AI and plagurism

FiL so are you suggesting that @tinoxvx is not the original owner or creator of the FPI image on his page?

I am slightly confused by this if that's what you're saying, please elaborate.

Otherwise, -sp●●n- has already mentioned what steps were taken in the previous pages, just seems a little pointless to repeat himself.

Edited by Infinity Valerie

Why do people keep finding the need to run 'background checks'? I wish this culture would stop. It destroyed my thread and countless others. I'm personally very interested in what spoon has shared in his original post. Once again there was nothing amis but there's been a couple of pages of finger pointing and now the thread has completely lost its way. Spoon, if you are reading this, can I ask which platform you have been using? Thanks

The original photo was uploaded to MM by the model in April 2009, so it is unlikely to be generated using AI ... see https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/12024635

Copyright: Mono Coello

Edited by Tarmoo

Infinity Valerie said

FiL the original photographer is tinoxvx , he is a member on PP.

He would also appear to be Mono Coello from Ecuador who took the photo in 2009.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/12024635

and Christopher Lee Donovan from the USA in 2008

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/7746982

This plagiarism stuff is terribly confusing  ;)

Tarmoo I'm getting HTTP ERROR 500 when trying to view

Infinity Valerie said

FiL so are you suggesting that @tinoxvx is not the original owner or creator of the FPI image on his page?

I am slightly confused by this if that's what you're saying, please elaborate.

Otherwise, -sp●●n- has already mentioned what steps were taken in the previous pages, just seems a little pointless to repeat himself.

I do not know what rights the person behind the profile you linked has to use that image.

I do know that PP's rules require that a photographer only uploads photos they have 'taken' (as distinct from photos they may have an acquired right to otherwise use).

But that's not my concern here - I'm sure PP admin will deal with any infringement appropriately if they feel they need to.

My interest is in establishing how careful the OP was to ensure that he had permission from the rightful copyright owner before he edited the image. If he didn't, that could have potentially serious repercussions for him. If someone acquires a right to use an image (for example as an integral part of digital artistry) from the original photographer/copyright owner, that person is not usually entitled to assign rights to a third party.

Edited by FiL

FiL a whole can of worms. My suggestion would be for PP to run background checks on images on profiles, they're representing people on here and it's in their best interest that these creators/models/photographes are in fact - legit. I wonder how difficult it would be to implement a programme to do that for them.

Infinity Valerie said

FiL a whole can of worms. My suggestion would be for PP to run background checks on images on profiles, they're representing people on here and it's in their best interest that these creators/models/photographes are in fact - legit. I wonder how difficult it would be to implement a programme to do that for them.

Probably too onerous for the site to take on.

Some sites are better than others at 'community vetting'. If there's a disconnect between the quality of a photographer's portfolio images and those posted by other members he has worked with, it's a fair bet that something's not right.

FiL said

Infinity Valerie said

FiL the original photographer is tinoxvx , he is a member on PP.

I understand why you might think that.

However, the OP chose to edit an image which does not belong to him hence I'm interested to know what steps he took to properly ascertain the rightful copyright owner before doing that.

Edited by FiL

What are you on about? the photographer is here:

https://purpleport.com/portfolio/tinoxvx1/ 

You can see the image on his page, it was given an FPI a few days ago, you are saying he does not have copyright? take it up with him or the site, I could not care less what your assumptions are with regards to the image.

GPA6 said

Why do people keep finding the need to run 'background checks'? I wish this culture would stop. It destroyed my thread and countless others. I'm personally very interested in what spoon has shared in his original post. Once again there was nothing amis but there's been a couple of pages of finger pointing and now the thread has completely lost its way. Spoon, if you are reading this, can I ask which platform you have been using? Thanks

People do checks for a variety of reasons, that's their business/prerogative. Contacting members directly can be a rewarding and friendly way of obtaining information on PP.

All this copyright talk, in the UK I could claim the 'Teaching' fair use exception to copyright and use any copyrighted image for this purpose:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#teaching 

"Several exceptions allow copyright works to be used for educational purposes, such as:

• the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is solely to illustrate a point, it is not done for commercial purposes, it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and the use is fair dealing. This means minor uses, such as displaying a few lines of poetry on an interactive whiteboard, are permitted, but uses which would undermine sales of teaching materials are not"

Consider yourselves illustrated a point, and taught...this post was brought to you for non-commercial purposes. Ambulance chasers, disband.

Edited by -sp●●n-

GPA6 said

Why do people keep finding the need to run 'background checks'? I wish this culture would stop. It destroyed my thread and countless others. I'm personally very interested in what spoon has shared in his original post. Once again there was nothing amis but there's been a couple of pages of finger pointing and now the thread has completely lost its way. Spoon, if you are reading this, can I ask which platform you have been using? Thanks

leonardo.ai 

FiL said

.

My interest is in establishing how careful the OP was to ensure that he had permission from the rightful copyright owner before he edited the image. If he didn't, that could have potentially serious repercussions for him. If someone acquires a right to use an image (for example as an integral part of digital artistry) from the original photographer/copyright owner, that person is not usually entitled to assign rights to a third party.

Indeed - almost sounds like plagiarism!  :-)

Gothic Image said

FiL said

.

My interest is in establishing how careful the OP was to ensure that he had permission from the rightful copyright owner before he edited the image. If he didn't, that could have potentially serious repercussions for him. If someone acquires a right to use an image (for example as an integral part of digital artistry) from the original photographer/copyright owner, that person is not usually entitled to assign rights to a third party.

Indeed - almost sounds like plagiarism!  :-)

I have been trying to resist the urge to say as much - thanks for alleviating me of that burden!

-sp●●n- said

All this copyright talk, in the UK I could claim the 'Teaching' fair use exception to copyright and use any copyrighted image for this purpose:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#teaching 

"Several exceptions allow copyright works to be used for educational purposes, such as:

• the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is solely to illustrate a point, it is not done for commercial purposes, it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and the use is fair dealing. This means minor uses, such as displaying a few lines of poetry on an interactive whiteboard, are permitted, but uses which would undermine sales of teaching materials are not"

Consider yourselves illustrated a point, and taught...this post was brought to you for non-commercial purposes. Ambulance chasers, disband.

Edited by -sp●●n-

I've decided to be kind to you and not discredit your understanding of copyright legislation. Be thankful, but I believe you've suffered enough for one day.