pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Happy so far about the way this Copycat has been handled by the agents...  (Read 9989 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« on: February 16, 2011, 22:52 »
0
Doing a search on DT looking for the placement of one one of my images, I was shocked to find that it had been copied by another member, cteconsulting.  I had this person listed as a favourite and had interacted with him on several ocassions, even complimenting his work and his ability to pump out so many images so quickly.  I now know why he can do this!

These are the images I'm referring to:



I immediately contacted DT support and they removed the image so I was pleased about that.   I later found the image on several microstock sites and have contacted or are still in the process of contacting them.  So far the image has been removed from Dreamstime, Fotolia, Shutterstock, 123RF and Canstock.  I'm still waiting to hear back on a few more and there are still probably sites I haven't found yet.

I just want to say how pleased I am that the microstock agents have taken this matter seriously and have acted the way I would expect them to so thank you microstock agents for looking out for me... even though I am only small fry :)


« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2011, 23:56 »
0
honestly I dont find that similar but I guess you know what you are doing :)

« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2011, 01:03 »
0
I hate copycats too, but what I see here are just two different versions of the front side of a lens.  Was cteconsulting really copying you?  Maybe he/she just had a similar idea.  After all, a lens is not that unique.   If I were cteconsulting, and I were innocent, I wouldn't like to be accused or having my work removed.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2011, 01:23 »
0
lol so you guys think it's just a coincidence that the external diamater of both the internal and externl parts of the lenses line up EXACTLY?  Considering I didn't use a photograph or trace anything and just drew it from scratch like I do with all my work (whereas CTE openly admits to tracing photographs),  and made the internal part of the lens bigger than a normal lens to accentuate the eyeball, it would be a huge coincidence for the diameters to line up EXACTLY.  Also it's too much of a coincidence that the shutter / diaphram lines line up EXACTLY with mine as you can see from the third image.  Also the colouring of the eyeball is similar with the yellow / orange shading surrounding the pupil.  That's my eyeball there and I've exagerated the yellow to make it more distinct.  His image is also nothing like anything he has ever submitted before.  Considering we both submit to the same microstock agencies and that I've interacted with him and he's aware of my portfolio with only a few images in it, I'd say it's far too much of a coincidence and I'm absolutely positive an IP lawyer would agree.  If the image is not removed from every agent he has it on, or if I find it displayed somewhere at a later date, I will be seeing an IP lawyer and taking the matter further.

If you can't see the resemblance... and that some parts of it an exact match, then I'm glad you're not running a microstock agency because it would end up a database full of ripoffs.  Everyone I've asked so far... and I've asked hundreds from various places, can see the resemblance and have no doubt it's a copy, as do I.

Anyway, this thread really isn't to ask your opinion whether it was copied because it clearly was copied.  This thread is to acknowledge the agents and the way they have handled the matter so far.

« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2011, 01:49 »
0
it may have a starting point from yours but then he went a little further, you are doing the right thing I wasnt paying a lot of attention my bad

« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2011, 02:11 »
0
i have seen a ton of images like yours over the every sites!!

« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2011, 02:23 »
0
Are you guys blind or what? Grab the two images, make them into layers with bit of transparency on the upper one, you will clearly see that all the significant lines matches exactly. I mean EXACTLY.

That's not a coincidence, that's just a clear copying. Yeah, he added few elements, probably even his own. I guess this means for you it is ok.

Clearly the agencies do not think so, and I'm glad they do not.

Sorry, this is disgusting, and I don't mean only the copying, I mean also the discussion in here. People just come in saying 'hey this is generic item' and 'I have already seen images like this'. And what? Just because anyone can draw a len, it is ok to copy them? What type of argument is that?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 02:29 by Danicek »

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2011, 02:30 »
0
it may have a starting point from yours but then he went a little further, you are doing the right thing I wasnt paying a lot of attention my bad

No worries luis.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2011, 02:33 »
0
i have seen a ton of images like yours over the every sites!!

Oh really, I made sure there was no image like it when I created mine.  Are you looking at my image on every site?

Please post links to these "tons of images" that are like mine on every site.  I mean I google "camera lens eye" and the only ones that look like mine, is mine.  He didn't just copy the concept, he copied my image. 

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2011, 02:50 »
0
Are you guys blind or what? Grab the two images, make them into layers with bit of transparency on the upper one, you will clearly see that all the significant lines matches exactly. I mean EXACTLY.

That's not a coincidence, that's just a clear copying. Yeah, he added few elements, probably even his own. I guess this means for you it is ok.

Clearly the agencies do not think so, and I'm glad they do not.

Sorry, this is disgusting, and I don't mean only the copying, I mean also the discussion in here. People just come in saying 'hey this is generic item' and 'I have already seen images like this'. And what? Just because anyone can draw a len, it is ok to copy them? What type of argument is that?

Thanks for your support Danicek.  I've actually done that with the two layers on the third pic and they're still arguing.  I think some in here just want to argue for the sake of arguing without even looking at the evidence.  I'm just as disgusted as you are.  It actually really peed me off that I put a fair bit of thought into creating this lens.  I spent a long time doing extensive searches to make sure there is nothing similar to my image before creating it, and then some guy comes along and copies it. 

And I come in here to thank the agents and to assure people that when this happens to them, the agents take this sort of thing seriously and will probably look after them but all I got was a lot of flack, lol

It really doesn't matter what you type in here, you can count on a bunch of bullies will just crap on it regardless...  They've become used to doing that and honestly, I don't pay attention to a lot of the people that post in here anymore... they seem juvenile to me and incapable of actually having a discussion on something and I just find them comical.  However, this is a serious matter to me so I'm going to ignore the ones who are just looking to argue for no reason.  There's still some decent ones here though and I read what they write and consider their opinions, even if I don't comment.

