Author Topic: Who copied whom? (Read 26937 times)

Elenathewise · « **on:** March 02, 2011, 13:46 »

I've seen many copies and plagiarism before but this one shines:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-57840304/stock-photo-attractive-young-healthy-woman-eating-a-green-apple-and-carrying-a-weight-scale-isolated-over.html
and
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-22944526/stock-photo-young-woman-eating-apple-and-carrying-a-weight-scale-over-white-background.html

I wonder who copied whom:)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2011, 13:57 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 02, 2011, 13:46

I've seen many copies and plagiarism before but this one shines:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-57840304/stock-photo-attractive-young-healthy-woman-eating-a-green-apple-and-carrying-a-weight-scale-isolated-over.html
and
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-22944526/stock-photo-young-woman-eating-apple-and-carrying-a-weight-scale-over-white-background.html

I wonder who copied whom:)

The Yuri version has a file number 34 million lower than the second one. Is that a hint at the right answer?

cathyslife · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:00 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 02, 2011, 13:57

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 02, 2011, 13:46
I've seen many copies and plagiarism before but this one shines:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-57840304/stock-photo-attractive-young-healthy-woman-eating-a-green-apple-and-carrying-a-weight-scale-isolated-over.html
and
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-22944526/stock-photo-young-woman-eating-apple-and-carrying-a-weight-scale-over-white-background.html

I wonder who copied whom:)

The Yuri version has a file number 34 million lower than the second one. Is that a hint at the right answer?

That would be my guess too. And I think Yuri's lighting is much more excellent.

lisafx · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:04 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 02, 2011, 13:57

The Yuri version has a file number 34 million lower than the second one. Is that a hint at the right answer?

Yeah, this is a pretty obvious example. Yuri's is so much better, you have to wonder why the other guy even bothered uploading this. Not only is it plagiarism, but it is a very poorly executed copy. I think Yuri's sales on that image are safe

Elena, did you contact SS to bring this to their attention?

Elenathewise · « **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:05 »

Yup looks like someone's decided to directly reproduce Yuri's image - I mean, I've seen people getting "inspired" by someone else's work, but this is just plain copying - the pose, the crop. Lighting sucks though I agree:)

Elenathewise · « **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:07 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 02, 2011, 14:04

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 02, 2011, 13:57

The Yuri version has a file number 34 million lower than the second one. Is that a hint at the right answer?

Yeah, this is a pretty obvious example. Yuri's is so much better, you have to wonder why the other guy even bothered uploading this. Not only is it plagiarism, but it is a very poorly executed copy. I think Yuri's sales on that image are safe

Elena, did you contact Shutterstock to bring this to their attention?

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

ProArtwork · « **Reply #6 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:14 »

Should be reported! It's amazing how low people are willing to go for a few bucks.

lisafx · « **Reply #7 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?!!

cthoman · « **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:18 »

It's one thing to copy the idea, but taking the keywords too is pretty cheesy.

ouchie · « **Reply #9 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?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:23 »

It's not really a concept of stunning originality, is it? It may very well be a copy but accusing particular people of plagiarism on a public forum with no more evidence than that there are two remarkably similar images is potentially unfair, damaging and possibly libelous.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 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.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:43 »

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?

Want a link to a legal page where it has been tested in court? The person who copied, lost, a number of times. Based on the pose, dress, and situation.

You can be too close to the original by copying important elements of a photograph. In this case, it's not just a concept that's copied. The second indication is the title which isn't just coincidence and almost identical.

Yes there are many ways to photograph a girl with a scale and maybe even the apple is just a common elements for healthful food. But add the pose, the outfit, the body position, and you get, mighty difficult to believe it was just a coincidence.

I'm amused, but not surprised.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:50 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 02, 2011, 14:23

It's not really a concept of stunning originality, is it? It may very well be a copy but accusing particular people of plagiarism on a public forum with no more evidence than that there are two remarkably similar images is potentially unfair, damaging and possibly libelous.

