Author Topic: Wow. Have you guys seen this. (Read 33213 times)

Drexxle · « **Reply #50 on:** September 24, 2012, 17:17 »

so the idea isnt to embrace a student of photography and guide him even if he is taking at style and copying it, we have to all take the American road of patents and lawsuits until the arts is like computers, no single person can get ahead without stepping on the toes of the fortunate.

lets persecute for copying instead of embracing it as his "respresentation" of that work, hes not passing it off as Yuris, hes not copying the image, hes taking the idea and working with it himself.

Lets just sue each other until theres no room to move forward anymore. Copyright allows you to take other peoples work and modify it into your own. A rhianna video is alot more than one still, it opens up much easier claim of direct copying.

I dont agree with this. I copyright my photos because i dont want them to be stolen, but i support a person who wants to follow in my footsteps and recreate what i have done.

fritz · « **Reply #51 on:** September 24, 2012, 18:13 »

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!

100% agree

fritz · « **Reply #52 on:** September 24, 2012, 18:52 »

Big mistake! Well it's not a big deal to copy Yuri's work! Everyone can copy his work but the real "problem" is to do even something close to Elena Vizerskaya' work.
Don't get me wrong I'm against plagiarism but if someone decide to do let it be unique and special like Elena' photos.

Digital66 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 24, 2012, 23:17 »

Yuri,
It's funny how you complain about some guy who has nothing but a few crappy images, and who's not even close to being able to copy your work. Yet, you've never complained about laflor, kupicoo, Squaredpixels, Steex, Annebaek , etc, etc, etc... (All of them iStock exclusives)

Come on.... Tell us what's the difference...

Drexxle · « **Reply #55 on:** September 24, 2012, 23:22 »

Hi everybody!!! (dr nik)

And since you asked, I come from an IT background, i have been a photographer for about 12 years. I have extensively travelled Australia and have a reasonably large library of images to use. Im a 40 yr old Aussie who has always enjoyed tourism, locations, and the unusual. My biggest photo journey has been taking a 1975 Leyland Mini across the dirt of the Australian Desert.

I have held onto my images for too long. I started fixing computers for professional photographers, and next thing you know im taking more and more photos and being mentored by some great photographers.

Taken me some time to get my stuff together and publish it, im lazy in the post processing department. I got motivated a little while ago, and having been around photographers for the last ten years, i was accepted first go at a few agencies. (i used to prepare stuff for other photographers).

its nice to join a group of like minded people. I came across this blog the other day looking for other agencies, i was looking for more landscape and tourism based agencies.

copyright is something i enjoy learning too, and im for protection of images, but im also aware of how this stumps creation due to how it has in the software industry, you only have to look at apple and samsung of late.

STILLFX · « **Reply #56 on:** September 25, 2012, 00:58 »

Watch out Yuri, here comes the mighty Mudplucker with his Canon T2i!

8 files on sale since 25th April, he is a machine.
Be afraid Yuri, be very afraid ... I know i am, well a little bit scared of Mudplucker.

He has 84 posts in the message boards, great to see he's been busy there anyway...asking about payment, hmm, wouldn't you need some sales first before worrying about that??

I hope he is just kidding.

Yuri is King

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #57 on:** September 25, 2012, 01:02 »

A few months back I supplied a picture of a hardhat worker having a luch break inside an industrial plant. I thought the picture was great. This was to the Getty RM.
It ws rejected with the words, too similar to another picture.

Fair enough I did not know. So why cant micros do the same? probably because if they think they can earn 20 cents out of a guy its worth it.
They dont care.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #58 on:** September 25, 2012, 02:27 »

Six or seven years ago I shot a picture with some newspapers in it and got a rejection from iS with the rejection reason "I don't think so-and-so would like you selling his photo", I didn't know who so-and-so was and I scoured the image to see if part of a photo was visible enough to be a copyright infringement. I couldn't find anything and the rejection kept bothering me. Years later I realised that one of the inspector's chums must have shot the same thing and I was being accused of plagiarism (rolls eyes).

Anyway, I photographed some toast this morning and hereby give notice that I will be putting copyright restrictions on all uses of bits of toast in future.

Metsafile · « **Reply #59 on:** September 25, 2012, 02:31 »

Mudplucker is naive but honest.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #60 on:** September 25, 2012, 02:38 »

Quote from: Metsafile on September 25, 2012, 02:31

Mudplucker is naive but honest.

Yes but its easy to be honest when you are naive.

qwerty · « **Reply #61 on:** September 25, 2012, 03:13 »

Yuri threw out a little bait and everybody jumped on it.

Is there a list of what concepts are acceptable to copy ?
Do they have a time limit ? 10 years ?
If 1000 people beat you to using the concept its okay but a concept from 1 person isn't ?
Is it okay to use a concept from RM ? but not from RF ?
Tip for all serious concept inspired contributors search RM not Istock to find your inspiration.

Gold fish are they fair game ?
computers with chains ?
girls with headphones ?
girls blowing dandelions ?
nests with golden eggs ?
Elephants riding surfboards ?

All very confusing.

I had a photo of landmark refused because it was to similar to "someone elses work." What a massive concept it was to take a photo of one of the worlds most recognisable landmarks from a easily accessible vantage point at lunchtime.
It made sense to reject it for "our database already covers this area" or purely that's hopeless, shoot at a better time of day but to say I was copying was a long bow to draw in my opion. I think that especially when you see how well and how widely some concepts are re-invented.

Maybe the poster wanted to get everybody to copy yuri's work to get them all band so that he could wipe out the competition. Just yuri and himself raking in the cash.

Hey ! that's my concept ! no photos of rakes and money. Oh hang on there's 24 already on istock. Are they 10 years old yet ?

Oh well looks like I bit at Yuri's bait aswell.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #62 on:** September 25, 2012, 04:13 »

We have to draw the line somewhere. This post shows intent to systematic duplication and advocates other to do so as well.
The keywords here are "systematic", "clear intention" and trying to "get others on board". If this is something we should just dismiss, then there is no grounds for any claims against plagiarism in microstock and we collectively accept all plagiarism attempts as "OK". I think this contributor clearly crosses the line for what we actually should accept.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #63 on:** September 25, 2012, 04:37 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on September 25, 2012, 04:13

We have to draw the line somewhere. This post shows intent to systematic duplication and advocates other to do so as well.
The keywords here are "systematic", "clear intention" and trying to "get others on board". If this is something we should just dismiss, then there is no grounds for any claims against plagiarism in microstock and we collectively accept all plagiarism attempts as "OK". I think this contributor clearly crosses the line for what we actually should accept.

Sure, it's wrong. So what do you want us to do about it? Why post it here instead of taking it up with Serban? What is your solution?

We all know we are being copied and we all know that the micro agencies couldn't care less. SS's best sellers listing is an open invitation for people to seek "inspiration". Most popular/best selling search options do much the same. A large proportion of microstockers seem to want to "research" what sells before they shoot that subject and that is not going to change.

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** September 25, 2012, 04:53 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 25, 2012, 01:02

A few months back I supplied a picture of a hardhat worker having a luch break inside an industrial plant. I thought the picture was great. This was to the Getty RM.
It ws rejected with the words, too similar to another picture.

Fair enough I did not know. So why cant micros do the same? probably because if they think they can earn 20 cents out of a guy its worth it.
They dont care.

Because their business model doesn't allow them to pay the staff to check. Clearly not something Bruce factored in.
That's why rather than contact pinterest about pinned images, it's easier for e.g. istock to say pinterest is an affiliate, end of discussion. (I haven't seen any reports here about what the other micros say about pinterest and its clones.)

HerMajesty · « **Reply #65 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:16 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on September 25, 2012, 04:13

We have to draw the line somewhere. This post shows intent to systematic duplication and advocates other to do so as well.
The keywords here are "systematic", "clear intention" and trying to "get others on board". If this is something we should just dismiss, then there is no grounds for any claims against plagiarism in microstock and we collectively accept all plagiarism attempts as "OK". I think this contributor clearly crosses the line for what we actually should accept.

I was successful with take-downs of images that were plagiarism of my own work (at least @ Shutterstock), so I'm pretty sure you have enough leverage in the industry to protect your work properly. But we need to do something about it. The worst thing to do is to say "that's just the way micros work".

I know some of you think that it's just a guy with 8 pictures, but my work has been copied by people with big, high quality ports. The last case is a guy with 40k+ images. People do this because they think they can get away with it, but the more often we act and send infringement claims, the more chances we have fighting plagiarism.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #66 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:45 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 25, 2012, 04:53

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 25, 2012, 01:02
A few months back I supplied a picture of a hardhat worker having a luch break inside an industrial plant. I thought the picture was great. This was to the Getty RM.
It ws rejected with the words, too similar to another picture.

Fair enough I did not know. So why cant micros do the same? probably because if they think they can earn 20 cents out of a guy its worth it.
They dont care.

Because their business model doesn't allow them to pay the staff to check. Clearly not something Bruce factored in.
That's why rather than contact pinterest about pinned images, it's easier for e.g. istock to say pinterest is an affiliate, end of discussion. (I haven't seen any reports here about what the other micros say about pinterest and its clones.)

Allow them to pay the staff? . At the Getty original RM they have 22 staff including four qualified Art Directors, highly experienced picture editors and even art buyers and the list goes on, they even call in special editors for medical and scientific material.

They have the staff and the money to pay. They dont like copying, plagiarism and thats that.

sharpshot · « **Reply #67 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:48 »

I don't see any point in copying Yuri. Why compete with one of the best? There's lots of others already doing it, hardly an original idea. It shows a complete lack of imagination, probably the one thing you need the most to make money selling images.

ShadySue · « **Reply #68 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:56 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 25, 2012, 05:45

Quote from: ShadySue on September 25, 2012, 04:53
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 25, 2012, 01:02
A few months back I supplied a picture of a hardhat worker having a luch break inside an industrial plant. I thought the picture was great. This was to the Getty RM.
It ws rejected with the words, too similar to another picture.

Fair enough I did not know. So why cant micros do the same? probably because if they think they can earn 20 cents out of a guy its worth it.
They dont care.

Because their business model doesn't allow them to pay the staff to check. Clearly not something Bruce factored in.
That's why rather than contact pinterest about pinned images, it's easier for e.g. istock to say pinterest is an affiliate, end of discussion. (I haven't seen any reports here about what the other micros say about pinterest and its clones.)

Allow them to pay the staff? . At the Getty original RM they have 22 staff including four qualified Art Directors, highly experienced picture editors and even art buyers and the list goes on, they even call in special editors for medical and scientific material.

They have the staff and the money to pay. They dont like copying, plagiarism and thats that.

I was answering your question about micros (reference to Bruce), making no comment about Getty.

Drexxle · « **Reply #69 on:** September 25, 2012, 05:59 »

Everyone is mentioned, oh they told me it was similar to someone else.

Stop for a second, do you for that second think they are caring about you or copyright. They have a vested interest in their business model. Too many images of one topic, especially if they look "alike" harms their business model.

They have a "unique" and viable set of images to sell into the future, having 30 of that one type of image harms that business model. end of story.

It is very hard to plagerise a picture, it comes down to interpretation and rightful ability to change work into a new copyright, your own.

Interesting discussion, but sometimes its not all about the photographers

ShadySue · « **Reply #70 on:** September 25, 2012, 06:05 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 25, 2012, 05:48

I don't see any point in copying Yuri. Why compete with one of the best? There's lots of others already doing it, hardly an original idea. It shows a complete lack of imagination, probably the one thing you need the most to make money selling images.

That's why I didn't think the person was really serious. Like if someone asked, "What should I shoot for Micros?" and I might answer, "Look at Yuri", which would be totally sarcastic and in no way 'encouraging a crime'. That person said he didn't have lights or models. How long would he take to build up a studio and model list to compete with anyone? Either he's incredibly stupid or it was just a stupid post.

flashon · « **Reply #71 on:** September 25, 2012, 06:13 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on September 25, 2012, 04:13

We have to draw the line somewhere. This post shows intent to systematic duplication and advocates other to do so as well.
The keywords here are "systematic", "clear intention" and trying to "get others on board". If this is something we should just dismiss, then there is no grounds for any claims against plagiarism in microstock and we collectively accept all plagiarism attempts as "OK". I think this contributor clearly crosses the line for what we actually should accept.

Totally agree.
Learning from or being inspired by successful contributors is one thing, calling for systematically copying is totally different thing, regardless how new this guy was in the industry or how serious this guy was, there should be no place for his act.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #72 on:** September 25, 2012, 06:23 »

Well, flashon, I would say that "learning" and "inspiration" are just somewhat different from outright copying, not "totally different". Unless, of course, you are talking about lighting or processing technique rather than subject matter, but "inspiration" seems to be mostly about trying to mimic what someone else did.

Anyway, I've dusted down my small, portable gallows and got out my pitchfork, and I'm just waiting for Yuri's instructions about what we are to do next, apart from whinging rather pointlessly in a forum thread. Or does the action plan stop here?

click_click · « **Reply #73 on:** September 25, 2012, 06:38 »

I don't see a problem posting this thread by whomever.

No matter if a noob or a long standing photographer explicitly tries to instruct other contributors on a (somewhat) major microstock agency's forum to copy someone is flat out idiotic.

No matter who the "successful" victim is and no matter who the noob is who gags for some attention on the forums.

This is not even about "copying" concepts. It's about the fact that the noob's spicy wiener is probably too small for this game and can't stand that someone out there is better than him.

He has no competitive skills whatsoever and yet reserves the right to "raise an army or willing contributors" to dissect someone's portfolio and copy every last bit of it to make him feel better about his 8 approved uploads.

I believe Yuri has no need to fear people copying his work because he simply works in his own universe. People concepts which is his thing is not just done by him and that's no news to him either.

There is a big pie, everyone who plays this game professionally can get a nice piece of it.

Drexxle · « **Reply #74 on:** September 25, 2012, 07:01 »

Quote from: click_click on September 25, 2012, 06:38

I believe Yuri has no need to fear people copying his work because he simply works in his own universe. People concepts which is his thing is not just done by him and that's no news to him either.

There is a big pie, everyone who plays this game professionally can get a nice piece of it.

Pretty much nailed it, a good reason why copyright allows educational use, the modification of works into your own, the interpretation of works into your own.

Plagerism is a find line in art. its not math, 2+2 doesnt equal 4 all the time, it subjective and interpretive and inspirational and my version fo 2+2 might equal 5.

If this were the case, every landscape must be an Ansel, or every baby in a costume must be a Geddes.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Wow. Have you guys seen this. (Read 33213 times)

Drexxle

fritz

fritz

MatHayward

Digital66

Drexxle

STILLFX

ClaridgeJ

BaldricksTrousers

Metsafile

ClaridgeJ

qwerty

Yuri_Arcurs

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

HerMajesty

ClaridgeJ

sharpshot

ShadySue

Drexxle

ShadySue

flashon

BaldricksTrousers

click_click

Drexxle

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors