Quote from: pjmorley on January 13, 2013, 17:27

So far people have referred to these as 'composite' works but perhaps they should be referred to as  'derivative' works. That makes a difference legally.

is that a joke? what is you point? should SS approve this?

PACA defines derivative right as: An artists rendering of a photograph in another medium is a derivative use of an image and does require the written permission of the copyright owner prior to use.

It's an issue of law, not whether SS will approve it.....at least in the USA.
iIt's not a

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 13, 2013, 18:47

Quote from: pjmorley on January 13, 2013, 17:27

So far people have referred to these as 'composite' works but perhaps they should be referred to as  'derivative' works. That makes a difference legally.

is that a joke? what is you point? should SS approve this?

PACA defines derivative right as: An artists rendering of a photograph in another medium is a derivative use of an image and does require the written permission of the copyright owner prior to use.

It's an issue of law, not whether SS will approve it.....at least in the USA.

It's both.
SS (or any other agency) has to follow laws, but in addition, they have their own rules about what they will and won't accept, even if it would be legal for them to do so. Indeed, some of their caginess might be due to laws in certain countries in which they sell, e.g. when iStock culled photos of Nazi swastikas because of some apparent German law, even though they're used perfectly legitimately in e.g. History textbooks in the UK.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57152&page=1

Quote from: Oldhand on January 13, 2013, 16:35

Maksymilian Skolik - LMS STUDIO, Częstochowa, Poland

Looks like he owns a studio of some sort....

All very intriguing..

he can have all the studios he wishes, there are already 2 photographers saying he had no authorization, if SS doesn't do anything regarding this matter I will make sure to tell all other

At FT he calls himself ' food pictures studio' :      http://en.fotolia.com/p/200409482

What is interesting is that the pics posted here at the beginning of this month have been removed but also at FT he has most of his port re-instated and is uploading again.

Maybe he agreed to remove the shots he got called on but insisted it was a simple mistake..."won't do it again, honest officer!" IMO Max Plank is a serial kleptographer.
Still, these days with all those shareholders screaming for more profits, they (the agencies) maybe going for a 'workaround' if he's TooBigToFail.

http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635 (Leonid Tit)
http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686

http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084 (konradbak)
http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320

this gets even better guys, exclusive file at FT but selling at SS

http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004

http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635 (Leonid Tit)
http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686

http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084 (konradbak)
http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320

Supersleuthing! Well done. I tried to find his windmill backgrounds he used for bread and grain but couldn't. Mind you, there's one helluva lot of windmill shots in all the archives and I don't have the stamina!

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 13, 2013, 19:38

this gets even better guys, exclusive file at FT but selling at SS

http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=109069004

Yep, that too.........always thought that was a hanging offence at FT (claiming exclusivity whilst selling elsewhere).

Done the same with his latest uploads too:

http://en.fotolia.com/p/200409482?order=creation

http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=161170&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

Now that's just greed.

And has no fear of getting busted. And given the fact that Ft hasn't done squat, he wins.

he has almost 1k files exclusive at FT, what a joke!

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 13, 2013, 19:29

http://en.fotolia.com/id/27282635 (Leonid Tit)
http://en.fotolia.com/id/37500686

http://en.fotolia.com/id/29376084 (konradbak)
http://en.fotolia.com/id/43707320

Supersleuthing! Well done. I tried to find his windmill backgrounds he used for bread and grain but couldn't. Mind you, there's one helluva lot of windmill shots in all the archives and I don't have the stamina!

I have tried that one too but haven't found, I am just human

so given this guys port, legal or not, what would your (everyone) educated guess be of the amt of money he has made with it, to date? would you say 100k more, less, over a mill???

and also, (if he has made much $$$$$) it could be that he was able to "pay off" some of the people whom he stole the backgrounds from. Kinda hush money to keep them happy and his portfolio still alive and earning.

I think like this: i made 500k with it and now im busted, darnit! but i will offer the 3-5 photogs whose work i stole 5-10k each and we will all be happy. my port will still be on line, the copy right holders got a sudden 5-10k, and the microstock agencys continue to earn from my prort.

would love to know what u think.

He is using a legal loophole in the law as PJ pointed out and he evidently has the money and lawyers to back it or otherwise why were his ports pulled and then reinstated?

His lawyers took over and made everyone come to their knees.

In the United States, the Copyright Act defines "derivative work" in 17 U.S.C. � 101:

A �derivative work� is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a �derivative work�.

Several other sections of the Copyright Act are relevant, also. 17 U.S.C. � 102(a) provides:

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

17 U.S.C. � 103(b) provides:

The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

17 U.S.C. � 106 provides:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....

US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that:

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

The statutory definition is incomplete and the concept of derivative work must be understood with reference to explanatory case law. Three major copyright law issues arise concerning derivative works: (1) what acts are sufficient to cause a copyright-protected derivative work to come into existence; (2) what acts constitute copyright infringement of a copyright in a copyright-protected work; and (3) in what circumstances is a person otherwise liable for infringement of copyright in a copyright-protected derivative work excused from liability by an affirmative defense, such as first sale or fair use?