MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Examples of blatant copycat stock-photo plagiarism  (Read 34032 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: March 13, 2012, 07:02 »
0
- 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?)


Ed

« Reply #76 on: March 13, 2012, 07:32 »
0
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.

« Reply #77 on: March 13, 2012, 07:59 »
0


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.

« Reply #78 on: March 13, 2012, 08:19 »
0

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.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 08:50 by Roxxstock »

« Reply #79 on: March 13, 2012, 09:06 »
0
Well here's your 'original' image on FT;

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

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

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

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

Ed

« Reply #80 on: March 13, 2012, 09:42 »
0
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.

« Reply #81 on: March 13, 2012, 09:50 »
0
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.

« Reply #82 on: March 13, 2012, 10:24 »
0
Well here's your 'original' image on FT;

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

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

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

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

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.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #83 on: March 13, 2012, 10:26 »
0
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

« Reply #84 on: March 13, 2012, 10:27 »
0
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #85 on: March 13, 2012, 11:10 »
0

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.



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.

Ed

« Reply #86 on: March 13, 2012, 11:22 »
0
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

« Reply #87 on: March 13, 2012, 11:28 »
0

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.

RT


« Reply #88 on: March 13, 2012, 11:29 »
0
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.

RT


« Reply #89 on: March 13, 2012, 11:41 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 11:43 by RT »

eggshell

« Reply #90 on: March 13, 2012, 11:41 »
0
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

RacePhoto

« Reply #91 on: March 13, 2012, 11:44 »
0

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 11:48 by RacePhoto »


« Reply #92 on: March 13, 2012, 11:48 »
0
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/


Funny that.

RacePhoto

« Reply #93 on: March 13, 2012, 11:54 »
0
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/


Funny that.


OP = Your Original Post Here.

I give up. No use. Three Strikes. Hope your foot heals...
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 11:55 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #94 on: March 13, 2012, 11:56 »
0
.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 12:03 by cclapper »

RT


« Reply #95 on: March 13, 2012, 12:02 »
0
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/


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.

« Reply #96 on: March 13, 2012, 12:09 »
0



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?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 12:10 by Roxxstock »

eggshell

« Reply #97 on: March 13, 2012, 12:13 »
0

Quote
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

« Reply #98 on: March 13, 2012, 12:23 »
0
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.

Ed

« Reply #99 on: March 13, 2012, 12:24 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
7135 Views
Last post December 15, 2010, 18:30
by Jonathan Ross
4 Replies
3772 Views
Last post June 24, 2012, 09:52
by Microbius
3 Replies
3198 Views
Last post April 14, 2014, 10:44
by Uncle Pete
39 Replies
16698 Views
Last post August 26, 2021, 16:29
by For Real
13 Replies
2902 Views
Last post September 11, 2023, 06:47
by gnirtS

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors