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

[ricktas]

Things could get messy for this Melbourne Photographer in coming days.

http://stopstealingphotos.com/lisa-s...rne-australia/

[ricktas]

Interesting reading the update at the bottom of that link, where the person behind to blog is being asked to remove it, post an apology and pay. However it seems when they have asked for a copy of the RAW file to prove that the image is not stolen... they are being ignored.

I think we might see more about this one in coming days and weeks.

[ricktas]

More discussion going on about it here: https://www.facebook.com/photostealers/

[enseth]

Based on what I've read in Rick's links I'm surprised anyone would be so blatantly as to enter such a prestigious competition using someone else's work.

[ricktas]

Based on what I've read in Rick's links I'm surprised anyone would be so blatantly as to enter such a prestigious competition using someone else's work.

Certainly. The fact that Marcel (the other photographer) presented his RAW files, and even though the same has been requested of Lisa Saad, that she has not done so, instead sending a PNG file that was a screen grab as 'evidence' is not doing her any favours in garnering support. The next couple of weeks will be really interesting to follow in this matter.

[MarkChap]

There are other issues as well
The ORIGINAL image presented by the AIPP as the image judged at APPA is different to this image, the dancer with the red dress, that was in the winners gallery on teh AIPP website
The original image looks a whole lot MORE like the image she is accused of using

[ricktas]

More here. Where this website had been in contact with the other photographer involved: https://www.insideimaging.com.au/201...-photographer/

"Marcel told Inside Imaging that Lisa didn’t contacted him to arrange use of his image for her photo illustration. Lisa denies her image incorporates his image.

He said he’s fairly certain that Lisa’s photo illustration has used the ‘(tear) drop shape’ from his illustration, and described it as ‘a shameful form of plagiarism’.

Marcel said he contacted Lisa, who provided a ‘strange explanation’ that denied any wrongdoing. He said she didn’t send a RAW file, and instead shared a .PNG screenshot of a slightly different photo from Arnhem Station, with separate EXIF files. He quickly found this picture on Google, credited to another photographer."

is interesting.

[arthurking83]

I reckon it's extremely highly UNlikely that she hadn't used another image as the basis for her image.

AIPP is investigating, but her response is curious.

Why supply a png version of the image? .. surely AIPP will ask for a raw file of some sort, so why not just settle it properly now .. and not have it taken further!

Problem is, AIPP will look quite stupid if it turns out that she did use Marcel's image, and the question is will they pursue it, or try to sweep it under he mat to not look stupid themselves!

[Boo53]

I guess a defence to not providing a RAW file could be that the image was captured in jpeg.

But leaving that aside the AIPP has indicated they've relied on a signed dec from all entrants are their own work and so far no blame would fall to them.

Is this the image that attracted some discussion as to what is illustration and what is photography when it originally won, or was that something else I'm remembering ?

[ricktas]

I guess a defence to not providing a RAW file could be that the image was captured in jpeg.

But leaving that aside the AIPP has indicated they've relied on a signed dec from all entrants are their own work and so far no blame would fall to them.

Is this the image that attracted some discussion as to what is illustration and what is photography when it originally won, or was that something else I'm remembering ?

Not this image, but same photographer. It was one of her other works that attracted all that attention.

Re JPG, if that was the case, why has she not come out and said so? Also considering the amount of digital painting she does to complete her illustrative photography, it is unlikely she would shoot in jpg due to the image degradation of repeated saves of jpg images, thanks to jpg's inherent lossy format.

I hope the AIPP do a media release upon completion of their investigation, with full disclosure as to how they came about their decision. And sooner rather than later to resolve this matter for everyone.

[arthurking83]

.....

Is this the image that attracted some discussion as to what is illustration and what is photography when it originally won, or was that something else I'm remembering ?

That was a couple of years ago .... some floating person in a weird landscape or something like that.
Massively over processed (so called) photograph .. made a mockery of what a photograph should be!
If it had been categorised as 'digital art' .. no problem, but an image that bears zero resemblance to a photo of any type like that particular one, was pushing the boundaries.

ie. if it had been a photojournalist comp, it would have been dumped in the first round!

Even if she used a camera that only shot in jpg(eg. like a consumer grade compact, or phone, or whatever) .. she'd be a total basket case for not having kept the original file straight from camera.
That straight from camera jpg will have identifying underlying data that would confirm if it had been straight from camera or not .. etc.
Same with tiff, which some cameras do .. etc.

But to supply a png! Don't know of any camera that can shoot png natively.

As I remember she shoots Canon and Hassleblad gear, so no excuses not to shoot raw files in her line of work.

[ricktas]

But to supply a png! Don't know of any camera that can shoot png natively.
.

The png file was a screenshot. She sent him a screen shot of her screen..with an image that was not the same as the one he was questioning her about. With a separate file containing what was supposed to be EXIF for the image inside the screenshot....And when Marcel cropped the screenshot down to just the photo and presented it to Google, that image (was not his) but another photographer's again.

[ricktas]

The original website that revealed all this has been updated. They have found many of the images from this photographer have stock elements. Which in general is fine if you want to use them for commercial work etc, if you have paid for the rights to use them. However when you look at the website and they show you some work with links to its wins, and then show the rules for the competitions it was entered to, then the rules of those competitions have been breached.

The original website has now found several stock images that have been used repeatedly by the photographer in competition winning entries.

Just scroll down a bit to see all the new stuff: http://stopstealingphotos.com/

About 1/3 of the way down there is a heading 'Update 2/7/2019 @ 7PM / 11PM' and all the new stuff is under that.

[arthurking83]

.....

About 1/3 of the way down there is a heading 'Update 2/7/2019 @ 7PM / 11PM' and all the new stuff is under that.

AIPP's only recourse now is to create a new category just for Lisa .. "Stock Photography User of the year"

I mean seriously .. she wouldn't have a photo of a bike, tree, grass! .. nothing??


This story gets funnier every day!

[ricktas]

It is certainly looking that way IMO.

On social media some of her supporters have been getting stuck into those that are asking the questions. Blaming them for destroying a great photographer. Her silence on this is what is destroying her reputation, not people on social media. If she has not 'borrowed' any photos, clipart etc from others, why let your name continue to be dragged through the mud? Interestingly, in the last 24 hours or so, most of her supporters have been deleting all their comments on social media. I can only surmise (1) she has asked them to (2) the AIPP has asked them to (3) they realise they have been conned as well.

There were suggestions yesterday that she had attempted self harm.. and was blaming the photostealers website for this. Apparently this self harm was also not true. Whilst she may not be in a good place, mentally, she needs to come out and publicly clarify the accuracy, or not, of the claims. While she remains silent, people are going to question her integrity. There really is only one solution to this now, she needs to publicly tell everyone what has transpired, truthfully.

[ricktas]

She has removed a heap of her images from her website, facebook and instagram.

The AIPP logo has been removed from her website in the last 24 hours.

[ricktas]

and the AIPP logo is back on her website.

Not sure what that means. The AIPP have not come out with a decision at this point. I wonder if she took it down and her lawyers told her to put it back up until after a decision is published.

[Liney]

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

[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.

[Liney]

Thanks Ricktas, it is clearer now