pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: IS illustrator master Russel Tate gone  (Read 19804 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 30, 2011, 19:09 »
0
If it's not a new bug or a temporary glitch, seems that Russel Tate go away from Istock. I love to know if was because royalties cut.


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2011, 19:17 »
0
Whoa. I just saw a couple of his files come through the recent uploads.

« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2011, 19:59 »
0
Maybe something to do with this?
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=8304

I hope not.

« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2011, 20:07 »
0
My "Vector Text" lightbox will soon have 20% fewer files. I don't know how he was able to get away with stuff like that so often.

"We're sorry but iStock does not accept illustrations containing text as a primary focal point within a composition"

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/3815234#108d6921

« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2011, 20:10 »
0
'cause it was aaawwwwesome!

« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2011, 20:10 »
0
Well, a tut published over internet is supposedly to be used, but i think some IS rule must be broked, because images are almost the same. It's strange, because Russel have a very original work and don't need to do this kind of thing.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 20:12 by Chico »

« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2011, 20:32 »
0
If I search by contributor, I can see his whole portfolio, but if you click on any image you get a 404 error and if you click on his user name you go back to the iStock home page. I can't quite believe that such a long association could just be over like that - if it was the tutorial issue that triggered it.

Does he have a blog or any other web presence?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2011, 04:49 »
0
Maybe something to do with this?
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=8304
I hope not.

I wouldn't have thought you couldn't use methods taught in a tutorial. Not that I do, and if I did, I wouldn't make them so much 'the same'; but still, it's surely not illegal or unethical if you create them yourself using the tut?

Microbius

« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2011, 05:14 »
0
The images are not copies just similar so I don't see the problem.
He's used the tutorials as intended, to make similar work.

« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2011, 05:33 »
0
It's frightening how much power the microstock agencies have in this regard.  It is great that portfolio's are pulled very quickly when a thief is found - but when the photographer / illustrator is innocent and there is just a misunderstanding or some other problem is creates a scary situation.

Microbius

« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2011, 06:03 »
0
I think Russell is also admin, so you would have hoped they would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway we are speculating right now, maybe he quit?

« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2011, 06:05 »
0
I think Russell is also admin, so you would have hoped they would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway we are speculating right now, maybe he quit?


Sean said he didn't leave
Quote
I heard from Russell. He didn't leave the site. He is working on fixing the situation.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319712&messageid=6204822&source=rssforums

Microbius

« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2011, 06:12 »
0
Sorry missed that!

« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2011, 06:20 »
0
If I hear more from him, I'll post.

« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2011, 07:27 »
0
I don't think speculation about the reasons that Russell's PF is unavailable at this time is likely to help things much, so this is getting locked.

Took longer to be locked than i thought...

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2011, 09:13 »
0
another contributor whose profile went offline is back...Maravic. Though when I click through to his port, it doesn't populate. I can view his images again though. A thread was started about him too in the iStock forums. I guess they take your port offline until they investigate. scary though that you lose your income indefinitely.

« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2011, 10:12 »
0
It's definitely surprising to see. Hopefully, it's not "abusive inspiration" like claimed in the article.

I've always admired IS's "abusive inspiration" policy though. People may have gotten unfairly burned by it, but it's good to have a policy that states that something doesn't have to be a direct copy to be a copy. Especially for those that dip into the "inspiration" well too many times.

helix7

« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2011, 10:26 »
0
Tutorials are sort of a gray area as I understand them. And I always thought it was sort of an unwritten law that you learn from tutorials but don't actually use the resulting images in stock. Use the methods to create something totally unique.

The tutorial crowd is especially vicious when it comes to people using images created from tutorials for profit. I was accused of ripping off a tutorial image a while back, but in my case the tutorial was written long after my image was created. Might have been a case of the tutorial writer being a little too inspired by my image instead of the other way around. The trouble I had was that on the site where the accusation was brought up, public comments are visible on the image page. So I had to contact the site and have the accusatory comments removed so as not to damage my sales of that image.

What I took away from that experience is that the tutorial community are vicious with tracking down copy-cats, and my policy of not using tutorial-derived images as stock seems to be a good way to go. It's surprising that a guy like Russell would dare put his portfolio and income at risk by using tutorial-based images like that.

« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2011, 11:03 »
0
If I search by contributor, I can see his whole portfolio, but if you click on any image you get a 404 error and if you click on his user name you go back to the iStock home page. I can't quite believe that such a long association could just be over like that - if it was the tutorial issue that triggered it.

Does he have a blog or any other web presence?


his website sucks, IMHO, but he does have one.  though no blog that I can see

http://www.russelltate.com

« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2011, 11:26 »
0
How can someone prove that you used the tutorial to create your files? It is somehow scary, there must be tons of images in tutorials over the internet that are similar to stock images and it is impossible for an artist to know every single tutorial out there.

