Author Topic: Beware of Shutterstock (Read 53984 times)

Elenathewise · « **Reply #25 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:39 »

Nice to hear they finally got to you with the explanation. It shouldn't have taken all this trouble tho...

helix7 · « **Reply #26 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:47 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 13:25

Phew - they showed me which image was in question and I'm not worried at all. I'm waiting to hear back with their decision. It was an icon set by sodafish - I can tell he thought that some of them looked similar - especially a briefcase icon. But none of them are identical to mine

Come on, man. I took one look at those icons and knew where they were from. Some looked identical to sodafish's.

crashoran · « **Reply #27 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:55 »

These aren't sodafish's icons...

helix7 · « **Reply #28 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:56 »

Uh, yeah, they are. The briefcase you stole is from another one of his sets, as is the clock. They are nearly identical, save for a few minor stoke weights. Just because you picked some icons from his many sets and made one new set from them, doesn't mean they're not stolen.

I'll give you this: those last couple are definitely yours, as they are no where near as good as sodafish's. And that's a tell-tale sign of a copy, when some icons clearly don't fit with the others.

crashoran · « **Reply #29 on:** December 28, 2007, 13:59 »

No, his briefcase icon is not mine. Look at it. A briefcase will always look like a box with a handle...

helix7 · « **Reply #30 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:00 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 13:59

No, his briefcase icon is not mine. Look at it. A briefcase will always look like a box with a handle...

AND the clock? AND the lock? AND the shopping cart? AND the mag glass? Come on.

AND they all just happen to have the same reflection.

You're caught. Deal with it.

crashoran · « **Reply #31 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:01 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 28, 2007, 13:56

Uh, yeah, they are. The briefcase you stole is from another one of his sets, as is the clock. They are nearly identical, save for a few minor stoke weights. Just because you picked some icons from his many sets and made one new set from them, doesn't mean they're not stolen.

I'll give you this: those last couple are definitely yours, as they are no where near as good as sodafish's.

Somebody is in a bad mood today

crashoran · « **Reply #32 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:04 »

Why don't you do a search for a shopping cart and clock and see what you come up with? How is a clock not supposed to look like a clock other than the way I created it and my shopping cart contains several weaved angles together in a single object. How does a magnifying glass look any other way? This is common sense. Until you find anybody's icon with my design you don't have any grounds of your words. My reflections were created on my own and are open paths. There is no other place to put a reflection other than the obvious place where the light would bounce off of the icons. Several of his reflections are single strands of lines while mine are rounded or curved corners. They all have the same reflection? You dont make any sense.

Geez. I guess before I submit an icon set I should search every microstock website to see if any of them look like mine?

grp_photo · « **Reply #33 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:05 »

I don't see a problem here he was maybe inspired but not more!

helix7 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:12 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 14:04

Why don't you do a search for a shopping cart and clock and see what you come up with? How is a clock not supposed to look like a clock other than the way I created it and my shopping cart contains several weaved angles together in a single object. How does a magnifying glass look any other way? This is common sense. Until you find anybody's icon with my design you don't have any grounds of your words. My reflections were created on my own and are open paths...

Granted the reflection is common. The icons are super simple and easily open to interpretation and "inspiration" by others. But when you put is all together... maybe you had a clock that looked similar. Fine. No big deal. Then maybe your briefcase looked similar. Ok. not so bad. But now you've got a handful that are too close. The color palette isn't too far off (gray and orange instead of gray and red). Reflections are the same. Style is the same. Even layout is the same. The shopping cart is identical except you stroked the circles instead of filling them.

It's too obvious. These are straight copies. You may have drawn them, but you used sodafish's icons as the basis for the images.

One thing I will say in your defense. They shouldn't have pulled your whole portfolio. How about a warning, pull the one questionable image, etc. Sort of overkill to just delete a portfolio.

crashoran · « **Reply #35 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:21 »

Now I'm not allowed to even choose my own color scheme for my icon sets!!? I can't arrange my icons in rows and columns like everyone else?!?! I give up...

helix7 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:24 »

Are we getting the picture yet?

You know what you did. You can be a little girl and cry about it and make excuses, or you can come clean and move on.

I didn't want to see your whole port get deleted, but I can't say I feel too bad about it now that you refuse to even acknowledge that you jacked some icons and the comparisons are crystal clear.

crashoran · « **Reply #37 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:29 »

Sodafish has the copyright to which I set my clockhands at?
You rotated my magnifying glass to try and frame me?
The locks are identical? no
The briefcases are identical? no
The shopping carts are identical? no
The graphs are identical? no

helix7 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:31 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 14:29

You rotated my magnifying glass to try and frame me?

Oh man. That's too funny.

crashoran · « **Reply #39 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:41 »

Helix,

You can spend all day searching for icons from everybody across the microstock industry and line up all of the ones that look similar. What's the point? I have found dozens in less than 5 minutes that look just like mine that were created after mine were.

grp_photo · « **Reply #40 on:** December 28, 2007, 14:51 »

They are not identical that is for sure! They look in some points similar yes.
But the whole microstock is a pot of similar looking styles.
I'm sure sodafish had his inspirations too.
I don't get your problem helix do you have a personal issue against crashoran?

helix7 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 28, 2007, 15:12 »

Quote from: crashoran on December 28, 2007, 14:41

Helix,

You can spend all day searching for icons from everybody across the microstock industry and line up all of the ones that look similar. What's the point? I have found dozens in less than 5 minutes that look just like mine that were created after mine were.

Fair enough. I can agree that many icons look similar to many others. As you clearly know however, I think yours crossed the line. But who am I to draw that line. It's up to SS now.

As said above, I think it was unfair to pull your portfolio and I hope you get it back online. I still believe that the icon set and earnings related to that image should have been pulled, but going beyond that for a first offense seems uncalled for.

helix7 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 28, 2007, 15:14 »

Quote from: grp_photo on December 28, 2007, 14:51

I don't get your problem helix do you have a personal issue against crashoran?

Nope. Nothing personal. I've just had my fair share of images ripped and I guess I just try to look out for other artists. If I see something, I might say something.

This is the first time I've ever done that, and likely the last, though, since it seems that you can't report anything without having to get into a huge debate over whether or not it was justified.

helix7 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 28, 2007, 17:03 »

Quote from: Editorial on December 28, 2007, 16:46

I gotta agree with Helix on this occasion even though I have about as much respect for him as a photographer trying to take a closeup shot of the horizon...

Touché sir... Touché.

sharply_done · « **Reply #44 on:** December 28, 2007, 17:06 »

I'll stick my nose in to say this: The icons as presented by helix7 are fairly compelling. That crashoran has not clearly stated he was ignorant of sodafish's work is moot - the fact that the icons are extremely similar is enough to warrant action. As it stands, I tend to agree with helix7. I think it would have been more equitable of SS to impound crashoran's icons and his earnings from them while issuing a warning - given what I've seen, banning seems overly harsh.

On a related note, I'm a little perplexed how an agency can, on one hand, accept similar work and then ban/discipline a contributor for submitting it, while on the other reject it for being overly common and then advise the contributor to use similar images for inspiration. (e.g. "This is a very well covered subject in our data base ... take a few minutes to browse through the best selling images online (on this subject) and go deeper, ...")

People may be interested to read this old thread as well as this recent article.

Void · « **Reply #45 on:** December 28, 2007, 17:32 »

"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal."
Pablo Picasso

Susan S. · « **Reply #46 on:** December 28, 2007, 19:56 »

In my view these go past inspiration. It's not just the style which is similar, its the collection of icons in the same set.

Yes it's hard to think of different ways of presenting these ideas. But just because there are lots of other similar styles of icons by different people, doesn't make it right to go adding yet another copycat version, especially when these are so close in style. I've avoided doing icon sets, because well, icons are so iconographic - it's very hard to come up with something original and I don't want to go close to reproducing someone else's work. Of course because my illustrations follow my own style it also means they don't sell. But at least I can sleep soundly in bed at night!

crashoran · « **Reply #47 on:** December 28, 2007, 21:35 »

My account has been reinstated. Back to selling photos.

I am going to delete this icon set.

Happy New Years everybody

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #48 on:** December 28, 2007, 23:07 »

WOW! I don't post much at all. I read a lot, but don't care to post much. I read a lot of good posts, and see a lot of crap, but WOW! Next person that takes a picture of downtown Austin, Texas better watch out. I have a lot and yours could be close! Wait! Maybe I should delete all of them because someone could have taken them before?!?!

I can't think of how many posts and how many pictures I have seen that are complete rip offs!

crashoran, looks like someone was having a bad day and found you a simple target. Makes me kinda sad. Kind of like a wake up to all of us.

Sorry. Not punching at anyone, but like I said, I don't post much. Something here tugged at me in a bad way. I need to go brush my teeth to get rid of that aweful taste.

stock_fan · « **Reply #49 on:** December 29, 2007, 01:38 »

Well, as I understand copyright law, this is not illegal. It is cashorans work. Has it been inspired by someone else. Most likely. Is this morally wrong? Is “bad ethics”? Maybe. Illegal? Not as far as I know.

The earlier quoted article reads: Bialobrzeski himself concedes that the issue is one of ethics, not of copyright. “It’s not a legal issue. It’s a moral issue,”

However, I have not studied Shutterstock’s terms and conditions in detail, but I am sure they claim the right to ban anyone they want?! If this is “legal” or “fair” is a different thing.

My personal opinion here is: as long as you create it yourself, it is ok. I understand that some people have issues with “inspiration”, but where is the boarderline? And who decides where the boarder is? …. What I mean is … who has the copyright on a colour … a rectangle … an arrow … a traffic sign … a web button … the “business handshake” or the “pretty girl with headset?

Again legally this is “relatively” clear. Your work, it’s yours. AN IDEA CANNOT HAVE A COPYRIGHT!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Beware of Shutterstock (Read 53984 times)

Elenathewise

helix7

crashoran

helix7

crashoran

helix7

crashoran

crashoran

grp_photo

helix7

crashoran

helix7

crashoran

helix7

crashoran

grp_photo

helix7

helix7

helix7

sharply_done

Void

Susan S.

crashoran

No Longer Cares

stock_fan

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors