Lisa Saad, Melbourne Photographer (AIPP runner up) : Oops

[ricktas]

OK, I'm probably being a bit slow here but I'd be grateful if you can clarify the situation.

The photo in question appears to be a lump of architecture with a figure on it. There are three images of the lump of architecture, each with a different figure on it. The concern appears to be over one image where the figure appears to have been changed and claimed as the photographers own.

While I am not saying that the image has been tampered with or vice versa, or even that this sort of thing doesn't go on, to me I keep thinking that if this was a lump of architecture what's to stop someone else taking a similar photo of the same place? Is this taking the image and claiming it as yours or just a form of plagiarism where you see something you like and decide to try it for yourself.

So please point out the error in my thinking. Cheers

Hi Liney, if you go back to the very first post in this thread and click the link.. look down through the article, it has been updated several times. It is not just one image now, but quite a few.

Now regarding the original photo. The photographer who took the photo first (Marcel) contacted Lisa and during their conversations, he provided the RAW file of his image. Lisa has been unable to do the same. Lisa then claimed her photo was taken at Disney in the USA. People in the US then questioned that as they had not seen this particular place at Disney. Lisa has not clarified this at all since. Marcel then took his claim to the AIPP, and about a week later, to Photo Stealers.

Since it became public, Lisa (through her lawyers) was asked to provide the RAW file again to prove she took the photo, this has not happened. In the meantime, people have started looking at her other work that has won competitions and found a lot of elements are not her work, but rather stock clipart and images.

I think she is very talented in Photoshop and produces some amazing Illustrative digital art. However, when you read the rules of entering AIPP etc competitions, they state that all elements must be 100% the work of the photographer. The longer she remains silent, the more people are digging through her winning entries and providing evidence of third party elements.

From the AIPP competition entry requirements : The competition guidelines for AIPP/APPA for that year state that: “All elements in an image must be the work of the photographer” and “The use of stock photography, purchasable digital backgrounds, skies, borders and textures is prohibited.”

From The Societies competition entry requirements : “Any entry which has been reproduced from an existing photograph, portrait, graphic or any other artwork produced by another person is a violation of the competition rules and will be disqualified.”

I think the mounting evidence is not in Lisa's favour. Here is a link to one of her winning works, with the commercially available 'elements' on the right. Certainly and very validly questions her meeting the above competition entry rules: https://i.imgur.com/KDO30HZ.jpg

And another: https://i.imgur.com/p94VBiz.jpg

If you have some time, have a read of the full article in the original link I posted in the very first post in this thread, it has been updated repeatedly: http://stopstealingphotos.com/lisa-s...rne-australia/

It will be interesting to see what the AIPP has to say when it has concluded its investigation.