Or this is a case of a tutorial were you had to signup and there is no doubt that at least you had notice of the tutorial and that your file was made after you had access to it. Even then, are ideas protected? Where is the line? What if you refine the technique learnt, get better results and use them?

« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2011, 11:36 »
0
How can someone prove that you used the tutorial to create your files?
I doubt the tutorial thing was the reason for the deactivation/banning/whatever it is.

Just noticed that the thread in the Illustration forum has not only been locked, but it has been disappeared

« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2011, 11:37 »
0
I never heard from Istock: "Well, we don't accept images created from internet tutorials"

« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2011, 15:58 »
0
Maybe something to do with this?
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=8304

I hope not.

Given  Russell's ability to do draw 3D objects in Illustrator, that the lighting reflections and perspective on the two bows are different, (and they look like differennt rendering techniques) I think the chances that he needed to use a tutorial to do an illustration of a bow are very small. I presume it's just a case of choosing a similar bow as a model. I have a box of identical bows somewhere for use in Christmas decorations.

« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2011, 23:27 »
0
Wow, i was just looking for the thread in the illus forums and its disappeared. Hope russell manages to clear his name.

Microbius

« Reply #24 on: April 01, 2011, 01:24 »
0
Maybe something to do with this?
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=8304

I hope not.

Given  Russell's ability to do draw 3D objects in Illustrator, that the lighting reflections and perspective on the two bows are different, (and they look like differennt rendering techniques) I think the chances that he needed to use a tutorial to do an illustration of a bow are very small. I presume it's just a case of choosing a similar bow as a model. I have a box of identical bows somewhere for use in Christmas decorations.


If you look at the fact that he also creates tutorials for the site and that he has two illustrations that very strongly resemble ones created in other tutorials there I think it's a bit of a stretch that it's a coincidence.
In any case this could be cleared up by looking at the files closely- there are many ways to create similar images and if he has done it differently to the tut then that will clear it up with no need for further digging.
However, even if he has used the tutorials to create his files, which seems likely, the resulting files aren't identical to the ones in the tutorials and surely that's what the tutorials are for? creating similar images.

« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2011, 01:59 »
0
I still don't understand what made so talented illustrator do something like this. You can disagree but for me the differences between orginal tutorials and his images are too small not to be called copies.
They didn't say they wouldn't accept images based on tutorials but at iS they do all they can to get rid of all nonexclusives so they don't want images that are published everywhere just after some interesting tutorial is published.

« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2011, 11:11 »
0
Russel work still unavaliable. Must be something very serious.

« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2011, 11:28 »
0
Russel work still unavaliable. Must be something very serious.

Yeah, I noticed Google had reindexed too, so his iStock profile doesn't show up with a search anymore. I guess it is none of my business, but I'm still curious.

« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2011, 12:59 »
0
weird but maybe he decided to stop selling through istock and it was no mal-intent.  could be anything, so no real sense in speculating when the only fact known is that his port is not available on istock any longer.

« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2011, 13:00 »
0
It's my understanding from earlier posts in this thread that the removal of his port was not his idea and that he *was* trying to get it reinstated.

Microbius

« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2011, 02:38 »
0
Yep, a quick reread of this thread will confirm that on good authority that's the case.
I feel really bad for him, it doesn't look to me like he's done anything intentionally (or legally) wrong.
If it is 'cos of the tutorial inspired stuff then the most he's guilty of is what IStock calls "abusive inspiration", which very far short of actual copyright violation.

« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2011, 02:53 »
0
If this is just for those tutorial images, are they going to do the same for everyone who has made an image that looks similar to something in a tutorial?  There might be more to this that we don't know about.  It will be interesting to find out the reason because a lot of people are inspired by tutorials.  There's also people just making their own versions of others best sellers.  Are they going to get in to problems as well?

« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2011, 12:54 »
0
I find it hard to believe the turorial thing is the issue.  I would guess that it is something else that istock considers more serious. But what that could be i dont know.

« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2011, 13:06 »
0
I find it hard to believe the turorial thing is the issue.  I would guess that it is something else that istock considers more serious. But what that could be i dont know.

When I emailed him, he didn't mention the tutorial thing, but something else from the past.  He hasn't been in contact since.

« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2011, 16:18 »
0
I find it hard to believe the turorial thing is the issue.  I would guess that it is something else that istock considers more serious. But what that could be i dont know.

When I emailed him, he didn't mention the tutorial thing, but something else from the past.  He hasn't been in contact since.

I don't even want to consider speculating about what happened. I'm the one who wrote the post at istock asking about him. I'd just seen a few new vector images of his on the Latest Illustrations pages, thought I'd check on other images of his in my lightboxes and started getting the File Not Found error, then his portfolio and member page gone. I had no idea what to think or why it all disappeared. In addition to being concerned for him, I also wondered if istock had yet another horrible bug that was causing entire portfolios and people to disappear.

At any rate, I'm very sad that his work isn't at istock now, regardless of the reason, and I hope he's able to return. Love his work. He's also seen like such a nice guy and so helpful in the forums, too. -sigh-

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2011, 01:42 »
0
Quote
I also wondered if istock had yet another horrible bug that was causing entire portfolios and people to disappear.

Let's not start scaremongering. It isn't a bug.

« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2011, 03:03 »
0
Quote
I also wondered if istock had yet another horrible bug that was causing entire portfolios and people to disappear.

Let's not start scaremongering. It isn't a bug.

Of course not, and I wasn't at all implying that within the context of where you extracted that part. I initially wondered why he so mysteriously disappeared - if there was another bug, if he had voluntarily left, or just what. And in my very first sentence of my post above I stated that I wasn't about to speculate. :-)

« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2011, 20:41 »
0
Quote
I also wondered if istock had yet another horrible bug that was causing entire portfolios and people to disappear.

Let's not start scaremongering. It isn't a bug.

Of course not, and I wasn't at all implying that within the context of where you extracted that part. I initially wondered why he so mysteriously disappeared - if there was another bug, if he had voluntarily left, or just what. And in my very first sentence of my post above I stated that I wasn't about to speculate. :-)

Skdesigns... We (the reasonable readers) all understood your meaning and that you were concerned, not speculating. vlad the impaled just likes to quote out of context.

« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2011, 21:09 »
0
Quote
I also wondered if istock had yet another horrible bug that was causing entire portfolios and people to disappear.

Let's not start scaremongering. It isn't a bug.

Of course not, and I wasn't at all implying that within the context of where you extracted that part. I initially wondered why he so mysteriously disappeared - if there was another bug, if he had voluntarily left, or just what. And in my very first sentence of my post above I stated that I wasn't about to speculate. :-)

Skdesigns... We (the reasonable readers) all understood your meaning and that you were concerned, not speculating. vlad the impaled just likes to quote out of context.

Oh OK. Good to know. I'm new to the forums here. I recognize a bunch of fellow istock contributors but that's it. Thanks! :-)

nruboc

« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2011, 22:38 »
0
Quote
I also wondered if istock had yet another horrible bug that was causing entire portfolios and people to disappear.

Let's not start scaremongering. It isn't a bug.

Of course not, and I wasn't at all implying that within the context of where you extracted that part. I initially wondered why he so mysteriously disappeared - if there was another bug, if he had voluntarily left, or just what. And in my very first sentence of my post above I stated that I wasn't about to speculate. :-)

Don't worry imp boy is clueless...

« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2011, 23:27 »
0
Quote
I also wondered if istock had yet another horrible bug that was causing entire portfolios and people to disappear.

Let's not start scaremongering. It isn't a bug.

Of course not, and I wasn't at all implying that within the context of where you extracted that part. I initially wondered why he so mysteriously disappeared - if there was another bug, if he had voluntarily left, or just what. And in my very first sentence of my post above I stated that I wasn't about to speculate. :-)

Don't worry imp boy is clueless...

LOL Thanks for the tip. ;-)

« Reply #41 on: April 14, 2011, 14:53 »
0
I was wondering if Russel illustrations are still available for licensing?
But without the profile I don't know how to find it.

« Reply #42 on: April 14, 2011, 15:20 »
0
I was wondering if Russel illustrations are still available for licensing?
But without the profile I don't know how to find it.


you can try to contact him through his website:

http://www.russelltate.com/

« Reply #43 on: April 14, 2011, 19:56 »
0
I was wondering if Russel illustrations are still available for licensing?
But without the profile I don't know how to find it.


you can try to contact him through his website:

http://www.russelltate.com/ [nofollow]


Ah, good idea. I also happened to notice that he still has SOME illustrations at Getty images website. Nowhere near what he had at istock, though. I was surprised to see that actually since Getty and istock are related now.

« Reply #44 on: April 14, 2011, 20:42 »
0
I was wondering if Russel illustrations are still available for licensing?
But without the profile I don't know how to find it.


you can try to contact him through his website:

http://www.russelltate.com/


Ah, good idea. I also happened to notice that he still has SOME illustrations at Getty images website. Nowhere near what he had at istock, though. I was surprised to see that actually since Getty and istock are related now.

If you go independent, for example, and have Vetta images over at Getty, it takes a few extra days for them to be removed from the Getty side.

« Reply #45 on: April 14, 2011, 23:46 »
0
I was wondering if Russel illustrations are still available for licensing?
But without the profile I don't know how to find it.


you can try to contact him through his website:

http://www.russelltate.com/


Ah, good idea. I also happened to notice that he still has SOME illustrations at Getty images website. Nowhere near what he had at istock, though. I was surprised to see that actually since Getty and istock are related now.

If you go independent, for example, and have Vetta images over at Getty, it takes a few extra days for them to be removed from the Getty side.


a few extra days?  try a few months.  while I dont have vetta over there, when I went independent in October, I canceled my Getty contract in January and they still have not removed my images. 

« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2011, 16:24 »
0
I find it hard to believe the turorial thing is the issue.  I would guess that it is something else that istock considers more serious. But what that could be i dont know.

When I emailed him, he didn't mention the tutorial thing, but something else from the past.  He hasn't been in contact since.

That's too bad. Wonder what really happened.

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2011, 21:39 »
0

« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2011, 21:54 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-14487083-gift-ribbon.php [nofollow]

odd - this looks to be available


Ah! I clicked on a few of the other image links in his description and also on his profile link and maybe he's back now. Looks like it! :-)

ETA: I clicked around more within his images. Portfolio pages still don't exist but perhaps it's all getting re-populated at the moment ... hoping anyway. :-)

« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2011, 22:20 »
0
Hey I think he is back!
the profile is working for me!!!!!

« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2011, 02:10 »
0
So that took about 3 weeks to sort out?  That must be a big loss of earnings.

Microbius

« Reply #51 on: April 20, 2011, 06:34 »
0
Congrats to Russell, I for one am glad he got it sorted!

« Reply #52 on: April 20, 2011, 07:15 »
0
So that took about 3 weeks to sort out?  That must be a big loss of earnings.

Yeah, from his email, it sounded like it was.

« Reply #53 on: April 20, 2011, 07:28 »
0
Good to see Russell back! So glad he got it sorted.

« Reply #54 on: April 20, 2011, 08:34 »
0
That is good news.  Glad to see him back!

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #55 on: April 20, 2011, 11:41 »
0
Good for you Russell - looks like you now have your entire portfolio restored.  An odd coincidence or a quick reaction, IMO.  Either way - good for you :)  I've turned by back on IS - but I do hope it works out for you and all the others that have come to rely on them.

« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2011, 12:26 »
0
Glad whatever the trouble was is now behind him. Congrats and welcome back, Mr. Tate!

lisafx

« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2011, 16:15 »
0
This is very good news!  Congrats Russel on getting this sorted out.  Very sorry for the earnings loss though. 

« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2011, 17:02 »
0
Really pleased for him.

« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2011, 17:42 »
0
Good to see him back. Hopefully, it wasn't a serious issue. Anyway... What was that saying about eggs in a basket?  ;)

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #60 on: April 21, 2011, 03:13 »
0
Illustrator 'master'? That phrase would bring someone like Escher to and educated mind, not an amateur who copies a tutorials... tutorials for g.s. : }

« Reply #61 on: April 21, 2011, 03:52 »
0
Illustrator 'master'? That phrase would bring someone like Escher to and educated mind, not an amateur who copies a tutorials... tutorials for g.s. : }

What in gods name does he have to do with computer vector illustrations ?!?
This guys work is amazing. I wish I had 10% of his IS downloads (or his work).

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #62 on: April 21, 2011, 05:37 »
0
Illustrator 'master'? That phrase would bring someone like Escher to and educated mind, not an amateur who copies a tutorials... tutorials for g.s. : }

What in gods name does he have to do with computer vector illustrations ?!?
This guys work is amazing. I wish I had 10% of his IS downloads (or his work).

Illustration, means graphic art work regardless of the medium...  Lets not try to reinvent the language just because this includes digital tools now. : ) I'v got nothing aganst the guy or what he does, its ok, neat, etc. But mastery is bit far fetched to say the least. : ) Thats for stuff that stood the test of time.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 05:46 by lthn »

« Reply #63 on: April 21, 2011, 13:48 »
0
Illustrator 'master'? That phrase would bring someone like Escher to and educated mind, not an amateur who copies a tutorials... tutorials for g.s. : }

Well, those are just mean words. I think Russell is very talented and definitely a pro illustrator. Maybe no Gary Baseman, but the guy's got some skills.  ;D

« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2011, 18:31 »
0
Yep, Russell is a Master Illustrator. He is a professional.

He even has his work featured on the Adobe website...amazing list of clients.

Who gets to be featured on Adobe? Check it out
Here is http://tinyurl.com/3zqdktt

« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2011, 21:02 »
0
Pretty cool stuff indeed. Even though this article is old (he mentions using Illus v7) the work holds up and has stood the test of time.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1783 Views
Last post April 02, 2007, 16:30
by Istock News
Photography At The Tate

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
2017 Views
Last post May 25, 2007, 13:28
by Istock News
7 Replies
17069 Views
Last post February 27, 2010, 05:11
by photoshow
186 Replies
37002 Views
Last post March 26, 2014, 15:30
by lisafx
74 Replies
36158 Views
Last post December 20, 2014, 02:26
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors