pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Some Jerk Stole My Images!  (Read 12528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 03, 2008, 14:50 »
0
Some jerk stole images from my web site and is trying to pass them off as vectors. I've contacted StockXpert, but I really don't know what my options are. Some are even stolen from my uploads on StockExpert!

Sorry for the long list:
Cherry
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/13666061
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/43277354

Yellow Pepper
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/13666081
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/58351254

Mango
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/14218831
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/21203987

Butternut Squash
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/14570281
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/78965788

Apple Slice
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/14570531
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/40804793

Guava
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/14570561
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/71279361

Red Pepper
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/13666071
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/58351233

Pear
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/13653411
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/58347054

Apricot
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/13653401
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/71279356

Cherries
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/13574681
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/40805163

Egg
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/13667471
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/58352570

Tamarinds
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/13653421
http://www.pbase.com/dannysmythe/image/40717701




« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2008, 14:58 »
0
*, the "Thumbnail" quality on PBASE is quite inviting to do exactly such a thing. I guess that is why the real stock agencies work with watermarks. Sorry to hear about this scam, but besides telling the sites to remove the images. Did you register copyright for these images? That might help to recover some damages.

Good luck

hali

« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2008, 15:04 »
0
you have the original ORF (raw) files, or the full size images, don't you?
i always keep the originals so i can prove copyrights in situations like this.
sorry to hear about it.
your best bet is to write to both your sites and that site that publishes those stolen images and get them to expose the thief.

nice work though. hope you get some recourse.

bittersweet

« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2008, 15:14 »
0
They are vectors, but it's obvious that your photos were used as source material. This guy has some nice stuff up on istock, but not these in particular -- probably because they are sticklers for verifying the copyright holder of the source material.

Those large unwatermarked images are really asking to be stolen by those who are so inclined.

Good luck!

« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2008, 15:15 »
0
I don't put such sizes online without a watermark, but I wonder if it would make any difference when someone is "vectorizing" them.

I hope StockXpert helps you with this.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2008, 15:20 »
0
I have all the originals at full size, with metadata. I don't hope to ever find this person. Just want him off StockExpert.

I don't think my images, on pBase are large enough for anybody to do anything serious with. Under 2MB.

« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2008, 15:46 »
0
well let us know how it turns out.

I would also really like to know where the $$ goes that people who stole images 'earned'

I have heard about accounts being closed and images removed which were stolen, which is good, but have never heard that the original artist is given the earnings... which i think we should, especially when we often are the ones who take the hit for credit card fraud.

the stolen images have sold 13 times... i hope you get the 13 sales worth of earnings.

hali

« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2008, 15:48 »
0
well let us know how it turns out.

I would also really like to know where the $$ goes that people who stole images 'earned'

I have heard about accounts being closed and images removed which were stolen, which is good, but have never heard that the original artist is given the earnings... which i think we should, especially when we often are the ones who take the hit for credit card fraud.

the stolen images have sold 13 times... i hope you get the 13 sales worth of earnings.

good point.
is the thief ever even charged for theft?  if not, there is really nothing to deter them from doing it again.

« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2008, 16:06 »
0
What's even more frustrating is that a search for Tamarinds, turns up the stolen image. My upload of Tamarinds, (Nov. 8 2007) doesn't show up in a search.

« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2008, 16:46 »
0
You must be totally pissed off. I hate when people do such things. I don't know how people can risk so much... Every since and then we found some thief, and people still doing this. Does anyone know what happened to that woman "watercolor artist" that stole few images from SS?

« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2008, 16:48 »
0
I agree with leaf and hali. The earnings should belong to the original copyright owner. It's amazing how people dare to steal, not one, but several images from the same person. I wonder how they sleep at night...

helix7

« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2008, 17:05 »
0
...I don't know how people can risk so much... Every since and then we found some thief, and people still doing this...

They do it because they know that sometimes they will get away with it. In this case, they pretty much did. Those images were uploaded by the thief in May, and were only found out about now. Sure they'll be taken down soon, but who knows how much money this thief already got from these and possible other stolen images. Probably enough for a payout. They know that sometimes they'll get caught fast, and sometimes they'll be able to leave stolen images up for months at a time.

« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2008, 17:22 »
0
I know helix, you are right. But again, I live in country where probably no one could really catch me or sue me if I steal images like this guy. But again, I don't do it, mostly because of moral questions. Also, besides moral, I still think that I could have real problems with law because of such things. What is few hundreds of dollars comparing to problems with law? Is it really worth it? I think it's easier to make your own images. Some people really act like they gonna live just until tomorrow....
Sorry for my English. I am pissed off so I didn't pay much attention on grammar

« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2008, 18:17 »
0
With people in so different locations, it is really difficult to go after someone doing this. You could sue him, and I think StockXpert would have the legal obligation of disclosing his personal data - if it's not fake.  But then, what if he is in another country?  It is probably more like "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm going to delete them" and get away with it.  Like if someone stole your car and you find him in the mall's parking, you approach him and he returns you the keys and walks away.

I don't think StockXpert can be asked to pay rimglow the amount earned by the thief, because it's not their fault that the guy committed a fraud.  Maybe if he has funds to be cashed, then they might, but I suspect they can not without legal order.

Regards,
Adelaide

hali

« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2008, 18:49 »
0
whitechild... just  like Adelaide and helix7  said: they know they can get away.
you catch them , they go to another site. put in another fake name.
so what if we know who they are? they're not in US or Canada or UK, I bet you.
They're probably in a country that cares nothing about stock photography or artist's copyright, where probably the government knows there are fake rolex factories,
or illegal cds, dvd, blueray , etc.. being manufactured there.
why would they care about some images ripped off from some little guy here?

even if they ripped off someone with the stature of Yuri, is Yuri going to retain a lawyer to get them? It's been done with videos , it's been done with music , the same people are now doing it with photos and vectors.
 

« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2008, 18:52 »
0
I just discovered the same stolen images on Shutterstock!
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-p1.html?gallery_id=83940

Man, I'm going to have to go through every microstock site to hunt this down. What a drag.

bittersweet

« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2008, 23:15 »
0
Lucky for you he seems to be going by the same name on all the sites.

helix7

« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2008, 00:53 »
0

It's actually a good thing that this guy is distributing your images on microstock sites. At least then you can do something about it, and the sites will delete the images. There is this guy Garcya, selling and giving away vectors from microstock sites on his own website, based in Russia. He's been at it for over a year now, he's been reported to all the microstock sites, and yet there's no way to shut him down. He still has some of the top selling vectors from SS on his site as free downloads. It's ridiculously blatant, yet there is very little anyone can do about it.


« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2008, 08:10 »
0
I wonder if I should notify all the sites that he appears on? He's only using my stuff on StockXpert & Shutterstock. Waste of time? Would they even care?

« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2008, 08:19 »
0
I wonder if I should notify all the sites that he appears on? He's only using my stuff on StockXpert & Shutterstock. Waste of time? Would they even care?

Shutterstock is known to be very rigid about it.  I'm almost sure they take action on him even probably erase his portfolio

« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2008, 08:32 »
0
I just received a very apologetic email, from Mahesh, after StockXpert notified him that they were disabling his account within 48 hours. Admitted it was a serious mistake, removed the images, and offered to compensate me the $50 or $60 he had made from my images. Said he never realized they were copyright protected. (even though it clearly states such, under each title)

All in all, his email was so nice, that I think it was just a newbie mistake. And maybe other newbies can learn from this thread. :)

« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2008, 10:52 »
0
Said he never realized they were copyright protected. (even though it clearly states such, under each title)

I think it is possible he actually did not realize the copyright issue even if he knows that your PHOTO are copyrighted.

My opinion is that many vector artists do not know (or prefer not to think about it) that it is not allowed to trace a photo as this is a derivative work.

If one look at some vector artists portfolio with many silhouettes of people, one can wonder whether they actually own the copyright on the original photo. Is it really believable that a pure vector artist with no photo in his portfolio shoot photos of so many beautiful girls as a source for their tracing?

I agree that some very talented artists may draw the silhouette by hand or use a 3D character as a reference, but I guess that many do use photo they did not shoot themselves.

But I may be wrong  ;D
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 10:55 by araminta »

« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2008, 11:21 »
0
<deleted my own post>
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 13:17 by Norebbo »

helix7

« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2008, 11:35 »
0
...If one look at some vector artists portfolio with many silhouettes of people, one can wonder whether they actually own the copyright on the original photo. Is it really believable that a pure vector artist with no photo in his portfolio shoot photos of so many beautiful girls as a source for their tracing?...

Why is it so unbelievable that someone would shoot photos just as reference material? Maybe some people have good shots of people walking in profile, suitable for a nice silhouette, but the rest of the photo isn't suitable for stock? Or the overall size of the image is too small for stock?

I've got a decent camera, but I don't shoot photos for stock. Just for reference material. Nice to know you'd just assume that I'm a thief, though.



« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2008, 16:43 »
0
All in all, his email was so nice, that I think it was just a newbie mistake. And maybe other newbies can learn from this thread. :)

So he stole your car, you found him in the mall's parking, you approached him, he returned you the keys and walked away.  :)

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2008, 17:23 »
0
Why is it so unbelievable that someone would shoot photos just as reference material? Maybe some people have good shots of people walking in profile, suitable for a nice silhouette, but the rest of the photo isn't suitable for stock? Or the overall size of the image is too small for stock?

You you read at my post carefully, you will see that I never said that all vector artists are thefts. I'm quite sure that most actually shoot photos as references. But I also suspect that some don't.

Silhouettes are quite often young and sexy women in various studio poses: do you really think that ALL vector artists which have hundreds of different silhouettes in their portfolio are also photographers and hire so many different models to shoot only references for their vector tracing and do not try to also produce stock photos which would sell a lot?

I have some doubt, but I may indeed be wrong.

Concerning your vectors, I don't understand why you take my remark for yourself as you have only one or two silhouette in your portfolio  8)

« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 17:34 by araminta »

« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2008, 17:53 »
0
To illustrate my doubts:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&searchterm=silhouette+woman&anyorall=all&search_cat=&search_group=all&orient=all&photographer_name=&searchtermx=&color=

I have the feeling that SOME of those vectors are traced from references which do not belong to the artist  ;)




helix7

« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2008, 18:16 »
0
You you read at my post carefully, you will see that I never said that all vector artists are thefts. I'm quite sure that most actually shoot photos as references...

Concerning your vectors, I don't understand why you take my remark for yourself as you have only one or two silhouette in your portfolio...

I read and re-read your post. You said, " Is it really believable that a pure vector artist with no photo in his portfolio shoot photos of so many beautiful girls as a source for their tracing?" To me, that says that someone without photos in their portfolio (such as me) likely doesn't use their own source material. If that's not what you meant, then fine, no harm. But that's what you said: "...a pure vector artist with no photo in his portfolio..."

I know you didn't mean anything directly towards anyone in particular. It just came across as generalizing vector artists who do silhouettes as being thieves. 



RacePhoto

« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2008, 20:33 »
0
To illustrate my doubts:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&searchterm=silhouette+woman&anyorall=all&search_cat=&search_group=all&orient=all&photographer_name=&searchtermx=&color=

I have the feeling that SOME of those vectors are traced from references which do not belong to the artist  ;)



Oh how dare you?  ;)

This guy drew every one of these, from his own original photos and the 320 models in various poses, 35 trees, sports, and man, woman family groups, and all the assorted cars too. I bet I could find the source material for Hendrix, the blues Bros, Marley and Che all in well knows works.

I like this one...

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-5422147-hundreds-dogsilhouettes.html

ps not one photo in the collection.

Then some agencies want us to get a property release for a run down bungalow, because it needs protection, and at the same time they have blatant copyright infringing images all over their sites. One best selling photos at IS is just that. No wonder people get frustrated when they see something illegal up on a site and get rejected for something different that isn't infringing.

Better yet, no wonder someone thinks it's OK to create copies and steal vectors when a dunce can observe that some vectors are nothing but copies of others work (which is wrong, but the agencies don't have a way to police it) or worse yet, well known poster artwork.

{none of this is directed at anyone who frequents this forum}

helix7

« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2008, 22:21 »
0
...I like this one...

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-5422147-hundreds-dogsilhouettes.html

ps not one photo in the collection...


Again, I ask, why is it so unbelievable that someone might use legit source material and never upload a photo? And how hard would it be to go to a park for a couple hours and get plenty of source photos of dogs? No releases needed for silhouette work. Just walk around and snap photos. Get shots of people walking dogs. Two silhouettes out of each photo. It's not hard to do. I'm working on some silhouette sets right now, and I've got hundreds of source images. I just spent some time recently in a mall parking lot getting good shots of people walking, car silhouettes, trees, (malls are great for getting isolated tree shots in those parking islands), etc. And I don't need model releases if I'm only going to make silhouettes with them, so the process goes quickly. Some people ask what I'm doing, but most don't mind and most don't even pay any attention to me.

My point is that getting this material for silhouettes is easy and fast, and it's very easy to believe that these guys with tons of silhouettes have their own source material to work from. If they are uploading to istock, they have to have it. I'm a bit surprised that everyone wants to call these guys thieves without having any reason to doubt the legitimacy of their work.


bittersweet

« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2008, 22:37 »
0
Maybe some people are also unaware that figures created with 3D programs such as Poser are legal to use for source material. I contacted Bortonia once to ask because although the licensing for Poser says that derivative materials may be resold, I know that sometimes istock errs on the side being too cautious. She confirmed that many people use it for source.

Also, just because a silhouette is "sexy" that doesn't mean the original source photo was. :D Someone could use a photo to get the general proportions and then easily perform some cosmetic surgery to "enhance" the final vector version.

« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2008, 07:02 »
0
My point is that getting this material for silhouettes is easy and fast, and it's very easy to believe that these guys with tons of silhouettes have their own source material to work from. If they are uploading to istock, they have to have it. I'm a bit surprised that everyone wants to call these guys thieves without having any reason to doubt the legitimacy of their work.

Of course you are correct: it is easy to believe that many vector artists use their own references for silhouettes.

But this thread concern one vector artist who trace some vegetables from copyrighted photos: everybody call him a thief  because it was obvious that he use photos from another artist as references. It was a mistake, but if you look at his portfolio (which has been disabled at StockXpert now), he has only a few stolen images amongs many quite nice vectors.

When reading this thread, I was just surprised how easy it was to call somebody a thief because he has used a few copyrighted references while it is quite obvious to me that some "silhouette artists" do the same.

And if IS now require the source to be given when uploading traced vectors it may be because they have the same opinion.

It may be the reason why a search on IS with the keywords "silhouette women group vector" return 115 images while the same search on SS return 4000 results  ;)
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 07:07 by araminta »

RacePhoto

« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2008, 01:48 »
0
...I like this one...

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-5422147-hundreds-dogsilhouettes.html

ps not one photo in the collection...


Again, I ask, why is it so unbelievable that someone might use legit source material and never upload a photo? And how hard would it be to go to a park for a couple hours and get plenty of source photos of dogs? No releases needed for silhouette work. Just walk around and snap photos. Get shots of people walking dogs. Two silhouettes out of each photo. It's not hard to do. I'm working on some silhouette sets right now, and I've got hundreds of source images. I just spent some time recently in a mall parking lot getting good shots of people walking, car silhouettes, trees, (malls are great for getting isolated tree shots in those parking islands), etc. And I don't need model releases if I'm only going to make silhouettes with them, so the process goes quickly. Some people ask what I'm doing, but most don't mind and most don't even pay any attention to me.

My point is that getting this material for silhouettes is easy and fast, and it's very easy to believe that these guys with tons of silhouettes have their own source material to work from. If they are uploading to istock, they have to have it. I'm a bit surprised that everyone wants to call these guys thieves without having any reason to doubt the legitimacy of their work.




No doubt you do your own.

Did you follow the link and look? Some are identifiable from popular poster art. Unless you are going to say next, maybe he's the original artist in the first place?

Sure it's amazing, he walks through the park and finds 50 different breeds of dogs all with perfect configuration and poses, as people are walking them past.

I don't think anyone is saying everyone is a crook, just that some people are obviously selling things that aren't their creations.

The other point was, if it's OK to steal Che, and Marley and the Blues Brothers, why should someone steal from the thief. That's where it gets strange. This started with someone "borrowing" ideas and images, and putting them up as his own, because he didn't think it was wrong. He saw so many people copying and using others source material that he didn't see anything wrong with it.

Again this has nothing to do with you personally. Just a general perception that "everyone does it" so it's alright, which some others believe.

Please take a look at this group and tell me what you see?

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-102434p1.html




« Last Edit: December 10, 2008, 02:25 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2008, 07:52 »
0
Silhouettes are quite often young and sexy women in various studio poses: do you really think that ALL vector artists which have hundreds of different silhouettes in their portfolio are also photographers and hire so many different models to shoot only references for their vector tracing and do not try to also produce stock photos which would sell a lot?

Why do you think taking a shot of your girlfriend or mate and vectorizing it is so impossible. After all, while looking at silhouette, you don't know if that person is young, sexy, if there was proper light or proper studio conditions. You see only outline.

« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2008, 07:55 »
0
Please take a look at this group and tell me what you see?

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-102434p1.html


I think SS should have rejected those images. But it didn't, for some reason.

« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2008, 08:33 »
0
Silhouettes are quite often young and sexy women in various studio poses: do you really think that ALL vector artists which have hundreds of different silhouettes in their portfolio are also photographers and hire so many different models to shoot only references for their vector tracing and do not try to also produce stock photos which would sell a lot?

Why do you think taking a shot of your girlfriend or mate and vectorizing it is so impossible. After all, while looking at silhouette, you don't know if that person is young, sexy, if there was proper light or proper studio conditions. You see only outline.

Outlines can be more or less sexy I would say  ;D

And please, read me carefully: I never say it is impossible to vectorize your girlfriend. But have a look at the link I give as an illustration: those vector artists should have dozens of different girlfriends as well as dozen of different (boy)friends (for businessman silhouettes) and have enough time to shoot all those peoples in so many different poses and then trace them all... which is definitively POSSIBLE.

Getting reference images from google search is also very possible and a lot easier.

I just think that SOME (not ALL) vector artists choose the easiest way even if it is also the forbidden way.

Do you think that this is not possible?

graficallyminded

« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 11:01 by PhotoPhan »

« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2009, 09:29 »
0
I wonder if he is allowed to use these photos of Tiger Woods and Phil Michelson?  I am not a huge golf fan but these are very recognizable.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-18653608-golf-player-silhouette-vector.html

graficallyminded

« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2009, 10:04 »
0
I was thinking the same thing.  They're obviously Tiger, the pose with his arm up in the air.

Veki is from Serbia - has two images on bigstock, and a larger portfolio on fotolia. 

Please check and make sure he hasn't stolen or traced any of your own stuff.  The more people that report him, the better.  This kind of behavior in microstock is both dishonest and unfair. 

It's one thing to use images as reference when you are drawing or illustrating.  But if you are outright tracing them, that is NOT your own work.  If you have the rights to the original photo and you want to trace it, by all means go ahead.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 10:06 by graficallyminded »

Microbius

« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2009, 10:23 »
0
wow, wipe that egg off your face helix.
Is it possible that the artists own the original photo reference: yes.
Is it likely: not in the case of the Shutterstock guys who submit those files featuring hundreds of silhouettes. That's why the same artists don't have those silhouettes on other sites that require the upload of source material (e.g. IS)

graficallyminded

« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2009, 13:32 »
0
wow
« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 11:01 by PhotoPhan »

« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2009, 13:43 »
0
don't waste your time here, report him to SS and he will be gone in seconds

--

oops thought I was on the SS forum.  Well anyway, I can't imagine StockXpert won't take the same action ... could only take a little longer.

graficallyminded

« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2009, 14:49 »
0
Fotolia already took care of it.  No more account, sucks for him.

Shutterstock, still waiting on hearing back.  I don't think this person is on Stockxpert.  I could be wrong...

helix7

« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2009, 20:53 »
0
wow, wipe that egg off your face helix.
Is it possible that the artists own the original photo reference: yes.
Is it likely: not in the case of the Shutterstock guys who submit those files featuring hundreds of silhouettes. That's why the same artists don't have those silhouettes on other sites that require the upload of source material (e.g. IS)

Excuse me?

My whole argument in this thread was that it shouldn't be so unbelievable that there are legitimate artists submitting legit vectors from their own source material. I responded to a claim on page 1 that vector artists without photos in their portfolios likely stole the source material for their vector silhouettes. Did I ever say that everyone on SS was on the up-and-up with their silhouettes? All I responded to was the implication that most vector artists steal source material. If you want to take this one case of true theft and assume that those claims about vector artists generally being a bunch of thieves was correct, then I think you'll be the one wearing egg.

Nothing here proves that vector artists are largely stealing source materials. Show me something that proves otherwise, and I'll gladly admit my wrong. Convince me that I'm wrong that the majority of the thousands of vector artists operating legitimately. But don't act like one case of real theft makes me some kind of fool for believing that this problem isn't the epidemic that some would like to make it seem to be.

And don't even try to act like this prove that most vector artists with any number of black silhouettes in their port are thieves. Who are you to make that kind of generalization?

« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 20:56 by helix7 »

Microbius

« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2009, 03:44 »
0
I don't think anyone said that all vector artists are thieves. Or that all those submitting silhouettes are thieves. There are plenty of silhouettes on IStock where the artist has to submit their source material.
What was said was that those selling thousands of silhouettes in single files on SS are most likely thieves.
Out of the couple of random links to these kinds of files in this thread a photographer that happened to be read the thread spotted that one of the artists stole their work.
What are the chances of that if the majority are not nicking their source material?
Why do you think that these artists are not submitting the same work to sites that ask for copies of their source material?

graficallyminded

« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2009, 07:36 »
0
Settle down with the mud slinging guys...Helix isn't defending every single individual with a silhouette in their port.  You can't stereotype every single artists as a thief, just because they have silhouettes in their portfolio.

Silhouettes are just too easy to steal - and it's too tempting for artists like the one that we caught in this thread.  It's not that most vector artists don't the right thing and use their own source material.  There are some cases when uncreative individuals that are hard up for money will do whatever they have to in order to try and make a buck. This was the case here. 


Microbius

« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2009, 08:53 »
0
@ graphically minded, deep breath, yes you are right.
 I am sorry, I was only really trying to say something similar to you, but I could have said it better. I was not trying to stereotype all vector artist that do silhouettes. This clearly didn't come across given the responses.
All I was saying was that I have a lot less faith in those who produce the "thousand silhouette in one file" pieces. Especially those that have African Safari animals, hundreds of pets, sharks, athletes, surfer etc. sets. I just can't believe that they go on safari, followed by deep sea diving, followed by surfing etc. snapping all the way just to produce these sets for SS. 

Can I also add that I have a lot of respect for Helix's work and meant no offense personally.

« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2009, 10:26 »
0
One guy on fotolia was proud of his (ugly ) works and putted it on the forum, i said it was a stolen image taken from internet but moderator said there was no problem.
So (i have a bad character)  i put links of that picture you can find on internet.
Result?
I have been banned. ???

P.S. Fotolia is full of traced image stolen and they sell a lot.

Microbius

« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2009, 12:24 »
0
One guy on fotolia was proud of his (ugly ) works and putted it on the forum, i said it was a stolen image taken from internet but moderator said there was no problem.
So (i have a bad character)  i put links of that picture you can find on internet.
Result?
I have been banned. ???

P.S. Fotolia is full of traced image stolen and they sell a lot.
I didn't realize Fotolia had a problem with this too. Any chance of seeing those examples?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
17584 Views
Last post July 20, 2010, 16:03
by microstockphoto.co.uk
39 Replies
12324 Views
Last post June 17, 2009, 19:47
by RacePhoto
38 Replies
10526 Views
Last post December 19, 2009, 23:06
by click_click
60 Replies
14487 Views
Last post February 08, 2011, 00:38
by Renee
3 Replies
1870 Views
Last post April 02, 2016, 13:34
by noodle

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results