I'll leave it there because I've no interest in turning this into a shitstorm. My image was copied, the agents so far responded accordingly and that's all I wanted to share.

« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2011, 03:16 »
0
It looks like a copy to me.  It would of been easy to come up with a different size and change the lens diaphragm a bit.  Then it might not be so noticeable.  I don't think we can stop people making their own versions of our ideas but they shouldn't be making such a close copy.

« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2011, 03:59 »
0
I too agree this is not just the copy of a concept, but of thee image itself. Glad to know agencies are respinding accordingly.

Microbius

« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2011, 04:41 »
0
When I first saw this thread I thought he'd just copied the concept, which is annoying but not a crime.
But you're right, if it all lines up when you place one over the other he's gone one step further so you did the right thing.

« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2011, 05:20 »
0
I like his copy. Is it still for sale?

« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2011, 06:48 »
0
When I first saw this thread I thought he'd just copied the concept, which is annoying but not a crime.
But you're right, if it all lines up when you place one over the other he's gone one step further so you did the right thing.

I had the same problem.  When I think of a "Copycat" - as in the title of the thread - I think of someone who copies other contributors' concepts but does not use an actual copy of the others' work.  Sometimes this is ok but can easily become unethical.  This guy copied the image itself and then altered it a little.  This is never ok but I wouldn't call it being a "Copycat"  I would call it Fraud.

fred

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2011, 08:32 »
0
Thank you for your comments, everyone.

lisafx

« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2011, 09:45 »
0
Congrats on having it handled so well.  Nice to know the agencies are taking this sort of thing seriously. 

« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2011, 10:11 »
0
hmmm... interesting... i always suspected something wasnt right with the speed at which his portfolio was growing at istock around a year and half ago. I thought to myself he wasnt alone in creating his works.

« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2011, 10:46 »
0
It looks like a copy to me.  It would of been easy to come up with a different size and change the lens diaphragm a bit.  Then it might not be so noticeable.  I don't think we can stop people making their own versions of our ideas but they shouldn't be making such a close copy.

That's how I felt. It makes you wonder what is going on inside these people's heads. It's one thing to copy ideas, but to not even try to make the idea your own and just trace over someone else's. Is it just laziness. I guess the real question in this is what does the rest of their portfolio contain?

« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2011, 10:50 »
0
So glad for you that the agencies are handling it.  Yes, he added background, etc, but d*mn, that is just all kinds of wrong to copy someones stuff.  Good for you for catching it.  People like that need to be banned.  Good luck with the rest of the sites.

« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2011, 11:05 »
0
It's not a copy. It it was a copy, it would look the same.

It looks similar BUT according to the US copyright office:

Quote
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Therefore it is illegal. To me the dimensions of the lens and the alignment of the blades don't appear accidental...

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2011, 11:19 »
0
Thanks Lisa and Blufish.

hmmm... interesting... i always suspected something wasnt right with the speed at which his portfolio was growing at istock around a year and half ago. I thought to myself he wasnt alone in creating his works.


I once called him a machine and was in awe at the speed he was producing but then I became a little suss when he said he traces a lot of his own photos.  I just couldn't see how he would have the time to go out and shoot and then trace, then pretty up the image and finally load it to so many microstocks.  I couldn't see how one person could do all that and produce 10-20 images a day.  It just didn't make sense to me when I was putting so much time into my own images and only producing one every few days. 

It looks like a copy to me.  It would of been easy to come up with a different size and change the lens diaphragm a bit.  Then it might not be so noticeable.  I don't think we can stop people making their own versions of our ideas but they shouldn't be making such a close copy.


That's how I felt. It makes you wonder what is going on inside these people's heads. It's one thing to copy ideas, but to not even try to make the idea your own and just trace over someone else's. Is it just laziness. I guess the real question in this is what does the rest of their portfolio contain?


Interestingly enough, that's what I thought and had a quick browse through his profile after finding my image was copied.  I found this:

http://www.iclipart.com/search.php?keys=20436&id=198

And I'm guessing that's what he used to create his chiropractic image.  I sent the two links to DT but they came back to me saying they don't see a striking resemblance.  After that, I didn't bother looking further.  I don't think it has to be a perfect match to be copied.  It's obvious that the concept was copied but it's also obvious (to me anyway) that the image was copied too.  Sure he improved it but it would be pretty difficult for him to prove that he came up with that image without copying the other.

I really don't know how people like that can respect themselves.  I used to think he was amazing.  Now I think he's amazingly pathetic.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2011, 11:23 »
0
It's not a copy. It it was a copy, it would look the same.

It looks similar BUT according to the US copyright office:

Quote
What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Therefore it is illegal. To me the dimensions of the lens and the alignment of the blades don't appear accidental...


Thanks for that, I'm aware the two definitions but "derivativecat" just doesn't work for me :)

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2011, 11:32 »
0
Well I've just had word from Crestock who informed me that cteconsulting requested to have the photo removed from their database, right before I emailed them, so that's a good thing.

Goodnight all and thanks for the support :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
4486 Views
Last post February 24, 2008, 13:05
by ludesal
261 Replies
48140 Views
Last post August 22, 2009, 11:25
by lisafx
52 Replies
13679 Views
Last post August 27, 2009, 10:31
by hqimages
6 Replies
2541 Views
Last post September 15, 2009, 15:06
by sharpshot
3 Replies
2060 Views
Last post March 24, 2016, 10:30
by PeterChigmaroff

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle