Good luck Doylem, this website http://danandgemma.com/, made by entiri with this statement "© 2013 Vow. All rights reserved. Designed by entiri" should be pursued also....as they show your image w/o your permission I assume.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A lack of originality...
- Thread starter Doylem
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As Doylem hinted at, "copy and paste" of a legitimately bought copy of a copyrighted image, therefore without watermarks etc, could then be copied into an email, or put on a website. A person viewing the image could perceive it as the original image, see no copyright, copy it for themselves.
Images on the internet are so attainable, I remember a story of a family seeing a photo pulled from Facebook on a billboard in a country they were holidaying in which was being used to advertise a grocery store. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/11/smith-family-photo-czech-advertisement). I suppose that it's going to be the nature of the beast.
Images on the internet are so attainable, I remember a story of a family seeing a photo pulled from Facebook on a billboard in a country they were holidaying in which was being used to advertise a grocery store. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/11/smith-family-photo-czech-advertisement). I suppose that it's going to be the nature of the beast.
I understand images are everywhere, trust me.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110805.html
and all these images used, just 3 have my permission...
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mike+rosinski&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSXRpbCxCo1NgEGgIIAgwLELCMpwgaNAoyCAESDLAE7QWFBYQFiwXuBRog9GgAY3dwh3aweYyQepaGoJBloFd2-5Or5kd_1bJu31bEMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgQwoZVVDA&sa=X&ei=UYbkUYrsHqT9ygGyjoGIAw&ved=0CCgQ2A4oAQ&biw=1430&bih=910
More like Adobe Illustrator's "Image trace" then some custom bezier edits from there.
Any follow-up on this one? After reading the thread I was hoping when I reached the end there would be a conclusion of some sort. Instead, I was left disappointed...
Just wondering if a nasty e-mail was sent to the artist and if so what has happened (if anything) since then?
Just wondering if a nasty e-mail was sent to the artist and if so what has happened (if anything) since then?
I emailed the gallery, and asked them to contact the artist. I wanted to hear what he had to say. The guy rang me; in fact Ive just put the phone down. Hes not actually the artist. Hed commissioned some company in Brazil (!) to create four posters, in a similar style, to showcase the English Lake District, and the company had obviously based one of the prints on my photo. The guy was apologetic, and admitted he was in the wrong.
Instead of cancelling the print run, we talked about doing a royalty deal based on prints sold (they retail for £95... US$145), which might be a better option all round. So hopefully a happy ending...
I emailed the gallery, and asked them to contact the artist. I wanted to hear what he had to say. The guy rang me; in fact Ive just put the phone down. Hes not actually the artist. Hed commissioned some company in Brazil (!) to create four posters, in a similar style, to showcase the English Lake District, and the company had obviously based one of the prints on my photo. The guy was apologetic, and admitted he was in the wrong.
Instead of cancelling the print run, we talked about doing a royalty deal based on prints sold (they retail for £95... US$145), which might be a better option all round. So hopefully a happy ending...
That would be great if it works out for you. Thanks for the follow-up!
Cheers
Instead of cancelling the print run, we talked about doing a royalty deal based on prints sold (they retail for £95... US$145), which might be a better option all round. So hopefully a happy ending...
Glad there was some integrity and they are going to cough up. Personally I would order a copy of the photo over the print though. Not really liking what they did to it.
Totally agree. Legalities aside, the "art piece" looks like something you'd see in a McDonald's or a lame tourism office. Kind of forgettable. The original is much more breathtaking. There's a reason why it gets picked for unauthorized use I guess.
@Doylem glad to hear things got worked out. Faith in humanity restored!
I emailed the gallery, and asked them to contact the artist. I wanted to hear what he had to say. The guy rang me; in fact Ive just put the phone down. Hes not actually the artist. Hed commissioned some company in Brazil (!) to create four posters, in a similar style, to showcase the English Lake District, and the company had obviously based one of the prints on my photo. The guy was apologetic, and admitted he was in the wrong.
Instead of cancelling the print run, we talked about doing a royalty deal based on prints sold (they retail for £95... US$145), which might be a better option all round. So hopefully a happy ending...
Great! Hopefully this will give you some "mad money" to spend on otherwise things you'd not do.
fwiw, I got a 10% royalty on all sales of products that used my image thru the contract I signed with the National Maritime Museum (print/puzzle/coffee mug/coaster set)
http://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/astronomy-photographer-of-the-year/2012-winners/earth-and-space/
Infuriating, but...
If you went to law, I don't think you'd have got very far with this one. The 'artist'(!) has created a new and original work, and is not trying to pass it off as your photo. It could be reasonably argued that he hasn't used your image and you'd have a hell of a time proving conclusively that he did, and has deprived you of income because of that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1044375.stm
The personal approach has worked better - as always - but I think you got lucky. Still, all's well that ends well!
If you went to law, I don't think you'd have got very far with this one. The 'artist'(!) has created a new and original work, and is not trying to pass it off as your photo. It could be reasonably argued that he hasn't used your image and you'd have a hell of a time proving conclusively that he did, and has deprived you of income because of that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1044375.stm
The personal approach has worked better - as always - but I think you got lucky. Still, all's well that ends well!
Last edited:
If the canvas print looks like anything at all, it's thanks to Doylem's artistry.
Last edited:
Just wanted to add this overlaid version of the photo and the artwork, with the photo enlarged to fit the artwork.
You can see just how precisely everything matches up, from the shadows, clouds, trees, shading to even the placement of the boats. At first glance it's such an exact copy that it's hard to tell apart the overlay from the original photo.
There is absolutely no doubt this is plagiarism. You can't replicate cloud and lighting conditions, not to this extent.
You deserve that royalty!
You can see just how precisely everything matches up, from the shadows, clouds, trees, shading to even the placement of the boats. At first glance it's such an exact copy that it's hard to tell apart the overlay from the original photo.
There is absolutely no doubt this is plagiarism. You can't replicate cloud and lighting conditions, not to this extent.
You deserve that royalty!
Attachments
Good job... putting the two images together. A lot of my pictures look pretty 'generic' - sunny day, boats on the lake, etc - but once in a while you take a shot that you'd recognise anywhere... simply because the scene was lit in an unusual way.
The guy who rang me was very apologetic, and agreed to pay $$$ right away. Actually, a simple, straightforward apology is probably what I was after most of all...
No one else could have possible stood in that same spot and had the same vantage point at the same time of day, right? Right?!
It's a basic landscape shot. It looks like millions of others. I would guess there have been many, many people take the (almost) exact same shot you did.
It's a basic landscape shot. It looks like millions of others. I would guess there have been many, many people take the (almost) exact same shot you did.
No one else could have possible stood in that same spot and had the same vantage point at the same time of day, right? Right?!
It's a basic landscape shot. It looks like millions of others. I would guess there have been many, many people take the (almost) exact same shot you did.
Spoken like someone who knows little if anything about landscape photography. The variables are many:
• time of year (In this case, the peak of autumn, which is a small window of time each year and can be very difficult to predict. You might get one good week of peak color, and if you're not lucky, it will rain that whole week.)
• year-to-year variations (Each year different weather patterns affect foliage differently, especially autumn foliage, which can be great one year and then ruined by bad weather the next. Landscape photography forums are filled with threads each year where people report how well the colors are developing in certain locations; some years are very disappointing and others are phenomenal.)
• time of day (In this case, when the sun is low in the sky and the light has a very warm temperature, making the colors of the scene particularly vibrant. The days are short during the autumn months, and the window of time when the sun is at this angle each day can be very small.)
• cloud cover (It not only affects the appearance of the sky, giving it texture, depth, and color, but it also affects the transmission of light onto the land: no light, scattered light, diffused light, harsh light, etc. Any landscape photographer knows the agony of waiting in vain for clouds to part just enough to let some magic light through at just the right time of day.)
• wind patterns (These are very important when shooting lakes because they affect the reflectance and wind lines/patterns of the water. In Doylem's photo, there is a beautiful wind line cutting across the center of the lake at this moment, which adds visual interest in the variety of textures and reflections, and also heightens the sense of a gusty autumn day.)
• human presence/activity (Getting a solitary boat vs. too many of them takes some serious luck and/or patience. A scene with too many boats or with boats that aren't particularly charming will have a lot less appeal than one where a single sloop is isolated as in this shot.)
• timing of moving elements (Here the boat is caught against a cloud shadow on the water in the background, which gives the boat great presence in the frame. Also, if the boat had reached this point and then luffed (i.e. lost wind in the sail), it wouldn't look nearly as good.)
• year-to-year variations (Each year different weather patterns affect foliage differently, especially autumn foliage, which can be great one year and then ruined by bad weather the next. Landscape photography forums are filled with threads each year where people report how well the colors are developing in certain locations; some years are very disappointing and others are phenomenal.)
• time of day (In this case, when the sun is low in the sky and the light has a very warm temperature, making the colors of the scene particularly vibrant. The days are short during the autumn months, and the window of time when the sun is at this angle each day can be very small.)
• cloud cover (It not only affects the appearance of the sky, giving it texture, depth, and color, but it also affects the transmission of light onto the land: no light, scattered light, diffused light, harsh light, etc. Any landscape photographer knows the agony of waiting in vain for clouds to part just enough to let some magic light through at just the right time of day.)
• wind patterns (These are very important when shooting lakes because they affect the reflectance and wind lines/patterns of the water. In Doylem's photo, there is a beautiful wind line cutting across the center of the lake at this moment, which adds visual interest in the variety of textures and reflections, and also heightens the sense of a gusty autumn day.)
• human presence/activity (Getting a solitary boat vs. too many of them takes some serious luck and/or patience. A scene with too many boats or with boats that aren't particularly charming will have a lot less appeal than one where a single sloop is isolated as in this shot.)
• timing of moving elements (Here the boat is caught against a cloud shadow on the water in the background, which gives the boat great presence in the frame. Also, if the boat had reached this point and then luffed (i.e. lost wind in the sail), it wouldn't look nearly as good.)
...and the list goes on...it's a complete package...
If you've never stood behind a tripod for an hour or more waiting for all of the elements to align into a harmonious whole--perhaps making repeated attempts of the same shot for several years in a row--then I can see how you might assume that it's all very easy. Well, landscapes are not studio shots; shooting them requires a unique blend of skill and luck and can provide a lifetime of the occasional triumph amid much frustration.
The boat is the only thing that really makes the shot original at all, and if someone goes out on a boat there fairly often, even that is questionable. It's an ok shot, but it's not worthy of thinking someone is trying to rip it off. Like I said.. it's a basic landscape shot that anyone could have taken.
I just googled the lake and found this web page with the same photo and boat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...n-2012-Festival-Event-Highlights.html?image=8
Interesting
Looks like a common photo of the lake.