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.

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!

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.

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?”