we are defending. Is this a case of a copycat copying another copycat?
System will never be perfect, but it's still better that some get sanctioned, instead of none. If plagiarism was actually sanctioned, than I bet most ppl wouldn't try it, at least those that have something to loose ;)
-
Before running to the defence of the 'original' artist who's work has been copied, you would do well to search and see if that was actually an 'original idea'. It may have become a best seller but was not necessarily unique when submitted.....
Don't get me wrong, I don't like blatant copying any more than the next person but we do need to be clear about who we are defending. Is this a case of a copycat copying another copycat?
Fair point, but of course I checked first before posting this message. The original image (on the left by Perola) has an image ID of 92960689. The first appearance of (what I shall call) the copy image is 94961593. The SS number allocation to files is sequential, i.e the lower the number the earlier to acceptance to the library. The copy image is over 200,000 images after the original acceptance. That number would be three to four weeks (guesstimate) on current SS volume. I don't think it is feasible that if the copy image was the 'original' the photographer would have waited three weeks to post his pictures. You might suggest, maybe Perola saw the Schauer image somewhere else on another site and posted on SS first. If he did I could not find it -I checked Schauer port on RF123 and non of these copy images are posted. There is one image posted on his DT portfolio and it states the image was taken on 3 February 2012. The series of image numbers relating to 92...... on SS were uploaded the week of the 7 January 2012. Four weeks earlier which ties in with the difference in the file numbers. I'm no Inspector Morse but the dates seem to support the proposition that Perola's images were uploaded first, at least three weeks before the Marcel Schauer versions. Apart from that, how do you square the circle of absolutely identical keywords and title? I accept that appearances can be deceptive but I think this is a pretty clear cut case of plagiarism.
-
Before running to the defence of the 'original' artist who's work has been copied, you would do well to search and see if that was actually an 'original idea'. It may have become a best seller but was not necessarily unique when submitted.....
Don't get me wrong, I don't like blatant copying any more than the next person but we do need to be clear about who we are defending. Is this a case of a copycat copying another copycat?
Not exact copies but there are also these which seem to predate the examples above (ra2 studio):
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=67431202 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=67431202)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/624226/624226,1292689509,1/stock-photo-painted-finger-smiley-valentine-s-day-theme-67431202.jpg)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-72598093/stock-photo-painted-finger-smiley-valentine-s-day-theme.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-72598093/stock-photo-painted-finger-smiley-valentine-s-day-theme.html)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/624226/624226,1299453910,2/stock-photo-painted-finger-smiley-valentine-s-day-theme-72598093.jpg)
http://depositphotos.com/5491141/stock-photo-Finger-Hug-on-Valentine039s-day-theme.html (http://depositphotos.com/5491141/stock-photo-Finger-Hug-on-Valentine039s-day-theme.html)
(http://static6.depositphotos.com/1026266/549/i/450/dep_5491141-Finger-Hug-on-Valentine039s-day-theme.jpg)
-
System will never be perfect, but it's still better that some get sanctioned, instead of none. If plagiarism was actually sanctioned, than I bet most ppl wouldn't try it, at least those that have something to loose ;)
The system will never be perfect, but no, it's NOT better that some get sanctioned, if the ones getting sanctioned are the wrong ones! I don't believe there is a microstock agency today that is going to put a lot of resources into doing anything about this. It would take too much time to try and track down who the owner of the original idea is, if it could be done at all.
-
I don't think they would be trying to prove anything, just make a reasonable judgement call, and clearly the first two are pretty much identical while the rest are just based on the same idea.
So disable the second one, after discussing it with the photographer to see what they have to say. They may not have copied the first one, they may both have copied the same third image, either way just make a judgement call based on what they have to say about it and how similar the images are.
-
nobody better submit any photos of goldfish. Search on istock and you'll see the biggest example of copying in the history of microstock.
-
System will never be perfect, but it's still better that some get sanctioned, instead of none. If plagiarism was actually sanctioned, than I bet most ppl wouldn't try it, at least those that have something to loose ;)
The system will never be perfect, but no, it's NOT better that some get sanctioned, if the ones getting sanctioned are the wrong ones! I don't believe there is a microstock agency today that is going to put a lot of resources into doing anything about this. It would take too much time to try and track down who the owner of the original idea is, if it could be done at all.
Microbious beat me to it and gave you the reply ;)
I don't think they would be trying to prove anything, just make a reasonable judgement call, and clearly the first two are pretty much identical while the rest are just based on the same idea.
So disable the second one, after discussing it with the photographer to see what they have to say. They may not have copied the first one, they may both have copied the same third image, either way just make a judgement call based on what they have to say about it and how similar the images are.
-
nobody better submit any photos of goldfish. Search on istock and you'll see the biggest example of copying in the history of microstock.
No one in his right mind would shoot something so overdone anyway ;) ;D
-
nobody better submit any photos of goldfish. Search on istock and you'll see the biggest example of copying in the history of microstock.
No one in his right mind would shoot something so overdone anyway ;) ;D
YMBJ: two uploaded in autumn 2011 have already flamed.
-
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.
-
nobody better submit any photos of goldfish. Search on istock and you'll see the biggest example of copying in the history of microstock.
No one in his right mind would shoot something so overdone anyway ;) ;D
YMBJ: two uploaded in autumn 2011 have already flamed.
Than there's something wrong with those buyers ;D ;)
-
Wow, that's pretty blatant.
I like IStock's "abusive inspiration" policy.
"It may not be illegal but we don't like to see other artists work being cannibalized" is a good attitude in a stock agency, as long as it is fairly applied.
Is it?
I've never heard anyone complain about having images deleted unfairly under the policy. Plus their house their rules.
I try not to play the abusive inspiration card unless it's blatant. But there have been a few times it was really obvious and iStock has quickly removed the copy-cat work. I'm happy the policy is in place.
-
Wow, that's pretty blatant.
I like IStock's "abusive inspiration" policy.
"It may not be illegal but we don't like to see other artists work being cannibalized" is a good attitude in a stock agency, as long as it is fairly applied.
Is it?
I've never heard anyone complain about having images deleted unfairly under the policy. Plus their house their rules.
I try not to play the abusive inspiration card unless it's blatant. But there have been a few times it was really obvious and iStock has quickly removed the copy-cat work. I'm happy the policy is in place.
Thumbs up for that, I hope other agencies will copy the goods business practices from IS as well. That's what I call protecting the contributors and that's what an agency should do, that's what they're payed for
-
This is what you call a "derivative work". I've had some of my shots blatantly "copied" into being a vector. Doesn't matter in the end. I beat them to the market and mine is waaay more profitable because of that.
-
One area I'm never sure about is when someone has copied but they have attempted to make their version better. I can't find a good example right now but here is something along those lines.
Original http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-9933801-grungeamerican-flag-vector.php?st=b2cd377 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-9933801-grungeamerican-flag-vector.php?st=b2cd377)
Copy http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-19400669-american-flag-grunge.php?st=b2cd377 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-19400669-american-flag-grunge.php?st=b2cd377)
umm, looking again this one might be too close for comfort
-
Were all assuming they didn't come up with these designs on their own... which is perfectly possible.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Were all assuming they didn't come up with these designs on their own... which is perfectly possible.
are you serious?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
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)
-
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://itunes.apple.com/us/app/finger-faces/id482533023?mt=8)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/-FUNNY-FINGER-FACES-FUNPAGE-/140273172657727 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/-FUNNY-FINGER-FACES-FUNPAGE-/140273172657727)
-
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.
-
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
[url]http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/finger-faces/id482533023?mt=8[/url] ([url]http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/finger-faces/id482533023?mt=8[/url])
[url]http://www.facebook.com/pages/-FUNNY-FINGER-FACES-FUNPAGE-/140273172657727[/url] ([url]http://www.facebook.com/pages/-FUNNY-FINGER-FACES-FUNPAGE-/140273172657727[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 it’s not proven.
-
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.
-
And this image has been floating around in the internets at least since 2010
http://1funny.com/finger-hugs/ (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 (http://supermondi.deviantart.com/art/Hug-154959456?q=boost%3Apopular%20finger%20hug&qo=15)
-
I was annoyed once when I saw an image that was virtually identical to mine but with a different model but when I looked at the date of the image the other image was done 2 years before mine. Maybe I had seen the image before without realizing it and subconscioulsy copied it or maybe it was pure coincidence, who knows.
-
I was annoyed once when I saw an image that was virtually identical to mine but with a different model but when I looked at the date of the image the other image was done 2 years before mine. Maybe I had seen the image before without realizing it and subconscioulsy copied it or maybe it was pure coincidence, who knows.
That does happen - BUT - did your model wear the same colored clothes, did the model have the same hair color and cut? Was he/she the same ethnicity, was it the same location?
Yes, photographic plagiarism exists (as Getty has proven multiple times) but if a photo concept was done "unintentionally", chances are that there are certain differences.
In the case of the flags mentioned here, a lot of factors were identical which less likely is a coincidence.
-
I think the big lesson here is A.) were all "copy-cats", even if we don't know it.... and B.) Be the first one to the market, when the market is ready for you stuff.
May the best man or woman win.
-
I was annoyed once when I saw an image that was virtually identical to mine but with a different model but when I looked at the date of the image the other image was done 2 years before mine. Maybe I had seen the image before without realizing it and subconscioulsy copied it or maybe it was pure coincidence, who knows.
That does happen - BUT - did your model wear the same colored clothes, did the model have the same hair color and cut? Was he/she the same ethnicity, was it the same location?
Yes, photographic plagiarism exists (as Getty has proven multiple times) but if a photo concept was done "unintentionally", chances are that there are certain differences.
In the case of the flags mentioned here, a lot of factors were identical which less likely is a coincidence.
The models face wasn't in the photo but eveything else was pretty much the same enough so that at first look I thought it was my image.
-
My number 2 bestseller at shutterstock has been copied (after me) at least 7 times, in exactly de same way, same background even. One of those 7 is MUCH better than mine (much cuter animal), but the "best match" favors mine, so mine still is the best-selling one.
I have never accused any one of copying my idea, simply because I have been reading about accounts being closed for such reasons instead of just suspending the image. I don't think I ever want to cause the closure of some one's account, ever.
(which does not mean you can now all start copying my images, because I won't accuse you anyway :D)
-
To give some closure to this particular instance of plagiarism (and this thread), Marcel Schauer's portfolio on SS has been terminated as of this morning, 12 March. Cap attached. Even though I (really) do regret that another photographer has now lost (some) ability to earn an income, this should be a lesson to us all, that blatant copycat posting of images is not acceptable.
-
To give some closure to this particular instance of plagiarism (and this thread), Marcel Schauer's portfolio on SS has been terminated as of this morning, 12 March.
Hmmm. I do wonder just how much proper consideration is given in such cases. Does the accused get the opportunity to defend themselves? Was it just a problem with the one image or was it an accumulation of offences and over what period?
As RT has said the agencies themselves do actively assist, if not blatantly encourage, 'inspirational guidance' via the publication of best-selling lists, etc. Can't help thinking that the deletion of offending images and a final warning should suffice for a first offence.
I was listening to the novelist Jeffery Archer plugging his latest book on the radio this afternoon. Although he and his publisher are British the book is actually being launched in India first (where his books are apparently very popular). That's because they know if it was initially released in the UK then within 48 hours fake copies of the book would be all over India. Someone would pick up a copy from Heathrow, on their way to India, and a few hours later the presses would be rolling. Nothing much they can do about it either other than try to be ahead of the thieves.
-
Sure we don't know the whole story.
Nonetheless, it's a bit scary, as there are plenty of "beautiful business woman with headset" photos out there.
I would bet my yearly income that I could find nearly identical images from two different photographers.
-
I was listening to the novelist Jeffery Archer plugging his latest book on the radio this afternoon. Although he and his publisher are British the book is actually being launched in India first (where his books are apparently very popular). That's because they know if it was initially released in the UK then within 48 hours fake copies of the book would be all over India. Someone would pick up a copy from Heathrow, on their way to India, and a few hours later the presses would be rolling. Nothing much they can do about it either other than try to be ahead of the thieves.
So it's better to start publishing it there, so there's no 48h lag? ;D
-
Sure we don't know the whole story.
Nonetheless, it's a bit scary, as there are plenty of "beautiful business woman with headset" photos out there.
I would bet my yearly income that I could find nearly identical images from two different photographers.
After my first post on this site I got a PM (wrongly) accusing me of doing a copycat - we just happened to have the same idea and both use the same models and similar tools. At least (however robustly) this was done by PM. SS, in particular, don't seem big on due process and we have seen quite a few threads where folks' accounts have been deleted - maybe guilty, maybe not. I would be really, really slow to point accusing fingers in an environment where there a few, if any, unique concepts.
-
I don't think he deserves that and I don't feel good about any of this. Wish I hadn't even got involved in this and similar threads by roxxstock. I hope someone points out to SS that this concept has been around awhile and is therefore not original!
-
I don't think anyone's account should be suspended on the basis of one or two accusations of copying. I've come up with what I thought were original, clever ideas, and then would do a search and find out others had already done the same thing. OTOH I've also come up with ideas that had not been done by any other microstockers (as far as I could tell from searches), and yet I will see all sorts of copies turning up after my image accepted, especially if it becomes popular. Some of these people may have simply come up with the same idea as me, but a lot of it is idea theft, plain and simple.
That said, it's hard to be sure if an idea is stolen or not, and it's dangerous to jump to conclusions. I get really irritated when I see people with portfolios that consist mostly of copied work - I think these people have nothing to contribute and should be banned.
-
This is what I've said all along. Copy-cating is a minefield. Only the offender knows whether they have deliberately set out to copy an image, carbon-copy it , copy it with some slight changes etc.
This "concept" like so many others have been done before, the one label copy-cat could have been just as much that as the one labelled the "original" or vice-versa...
Also, SS or any other library has no real interest in stopping this, if they are made aware of a case of suspect copy-cating they probably do the very minimum of (if any) investigating and show force by terminating an account to appease the angry worked-up mob...
The one accused probably didn't stand much of a chance, no matter whether he was guilty or innocent. It wasn't like this was an entire portfolio full of suspect copy-cating. Now someone has lost income, at a time in the world when this could have a significant impact on someone's life.
Hopefully the instigator and the mob are happy with the outcome, fingers crossed that they are never on the receiving end of an angry mob with their minds made up before the accused one even had an honest chance to defend themselves.
-
Totally agree. Closing an account should be the LAST and not the first thing that SS does after an accusation. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with what Roxxstock did either. We all know how severely SS reacts to such things (even to first timers with 1 file copied), so he could have known what would happen after his post (sorry Roxxstock).
-
Hopefully the instigator and the mob are happy with the outcome, fingers crossed that they are never on the receiving end of an angry mob with their minds made up before the accused one even had an honest chance to defend themselves.
Good point.
There is always someone around claiming to have invented the wheel and faces drawn on fingers have been around for decades.
-
Hopefully the instigator and the mob are happy with the outcome, fingers crossed that they are never on the receiving end of an angry mob with their minds made up before the accused one even had an honest chance to defend themselves.
Good point.
There is always someone around claiming to have invented the wheel and faces drawn on fingers have been around for decades.
There's a number of people posting on this page with IQ's that would seriously compete with that of a gnat. They don't even appear to be able to even read. The OP was not about 'faces on fingers' it was not about 'copying an idea' - it was about a single case of an ABSOLUTE COPY of an existing image in every single detail which included, and I quote, "exactly the same keywords and image title', taken 3-4 weeks after the original was uploaded (3 February) and posted on the same site! But, typically, these posters simply want to blame someone else for the events that have taken place since the OP.
They might think differently if it was their image that was copied.
FWIW - I don't think it was fair to take down the guys entire port, just the images that were copied would have been sufficient IMO.
And another thing - there was no 'mob' or 'angry villagers with pitch forks' - only a post about a flagrant and blatant copying of an existing (good selling) image.
For all the ranters berating me for posting the OP - do everyone here a favour - read the B-L-O-O-D-Y OP again before jumping, lemming like, into the mire of accusing the messenger!
If you think that SS acted inappropriately why don't you contact them yourself and make your point directly to them?
*.
-
While I agree with what many of you write here (account closure should be last resort, similar concept is no proof for stealing, innocent until proven guilty etc...)...
... how do you explain that in the case pointed out here the keywords of the two files are identical?
Can that be coincidence? Or isn't that proof that the second file is a copy of the first?
ETA: ... a bit too slow, same argument from the OP just above me...
-
Hopefully the instigator and the mob are happy with the outcome, fingers crossed that they are never on the receiving end of an angry mob with their minds made up before the accused one even had an honest chance to defend themselves.
Good point.
There is always someone around claiming to have invented the wheel and faces drawn on fingers have been around for decades.
There's a number of people posting on this page with IQ's that would seriously compete with that of a gnat. They don't even appear to be able to even read. The OP was not about 'faces on fingers' it was not about 'copying an idea' - it was about a single case of an ABSOLUTE COPY of an existing image in every single detail which included, and I quote, "exactly the same keywords and image title', taken 3-4 weeks after the original was uploaded (3 February) and posted on the same site! But, typically, these posters simply want to blame someone else for the events that have taken place since the OP.
They might think differently if it was their image that was copied.
FWIW - I don't think it was fair to take down the guys entire port, just the images that were copied would have been sufficient IMO.
And another thing - there was no 'mob' or 'angry villagers with pitch forks' - only a post about a flagrant and blatant copying of an existing (good selling) image.
For all the ranters berating me for posting the OP - do everyone here a favour - read the B-L-O-O-D-Y OP again before jumping, lemming like, into the mire of accusing the messenger!
If you think that SS acted inappropriately why don't you contact them yourself and make your point directly to them?
*.
I was just talking about ideas in general but if it was an exact copy right down to the keywords you're justified in raising a stink.
-
I was just talking about ideas in general but if it was an exact copy right down to the keywords you're justified in raising a stink.
[/quote]
it was about a single case of an ABSOLUTE COPY of an existing image in every single detail which included, and I quote, "exactly the same keywords and image title'
It was.
-
They might think differently if it was their image that was copied.
FWIW - I don't think it was fair to take down the guys entire port, just the images that were copied would have been sufficient IMO.
I am happy you agree that closing an account is too harsh - even if there is proof (through the keywords) that it was a copy.
