Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Re the locked stolen photo what to do thread


thewilliam 6 4.8k
20 Dec 2012 6:23PM
Ultimately, you need to resize the images to the same scale and overlay them with the top one at 50% opacity. If they match completely, including clouds and water ripples, then it's an unauthorised copy!

Is Leeds as popular as Yosemite as a tourist destination, where a goodly number of visitors have placed their tripods in exactly the same spot as Ansel?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

20 Dec 2012 6:31PM
Chris, i'm not sure why you have decided to take an argumentative stance with any post i make, but i thought that matter had been cleared up a couple of days ago. You seem to be the only person trying to force a dead issue here, and its not even about your images

I am not denying i made that statement, and at close and accurate examinations then you could show that they couldnt be from slight angles. The english language can be a complex thing however, and although you could read my post the way you are forcing it, you might want to look at other interpretations. You could achieve similar images from slight angle differences, i did not say they WERE. Perhaps i should have said something along the lines of your comparisons can only prove they could be taken from another image as they are not, in fact the same.

But yes Chris, i was in error as you seem to want to point out. What is funny though is that this all started off from a comment i made days ago, then saw the original image and corrected in my post well before you decided to drag it out. Oh well. I guess you have nothing better to do
User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
20 Dec 2012 6:54PM

Quote:You seem to be the only person trying to force a dead issue here, and its not even about your images

PMSL, are you saying I'm the only person posting in this thread Paul? Is it about your images Paul?


Quote:at close and accurate examinations then you could show that they couldnt be from slight angles

Sorry to disagree- (as you hate me arguing with your point of view) I think a casual glance at the caps should tell you that the angles are the same.

Try something out:
Look across the room at something like a sideboard. Move your head an inch to the side. Notice how the distances between objects changes even with the slightest of angle changes. Now imagine being on the other side of the bridge from those buildings.

Can't you see (as I, Glenn and others can) that the slightest change in angle could not give you images so similar?

20-12-2012-18-48-29.jpg

20 Dec 2012 7:10PM
Again, completely out of context of what was intended.

Look at both images carefully. The top image shows a fraction more at the bottom and less at the top which could be achieved by a slight angle or elevation change. That was the only point i was making and as i have already explained i did not say they were two different shots. But of course, that would depend on how you define similar (which by the sounds of it you expect exact)

Its funny though, if you had posted the original shot and not a crop of it, then none of this would have come about
User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
20 Dec 2012 7:19PM

Quote:which could be achieved by a slight angle or elevation change

Not without it changing the distances between all of the other objects it couldn't, can't you see that Paul????

You put that in bold, you really believe it!! You're the only one!
20 Dec 2012 7:25PM
Similar Chris, Similar! Not exact, not duplicate, similar. And please, i'm sure you can agree to that? I dont recall anyone saying they were different pictures
User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
20 Dec 2012 7:30PM
Paul you said in the last twenty minutes "at close and accurate examinations then you could show that they couldnt be from slight angles". I say again you just need to glance to see they are the same angle. Why don't you accept that?
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
20 Dec 2012 7:35PM
This is what I got when I resized one of the photos and merged them using a difference blending mode:

2-leeds.jpg



Mostly just feint lines where resizing has brought about differences in sharpening/edge contrast.

Even a subtle rotation of the photo makes a drastic difference:

misaligned.jpg



Aside from that, toggling the two layers reveals exactly the same cloud formations.
20 Dec 2012 7:37PM
What exactly is your arguement (disagreement) Chris? Everything i have put forward and answered has only led to another angle you want to put on it
20 Dec 2012 7:54PM
"at close and accurate examinations then you could show that they couldnt be from slight angles" Meaning you could look at it pixel by pixel, make measurements, etc. Did i say that was the only way? You could also do as Glenn has, which is also examining it.

You may be able to glance at something and instantly 'prove' or know that all the angles match up, i am not denying that.
I am not and never have said they are two different photographs (only that they are two crops from one source)
I am not saying there wouldnt be slight differences (or vast, depending on your perception) from two shots taken at slightly different angles, only that the images would be similar

Was there anything else?
Jellyfire 2 41 4 United Kingdom
20 Dec 2012 8:05PM
Blimey, what a load of arguing over nothing. Its the same photo, there is no doubt. The clouds are identical, the residential buildings all have the same lights on, the ripples match. Angle Schmangle, its the same shot!

In terms of copyright theft, It would definitely be worth approaching the website owners with a sensible request for payment. A royalty free image would have probably been available and cost a few pounds, unfortunately they didnt go that route and have commited copyright theft. Somebody like Getty would probably push for payment of 1-2k to avoid legal action. Realistically if you asked for approx 500 as a usage fee I think they would probably bite your hand off.

I work in graphic design and many clients think an image can be lifted from Google until its explained to them. Others take the calculated risk that nobody will ever know, and if they were caught would probably be very relieved to be offered a retrospective purchase rather than have to explain to their boss/company lawyers they had used an illegal image.
User_Removed 10 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
20 Dec 2012 8:39PM
Disagreement is this

Paul: "Look at both images carefully. The top image shows a fraction more at the bottom and less at the top which could be achieved by a slight angle or elevation change".

Me and others "No it couldn't".
20 Dec 2012 8:50PM
hahaha

If you seriously believe you cannot add more to the bottom, top, left, right of a shot by moving a camera or shooting from another close location, then i will leave you to it

(and before you start throwing the same arguements back, remember my previous post and keep things in context)
Jellyfire 2 41 4 United Kingdom
20 Dec 2012 8:53PM

Quote:Disagreement is this

Paul: "Look at both images carefully. The top image shows a fraction more at the bottom and less at the top which could be achieved by a slight angle or elevation change".

Me and others "No it couldn't".



Quote:Hahaha

If you seriously believe you cannot add more to the bottom, top, left, right of a shot by moving a camera or shooting from another close location, then i will leave you to it

(and before you start throwing the same arguements back, remember my previous post and keep things in context)



zzzz
User_Removed 7 736 4
20 Dec 2012 8:54PM
Has anybody actually thought of looking at the EXIF data yet?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.