Today we’ve had to unfortunately remove a tutorial due to copyright issues. 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 out.
It’s a bit of a crappy situation for all concerned, but a good reminder that it’s always important 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.
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. However we strive to make sure that (a) the tutorials are not copies of another tutorial, and (b) there is enough originality involved for the tutorial to be worth publishing.
In the end, we’re all operating in creative industries and it’s important to remember that our creations should be respected and treated as such. Anyhow onwards and upwards. Sorry for the slight disruption in the posting schedule. All shall return to normal tomorrow!
Enjoyed this Post?
Subscribe to our RSS Feed, Follow us on Twitter or simply recommend us to friends and colleagues!
By Collis
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
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.