Before running to the defence of the 'original' artist who's work has been copied, you would do well to search and see if that was actually an 'original idea'. It may have become a best seller but was not necessarily unique when submitted.....

Don't get me wrong, I don't like blatant copying any more than the next person but we do need to be clear about who we are defending. Is this a case of a copycat copying another copycat?

Fair point, but of course I checked first before posting this message. The original image (on the left by Perola) has an image ID of 92960689. The first appearance of (what I shall call) the copy image is 94961593. The SS number allocation to files is sequential, i.e the lower the number the earlier to acceptance to the library. The copy image is over 200,000 images after the original acceptance. That number would be three to four weeks (guesstimate) on current SS volume. I don't think it is feasible that if the copy image was the 'original' the photographer would have waited three weeks to post his pictures. You might suggest, maybe Perola saw the Schauer image somewhere else on another site and posted on SS first. If he did I could not find it -I checked Schauer port on RF123 and non of these copy images are posted. There is one image posted on his DT portfolio and it states the image was taken on 3 February 2012. The series of image numbers relating to 92...... on SS were uploaded the week of the 7 January 2012. Four weeks earlier which ties in with the difference in the file numbers. I'm no Inspector Morse but the dates seem to support the proposition that Perola's images were uploaded first, at least three weeks before the Marcel Schauer versions. Apart from that, how do you square the circle of absolutely identical keywords and title? I accept that appearances can be deceptive but I think this is a pretty clear cut case of plagiarism.

Your right - different fonts for different themes. Here is today's little morsel from Corbis. Something wrong with the link though, image to the right pops up when the email link is activated. Someone will have a red face in Corbis.

Get a job

Yeah I can see why you might be upset. Touched a sensitive nerve have we?

http://hexus.net/tech/items/software/35077-just-time-valentines-day-istockphoto-launches-free-e-card-app-facebook-users/

I wonder if the photographs they give away for free earn any credits for the photographer.

When all is said and done, you (really) have to admire the sarcasm of the Brits! 

Exclusive member that has more than 110,000 vector downloads.

Thanks for all the advice, I appreciate it (even the harsh stuff   )

Take heart from the members here that show themselves - their advice is genuine and truthful. Other (hidden) members may have ulterior motives (gostwyck for example). Well known on these forums as constantly negative and posting derisory comments. Those comments are not harsh, their simply rude, uneducated and posted to 'rise a response' from you. Well done for not rising to his bait. The aforementioned members  portfolio is predominantly pictures mainly of plates of Indian curry and assorted dishes from the Indian sub-continent. Hardly a source of inspiraton to any serious stock photographer. Take heed about posting images that can be used by design agencies for promoting their clients aims and aspirations, images that can be used to sell or promote concepts, ideas and ambitions, preferably beyond those of the local curry house or take-away restaurant.

Site is down.

Will
I only came across this website today and have been browsing out of curiosity at the forums and discovered your threads. Although having been a professional photographer for over thirty years I am fairly new to the 'micro' stock image market albeit having been aware of it's growing existence for a number of years, PS Don't be fooled by my user name I have never sold stock images I just made the name up - my cat's called Roxx! Amongst many of my fellow professional and accredited press photographers stock photography seems to have a reputation of being a bit low end - the sort of place you go to when your either retire or don't have any commissions. Basically, if you're looking for a picture of a kettle isolated on a white background or a toothy cheesy model smiling at the camera you go to a microstock site. The growth in these sites is mainly due to non-too-fussy companies looking to buy cheaper images for ad campaigns and equally non-too-fussy advertising agencies looking to buy cheap images and upscale their charges to their client basically ripping them off.

Photography is a profession and one that can give you a great deal of satisfaction and money too. If your looking to develop a proper career in photography the last place you should look is toward stock sites. I say this for one reason, these places are where budding amateur snappers aspire to go with their cheap low/mid end DSLR's, where they can make a few dollars each month. Will, you must have a higher ambition than that. I guess from your posts your a youngster just getting into this area, take the advise of a seasoned pro - don't set your sights too low. Photography is not about a perfectly lit, sanitized pretty picture. It's about capturing a moment in time that stands the test and marks a record of that time.  Photography is not about taking pictures of kettles, keyboards, staged business meetings with cheesy models for a few bucks.

In regard to equipment, keep your mobile phone to make telephone calls and buy a decent camera. It is not going to be cheap to get started but you can always grow your 'kit' over time. I started out with good cameras over thirty years ago and believe me, it makes a big difference. In those days we used film SLR's, and I had an Olympus OM1 and an Olympus OM2N - still have them and even use them sometimes now and again when teaching. When the world went digital most professionals were wary until the resolutions could match our beloved Kodachrome 25. When they did (and in some cases exceed) many pro's switched. Today I use Nikons for nearly everything, D3, D3X, 700 and an older D40 (for teaching and snaps). If you can, get one of the newish Nikon's - their 7000 it's nearly as good as the 700 and less than half the price. Check out a useful website www.kenrockwell.com he does very useful comparisons and generally supports the Nikon brand. Personally, I would stay well clear of anything from Canon, Sony, Olympus - the quality is low end and don't be tempted just because their cheap - their aimed at the amateur market, at least with Nikon, even the mid price ones, you're getting into a stable of professional kit which you can grow. Bear in mind also, as you are starting out, switching brands later when you realise you made a mistake is going to be very expensive. Painful as it might be, start out on the right foot now if you can. Don't skimp on lenses either, generally, stay clear of the compatible lenses like Sigma and Tamron - their never as good (I am generalising a bit) as a branded lens - Nikon make really good lenses but so do Canon, albeit the Canon camera bodies are poor and therefore, for me, a non-starter.

I noticed you mention a particular stock site, iStockphoto. Even with my limited experience in the microstock market even I have heard about these folks. In the pro world their called iFlop - as they are rapidly diminishing their market share and treat both customers and I also believe contributors very badly. I was sent a link to one of their forums recently by a pal and I have to say it was laughable how the 'admins' (which they are called) treat people on the discussion boards. I work with Getty images (who own iflop) and I have heard some horror stories from the guy's there! One stock site that I understand does have good reputation is called Shutterstock.com - they are the biggest stock site and I understand act very professionally.

Get your feet wet by getting in touch with some local professional photographers and ask if you can spend some time with them watching, observing and helping. Most pro's will probably allow you a few days. I have guy's and girls regularly helping me out and it actually is quite fun, particularly during semesters and holidays. Or approach your local paper and volunteer to supply pictures to them, if your pictures are good enough maybe they'll use them and probably pay you for them as well.

Forgive the irony, but I would not take too much notice of what you read on forums either - even after a day of reading a few posts a lot of it (albeit basically good advice) is the blind leading the blind. Amateurs, even gifted ones, are amateurs and pro's are pro's. There is a difference and you need to mix with real photographers which means getting out there and seeing how they work, I doubt you'll derive much wisdom here, again forgive the irony.

Finally, Good luck in your ambitions, I wish you well and remember one thing, it isn't about taking a picture that sells something else - it about a picture that sells itself.