Hmm to bad it’s gone.
I did like the effect.

Really it’s bad to hear it!

Hi!

This is bad… but actually, i liked the effect.

Anyone know where we can see this tutorial, but without problems?

Good action Collis.

thr right is better than the lawsuit following the wrong thing

Wow! That really sucks.
Hope everything will go well.
Thanks for being honest though and editing the article so it doesn’t just disappear.
I’ll be waiting for your next great tutorial!

it would b good if u could link 2 the original tut ? plz

I missed 2 days of looking onto the website..What tutorial was it?

Hi, what was the tut about, anyway? Some of us didn`t have the chance to see it even.
cheers

Nice action, now i trust psdtuts even more; this article is a proof of your passion and correctness.

Hey , what was the tutorial again ? Just curious ..

Wasnt it the how to use actions creatively tutorial?

Thats a shame as that was a good tutorial - glad to see the issue has been taken seriously though

One question?
How can someone claim copyrights at an Photoshop tools usage???

I’m a bit of confused but i think theres something i didn’t understood, maybe because my bad English but still, if i use Gaussian blur in one image i can get into law/copyright issues???

I don’t think so!!! Anyways i think you’re talking about the back light tutorial and i read it last night and i didn’t saw the part where psdtuts claimed to be the owner of that tutorial therefore there was no need to remove.

It was a nice tutorial though. Nowadays we have to be careful how we eat our cereals xD

Cheers

It was an awesome trick, to bad it was removed. Lucky I have Advanced Photoshop Magazine so I can practice same trick anyway :p

“As all creatives should, we take copyright very seriously here at PSDTUTS. The tutorial in question has been removed, the author has not been paid and I’ll personally be investigating further to get in touch with the original author to apologize and ensure everything is sorted.”

This is exactly what should be expected on a website of this calibre, I’m sure if this tutorial was to be kept up and if Nik Ainley was contacted he would most definitely have some issues with someone taking his tutorial and rewriting it in their own words, especially for a profit of 150 Dollars. I’m not quite sure how the writer of the tutorial thought he could get away with submitting a tutorial from the most read and most recent Photoshop Magazine there is, but a very stupid move.

“Finally I know that the author did suggest that many tutorials here on PSDTUTS aren’t really demonstrating new or original effects. In many ways this is true, and in fact we have tutorials that show how to duplicate a certain type of effect or look.”

That’s not an arguable point at all, RECREATING an effect is a very appraisable thing, I have tried many times to mimic artworks and if I even come close to the effect I know it’s not copying because I learnt the hardway to achieve such an effect.
But the fact of the matter in this situation was that this guy didn’t try to write a tutorial for creating an effect, he wrote a tutorial that was a near mirror copy of a magazine he had right in front of him!

I know you guys are probably wondering why I’m getting so involved in this and writing under an anonymous alias, but believe me I’ve dealt with plagiarism in the past, it’s a complete disgrace to our profession’s, it shows a complete lack of respect to what were all here for. And just try and imagine someone taking your own work and getting praise for it? And even worse getting PAID for it!

Thanks for doing the right thing psdtuts.com, a true sign that what you guys are doing is of the up most of quality and professionalism.

Oh and to those who want to view the great effect in all it’s glory, go out and buy the Advanced Photoshop Magazine, it’s 6 Pounds, but it really is worth it, it has the descriptions from the professional artists and it’ll really open your eyes to using Photoshop and how the creatives work, it also contains all the images/tutorial files on a CD so you really get into the work!

I’m glad to see the honor of the website and staying true to your content that is being provided.

Hmmm… I haven’t seen the original tutorial (although I do have a copy of the magazine) so I can’t comment on the similarity’s between the tutorials.

However, I have seen lots of tutorials where writers say “we saw this cool affect , so we thought we’d show you how to do it”.

Admittedly the affect is normally in a magazine or ad somewhere and the tutorial writers show us how to recreate it.

But I thought one of the cool things about Photoshop is the number of different ways we can all do the same thing, so maybe the tutorial writer just used the wrong language???

As I said I haven’t seen the original so correct me if I’m wrong.

Either way I’m a psdtuts Pro member because it is one of the best PS tutorial sites so the fact that they are treating this issue with such integrity is not surprising.

Well done chaps.

At the end of the day most designers take inspiration “copy” other designers.

Unless your one of the very talented designers of course.

Well… Look closely then….
There’s another tutorial on this site that resembles a lot another tutorial of a certain dvd…. ¬¬

It’s a shame, but sadly a fact.

Get inspired by someone, and just putting it in to your own words and adding your own images isn’t writing a tutorial. I’ve written three times tutorials, and added all my own images, the textures that got used etc. I’ve shot all myself. Just so I wouldn’t get in trouble, and techniques are a common good, so we can use them all.

Great thing to see though that you take it off, maybe credit the ‘original’ writer, would be also a good thing (although he gets named a few times in the comments).

Shit happens

Daniel

“At the end of the day most designers take inspiration “copy” other designers.”

True, you can gain inspiration from others, but the fact here was the guy was claiming a tutorial as his own, after slight rewording. Then in the process, he would have got 150 dollars for it. Basically obtaining cash for somebody else hard work.

@Johan the last issue ? What tutorial are they talking about ?

Already print it! RSS feeds Yeah!

looks i missed out on all the fun

ahhhh shit, i saw the tutarila yesterday and i planned to read it today after work,

this totally ruined my day.
i hope you guys put a similar tutorial like that up again.

@ Filipe M

It’s more than using tools, it’s copyrighting the PRODUCT you created. The effect and tutorial are copyrighted material because they are the idea of the person who invented it.

To make it more clear, if you use gaussian blur in a photoshop project you cannot copyright the gaussian blur, you can copyright the image you just gaussian blurred.

If you guys prove it to be ripped off, I say you completely publish the guys name and everything. Asses that rip stuff off shouldn’t get work of any kind and should be ousted to everyone.

I can still see the article in RSS but can’t see on website.

What tutorial was removed?

True true.

It is still in Google’s cache.

Does i have to remove my creation on flickr too?

Yeah Mihai, issue 43. Some guy copy that tut and paste it here. However I think PSDTuts did right thing and is still best PS tutorials site around the web.

http://www.advancedphotoshop.co.uk/back_issues.php

Hope it comes back, was a cool effect.

@Johan thx. In the meanwhile i noticed that i still have the post in my reader. For those who wonder it’s the tutorial involving the use of Photoshop Actions in designing digital art. The cover of #43 issue actually

That’s bad to see this…

David Carreira

Well, I am the author of the tutorial that got deleted, Firstly I’d like to admit that I made a mistake in not mentioning where the idea for this tutorial came from, namely Nik Ainley. It is common, even on this site, for people to write a tutorial mimicing an effect created by another designer and basically that is what I did. In a way I feel it is strange to think that my tutorial is being accused of plagarism when a similar tutorial has only been written once before compare that to most photoshop tutorials which have been done hundreds of times before. I do respect PSDtuts descision in removing my tutorial as they have to keep a good reputation. I wrote this tutorial in order to expose a technique which will be exposed sonner or later anyway, in fact half of the good tutorials out there on the internet came from magazines like Advanced Photoshop. Although I hope now that PSDtuts requests that writers give where they got there idea or inspiration from in order to prevent this kind of thing from recurring.
Secondly I’d like to say that calling this a copyright issue is wrong, by writing the tutorial I did not breach any copyright laws, sure the technique used in my tutorial was similar to another but as far as I know, people cannot copyright a photoshop command and obviously I used all my own images and spent time writing the tutorial so it was not even nearly ‘copy and pasted’ as it had been described in a previous comment. I’d like to say sorry to anyone I have caused any trouble to on this site and hope you won’t judge me for this mistake as it was the first tutorial I had submitted to the site and I promise to be more careful when submiting to this site in the future as I understand when money is involved, people tend to take things like this more seriously. Lastly to those who didn’t see the tutorial I will be adding it to my personal website as there is no reason not to do this, the site is http://tutorials4photoshop.blogspot.com/

I’ve got issue 43 of ‘Advanced Photoshop’ as it happens. Thought I recognised it somewhere.

It’s okay, PSDTUTS still rocks

I never knew Photoshop tricks could be copyrighted. What if you learned the trick at school or from a friend? Would you be allowed to share it here? Of course!

Copying words and images is one thing…copying ideas is what we should all be doing! If Donald Trump gave you a blueprint for success, you should have every right to share it with others. I believe the same should go here…although, I agree it should have some attribution. Like…”I learned this effect from _______ in Magazine # ____ - You should definitely check it out!”

that’s sad. but good for psd tuts to be on the ball

Respect, for being that honest.
I love psdtuts. Simple rules, not hard to understand.

Keep up the good work.

That’s sad. It was a very cool effect though.
I would like to see the tutorial of the original author.

Holy crap.

I was one of the people who pointed this out.

Might of been the first…

strong and fast reaction ! well done !

It was only a effect. Do it again without violating copyrights and everything is fine.

sux that happened. Thanks for taking responsible action Collis. I appreciate psdtuts’s honesty.

I’m glad you guys are sorting out this issue. I was disappointed to hear the problem, but I’m glad you guys are doing the right thing by the original creator.

There’s a big difference between trying to give a behind the scenes look at an effect and seeing a tutorial that was JUST published in a well-known magazine and duplicating it for profit. Had PSDTuts ignored the issue, it would’ve instantly brought the quality and integrity of the site’s submissions down by multiples.

Having said that, I’m very glad to know that you guys took it seriously, and I’m definitely in support of your decision!

Good action. Too bad it happened.

Good to see some ethics still out there in the graphic design world. Keep up the great work!

shit like this makes me mad. that a guy wanted to get a easy money by copying somebody else

im really happy that psdtuts didnt get sue or anything. that author deserves to be sued tho,

Hi all,

Just some useful information for PSDTUTS about the author to this tutorial.
The author is a man called Nik Ainley (www.shinybinary.com) and this tutorial was published in the latest issue of Advanced Photoshop (Issue 43).

I hope this is helpful.

Dan

Ohhh come on!!….take it easy on the guy, he said he was sorry, lets forgive and forget and just move on, I am sure he meant it when he said he is sorry :o(

Dear Ross (author of the tutorial),
I must commend you for quickly responding but I find your post troublesome. First, through all this you still don’t get it - that is you completely stole Nik Ainley tutorial. True anyone can write a tutorial about Photoshop Actions but Nik created and wrote the tutorial on how to use Photoshop Actions to achieve a specific look - one that he created. If your tutorial were to talk about Photoshop Actions and explain how to get a different look - one you’ve created well than that would have been fine. What you did is copy his exact tutorial and tried to claim it as your own - shame on you. Then you come on PSDTuts and say your sorry, yet feel as though you didn’t plagiarize. How can you not see that what you did was plagiarism. Worse yet, you’ve posted this plagiarized tutorial on your site. I would respect you more if you flat out admitted to your mistake.

I take my art seriously and would be greatly offended if someone took my tutorial and copied it - as you have with Nik’s. People spend hours trying to use common functions in Photoshop to create unique results. Nik created a unique result using Photoshop Actions. You should have created your own unique result not stealing somebody else’s.

Personally, you have lost all credibility with me and I hope PSDTuts doesn’t post anymore of your tutorials especially after reading your post. This wasn’t a simple mistake you completely stole Nik’s tutorial and tried to cash in on it. You really own him and the PSDTut community a better apology - one that owns up to your wrong doing.

One last thing, art, design, fashion, music is always recycled and reused but there is a fine line between inspiration and imitation. What you have done is imitation. I hope you can see the difference.

Sorry to be harsh but its troubling to see that you still don’t get it……..Thank you PSDTuts for quickly resolving this issue. I bet this has caused you lots of extra work and headaches.

As far as I understand the situation – to be honest – I HAVE TO AGREE with Ross.

Hey fellas,

It sucks that the bloke that created the tutorial didn’t credit the original author but claiming that using a similar Photoshop technique is a copyright infringment?

That’s a pretty slippery slope.

If doing such a thing is a copyright infringment then hell. I’m in a lot of trouble because the techniques that I’m about to use today, to do my work tend to originate from somewhere else.

We all read tutorials, we all get inspiration from other places.

Do each one of you guys credit every original author of the particular technique you use throughout your Photoshop work?

Curious. Has anyone contacted the original author of the particular technique to get his side of the story? I wonder how he feels about people using his technique. Maybe even do a PSDTUTS interview?

Anyways, troubling.

While I recognize that it may have been a bit tacky to mimic a tutorial that just came out in that magazine, and I can see how it may have been undesirable for PSDTuts to put up that same tutorial. I’m not sure that it would be classified as copyright infringement to merely utilize that technique…even if it was the same set of steps.

I agree that it is a slippery slope merely to suggest that copyright is to re-articulate the methodology used to achieve a certain effect.

One thing I can tell from these comments is that GREAT designers are HORRIBLE lawyers. Much love to all of you, but none of you seem to know anything about copyright law or intellectual property rights.

Just as a side note, if this tutorial was removed then these should be as well (all these tutorials I have seen virtually the same version on other sites or in other magazines prior to their arrival on PSDTuts):

Create a High Gloss Graduation Hat Icon Design
Create Rainbow Logos with Warped Grids
Quickly Build an Abstract Background of Colored Bars
How to Create a 3d Shelf Element Similar to Dragon Interactive
New Plus Tutorial - Create a “Time Machine” like Icon
Create a Brilliant Vector Lighter
Reader Request: MSNBC Style Effect
How To Create a Stunning Vista Inspired Menu
Create a Slick Black iMac in Photoshop
Creating a Mac-Type Background in Photoshop
Plastic Jelly Styles

What makes PSDTuts special is the selection, organization and presentation of great photoshop tutorials. You don’t have to sift through mounds of crap to find effective PSD practice and education. Originality has NEVER been PSDTut’s #1 strong point, more its ability to put together the best of what everyone else is doing is a great format.

Give this guy his 250 bucks and put the tutorial back up here, or at least give him a chance to redo redo it in his own words. That tutorial belongs on this site, and he was right to find it and put it here.

@Erika and Valentino Monaco - get over yourselves.

I don’t care about copyright issues simply because all I want from this site is to learn new ways to create and design in photoshop. All I care is that I will not be able to see the tutorial and practise, all I care is that I can’t buy the magazine which contains the tutorial because it’s not avail in Greece. And all I care is why everybody advices others to buy 6 pounds which is 10 euros which is 15 dollars when everybody would be able to watch this tutorial again and again for free from psdtuts.com. Personally I have an account in PSDtuts but I also like the freedom to the free users to see almost everything here.
Respect the man who wrote the tutorial for psdtuts. Τhe only big mistake he made was not refering the original creator of this tutorial.

@Elis Lasop - Yes… I think the site provides enough decent tutorials to keep you happy. But why would they want to break the law and get sued just to keep you happy about one tutorial?

They did the right thing, and acted well, because you’re not always aware that you might be violating copyright, but I think the actions they took were spot on and set a good example to the Design world.

I don’t understand? It’s not like this magazines writer was the first one with this effect. I learned it over 3 years ago from some website. Is it that he has copied the tutorial itself or just the idea. If it’s just the idea I want to seethe tutorial back up, because then it’s far from plagialism. I haven’t seen the results from both tutorials so i can’t compare those to each other. But the m. writer is impossibly the one that came up with this effect, that’s a straight up lie into my face. If he’s saying that, he’s the one that should be stoned with angry comments. Shame on you!

Well I’m a bit confused that someone “just came up with” a effect although i’ve been using it back and forth for the past 3+ years after seeing a tutorial long time ago.

If it’s a straight up copy of the tutorial itself I get it. But if it’s about the damn effect, I want the tutorial back up. The only right thing to do!

I’m in complete agree with Valentino; there is a diference between inspiration and imitation (better said, copy).

We can’t just take someone else tutorial and change the words claiming it as ours. That’s a copy. Not good. Use common sense, beyond of laws and copyright issues.

I can not be agree with Seifist.

We can get to a someone else effect/result/look using our own creativity and knowledge to figure out a way.

PSDTUTS did the right thing. I really appreciate your work, and your action makes me appreciate even better the philosophy of this site.

Thank you Collis.

PS: Sorry about my English, I know can be much better.

“And remember that even aside from exact words or images, it can be the idea or principle.”

What? Seriously what are you talking about! If that’s the case you’ll have to put the whole site down right now! Yeah copyright the idea of how to work in Photoshop! I’ve heard that before, or not actually!

And this wasn’t the magazine writers idea as I’ve said before. If the magazine published it, psdtuts should too!

Has anyone even talked to the writer or are you all just assuming that he’s the one that came up with the “idea or principle” and no one should “copy” it. That’s bull!

Pretty angry right now! Beacue when a site choose to take something away from their readers beacause of chicken shit like “If you >>>think

I can´t see the problem.
He should have told where he got the inspiration from, but that´s only a mistake and not a reason to go mad.
The web and even psdtuts is full of tutorials, seen somewhere else. I just want to learn some techniques and if Ross had mentioned where he got the idea of using actions from, it would have been all right for me.

btw. it is a great tutorial

I still miss the part were the user who posted the tutorial said it was is own fresh made tutorial (i read the tut before i went bead), what he did was sharing, and hey not everyone has Computer Arts or Advanced Photoshop or similar magazines available in their country’s, i barely find some good magazines but the price could feed my hungry stomach for a week, still i chose food to words, human nature =)…anyways it was a good share the only thing he forgot was to reveal the original author.

By the way, if anyone needs Computer Arts tutorials, every CA tutorial ever is available for FREE download from the CA website:

http://www.computerarts.co.uk/tutorials

“Just as a side note, if this tutorial was removed then these should be as well (all these tutorials I have seen virtually the same version on other sites or in other magazines prior to their arrival on PSDTuts):

Create a High Gloss Graduation Hat Icon Design
Create Rainbow Logos with Warped Grids
Quickly Build an Abstract Background of Colored Bars
How to Create a 3d Shelf Element Similar to Dragon Interactive
New Plus Tutorial - Create a “Time Machine” like Icon
Create a Brilliant Vector Lighter
Reader Request: MSNBC Style Effect
How To Create a Stunning Vista Inspired Menu
Create a Slick Black iMac in Photoshop
Creating a Mac-Type Background in Photoshop
Plastic Jelly Styles”

Are you this guys mate or something? How can you even say these tutorials are EXACT rip-offs without providing any sort of proof of where they came from? The fact of the matter is, this guy took an exact copy of a tutorial, but changed the focus matter and changed the wording! Numerous people spotted it and thought it as downright disgraceful! As far as I now this has not happened with any of the tutorials you have just thrown out there, so would all of you defending this disgraceful act stop showing your amateur side and keep out of it. Thanks.

Anyone who is sidding with Ross, is siding with the act of a RIPPER, if you’ve ever been involved with a graphic design community you would understand that people like this are dealt with, usually being banned or shunned. But the main issue here is that he wanted MONEY of this, which is so much worse!

Tried posting yesterday but this failed - see if I can remember how I stated this.

Plagiarism is wrong, but did the author rip off someone else’s work totally or use it as inspiration and put the tutorial out to a wider audience in his own words? It sounds like he did - just fell into the trap that most of us do and got carried away with an idea without giving due credit to the source. If the idea is sound but he wrote his own tutorial around that idea using his own words and chosen figures then the only thing he is guilty of is not giving the reference citation(s)!

We all stand on the shoulders of giants - so much has been done already that there really is little true creativity left - sad but true. So let everyone know that it is approariate to rewrite up an idea as long as it is substantially your own work and you cite any sources of inspiration.

There I think that is gist of what I wrote yesterday before my server refused to send it. By the way I tried this authors’ “Tutorials 4 Photoshop” piece (from his website) and really enjoyed it. You should ask him to re-write and cite any sources he used and re-post the tutorial for others to benefit from. Buying any magazine for Photoshop these days is a sheer waste of money - with so little true content and so much fluff and advertorials. So if he did beg, borrow or steal an idea or two from a magazine - who in the hell cares? Just credit where credit is due.

Furthermore, you don’t see Dave Cross, Matt Kloskowski or Scott Kelby and uncle Tom Cobbly and all citing others who inspire them but do you accuse them of plagiarism? No - you do not. They need chiding too! How often do I see an idea somewhere and then see these higher mortals post the darned same thing? The answer - far too often. They are just passing on ideas they gleaned from elsewhere. Like a good joke the day after you can’t remember if you made it up or heard it somewhere. Sometimes the same thing with any ideas.

Get your training at sites like this largely for free. Just set the rules in place for each and every author and apply due process if something like this appears to go wrong. Also I suggest that $150.00 per tutorial is a bit far-fetched - dont’ you? Let the work of the author be a fair portion of the payment - it is called Peer recognition and advertising of your talents.

Don’t ban your best talent!

Resolve this quickly to everyones’ best benefit and move on. Afterall the tutorial is already out there - you cannot take it back totally. Do practice “Due process”.

I dont believe there is anything wrong with taking someones idea and putting your own spin on it in the design world. After all, for those of us who are Web Developers & Designers sometimes we need to see the trends to make a relevant design. In the coding world it is perfectly OK usually to look at someone else’s code to see how they did it - and then use that code as a basis to create your own work out of it.

Its a totally different thing to shamelessly rip off someone elses work and pass it off as your own.

Ive had people contact me asking how I get my top navigation on my site to work the way that it does - I tell then to view source and download the css and figure it out themselves - but to not copy it as is, rather look at it, learn from it and use it to make their own version. If someone were to use the exact code & look and feel I’d surely be pissed.

I am amazed at the responses people are leaving here. Particularly those who feel that the author didn’t do anything wrong. The issue is not the fact that this author used a similar technique in his tutorial it’s that he directly copied Nik’s tutorial published in this months issue of Advanced Photoshop. I mean seriously it was as if he got this months issue of the magazine then copied the same tutorial and asked to get paid for it. You see the bigger issue is the fact the this was for PAYMENT. It wasn’t as if he just used this technique in his art he flat out copied another tutorial reworded it, used a different picture and called it his own. If you cant see a problem with this than the design community is really facing some hard times.

Listen all of us watch and get inspired by tutorials then use this inspiration in our art. But imagine if we all watched tutorials from published artists then recycled them in our own words and asked for money…..not good….really not good.

Furthermore, Advanced Photoshop magazine along with PSDTuts produces quality tutorials with established artists like Nik. These artists/teachers deserve respect and must be assured that their tutorials are not stolen and copied. Sure, steal their ideas and techniques, use them in your own art but please don’t recycle their tutorials and claim them as your own for payment.

For those of you who feel paying for a Photoshop magazine is ridiculous well that too is wrong. Established artists/teachers must make a living so they get their work/teachings published. I don’t mind paying because I know that these magazines are publishing only the best tutorials from the most established artists. If you want quality you should pay.

One last thing about the Ross the author of the stolen, copied, imitated tutorial. If you visit his site most of his work is just recycled tutorials from PSDTuts and he still doesn’t credit the original creator. On the other hand if you visit Nik’s site the original author of the tutorial you will find original art. You see their is a big difference. Bottom line is that Ross looked at a magazine copied a tutorial and tried to cash in on it. That is totally wrong. PEOPLE COPING OTHER PEOPLES TUTORIALS AND PUBLISHING THEM AS YOUR OWN FOR CASH IS COPYWRITING……Getting inspired by a tutorial and using those techniques in your own art is INSPIRATION. There is a difference.

If he did indeed steal the tutorial outright I agree with the last comment wholeheartedly. I am not a designer so don’t look into tutorials too seriously from that standpoint. My general comments are still valid though for others. The MAIN issue though is citations. If he cannot back up his thesis then this is a copyright infringement.

Gary.

Sorry - another important point. To Address this situation correctly - you need a Peer-review system. All submitted tutorials need to be fielded out to two or three Peers for approval before publishing.

psd.Tuts need to establish a set of several folks willing and able to review such articles for submission in a timely manner. Those who are true experts and who keep up with the PS literature. As usual the author would never know which reviewers were involved in his/own case. He/she will either have their work accepted or rejected. A chief editor makes the final decision. Such articles can then be edited for content and to ensure one is not posted only to be removed under duress for all concerned.

Perfect way to tackle the situation, thumbs up!

good :)!

God their are so many amateurs posting pretending that they have a clue. At least Valentino Monaco is someone who knows anything about what’s going on and has the magazine to see exactly what happened here. Everyone else is just spouting their opinion and wanting something for free and generally not giving a shit to ripping off professionals in the field. Truly disgusting.

“Buying any magazine for Photoshop these days is a sheer waste of money - with so little true content and so much fluff and advertorials. So if he did beg, borrow or steal an idea or two from a magazine - who in the hell cares? Just credit where credit is due.”

Firstly, the good photoshop magazines have interviews, resources, in depth tutorials that are NOWHERE to be found on the internet. Artists such as Nik Ainley who’s tutorial was butchered by this ripper, giving professional insight into something that interests you should not be considered as a waste of money. Not to mention all the features and other artists that contributes to these magazines, if you just go by free content on the internet, your not going anywhere. Simply put.

Secondly, please don’t try to sugar coat what this guy did by saying “borrow an idea or two” because you don’t understand that this was an EXACT mirror copy of his tutorial with amateur written all over it. A complete disregard of the artist, and he’s still trying to get away with it by putting it on his website. Some people really have no idea..

I think the best thing now would be to delete this post, as all thats happening is that the ripper of the tutorial is now getting traffic to his site with the stolen tutorial, which is bloody shameful.

Also read my other posts here to really get an idea of what’s going on, and please don’t try to argue this any more. Anyone who sticks up for this guy is just showing what side of stealing work they side with and I wouldn’t want that associated with my name.

Hey Collis,

You should email Nik and ask him to write us a tutorial!

Maybe he might want to help us fellow photoshoppers!

He is after all my photoshop mentor :).

Mr_LeE

Oh and this is the outcome of the original tutorial: http://shinybinary.deviantart.com/art/Hive-83757834

Created by Nik Ainley (ShinyBinary) Now you can see the absolute mess off a tutorial that this ripper made from copying the tutorial Nik did for Advanced Photoshop.

I agree with Anon: “I think the best thing now would be to delete this post, as all thats happening is that the ripper of the tutorial is now getting traffic to his site with the stolen tutorial, which is bloody shameful.”

Collis you should delete this article or at least the web link to this thief’s website. Let’s not give this amateur anymore traffic. It would be better to direct people to the actual published article if they would like to learn this technique. Please PSDTuts remove any reference to this fake tutorial. Having this guy Ross link attached to his comment is just as bad as having the stolen tutorial on this site - it must be removed…….

Thanks PSDTuts.

well annons link just shows how using the original tutorial gets a totally different (better i might add0 but different out come from the one removed from here. And by saying what a mess he has made of the original … kinda makes it clear that he did not just copy the original he just used it as a base?

anyways…

PSDtuts should just make it clear with an artical with interviews from those who design tutorials and those whos work they use as insperation and see if the 2 opinions differ?

clear rules, clear moderation would not lead to this?

anon - oh and calling people in this community amateurs??? not the nicest of things… i guess for some people life is a cut throat business. I guess your such a professional that you know all the tricks, i guess you’ll be wanting to set up a forum where only professionals can talk about how great they are… not sure this is the place though… and not sure what makes you any kina guru on this… is your name on the credits somewhere? No, this is exactly the place where people express their own valued opinion on what they think about the above article.

Everyone just needs to chill, PSDTUTS did the right thing, for their site, and the author is doing the right thing for his site. lets move on and get on with the great tutorials!

What a tutorial was deleted ehm?

@Valentino

I completely agree with your points, but I seriously think you are getting your temper on Ross up a bit too much. Please keep calm.

If it was indeed plagiarism - and people who have actually bought and read the magazine certainly seem to think the tutorial was little more than a copy of Nik Ainley’s one - then you did exactly the right thing. Thank you.

@ Valentino Monaco: exactly!

this may be a good thread to post some of my thoughts:

regarding the topic, psdtuts did the right thing. there’s a difference between being inspired by an artist and blatantly copy the tutorial.

as for online ps tuts in general, i find most tuts the instant gratification of “how” but not “why.” i am a firm believer in the fundamentals. i think the best way is still to get a good photoshop book, in combination with online tuts.

for those who just started learning photoshop, i HIGHLY recommend Photoshop WoW.

http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-CS2-Wow-Book-WOW/dp/0321213459/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210955883&sr=8-1

lastly, i recommend taking some fine art classes if you can afford the time and money. photoshop is a tool. it’s about effects. however, artstic skills can’t be taught by any tutorials. that’s something to be trained in a real art room.

i started with version2. this book is superb. cover the fundamental mechanism behind the scene, and as well as many thorough tuts

But this thread has promoted very good discussion. Everyone is on board now. So I’d argue to keep it rather than delete it or at least use it to distill the principles involved here.

@Gary Spedding

this is a proof of community =)

PSDTUTS all the way

Good on you Collis - though many people appreciated the tutorial, they appreciate your integrity by removing the offending piece.

@All

I just picked up the copy of advanced photoshop in question last night and compared it to the tutorial Ross posted on his website. This was definitely not a direct rip by any means. The example photos are different, the steps are explained differently.

Alot of you may agree with Valentino, but in court his definition of plagiarism wouldn’t stand up. Legally speaking, a photoshop tutorial can be compared to a story. Different books can tell the same story, and as long as their presentation s different enough its not plagiarism. Furthermore, if any of you think that any single effect of this site is the first time anyone has ever thought of it you are all sadly mistaken. If I were Ross, I’d take this site to small claims court to get my payment just to prove a point. Oh, and FYI, he would win.

-oh, and FYI, I am not Ross’s “mate”. Based on his site I think his style and design skills are trite, recycled and overrated. That, however, is not the point of this discussion.

My last post was not approved by the moderation team. Talking about freedom of speech?! But anyway, I will try it again as I think I haven’t been disrespecting to anyone but I just can’t let those opinions the way they are.

Anon, what gives you the right to talk the way you do? Do you really think your blatantly argumentation on this is welcome? I don’t think so. With calling users of this community “amateurs” you are just as wrong as when you think you are a PS guru. (I know godonholiday pointed this out already but I whole-heartly agree with him.) You talk like you developed all those amazing filters and options but in my eyes you’re just trying to get attention. This is nothing personal, nor do I think the tutorial in the way it has been was perfect. But calling it an exact copy? It was a well written tutorial with a missing “Inspired by: Nik Ainlay” (great artist by the way) and that’s it… nothing more or less. There’s nothing wrong with that kind of inspiration but this is only my view on it. I enjoyed reading it, as I said previously, because APS is not available where I live and the deleted post gave me in insight in what’s possible using certain techniques. Besides that and if you will come at me telling me “I wouldn’t spend six pounds on a magazine” I can assure you that’s not my point.

Just to reiterate what has been said a couple of times before, psdtuts did the right thing with removing it, though I think the whole affair could have been solved differently by editing and correcting the original tutorial by Ross, but with deleting either this topic, comments or links from previously “respected” users by appointments of certain people psdtuts loses credibility and this shouldn’t be the interest of all of us as I, personally, really enjoy learning new things and getting the right “inspiration”.

P.s. I am not one of Ross’ “mates” either.

I’m with Valentino Monaco on this one. It’s not that the tutorial writer is being condemned for wanting to share this awesome effect, it’s that he didn’t try and make something original with the technique. Appropriation is legal when you’re cautious and are making a conscious effort to create something new, but outright stealing is a whole other thing. Kudos to PSDTUTS for removing this tutorial.

I am sure he learned his lesson and write a mind blowing tutorial next time.

Any advances on 99? Lets make this a ton. 100th comment to wrap this up? Have enjoyed this thread enormously.

Gary.

Alright we need to get over this as a community and move on. I think we have pretty much beaten this horse as much as we can.

Good to see honesty.
I agree with Chad, though. Photoshop effects are going to be seen all over the place. If it is an advanced technique, then just put in a mention at the top as to who you have seen also use the effect, or how you thought of it, etc.

I will say this and only this; art is subjective. We all see things from day to day that we all “rip”. The guy apologized, and admitted fault for not mentioning his sources. I don’t believe anyone is plainly saying “he did nothing wrong”, so to assume so is very juvenile.

The site did what it had to do to maintain it’s good reputation, but to turn an honest mistake into him stealing bibles from churches isn’t fair. In my opinion, both are at fault. FIN.

Oh man I’m so glad you took that tutorial down, copyright concerns are definitely more important than learning

What was the tut about??

Hmmm, what makes a tut copyright. Well, its content. Just like anything that has been created by an individual, or individuals. The creator has ownership rights over their creations (as long as they can prove they are the sole creator)

So, by ‘Copying’ or ‘Mimicking’ someone elses work Without permission, is an infringement of there ownership of work.. ie: the copyright.

However, techniques, are not subject to copyrights as they are more instruction than product.

Example; If you were to copy indentically someones tutorial that would indeed be an infringement on their ownership rights. This is because, the content and product are protected.
however the very instructions, the technique, the method, are in a grey area when it comes to copyright/ownership.

Anyone can use a technique to create the result in the given tutorial, some people might look at the tutorial and say, ‘Yeah, i knew how to do that already!’ You can copyright a technique for doing something as long as you can prove that you invented or created that said technique, and that technique or method was the only way of doing something. (This does NOT happen often)

Now, the safe and legal way to do things is to 1 create your own unique tutorial. (this would be protected by copyright laws as you would be the author) This is similar to anyone who would say write a book or other written article.

The reason the techniques, instruction, methods are not involved in copyright is the fact that these can be learnt by any individual from any source!
Also, when you post a tutorial to this site or any tutorial site, you automatically invite people to learn what you have also learnt. This is known as the Freedom of Knowledge Act.

So, in a nutshell. If you must do a similar tutorial, ensure that your content is not in anyway infringing on the ownership rights of others. If this is not possible then you must ask permission to use in part of full any content that is protected by international copyright laws. And, where permissions are given, you MUST credit the original owner in your work.
At the end of the day, most people who submit these tutorials have spent a great amount of time and effort into ‘Creating’ a piece of work that best shows of the ‘Techniques’ involved in how to create your ‘Own’ images or designs.

so remember.. ANY submitted tutorial on any site anywhere, is protected by the Authors ownership rights ie: the Copyright.

So i defend the decision to remove the tutorial, as this was an infringement to copyright laws.

I’m sorry if my post seemed long winded, but i hope that i have shed some light on the subject, so that others don’t inadvertantly fall into a similar trap.

Thank you for reading, and wish you safe and happy creating!

might want to remove the Referral ID from Jin Y’s post, thats rather cheap.

good thing you removed the tutorial, I hate my articles being ripped off myself, happens atleast once every week and it’s such a hassle contacting an administrator, hosting company, etc.

I agree 100% so as long as credit is given when credit is due.
There are many ways to acheive an effect in photoshop that has the same end results,but there are limitations as to how many ways the end result is to be acheived.
The only thing that I am at odds about at this time is that if a tutorial is a given for demonstrating techniques for users to learn from then the bottom line amounts to it doesn’t matter again so as long as proper credit is given when due.
Whether it’s the first version of a tutorial or the most recent,both versions are to reach the same goal.
So when the version was removed because of accused plagiarism why wasn’t the original placed in the position?
Is it simply because it requires an individual purchase of the magazine to gain the same technique that may have been learned from someone by experimentation?
Some copyrights go way to far IMHO.
what would have happened had Ford enforced his patent for mass produced combustable engines and cars?
Wouldn’t one say that all other auto manufacturers are infringing on the exclusive ownership of the Ford Motor Company?
How about the Wright Brothers and their first in flight?
Be reasonable and use caution lest one whom is the accuser may not be as galiant as one would think.
Again on the other side of the aisle if one takes it right out of the book to make a profit from someone elses work is lacking principle if thats the situation.
However I find it kind of intriging that no one has actually read the intent of the U.S Constitution and has misaligned it’s purposes regarding.
The purpose to have copyrights,and patents etc is so that the creator’s inventor’s could profit a reasonable amount.
And to promote the advancement of the useful arts.
Currently copyrights are for the life of the author plus 100 years,this hardly satisfies the purpose of advancing the arts or any other idea by limiting improvements and advancements.
Thats how skewed the whole system has become.
So to satisfy both Constitutional requirements at least in the U.S it requires authors and inventor’s protection from monetary losses up to what is a fair price at the current time period.
For example I write a tutorial that takes me a day to compile and I sell it and make $10K wouldn’t you say that is a fair amount to make in a single day?
This is simply some food for thought to think about fair perspectives,as it’s about time we all stop thinking about me and them but as us.