dougs Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 look here, http://www.photo.net/photo/1735040 then look here: http://www.wickedweasel.com/oz/galleries/model_ann2/a004.html this looks fishy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Here are the images concerned, so you don't have to go looking for them! <p> 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.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl smith Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 I still want to know how you come across things like this. :0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougs Posted September 8, 2003 Author Share Posted September 8, 2003 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougs Posted September 8, 2003 Author Share Posted September 8, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl smith Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl smith Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Sorry for the double post. Thought the first one didn't go through. So where do you work? I'm lookin for a job. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougs Posted September 8, 2003 Author Share Posted September 8, 2003 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougs Posted September 8, 2003 Author Share Posted September 8, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navarra Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_montroy Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougs Posted September 8, 2003 Author Share Posted September 8, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navarra Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 ...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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_eppstein Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 >>> 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now