Author Topic: Who copied whom? (Read 30638 times)

Elenathewise · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2011, 16:00 »

Quote from: Perry on March 02, 2011, 15:38

It's impossible to say if the second image is a copy or not. The concept isn't that complex. But yes, it's likely a work of a copycat, not that there is nothing wrong with that because you cannot copyright a concept.

BTW I think the second image (NOT-Yuri) could be used for an editorial article better than Yuri's image, because it looks more "real".

What about these: (some of these make me laugh
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-67389103/stock-photo-portrait-of-healthy-young-woman-eating-apple-while-holding-scales.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-56764732/stock-photo-young-woman-holding-weight-scale.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-47960407/stock-photo-diet.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-38159944/stock-photo-dieting-overweight-women-with-scales-and-apple.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-54120958/stock-photo-beautiful-young-woman-wearing-sports-clothes-holding-scales-and-eating-an-apple.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-71944639/stock-photo-portrait-of-young-smiling-girl-with-green-apple-and-scales.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-71067829/stock-photo-a-happy-young-athlete-holding-a-weight-scale-and-red-apple-isolated-on-white-background.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-64386553/stock-photo-beautiful-young-woman-wearing-sports-clothes-holding-scales-and-eating-an-apple.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-44482444/stock-photo-woman-with-scale-and-apple.html

Yup these are fun too, but they are not copies. These are concept-copies, which is OK since (I totally agree) you can't copyright the concept.
But if you take 2 different images, print them and they practically coincide when overlayed - that would be a copy that I would have a problem with.
There are 2 different things here:
1) if you choose the same concept, or pose, or choice of props as the other photographer, it's a concept copy, it's nothing super-creative but it's fine
2) if you "borrow" not only things mentioned above, but also create a composition that matches exactly the composition of the other image, that's a copy, and it's not fine.

cathyslife · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2011, 16:33 »

That scale in Yuri's photo is HUGE and the girl is itty-bitty. Yikes, it looks heavy.

OM · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2011, 17:47 »

Why, just in the last month even the big hitters think that this is a good photo to shoot!

http://en.fotolia.com/search?k=young+%2Bhealthy+%2Bwoman%2B+weight+scale&search_x=13&search_y=10&filters[content_type%3Aphoto]=1&filters[content_type%3Aillustration]=1&filters[content_type%3Avector]=1&filters[content_type%3Avideo]=1&filters[age]=1m

RT · « **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2011, 17:55 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 02, 2011, 14:33

Yuri's model is nicer to look at, the composition and pose are better, the lighting and exposure are spot on, and the scale doesn't look like it came from Walmart.

Point, yuri. This is a case where the better shot wins.

Would have been better if you couldn't see the reflection of the strobe in the scale though

Mantis · « **Reply #29 on:** March 02, 2011, 20:56 »

Quote from: zenpix on March 02, 2011, 14:20

how is that pagerisim?

2 diff models
2 diff scales
2 diff apples

The person did not buy/steal his photo and then passes it as his own!?

Does Youri own a patent on the pose concept? banning anyone else from posing with a scale and apple on a white background!!!!

I have been watching people overreact with stuff like this for a while and i never say anything. But i know for a fact we have copied poses and concepts in our own ports, no?

The law states, "Re-creating a copyrighted photograph is a derivative use and therefore requires the permission of the copyright holder of the original image." I doubt Yuri gave this person permission to replicate his image.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #30 on:** March 02, 2011, 21:18 »

I've got a pretty good collection of links like this that I could post here. This stuff happens all of the time, and the agencies are too busy to even care. I recently reported a slew of similar image links from my own portfolio and others at Shutterstock, and nothing happened. You get a response from them saying "they will look into it" which in actuality means "sorry dude, nothing we can do for you" when you read between the lines. Whatever, onward and upward. Copies never look as good as the originals, imitation is the highest form of flattery, yada yada... it sucks but what can we do? You don't even have to try very hard to look for these types of crappy imitation examples to find them. All of the instances I found were completely accidental.

visceralimage · « **Reply #31 on:** March 02, 2011, 23:32 »

there are so many ways this basic concept could have been copied and still be a bit original; this is just plain wrong.

A pretty young blond with apple and scale can be posed in many different ways; this wasn't; this was a copy, plain and simple.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #32 on:** March 03, 2011, 00:07 »

It IS just plain wrong. I agree with you 100%. I'll never understand it, either - wouldn't you think it would be more work for a "copycat artist" to pose the model exactly the same way, with similar props and clothing? My goodness. Do your own thing, and stop worrying about what the next guy is doing. Those that copy closely like this are only shooting themselves in the foot. They're never going to get ahead this way, and if anything, they're putting themselves at risk to lose a lot of their income.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #33 on:** March 03, 2011, 04:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 02, 2011, 14:16

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 02, 2011, 14:07

I just found it while browsing - did not contact Shutterstock. Both images are on the first page of the search though, so believe it or not the "copy" image is getting good sales too.

Yikes. It IS hard to believe. Can't understand how someone could see those two images on the same page and opt for the crappy knockoff?!!

I was going to use the term knock off in another context (British slang), but changed my mind as I'm learning to be politically correct (at least in public forums). Lets just say that I find the knock off quite appealing..

Perry · « **Reply #34 on:** March 03, 2011, 05:00 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 02, 2011, 20:56

The law states, "Re-creating a copyrighted photograph is a derivative use and therefore requires the permission of the copyright holder of the original image." I doubt Yuri gave this person permission to replicate his image.

But this isn't a recreation, I can see in a second that these are two different photographs.

Perry · « **Reply #35 on:** March 03, 2011, 05:01 »

Quote from: visceralimage on March 02, 2011, 23:32

A pretty young blond with apple and scale can be posed in many different ways; this wasn't; this was a copy, plain and simple.

So, how many different ways are there to pose this concept (scale in other hand and eating an apple with the other hand)?
three? five?

traveler1116 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 03, 2011, 05:11 »

Quote from: Perry on March 03, 2011, 05:00

Quote from: Mantis on March 02, 2011, 20:56
The law states, "Re-creating a copyrighted photograph is a derivative use and therefore requires the permission of the copyright holder of the original image." I doubt Yuri gave this person permission to replicate his image.

But this isn't a recreation, I can see in a second that these are two different photographs.

Care to share some of your best sellers with us?

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #37 on:** March 03, 2011, 05:22 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on March 03, 2011, 05:11

Quote from: Perry on March 03, 2011, 05:00
Quote from: Mantis on March 02, 2011, 20:56
The law states, "Re-creating a copyrighted photograph is a derivative use and therefore requires the permission of the copyright holder of the original image." I doubt Yuri gave this person permission to replicate his image.

But this isn't a recreation, I can see in a second that these are two different photographs.
How come your portfolio isn't linked here? Care to share some of your best sellers for us?

Some people don't share their links for fear of having their work knocked off. It doesn't make their arguments/opinions weaker when they write something in a forum.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 03, 2011, 05:25 »

That was my point, not showing your port because someone might "knock off" your image while saying that the second photo was ok seemed a little funny to me. And while maybe it's not illegal I'd be curious to hear what the official response from the sites is on this stuff, I thought IS had said they would not allow it.

Ken · « **Reply #39 on:** March 03, 2011, 05:55 »

I deleted that photo.

Microbius · « **Reply #40 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:09 »

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... wait a minute....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, hang on just a minute hah ha hah ha ha
never mind ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

qwerty · « **Reply #41 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:37 »

As far as this concept goes I don't think Yuri was the first to shoot a girl an apple and some scales. However this example does look like a determined effort to copy fairly closely. The copied keywords doesn't help the cause.

Microbius · « **Reply #42 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:42 »

In all seriousness though. You can't copyright a concept and this sort of thing is exactly what the agencies encourage in micro.
If you want to make a living you have to go with the proven subjects and set ups, there's no way to make returns by throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks anymore.
That's what the diminishing percentages have done.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #43 on:** March 03, 2011, 07:15 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 03, 2011, 06:42

In all seriousness though. You can't copyright a concept and this sort of thing is exactly what the agencies encourage in micro.
If you want to make a living you have to go with the proven subjects and set ups, there's no way to make returns by throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks anymore.
That's what the diminishing percentages have done.

+1

Mantis · « **Reply #44 on:** March 03, 2011, 07:40 »

Quote from: Perry on March 03, 2011, 05:00

Quote from: Mantis on March 02, 2011, 20:56
The law states, "Re-creating a copyrighted photograph is a derivative use and therefore requires the permission of the copyright holder of the original image." I doubt Yuri gave this person permission to replicate his image.

But this isn't a recreation, I can see in a second that these are two different photographs.

I disagree and so would the courts. The "components of the image" were copied regardless of the clothing, lighting etc. The scale, the apple, the look, the composition, etc are exactly the same. It is a violation of U.S. copyright law. If you don't believe me, send Shutterstock an email about these. I bet the non-Yuri one will be deleted from their collection.

Just to be fair: I am not an attorney. This is based on my little book in front of me about copyright law.

Mantis · « **Reply #45 on:** March 03, 2011, 07:49 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 03, 2011, 06:42

In all seriousness though. You can't copyright a concept and this sort of thing is exactly what the agencies encourage in micro.
If you want to make a living you have to go with the proven subjects and set ups, there's no way to make returns by throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks anymore.
That's what the diminishing percentages have done.

While there is definitely not a problem copying a "concept", replicating a specific image is a problem and, to me, that is the case here but I could be wrong. Like I said earlier I am not a lawyer. And I would give the benefit of doubt to both. But in court I'd think that the ruling would be that someone intentionally created a derivative, which is illegal.

Anyhow, just my opinion.

Perry · « **Reply #46 on:** March 03, 2011, 07:56 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on March 03, 2011, 05:11

Quote from: Perry on March 03, 2011, 05:00
Quote from: Mantis on March 02, 2011, 20:56
The law states, "Re-creating a copyrighted photograph is a derivative use and therefore requires the permission of the copyright holder of the original image." I doubt Yuri gave this person permission to replicate his image.

But this isn't a recreation, I can see in a second that these are two different photographs.
Care to share some of your best sellers with us?

No. It's one thing to say it's legally OK to copy a simple concept and another one to encourage people to do it.

Perry · « **Reply #47 on:** March 03, 2011, 08:00 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on March 03, 2011, 05:25

That was my point, not showing your port because someone might "knock off" your image while saying that the second photo was ok seemed a little funny to me.

I say it's ok legally, maybe not morally or ethically. And it also could be just a coincidence, I have at least once "copied" a concept unintentionally. Only afterwards I saw an older, similar image with similar angle, similar concept and similar background. I couldn't remember seeing the image before, but I still made a very similar image (luckily, my was much better

(Okay I'm wiser now, I didn't see that also the keywords were copied)

I have also "copied" some concepts, but I have always tried to make them better or different. I think copying (both intentional and unintentional) happens all the time. The most important thing is to make your images 1) first 2) hard to copy 3) better

luissantos84 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 03, 2011, 08:06 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 03, 2011, 06:09

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... wait a minute....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, hang on just a minute hah ha hah ha ha
never mind ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

turned 18 today?? don´t agree on the copying but this is just silly

luissantos84 · « **Reply #49 on:** March 03, 2011, 08:08 »

Quote from: Ken on March 03, 2011, 05:55

I deleted that photo.

really? that´s non-sense! if Yuri doesn´t worry about with laflor (his best mate), do you think he is worried about this picture?? come on!!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Who copied whom? (Read 30638 times)

Elenathewise

cathyslife

OM

RT

Mantis

graficallyminded

visceralimage

graficallyminded

Microstock Posts

Perry

Perry

traveler1116

Microstock Posts

traveler1116

Ken

Microbius

qwerty

Microbius

velocicarpo

Mantis

Mantis

Perry

Perry

luissantos84

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors