# Plagiarism



## Luke345678 (Nov 27, 2012)

Hello everybody! I have a few questions and I'm guessing you know about what from the title? 

There are so many wonderful pictures on this site and I enjoy looking at all of them. Sometimes I like looking through google images and other photographers photos and after look through some photos on google images I found a picture that looked quite familiar. I thought I remembered it from the forums and I went through the member galleries and I found the picture. The description did not give any credit to the photographer that took the picture and the first thing that popped into my mind was plagiarism.

Now I'm not calling anyone out or anything because it could be a big misunderstanding but still it aroused my suspicion. I would rather not snitch on this person but I must ask, has this site had any major problems with plagiarism before? Is there any thing the moderators do too find plagiarism? Now please don't mistake me for questions the moderators, they are all absolutely amazing and have been nothing but helpful to me for my short time on the site.

Once again I'm sorry if I may have offended anyone with this post I just feel bad for the photographers that have their hard work stolen. Please guys don't hate. I'm not trying to call anyone out, it's just a question. 

Thanks,

-Luke


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 27, 2012)

1. If it's posted on the innernets, someone's gonna steal it.  Fact of life, like taxes & death.
2. I don't worry about Joe Smith stealing Bob Jones' images.  Yes, it bothers me, but I can't do anything about it.
3. If the TPF management finds, without a doubt, someone is stealing photos and passing them off here as their own, I'm sure the Ban Hammer will be a-swinging.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Nov 27, 2012)

If you use anothers pix (non commercially) it should always be credited...if you know the author. And if you don't, it should be listed as not known. Either way it is clear it is not yours.

I watermark my photos an really hope others use them. (for non commercial purposes) Gives new life to them. 

They will all be gone someday. When I kick off my stuff will just get thrown in some dumpster. So I'm all for others using my photos. And if some of them get memorialized....yahoooo!


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 27, 2012)

It just makes me sick that some people steal others work. That's just wrong and pathetic. I would rather someone post the most horrifying ugly pictures out there than stealing someones work. Guess we all can't be true to ourselves.


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 27, 2012)

You should send a message over to one of the moderators. I'm sure they would take appropiate action.


----------



## skieur (Nov 27, 2012)

You are not very clear.  I would NOT jump to conclusions, if you are talking about the same photo on a different forum, by a supposed different photographer.  It might well be the same photographer using a different user name on a different forum.

skieur


----------



## TCampbell (Nov 27, 2012)

You can prevent this by creating a watermark so large that you can scarcely recognize there is an image hiding behind it.  (yes... that was a joke -- most of you will get it.)

People wont necessarily have the _same_ username here that they have on other sites.  It could be the same person.

Was the photo "similar" or was it the "same"?  There's a huge difference.  Some landmarks are so popular that they've been photographed so many times at nearly the identical angle that one can hardly tell them apart.  

And then of course there's actual plagiarism.  The site has strict rules against posting a photo that isn't "yours" to post.  You can create a link to someone else's work if you want to ask a question about it (and be clear about the fact that it's someone else's work).  There are occasionally people who post questions... e.g. "how do imitate the look this photographer got in this photo ____" (and then they include the photo).  So they're not intended to plagiarize (technically they're not plagiarizing because they're making it clear that it's not their own work) but they're still running the risk of copyright infringement and they've violated the terms of use for the site.  The mods edit those posts (either removing the embedded image or removing the post) but generally aren't hostile to the offender when it's clear they didn't try to claim credit that the image was their own work.