Well, here come rhetorical questions:)

Of course the concept is not new or original, and it doesn't have to be. For example, same concept here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-71881603/stock-photo-young-beautiful-sporty-woman-isolated-on-white.html

In this example it's just photographer's execution of a well-known concept, not copying. When somebody puts an effort into reproducing the photo as exactly as they can - same pose, even same amount of white space on the right - that's copying. Nothing unfair or unjust about calling this a copy - it's a pretty obvious one... isn't it?

Phil · « **Reply #14 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:55 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 02, 2011, 14:43

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?

Want a link to a legal page where it has been tested in court? The person who copied, lost, a number of times. Based on the pose, dress, and situation.

You can be too close to the original by copying important elements of a photograph. In this case, it's not just a concept that's copied. The second indication is the title which isn't just coincidence and almost identical.

Yes there are many ways to photograph a girl with a scale and maybe even the apple is just a common elements for healthful food. But add the pose, the outfit, the body position, and you get, mighty difficult to believe it was just a coincidence.

I'm amused, but not surprised.

different white background

loop · « **Reply #15 on:** March 02, 2011, 14:57 »

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.

Yes, it seems copied.
On the other hand, the model in the weak photo has a clear "real people" look that sometimes, for some campaigns, could be useful too.

ouchie · « **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2011, 15:01 »

OK, makes sense.

its that sometimes i see someone going too far, complaing "my photo" was copied.
but it was just the concept that was copied. Not the photo exactly!

In this case i see what u guys are saying its an obvious attempt to "EXACTLY" copy yuries photo.

Its a fine line.

What if i copied the photo in question and varied the angel. Camera high right for example. Did i copy it of was i just "inspired"?

Anyway you guys ar right, its a blatant attempt to copy his photo.

ap · « **Reply #17 on:** March 02, 2011, 15:03 »

i prefer the 1st (non yuri) photo. cuter model, more natural pose than the second. the scale is more in balance with the body. yuri's scale seems to overpower the model. it's not a matter of technical superiority as much as taste and usage.

it's hard to tell who copied whom though. it's possible yuri saw the 1st photo and tried to improve upon it, which everyone seems to agree.

ouchie · « **Reply #18 on:** March 02, 2011, 15:05 »

But wait, on the other hand does that mean that NO ONE EVER can make the same photo as Yuries ever again?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #19 on:** March 02, 2011, 15:05 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 02, 2011, 14:50

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 02, 2011, 14:23
It's not really a concept of stunning originality, is it? It may very well be a copy but accusing particular people of plagiarism on a public forum with no more evidence than that there are two remarkably similar images is potentially unfair, damaging and possibly libelous.

Well, here come rhetorical questions:)

Of course the concept is not new or original, and it doesn't have to be. For example, same concept here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-71881603/stock-photo-young-beautiful-sporty-woman-isolated-on-white.html

In this example it's just photographer's execution of a well-known concept, not copying. When somebody puts an effort into reproducing the photo as exactly as they can - same pose, even same amount of white space on the right - that's copying. Nothing unfair or unjust about calling this a copy - it's a pretty obvious one... isn't it?

Well, you're probably right on this one. The similarity in keywords looks more than accidental.

As it does here...
http://tinyurl.com/5vwcfnu

djpadavona · « **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2011, 15:14 »

With 10-15 million images on these sites, I think it is safe to say plenty has been copied. The other girl looks fine to me, but Yuri's model is much better lit. I'm surprised the other one made it past the inspectors given how stringent lighting requirements have become.

Ariene · « **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2011, 15:33 »

Wow, this is fine example how great pictures Yuri is taking

Perry · « **Reply #22 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

jm · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2011, 15:52 »

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

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".

