What was it?

That’s a shame, it was full of good things to learn. Maybe if it would have used different subject matter in the image yet same methods…? Oh, I support your decision PSDTUTS!

Ops… I meant to say “Oh well”. Sorry.

What was it

It is unfair like He made That tutorial losing time, wasting enrgy and time Too, and You just deleted it…

it is stupid if someone had made an image like the tutorial it doesnt mean that you cant make a tutorial because there’s an image like the one the was in that website…

whon said that you can make a tutorial because there’s an image that look alike? Uhh?

thats stupid and If u didnt notice that Image was private and u ahd to pay for that Thing.. but This dude made a tutorial teaching people how to do that effect without paying money… You’re just making people lose oportinities learning and creating new effects..

Just learn that not always images can be the same.. they can look a like but they’re still not the same…

i’m wondering why this website is not helping people…. and as you know the tutorials are like for expert people that already know alot of photoshop.. not for poeple who want to learn…

and tutorials are for people who are learning…

You’ll be losing poeple if you keep doing That.. Ok…

OK so you guys are saying that someone wrote a tut in their own words, and with their own images and because it used the same technique as somebody else you pulled it. Are you kidding?

Content is copyrightable for sure and should be protected. But you to say that using a technique is stealing is dumb. Sure credit in good if you learned if from someone. It’s fair. Does that mean it’s the law?

Granted I don’t know the whole story but it sounds like you guys are scared of your own shadow and because of that your writer does get paid. Wow that’s bold of you.

I’m not a lawyer, but the way if someone if everyone who came up with a mere idea said it belonged to them and they owned it we would still be living in grass huts.

A “core technique” is not intellectual property! Think I’m glad I don’t write for you

Gav

Good for you guys Sean and Skellie! You really set a good example by practicing what you preach and turning an otherwise negative into a positive while doing it with class. Ever think about politics? …lol

Sorry for the typo’s in previous comment everyone. PSD tuts just got my blood boiling by seemingly turning on their writer, instead of doing the right thing and sticking by him. Grrr. Anyone else feeling this? Some other blog should post his tut.

Gav

I’m glad i’ve saved the tut..

Bad… I have hoped that this would not be happen.
But what shall we do?

Waiting for next great tutorial^^

I have a dvd that shows how to create a path with the pen tool… guess you’ll have to take down all tutorials that use the pen tool and all vector tuts at that.. what a shame, especially in the web era.

i though it was psd tuts….. not, only new psd tuts that noone else has ever heard.

Actually, I have the DVD set and the quality in the tutorials is awesome!
When I saw that tutorial on this site I was like… hey it looks like a copy of the tut in the DVD.

BUT, although the tutorial used the same concept and styling but it was considerably different from the dvd tutorial.

And I mean… Hey I thought the person in the DVD is teaching us how to learn designing and use it to enhance your skills and eventually earn money from it… SO what did the tutorial writer here do wrong?

I think you should have not deleted it at least, that tutorial is a video tutorial but this one was a text tutorial and it would have required more effort than the dvd version.

Anyways, I’m sure you guys know more

Not sure I can believe what I’m reading here, plagiarism is wrong whether you copy the end result or try to pass off a technique as your own.

If I had pioneered a new way to do something and then read a tutorial by someone else leading you through the exact same steps I’d be pretty pi$$ed. It’s putting your name to someone elses hard work and that’s the same as copying their work.

Lots of people expand on other peoples techniques or put a different slant on them which is different and continues the progression which is very positive.

What tutorial was it?

Yes, what tutorial was it? You should name and shame! Also you should tell us what the DVD is… give them some free advertising. And who are these readers who would whine so loudly, and deprive the rest of us of a tutorial merely because of similar techniques?

So, if I use a gradient and put the layer on Screen to achieve a certain effect and write a tutorial, and so does some fellow on a DVD… does that mean I’ve plagiarized? Even if I’ve never seen the DVD in question, and our “core technique” is the same? With millions of users experimenting with a program, it is not inconceivable that techniques we’ve discovered are also discovered by others. I’ve discovered certain effects on my own before, only to find them in tutorials later.

I understand taking plagiarism seriously, and you’re right to do so… but not giving your own artists the benefit of the doubt? I think plagiarism is the arena of stylistic – not technique. Using the cliche sunburst or grunge style is, in a way, more plagiaristic than merely using “similar techniques”.

Is using an oven to bake brownies plagiarism, because it’s a “similar technique”?

I love this site and support everything they’ve done, except this move. This move smells more old and rotten than the Palin/McCain campaign.

: )

I think that if PSD TUTS believes the original author was harmed in some way, that it would be appropriate to link the the “ripped” author and to the removed tutorial as an example of what not to do, so that it will not be repeated.

This is a very popular blog, and many of the readers of this blog also read other blogs with tutorials in the same field. It may be helpful to make a post that shows clear examples of what an original and unoriginal post would be.

I know I have many feeds involving photo shop techniques and even though PSD TUTS is the best, I could make strong arguments against some of the posts still on this site, I’m not saying that they are intentional rips, just that they have similarities to tutorials on other sites and I would like to see a clear examples of what is and isn’t plagiarism.

Create a Breaking Apart Effect on the Dark Side…

It was the tutorial by Nik Ainley that involved using actions repetitively to create a pattern. example: http://www.shinybinary.com/images/art/chrysalis.jpg

I thought the writer was terrible for stealing nik’s work.. I’m not 100% on this, but I think he just stole the exact tutorial that Nik wrote for a digital arts magazine and submitted it as his own or something.

Wrong imo.

Lee

That other tut was deleted for being too similar to Chuck Anderson’s piece, the “abstract nighttime rainbow lighting” one, but you could find it in 2 seconds on google’s cache. Can’t find this one tho coz I don’t know what it was called.

It wasn’t that. It was the breaking apart tutorial.

I completely support Envato’s decision on this and supporting the rights of the original writer. It is on the same level of you making a clone of someones piece then selling it. There are many other ways to explain the same techniques and skills used. There is no need to make a clone of the tutorial. I can understand if it was an image and he showed the techniques used to achieve that effect. Plus many of the writers on here have credited inspiration for there tutorials in their posts and aren’t making carbon copies of the images, just similar designs.

The post was titled ‘Create a Breaking Apart Effect on the Dark Side’ and was apparently copying an already existing tutorial: http://www.photoshoptopsecret.com/salespage001/images/popup/dvd1/breakapart.jpg which is from the Photoshop Secret DVD.

Can someone please enlighten me on what the tutorial was called?

TMI – What did the author say? – c’mon, just say that you felt the article was too similar to another

It only was a tutorial not an imagine or lyric or something like that..! I think a tutorial can’t have a copyright because it is composed from a sequence of actions by made with a software….Everyone can discover the same technique…Am I right or wrong?

The tutorial that was removed was the one where the face cracked and receded of into the air.

Dont judge others….!

@steeze
please send that TUT to my email….

and also to anybody: anybody save that TUT please send it to me..

I miss that..

laranz.joe@gmail.com

LAWRENCE

I kind of have mixed feelings on this one. I didn’t think it was good enough to make it onto psdtuts. It seemed that his techniques were different enough than the other “breaking apart” tutorial. The end results were similar although the one posted here didn’t have the quality as the other did. The part that upsets me the most is that the gentlemen didn’t get paid. The reviewers here did originally accept it and had probably heard of this other tutorial but at the time it was ok. When people started making comments, the reviewers decided on a different approach and decided not to pay the author. I believe it was the staff’s fault for accepting it in the first place, so to share the blame the author should have been paid.

As an author, I’m glad PSDTUTS took action. This was the correct action to take if the author did indeed plagiarize. I look forward to more quality tutorials.

I am glad you made the decision to remove that tut. If you didn’t I would have done Brooke Nunez Red Bell Pepper gradient mesh tutorial, but instead written it in my own words and used a banana instead. Because this is what I saw happen in that tutorial that was taken down.

Ok am I the only one who disagrees with this being removed?

I have to agree with a few people here including Laura. I usually do not post here but I don’t see what happened. A tutorial is a tutorial. Unless the person had the nerves to copy the exact same images “samples” or whatever, I don’t see how it can be copyrighted, just the same as pixel icon sets, ANYONE across the world could have thought of the same idea and/or used the same technique and you wouldn’t know until one day you decide to say this person “copied” you when you probably “copied” him/her too. I mean seriously, it’s not hard to make a smiley or icon set, it’s very simple, and it’s not hard to come up with a technique on Photoshop or any other program because we all obviously use the same tools so it’s not IMPOSSIBLE to bump into the same stuff. I think this is just ridiculous, I’d say plagiarism is wrong but I don’t see how this is working out.

Wow, some of you guys are morons.
You’re right in the fact you can’t copyright a technique per se, but when it is blatantly obvious you just took someone else’s work AND ARE GETTING PAID FOR IT, thats just low.
It would not be as big a deal if no money was being handed out as there is no monetary gain to be had by the offending party, but when money is involved, sometime people can’t do the right thing.
Thank you PSDTUTS by once again doing the right thing.

To the one guy really upset about this: I can tell you aren’t that bright since your website is loaded with spelling mistakes. It’s people like you we don’t need in this industry.

A “core technique” is not intellectual property!

A “core technique” is not intellectual property!

A “core technique” is not intellectual property!

A “core technique” is not intellectual property!

A “core technique” is not intellectual property!

HAVEN’T YOU NOTICED…..?

“After a number of READERS claimed that plagiarism had taken place”

what a bunch of stupid “readers”.. you “READERS” go buy and watch your stupid DVDs and leave psdtuts alone!! damm!!.. i’m shure there’s a LOT of CORE TECHNIQUES in a LOT of DVDS, BOOKS, MAGAZINES, BLOGS out there that anyone can claim to be copied… if those ‘READERS” keep monitoring that, soon psd tuts will have to run out of tuts!!

If the tut really was too alike the DVD one,and people already were talking about, THE ONLY BAD THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE GET INTERESTED IN THE ORIGINAL DVD… IF WE SAY.. 100 PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE DVD TO, LET’S SAY 10 PEOPLE EACH, WE HAVE MORE THAN 1000 PPL TALKING ABOUT THE DVD, AND AT LEAST 100 WILL BUY IT!! that’s how internet biz works… its all about sharing!!

Please SHARE!! i don’t have that TUT!!

manuelminino@gmail.com

Whoa… that tutorial is pretty bad (link). Sure – the core techniques are all there and the tutorial shows you how to create the image, but using the exact same image and composition seems like outright plagiarism… besides, the final image there doesn’t do the original justice. I have a copy hanging on my wall and it’s quite a bit more artful… the copy’s colors are overburned, there’s far less attention to details, and it feels far too oversaturated. Why not a) use the same techniques on a different image or b) just have the original artist (Chuck Anderson) write a tutorial himself?

no, it was the breaking apart tutorial

here

I didn’t see it but please don’t tell me it was the Nik Ainley tutorial again..

If so, that tutorial has been plagiarised here twice! And if it was put up here again there most of been no moderation by the TUTS team to see the same thing happen again! Quite shocking if it was.

If it wasn’t however good job to the tuts team for removing it! Tutorials are hard work if you’ve never made one, and for someone to take a technique that your sharing to the world and claim that your spreading the knowledge as your own is just as bad as claiming someone else’s work as your own!

AGAIN:

“After a number of READERS claimed that plagiarism had taken place”

i can’t believe it!

Guys and what about the cartoon tut?
it’s locked for more than a mont

Photoshop is a tool. Although it is comprised of complex software that performs a multitude of tasks it is still a tool that can be licensed to those who pay for it. I haven’t read Adobes EULA completely, but it also has a manual which I assume is licensed to the owner as well. Are these tutorials based on knowledge acquired from or exists within a Photoshop program or it’s manual? Of course they are. So aren’t all these tutorials actually the property of Adobe? I believe you need permission from Adobe to write “How to” books etc, and they probably get a cut of the profits. So, have the tutorial writers violated their license agreements and infringed on Adobe’s copyright? Naturally, if the authors of the tutorials don’t own the software legally that invalidates their rights to ownership regardless. And, does that, in turn, make Envato the receiver of stolen property? And, can you steal something that’s already stolen?

In addition, I have seen a number of comments about many prior tutorials which stated roughly: “To see a great example of this technique go to such and such web site”. Yet, the tutorial was not pulled for plagiarism or copyright infringement. Many works uploaded to the Flick r community were created using “techniques” taken directly from tutorials published on this site but few are cited as such. If someone dialed up the microscope high enough, would you pull all your tutorials?

Lawyers don’t err on the side of caution because they are assumed to know the law. Lawyers make others cautious because they don’t know the law. Maybe you should consult an attorney because this could be interpreted by the client as breech of contract. Unless, of course, you have a clause which states we’ll pay you only if no one cries about your tutorial once it’s published”.

As to my prior post: I think this is an interesting site and I do learn new techniques here. I’m playing devils advocate. Part of CYA is researching topics that could impact your operations and having sound policies in place. My questions are not meant to be entirely rhetorical. I would really like to hear legitimate answers if someone is knowledgeable.
RC

I was doing some research and.. is just like Robin Crandall says.. and much worst, technically, PSDTUTS is not legal at all, they, technically, have to close the whole site right now!! because they are intended to ask permission and pay rights to Adobe and all that stuff etc etc… and psdtuts are making profits out of Adobe stuff… in this site i haven’t even seen ever a “Adobe Photoshop is a trademark of Adobe.. blah blah” that, legally, psdtuts are suppossed to mention in this kind of website. BUT Adobe won’t take legal action against psdtuts or any other “paid” or “free” tutorial page, even if they all are not legal, because they are responsibles of spreading the word and make thousands of people buy lots of Adobe products, FREE ADVERTISING!!! that’s web bizness is all about!! the pop culture of software that makes Adobe the leader in creative software and the only world standard. Is just like music biz.. 99% of ALL FANSITES are absolutely not legal at all and every page is full of serious copyright infingements, but record labels and artists won’t do anything because those fansites are FREE ADVERTISING MACHINES THAT HELP THEM MAKE MILLIONS $$$$$ !!!.. FOR FREE!!!
Turn down at the same time all copyright infringement web material of every kind, and Adobe, the whole music, entertainment and software industry will crash down, it would be like the apocalypse!! I think the whole copyright concept will change sooner or later, the world insist in stick to old pre-web copyright standards that are plain sh**

if i am wrong please tell me… i just did some research and ask my roomate who’s a law student, and works with software copyrights and that kinda stuff.

I really think you would have saved yourself alot of time and trouble if you’ve just pointed out which tutorial it was and given just cause for it’s removal. Considering you said as much as you did “without naming names.” You probably opened a can of worms that was better left closed.

I do applaude you for taking action though, it’s more than most people would have done.

I enjoy this site immensely, but disagree with the way it was handled. I’ll be coming back though. Can’t wait for the next one.

I agree with you Manuel Minino! 100%

Tutorial was terrible anyways. God awful effect. No depth. I have submitted 4 highly original pieces in recent times, which would cover a wide variety of topics (and actually look good to boot), and all have been denied, with no given reason and then “give us a link if you do make it”. No piss off. I highly doubt the submission and approval processes of this site.

For me it’s like being very close to start patenting all these techniques, which is of course ridiculous as IN FACT, they belong to Adobe as the owner of Photoshop in this particular case, right? If someone was clever enough to find some smart way to achieve a given effect in Photoshop or any other software of this kind… congratulations! but nothing else as he was still using the tools made accessible to everyone who purchased this software.

As far as removing the tut, it’s been a bad move in my personal opinion as it quarrels with the original aim this site has been created for. Photoshop is an universal tool for creating graphic used for various purposes and what is the most important here – very powerfull, in a sense of actually thousands of final effects and techniques leading to them I, and all of us have to learn somehow. Does it all mean that a particular graphician, either a professional one or a freelancer cannot use a given technique to create a work he is paid for just beacuse this technique has been already presented in a form of tutorial by someone else? I am sure you could find millions of such examples in a press, Internet or any other kind of media. The only thing making it’s all fair enough for me is to use your own or legally gained materials.

Thanks

Is PSDTUTS pays any to Adobe?

I too Agree with Manuel Minino…

COME ON PSDTUTS SAY A ANSWER FOR MANUEL MININO’S questions?????

Before publishing where is your plagiarism researches??????

LAWRENCE

This shouldn’t even be about copyright or plagiarism! PSDTUTS states in their guidelines that “Your tutorial must be your original work and not published elsewhere”.

These rules are in place to deal with copyright and intellectual property issues and upon investigation of the suspect tutorial they found that it was too similar to another published work so they dealt with it accordingly, this is why you have guidelines.

I agree with Manuel… if you like or not in the age of the web the “concept” of copyright has to be changed..sure! The web was born free… and must be so…

This is just ridiculous. There isn’t one tutorial on this site that will make or break your technique as a designer OR artist. This site has some great tutorials for beginners but a GOOD artist will have a unique style and a new way of manipulating whatever medium they chose. That makes you VALUED in your respective industry. No one should be getting THIS heated about a website that gives no REAL creative value. Everyone that reads a tutorial on this site is learning something that hundreds of other people have read as well. Again, not an original or unique style at that point. Explore your own technique and become the artist you SHOULD be instead of getting so upset about a tutorial that will result in no real advantage to you as an artist.

I think you should put the tutorial back up.

I have tons of ideas in my head that I have yet to make yet, and sometimes browsing the web I have come across something that was totally like my idea. Not that I have seen it before.

With 6,602,224,175 people in the world people are bound to have the same idea at the same time. It isn’t like that is a new effect, the used that in “The Never Ending Story” and that came long before both of these.

Otherwise great site, maybe we need a baytuts.com site that is not moderated and can plagarize, because you are just teaching inspiration and techniques, it is not meant for people to copy the images exactly anyhow.

Yeha psdtuts is getting annoying…

Your all fucking horseshit insane if you think money needs to be paid to Adobe.

The Tutorial being ripped is a matter of plagiarism and lack of respect. And respect in the design community is highly valued.

thanks I have saved this tutorial on my disk
I don’t think that the author have copied this tutorial
there is a lot of ideas in the world and a lot of people could get the same ideas
I have seen his portfolio and I think this is not a kind of person who would steal somebody else works.

take for example The Making of Mystic by Nik Ainley in this site is the same as
http://www.computerarts.co.uk/tutorials/2d__and__photoshop/photoshop_faceoff
which has been published in April 2003

and the same as: Creature Architecture Tutorial in Creative Photoshop Digital Illustration and Art Techniques book by Derek Lea

and Also the same as:
http://www.photoshoptopsecret.com/salespage001/images/popup/dvd1/dreamskin.jpg
by Mark Monciardini

but the different between this writer and Nik Aniley that Nik has received a lot of “WOW” and “amazing” and this writer has received too much of bad words.

I believe that the writer who wrote this Breaking apart tutorial didn’t saw Mark’s DVD because I have seen this DVD and he have used different methods

this is the links for Breaking apart tutorial:
http://www.photoshoptopsecret.com/salespage001/images/popup/dvd1/breakapart.jpg
by Mark Monciardini

and there is a Spanish version:
http://www.taringa.net/posts/offtopic/1117657/Efecto-Breaking-Apart-(Tutorial-Con-Photoshop)-Muy-Bueno.html

I think PSDtuts have done a big mistake towards fans of this site by remove this tutorial
I believe they should consider it again
to the author I think you should keep writing and provide us with your knowledge

It’s a moral thing. It is respect for other designers. I’m sure you would feel the same way if someone ripped off (sorry made a “variation” of) a tutorial you did and didn’t give credit to you. There should be a mutual respect for designers in this community. Plus there are many other ways to explain the same techniques.

Wee then…I’m glad I saved a copy to view in my own time.

Yes, I agree, too. I don’t know the full extent of the “plagiarism” but pulling it on grounds that it used someone else’s technique is treading on very, very thin ground. There are hundreds of thousands of designers. And although there are more than two ways to skin a cat, there’s no way in hell we aren’t at some point going to use similar or identical techniques. If that’s the case, your pool of contributors and tuts are going to dwindle down measurably and you’re going to have to watch offline sources of inspiration as well.

If this really was a ‘break apart’ effect, then I don’t see how it could be considered plagiarism. Thats not that ‘uncommon’ of an effect. Its just not seen too often as a tutorial. But it is out there, by multiple sources, in multiple and indpendent versions.

I saw the same thing done on Photoshop User TV by Corey Barker here: http://revver.com/video/1134676/photoshopuser-tv-episode-148/ It starts at about 16:20 I doubt anyone is going to accuse them of plagiarism. Corey Barker actually cites his inspiration from the new Mummy movie poster, which has the same effect. Perhaps the “original author” of this tutorial was doing the same. We all draw inspiration from many mediums and observations.

Thats the problem with art. Its hard to accuse someone of copying you. We’re all artists. We do things because they look good. And if two people are good, and they make something that looks good, why is it so hard to assume that the final results will look similar? I know thats highly simplified, but how the hell do you think trends start? Digital art is full of them. But I can guarantee you that not one of them originated with a single person. Many people figured it out, liked it, used it, and it caught on. Just like this, and its becoming a trend. There are only so many ways to efficiently ‘break apart’ an object. And I’m seeing it used more and more. And chances are they were all done pretty much the same way. Why not show people how its done?

Now, if this guy directly copied text, pictures, used the same number settings, colors, order of operation, then thats different.

But we’re artists. No one can claim ownership of a “technique”. If they think they can, or if anyone else thinks they can rightfully enforce such a thing, then maybe they should consider a change of occupation.

You know what this reminds me of, gay patents Apple has over the finger zooming/stretching/etc.. the fact that they were able to patent it in the first place, and in result stop anyone else from using such a “unique” idea -_-

Pulling it because it used someone else’s “technique”? …. Yeah, Technique != that of DNA (not even remotely close).

I’m not sure of what to think of this situation. I really enjoy this site and just recently became a member and reading this and seeing the tutorial in question taken down, it makes me wonder if I want to stay a member after my first 3 months. First off, the tutorial that the author was claimed to plagiarize was off of a DVD, with that being said, thats two totally different methods to as to how the tutorial was presented. How is that consider plagiarism? I honestly don’t think that author sat there and watched the DVD and then wrote his tutorial word for word based off the DVD. If the DVD tutorial was written in text form and the author copied it word for word then yeah, that would of been plagiarism but in this situation I don’t think that is the case.

I think that PDStuts should reconsider putting this tutorial back up. I think that PSDtuts should take the time to look through the authors tutorial and compare it with the one on the DVD and see exactly how much of the tutorial was actually plagiarized. Its like others pointed out, I myself have come up with techniques on my own and then later come across it on the web or in a book or magazine. I’ve seen some of these techniques on this site else where and even in books that I’ve done tutorials out of. With that being said, there are loads of books and other sources that are out there that I’ve looked through that have very similar methods that are presented on this site and if thats the case then I think PSDtuts might have bigger issues at hand. Copyrighting is copyrighting regardless but in this situation it it not.

Copyrighting someone else’s work or anything would require you to have at least 80% of the same content used which completely rules out this tutorial for 1) it was in a written text format, the DVD was a video format 2) none of the images used were alike. 3) end results were in no way similar. There is over 6 billion people on this earth, I am pretty sure the chances of 2 people coming up with the same concept are fairly high. Really big disappointment from such a good site. I hope you guys do the right thing

FYI this tutorial is still available in Google Reader because all the Tuts sites put the *whole* tutorial into their feed.

this has bothered me in the past because it makes my google reader bloated with tons of images, but google does pride itself on caching everything that goes through its service.

so it’s still there even though they removed it, and will probably always be there

The core technique should not have a copyright.

Oh noes, he used the pen tool to make the same curve or something (for example). How sad. This is a prime example of when suspicions of copyright block others from having the will to be creative.

As said above, there are THOUSANDS of designers. You don’t think 50 of them could write a tutorial on the same photoshop technique? Techniques are something that ALOT of people learn. Now they are restricted from teaching others?

This is in fact the downfall of this so called “copyright”. This is where copyright stops protecting creativity and starts prohibiting it.

He won aproximately 400.000 $ from that DVD’s!!!!!!!
( 2000 DVD, each DVD set ~200$, he collect money than sent to subscriber)
I am definitely sure that he is a grabber. Ok, I am doing something, nobody use or do same thing without my permission, are you kidding us? There are lots of warez sites which they doing everything without intellectual property and effort. But that guy did some effort.

wow, there’s some pretty heated opinions on this. not sure how I feel, I think i need more info, but i really wish everyone would just go back to being all happy happy an making great tutorials demonstrating great techniques.

Congratulations PSDTuts, you have just lost a long time reader.

Interesting that ‘envato’ can’t comment. Feeling bad?????

I really think everyone is making a fuss over something fairly small. I know everyone feels there are principals involved here but really PSDTUTS is just watching their own “backside”. I don’t think any of you would even attempt to donate to their legal fund should they be dragged into court. Even if they are proven innocent it still costs time and money that won’t likely be recouped. It’s not like most of you are even paying members so I really don’t see why you get to have an opinion on this.
Look at it from another stand point, what if PSDTUTS just want to be made of truly original content? If I was running a site I wouldn’t want it to be a trash can of tutorials. I would want my content to be all original concepts so that anyone who came to my site knows they were getting fresh stuff you couldn’t get elsewhere. In that respect none of us really can complain. If you want a site that rewrites other tutorials and hosts them then we all know where they are. And they suck because most of the images are crappy and they’re full of annoying ads.
I think PSDTUTS is doing a GREAT job. I know when I come here they’re going to be fresh TUTs to get my creative juices flowing. They seem to handle themselves in a classy and honest manner.
We should all quit complaining about one rather crappy tutorial and get back to learning, experimenting, creating, collaborating, and having fun.

I would like to thank the people at PDSTUTS for giving the masses great FREE stuff. You expend time, effort, and your own money just to better the creative word. As for the pennies I pay in membership, I hope they help keep you going for a long time. I truly appreciate what you do for us.

Hello, I’m back.
@Digital Deceptions – How difficult, time consuming, accurate or practical is the research process required to ensure your work is “original” and not “published” elsewhere? What if you performed this process and missed something? These “guidelines” are for CYA purposes as all policies of these types are. I’m sure the people at Envato are well meaning. But, having these requirements makes the submission process kind of nebulous and risky especially if you plan to get paid. Apparently, Envato let’s it’s community be the watchdogs and then chooses how it will respond. So those who submit “tutorials” must do thier research, hope it is accurate and comprehensive, and most of all, avoids causing an outcry from the “crowd”. If you choose to let your community judge the “originality” of a “tutorial” maybe a disclaimer is needed such as: “the content of the submissions to this site are the sole responsibilty of the “author”, etc., get out of the “noble” yet troublesome rights/ownership arena. If a member of the community feels thier ownership rights or someone elses have been violated let them pursue it on a legal site. Bottomline: Judging the effectiveness or user friendliness of tutorials and referencing others that are similar is fine, but cry “foul” elsewhere. Now let’s go back to happy, happy. Learning is fun!!

I honestly think that many of you are overreacting to this. If plagiarism was involved, of course it needed to be removed. There is more than enough Photoshop content available, that writers don’t need to be copying others material. In the other hand, there always going to be some overlapping in tutorials since there are very common techniques in everyone’s work. But writers need to do their research and not take “shortcuts”. It simply results in bad PR for them and hurts the website.

Envato tries to maintain an original content policy and needs to enforce it. It is great that the reader’s community act as enforcers and “watch dogs”. It keeps the content pure and the quality of the tutorials at the level that they are. That is what makes blogs and these types of websites great.

At the end of the day, “chill”, there will be another tutorial on Monday.

II hope everyone who complained and bashed PSDTUTS for removing a tutorial accused multiple times for plagiarism, writes a tutorial, submits it somewhere and subsequently has someone come along and “create a variation”. And then I’d like PSDTUTS to leave it be and see what those individuals’ reactions would be in response.

I’m quite sure that “core technique” has very little to do with the kind of image created but rather the STEPS TAKEN to arrive at the final product. So while the two images were stylistically different, the methods were most likely too similar to warrant PSDTUTS PAYING MONEY to the author. Yes, please keep that in mind that it is PSDTUTS’ money (not yours) that goes towards the author.

Why should this site have to pay money for a tutorial that a) already exists on this site b) already exists in another forum or c) the “author” just siphoned from another source and put no real creative effort into?

Just because your design uses a red car instead of a blue car doesn’t mean that it’s original and deserves compensation. That’s a lesson that many of you are going to learn the hard way.

Yeahhh! Envato never say anything about things like this !

Thats why so many people want to end their subscription!

I couldn’t finish reading every single comment, but it sounds pretty 50 50 with sides taken. I just want to say, to those who are going to no longer subscribe to psdtuts; what the hell? Are you too proud to stay with them now? Your internet morals out weighing your need for awesome tuts? Get over it. Psdtuts has given us the best tuts I’ve ever seen for free. Before this site ever began, it was kind of a crap shoot finding really good tuts online. You should be able to deal with their decision, and keep on visiting the site for more great tuts. Sure, maybe the author wasn’t really at fault. I mean there are hundreds of tuts online that all teach the same exact thing, just with different images and explanations, and non of them get taken down for plagiarism, but if one did, that wouldn’t stop me from checking the website for other tuts. Damn, just get over it and keep on using psdtuts, and lets also hope that the editors here learned their lesson and will be less hasty if something similar happens again. That’s all.

If this concerns the break apart tutorial I can agree to PSD deleting it. Firstly since it already excist with de photoshop top secret dvd’s where it also is named Breaking apart. Where the same effect is made, and from the glance I had at tutorial on this site it uses the same technique(s) to create the image, only difference is this was a writtin tutorial. So if the creator of the DVD asked envate to delete it they took the only action they could regarding author rights, copyright etc. The person who wrote it and who mailed it to envate should have considered it and you people shouldn’t me siding with him since he made the wrong call. They also say it has to be orginal work, copying a technique from another source, naming it somewhat the same isn’t original either imo.

And when I say the DVD tut is better just look at it
http://www.photoshoptopsecret.com/salespage001/images/popup/dvd1/breakapart.jpg

Break apart, or break apart to the dark side you decide I’m with envato on this one

When you start paying people for tutorials, they need to be original or at least 90% original. I believe it was the best decision for the site’s reputation. Otherwise this site will be just another tutorial site that has the same techniques as the other 40 million Photoshop sites.

You might as well remove this one too: http://psdtuts.com/tutorials-effects/create-a-graphic-statue-in-photoshop/
its pretty much the same as http://www.photoshoptopsecret.com/ on DVD1 named “Stone Portrait”

I am pretty sure I could find at least one other tutorial for every “core technique ” featured on psdtuts, vectortuts… Does that mean you will shut down envato?

If a tutorial is blatantly plagiarized then I agree it should be removed. However, I do not believe there is anything wrong with improving on a “core technique” and presenting it in the style of vectortuts. The reason I like this site is that tutorials are really easy to follow and well presented. I really appreciate what you guys do and my skills as a designer have improved rapidly as a result of your site. However, as a result of these events I am reconsidering purchasing a membership as I do not see much of a future for these sites if this continues.

I support Envato…. If your tutorial is close to the edges of “unoriginal” then I don’t believe you have to be on this site as a writer…

I’ve come to expect only the best from PSDTUTS and as such when I read a tutorial I want to know that this effect done by someone that didn’t “hear from it secondhand”….

Still, I’m glad that the PSDTUTS site is around and I’ll keep coming hear till their tutorials stop teaching me new techniques.

I’m sure I speak for the entire PSDTuts staff when I say: Shut up.

Everyone saw that tutorial, blatantly saw it was a ripoff, and complained because they didn’t want to see PSDTuts get sued and taken down, or turn into a site with unoriginal content.

After they took it down, all the irregulars (talkin’ bowel movements!) came on here and started whining that they didn’t get to see the illegal tut.

Stop making excuses for that retard and be glad that piece of crap was taken down.

That tutorial was garbage anyway. It looked so unrefined.

This matter is a CLUSTER BOMB!!!

The tutorial should never have made it onto psdtuts but it did because the reviewers seen value in it. Why they seen value in it I am not so sure but it seems like an amateur decision. Personally I think the techniques were different enough. The problem I have is that psdtuts took no responsibility in there decision to put the tutorial up. This guy will not be able to live this one down for a long time because instead of saying we were wrong also they decided to create a post calling him out as a cheater. We all have different skill levels and he should not be ridiculed for being sub par which has happened because of there decision, intentional or not. As for the tutorial resembling another to closely, I think if you look up at the comments above there has be enough references to call many others into question. How about the tutorial over on nettuts about inserting flash the correct way? How many times has that been done? I think it was a good tutorial to put up so that more people start doing it correctly but it has been done before. These tut sites have become some of the best but you can’t walk away from them and leave them in hands of others and expect the quality to maintain. The worst thing of all is to not except responsibility for those you have left in charge.

So I’ve been reading, and I’ve seen well some highly “intelligent” posts lulz XD I don’t truly understand the reasoning for shutting or suspending this tutorial as copying someone’s technique, or the technique on how one goes about designing is not copy-writable. I play four instruments and I have assumed many drummers and musicians techniques, but if techniques and style could be copy-written, then this site should in question not post any tutorials.

I love PSD tuts and I have practiced many of the tutorials listed here on my own computer and had shown it to friends, but I always say “this is a new technique i have learned from a tutorial” or “this is a great style that I have learned from some amazing artists.” Style and technique can not be copy written, period. However, the artwork itself can be, but that’s it.

I love this place and I will continue to use this, however, I beseech you, psdtuts, to consider what some of the avid users of this site are saying, use common sense and the ability to reason, as well as using the online resources for checking out what is considered plagiarism.

Thanks for Listening,
Sky

@Saf and the others who are saying “well this tutorial… and this tutorial…”. It is possible to use the same technique as someone else, but still have a differing set of steps and a different tutorial. It is possible to have a similar final image, but rech it using a different path. Yes with 6 billion+ people in the world there’s only a slim chance you’ll ever come up with something no one else has thought of before.

HOWEVER, the odds of you having a similar idea with similar results and NEARLY IDENTICAL STEP-BY-STEP PROCESSES are absolutely astronomical.

I am not a member of Envato, I do not work for Envato so don’t take any of this as a statement on their part.

PSDTuts makes a point of explaining these things so that there is no question about why the tutorial was taken down. It is not meant to be a slam on the author but a service to the readers who invariably want to know why.

Even if a legal case could be made declaring the tutorials different who will pay for it? Will the author pick up PSDTut’s legal fees if they go and fight a prolonged battle for him? Will you pick up the tab? A lawsuit like that would bankrupt PSDTuts.

For all of you kiddies wingeing about “You just lost a reader” please go and go soon. The creative industry does not need anymore people who want to reward unoriginality and have no respect for other peoples hard work.

For the author of the Tut. Tough break, if it was your work a lot of effort went into it. But there is nothing stopping you from trying your luck on your own site. Just be aware of the dangers.

I am with you Bogus, I have the DVD’s and the effect on that Tutorial mirror the one on the DVD, and nobody says anything!

@AGS, again RESULTS are an entirely separate thing from PROCESS.

I didnt have time to read every comment above, but let me just say I feel PSDTUTS is (and always has) handling this very well. They have to worry about all kinds of lawsuits and plagiarism hosting a site like this one, and I think they have made a fair, logical business decision. At least they respect the creative work of others enough to even investigate this.

If I had a site similar, and there was even a question of plagiarism (aka, I could get into a lot of trouble), I too would have to remove the tutorial, as it is better to be cautious. As I said, I dont know 100% of the story, but from my pont PSDTUTS is just behaving like a responsible company would. I enjoy this site very much and will continue to use it either way

Regards,

Drew

I didnt have time to read every comment above, but let me just say I feel PSDTUTS is (and always has) handling this very well. They have to worry about all kinds of lawsuits and plagiarism hosting a site like this one, and I think they have made a fair, logical business decision. At least they respect the creative work of others enough to even investigate this.

If I had a site similar, and there was even a question of plagiarism (aka, I could get into a lot of trouble), I too would have to remove the tutorial, as it is better to be cautious. As I said, I dont know 100% of the story, but from my pont PSDTUTS is just behaving like a responsible company would. I enjoy this site very much and will continue to use it either way

Regards,

Drew

Oops! I just plagiarized… Sorry Drew. I agree with your comment.

@ Evanto – Next time, don’t leave topics like this open to comment please. Thx

What the heck is wrong with you people? I’d be willing to bet half of you guys didn’t even see the original tutorial, or the copied one from Photoshop Top Secret. If you did, you could clearly see the guy copied the technique word for word almost, and passed it off as his own. Then he procceded to lie and say he’s never seen the DVD in question. Which could be believable if the two didn’t look eerily exactly alike.

Just because the guy replaced a girls face with his goofy face doesn’t mean you can pass something off on his own. It wasn’t his original work. If he had truly offered some new techniques, ATTRIBUTED the photoshop top secret dvd as his “inspiration” or something, it would have been different.

For the most part, all of the tutorials here are unqiue at the core, and offer something truly unique from the authors creating them. That’s what a photoshop tutorial is at it’s core, is sharing a tip or technique that is truly the author’s own, attributed to skills he’s picked up working in photoshop. This guy DID NOT OFFER ANYTHING OF HIS OWN. He simply replaced the subject with HIMSELF and tried to pass it off as original work.

PSDtuts is a one of a kind site, truly. There are hundreds of sites all across the net with crappy tutorials from people who just copy and paste, with ads and pop ups everywhere. Amatuers who don’t offer anything unique.

That’s what this site is, unique techniques that ooze creativity and quality from veteran photoshop users. Someone who copied a tutorial from someone elses hard work is not welcome on this site. He can go to a 100 other photoshop tutorial sites and pass off his plagarism as his own, and no one will be the wiser. This site is different. This site is about quality. By not posting bland tutorials from amatuers this site has truly dominated a much needed niche where someone can go to find quality stuff.

For all you guys whining and saying IM NEVER COMING HERE AGAIN, I say good riddance. Just being here and spouting your nonsense for any and every tutorial under the sun, you’re downgrading what’s made this site a must visit for true photoshop creatives, not people who copy other’s work.

PSDtuts did the right thing. People who steal should not be rewarded and should be laughed back to the template copy and paste hole he came from.

PS – Manuel, you are a grade A moron. PSDtuts falls into what’s called fair-use. You can use a company’s trademark for educational purposes, or comedic purposes without any infringement. Maybe if you’d take off your aviator shades while you’re at the computer, you might could do your “research” a tad bit better.

@soduce – I don’t think they should disable comments anywhere on here, there is no reason to inhibit true discussion.

Either way the subscription is just a waste of money because the latest tutorials are mad boring, And the tutorial that was removed was A good one.. Different and interesting…

So people stop wasting Money…

This site is just abusing U…

if they decided to open a website they can not amke us pay for its hosting or bla bla bla… if its a tutorial site.. it has to be free…

who’s saying they’re never coming back XD that’s just lame.

If you all honestly think that PSDtuts is doing anything wrong, they did this for the users:
Here’s the link
to the cached tutorial : /, look at the comments that the users wrote

Bryan Grajales >>> I don’t have a subscription… and I think its safe to say that 75% of psdtuts…. is free.

I completely understand the reason for removing the tutorial. Real or perceived, it’s their site and they have the right to “cover their ass” if they so choose.

FWIW, you can’t copyright, trademark, patent or anything else, a tutorial for a piece of software. If the individual techniques are explained ANYWHERE for the general public (users manual, help files, etc.), then simply piecing these techniques together in one long string to form something else is not something you can “own.”

The techniques used in the tutorial in question are public knowledge. Photoshop’s own users manuals and help files detail the use of brushes, colors, layers, effects, etc… Simply placing said techniques in a specific order to accomplish a desired end result is common, and not copyrightable.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the tut writer wasn’t dishonest, he obviously was. And as I originally stated, it’s envato’s site – and the rules DO say that it has to be original and not published anywhere else. So…..

Good on ya for removing this. PSDTUTS is striving to be a different photoshop tutorial site and thus far they are doing a great job. They’ve got the best tuts because of times like this where they go out of their way to uphold a higher standard for their content.

OK I was a fan of Marks work way back in the day (about ten years ago when his site designsbymark.com was a very popular tutorial site back then), it was through his and other sites where I learned to use photoshop although on the other hand I have seen his dvd site where he is selling these tutorial CD’s and most of the tutorials on his CD are not original ideas and the fact is you can not copyright learning or else we could not have public schools.

After all he learned his techniques and how to use PS from somewhere, and that is undeniable.

PSDTUTS,

I congratulate you on taking the steps to monitoring quality control. Copyrights are important and protecting artists and writers is apart of being an established publication. I hope that you continue to monitor your pieces with the same vigor and quality control. In the future I think it is important to fill out your sources, ripping someone elses tutorial off is the same as ripping off someone elses story, or someone elses movie, or someone elses design.

Also in the situation of Chuck Anderson’s tutorial on how he does his work, I am proud you took it down. That being said your publication continues to stay bookmarked and useful for designers across the world.

Good luck guys/gals,
J

Oh for crying out loud. If you all are THAT upset over this, and that your tutorial-reading rights have been violated, call a freaking lawyer. Otherwise, take that stick out of your a$s.

I see no problem with PSDTuts choosing to remove a tutorial. It is THEIR site, THEIR property, and it is THEY who will be the ones answering to copyright lawyers and paying for infringements if they screw up, NOT the whining readers who are sooooooo inconvenienced because they can’t see a freaking break-apart tutorial on this site.

Err on the side of caution. You did well, PSDTuts.

BUSTED! This site, PSDTUTS.com, was RIPPED from NETTUTS.com!!! OMG! Can’t you see the similarities??? I mean, DUH!!!!

Oh you’re SOOO busted psdtuts.com! I’m totally going to write a letter to nettuts.com and let them know that you’re ripping their style!

I’ve only got 3 words for you:

YYYEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James, and the rest of you, you can copyright any original body of work. To say you “simply cannot copyright a string a directions in a user’s manual” is ridiculous. Psdtuts is hardly a site where people “string toghether steps in a user manual”. I hope you’re not out of school yet because they didn’t teach you much while you were in there.

omg GOTCHA don’t know that envato owns psdtuts, nettuts, vectortuts, ajajaja.. Oh and audiotuts///

I think GOTCHA!!! might be joking there. I’m getting lots of free inspiration/tutorials here, so I’m not gonna complain about an article being removed.

The kind of discussion here is realy strange, some behave like they are not very used to having discussions, but are behaving more like children. btw. i think as far as many of us share the ideas of common creatives, they are some that do not, and as well as some of us want others to respect CC, we have to respect this old bad copyright stuff…

This kind of conversation here is very strange, some behave like they are not realy used to having discussions, but are behaving more like a child. by the way, i think as far as most of us share the concepts of common creatives, there are some that do, and some that do not want others to respect CC, we have to respect the bad old copyright thing…

It’s not a matter of copyright. As many a user have said before, you cannot copyright these techniques. They, in essence, belong to Adobe, as it’s Adobe’s program and Adobe’s tools.

I have to agree that the tutorial should not have been taken down. I mean, what about the “How to make a cool Mac _____ effect!” tuts? They’re blatantly copying an effect. Why doesn’t anyone say ‘Uh I totally saw that on my computer, you’re not original at all!’

Because we’re all glad to know how to do that effect. We are happy to know another technique to achieve a cool end result. As Bogus said halfway up the page (ctrl/cmd+f : stone), the stone portrait tut was a blatant copy of an end result, and in the tut’s comments there were people who pointed that out. But they didn’t freak and start shouting that a copyright had been broken.

From looking at the Breaking Apart tut on here and the one on the DVD, they’re not really as similar as some people are making it out to be. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they are completely different, but the original effect isn’t a hard one to accomplish. I mean, it’s piecing together rather simple PS techniques, and neither end result looks like it took more than a half an hour. I would personally assume that the author saw the technique in play somewhere else and failed to mention something along the lines of “Oh hey ever wonder how to do that cool ____ you’ve seen here and here?”

I just saw the tutorial in question cached at Google, a million thanks to Victor for leaving the link. I also saw the image link to the Photoshop secrets DVD with the supposedly ‘original’ tutorial.

First, it beats me completely that the author chose to keep the name rather similar when he knew he was copying stuff, the very act of which would of cautioned him of alerting suspicions. I wouldn’t do such a dumb thing as that if I were to copy or plagiarize. As such I find it difficult to believe that the author copied with the intention of copying, if at all he did copy, and any resemblance is more of a coincidence than anything.

As for those calling the tutorial crappy, please honour your claims with a self-written tutorial that betters the deleted one.

Also since in this case the offense is probably only suspected, and cannot be confirmed or established in any way, why should the author, who has put in a lot of effort and time into the tutorial, suffer, why not PSDTuts?! I mean 150$ isn’t much for PSDTuts right? I believe the author should be paid once the tutorial has been published at the site. After all since tutorials bring business to PSDTuts, I guess the said tutorial, even though deleted now, also had some contribution to that business. The no. of comments in this post should prove that if anything.

Plus did PSDTuts actually contact Photoshop Secrets, or the makers of the DVD and ask them whether they had any objections, or whether they themselves claimed the complete originality of their own tutorials? Hmmmmm?!!

In any case, whether the tutorial was kept or deleted the author was wronged for no fault of his own.

PSDTuts said:’Though we have reason to suspect this tutorial was based on another text-based online tutorial that plagiarized the DVD’

You are actually accusing someone else, who has nothing to with PSDTuts or the deleted tutorial of plagiarizing?!!!

You actually think yourself fit and worthy to pass judgements on people and their works not related to PSDTuts in any way what so ever. And sometime back PSDTuts actually carried an article about inspiration on Graffiti art, even when it’s legality concerning the common mode of practice of Graffiti art is debatable!

@Shawne – Using your example about not being able to copyright works because “adobe owns the tools” – that is plain ridiculous. Using your logic, no books written on software could be copyrighted because adobe or microsoft own the tools that they are written about. Shoot, writers of screenplays couldn’t copyright their work, because they wrote it using microsoft word. You as a web designer, shoudn’t charge for your work, because you used adobe software to create it. In essense, adobe owns all the work you do.

Does that make any sense? Do you guys see how ridiculous that analogy is, that “adobe ownz the toolz”? The author COMPLETELY copied a technique by another author. Everything about this guy’s plagarized “tutorial” was copied directly from another author. That is plagarism. There are enough quality works here that we don’t need that kind of garbage. Like I said before, if you want tutorials you can find them anywhere – type in “photoshop tutorials” in google and you’ll be more than placated.

@Mukund – you sound absolutely ridiculous – you must live in a socialist country no doubt. PSDTuts is what is called a business. They run theyre business by providing a service, namely quality learning material for photoshop. Not copied, plagarized work from a thieving douche. Why should PSDtuts give the guy 150 bucks for delivering an unusable product? What kind of business world do you live in?

“Also since in this case the offense is probably only suspected, and cannot be confirmed or established in any way, why should the author,”

Did you bother to even look at the tutorial in question, and it’s copied counterpart? I’d reckon you just barged in here like the socialist you are and proclaimed AN INJUSTICE HAS OCCURED!!! HOW DARE YOU PEOPLE RUN AN ETHICAL BUSINESS HERE!!! I MUNKIND, DEMAND YOU GIVE THE THIEVING PLAGARIZER HIS HARD EARNED MONEY!! LONG LIVE MUNKIND!!!!!

Whew, what an epic post.

So I can not be an architect, because I’m going to use the same techniques they learned at school, this would be plagiarism for you?

Are you going to write a book on techniques your teacher developed and perfected, include quotes from him giving lectures in class, & sell it as your own and profit from it?