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
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 “backsideâ€. 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 “shortcutsâ€. 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 dogsâ€. 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, “chillâ€, 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.