Author Topic: how is it possible? Borrowed elements used in stock photos. (Read 34496 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #25 on:** December 27, 2012, 12:32 »

Quote from: aspp on December 27, 2012, 12:26

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 27, 2012, 11:50
2 - I don't see where and why he would need a property release for a beach or windmills or fireplace or vineyard AND of course the owner wouldn't sign the release

Not to do with the windmills, fireplace etc. Submitting composites artists should normally be required to account for or provide property releases for all of the elements. The normal thing is surely to provide a link to your original component image in the case of a backdrop. The same as when you submit images which use a painted and textured backdrop.

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 27, 2012, 11:50
3 - why would they be flagged?

Obvious composites.

So the main thing is that the original artists get paid for every download and that the final clients are advised to pull any uses.

thanks for letting me know, I had no idea about that and in this case makes total sense BUT thinking that contributors are honest submitting composites would turn into a lot of work

rimglow · « **Reply #26 on:** December 27, 2012, 12:53 »

I contacted Shutterstock with a link to this thread.

By the way, all of my work are composites, but all of the photographs are mine. I've never notified any agency that my work is a composite, or ever felt a need to. The goal is to not make it obvious.

lisafx · « **Reply #27 on:** December 27, 2012, 13:05 »

Seems like a very high percentage of the entire microstock collections is composite images. You don't have to upload property releases for each element. Nor should you. When you upload you check the boxes that all the work and the elements in it are your own creation.

Deliberate fraudsters are always going to try and game the system. Eventually they do seem to get caught by eagle eyed people like Vitamine or others.

aspp · « **Reply #28 on:** December 27, 2012, 13:09 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 27, 2012, 13:05

Eventually they do seem to get caught by eagle eyed people like Vitamine or others.

Or grassed up by former friends / colleagues.

Well done for spotting these by the way OP !

luissantos84 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 27, 2012, 13:24 »

so it seems that composites don't need proof of nothing

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #30 on:** December 27, 2012, 13:26 »

Quote from: rimglow on December 27, 2012, 12:53

...By the way, all of my work are composites, but all of the photographs are mine. I've never notified any agency that my work is a composite, or ever felt a need to. The goal is to not make it obvious.

The goal is to make it seamless and believable, but it's often obvious that something wasn't shot like that, especially as you head into the realm of fantasy. Some collages aren't blended images, just collections of multiples

Some of the time iStock would request a statement that all the images in the composite are your own. Seems redundant when you're saying you own the copyright. However, having been asked once or twice, I just do it as a matter of course. For sites that have a comment field (SS and DT) I put the disclaimer in with every composite "All images used in this composite are my own". Doesn't cause any problems and saves me hassle.

And on the subject of releases for your own work, many sites already require a property release for any photo of a painting or other art of your own you photograph. I hand painted some easter eggs and did the "art" for some Christmas crafts images, for example. I have one catch-all release for that. However Veer insisted that I have a unique release for each work, which is just insane when it's my own work (so I didn't do it). I have a catch all release for self portraits, not one for each shoot and the same should be the case for art - it's not as if I'm about to cheat myself

I could live with having to use a release for my own photos used as backgrounds in my own composites as long as agencies (a) have stored releases and (b) permitted a catch all release. It'd save me typing notes!

Good catch on the thief. It's a real shame that there are cheats to be caught and that the agencies can't be bothered to check things out better themselves.

CD123 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 27, 2012, 13:27 »

Give the OP a heart! People are fast to give hearts for remarks in threads, but very rarely for the OP who started an informative/interesting thread.

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** December 27, 2012, 14:01 »

This perhaps casts some doubt on the sometimes-stated theory that SS has software checking for similars at upload.

Difydave · « **Reply #33 on:** December 27, 2012, 14:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 27, 2012, 14:01

This perhaps casts some doubt on the sometimes-stated theory that SS has software checking for similars at upload.

Yes I've heard that one or two agencies have a software check for similars. It is only software though. It can look for similar patterns of pixels in the images, but it has no real awareness of what it's looking at in the way a human does. Heavy blurring, and adding foreground subjects would get around it. Google images, for example, doesn't find any of the image's source files.
Nice find to the OP!

nicku · « **Reply #34 on:** December 27, 2012, 16:50 »

This guy must be reported on all agencies.... many of us are investing time and money creating competitive images.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 28, 2012, 07:43 »

his portfolios are still online, wonder if agencies went to Brazil on vacations

jm · « **Reply #36 on:** December 28, 2012, 16:38 »

Images on SS are "temporarily unavailable" now.
I usually feel sorry for someone who made one stupid mistake. But it's hard to feel sorry for someone who made thousands of "mistakes".

CD123 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 28, 2012, 18:13 »

Finding it hard to feel sorry for this guy. He must have been in the industry for very long to build up a port like that. I am only 2 years in it an I know that you can not just use another peoples work (even partial) and pass it of as your own (it is actually logical, no experience needed).
He must have been very aware of what he was doing and was prepared to risk it, saving time on building his own port by stealing other's work, even if it was only backgrounds.

sharpshot · « **Reply #38 on:** December 28, 2012, 18:25 »

As all the backgrounds aren't his, I wonder if the foregrounds are someone else's photos as well? They don't have to come from the microstock sites.

CD123 · « **Reply #39 on:** December 28, 2012, 18:29 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 28, 2012, 18:25

As all the backgrounds aren't his, I wonder if the foregrounds are someone else's photos as well? They don't have to come from the microstock sites.

I did isolate the foreground of one with the coconut and did a Google image search and all came up as his (with that specific background), so I think it is only the backgrounds he was messing with.

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #40 on:** December 28, 2012, 18:31 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 28, 2012, 18:25

As all the backgrounds aren't his, I wonder if the foregrounds are someone else's photos as well? They don't have to come from the microstock sites.

I don't think so. There's a consistency of lighting and use props in the foregrounds. Also, Google image search would probably find them much easier - the backgrounds are likely to evade detection because they have been blurred, reversed, had flare introduced...and may well have been squeezed or stretched a bit for good measure.

Pixart · « **Reply #41 on:** December 28, 2012, 22:04 »

Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally

CD123 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 29, 2012, 00:43 »

Quote from: Pixart on December 28, 2012, 22:04

Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally

Just asking, does EL's normally include the right to use the image as part of your own work and then sell it (without any recognition), passing it off as your own? Is there a license like that? I thought it is only to use on things like T-Shirts etc. for reprint, but not giving away your full copyright for such purpose?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #43 on:** December 29, 2012, 02:58 »

Quote from: CD123 on December 29, 2012, 00:43

Quote from: Pixart on December 28, 2012, 22:04
Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally
Just asking, does EL's normally include the right to use the image as part of your own work and then sell it (without any recognition), passing it off as your own? Is there a license like that? I thought it is only to use on things like T-Shirts etc. for reprint, but not giving away your full copyright for such purpose?

There is no EL that permits what this guy did - making your own stock images using someone else's work as a part.

Even for a reference for an illustration, this isn't permitted.

You can buy the copyright from someone, but that's probably not what happened as the original owners are still selling their work.

cidepix · « **Reply #44 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:03 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 29, 2012, 02:58

Quote from: CD123 on December 29, 2012, 00:43
Quote from: Pixart on December 28, 2012, 22:04
Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally
Just asking, does EL's normally include the right to use the image as part of your own work and then sell it (without any recognition), passing it off as your own? Is there a license like that? I thought it is only to use on things like T-Shirts etc. for reprint, but not giving away your full copyright for such purpose?

There is no EL that permits what this guy did - making your own stock images using someone else's work as a part.

photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..

they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..

this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..

CD123 · « **Reply #45 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:21 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:03

Quote from: jsnover on December 29, 2012, 02:58
Quote from: CD123 on December 29, 2012, 00:43
Quote from: Pixart on December 28, 2012, 22:04
Arent EL's on photodune like 5 cents or thereabouts - maybe he purchased them legally
Just asking, does EL's normally include the right to use the image as part of your own work and then sell it (without any recognition), passing it off as your own? Is there a license like that? I thought it is only to use on things like T-Shirts etc. for reprint, but not giving away your full copyright for such purpose?

There is no EL that permits what this guy did - making your own stock images using someone else's work as a part.

photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..

they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..

this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..

Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?

cidepix · « **Reply #46 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:34 »

Quote from: CD123 on December 29, 2012, 04:21

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:03
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..

they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..

this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..

Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?

I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime?

CD123 · « **Reply #47 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:37 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:34

Quote from: CD123 on December 29, 2012, 04:21
Quote from: cidepix on December 29, 2012, 04:03
photodune's ELs kind of do.. he has all the rights to do this, if he can prove he bought it from photodune..

they permit photos to be associated in larger projects which in this case it is incorporated in a larger(!) photo..

this is the reason I made such a noise about it months ago and deactivated EL's on photodune..

Question is, does that include the right to sell it then and passing it off as your own?

I think I already answered that question.. why didn't I say shutterstock? or istockphoto? or dreamstime?

Are you refering to this statement "photodune's ELs kind of do".
Incorporating pictures into projects (like an advertisement) is not the same as selling the combined image, is it?

Microbius · « **Reply #48 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:48 »

I caught someone selling a template on GR that was basically one of my vectors with a bit of text on top of it.
When I complained about it it turned out they could buy an EL from GR and do that. Of course I made sure I changed my settings to stop EL sales right away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Envato had equally dodgy ELs in place PhotoDune as they do on GR.

ETA GR= GraphicRiver Envato's graphics equivalent to PhotoDune

fotografer · « **Reply #49 on:** December 29, 2012, 04:50 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 29, 2012, 04:48

I caught someone selling a template on GR that was basically one of my vectors with a bit of text on top of it.
When I complained about it it turned out they could buy an EL from GR and do that. Of course I made sure I changed my settings to stop EL sales right away.
I wouldn't be surprised if Envato had equally dodgy ELs in place PhotoDune as they do on GR.

What is GR? Is it Graphic Leftovers?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: how is it possible? Borrowed elements used in stock photos. (Read 34496 times)

luissantos84

rimglow

lisafx

aspp

luissantos84

Jo Ann Snover

CD123

ShadySue

Difydave

nicku

luissantos84

jm

CD123

sharpshot

CD123

Monty-m-gue

Pixart

CD123

Jo Ann Snover

cidepix

CD123

cidepix

CD123

Microbius

fotografer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors