Author Topic: Wow. Have you guys seen this. (Read 28581 times)

grp_photo · « **Reply #25 on:** September 24, 2012, 10:40 »

If it comes to Microstock I'm a copycat too, and many people forget that Yuri is a copycat too! (remember the jumping gold fish series this was one if not the top selling file at iStock at around 2004 by a rather unknown contributor then his idea got copied by Lise Gagne and the idea become even more successful and then Yuri copied the serie from Lise Gagne, this is a matter of fact and not made up by me!)
So who is to blame? The Microstock system is encouraging copying because everyone sees which files are selling, my advice if you have an unique idea and you don't want it to be copied - then don't put on Microstock choose the macro way instead!

stockastic · « **Reply #26 on:** September 24, 2012, 10:40 »

Quote from: heywoody on September 24, 2012, 10:26

Let’s get real here. We have a silly naive post from a beginner and the villagers are gathering pitchforks like he was raping babies. The subject matter here is as generic stock as it gets and emulated across all the sites by beginners and established practitioners alike even if the execution doesn’t come close.

Yes, I flood a market with vast quantities of a product designated as "stock", which I've made as generic as possible, and within which I have tried to exploit every conceivable niche - and I make it clear that I've made a lot of money by doing this - and then I find people talking rather openly about trying duplicate my output. How shocked should I be?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #27 on:** September 24, 2012, 10:52 »

Understated but true. There's still room for more jumping goldfish?

Jumping Goldfish Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
Displaying results 1 - 100 of 1,044.

This guys message is about equal to discovering the wheel. No really, things go around and you can make a cart? Japan, China, Korea and others make flat out re-engineered copies of popular products. I'm amazed, people copy on Microstock sites?

Just why I said I wasn't upset at all when the search at some places didn't show my most popular first. Buyers will find what they want and the uninspired will just copy. That's life...

Quote from: grp_photo on September 24, 2012, 10:40

If it comes to Microstock I'm a copycat too, and many people forget that Yuri is a copycat too! (remember the jumping gold fish series this was one if not the top selling file at iStock at around 2004 by a rather unknown contributor then his idea got copied by Lise Gagne and the idea become even more successful and then Yuri copied the serie from Lise Gagne, this is a matter of fact and not made up by me!)
So who is to blame? The Microstock system is encouraging copying because everyone sees which files are selling, my advice if you have an unique idea and you don't want it to be copied - then don't put on Microstock choose the macro way instead!

StanRohrer · « **Reply #28 on:** September 24, 2012, 11:28 »

Quote from: grp_photo on September 24, 2012, 10:40

[snip] The Microstock system is encouraging copying because everyone sees which files are selling, my advice if you have an unique idea and you don't want it to be copied - then don't put on Microstock choose the macro way instead!

Microstock sites can discourage copying simply by tooling the search engines so new images are still returned below existing images with good sales. A new image should have to be better enough that searchers search deep and buy it instead of the existing image presented earlier. This would reduce copying and increase contributor creativity (finding a niche with low search returns). The agencies don't happen to favor this kind of Best Match though. Has anyone tried to add some multi-year old images again and compare how the new vs the old sell? Some current Best Match searches encourage this kind of behavior from contributors.

MarkRyanDesigns · « **Reply #29 on:** September 24, 2012, 11:36 »

Do we have to bring our own pitchforks or will they be supplied?

HerMajesty · « **Reply #30 on:** September 24, 2012, 11:37 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 24, 2012, 10:22

ain't that a little too much? a woman with a headset or a guy behind a desk looking at a laptop? wasn´t that done back in the 70s or 80s? or the famous handshake? Yuri copied them too?

I'm pretty sure there were no 'looking at a laptop' photos in the 70's. The same goes for headsets by the way

But on a more serious note. This is not about very broad subjects, but copying very specific characteristics of an image. Trying to recreate the same 'look', lighting, colors, composition etc. I think most of us can spot a plagiarism.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #31 on:** September 24, 2012, 11:48 »

HEHEHE. Getting interesting.
Where to draw the line in determining what is plagiarism and what is not must first start with a consideration of the content. Is the content original? As in... never done before? If that is the case it is quite easy to draw the line. For concepts that are generic or so simple that they simply arrive naturally from engaging with subject you are dealing with, it is VERY hard to claim that they are unique enough to be the subject of plagiarism.

Consider the subject of the jumping goldfish and see this result from google.
https://www.google.dk/search?q=jumping+goldfish&hl=en&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:12/31/2005&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1otgULjAHcbzsgbO1ICACQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1782&bih=1188

Hardly a unique subject and most definitively not all "invented" by one artist from istock. No in fact, these kind of images arrive naturally from engagement with the concept of shooting goldfish. We even have a saying about "moving to new waters" so shooting goldfish..that come in a bowl... Not exactly a unique idea. The jumping goldfish is a classic.
However. I think the post I am refering to in this thread is a clear intention of systematic efforts to copy. That is different. That is a whole different league and in my eyes not just "naive" or something a newbie would do and we can forgive. This is different entirely.

heywoody · « **Reply #32 on:** September 24, 2012, 12:47 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on September 24, 2012, 11:48

..... in my eyes not just "naive" or something a newbie would do and we can forgive. This is different entirely.

The very fact that someone thought this was a great insight and decided to post it is a sure sign that it's a naive beginner. The folks you need to be concerned about are those that keep their heads down, quietly copy the style and content and have the skills to pull it off. Mopic's examples are much more "pitchfork" worthy

velocicarpo · « **Reply #33 on:** September 24, 2012, 12:52 »

Dreamstime should give a clear statement and ban this guy. We all get inspired and "copy" somehow known concepts, but at least most of us try to do it different, better in the own style.

The difference:
- Copy a concept with own flavour
- Copy the whole picture while trying to reassemble light, perspective, model look etc.

The latter one IMHO is theft and should be banned.

heywoody · « **Reply #34 on:** September 24, 2012, 13:03 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on September 24, 2012, 12:52

Dreamstime should give a clear statement and ban this guy. We all get inspired and "copy" somehow known concepts, but at least most of us try to do it different, better in the own style.

The difference:
- Copy a concept with own flavour
- Copy the whole picture while trying to reassemble light, perspective, model look etc.

The latter one IMHO is theft and should be banned.

Banned for what? Making a badly thought out and inappropriate forum post? If that's the case a lot of us would be in big trouble. The guy has 8 pictures, none of which would be remotely mistaken for one of Yuri's so he hasn't actually copied anything.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #35 on:** September 24, 2012, 13:13 »

Quote from: heywoody on September 24, 2012, 13:03

Quote from: velocicarpo on September 24, 2012, 12:52
Dreamstime should give a clear statement and ban this guy. We all get inspired and "copy" somehow known concepts, but at least most of us try to do it different, better in the own style.

The difference:
- Copy a concept with own flavour
- Copy the whole picture while trying to reassemble light, perspective, model look etc.

The latter one IMHO is theft and should be banned.

Banned for what? Making a badly thought out and inappropriate forum post? If that's the case a lot of us would be in big trouble. The guy has 8 pictures, none of which would be remotely mistaken for one of Yuri's so he hasn't actually copied anything.

In most countries asking people in public to break the law is considered as a criminal act. Trying or asking others to try to produce _exact_ copies of the product of another vendor without right is asking other to commit a copyright violation. I would not allow this in my Agency nor do I think allowing it is constructive.

fotografer · « **Reply #36 on:** September 24, 2012, 13:15 »

The jumping goldfish have been around for years. I've got a book published in 2001 that has the jumping goldfish on the front cover.

Poncke · « **Reply #37 on:** September 24, 2012, 13:31 »

The whole microstock business including all top togs is one big pile of the same. Period. Only a few are unique.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #38 on:** September 24, 2012, 13:35 »

Quote from: Poncke on September 24, 2012, 13:31

The whole microstock business including all top togs is one big pile of the same. Period. Only a few are unique.

Totally true. However, legally spoken, with his statement this guy crosses the border from "it was my idea, the similarity is just coincidence, it is my interpretation, ...." to "I want to break the law". The moral side and what is reality is is another thing. Legally he is on the bad side and is publicly asking other to break the law. And you have to draw a line somewhere. If you don`t, as an agency, you just pi55 off good sellers like Yuri and risk to get in legal trouble.

EDIT: If I would be Yuri, I would archive the DT thread of this guy and sue him with the first copy he publishes on the site. Success guaranteed since he is admitting his intention.

MatHayward · « **Reply #39 on:** September 24, 2012, 13:48 »

They say imitation is the purest form of flattery. Yuri, you should have the biggest ego out there as lets be honest, your work is imitated on a very regular basis. What you have going for you is your reputation. People recognize your work as brand name, quality imagery and will buy it over the copy cats any time.

This industry attracts a lot of young, naive people that don't fully understand that there are consequences to actions. If this guy is around and uploading in a year I will be absolutely shocked. He is a non-issue but his candor to a problem many face removes the subtle mask from it. This is a good discussion because I am sure that the idea isn't unique to this guy that made the DT post.

I am however very disappointed to learn that you have cut production to just 400 images per month. What have you been doing with your free time you slacker!?!

noodle · « **Reply #40 on:** September 24, 2012, 14:13 »

I say we ALL copy Yuri stuff and submit them..

the newb will get his ego boosted, Yuri will be extremely flattered, and we can all live happily everafter in Yuritopia

Poncke · « **Reply #41 on:** September 24, 2012, 15:11 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on September 24, 2012, 13:35

Quote from: Poncke on September 24, 2012, 13:31
The whole microstock business including all top togs is one big pile of the same. Period. Only a few are unique.

Totally true. However, legally spoken, with his statement this guy crosses the border from "it was my idea, the similarity is just coincidence, it is my interpretation, ...." to "I want to break the law". The moral side and what is reality is is another thing. Legally he is on the bad side and is publicly asking other to break the law. And you have to draw a line somewhere. If you don`t, as an agency, you just pi55 off good sellers like Yuri and risk to get in legal trouble.

I agree with that as well

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #42 on:** September 24, 2012, 15:13 »

Can you blame the guy? I mean the OP here has actively trained people to duplicate his style and procedures in the past (interns, "boot camps"), and many of them somehow ended up using even the same models and settings when creating "new" images on their own. So it almost seems like it would be an "approved" thing to do to some.

I guess that's the risk you take with that model.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #43 on:** September 24, 2012, 15:25 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on September 24, 2012, 11:48

Consider the subject of the jumping goldfish and see this result from google.
https://www.google.dk/search?q=jumping+goldfish&hl=en&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:12/31/2005&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1otgULjAHcbzsgbO1ICACQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1782&bih=1188

Hardly a unique subject and most definitively not all "invented" by one artist from istock. No in fact, these kind of images arrive naturally from engagement with the concept of shooting goldfish.

Nonsense. Someone invented that concept and the fact that it has been mercilessly plagiarised by all the big boys and girls doesn't make it a "natural progression" from shooting goldfish let alone goldfish jumping in a way that goldfish never do. Nor is it exactly a "natural progression" from lifestyle to shooting goldfish (did you really spend many hours in your early days focusing on the goldfish bowl before the idea of photoshopping them jumping about suddenly sprang into your mind?). The natural progression is that the big boys and girls keep their eyes open for stuff that sells well and then copy it .... but the guy at DT is being too naively obvious about things.

The silly thing about his idea (reinventing the wheel though it may be) is that he clearly has no idea of the skills that need to be acquired to be able to copy someone like Yuri Arcurs. Or that once you have that skill set you might as well try to use it on something of your own.

Drexxle · « **Reply #44 on:** September 24, 2012, 15:28 »

Im amazed how much vigilantism is in this thread, lets hang him.

Yuri, even if there was a clear systematic way to copy you, its is hardly plagerism under the law of copyright which allows you to modify directly your photo into a new work.

This guy hasnt even proposed modifying. It is copying a style, he will use his own equipment, his own camera, his own lights and of course his own model. Youve been in this game 10 years, did you not do exactly the same thing to monitise out of gaps in the market.

You would have a hard time convincing me that your "concept" is unique. Never been done before. Groundbreaking. Why do we watch remakes of old movies, because all the stories have been told before, we rarely see a new idea. The same in photography.

Now consider a musician, if you were to say never use those 12 notes because theyve been used before we would end up with Britney Spears and NKOTB, oh crap that became a reality.

You got dollars Yuri, you got reputation, id say a little of get off your high horse, you would have been in the same shoes, naive and wanting to make a million, you think back to how hard that first million was to make.

His pictures will stand on there own, regardless of the actions he took to create them.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #45 on:** September 24, 2012, 15:53 »

Quote from: Drexxle on September 24, 2012, 15:28

Im amazed how much vigilantism is in this thread, lets hang him.

Yuri, even if there was a clear systematic way to copy you, its is hardly plagerism under the law of copyright which allows you to modify directly your photo into a new work.

This guy hasnt even proposed modifying. It is copying a style, he will use his own equipment, his own camera, his own lights and of course his own model. Youve been in this game 10 years, did you not do exactly the same thing to monitise out of gaps in the market.

You would have a hard time convincing me that your "concept" is unique. Never been done before. Groundbreaking. Why do we watch remakes of old movies, because all the stories have been told before, we rarely see a new idea. The same in photography.

Now consider a musician, if you were to say never use those 12 notes because theyve been used before we would end up with Britney Spears and NKOTB, oh crap that became a reality.

You got dollars Yuri, you got reputation, id say a little of get off your high horse, you would have been in the same shoes, naive and wanting to make a million, you think back to how hard that first million was to make.

His pictures will stand on there own, regardless of the actions he took to create them.

So then, I could draw the Apple Logo with MY Adobe Illustrator or MY pencil, print it on MY own Laptop and sell it under the name of Apple which is a totally generic word as well? Try to do that, it`ll a good one

heywoody · « **Reply #46 on:** September 24, 2012, 15:58 »

Maybe what's left of the Beatles should sue Apple - Apple Corps was there before Steve started up

traveler1116 · « **Reply #47 on:** September 24, 2012, 16:01 »

Quote from: Drexxle on September 24, 2012, 15:28

His pictures will stand on there own, regardless of the actions he took to create them.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case
http://fashionista.com/2011/10/rihanna-settles-out-of-court-with-david-lachapelle-for-copying-his-photos-in-sm-video/

They stand to get him sued maybe?

Poncke · « **Reply #48 on:** September 24, 2012, 16:24 »

Here, we are all in trouble then

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/25/create-a-similarly-composed-photo-in-the-uk-risk-copyright-infringement/

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** September 24, 2012, 16:44 »

Quote from: Poncke on September 24, 2012, 16:24

Here, we are all in trouble then

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/25/create-a-similarly-composed-photo-in-the-uk-risk-copyright-infringement/

That particular case was just insanity. The red bus against mono Houses of Parliament is the equivalent of the yellow taxi against mono skyscrapers.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Wow. Have you guys seen this. (Read 28581 times)

grp_photo

stockastic

RacePhoto

StanRohrer

MarkRyanDesigns

HerMajesty

Yuri_Arcurs

heywoody

velocicarpo

heywoody

velocicarpo

fotografer

Poncke

velocicarpo

MatHayward

noodle

Poncke

Sean Locke Photography

BaldricksTrousers

Drexxle

velocicarpo

heywoody

traveler1116

Poncke

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors