Copyright Copycats - You Shared It, Now Others Are Copying It

Just think about it. If you go onto a forum and post how much you make at each site and what images are selling, your best sellers, etc, you are making it easy for others to see what sells. They too want to make money and then could use your images and make them their own but end up with similar files to yours.

Dont get me wrong. I dont think that ALL artists do this. I truly feel that many "similar" images are actually sparked by an individual's imagination, but happen to come out looking like another artist's work. After all, no one can hold the claim of being the first to create a cat vector file or the first santa image in the whole entire stock industry. I embrace all of the different styles and variations that are brought to us by our talented artists and I dont for one minute think that any of our contributors are copying others.

When I go to other stock sites, I see that some of them list the best sellers and also display how many times the images have been downloaded. Now, if I were new to this industry and I just wanted to make money, I would definitely notice those little tools. I would think "Hey! This image sold four thousand times! I bet that artist is rolling in the dough. Maybe I should create something just like that so I can make money too." That's how a lot of newcomers think.

You need to protect yourselves. If you are one of those artists sharing how much you are making from each site, what images are selling the best, yadda yadda yadda, my suggestion is to stop right now. If you dont, you are inviting others to follow your style. You will later be complaining about your lack of sales. While you cant stop the image libraries from displaying how many downloads each image has, you can at least stop your bragging about your sales. What exactly are you expecting from bragging? Do you think restaurants become successful by bragging and displaying their recipes to their secret sauces and dishes? No. They keep those a secret. The most successful artists are those that keep their earnings and secrets to themselves.

So next time you go out to disclose what you made for the day, remember that it just may spark the imagination of a new copyright copycat wanting to make a quick buck.

Login or Register to post comments and reply to other visitors

MilsiArt: Interesting topic. I am the one marked with red on Istock and then booted from there with 'abusive inspiration' reasons. I already said what I had on SS forum as well all agencies where I upload got information from me. The point on istock is to be exclusive. If so, you can 'protect' your work by false accusing other people through 'abusive inspiration' thing. The point with istock was that one of images they've accused me that I copied was one swirly tree which I have on paper since 1986 ;-) The other image was my own version of Christmas baubles... No use of that I tried to explain that aren't copies... They needed closure and they closed the best way they knew to do it. Anyway istock wasn't the place which worked for me and I am not sorry about not being with them. Now I can 'copycat' more freely ;-) Sure, 'copycats' I make have my own note and execution... Jamie Voetsch: I have been furious with istock since they booted you out! That's ridiculous. I looked and couldnt find "similars" to yours! MilsiArt: Well... They made ultimatum to me due to reasons known only to them. I couldn't accept their terms of 'being cooperative' and rest is history. Today their check with $53.44 accumulated for 2 years of my membership there arrived to my address. Story is over ;-) Jamie Voetsch: they suck and i hope other artists realize it soon as well. Leo Blanchette: I was pretty loyal to the *** thing...it got me started in this business. I try to remember where I came from. Lately though its become too much like the former WalMart employee experience of my early twenties, so that is that. On a positive note, the masses moving into that company has a herd thinning effect causing less competition for nonexclusive artists and small companies like Clipartof.com. Also the huge amount of competition within that company is making it harder for serious artists to make a living in this fashion if they are only uploading there. But in a way thats good, because "submitting" to that company (in every way implied) is priming them up for WalMart, the next company they will be going exclusive at the way this is going. Jamie Voetsch: Thats a new way to look at it. :) MilsiArt: Unfortunately GI and Istock aren't close to WalMart. Istock is kind of WalMart with two or 3 kinds of beer and 5-6 kinds of baubles. But, when we talk about handshakes or girl with cell phone photos they are really full of it. So, Leo istock isn't WalMart at all... More WalMart experience you can have on Shutterstock with better competitors and more liberty. I started to feel microstock with them despite my first one was Fotolia and for micro I feel at home considering Shutterstock. Not to mention hundreds of times more accepted images, downloads and more money earned than on istock.

r formidable: i know of the orange guys also.... have seen them around many other sites.... i also know of istock's bait and hook, and have recently decided against uploading anything else there or dealing with them anymore, regardless of how big they think they are.... also agree that anybody with a wacom, a copy of adobe and a cam is suddenly now an 'illustrator' or a photographer'... on another very well known stocksite, i've come across numerous stuff that should not be even considered as just an enjoyment piece of eye candy for the home hobbiest , coz it's just so unprofessional and honestly, it sucks bad..that's the nicest way i can put it!! but stuff like this gets accepted, and g~d forbid, downloaded... it's kind of insulting for somebody who gives a damn about putting time, energy and quality in their work and makes a living out of doing so..... Leo Blanchette: Hahaha! The one I was referring to is exclusive to Istock. http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6321121-searching.php But if there are any other orange guys floating around besides my own, please let me know, because I think I'm going to get down on the obvious rip-offs...the ones who created an orange man and then proceeded to coincidentally have like 5 similar illustrations to mine with angles/concepts almost identical. I am reasonable, but I think I've been silent for way too long. r formidable: well, you've got green guys, silver guys, red guys, blue guys, gold guys....they're everywhere... lots of guys.... (good thing i only draw women..hehehe) Leo Blanchette: I'm going to copyright an RGB value. That will make it easier to figure this stuff out. r formidable: hahahah!!! fine, then i'll copyright pantones...(and women)

Leo Blanchette: Its funny this has been up as long as it has and I never saw it! There is one artist on Istock with orange guys who's portfolio is literally nothing more than revamped versions of other people's best sellers. I appreciate your views on this Jamie. To a degree I think excited artists say way too much. Other the other hand, stock agencies divulge way too much on artist's stats as well. The only real solution is to keep evolving. If your an original artist, nobody can steal that from you...and thats really why an original and creative person got a strong start in this business. Lately I've been a little disheartened with the stock photo business in general because anyone with a camera or wacoom tablet can join in the fun...and the flooding out is becoming a huge problem. I think thats a big reason why artists on clipartof.com value this site so much...its kinda like a little safe zone where a lot of stock photo evils haven't crept in. Jamie Voetsch: I dont think all of the artists here realize that we are here for them. I recently lost 2 artists in 1 day that went exclusive to istock because they felt like they had to to make more money. I'm thinking "ok... make more money... sure but taking your images down from everywhere else, especially from a site that is here FOR the artists is not really a wise thing to do" their loss. If an artists leaves, they can never come back. I cant believe how many artists let istock push them around! I appreciate all of the artists that stick with us. Leo Blanchette: If I hadn't experienced so much of the corporate scene in previous years, I'd probably be blind to Istock's methods like so many others are. There is more competition within Istock than there is all around it. The most recent influx is really going to hurt the newly exclusive ones as well as the ones that were there previously. How many ways can you slice the pie? Companies put millions of dollars into understanding how to motivate people...whether its customers or their own workers. Often its better to give someone a title than actual money. Incentives make people work harder than money does as well. Istock employs these tricks amazingly. Their most recent trick with the canister/exclusivity was easy to see through if you know what to look for...but many people took the bait and Istock headquarters can high-five each other on the golf course since it worked. To clipartof.com people...hold on to this site. This is your life raft in the stock photo biz! The other sites all work the same, regardless of their structure. This site here is run by people with qualities you will not find in the stock photo biz or even in the traditional work scene. Jamie Voetsch: Thanks Leo. I just cant imagine screwing artists over. We're actually thinking of a new structure for one of our other sites and its going to be awesome once we fine tune it. The artists that left are going to be kicking themselves in the butt.

Julos: Interesting subject Jamie. We have to remember that copying is just illegal, I already had 2 persons banned from other sites. It was easy to prove they copied.(side to side and dates of creation). Sometimes it is harder to prove as they copy a concept. I for myself tend to do my own thing, try to have my niche, I believe this is what will work in the long run. Jamie Voetsch: I have never seen images similar to yours and if I ever do, I would also be reporting them! haha

Anastasiya Maksymenko: Yes, the source of this problem lies within microstock sites who from the first days started sharing their user statistics, such as view, sales, best selling images etc. without even asking a permission from their contributors or giving the a chance to opt-out from this global share. I hate seeing my best selling images copies 10 or more times by different 'artists'. Jamie Voetsch: It really sucks. I dont think they should be sharing that info, but they dont care about the artists, they only care about the money.

Jamie Voetsch: You got that right r formidable. Anyone sharing all of their stats is just asking for major competition. I also urge your friend to break out of the box and do something unique. r formidable: oh, i've got no problems with competition...if there wasn't any competition, what would be the point of waking up? we need more box breaking though..

r formidable: i've been having a conversation about this recently with a fellow vector competitor... the problem as i see it is that too many illustrators are doing things that are too similar to each other... fine examples are: swirly vector backgrounds, xmass baubles, stuff like that.. personally, they all look the same to me, and if i didn't know better, i'd think they were all done by the same person...but they're not. so, now there's issues about who got 'inspired' by whom first... i've been trying to tell my vector friend to get away from all this regular stuff that everybody else is stuck doing... he's very talented, he knows his programs and he can draw very well if he wants to... with all respect to him (and he'll prob read this eventually)i wish he'd do more actual 'drawing' than 'baubling and swirling'.. as far as sites sharing stats...i'm against that altogether.. it's nobody else's business what an artist makes Jamie Voetsch: Similarity; this is why I dont want to go adding millions of artists! I just want the few that I already have on CO. I used to only have 1 artist supplying backgrounds (whether she was the first artist ever to do backgrounds or not, she was our first artist supplying them) and now almost everyone sends me backgrounds. I dont want to add more artists, but I do need a constant supply of images... Thats why I'm willing to give out my ideas (I'm not an artist anyway no matter how hard I try, so why not?) and urge you to send me more of what you've got.

Jamie Voetsch: I dont for one second think you are a copycat by the way 3pod! I am 110% loyal to all of our artists, whether or not they were the first to ever do something different. That's why I ask you if its ok to add any other artists doing 3d people first :) I'm mainly referring to artists that are just now breaking into the industry who have just found out that you can make money selling RF imagery. I REALLY dislike that other agencies show how many times an image has been downloaded and I think that is a major part of the problem. I think that it violates your rights and opens the doors for copycats. Here is a great example of a copyright copycat: Original image by Brad Fitzpatrick - Owner/Artist of BradFitzpatrick.com Copycatted image (no pun intended) by Robert Gillen - Owner/Artist of GraphicsFactory.com Blog post from the original artist, Brad Fitzpatrick: Graphics Factory Rips Off Brad Fitzpatrick? | GraphicsFactory.com Infringes Copyright I am at the point where I now refuse to add artists that have a style remotely similar to artists that we already represent. I just.cant.do.it

3poD: Sorry for ALL the messages. To understand what I'm saying please read from my bottom one, towards the top one.

3poD: Personaly I have made my peace with the fact that after I started back in 2005 , I’ve seen like 200 other artists starting making rf stock 3d people. I now believe that this can only make me better since I always have to evolve and get better to what I’m doing in order to handle all the competition. Sorry for the long talk and I hope this makes sense :)

3poD: Here is an example. Lets say some 3d character artist makes an image and one month later I make one similar. Everyone would say. " he copied that one". Doesn't the fact that I was the first person to sell 3d people on rf agencies since 2005 give me the right to claim that the other artist is actually copying my general money making concept? I could say they started making 3d people after seeing my work or the work of someone else who saw mine in the past. What I’m trying to say is it’s not always easy to say who is copying whom.

3poD: I mostly agree with you Jamie. Thing is, it doesn't matter if you announce your earnings. Many agencies display how many downloads each image has, so one can understand what sells just from that. I do create images similar to other's from time to time but never based on how much they sell. They are almost always concepts that were moving around in my mind as well. Others make images similar to mine as well. By looking at my portfolio one can understand that it mostly consists of cartoon 3d people doing various stuff. I pretty sure everyone in the rf industry knows many artists that make similar characters. But what exactly defines copying?