And no, I would not think otherwise if it was my image that was copied. My N°2 bestseller at SS has been copied not once, but at least 7 times after me, and I have not contacted SS about it (or PM'd, or posted anything).
I am not accusing or attacking you (or at least it was not my intention to), but we all know that SS never takes down 1 image in such cases, they usually shut down the account (as far as I know).
If ever some one thinks I copied him or her, I hope to receive a PM. I'll immediately take down the image to show my good-will and THEN talk about it. I would do the same in cases of possible copyright infringement, or if by accident I left a logo or so in an image of mine.
-
Hopefully the instigator and the mob are happy with the outcome, fingers crossed that they are never on the receiving end of an angry mob with their minds made up before the accused one even had an honest chance to defend themselves.
Good point.
There is always someone around claiming to have invented the wheel and faces drawn on fingers have been around for decades.
There's a number of people posting on this page with IQ's that would seriously compete with that of a gnat. They don't even appear to be able to even read. The OP was not about 'faces on fingers' it was not about 'copying an idea' - it was about a single case of an ABSOLUTE COPY of an existing image in every single detail which included, and I quote, "exactly the same keywords and image title', taken 3-4 weeks after the original was uploaded (3 February) and posted on the same site! But, typically, these posters simply want to blame someone else for the events that have taken place since the OP.
They might think differently if it was their image that was copied.
FWIW - I don't think it was fair to take down the guys entire port, just the images that were copied would have been sufficient IMO.
And another thing - there was no 'mob' or 'angry villagers with pitch forks' - only a post about a flagrant and blatant copying of an existing (good selling) image.
For all the ranters berating me for posting the OP - do everyone here a favour - read the B-L-O-O-D-Y OP again before jumping, lemming like, into the mire of accusing the messenger!
If you think that SS acted inappropriately why don't you contact them yourself and make your point directly to them?
*.
I don't recall it being a crime to copy keywords or titles. And who exactly is copying who?
-
Hopefully the instigator and the mob are happy with the outcome, fingers crossed that they are never on the receiving end of an angry mob with their minds made up before the accused one even had an honest chance to defend themselves.
Good point.
There is always someone around claiming to have invented the wheel and faces drawn on fingers have been around for decades.
There's a number of people posting on this page with IQ's that would seriously compete with that of a gnat. They don't even appear to be able to even read. The OP was not about 'faces on fingers' it was not about 'copying an idea' - it was about a single case of an ABSOLUTE COPY of an existing image in every single detail which included, and I quote, "exactly the same keywords and image title', taken 3-4 weeks after the original was uploaded (3 February) and posted on the same site! But, typically, these posters simply want to blame someone else for the events that have taken place since the OP.
They might think differently if it was their image that was copied.
FWIW - I don't think it was fair to take down the guys entire port, just the images that were copied would have been sufficient IMO.
And another thing - there was no 'mob' or 'angry villagers with pitch forks' - only a post about a flagrant and blatant copying of an existing (good selling) image.
For all the ranters berating me for posting the OP - do everyone here a favour - read the B-L-O-O-D-Y OP again before jumping, lemming like, into the mire of accusing the messenger!
If you think that SS acted inappropriately why don't you contact them yourself and make your point directly to them?
*.
You took it upon yourself to accuse someone of being a copy-cat without contacting to give them the slightest chance to defend/explain themselves. You rushed straight to an online forum to post instead of contacting them. You assisted and succeeded in them having their account terminated.
I fail to understand why you didn't contact the contributor of the "original" and notifiy them of a potential copy-cat and let them deal with it how they saw fit?
-
@Roxxstock
I've got no beef with you (although I do find your name calling rather unnecessary) , but do you in all honesty think that this has been done the right way? Should we all chase suspect copy-cats and post our findings here in the forum? Even if on the surface it looks blatant. Is that really what you think is the right way to go about it?
Seems so much better if we all looked after our own houses, if we found something that might concern a fellow contributor, e-mail them and let them know and let them deal with it how they see fit - just seems so much civil and a lot "safer", less risk of someone being mistakenly tarnished as a copy-cat or having their account terminated.
-
[/quote]
You took it upon yourself to accuse someone of being a copy-cat without contacting to give them the slightest chance to defend/explain themselves. You rushed straight to an online forum to post instead of contacting them. You assisted and succeeded in them having their account terminated.
I fail to understand why you didn't contact the contributor of the "original" and notifiy them of a potential copy-cat and let them deal with it how they saw fit?
[/quote]
Let me paste here (one of your contradictory pieces of advice):
"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."
Make your mind up.
-
You took it upon yourself to accuse someone of being a copy-cat without contacting to give them the slightest chance to defend/explain themselves. You rushed straight to an online forum to post instead of contacting them. You assisted and succeeded in them having their account terminated.
I fail to understand why you didn't contact the contributor of the "original" and notifiy them of a potential copy-cat and let them deal with it how they saw fit?
[/quote]
Let me paste here (one of your contradictory pieces of advice):
"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."
Make your mind up.
[/quote]
My mind is made up, so let me clarify. I've never embarked on chasing copy-cats myself before (despite having had work copied), so the thread as such has been educating and making me think.
My feeling from the beginning of this thread is that first and foremost it is wrong to as the first course of action is to head over to an on-line forum to name and shame someone in public.
I would now have chosen the following course of action depending on the case:
- If I saw a fellow contributor's work being blatantly copied I would notify them, then let them deal with it.
- If my own work was copied (discovered by myself or someone notifying me) I would take the appropriate action depending on the circumstances, most likely first contact the copy-cat, if they don't respond and things don't get resolved, contact the stock library hosting the images to deal with it.
Don't you agree? Or do you still feel name and shame is more appropriate?
-
- If I saw a fellow contributor's work being blatantly copied I would notify them, then let them deal with it.
- If my own work was copied (discovered by myself or someone notifying me) I would take the appropriate action depending on the circumstances, most likely first contact the copy-cat, if they don't respond and things don't get resolved, contact the stock library hosting the images to deal with it.
I agree that is the best way to act in those 2 situations.
But what about situation 3 : "if you receive a PM of a contributor accusing you of copying"? Supposing of course you know for yourself you did NOT copy him/her, the image is earlier than yours, and you have to admit both photos are very alike. What's the best way to act in situation 3 ? You'll want to prevent the other person from contacting the stock library of course.
