Where To Focus

Andy

Yes, it was in Techniques forum, I moved it.

Mitchell

Andy wrote:

Seems that the logo on
http://scottphotography.smugmug.com/

was taken from

http://www.scottphotography.net/

I've shut the SmugMug site down until I can get a full explanation from Scott.

Are these two Scotts the same photographer? The sample photos and presentation from the latter are top notch.

bsquared

As can be seen from my post count I am a total noob, but I have been a member at the shall we say ........more colorful advrider for about two years. Having stubled on this thread searching for "physics" while looking for a more rigorous understanding of why aperture affects FOV the way it does, I must say that I am thoroughly impressed and amazed with the civility with which this situation has been/ is being handled. I can tell you that a similar situation on Adv. would have a far, far different result. If you picture the final scene in Frankenstein you might be getting close. The contrast is refreshing, and I think that it says something about this community. I hope to learn a lot from you guys, mostly about photography but who knows.

Mods: this is just my opinion, and we all know about those, but I think that once this gets resolved, it would be a mistake to "hide this under the carpet" for many reasons, one of which is how the response highlights the general civility and good nature of the community.

I really hope that this situation does just turn out to somehow be a mistake, however unlikely that possibility might be.

bham

Andy I might suggest checking the exif of those pics in the public gallery vs what the exif of the pics that he has in some of the family gallery and compare the type of camera, serial number. This might help to identify if any others are "borrowed" images.

jchin

bham wrote:

Andy I might suggest checking the exif of those pics in the public gallery vs what the exif of the pics that he has in some of the family gallery and compare the type of camera, serial number. This might help to identify if any others are "borrowed" images.

Good point ... however, he could have easily removed the EXIF data completely before using the stolen photos.

Andy, thank you for pursuing this. Hope he doesn't go after using your photos. These days it seems like stealing photos is what everyone does. Arghhh... I now even add a text line to my family photos that I share with friends and family on Flickr and Facebook.

What is this world coming to? I hate people who steal and take credit for something they didn't do.

Andy, have you heard back from this guy yet?

jchin

On this page:
http://scottphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/3571562

Isn't that content, completely taken from:
http://www.smugmug.com/prints/catalog2.mg

That just isn't right! It gives the impression that those photos are his too.
Man talk about copyright infringement!

denisegoldberg

jchin wrote:

On this page:
http://scottphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/3571562

Isn't that content, completely taken from:
http://www.smugmug.com/prints/catalog2.mg

That just isn't right! It gives the impression that those photos are his too.
Man talk about copyright infringement!

We've been given permission by smugmug many times to use that page along with the photos. If you look at many pro sites you will see that page.

So I think it's a bit harsh to point to the catalog page and say it isn't right.

--- Denise

Andy

jchin wrote:

Andy, have you heard back from this guy yet?

Yes, as far as we're concerned, it's case closed at this point. He's apologized to those folks that he's wronged.

Andy

jchin wrote:

That just isn't right! It gives the impression that those photos are his too.
Man talk about copyright infringement!

This is fine, we're happy if our pros want to put the catalog w/in their own pages..... no problem at all.

jchin

Andy wrote:

This is fine, we're happy if our pros want to put the catalog w/in their own pages..... no problem at all.

OK ... cool ... never knew that.