If someone copies someone else's work and it's clear their trying to claim credit that it's their own work... then that's considerably more serious.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 27, 2012)

*If you're aware of anyone on TPF who is passing off the work of others as his/her own, please contact any member of the Moderating Team via PM and we will investigate.  I can assure you that if it's found to be the case, the Ban-hammer will indeed be swung!*


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 27, 2012)

one thing that may have happened as well is that the picture was very slightly modified for C&C purposes.  Some people use the member galleries as a way to host images to post here.  So, you want to explain some editing technique you would have used on the picture that's very subtle, and then post it there as a means of putting it on TPF to give C&C.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 27, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> one thing that may have happened as well is that the picture was very slightly modified for C&C purposes.  Some people use the member galleries as a way to host images to post here.  So, you want to explain some editing technique you would have used on the picture that's very subtle, and then post it there as a means of putting it on TPF to give C&C.


*Excellent point - there are a number of valid reasons that one person might appear to be using anothers work, but it's something that as a photographer, I take very seriously.
*


----------



## unpopular (Nov 27, 2012)

it seems much more likely that the same user posted the image in two different places.

wouldn't that be the most obvious reason for this?


----------



## thetrue (Nov 27, 2012)

unpopular said:


> it seems much more likely that the same user posted the image in two different places.
> 
> wouldn't that be the most obvious reason for this?


Obvious reason, or simplest justification? Without really looking in to it, one can't know for sure. 

OP: Although the TPF Mods are here to police TPF, they can not necessarily police the Internet looking for TPF members' photos being used elsewhere...that's what I felt you were asking in your first post.


----------



## KmH (Nov 28, 2012)

Ilovemycam said:


> If you use anothers pix (non commercially) it should always be credited...if you know the author. And if you don't, it should be listed as not known. Either way it is clear it is not yours.
> 
> I watermark my photos an really hope others use them. (for non commercial purposes) Gives new life to them.
> 
> They will all be gone someday. When I kick off my stuff will just get thrown in some dumpster. So I'm all for others using my photos. And if some of them get memorialized....yahoooo!


A non-commercial use may be copyright infringement.

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use


> The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. _*Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission*_.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2012)

Furthermore simply putting an image you don't own on your personal, non-profitting Kutest Kitties website does not constitute "fair use" on the basis that the website does not make money alone. However, using a photo of a polydactal cat in a term paper as an example, with proper citation, likely would be protected ... until it is published (maybe), but that's more of the publisher's problem.

Copyright is complicated, and fair use only adds to it. It's best to assume that if you're using someone elses' intellectual property, you're probably violating copyright law, even if the use may not violate your personal sense of ethic and morals.


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 28, 2012)

skieur said:


> You are not very clear.  I would NOT jump to conclusions, if you are talking about the same photo on a different forum, by a supposed different photographer.  It might well be the same photographer using a different user name on a different forum.
> 
> skieur


I thought about that but it was on google images and the photographers name was listed. I looked him up and he's actually a pretty popular guy.


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 28, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> You can prevent this by creating a watermark so large that you can scarcely recognize there is an image hiding behind it.  (yes... that was a joke -- most of you will get it.)
> 
> People wont necessarily have the _same_ username here that they have on other sites.  It could be the same person.
> 
> ...



The photo was the exact same. Also the photographer had a name and I looked him up. The photographer is fairly popular. Trust me I did my research before I made a claim like this one.


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 28, 2012)

unpopular said:


> it seems much more likely that the same user posted the image in two different places.
> 
> wouldn't that be the most obvious reason for this?


Trust me I did my research I before I made a claim like this. It doesn't matter and I would rather not get involved in it.


----------



## snowbear (Nov 28, 2012)

Technically, you are already involved since you started the subject, but whatever.  Let your conscience be your guide.


----------



## Designer (Nov 28, 2012)

Luke; it could be the original photographer posting it on two or more forums, I have seen that myself.  Also, if I understand, there was no name on the photo claiming authorship, so no plagiarism.  Also, sometimes people just collect photos they like, and as long as there is no commercial attempt, no harm is done.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2012)

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. i can understand and appreciate why the OP didn't reveal who he's accusing, but at the same time there is really no possible way that we can weigh in on the topic without knowing.


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 28, 2012)

Designer said:


> Luke; it could be the original photographer posting it on two or more forums, I have seen that myself.  Also, if I understand, there was no name on the photo claiming authorship, so no plagiarism.  Also, sometimes people just collect photos they like, and as long as there is no commercial attempt, no harm is done.


Oh my god. No offense but if your going to comment on this thread please read the other comments. I DID MY RESEARCH. It was not the same person on two different forums so please stop going on and on about this.


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 28, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. i can understand and appreciate why the OP didn't reveal who he's accusing, but at the same time there is really no possible way that we can weigh in on the topic without knowing.


I just wanted to know about plagiarism and if this site had any big problems with it. I don't want to go accusing people because personally I don't do that stuff. I just wanted to know, this was not a thread to get something done about someone.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2012)

Well. First of all, plagiarism isn't the right word. Plagiarism is more about stealing ideas, and it's much more of an academic honesty thing, plagiarism can include outright copyright infringement, but it's much more inclusive and the concept is far more restrictive.

If i am understanding it, you're talking about outright intellectual property theft of an image, where a photographer here is claiming ownership of an image which he or she did not actually take, or is claiming ownership of an image that is somehow modified, and is doing so without permission.

Yes. This forum has extremely strict rules about this.

If you suspect that the images are being stolen, I would first contact the owner of the images in question to inform him or her and encourage the copyright owner to contact TPF staff. Personally, I believe it is the copyright holder's responsibility to control their copyright (I do not agree that IP is "real property", though this is not a universally accepted position).

If the image looks similar but is wholly created by the photographer, it may be a derivative work - but derivative works have significantly more complex laws. Academically it may not be honest, but legally it gets very complicated. As far as I know, TPF does not have a policy regarding new works derived from existing forms, i.e. educational studies, etc.

I will occasionally post images which I do not own as part of a visual dialog, but I do not take credit for them and I ensure that I am doing so in a manner consistent with the owners terms of use. (google: creative commons)


----------



## thetrue (Nov 28, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I will occasionally post images which I do not own as part of a visual dialog, but I do not take credit for them and I ensure that I am doing so in a manner consistent with the owners terms of use. (google: creative commons)


You should also note that most times your post is edited because of it too.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2012)

AFAIK that only happened once. KMH has admitted it was a mistake, so if there were any others I don't think that will be a problem in the future.

please don't tell me the Toast was removed, too!


----------



## thetrue (Nov 28, 2012)

Could have sworn I saw it other times, but no - I believe the toast remains HAHA


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2012)

There may have been other misunderstandings, or a flub on my part.


----------



## thetrue (Nov 28, 2012)

In any event, OP - if you see it here, PM a mod. If someone else on the interwebs stole a photo from here and you know who it belongs to, PM that person to give them a fair shot at taking appropriate action.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2012)

If it's Jessica's images that you're seeing elsewhere, yeah - they're stolen all over the interwebs. I'd say she's probably the most pirated photographer on TPF.


----------



## thetrue (Nov 28, 2012)

Would that be Jessica Owens?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2012)

Well, her user name is JOwensPhoto.


----------



## thetrue (Nov 28, 2012)

That's what I meant.


----------



## thetrue (Nov 28, 2012)

Post count?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2012)

I just cannot ever get my like rate above 20%. I NEEEEED MOAR LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2012)

There you go Fred...100 likes, on the nose!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2012)

FTW! This thread is turning out useful after all!


----------



## thetrue (Nov 29, 2012)

So your post count is important?


----------



## digital flower (Nov 29, 2012)

:addpics:


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 29, 2012)

unpopular said:


> If it's Jessica's images that you're seeing elsewhere, yeah - they're stolen all over the interwebs. I'd say she's probably the most pirated photographer on TPF.



Wow, what an honor! /sarcasm

Unfortunately, it's probably true. My *best* work is especially popular among 12-15 year old, female emo-kids. Particularly the following images:







Me at Bears Den NOT MINE, but I have permission to use 

Then this is another that is not mine, but again have permission to use. I was chivette of the day one time (not posting that photo, go find it yourselves if your that curious), and then in the chivette gallery with this one. It's been posted ripped off of thechive.com many times (probably from here too lol):


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 29, 2012)

Something else that I thought of as I was looking through my photostream...

About a year ago, I did my first real maternity session with a friend. I was pretty pleased with some of the photos and posted them to flickr, along with corresponding tags like maternity, pregnant, etc. These photos also garnered a LOT of attention... mostly from men who had galleries full of their genitalia and awful memes. Those were immediately marked as private. If you go to my flickr, you will now see a few of the same photos on there, but without tags. As of last week, those had not been stolen and reposted. I can't say that someone didn't save to HDD or print them, but that's the chance you take with ANY image you post to the internetz.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2012)

Perhaps flickr is not such a great place to mass-promote oneself after all, and I am wondering if there is a correspondence with tagging and theft. After all, if people cannot find your images to steal, they cannot (easily) be stolen.

Keeping your facebook and flickr galleries "local" by tying them to your studio's URL and Business Card, rather than searchable by the whole internet, may be a better approach.

After all, what's the point of a photographer in Northern-VA attracting viewers in Dubai. I sort of doubt they'll be paying customers.


----------



## thetrue (Nov 29, 2012)

How can you tell if someone stole your image? (not that I'm worried, I have nothing good online anyway) Is it just a matter of having found it somewhere that you didn't upload to, or are there notifications that make you aware of this?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 29, 2012)

place the URL into a google search, your image will show up. Then choose "search by image". Google will then find similar looking images. Any duplicates will pop up first.


----------



## skieur (Dec 5, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Furthermore simply putting an image you don't own on your personal, non-profitting Kutest Kitties website does not constitute "fair use" on the basis that the website does not make money alone. However, using a photo of a polydactal cat in a term paper as an example, with proper citation, likely would be protected ... until it is published (maybe), but that's more of the publisher's problem.
> 
> Copyright is complicated, and fair use only adds to it. It's best to assume that if you're using someone elses' intellectual property, you're probably violating copyright law, even if the use may not violate your personal sense of ethic and morals.



As well as shooting photos, I also buy the rights to photos that would be more difficult to shoot such as lumberjacks topping trees, etc., and yet are ideal for graphics, video or media presentations.

skieur


----------



## valotus (Dec 8, 2012)

Talking about taking other's work... This case popped up only some days ago and is still expanding. Shortly said, a Canadian "pro" photographer appeared to use lot of other photographer's pics in her website and blog. What makes it worse, she claimed that she had shot those pic, put her own copyright watermarks on them and even cooked up stories how she had made them. And remember, all this for supporting her own business.

A blog where the case is constatly updated: Who took this photo?

Larger discussion on DPreview forum: Photo theft: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review  and  Photo theft, part 2: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Also discussed on Reddit: Canadian professional photographer Hera Bell steals other peoples photos and claims that they are her own with made up stories to go along with them. : photography

It just started from Finnish forum digicamera.net where one of the members made a routine tracking for his photos. Can you be sure that your photos are not stolen too?...

- valotus -


----------



## Message (Dec 8, 2012)

Yes, this case is the biggest I have jet seen. At the moment stolen pictures are counted in tens if not in hundrets.

The basic routine seems to be:
The person in question has downloaded someone others picture without the original photographers permission.
Then the person adds her own watermark. Before that she might have flipped the image, cropped and/or made an black&white version of it.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 8, 2012)

The best part about this is that it's SO obvious that these are not from the same photographer. You'd think Ms. Bell would have at least chosen photos (and stories, I mean, a Fuji-sponsored cross country road trip?) that were believable.


----------



## enzodm (Dec 9, 2012)

valotus said:


> Talking about taking other's work... This case popped up only some days ago and is still expanding. Shortly said, a Canadian "pro" photographer appeared to use lot of other photographer's pics in her website and blog. What makes it worse, she claimed that she had shot those pic, put her own copyright watermarks on them and even cooked up stories how she had made them. And remember, all this for supporting her own business.
> 
> A blog where the case is constatly updated: Who took this photo?



and by the way we are "proud" co-members of her... http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/47974.html , with some examples coming also from this forum  .


----------



## unpopular (Dec 9, 2012)

What is most odd is that it appears that she has stolen only some of the images in her catalog, but not all. In fact, some of the best examples appear to be her own.

She's a mystery for sure. My guess is that she's either very insecure, or very narcissistic. She either wants to live vicariously through other photographers because she doubts her own abilities, or when she sees a photo that she thinks is better than hers, she wants to take claim for it so that nobody else may have the privilege.

Given her confidence and megalomanic stories associated with the stolen images, I'm guessing the latter. She's even plastered her image on a fake national geographic cover. I'm hoping that was meant in jest.


----------



## John27 (Dec 9, 2012)

One thing I would suggest is to look into photography associations (like PPA for Americans).  This is more for professionals, but I was looking at what they offer since my wife is going to start shooting professionally part-time next year.  So in addition to taxes and insurance and all that jazz, we're looking into groups like PPA.  With PPA, as I understand it, if you find a case like this you just let them know.  A DMCA notice is promptly sent to the infringer (or given to you to send) ordering them to IMMEDIATELY take down the images 'or else'.  The 'or else' is PPA hired attorneys beginning a lawsuit.

By letting an association like this handle stuff like that you aren't likely to get much (or ANY) compensation for the matter.  BUT, you have less risk involved and can let the big dogs handle it.  So, if your purely standing on principle and not trying to be compensated for it, that's probably the way to go.  Not that it's wrong at ALL to demand compensation for the images, after all, if it's worth stealing, it's worth buying.  But if you are looking for compensation, best to retain an attorney yourself.  Sometimes an attorney can be free in these cases (though they'll take a huge chunk of the compensation!), the 'we don't get paid unless you get paid' guys.


----------



## KmH (Dec 9, 2012)

For a DMCA takedown notice to be maximally effective, and before an attorney can file a copyright infringement lawsuit, the copyright owner has to register their copyright with the US Copyright Office.
Using the DMCA Takedown Notice to Battle Copyright Infringement

Copyright registration timing relative to the date of infringement also determines if actual or statutory damages can be sought. U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States



> _When a photo is not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the infringement (or within three months of the first publication of the photo), a copyright owner may recover only actual damages for the infringement (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504 (b)), instead of statutory damages. Courts usually calculate actual damages based on your normal license fees and/or industry standard licensing fees. One source for standard license fees is a software program called Fotoquote. You also may recover the profits the infringer made from the infringement if they arent too speculative._



Here is some guidance (partial quote above) on what to do when you discover an image of yours has been infringed - Help! Ive Been Infringed! | Photo Attorney


----------



## Dikkie (Dec 11, 2012)

But that person has only the photos in web format.
When putting photos online, you resize them to have it viewable online, at low dpi and low resolution.

If they steal it, it's sad, ok, but they can't sell it. 
They can't show the RAW of the photo, or the large size to make some large prints for a wall.


----------



## enzodm (Dec 11, 2012)

She is selling her services using others images. Up to very funny things like this: National Geographic


----------



## KmH (Dec 11, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> When putting photos online, you resize them to have it viewable online, at low dpi and low resolution.


Perhaps you mean a low quality setting when you say "at a low dpi". A low quality setting reduces the file size.

When it comes to online or electronic display the ppi (ppi and dpi are not interchangeable terms) is meaningless. Only the pixel dimensions (resolution) have meaning and effect relative to image size.
Try it sometime. Post a photo of yours twice but with the same pixel dimensions for each. Assign 1 ppi to one of them, and 200 ppi to the other. Both will display at the same size.


----------

