Unfortunately, the Psdtuts+ staff have had to remove a recently published tutorial due to copyright issues. Claims of plagiarism are taken very seriously and thoroughly investigated. After looking into the matter we decided the only appropriate course of action was to delete the tutorial in question and withhold payment from its author. Read on for more details on how we identify plagiarism and how we can make sure this is the last time it happens here.
Why was the tutorial removed?
Each tutorial we publish generally has two components: the author’s style and the core technique. After a number of readers claimed that plagiarism had taken place, we examined the tutorial in question and compared it to the tutorial readers claimed had been plagiarized. Though the two tutorials were stylistically different, the core technique in both tutorials was identical, and as such we found that the tutorial published at Psdtuts+ was not an original work.
What did the author say?
The author of the tutorial in question has said that he has not seen the DVD set which features the core technique, though we have reason to suspect this tutorial was based on another text-based online tutorial that plagiarized the DVD. However, regardless of how it happened, we can only look at the core technique in question and ask: is it identical? If the answer is yes, we have no choice but to remove the tutorial from the site and refuse payment. At Psdtuts+ writers are hired on the basis of producing an original tutorial, which has not been fulfilled in this case (whether by accident or deliberately).
What can we learn from this?
It’s logistically and financially impossible for us to monitor every Photoshop magazine, DVD, product, blog, course, website and forum, but we are working on ways to pre-empt these issues before they occur.
We also hope that potential contributors will remember to:
- Always credit your sources
When you credit your sources, it’s clear that you aren’t trying to hide something. For tutorial submissions it also lets our editors check that the tutorial is acceptable. Although Sean and I are pretty on the ball, it’s impossible to know every image, artist, magazine, so things can slip by. But if you credit your sources we’ll be able to make sure you’re in the clear. - Use common sense
There are no hard and fast rules about copyright. Beware of “rules” like “copying 40% is OK”. There’s no such thing. And remember that even aside from exact words or images, it can be the idea or principle. In this case, the images of the tutorial and wording were all original, but it was still apparent that it was not an original tutorial in itself. - Err to the side of caution
I’m no lawyer, but whenever I’ve dealt with lawyers, I’ve learned that they are always more cautious than I would be. If you think something might not be OK, then trust your gut and don’t do it.
We understand that there are only so many images that can be created with Photoshop, and similarities are bound to occur. However, when a tutorial appears to have been overly influenced by or copied from another tutorial then we must respect the creative work of the original author, as we would want the creative work of our own authors and community members to be respected.
We hope you enjoy the creativity displayed by the authors of the other 150+ original tutorials at Psdtuts+!
Skellie is TUTS Manager at Envato.
Enjoyed this Post?
Subscribe to our RSS Feed, Follow us on Twitter or simply recommend us to friends and colleagues!
Join our newsletter!
Create a Tutorial, Get Paid!
Have something to teach the world? Want to earn money doing it? Tutorials, screencasts, and articles published here on Psdtuts+ are largely contributed by readers just like you! We'll pay you great money for good content. Find Out More
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?