MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: Clivia on July 22, 2011, 12:13
-
Some one called Seyyah has taken my best selling image, flipped it, and used it to make a vector.
My image http://en.fotolia.com/id/11266432 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/11266432)
His image http://eu.fotolia.com/id/30930724 (http://eu.fotolia.com/id/30930724)
I have reported him to Fotolia. Check his port and see if he has used any of your images.
-
I have a bridge picture that sell "very well" and has like 2 years.. 3 or 4 months ago a very similar one got in, only the sky ainīt bright and blue, that picture is taking me sales but I cannot say the person copied me but might be..
http://us.fotolia.com/id/12830930 (http://us.fotolia.com/id/12830930)
http://us.fotolia.com/id/26800123 (http://us.fotolia.com/id/26800123)
-
I have a bridge picture that sell "very well" and has like 2 years.. 3 or 4 months ago a very similar one got in, only the sky ainīt bright and blue, that picture is taking me sales but I cannot say the person copied me but might be..
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/12830930[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/12830930[/url])
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/26800123[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/26800123[/url])
They're definitely different. His has more of the bridge - check the edges
-
When you take a well known landmark from a well known location, I think these are the breaks. You can't claim plagiarism unless there is something you set up in the shot beyond the bridge.
For the OP, I think this sort of problem is the reason iStock insists on uploading the reference file or sketches in progress for illustrations - too many think it's OK to use someone else's work as a reference.
-
When you take a well known landmark from a well known location, I think these are the breaks. You can't claim plagiarism unless there is something you set up in the shot beyond the bridge.
For the OP, I think this sort of problem is the reason iStock insists on uploading the reference file or sketches in progress for illustrations - too many think it's OK to use someone else's work as a reference.
So does Dreamstime.
-
Some one called Seyyah has taken my best selling image, flipped it, and used it to make a vector.
My image [url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/11266432[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/11266432[/url])
His image [url]http://eu.fotolia.com/id/30930724[/url] ([url]http://eu.fotolia.com/id/30930724[/url])
I have reported him to Fotolia. Check his port and see if he has used any of your images.
Good catch. I assume you check in Photoshop to match up the exact outline to make your case.
Just from looking at it, I think it's your image just mirrored. That's derivative work and therefore copyright infringement. Fotolia should take a clear stand on this one.
-
Not mine, but this one:
http://eu.fotolia.com/id/30281374 (http://eu.fotolia.com/id/30281374)
Seems to be from this one:
http://www.dreamstime.com/blue-butterfly-image14832446 (http://www.dreamstime.com/blue-butterfly-image14832446)
(thanks to Google)
-
I have a bridge picture that sell "very well" and has like 2 years.. 3 or 4 months ago a very similar one got in, only the sky ainīt bright and blue, that picture is taking me sales but I cannot say the person copied me but might be..
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/12830930[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/12830930[/url])
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/26800123[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/26800123[/url])
They're definitely different. His has more of the bridge - check the edges
the weather is a little different too, my point is that FT should have rejected his picture.. he his taking some sales from mine for sure :P
-
Not mine, but this one:
[url]http://eu.fotolia.com/id/30281374[/url] ([url]http://eu.fotolia.com/id/30281374[/url])
Seems to be from this one:
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/blue-butterfly-image14832446[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/blue-butterfly-image14832446[/url])
(thanks to Google)
Another one here:
(Probably) Original:
http://eu.fotolia.com/id/5115470 (http://eu.fotolia.com/id/5115470)
and the rip off:
http://eu.fotolia.com/id/29944396 (http://eu.fotolia.com/id/29944396)
Those are traces from the originals even if details have been changed or left out. Outlines, dimensions and composition are the same.
Lame work.
EDIT:
Keywords are a mess...
-
I have a bridge picture that sell "very well" and has like 2 years.. 3 or 4 months ago a very similar one got in, only the sky ainīt bright and blue, that picture is taking me sales but I cannot say the person copied me but might be..
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/12830930[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/12830930[/url])
[url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/26800123[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/id/26800123[/url])
They're definitely different. His has more of the bridge - check the edges
the weather is a little different too, my point is that FT should have rejected his picture.. he his taking some sales from mine for sure :P
If it's a landmark, why should they reject his? His is a wider panaroma and the lighting and amount of detail is different. They're very similar but to be honest I have a hard time differentiating between two blonde smiling office workers - and in microstock there are tons of those
-
Sometimes I think about "The border between good and wrong inspiration." As we're all influenced by everything and mainly visuals around us. Some photographers and designers have the line there some elsewhere, legal stuff is also a part of the story. Still, even photographers have a shelter with books to dive into inspiration if they need to.
The question is wether we should rather strictly regulate everything or not. It's rather philosophical question.
-
Frankly if the examples above bring that question to mind I'm glad that I don't upload to Pixmac.
-
Frankly if the examples above bring that question to mind I'm glad that I don't upload to Pixmac.
I thought I'd get an answer like this. Sorry for asking a question like that. Obviously, it was not related to images above. Maybe I'm thinking too much about stuff.
-
For example if someone makes a shoot of a smiling businessmen wearing black suits in a meeting room with bright background. Same composition, same decoration, different models. Or those people jumping on a grass with blue sky behind. It's a thin line. One thing is copy the form which is easy to track. The other is copy the soul of the work, the idea behing. Where it seems it's widely accepted to get inspired by others.
-
I'm glad you said it. When taken with recent events it gives us a useful insight into your company's attitude to IP and to the rights of contributors.
-
I'm glad you said it. When taken with recent events it gives us a useful insight into your company's attitude to IP and to the rights of contributors.
OK. I thought I'd try to be better than agencies that "don't talk at all" but it seems the perception for anything I say is set already. Thank you anyway. It was a lesson for me.
-
People, seriously, there are worlds between using the same concept or using the same image and "modifying" it.
There is no copyright on concepts, so take it easy. If people think they have to shoot the same concepts of the big guns they are more than welcome to do so. The question is will they be doing it better?
I don't care how many photographers give it a try at shooting the happy family jumping in front of a blue sky but I know that only a few photographers can pull it off right. There is more to it than having three people jump in the air.
Now taking someone's image and use it to make a vector trace, change colors or take parts of an image and flip them or things of that nature, that is copyright infringement and illegal and no agency will allow submissions like that.
They might not be able to identify infringements at the time of submission but once the original copyright holder makes a claim the images will be removed. I have done this countless times with my images.
-
I'm glad you said it. When taken with recent events it gives us a useful insight into your company's attitude to IP and to the rights of contributors.
OK. I thought I'd try to be better than agencies that "don't talk at all" but it seems the perception for anything I say is set already. Thank you anyway. It was a lesson for me.
I have replied to your PM but will reply here too.
It's not the fact you said something but what you said.
If I am expected to trust you with my IP, you'd better be a zealot for protecting it. Sounds like you are very much on the fence, so maybe don't have the right frame of mind for running an agency dealing in licensing IP?
-
It's not the fact you said something but what you said.
Understood. Thank you for the personal feedback. I studied design and media, worked as a designer for years. So I'm definitely on your side and deeply respect your rights. Still I like to get to the roots of things and if possible improve them.
-
It's not the fact you said something but what you said.
Understood. Thank you for the personal feedback. I studied design and media, worked as a designer for years. So I'm definitely on your side and deeply respect your rights. Still I like to get to the roots of things and if possible improve them.
Don't (miss ) use a situation given........................... :-X
Patrick H.