But apple looks plastic

velocicarpo · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2011, 16:00 »

Microstock lives of copying. Not that I like it...I got angry like a million times about someone who was copying my stuff. But in the same moment I have to admit that sometimes some of the guys who copied from me really made a better job and brought the quality to a new level or helped the evolution of the "look and feel" by doing their own version. Just in this comparison I probably would go for the Copy instead of buying the Yuri version. The light is jsut too professional, too sterile, and the copy is more natural....but off course this depends on the use.
What I want to say is: I don`t think it would be a good idea to hunt down all "probably this guy copied from me" versions. It would make everybody paranoid since the generic, good selling concepts and images are limited in number and variation, no one could sleep well anymore and limit the evolution of the market would be limited.

Therefore, 2005, when some really made CLEAR copies of my images, I finally decided not to complain or start any action and I still think it was a good decision. You can`t stop it anyways.

When the guy would have used a simmilar balance and clothing for the models, THEN I think for me personally the line would be crossed...

Just my 2c...

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!!

Perry · « **Reply #50 on:** March 03, 2011, 08:10 »

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

I deleted that photo.

But what is the real story behind the image?

grp_photo · « **Reply #51 on:** March 03, 2011, 09:10 »

I was looking for years for a picture like this - but I need it with a red apple! Anyone can execute it for me? I will buy it immediately

Microbius · « **Reply #52 on:** March 03, 2011, 09:12 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 03, 2011, 08:06

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

Microbius · « **Reply #53 on:** March 03, 2011, 09:13 »

Quote from: grp_photo on March 03, 2011, 09:10

I was looking for years for a picture like this - but I need it with a red apple! Anyone can execute it for me? I will buy it immediately

rotfl

luissantos84 · « **Reply #54 on:** March 03, 2011, 09:34 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 03, 2011, 09:12

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 03, 2011, 08:06
turned 18 today?? don´t agree on the copying but this is just silly

don´t please!

traveler1116 · « **Reply #55 on:** March 03, 2011, 10:10 »

Quote from: Perry 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

Isn't the concept "healthy eating", "dieting", or "apples are great for weightloss"? The similarities seem to go beyond a concept to me.

jamirae · « **Reply #56 on:** March 03, 2011, 14:44 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on March 03, 2011, 10:10

Quote from: Perry 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
Isn't the concept "healthy eating", "dieting", or "apples are great for weightloss"? The similarities seem to go beyond a concept to me.

I see pretty young blond women carrying a scale around all the time while they eat their apple. it's a common scene, isn't it?

RT · « **Reply #57 on:** March 03, 2011, 15:46 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 03, 2011, 07:49

But in court I'd think that the ruling would be that someone intentionally created a derivative, which is illegal.

Couple of minor points, firstly both parties would have to be from the same country otherwise no court would have juristiction and secondly and most importantly one party would have to prove that the other party had seen the original image in question before they created their "copy" (virtually impossible to prove unless the "copier" downloaded the image) for any possibility of a court case. Add to the fact that the images in question here are similar but not identical and as frustrating as it may make you feel but this wouldn't ever make it into a court.

To put this into perspective I have a shot of an apple on a white background, should I consider suing everyone else that uploaded a similar one after mine?

It's a similar shot, it's not a copy and nobody has broken any laws. That's not to say that a site may consider removing one of the images but that's nothing to do with the law.

In the early days of microstock there were a fair few traditional stock shooters who were accusing Yuri of the exact same thing

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #58 on:** March 03, 2011, 15:52 »

I once saw some fairly compelling evidence on a different forum that another microstock superstar started out systematically copying work from traditional collections. The superstar was most likely aware that these allegations were being made but did not respond to them in any way.

Mantis · « **Reply #59 on:** March 03, 2011, 17:21 »

Quote from: RT on March 03, 2011, 15:46

Quote from: Mantis on March 03, 2011, 07:49
But in court I'd think that the ruling would be that someone intentionally created a derivative, which is illegal.

Couple of minor points, firstly both parties would have to be from the same country otherwise no court would have juristiction and secondly and most importantly one party would have to prove that the other party had seen the original image in question before they created their "copy" (virtually impossible to prove unless the "copier" downloaded the image) for any possibility of a court case. Add to the fact that the images in question here are similar but not identical and as frustrating as it may make you feel but this wouldn't ever make it into a court.

To put this into perspective I have a shot of an apple on a white background, should I consider suing everyone else that uploaded a similar one after mine?

It's a similar shot, it's not a copy and nobody has broken any laws. That's not to say that a site may consider removing one of the images but that's nothing to do with the law.

In the early days of microstock there were a fair few traditional stock shooters who were accusing Yuri of the exact same thing

Well, these are pretty valid points and like I said I am not an attorney. Just my interpretation of the PACA copyright Commandments. Thanks for your point of view.

Pixart · « **Reply #60 on:** March 03, 2011, 18:31 »

Good heavens, this guy too!! Blatant copying! At least he threw in the tape measure to throw you off of Yuri's.

http://en.fotolia.com/id/17224202

RT · « **Reply #61 on:** March 03, 2011, 18:54 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 03, 2011, 17:21

Well, these are pretty valid points and like I said I am not an attorney. Just my interpretation of the PACA copyright Commandments. Thanks for your point of view.

Sure no problem, one thing to remember when quoting the PACA commandments is that those commandments are...well they are not commandments they are the PACA interpretation. There is no international copyright commandments, we have the Berne convention which is a type of international recognition of common copyright law although even within itself it states the copyright law of the country in which the copyright is held will apply i.e. PACA can write whatever they like but it's pretty much irrelevant to anyone outside of the US.

Personally I think it comes down to a matter of opinion whether this person has a) copied, b) been inspired by the concept, c) created a derivative work or d) just had the same idea for a photo.

visceralimage · « **Reply #62 on:** March 03, 2011, 19:10 »

Quote from: RT on March 03, 2011, 18:54

Quote from: Mantis on March 03, 2011, 17:21
Well, these are pretty valid points and like I said I am not an attorney. Just my interpretation of the PACA copyright Commandments. Thanks for your point of view.

Sure no problem, one thing to remember when quoting the PACA commandments is that those commandments are...well they are not commandments they are the PACA interpretation. There is no international copyright commandments, we have the Berne convention which is a type of international recognition of common copyright law although even within itself it states the copyright law of the country in which the copyright is held will apply i.e. PACA can write whatever they like but it's pretty much irrelevant to anyone outside of the US.

Personally I think it comes down to a matter of opinion whether this person has a) copied, b) been inspired by the concept, c) created a derivative work or d) just had the same idea for a photo.

Some of your arguments might be on point but you have ignored the bigger picture, the whole picture. he not only copies the concept, the idea, the pose but also THE KEYWORDS AND TITLE. No court in any land would ignore this fact; he saw the image, he copied the image, he copied the keywords and he copied the title.

lisafx · « **Reply #63 on:** March 03, 2011, 19:28 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 03, 2011, 18:31

Good heavens, this guy too!! Blatant copying! At least he threw in the tape measure to throw you off of Yuri's.

http://en.fotolia.com/id/17224202

LOL - If not for the tape measure I would have thought it was the same exact photo!

jbarber873 · « **Reply #64 on:** March 03, 2011, 19:52 »

Quote from: visceralimage on March 03, 2011, 19:10

Quote from: RT on March 03, 2011, 18:54
Quote from: Mantis on March 03, 2011, 17:21
Well, these are pretty valid points and like I said I am not an attorney. Just my interpretation of the PACA copyright Commandments. Thanks for your point of view.

Sure no problem, one thing to remember when quoting the PACA commandments is that those commandments are...well they are not commandments they are the PACA interpretation. There is no international copyright commandments, we have the Berne convention which is a type of international recognition of common copyright law although even within itself it states the copyright law of the country in which the copyright is held will apply i.e. PACA can write whatever they like but it's pretty much irrelevant to anyone outside of the US.

Personally I think it comes down to a matter of opinion whether this person has a) copied, b) been inspired by the concept, c) created a derivative work or d) just had the same idea for a photo.

Some of your arguments might be on point but you have ignored the bigger picture, the whole picture. he not only copies the concept, the idea, the pose but also THE KEYWORDS AND TITLE. No court in any land would ignore this fact; he saw the image, he copied the image, he copied the keywords and he copied the title.

Keywords and titles cannot be copyrighted. They can be trademarked, but none of this rises to that level of unique and original creation.There is no court that would take any consideration of the keywords and title in this case. As for the photo, microstock photographers have to realize that they are building on a visual language that predates the entire industry. I'm sure a careful image search could find something that was done before Yuri's shot. If the second shot was simply copied electronically and sold as his own, that would be infringement. But the second shot is a completely different image. The Idea, the concept, cannot be copyrighted, only the image as it exists. A derivative work is something created in another medium with clear direct reference to the original. The best known case of this is probably the Hal Davis image copied by the painter Jack Mendenhall. Davis won a judgement in his favor in that case. Davis had a favorable judge and a lot of money to pursue the artist. That isn't always the case. Could the image be removed at Yuri's request from other agencies- probably, but I don't think that he would waste the time on it. In the end, the better image will sell, whether it's the original or the copy. Whether it's done intentionally or subconsciously, everyone is beholden to artists that come before them, including Yuri. The point is to add something to make it special and with your own personal style. Yuri's work is a clear example of that ethic.

visceralimage · « **Reply #65 on:** March 03, 2011, 20:26 »

I agree that keywords and titles are not copyrighted but they can be use to show intent and previous knowledge of the image. Where we disagree is: Clearly, this image is a copy as evidence by the concept, and copy of keywords and titles.

ShadySue · « **Reply #66 on:** March 03, 2011, 21:04 »

Quote from: jamirae on March 03, 2011, 14:44

I see pretty young blond women carrying a scale around all the time while they eat their apple. it's a common scene, isn't it?

I thought I must be the only person who wondered what that was all about!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #67 on:** March 04, 2011, 00:04 »

Quote from: visceralimage on March 03, 2011, 20:26

I agree that keywords and titles are not copyrighted but they can be use to show intent and previous knowledge of the image. Where we disagree is: Clearly, this image is a copy as evidence by the concept, and copy of keywords and titles.

The clear message from this is: when copying, do your own title and keywords.

visceralimage · « **Reply #68 on:** March 04, 2011, 01:02 »

Quote from: Perry on March 03, 2011, 05:01

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?

You're joking, right. I can think of 10 or more just off the top of my head.

I can even think of inverse ideas that match this concept. What about a big girl or guy in a tight exercise suit with scale and snickers bar?

maybe that would be a good avenue for a microstocker: do Yuri parody shots; be the Weird Al Yankovick of Microstock

RT · « **Reply #69 on:** March 04, 2011, 02:25 »

Quote from: visceralimage on March 03, 2011, 19:10

Some of your arguments might be on point but you have ignored the bigger picture, the whole picture. he not only copies the concept, the idea, the pose but also THE KEYWORDS AND TITLE. No court in any land would ignore this fact; he saw the image, he copied the image, he copied the keywords and he copied the title.

I haven't ignored any bigger picture, and I'm not trying to justify what he/she has done, just pointing out that no laws have been broken. And for reference keywords and titles are not copyright protected.

ginasanders · « **Reply #70 on:** March 04, 2011, 07:13 »

Because the keywords: Maybe he use Yuri's Keyword-Tool...

Gina

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #71 on:** March 04, 2011, 07:39 »

Quote from: gina on March 04, 2011, 07:13

Because the keywords: Maybe he use Yuri's Keyword-Tool...

Gina

Hehe. I remember a post in dt's forum where people were fuming that they had their keywords stolen. Then Yuri developed a keyword tool (which I use myself) which basically takes keywords from images already online and noone said anything.

ShadySue · « **Reply #72 on:** March 04, 2011, 08:59 »

Quote from: gina on March 04, 2011, 07:13

Because the keywords: Maybe he use Yuri's Keyword-Tool...

Gina

Good point!

disorderly · « **Reply #73 on:** March 04, 2011, 09:27 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 04, 2011, 08:59

Quote from: gina on March 04, 2011, 07:13
Because the keywords: Maybe he use Yuri's Keyword-Tool...

Gina
Good point!

Not so great. Using Yuri's tool you're likely to end up with an amalgamation of keywords from many related images. What you won't get is exactly the same list as another single images, along with exactly the same title and description, and exactly the same pose. It may not be illegal, and it's unlikely to be litigated even if it were, but it's blatant copying all the same. And it doesn't have to be illegal for one or more of the agencies to decide it's bad business to encourage such behavior and to take action against the one who copied.

jm · « **Reply #74 on:** March 04, 2011, 10:15 »

...And now for something completely different: woman with scale and apple on video.
http://www.canstockphoto.com/fit-young-asian-woman-holding-scale-4241403.html

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #75 on:** March 04, 2011, 11:14 »

Quote from: jm73 on March 04, 2011, 10:15

...And now for something completely different: woman with scale and apple on video.
http://www.canstockphoto.com/fit-young-asian-woman-holding-scale-4241403.html

Lol!!! Is there anyone out there who hasn't copied this concept?

Perry · « **Reply #76 on:** March 04, 2011, 11:55 »

I just got an urge to go bathroom and hug my scale. Later maybe carry her around and go for a walk. Note to self: remember to grab an apple.

lisafx · « **Reply #77 on:** March 04, 2011, 18:25 »

Quote from: jm73 on March 04, 2011, 10:15

...And now for something completely different: woman with scale and apple on video.
http://www.canstockphoto.com/fit-young-asian-woman-holding-scale-4241403.html

Yes, but she's Asian. TOTALLY different concept

Quote from: visceralimage on March 04, 2011, 01:02

maybe that would be a good avenue for a microstocker: do Yuri parody shots; be the Weird Al Yankovick of Microstock

I love that idea! Sounds like a really unique niche

Morphart · « **Reply #78 on:** March 05, 2011, 09:34 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 02, 2011, 13:46

I've seen many copies and plagiarism before but this one shines:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-57840304/stock-photo-attractive-young-healthy-woman-eating-a-green-apple-and-carrying-a-weight-scale-isolated-over.html
and
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-22944526/stock-photo-young-woman-eating-apple-and-carrying-a-weight-scale-over-white-background.html

I wonder who copied whom:)

Surprise, your first link ain't working anymore (image removed)... Guess we have the answer

Morphart · « **Reply #79 on:** March 05, 2011, 09:37 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on March 02, 2011, 16:00

Microstock lives of copying. Not that I like it...I got angry like a million times about someone who was copying my stuff.

For most subject, commercially speaking, they have all been covered. What makes a picture using the same subject and object is sometimes, just the model, lighting and angle. All the subjects we use are all a copy of one that was already created, it's just in the way that we treat it that we can make it "different". Every illustrator or artist has his style, some with photography.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #80 on:** March 05, 2011, 10:21 »

I Google "woman scale apple photo" and see a monster number of similar images. Maybe just woman biting apple or woman turned, holding scale but not biting apple, or woman biting apple, holding scale and not turned... The number of combination becomes quit large with an increasing number of variables but given enough monkeys banging on a piano, and there are, one of them ends up playing Chopin eventually even if he didn't hear it first.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Who copied whom? (Read 26937 times)

RacePhoto

lisafx

lisafx

RacePhoto

velocicarpo

graficallyminded

graficallyminded

traveler1116

traveler1116

Microbius

Microbius

velocicarpo

grp_photo

Microbius

Microbius

traveler1116

lisafx

jbarber873

ginasanders

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors