I'm confused (but what else is new?) by Deri Dority

Snowdog posted a journal about this too Deri. You might want to ask him about it :)

I guess the question is, is that image available for people to use for commercial purposes? My guess is no. But RB will have to investigate that I suppose.

Jo is looking into this as we type this. The sad thing is this guy has duped many people into thinking that he thought up the image and is getting praise left and right.I took the journal entry down, cause someone said it wasn’t playing nice, but then again is stealing playing nice? or taking credit for someone elses creativity?Its one thing to learn from a tutorial and then make your OWN image but to copy it exactly with a little change or sometimes not change at all??

certainly not

I’ve seen the same type of thing on RB with the girl/snow/barn tuturial. I was dead certain it was the exact image…but could never find the image via tags. I don’t think its illegal, but I would like to see the artist at least state its from a tutorial etc etc in the description.

Here is the finished image that i took off one of my CDs from Photoshop Creative Issue 29, on Selection

Here is the image in question (posted by a fellow Red Bubbler),

You be the judge.

Hmmm! Always has to be one rotten apple, (or several), in the bunch.

I ‘copy’ people’s work from here at times. Not actually using their images at all, but their ideas!…. The inspiration I get from viewing other people’s art gets me out there trying to take a similar photo or theme. So in that sense I am creating the art myself from the inspiration I receieve here.
The photo’s above with the child on the gate on the other hand is a total ripoff as I don’t think that is playing very fair at all. Unless you bring along your own child to the exact spot and same time of day (VERY unlikely).

Why in gods name would you do something like this when clearly your going to be found out??the mind boggles. Unless of course they have mental health issues because why else would you do such a thing??

Jody, that is precisely why I am confused. I honestly don’t know the law about this type of thing. Does the magazine and the author lose the rights to their image when they turn it into a tutorial?

i initially thought it was the guys own work (i dont do tutorials but struggle for hours doing it my own damn way)..
i find it really annoying actually because it detracts away from the real artists.

to me its no different from grabbing a single frame from a movie and claiming it your own because you inverted the colours..

I don’t know how the law reads in regards to tutorials. I’ve seen the artist state within the tutorial that the image is not to be used for any other purpose. Either way, I personally don’t think it is “ethical” and in my book, it’s “stealing.”

Never done a tutorial so I wouldn’t know but have seen this happen on other sites……..

hum something smells fishy

The creator of the tutorial needs to find out about the copyright infringement and he can get a lawyer and sue for damages$$$$. RED Bubble should at least kick the parasite off the site as a lesson to him or her that it does not support fake or copycat artists.

I seen someone post one of my photos as his here? It was my photo of Silver falls – from below looking up and people under falls are wearing same clothes as in my original photo. VERY UNLIKELY His Photo later had people under the falls were wearing the same coats. I am unsure if it is worth suing over; but it pissed me off.

What is really amazing is that people are still complimenting him on his creativity and great work

Even after I posted the original image that he took from the PhotoShop Creative Magazine

Most sites remove an image straightaway if there is any question about its provenance……kind of shoot first and ask questions later. Is this one still up and running ?

We’ve seen people try this on other photo sites as well. From obscure sample images stolen from websites or photo programs to Windows images, some will always try to fool everyone not matter what.

The image was removed from the Art tab (favorites) but remains posted under the image “borrower”. I agree with Randy, I am amazed that people are still writing great comments under the image, even after all the controversy.

OK, the above image has now been removed from the portfolio. However, there are several more tutorial images in the portfolio (thanks to Photoshop Creative). If I have time tonight I will go thru my magazines and pull all of the images in question.

Just take a look on Page 5 Here for the original. Why is the imposter version of this image still up????

The way I see it, if someone will take a tutorial work and claim it as their own work, they are not above stealing from any of us. A thief is a thief, no matter how you look at it.

Same artist, “Snow City” image, straight from Photoshop Creative Issue 29, creating iceberg/snow tutorial, complete with polar bear, penguin and city.

Shame the person cannot be honest and let people know upfront that these are not his own images but stock images taken various sources. I really doubt now that any are his own work.

The sad thing is that Photoshop Creative supplies a copy of the finished work in a JPG format for you to compare your final image to. It is very easy to take that JPEG image and Interpolate it up (ie Using Genuine Fractals), make some minor changes and you have a best selling photo. Why bother with the tutorial.

His image of the Vampire Girls B Movie poster was Stolen from a Computer Arts magazine tutorial. So lets see that makes 5 images he has been forced to take down now

Wow, Julie Langford just found this same image on a stock photo site. The person is not the original artist, but is making good money off it.

Defenitely the same photo, you cheat yourself when you try to cheat others. I do not think he can legally sell though. Thanks for shareing. Pat

Wow it is amazing in this instant info day and age that people still think they wll not be found out!!!