(Or should I start a new topic for this?)
-
Wow...sorry guys but this kind of witch hunt is outrageous. The first example was an issue but it should have been brought up in a different manner.
You know, back in 2007, I was thinking of things to shoot and I decided to go down the path of shooting "idioms" (various sayings). One was a "can of worms". I did a search at the major agencies and this wasn't a concept covered yet. So I did a photo shoot and put up a picture of a can full of earthworms. That was one of my most popular images for about a year until I started noticing other people doing the same thing. Over the past year, I've only licensed those images two times.
Was it original? Not really. Am I going to go on a witch hunt and start accusing everyone of copying me? No...I'm going to move on and find other concepts to shoot.
-
I don't recall it being a crime to copy keywords or titles. And who exactly is copying who?
[/quote]
I'm too lazy to verify this, but I'm pretty sure that direct copying of titles and keywords is expressly forbidden by SS and other agencies, as it should be. Not a crime exactly, but definitely forbidden by the agencies and a reason for termination of an account. If this one had identical title, description and keywords then closing the account is justified. It's a bit harsh to do it for one image but maybe there were dozens in there - we don't know. For SS, they probably don't have time to investigate these things too carefully so will terminate with one good instance. The problem, as many have pointed out, is that it is easy to inadvertently generate similar images. However, independently coming up with identical titles, descriptions and set of keywords is much less likely so I assume instances of wrong termination are very rare.
-
Wow...sorry guys but this kind of witch hunt is outrageous. The first example was an issue but it should have been brought up in a different manner.
This thread did not start out as a 'witch hunt' and it has not developed into one either. I am also getting just a little exasperated at the 'moving goal posts' on this thread.
Just for a moment, just park to one side the processes of putting the information 'out-there', and look at the specific nature of the points I made in the OP. Please, one more time.
1. There is a successful image on SS uploaded in early January 2012. It may or may not be a unique image but it is the only stock library image at that time that looked like it did. (I know this because I checked before posting the OP)
2. Three-four weeks later an identical image is posted on SS by another photographer. When I mean identical, I mean identical.
3. The title of the image is identical. The type setting is exactly the same.
4. The keyword associated with this file are identical. When I say identical, I mean identical - even in the same order and line breaks in the keyword description.
5. The matter was not (by me) reported to SS.
6. SS decided to suspend the photographers account - all the images were affected not just the 'copycat' ones (of which there were four).
7. I posted this development on MSG.
8. Yesterday SS closed the photographers account. I posted this development on MSG as well.
Apart from a few posters here, every other person seems to willingly ignore the points 1 - 4. They are far more concerned about the processes which resulted in point 6 and 8.
FTR - I am not in agreement (at all) that the photographers entire account has been closed. One poster here implied implicitly that I should have been aware that the SS policy was to close accounts as soon as an accusation of copycat practice is reported. I was not aware this was SS policy, why would I have been?
Another poster suggested that "I rushed on this site" to post the alleged offence. Complete rubbish! I checked all the other sites this photographer and the 'original' photographers portfolios where posted to check the details of when the images were created and uploaded. I then posted the OP, quite a few hours later that same day.
The major complaint here (apart from a few) is indeed turning into a 'witch hunt' against the OP, me. They appear (at least) to feel sorry for the photographer that has been banned. I don't - the fact he showed complete contempt for the process of posting a copy image is obvious, he could not even be bothered to even change the title or keywords! However, I don't think his entire account should have been shut down but instead the copy images should have been removed. Moreover, I do not accept that SS would simply take such action unless they were confident that a breach had taken place. After all they hold all the 'facts' regarding upload dates etc. To suggest that they would take such a drastic measure on the basis of a poster on the MSG forum is absurd, and frankly is an insult to the integrity of the SS admin staff.
I accept that many people believe the process of posting the issue on an open forum was, in their opinion, wrong. They are entitled to their opinion. I don't necessarily have to agree with that view. I regret that the guy's port is down. He should not have posted a copycat image so obviously (keywords etc) and he appears to have been sanctioned for this as a result. That was not the intention of the OP, despite what many of you appear to think.
Like many, I take copyrights and related issues very seriously. I have been a member of FACT (Fed. Against Copyright Theft) for years and always check images I purchase are (as far as I can tell) legal and original. If I see a violation I have the right to report it, how and where this is done perhaps is a matter of conjecture but the principle of reporting plagiarism (when this blatant) has to be the right thing to do.
-
Well here's your 'original' image on FT;
http://en.fotolia.com/id/38938520 (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 (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?
-
Have you considered the possibility that the two photographers know each other and were present at the same photoshoot? I was at a shoot in December that was organized by a photographer with a studio - one of the attendants is an iStock exclusive and another (among the 7 of us that were there) is a contributor to Dreamstime. it's very possible that we got similar images during the shoot - we each took 5 minutes with each of the three models. If those images were found at other agencies it would be irrational to, withouth knowing the circumstances, accuse either of us of copying or stealing images.
This issue has come up multiple times over the years - whether it was husband and wife shooting or friends shooting together.
...and I am one of those that feels this issue isn't one to be addressed in a public forum while distinctly making accusations.
-
I have some old crappy photos from years back, when I began, that I don't delete just because the concept (and sometimes the exact photo) have been copied, one, two, ten times. Now and then I reshoot these concepts with better technique and equipmment, but I think that keeping the old versions can help me if some of the shameless copycats accuses me of copying what they copied from me.
On the other hand, at Istockphoto, at least in the past, some copycated images were deleted, but not entire portfolios, except in the case of serial copycaters.
-
Well here's your 'original' image on FT;
http://en.fotolia.com/id/38938520 (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 (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?
Firstly, I never defended the 'original contributor' work - I reported the blatant copying of the 'original' contributors work by the copycat.
Secondly, My actions did not get the other photographer banned from SS, his actions did - by blatantly copying another photographers image and image details and posting on the same site.
Maybe you should take a little more time in carefully reading the posts before sounding off.
-
Wow, that's pretty blatant.
I like IStock's "abusive inspiration" policy.
"It may not be illegal but we don't like to see other artists work being cannibalized" is a good attitude in a stock agency, as long as it is fairly applied.
agreed
-
Have you considered the possibility that the two photographers know each other and were present at the same photoshoot? I was at a shoot in December that was organized by a photographer with a studio - one of the attendants is an iStock exclusive and another (among the 7 of us that were there) is a contributor to Dreamstime. it's very possible that we got similar images during the shoot - we each took 5 minutes with each of the three models. If those images were found at other agencies it would be irrational to, withouth knowing the circumstances, accuse either of us of copying or stealing images.
This issue has come up multiple times over the years - whether it was husband and wife shooting or friends shooting together.
...and I am one of those that feels this issue isn't one to be addressed in a public forum while distinctly making accusations.
Please.
Rather than dignifying your ridiculous first point with an answer can I refer you to my earlier post about gnats?
Thanks.
-
There's a number of people posting on this page with IQ's that would seriously compete with that of a gnat. They don't even appear to be able to even read. The OP was not about 'faces on fingers' it was not about 'copying an idea' - it was about a single case of an ABSOLUTE COPY of an existing image in every single detail which included, and I quote, "exactly the same keywords and image title', taken 3-4 weeks after the original was uploaded (3 February) and posted on the same site! But, typically, these posters simply want to blame someone else for the events that have taken place since the OP.
And another thing - there was no 'mob' or 'angry villagers with pitch forks' - only a post about a flagrant and blatant copying of an existing (good selling) image.
For all the ranters berating me for posting the OP - do everyone here a favour - read the B-L-O-O-D-Y OP again before jumping, lemming like, into the mire of accusing the messenger!
1) Happy I could pass the IQ test at my advancing age.
2) Really, I think you forgot to look over your shoulder, that's where the angry mob is. Attacking the messenger.
(http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4769/angrymobcomposite25.jpg)
ps people who are anonymous here claiming it's so others won't steal their best selling ideas, shouldn't be throwing glass bricks at the OP! All he pointed out was an reproduction with identical keywords.
-
Have you considered the possibility that the two photographers know each other and were present at the same photoshoot? I was at a shoot in December that was organized by a photographer with a studio - one of the attendants is an iStock exclusive and another (among the 7 of us that were there) is a contributor to Dreamstime. it's very possible that we got similar images during the shoot - we each took 5 minutes with each of the three models. If those images were found at other agencies it would be irrational to, withouth knowing the circumstances, accuse either of us of copying or stealing images.
This issue has come up multiple times over the years - whether it was husband and wife shooting or friends shooting together.
...and I am one of those that feels this issue isn't one to be addressed in a public forum while distinctly making accusations.
Please.
Rather than dignifying your ridiculous first point with an answer can I refer you to my earlier post about gnats?
Thanks.
So you're saying that rather than view this from different perspectives, you'd rather immediately pass judgement on someone? What I mentioned above has happened - and it has happened to other members of this forum. It will keep happening. Laurin is doing a group shoot out at Monument Valley later this Spring. Be sure to keep an eye for people uploading similar images around the same time ;D ;D
-
ps people who are anonymous here claiming it's so others won't steal their best selling ideas, shouldn't be throwing glass bricks at the OP! All he pointed out was an reproduction with identical keywords.
[/quote]
It was rather more than that. It was an IDENTICAL image with the same title and identical keywords posted a month after the first 'original' image was posted.
I beginning to be convinced that many of the people commenting here just don't get it.
-
I like IStock's "abusive inspiration" policy.
"It may not be illegal but we don't like to see other artists work being cannibalized" is a good attitude in a stock agency, as long as it is fairly applied.
Two things spring to mind when I read this:
Firstly it's a bit 'two faced' IMO to make such a statement whilst at the same time openly publish the download figures of the files letting everyone know what the big sellers are. And as I've said before every agency would appear to encourage 'creative inspiration' by flaunting what's selling well to it's contributors.
And secondly the very popular opinion amongst stock shooters who have been doing this since before micros started is that iStocks (and every other micro) success is down to certain (name no names ;)) contributors copying images from Getty et al.
-
I beginning to be convinced that many of the people commenting here just don't get it.
I get it, and I think a lot of others get it to, I just think you went about it wrong, there's no denying that the two images are very very similar (they're not identical) and I take your word that the description and keywords were identical, but as has been pointed out to you they 'may' have been copies of copies of the original - that doesn't justify anything IMO, here's something that I don't know if you've considered, what about this hypothetical scenario:
It's no secret that iStock have upset some of it's exclusive contributors over the past year and many have 'jumped ship' and gone independent, what if the guy who's portfolio you've just announced to the world contained the "blatant copy" was in fact the original creator of the image but has only recently uploaded it to SS, what you've inadvertently done would have in actual fact had the original artists account closed and allowed the copier to continue. Feel good about yourself now?
Blatant copying is wrong no doubt about it, but this is not the place to make judgement and we're not the people to do it - contact the artists direct and let them deal with it.
-
Roxxstock , you actually made realise many of the contributors here how thin is the ice they are walking onto . You shouldn't be surprised that some react more violently towards you
It also shows how ridiculous Shutterstock's procedure is - basically once a complaint is filed it doesn't matter if you have 50 or 5000 images - your porfolio is deactivated and your chances to be reinstated are pretty slim , and even if you are ,you'll be taking a big loss for the unrealised sales and terrible search placement
-
ps people who are anonymous here claiming it's so others won't steal their best selling ideas, shouldn't be throwing glass bricks at the OP! All he pointed out was an reproduction with identical keywords.
It was rather more than that. It was an IDENTICAL image with the same title and identical keywords posted a month after the first 'original' image was posted.
I beginning to be convinced that many of the people commenting here just don't get it.
Do you have a dictionary? Take a look at "reproduction" LOL ;)
Wow, it's getting tough all over in the forums. I get blasted for agreeing with you?
Keep trying, you'll be able to swing my opinion to the other side as I watch your self immolation.
Roxxstock , you actually made realise many of the contributors here how thin is the ice they are walking onto . You shouldn't be surprised that some react more violently towards you
It also shows how ridiculous Shutterstock's procedure is - basically once a complaint is filed it doesn't matter if you have 50 or 5000 images - your porfolio is deactivated and your chances to be reinstated are pretty slim , and even if you are ,you'll be taking a big loss for the unrealised sales and terrible search placement
Really do you know that for a fact that all it took was "one complaint" or are you making some leap of negativity into the evil SS conspiracy and ring of fear?
Did you consider for a moment that the banned account may have had other complaints, copies and cloned images with identical keywords? Maybe?
-
I beginning to be convinced that many of the people commenting here just don't get it.
I get it, and I think a lot of others get it to, I just think you went about it wrong, there's no denying that the two images are very very similar (they're not identical) and I take your word that the description and keywords were identical, but as has been pointed out to you they 'may' have been copies of copies of the original - that doesn't justify anything IMO, here's something that I don't know if you've considered, what about this hypothetical scenario:
It's no secret that iStock have upset some of it's exclusive contributors over the past year and many have 'jumped ship' and gone independent, what if the guy who's portfolio you've just announced to the world contained the "blatant copy" was in fact the original creator of the image but has only recently uploaded it to SS, what you've inadvertently done would have in actual fact had the original artists account closed and allowed the copier to continue. Feel good about yourself now?
Blatant copying is wrong no doubt about it, but this is not the place to make judgement and we're not the people to do it - contact the artists direct and let them deal with it.
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.
It's amazing how the general attitude of poster s on the MSG site has changed in only 13 months, there was a time......
http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/happy-so-far-about-the-way-this-copycat-has-been-handled-by-the-agents/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/happy-so-far-about-the-way-this-copycat-has-been-handled-by-the-agents/)
Funny that.
-
I beginning to be convinced that many of the people commenting here just don't get it.
I get it, and I think a lot of others get it to, I just think you went about it wrong, there's no denying that the two images are very very similar (they're not identical) and I take your word that the description and keywords were identical, but as has been pointed out to you they 'may' have been copies of copies of the original - that doesn't justify anything IMO, here's something that I don't know if you've considered, what about this hypothetical scenario:
It's no secret that iStock have upset some of it's exclusive contributors over the past year and many have 'jumped ship' and gone independent, what if the guy who's portfolio you've just announced to the world contained the "blatant copy" was in fact the original creator of the image but has only recently uploaded it to SS, what you've inadvertently done would have in actual fact had the original artists account closed and allowed the copier to continue. Feel good about yourself now?
Blatant copying is wrong no doubt about it, but this is not the place to make judgement and we're not the people to do it - contact the artists direct and let them deal with it.
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.
It's amazing how the general attitude of poster s on the MSG site has changed in only 13 months, there was a time......
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/happy-so-far-about-the-way-this-copycat-has-been-handled-by-the-agents/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/happy-so-far-about-the-way-this-copycat-has-been-handled-by-the-agents/[/url])
Funny that.
OP = Your Original Post Here.
I give up. No use. Three Strikes. Hope your foot heals...
-
.
-
I beginning to be convinced that many of the people commenting here just don't get it.
I get it, and I think a lot of others get it to, I just think you went about it wrong, there's no denying that the two images are very very similar (they're not identical) and I take your word that the description and keywords were identical, but as has been pointed out to you they 'may' have been copies of copies of the original - that doesn't justify anything IMO, here's something that I don't know if you've considered, what about this hypothetical scenario:
It's no secret that iStock have upset some of it's exclusive contributors over the past year and many have 'jumped ship' and gone independent, what if the guy who's portfolio you've just announced to the world contained the "blatant copy" was in fact the original creator of the image but has only recently uploaded it to SS, what you've inadvertently done would have in actual fact had the original artists account closed and allowed the copier to continue. Feel good about yourself now?
Blatant copying is wrong no doubt about it, but this is not the place to make judgement and we're not the people to do it - contact the artists direct and let them deal with it.
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.
It's amazing how the general attitude of poster s on the MSG site has changed in only 13 months, there was a time......
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/happy-so-far-about-the-way-this-copycat-has-been-handled-by-the-agents/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/happy-so-far-about-the-way-this-copycat-has-been-handled-by-the-agents/[/url])
Funny that.
It's not really the same, the post you've linked to was done by the person who alleged that others had copied his work - as for attitudes changing, from what I read out of the few people that replied some didn't think it was an exact copy and others agreed.
Either way I notice you've chosen not to comment on my possible scenario and my suggestion that you should have contacted the artists involved and let them deal with it rather than announce to the world what you 'think' has happened. Unless of course you are Preto Perola?
Either way what's done is done now, let's hope you we're right.
-
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?
-
ps people who are anonymous here claiming it's so others won't steal their best selling ideas, shouldn't be throwing glass bricks at the OP! All he pointed out was an reproduction with identical keywords.
It was rather more than that. It was an IDENTICAL image with the same title and identical keywords posted a month after the first 'original' image was posted.
I beginning to be convinced that many of the people commenting here just don't get it.
Do you have a dictionary? Take a look at "reproduction" LOL ;)
Wow, it's getting tough all over in the forums. I get blasted for agreeing with you?
Keep trying, you'll be able to swing my opinion to the other side as I watch your self immolation.
Roxxstock , you actually made realise many of the contributors here how thin is the ice they are walking onto . You shouldn't be surprised that some react more violently towards you
It also shows how ridiculous Shutterstock's procedure is - basically once a complaint is filed it doesn't matter if you have 50 or 5000 images - your porfolio is deactivated and your chances to be reinstated are pretty slim , and even if you are ,you'll be taking a big loss for the unrealised sales and terrible search placement
Really do you know that for a fact that all it took was "one complaint" or are you making some leap of negativity into the evil SS conspiracy and ring of fear?
Did you consider for a moment that the banned account may have had other complaints, copies and cloned images with identical keywords? Maybe?
What evil SS conspiracy ? Are you being serious ?
To give you an example - just today I've read on Microstock.ru about a guy who is suspended on SS basically for copying from himself - he created a vector version of one of his old drawings used as an article illustration years ago . I think he'll be reinstated eventually but the problem remains that shutterstock's procedure at the moment is shoot first then ask
-
What evil SS conspiracy ? Are you being serious ?
To give you an example - just today I've read on Microstock.ru about a guy who is suspended on SS basically for copying from himself - he created a vector version of one of his old drawings used as an article illustration years ago . I think he'll be reinstated eventually but the problem remains that shutterstock's procedure at the moment is shoot first then ask
[/quote]
Not my quote
Really do you know that for a fact that all it took was "one complaint" or are you making some leap of negativity into the evil SS conspiracy and ring of fear?
That was a comment from Race Photo.
It might be my fault for the confusion. I delete some of the previous (non-relevant) text when I quote reply otherwise the messages are just too big.
-
LOL - nobody is reacting "violently". I'm not going to go out on the street and punch somebody because they felt they needed to make someone else's business their own.
And secondly the very popular opinion amongst stock shooters who have been doing this since before micros started is that iStocks (and every other micro) success is down to certain (name no names ;)) contributors copying images from Getty et al.
I also have to agree with RT's comment above. I know there have been various times over the years where designers have posted a direct link to another image in an image request forum and said "I want one like this". In one particluar case it was a direct link to a Corbis image and in another it was a direct link to a Getty image. I've even seen this most recently last Fall at an agency that had a directly link to an iStock image of cabinet faces.
Take a deep breath, go out and take some pictures, have a beer, and get your mind off things.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5906/428186.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/821/428186.jpg/)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well here's your 'original' image on FT;
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/38938520[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/38938520[/url])
... and here's another very similar image that was uploaded a little while earlier by another contributor;
[url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/38775456[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/38775456[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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% :)
-
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:
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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:
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.
-
^^^ 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! :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Crap. I thought I was a funny guy. Rats.
-
Well this is an interesting thread, I've only just come across it. I'm not going to give my view as it differs from Roxxstocks' and I'm not really in the mood for the abuse he's thrown at other contributors here.
Suffice to say lets hope "I REST MY CASE" does actually mean he will rest his case, as he can't obviously see that at least 90% of the people on here do not agree with his opinions.
Druid
-
Well this is an interesting thread, I've only just come across it. I'm not going to give my view as it differs from Roxxstocks' and I'm not really in the mood for the abuse he's thrown at other contributors here.
Suffice to say lets hope "I REST MY CASE" does actually mean he will rest his case, as he can't obviously see that at least 90% of the people on here do not agree with his opinions.
Druid
I have not thrown any abuse at anyone in this thread (apart from the Swede who miraculously disappeared and *** ***** who deserved it.
What you do not see (but I do) is a very significant number of people that relish this debate of plagiarism (by email). 120 (ish) people posting but over 2,700 reading the thread. You do the math. I am not alone. Not alone at all. And trust me, it is not 90%.
-
Well this is an interesting thread, I've only just come across it. I'm not going to give my view as it differs from Roxxstocks' and I'm not really in the mood for the abuse he's thrown at other contributors here.
Suffice to say lets hope "I REST MY CASE" does actually mean he will rest his case, as he can't obviously see that at least 90% of the people on here do not agree with his opinions.
Druid
I have not thrown any abuse at anyone in this thread (apart from the Swede who miraculously disappeared and *** ***** who deserved it.
What you do not see (but I do) is a very significant number of people that relish this debate of plagiarism (by email). 120 (ish) people posting but over 2,700 reading the thread. You do the math. I am not alone. Not alone at all. And trust me, it is not 90%.
I'm not really interested in your figures and I'm not disputing them you'll have no doubt taken the trouble to find out how many people have contributed and read this thread. To be truthful I've found it quite interesting with some good points made on both sides of the arguement.
I was merely interested in whether you were actually going to rest your case thats all..............
-
Well this is an interesting thread, I've only just come across it. I'm not going to give my view as it differs from Roxxstocks' and I'm not really in the mood for the abuse he's thrown at other contributors here.
Suffice to say lets hope "I REST MY CASE" does actually mean he will rest his case, as he can't obviously see that at least 90% of the people on here do not agree with his opinions.
Druid
I have not thrown any abuse at anyone in this thread (apart from the Swede who miraculously disappeared and *** ***** who deserved it.
What you do not see (but I do) is a very significant number of people that relish this debate of plagiarism (by email). 120 (ish) people posting but over 2,700 reading the thread. You do the math. I am not alone. Not alone at all. And trust me, it is not 90%.
Miraculously disappeared hahaha Roxxstock YOU MISS ME, that is so sweet!
Still puzzled why you can't be civil and why you carry so much anger towards me? You can't hack a discussion, opinions being different from those of yours?
I'll let the immature and unnecessary remark regarding my nationality slide. I even let your "*** *****" slide, but just for good measure I say "**** ***" too ;)
Anyway, this is not about you or me, but we should all take home that finger pointing even in cyberspace can have dire consequences therefore one should be very careful with the pointing, no matter how sure you think you are, there are always a chance you don't just know everything - not everything is how it seems and there is a huge scope for mistakes in accusing someone like this.
Also, I still fail to understand people who make other people's business their own such as in this case. The OP had not had his work copied, he was not at loss, he wasn't asked by the "original" to do this and he certainly doesn't know without a doubt that the "copy" was a true offender and that the "original" was completely innocent. So why do it?
Anyway Roxxstock, you have rested your case, so I guess this thread is over and done with. Thanks for the show.
All the best (sincerely)
The Swede.
-
@Roxxstock
I PMed, but not sure whether it got sent properly, hopefully it did, otherwise let me know and I send it again. Doesn't sent messages end up in the outbox? I can't seem to find sent messages anywhere.
-
It may be worth bearing in mind that if I lost my SS account as a result of a false allegation of plagiarism on a public forum I would sue for substantial damages for defamation, loss of reputation and loss of earnings. Even on the most modest earnings assumptions, I suspect damages would exceed $1m.
So we can, I suppose, assume that those accused of plagiarism are protected by law and those making the accusations are either very stupid or absolutely certain of their grounds.
Bear in mind that there is no risk at all to SS in closing an account because of an allegation - they have the right to terminate the relationship whenever they like, so all the risk lies with whoever alleges plagiarism.
I have, in fact, been falsely accused, but that was in the very first month of my microstock existence and in the end I settled for an apology and the promise of a beer. The accusation did make me very angry indeed as there was no "inspiration" at all, beyond my playing with different aspects of an idea, one of which happened to coincide with what someone else had done.
As others have noted, there are a lot of ways that plagiarism can appear to have taken place when it hasn't so it would be wise to be cautious before using the internet to destroy someone's reputation.