more than manipultion, this burns me up

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by dougs, Sep 8, 2003.

  1. look here, http://www.photo.net/photo/1735040
    then look here:
    http://www.wickedweasel.com/oz/galleries/model_ann2/a004.html

    this looks fishy!!!
     
  2. I have placed a temporary ban on this user until we get some sort of explanation as to why he stole copyrighted material, altered it slightly and then presented it as his own work.

    Basically we will not tolerate this type of behavior. At very best it's a derivative work copyright violation, to pass it off as your own work is downright lying as well.
     
  3. Here are the images concerned, so you don't have to go looking for them!
    It's not even a very good copyright violation. The greyscale conversion is poor. I guess the sight of a female rear gets you a rating of 6 before the big brain cells kick in.
    005wgh-14374284.jpg
     
  4. I still want to know how you come across things like this. :0
     
  5. my son at college, sent me this photo two years ago. the wicked weasel site is now a favorite at the office where i work....
    yes we do get some work done.....
     
  6. Two years ago? Are you sure? The photographer here says he took it last week with his Nikon F5 and a 28-85mm zoom lens. See, those cheap comsumer zooms aren't as bad as some people make them out to be...
     
  7. i followed this guys work, i was about to put him in my friends list. i am blown away, how many other photos in his folders, aren't his?
    idid a google search hoping to find out that he was the original photog, but all i found, was that he actually went as far as to "copywrite" this photo on "usefilm.com"
    hey bob, thanks for the spelling correction in the title..
    regards
    Doug
     
  8. Douglas, not to knock your intentions. This isn't good...

    But do you go looking for these? I probably would not come upon this in a million years.
     
  9. Sorry for the double post. Thought the first one didn't go through.

    So where do you work? I'm lookin for a job. ;)
     
  10. about a year ago, some guy posted a picture of a young woman sipping wine at a glass table. i as well as well as many others gave positive comments, until a 17 year old PN user posted the porn site the photo was stolen from... lesson learned, if you want to know if a "hot girl" picture is from a website, ask a 17 -19 year old american male....
     
  11. The original photographer possibility crossed my mind (briefly), but it's pretty clear from the rest of his folder that this isn't one of his, plus he lists last week (09/05/03) as the exposure date. While it's possible an Argentinian amateur photographer supplied the shot to an Australian website, and he put the wrong exposure date with the images, the probability is close to zero.

    There's a lot of (in my opinion) badly manipulated stuff in his folder. Now you have no way of knowing what's his and what's not unless you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of what's out there on the web.

    Just where is it that you work...I'm looking for a job too...
     
  12. I sent email to wickedweasel asking them to identify the photographer. It seems fairly unlikely, but it is possible that the photo.net member is the original photographer. We will know soon, one hopes.
     
  13. I emailed the photographer who posted this image. I did so in English since I speak no Spanish, hence I'm pretty sure his English is much better than my Spanish!
     
  14. i for one, hope he is the original photographer.
    Humbled, i will apologize sincerely to the man for lighting the fuse.
    if he isn't....well then.....whatever...
     
  15. I hope we are wrong too, but somehow I doubt it.

    The image does, however show problems with the rating system standards. This is NOT a good greyscale conversion, in fact it's pretty awful. I could do better in a couple of minutes. Yet despite this, all the ratings (except mine!) on the image are 6s or 7s for aestheics and originality.

    I suspect many of those ratings are for the model's anatomy not for the photographers photography. Nothing much we can do about that, but it must make photographers doing really good creative work that don't include naked or semi-naked women feel a bit frustrated.

    BTW if wickedweasel are looking for a new photographer, I am currently avialable for assignments...
     
  16. Well, I think that maybe he just likes to take pictures from the net and modify them with pshop or some other program. As long as he is not selling this manipulated picture I don't really think he is guilty of anything. Of course he could have stated that it was not his own picture he began with, but that's all about it in my opinion.

    Simone
     
  17. This is a copy of my (today modified) comment to this photo.
    how disgusting!
    Wonderful photo...and model (was my honest comment yesterday). Today I must add that my oppinion on the photo is the same, and I congratulate to the "authentic" photographer. I am deceived and feel disgusted. I dont´t understand why this kind of things happen. Now in Spanish to Daniel: la verdad Daniel no entiendo porqué has hecho ésto, no merece la pena y es un engaño lamentable, así no se va a ninguna parte. Yo que tú borraba toda la carpeta y me daba de baja en photo.net, ¡vaya chapuza! y ¿para qué te ha servido?, es patético, una auténtica m...
    Si tienes alguna razón que lo justifique, sería bueno que lo expliques y des la cara, de lo contrario quedas muy, muy mal, lamentable.
     
  18. IF the image was taken from a website he's guilty of theft of a copyrighted image for a start. Not to mention passing off somebody else's work as your own here on photo.net. I did say IF.

    You might think copyright law is petty, but then you're probably not a photographer who makes a living from your work. If you think it's a trival offense and harms nobody, try taking a few Mickey Mouse pictures and putting them on your website. Then count the seconds before the letter from the Disney lawyers appears in you mailbox!
     
  19. Carl, a stolen photo that doesn't occupy space in the TFG, probably will never be discovered, this photo comes up 2nd when you click the TFG. it doesn't take amazing powers of recall, to rememeber that photo seen a year and a half ago (it's "perfect tush", maybe it stuck in my mind)... if i didn't notice it, someone else would have....
    BTW, were not hiring...theres a long employment line, to sit around and look at the WW site...regards
    Doug
     
  20. I could use Mickey Mouse pictures on my site for commercial purpose, and that would be very different. But with all the great pictures I could find on the internet why should I use Mickey Mouse? :)

    What I was trying to say is that the guy could REALLY just like playing with retouching programs and show people what he can do. I don't really think anyone could ask him more than removing the pictures from the page, since he did not earn anything from that. Of course not telling who the real photographer is is wrong with no possible excuse.

    Maybe he just didn't think he was violating some laws as well. He could use his photo.net page to upload whatever he likes without realizing there are laws working on internet as well. What if he is very young? This would make things very different, wouldn't it?

    Talking about copyright, I strongly believe that someone's work should always be aknowledged, in the sense that if you take a picture or write a book that's your book and nobody can put his name on it. After that, I believe that knowledge and culture belong to humanity and should be available for free.

    Simone
     
  21. ...bob...

    If you remember my post on the greatest waste of digital darkroom skills, this is RIGHT up there with the hand painted ansel adams prints...

    Thanks for removing it for copyright reasons... even if it was his image, if I were you I'd remove it for bad taste and find some other excuse.

    Seriously tho, Bob, how did you know it was stolen? Where did you find the original? Any clues on how we, as users, can search for evidence of theft as we browse through the galleries?
     
  22. My guess at the photog is Paul Pope. He's Australian, and used to post a lot of similar bikini shots to the dpreview Canon SLR forum.
     
  23. It has not been removed. We do not yet know for sure the origin of the image. The user's account has simply been suspended until we figure it out and take appropriate action.

    We do not remove images on the basis of whether or not they are good, or art. We remove pornography or copyright violations and that's about it. We would probably also remove anything the general viewer would find grossly offensive, but I'm not talking about being offended by "bad art". We're not the "art police" and have no desire to be.
     
  24. >>> After that, I believe that knowledge and culture belong to humanity and should be available for free.
    <p>
    And we can all thank God you're not running the world. With one fell swoop you would completely remove all financial incentive for inventors to invent, designers to design, writers to write and artists to make art.
     
  25. mg

    mg

    I don't mean to play devil's advocate at all, but I think Brian makes a very good point. How do you all know for sure that the photo wasn't actually taken by the person who uploaded it ?
    <p>
    This episode would scare the h*** out of any pro, if you ask me. What if tomorrow you start reading Asian magazines ? Will I be banned because you find my pictures in there or because you find them somewhere on the net ? I still took those picture, mind you. With respect to such cases, I'd suppose the person who uploaded the picture here would rather be presumed innocent than guilty. Unless of course none of those who made a formal accusation (if any) are prepared to face a defamation case and to lose it.
    <p>
    I've seen 2 other pictures on this site which I'm almost sure weren't taken by the photographer, but because of this "almost", I wouldn't even consider posting a thread about it. People who post here have the right to publish pictures, don't they ? So why even suspect anyone about fraud ? I think suspending the photographer before he even gets to reply is quite unpleasant. A thread that professionals will surely not like to read...
     
  26. The photographer hasn't been banned, his posting ability has simply been suspended until the facts have been established. That means his images can't be changed while we look into the matter.

    If you look at his portfolio you won't find any other images similar to this one, or any similar to the other images on the "wickedweasel.com" website. The shooting date on the image posted here was last week. Douglas says he first saw this image 2 years ago. There's no way it could have been shot on the date posted as the shooting date here on photo.net.

    While it's certainly *possible* that an australian website hired an argentinian photographer to shoot images for their site, and that said photographer posted the wrong date on his not very well exectuted greyscale converions of that image, the facts in evidence so far don't really point in that direction.

    The most likely and benign explanation is that the photographer didn't know any better and simply thought he could take images from the web, play with them in photoshop and present them as his own work. In that case we'd like to know which other images of this type have been uploaded.

    It's also possible that the photographer picked an image he though he could maybe get away with PhotoShopping and that nobody would be likely to recognize - and which might do really well in the ratings scheme.

    It's also possible we are all doing a grave injustice to the photographer and that he actually did take the image himself. If so I'll make a public apology to him myself for casting any doubt on the ownership of the image.
     
  27. "The image does, however show problems with the rating
    system standards. This is NOT a good greyscale conversion, in
    fact it's pretty awful. I could do better in a couple of minutes. Yet
    despite this, all the ratings (except mine!) on the image are 6s or
    7s for aestheics and originality.


    I suspect many of those ratings are for the model's anatomy not
    for the photographers photography. Nothing much we can do
    about that, but it must make photographers doing really good
    creative work that don't include naked or semi-naked women feel
    a bit frustrated. "

    Well yes . This is one of the reasons why many of the better
    photographers don't upload. . . . but there's more.

    What adds fuel to the fire is his personal favorites page. He's
    given me quite a few 6/6s, yet I now assume they were only
    invitations, based on the fact that his "favorites" - all 7/7s - are all
    of recent images and fill his 300 limit, so there are probably
    more. Brian has a page all set up where he can easily check out
    the reciprocal ratings of each of the photographers that he's
    given 7/7s to. The fact that some of them are probably new and
    don't even understand they've been sucked in only underscores
    the warped nature of the whole system.

    I wish to heck somebody else had brought this up.. Seems like
    I'm the one that gets stuck pointing out correlations like this.
     
  28. What are you going to do about it?

    Make up some arbitrary complex rules about reciprocal scores (IF A gives B a 7/7 then B can give A a 7/7 only if B gives a 7/7 to C, who has not given A or B a 7/7 - except there are 10,000+ combinations to check not 3)?

    Create reciprocal rating monitors who scan the files for the rating criminals?

    Should Brian have to devote all his time to ever more complex schemes to stop people cheating, or should he devote those efforts towards making overall site improvements which benefit everyone, including those who dont gave a *^%# about ratings?
     
  29. The ratings system can't be fixed, in my opinion. Mate rating, hate rating, retaliation etc. are all alive and well, but I do seem to remember time and energy being dedicated to discouraging this practice...THIS is far MORE SERIOUS.

    To read Simone's comment re copyright causes me to shudder....and these kind of comments always seem to come from people who are contributing nothing new to our culture,
    beyond a couple of pretty, not-particularly-interesting-to- steal kind of pictures.

    In the same way you will find people who have jobs which bring in a monthly wage + benefits denigrating "freelance" artists as ridiculous for charging industry standard prices for their intellectual property.

    You will have a world of images to look at - all coldly executed, lacking in energy and fire ( that which we call talent ) but probably aesthetically appealing...and yes, I imagine that a lot of great work is not published on the net.

    Look at what can happen, and even on a photo-site there are people who couldn't care less. Sad.
     
  30. To be clearer, I need money to eat, and to support myself, and to further my personal work, which costs me money to produce.

    I could not care less about having my name published, I want to be paid cash. I do not feel any obligation to supply the world with my vision for free. Whoever wants it / needs it must pay for it.

    Photo.net is a for-profit organization, and should be careful about unauthorized publishing of copyrighted work. I haven't checked the terms of use but I hope that there is a disclaimer, which places the responsibility on the person who posts.

    Before licensing images, photographers should read the fine print -- any publication will place the onus on you for all rights and releases to the material you are providing, in the event of any problems to do with copyright.
     
  31. Leanne, if you want to produce commercial work only to gain cash with it you are free to. From your words I understand that you are able to create real artistic pictures that can as well be sold on the market because your personal view of life and beauty corresponds to the commercial one. I (sort of) work with art galleries and I usually see the contrary, artists that cannot produce things that anyone would mass produce and put on the market. Guess what? They still do that because they like it and don't care about cash. Of course people's opinion will differ, I usually just aknowledge that and don't attack or judge somebody I don't even know.

    I'd really like to take a look at your portfolio as well, but of course you wouldn't upload images for free, right? There is an omepage connected to your name, I'll try and take a look there.

    Strange thing is that I registered for photo.net while you didn't. But that's just a minor point, isn't it?

    Simone
     
  32. I am completely with Mark G. on this one. Some serious accusations are going round in this thread, accompanied by even more serious language. Do you know who is the author of the wickedweasel picture? No? I thought so. Wait for an answer from wickedweasel and if you don't get one you must assume that this guy IS the author until you can PROVE otherwise. This is the way justice works in my country.
     
  33. When work is published in a magazine, ie editorial, the photographer usually gets a credit. Advertising work means having to contact the ad agency/client to ask the name of the photographer most of the time, but I cannot see how professionals could be worried about this post. The only suggestion which worries me is the idea that there would be nothing wrong with stealing other people's work, and posting it as your own.

    So it is right to check the facts, in my opinion..
     
  34. It may well be his work, but I sincerely doubt the shot of Nicole Kidman in his folder
    is his work. If it is, then the shot is so poor I imagine she won't include it in her
    portfolio. I can also spot at least one other well known model (whose name currently
    escapes me) in his folder. Maybe he gets lucky and is invited to shoot Nicole and
    others.
     
  35. I imagine the photograph in suspect more than likely did originate from the wickedweasel.com website. If one takes a look at the link, they'll find that there are several photographs of the same model in the same colored bikini.
    <br><br>My question, what is Photo.net going to do now that a website such as WickedWeasel has been posted here? I predict we'll have less people browsing the Photo.net galleries in pursuit of bikini-clad photo subjects when they can get all the eye-candy they want at WickedWeasel!
     
  36. looks like he's been "murdered" in usefilm.com, his name, folders all been deleted.....what does use film know?
     
  37. I received confirmation from the managing director of wickedweasel.com, that he personally takes all the photographs on his web site. (Must be kind of a drag having to take all those bikini photos every time the product line changes, but I guess it keeps the costs down to do it yourself.)

    I deleted the photo. We will also be removing this portfolio in its entirety. It may be that the person simply has no understanding of copyright law and did not realize that posting the photo was illegal. He may not think it is wrong to appropriate another person's photo as the starting point for a Photoshop manipulation. However, photo.net cannot be seen as tolerating copyright violations, and our policy is to deal with copyright violations in a fairly draconian manner.
     
  38. Thanks Brian. I guess WickedWeasel (who were probably wondering why they're website is now getting all the extra hits!) are faster to respond than the photographer, who has not yet responded to my email.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with suspending accounts with questionable content before proof is obtained. Last night I was unable to make an online purchase using my credit card because they had suspended my account due to what they thought was "an unusual pattern of purchases, including overseas charges". As it turned out I had in fact made those charges and all was OK, but it made sense to suspend the account until they got the facts.

    Perhaps I shouldn't have contributed to the thread in public before we got confirmation of the facts. Maybe next time we'll just hold the account and not make the situation public. However making things public does draw some attention to the problem and should make it clear to other users that you can't just "borrow" othe people's images and pass them off as your own, even if you manipulate them. There are people here who think it's OK - but it's not.
     
  39. i know you guys are busy with day to day operations of the site.
    i appreciate the manner that you handled this.
    having had artwork stolen, it srikes a nerve with me when anybody takes credit for something they didn't do..

    BTW: the check is in the mail..
    best regards
    Doug
     
  40. It was sound for Bob to respond to this issue.

    The initial reaction went straight to a conclusion but, subsequent posts corrected the initial post in a reasonable time with equal emphasis as the orginal post. If public accusations such as these are false, serious defamation issues could arise. A like and timely retraction sometimes suffices to defend against such claims.

    Some forms of defamation do not require that the accused suffer specific economic damages in order for the accused to collect damages. Examples include situations where someone is falsely accused of having a loathesome disease, committing a crime of moral turpitude or that a professional commits an act of malpractice. The latter is the closest that applies but, the rule usually applies to licensed and regulated professionals such as lawyers and doctors. Some courts, I suppose, may recognize defamation of a professional reputation of a photographer as a basis to claim money damages without showing specific losses. In any event, it appears that the orginal observations were true.

    It was appropriate for Bob to respond saying the accusations were not yet substantiated. There has been some litigation against websites for 'allowing' posters to publish defamatory material on their sites. I don't recall how it turned out but, I am fairly sure the issue is not settled across the land yet. To allow posts accusing another of serious factual misconduct to pile on without Bob's "IF" disclaimer would not have been advisable.

    Hopefully this sordid episode will soon pass and everyone may concentrate more on photography.
     
  41. Wasn't it discovered that "Takkinda's" self-portraits came from Asian magazines?
     
  42. wasn't that in the leica forum, someone pretending to be a asian girl, taking nude self portraits? did the person pull the pics or did the PN staff?
     

Share This Page