MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: DF_Studios on August 26, 2013, 22:13
-
Found this article on a possible cover design rip off. The illustration certainly looks a lot like this microstock photo. You be the judge
http://peanutroaster.hubpages.com/hub/Rip-off-or-original-artwork-you-be-the-judge (http://peanutroaster.hubpages.com/hub/Rip-off-or-original-artwork-you-be-the-judge)
How often does this happen?
-
More often than some would like to admit. I don't believe it to be a straight knock off but definitely abusive inspiration especially in the clothing and layout of the characters.
It happens more with silhouettes I think than anything else.
-
Inspired even down the number of bags in everyone's hands.
Clothing same - even the sweater patterns. Only real difference is the turn of the heads.
-
Yeah I didn't count the bags I just looked at the clothing and people placement. Probably a little more infringing than when I first looked at it.
-
What if the designer of the book cover actually licensed the image?
I tried to find the DT terms of use, but I'm getting a javascript void error and don't have time just now to try a different search.
I know at iS, buyers can alter images, and there is no limit as to how much alteration they do, so artists' inspiration would seem to be a legitimate use.
-
DT is still problematic, the CSS isn't loading properly. I couldn't find, on a quick read-through, what their rules are re altering images.
However, I see that image is on several stock sites, including 123RF and SS zs well as some I've never heard of.
I also found it on a site called freegreatphotos.wordpress.com, but although the bait is 'free photos', the twist is that the subhead is Royalty-Free Stock Photos and the photo is linked to DT. However, you can easily right-click and save the unwatermarked image directly from that page, at that small size.
http://freegreatstockphotos.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/family-shopping (http://freegreatstockphotos.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/family-shopping)
As there is no indication on the page that the image is copyright, and they have made no attempt to disable easy saving out, and lots of people have truly never heard of Royalty Free, and think it means 'free of royalties', which is logical, the image is in effect there for the lifting. And there are many, many more images on that site.
Another pic I randomly clicked on has the tog's name and the agency right under the photo, and a watermark, but the family one definitely hasn't.
http://freegreatstockphotos.wordpress.com/category/free-photos/animal/bird (http://freegreatstockphotos.wordpress.com/category/free-photos/animal/bird)
People might like to check out that site.
-
Boy, if I paid to have a book published I certainly would expect them to provide a better cover than a coloring book version of a stock photo.
And if I was an employer I'd expect my artists to have some originality.
-
YES ! it's a ripoff and if you ask any illustrator in many cases they start from a photo !
however, it's a very gray area as the illustrator didn't do a carbon copy of the image but he changed the orientation of the faces and a few other details.
besides, it's being used for a "vanity press book" that probably sold what .. 5 copies ? vanity books are self-printed and self-distributed, he might even have lost money with this illustration.
-
I'm on a self publishing site and haven't been on there in awhile but they do often ask where they can get images for their covers and I see stock sites listed all the time.
I'll have to keep a better eye on the self-publishing sector to see if more of that is going on there and if it is, school them on why it's wrong.