# data[].attributes.body
Anneliese Hernandez

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Italian singer Seiell accused of plagiarizing BTS' "Fake Love"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Christie's, Sturtevant, Warhol Diptych, Diptych - silkscreen inks, synthetic polymer and acrylic on canvas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds.

Images
Young Designer Accuses Moschino Of Copying Her Entire Collection ...

boredpanda.com

Images may be subject to copyright.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds. Images Young Designer Accuses Moschino Of Copying Her Entire Collection ... boredpanda.com Images may be subject to copyright.

# data[].attributes.body
Jocelyn Arellano

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, it has become fashionable in the art world to call any creative borrowing plagiarism, and even theft. Using masters of ideas, plots, techniques, compositional and color solutions, unique creative finds of other artists - the phenomenon is ancient, as art itself, which is difficult to give an objective assessment.
Plagiarism or imitation
It is difficult to steal someone else's idea of a master who carries it in his head until he realizes it. Assign the same thought, having acquired some form, is simple. It is theft and misappropriation of others' materials that is plagiarism, which goes against ordinary theft.

This negative phenomenon at all times was of concern to artists, since the idea, the story line, the composition structure and the color solution are indisputably the intellectual property of the master.

There are many examples where artists, inspired by the works of the classics or their contemporaries, took as their basis either the story or the composition and reworked them in their own way, invested all their skills and experience, which eventually gave works reflecting their creative individual vision, and sometimes even surpassed the originals.

In fine art, as an example, this phenomenon can often be seen among British artists, based in their work on the tradition of Italian art of the XV century of the early Renaissance. Sinistered by this and the classics of other times, they sin and contemporaries.

In its essence, imitation is the following of an example, a model. Sometimes it happens that without having his own ideas, his manner of writing, the artist uses ready-made works of masters for the samples, depriving himself of the need to work on increasing his own potential.

On the other hand, the borrowing of ideas in painting has a positive impact, since the artist, using them for his further work, develops and improves the already embodied thought by another author. To some extent, this is the impetus for the creation and development of their creative activity.
Pictures-twins, written by one author in different years
The most vivid example of the creation of several copies of the same work by the same master are the paintings of Titian Vecellio, where you can clearly see how the artist's view of the image of Danae or Mary Magdalene changed in twenty years.

What is noteworthy, in all four Titian's paintings in the image of Magdalene is depicted the same model - Julia Festina.

As we see from the selection of reproductions, the ideas embedded in art are too diverse, and it is difficult to determine the degree of their borrowing or plagiarism, for in any situation each artist has attached his hand, his thoughts, his creative approach to the creation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plagiarism And Clones In The History Of Painting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, it has become fashionable in the art world to call any creative borrowing plagiarism, and even theft. Using masters of ideas, plots, techniques, compositional and color solutions, unique creative finds of other artists - the phenomenon is ancient, as art itself, which is difficult to give an objective assessment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The long-running copyright infringement lawsuit over "Blurred Lines" is roaring back to life, with lawyers for Marvin Gaye's family accusing Pharrell Williams of lying under oath during the 2015 trial.

The Gaye family sued Williams and Robin Thicke, saying the duo stole from "Got To Give It Up" when they wrote and recorded the smash hit "Blurred Lines." A jury sided with the Gaye family, which won $5.3 million in damages.

Williams denied the claims at the time. He testified that Gaye's music was part of the soundtrack of his youth, but he denied using any of it to create "Blurred Lines."

But the legal team for the Gaye family, led by Nashville attorney Richard Busch, said Williams contradicted himself in a November interview with GQ, when he told producer Rick Rubin that he tries to "reverse engineer" songs "to figure out if we can build a building that doesn't look the same but makes you feel the same way.

"I did that in 'Blurred Lines' and got myself in trouble," Williams said. "I really made it feel so much like ('Got To Give It Up'), that people were like, 'Oh, I hear the same thing.'"

The interview is the backbone of the legal filing submitted in federal court Friday, arguing that the Gaye family should get its legal fees paid for.

"He admitted, either without understanding the consequences, or because he believes he is untouchable, that, contrary to his sworn deposition and trial testimony, he 'reverse engineered' the Marvin Gaye song," the filing stated. "Williams testified falsely on those specific topics, resulting in a fraud on this Court."

Williams and Thicke previously argued they should not have to pay attorney's fees for the Gaye family because they did not willfully copy from Gaye's work. The court agreed at the time.

The Gaye family's attorneys said the Williams interview showed he did in fact willfully copy from "Got To Get It On." As a result, they argued, the decision on legal fees should be reversed.

"Blurred Lines" was the biggest hit of 2013 and was nominated for a Grammy Award.

Busch declined a request for a comment on the filing.

"We have no comment," he said. "Everything is set forth in detail in the papers filed with the court."
Reach Adam Tamburin at 615-726-5986 and atamburin@tennessean.com. Follow him on Twitter @tamburintweets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Blurred Lines' lawsuit revived with claim Pharrell Williams committed perjury

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The long-running copyright infringement lawsuit over "Blurred Lines" is roaring back to life, with lawyers for Marvin Gaye's family accusing Pharrell Williams of lying under oath during the 2015 trial. The Gaye family sued Williams and Robin Thicke, saying the duo stole from "Got To Give It Up" when they wrote and recorded the smash hit "Blurred Lines."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The long-running copyright infringement lawsuit over "Blurred Lines" is roaring back to life, with lawyers for Marvin Gaye's family accusing Pharrell Williams of lying under oath during the 2015 trial.

The Gaye family sued Williams and Robin Thicke, saying the duo stole from "Got To Give It Up" when they wrote and recorded the smash hit "Blurred Lines." A jury sided with the Gaye family, which won $5.3 million in damages.

Williams denied the claims at the time. He testified that Gaye's music was part of the soundtrack of his youth, but he denied using any of it to create "Blurred Lines."

But the legal team for the Gaye family, led by Nashville attorney Richard Busch, said Williams contradicted himself in a November interview with GQ, when he told producer Rick Rubin that he tries to "reverse engineer" songs "to figure out if we can build a building that doesn't look the same but makes you feel the same way.

"I did that in 'Blurred Lines' and got myself in trouble," Williams said. "I really made it feel so much like ('Got To Give It Up'), that people were like, 'Oh, I hear the same thing.'"

The interview is the backbone of the legal filing submitted in federal court Friday, arguing that the Gaye family should get its legal fees paid for.

"He admitted, either without understanding the consequences, or because he believes he is untouchable, that, contrary to his sworn deposition and trial testimony, he 'reverse engineered' the Marvin Gaye song," the filing stated. "Williams testified falsely on those specific topics, resulting in a fraud on this Court."

Williams and Thicke previously argued they should not have to pay attorney's fees for the Gaye family because they did not willfully copy from Gaye's work. The court agreed at the time.

The Gaye family's attorneys said the Williams interview showed he did in fact willfully copy from "Got To Get It On." As a result, they argued, the decision on legal fees should be reversed.

"Blurred Lines" was the biggest hit of 2013 and was nominated for a Grammy Award.

Busch declined a request for a comment on the filing.

"We have no comment," he said. "Everything is set forth in detail in the papers filed with the court."
Reach Adam Tamburin at 615-726-5986 and atamburin@tennessean.com. Follow him on Twitter @tamburintweets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Blurred Lines' lawsuit revived with claim Pharrell Williams committed perjury

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The long-running copyright infringement lawsuit over "Blurred Lines" is roaring back to life, with lawyers for Marvin Gaye's family accusing Pharrell Williams of lying under oath during the 2015 trial. The Gaye family sued Williams and Robin Thicke, saying the duo stole from "Got To Give It Up" when they wrote and recorded the smash hit "Blurred Lines."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plagiarism or Coincidence? A Curious Case in the Sony World Photo Awards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The World Press Photo Awards isn’t the only prestigious photo competition that experienced controversy this year: the 2017 Sony World Photography Awards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2013 my most popular article (by some distance) was the story of how my most successful image was plagiarised in a rather unusual way; a photographer had recreated the image from scratch. It seemed to me to be a bit of a grey area and I was unsure where I stood legally. The photographer hadn't stolen my image and wasn't selling his recreation, but he had stolen my idea and that is intellectual property theft. The problem was resolved rather quickly and painlessly in the end but in that regard, I was one of the lucky ones. It did, however, prompt me to write a comprehensive guide on the subject after I could only find very segmented information spread over several websites. I wanted the relevant information all in one place in an ordered fashion and as that wasn't possible, I decided to create it myself.

This guide is in 3 major parts; prevention, detection and reaction. Firstly, how to prevent or deter plagiarism or theft of your images. Secondly, how to detect and identify any images or ideas that have been stolen - the internet is vast and finding your images where you hadn't put them is a daunting task. Finally, the various ways in which you can react if you find one or more of your images or ideas have been stolen.

2. Plagiarism & Theft

2.1 Defining Plagiarism

It first important to know the different types of plagiarism and what does and does not constitute a case. The Oxford English Dictionary defines plagiarism as 'the practice of taking someone else's work and passing them off as one's own.' This is a little vague and requires unpacking further. The more legal definition is the following:

The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one's own creation.' (Click here for source.)

So, taking someone's work and passing it off as one's own does not exclusively refer to the most obvious case: somebody uses a photograph you have taken and claims to have taken it themselves. This is obviously a case of plagiarism and despite how unsophisticated and easily detected it is, it's still overwhelmingly common (click through for one of the more repugnant examples of late). This is exacerbated dramatically by both the transition of photographs to digital as its primary medium and storage, and the internet. That is to say, a photographer with only physical work and no online presence is far less likely to be plagiarised. However, the perks of the digital age far outweigh the cons as I would argue is obvious.

Direct theft of an image is not the only way in which a photographer is vulnerable to plagiarism as the quote above demonstrates. My personal experience listed in the introduction is an example of visual plagiarism and pertains to the theft of an idea or concept. (There is an interesting article on cases of visual plagiarism here.) As I eluded to in my original article of my stolen idea, the lines between similar ideas and theft of an original idea are almost blurry beyond distinction (note: 'almost'). If I were to take a photograph of a woman in a red dress in front of the Eiffel Tower, I ought not be outraged when I see someone else's image of a woman in a red dress in front of that particular landmark. However, if the details of an image are followed too closely then there is certainly a case for plagiarism.

Plagiarism is a deep and difficult problem in photography, now more than ever, and if I were to write a comprehensive paper outlining every aspect of what it is, it would be more of a tome than an article. So let's move on to the most important step: prevention.

3. Prevention

I list prevention as the most important step merely because prevention is invariably preferable to curing, and plagiarism is no exception. So here are some ways to deter image thieves:

3.1 Watermarks

This is one of the most obvious ways to deter potential thieves from your image and one of the easiest to carry out. A watermark is simply a logo or author name often accompanied with the date and the trusty ©. It is worth noting that images without the © are not unprotected by copyright laws - that is a myth. Below is an example of one of my own watermarked images:

This is a useful tool for two reasons: firstly it works as an aforementioned deterrent - the more work a thief has to do the more likely they are to try and find an easier alternative. Secondly, it has its promotional purposes.

The two most common and effective ways to add watermarks to your images are either Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom. Here are few relevant tutorials:

Photoshop:

Lightroom:

Comparing watermarking between photoshop and lightroom

Watermarks are an easy option, but they are also easily countered. For example, the above image could have half an inch cropped off the bottom and it becomes nameless again. Also, it is not particularly difficult to clone out most watermarks in Photoshop. Again, I ought to stress that watermarks work as a deterrent and are certainly not a bulletproof method.
3.2 In-Camera Copyright
Another easy way to add a simple layer of protection is to add the copyright information in to your camera so that each image's EXIF data contains the author, copyright information and so on. To do this you can follow one of the guides below:

3.3 Ease of Acquisition

3.31 Image Sharing Websites

To avoid your images being stolen directly, you must be vigilant and often one of the easiest and most important ways is overlooked. If a thief can find your image, right click and 'save as' the full-sized file you're doing something wrong. The perfect case in point is most of the images on Flickr. A huge number of high quality images can be simply right clicked and the 'original size' selected for a full resolution and full quality copy to be downloaded immediately and hassle-free. Here is Flickr's advice on this very topic:

Flickr provides some deterrents to discourage downloading. You can go here to hide your original sizes (Pro accounts only) and disable right-clicking. You can also go here and disable the share feature.

Understand that these are minor roadblocks, at best. Any photo that can be seen can be downloaded. That is the nature of the Internet. This is from the FAQ:

"We've made changes to the page to discourage casual downloading and make people more aware of image ownership .... by 'discourage' we do mean simply 'discourage'. Please understand that if a photo can be viewed in a web browser, it can be downloaded by people who actively disregard our roadblocks."

You can make your 'stream private, visible only to a select few. Remember, however, that adding a private photo to a group will enable any signed-in group member to see it, and thus copy it.

If, despite these precautions and others (All Rights Reserved, watermarks, etc.) someone publishes your photos, you may want to pursue legal action.

In short, don't post any photos online that you can't afford to lose control over.

Although possibly true, I vehemently object to the closing statement of that advice. One ought to feel comfortable and protected in sharing one's images online without having to accept that any control over that image has been not only jeopardized, but completely lost into the digital ether. Another tip regarding any image hosting website such as Flickr or similar is to not upload the full sized file. If you scale down the image to even 50% of its original resolution, the number of applications of that file are drastically reduced; one cannot print the image at a decent size, they won't be able to sell the image to companies and it is likely to be rejected by most competitions.

3.32 Portfolios

Another common problem is a photographer's portfolio. The same problem that I have highlighted with Flickr can sometimes be replicated - albeit to a lesser degree - on the photographer's own website. If one's portfolio allows the right-click and 'save image' of your photographs then you ought to review the method for sharing those images. This can be combated by using portfolios that disable the specific actions of right-clicking, or alternatively by using a Flash portfolio which has the same effect. For example, my portfolio which can be seen by clicking here is not only Flash but has right click disabled entirely. (Note: some image sharing websites - 500px for example - have this feature automatically enabled along with not being able to see the full sized image by default.)

As anyone even remotely au fait with computers will already be aware, this isn't a flawless solution. There is nothing stopping the user of your portfolio simply pressing print screen on the image they want and then cropping the file to the parameters of the photograph they desire. However, as already discussed, this will be a low resolution version and is far less useful.

3.4 Paying for Rights

It is a sad realisation that for the best protection of your work, you must pay money to receive the full extent of the law, but so be it. There are two other effective routes for preventing plagiarism and they will unfortunately require one to dip their hand in their pocket.

3.41 Copyright

The first is registering a copyright. For a full guide on how to do this, where to do this and what rights it affords the photographer, follow the links below:

Although registering the copyright for an image is certainly not inexpensive - especially if you wish to do so for a large body of work - it does have its benefits. It cannot stop theft from occurring, but it does mean that one is in a better position - legally speaking - if it should occur and there is allegedly a higher chance of larger fees for damages being paid to the photographer.

3.42 Digimarc

Of all the prevention techniques I have listed, Digimarc is probably the most thorough and effective. Here is Digimarc's own description of what they do for images:

Digimarc® for Images allows you to embed imperceptible, persistent digital watermarks into your images to communicate ownership and other information - wherever the images travel across the Internet.

They offer a number of packages for anything from the small-time professional through to the photography tycoon. A succinct summary of what the service does is this: it adds a digital watermark to one's images that cannot be removed or changed and means one's registered images are tracked relentlessly.

The prices are reasonable, especially if you are not taking thousands and thousands of pictures per annum, but as with the other deterrents and ways of protecting your images listed in this section, it isn't infallible. The registered images can still be stolen and your rights are the same as without Digimarc; the benefit lies in how quickly you can identify plagiarism and can act upon it. This brings me to the next section: how to find your images that have been plagiarised or stolen.

4. Detection

The prevention of plagiarism is certainly important and you ought to be as prepared as possible. Regardless, there is one glaringly apparent constant present in all deterrents: you can still have your images stolen. In fact, a photographer could employ all of the techniques in section 3 and whilst well protected, that photographer's body of work is still vulnerable. So it is now important to understand the options available to a photographer for finding their work that has been plagiarised. Firstly, as mentioned in the closing of section 3, Digimarc is an excellent way to track your images and therefore is a successful detection system. However, there are other options that are free.

4.1 A Guide to Google's 'Search by Image'

Some time ago, using Google to find your images that have been stolen would be tantamount to dialling random phone numbers of anyone in the world and hoping to get through to a friend. The introduction of Google's 'Search by Image' has put a halt to that almost fruitless task. Search by Image does exactly what it says on the tin: it allows the user to upload or link an image and have Google comb the internet for two things:

1. Instances of that image

2. Similar images

The application and uses of 1) is fairly self evident. By being able to browse every website that displays the your image, you can find instantiations of it which are theft and/or plagiarism. The benefits of 2) are with regards to the aforementioned visual plagiarism; the theft of an idea. It isn't an exact science by any stretch of the imagination as it attempts to match up pixel by pixel similarities and it can result in wildly different images to the human eye. That said, it will unearth imitation or parody if the offending image is close enough to the original. So here is a step by step guide on how to use Search by Image:

1) Click here to access Google's Search by Image.

2) Search by either pasting a link to your image (the url should end in a still media format file extension - i.e: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5489/11448122345_fdb4c62850_z.jpg) or by uploading the image from your computer.

3) Browse the results to see where your image occurs.

As you can see, there over 10 pages of instantiations of my image on various websites around the internet. Of those near 300 occurrences of my image Adversity only a few are either my website(s) or uses I have signed off on, so to speak. A lot of the websites that use my image are people on forums discussing how I made the image or featuring as their image of the day. Some credit me and some don't. There are even a few websites who feature it as one of their images of the day that do not credit me and are probably making money off of advertising from it, and I will be contacting them. The others I will leave be. This is perhaps a refinement of the Flickr quote from section 3.31, but if you want to upload and share your images online, stopping any uses what-so-ever without your permission will be a full time job. The cases to which I take umbrage with are ones where the 'thief' (I use that term rather loosely here) is making money either directly or indirectly (i.e via advertising) from my work without my permission.

As you can also see in that image, the 'visually similar images' section is hit and miss in the extreme; as lovely as that rather orange painting of Jesus is, it's certainly not plagiarising any of my work!

4.2 Plagiarism Detection Sites

Google's Search by Image is not the only website that offers plagiarism detection and there are sites that have been doing similar jobs for some time. Here is a selection of alternatives that don't always dig up the same results:

Tin Eye - By far the most famous among photographers and very effective.

Copyscape - A text focused alternative.

Picsearch - Similar to Copyscape except it is an index of over 3,000,000,000 pictures.

In my experience, if you're not using Google's Search by Image you ought to be using Tin Eye - the others are long shots.

4.3 Community

Search engines are irrefutably useful for finding misuses of a photographer's images but they can't always find them and if you have a particularly successful image, it can be severely time consuming. One of the most effective and powerful anti-plagiarism approaches is to be a part of the photography community as a whole. The case of plagiarism that I experienced was in fact flagged up to me by a number of other photographers and it is these acts of kindness that prove invaluable.

Most photographers - or any worth their salt - will detest image theft and plagiarism. Therefore, in the interest of attacking this evil and in the hope that others will do the same for them, they will often alert you to the offender. In fact, there are community driven websites dedicated to this very task, namely Photo Stealers and I implore you to support them. Websites like Reddit (more specifically /r/photography), TalkPhotography, Petapixel and even photo sharing websites like 500px and Flickr all have communities within them. Being an active part of these communities will not only offer myriad benefits, it will act as a kind of anti-plagiarism device in and of itself. Furthermore, the communities tend to band together and plague the offender in to submission as they did in my case and as has very often been the case with Reddit and Petapixel. Blogger David Hobby of Strobist fame will testify to this fact as his wealth of fans rallied to his defence after finding an unauthorized use of his image.

5. Reaction

If your methods of prevention fail and your methods for detection succeed, it is time for reaction.

5.1 Cease & Desist

Although you are not legally obliged to send this email or letter, it ought to be most people's first port of call. It is simply making contact with the person responsible for the plagiarism or theft which asks for them to stop using the image in ways that breach the photographer's copyright. Alternatively, if the offender is not using the image for financial gain, you could request appropriate credit and/or the image be hotlinked to your portfolio.
Here are some cease & desist letter templates.
5.2 Invoicing

A lot of photographers appear to shy away from this in my experience. This route is most useful when a publication or news outlet uses one of your images without permission. These cases can range from minor settlements between parties in private, through to photojournalists suing media agencies in court cases that last years. The reticence of photographers to take this action stems from a lack of understanding of how the media and freelance photographers interact.

Sports photography is the most useful case to illuminate why this action is often the quickest and cleanest. The father of a close friend of mine has run his own sports photography business for many years and through this friend I learnt exactly how the process works. The photographer will attend a sporting event as press and will take a number of pictures. These pictures will be quickly edited and distributed to news agencies and they will either use them or discard them. The photographer (or someone working for him) will then sift through all the publications looking for any photographs that the photographer in question took, noting down any he or she finds and what size and where they were used. Then, using the photography pricing guides ( like this one) the photographer sends an invoice to the publication for the usage and they pay the fee. So if a newspaper, news outlet or similar print your image (or use it digitally) without your consent, sending an invoice is by no means alien to them.

Not only do I suggest this method as an alternative to legal action in theory, I have experience carrying it out in practice. I once sold an image of the UK riots to a broadsheet here in England and they printed it and used it digitally. They credited me and deposited the correct amount of money for the image's usage in to my bank account. Several months later the same broadsheet used another image of mine (presumably found on Flickr as that's where I get approached the most by media) without asking my permission first. I spoke to the son of the sports photographer about it and he explained to me everything I eluded to in the above paragraph and told me to invoice them. I invoiced them for the usage and they promptly paid the fee without question. I need not highlight the merit of this particular course of action any further than that.

5.3 DMCA Takedown Notice and Legal Action

This subsection marks the beginning of the more legal side to things, of which I cannot profess to have any knowledge of in a professional capacity. So instead I will quote Sara F. Hawkins' definition of what the DMCA is and prompt you to click the link below to visit her article on it should you require more information.

First, let's define what a DMCA is. DMCA is actually short for Digital Millennium Copyright Act and it is a group of laws that protect copyrighted content on digital mediums. Signed into law in 1998, the DMCA has been the go-to source for many of the copyright infringement issues arising due to the proliferation of digital media. There are many aspects of the law, but the one most people are familiar with is the DMCA Takedown Notice.

Click here for more information and to read Sara's full article.
The next step should the above three methods either not prove fruitful, or need to be skipped in a more serious case, I suggest seeking proper legal assistance in order to file a lawsuit.

6. Further Reading

If I have missed any details you deem important or helpful, misinformed in an area or am inaccurate or require more depth for lucidity's sake, please feel free to comment on this article or contact me directly. Any additions made to this article on the advice or submission of a reader will be properly accredited (as it would be unprecedented levels of irony not to) and the author thanked. I will keep this article updated where possible.

About The Author

Robert K. Baggs is a 26 year old photographer from Hertfordshire, England, he is currently a research fellow at Hertfordshire University studying for his MA in philosophy. Robert also runs Acufocal, a site dedicated to fashion, style and photography with a particular interest in portraiture and fashion photography. You can also follow Robert on 500px, twitter. This article was originally published here and shared with permission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Guide to Plagiarism and Theft in Photography

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2013 my most popular article (by some distance) was the story of how my most successful image was plagiarised in a rather unusual way; a photographer had recreated the image from scratch. It seemed to me to be a bit of a grey area and I was unsure where I stood legally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
They say there are no new ideas under the sun. Nowhere does that ring truer than in Hollywood.

Sometimes we get two movies with the same plot in the same summer (remember Deep Impact and Armageddon?). Other times, movies just blatantly steal from another movies and hope we won't notice.

Metal Man

Is there a cooler, more fun superhero than Metal Man? The snarky, quick-witted defender of good in a metal super-powered suit is... no... no, that's not right. Metal Man is just a cheap fraud!

Iron Man, however-that guy's pretty cool.

With just $1-million, these filmmakers thought they could make something that so closely resembled Marvel's biggest cash cow, folks would indulge. How could they not?

The ploy didn't pan out for the seven small production companies behind Metal Man. Its rancid acting and horrendous special effects have rendered it nothing more than what it is: a thrifty con.

Snakes on a Train

The hype for Snakes on a Plane was bigger than the movie turned out to be. Its preposterous title perfectly encapsulates the film's plot. And Samuel L. Jackson's most cherished expletive became the movie's most quotable line.

The Asylum, a company known for "mockbusters," was put on alert.

Expecting Snakes on a Plane to be a flyaway hit, The Asylum threw together a knockoff version, slapped a similar enough title on it, and hoped to fool people into buying the wrong movie.

Snakes on a Train was released three days prior to the film it copied. Both were campy. Neither was any good.

Mac and Me

Inevitably, another movie came along and tried to duplicate it. In 1988, Mac and Me was born. Things didn't go as well.

Co-financed by McDonalds and Coca-Cola, the film features an alien on the run from a testing lab, alongside a wheelchair-bound boy he connects with on the way.

Boasting many McDonalds and Coke products throughout, the movie has been the subject of much ridicule since its release. For a good time, type "paul rudd mac and me" into YouTube.

Playmobil: The Movie

Who among us could have predicted the recent surge in Lego's popularity? A whole store and a theme park weren't enough. Lego had to go and get its own movie franchise. And they're pretty good movies, to boot.

Feeling left out of all the fun, another toy brand has now tried to take advantage.

If you played with Playmobil figures when you were a kid and you thought, "They should make a movie with these things!" then congratulations - you were the only one.

That is, until ON Animation Studios paid a bunch of a money for some quality voice talent in the hopes that the Lego people wouldn't be the only game in town.

Transmorphers

The Asylum knows a good thing when they hear about it.

Anticipating the film's popularity, Transmorphers hit the DVD buckets just prior to Bay's film going to the big screen. What did people think? One critic said that "even the most dedicated Bad Movie fans will have difficulty slogging through this one."

Kimba the White Lion

If you don't love The Lion King, you might want to see a doctor. Or maybe your eyes have been opened and you know that the movie was completely plagiarized.

The Disney classic looks like a carbon copy of Kimba the White Lion, right down to the villainous lion (called Claw), his menacing hyena henchmen, and the wise mandril.

What's more, Kimba's dead father appears in the clouds, a character dangles from a tree branch over a stampede, and Kimba fights Claw in the same way for his rock fortress home. Disney claimed ignorance.

Immortals

300 is a comic book come to life on screen. It's stylish, violent, and very muscle-y. Seeing that it did big money at the box office, many "swords and sandals" epics followed.

One of those was 2011's Immortals. It did not live up to its name.

Before he was Superman, Henry Cavill was Theseus in this action-adventure about a mortal selected by Zeus to stop an evil king. No, not the same plot. But the same style, same warfare, same muscles. It's even got a bronze filter!

So, who made this 300 doppelgänger hoping to repeat that film's success? Well, the producers of 300, of course.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes

Not to be outdone, The Asylum got in on the action. A month later, their heroes were fighting dinosaurs and giant octopuses!

Made on a $1-million budget, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes went straight to video. A tasteless attempt at a money grab, some critics appreciated it as parody.

Doyle, it should be noted, died in 1930 of a heart attack. Experts believe that had he survived it and lived another seventy years, this movie would have killed him.

EDtv

A year later, another movie came along that seemed awfully familiar to audiences.

EDtv had been in production before The Truman Show was released. Matthew McConaughey stars as a man who volunteers to have his life filmed 24/7 for a TV show.

The marketing campaign was tasked with reminding you of Truman while also trying to distinguish itself from Truman. But neither strategy worked, and the film flopped.

Kiara the Brave

Brightspark is a U.K.-based production company whose forte is capitalizing on the success of bigger movies.

Braver was an older film re-titled and re-packaged to look like Brave. Disney responded with a cease and desist. But Braver wasn't alone in its schemes. An Indian film from 2011 altered its marketing to do just the same.

Almighty Thor

Iron Man wasn't alone. His Avenger partner also fell victim to the cash grab scheme. The perpetrator? Who else? The Asylum!

In 2011, the Marvel Cinematic Universe expanded when the god of thunder was cast out of Asgard. Only in another realm could the knockoff version have any power.

True to form, Almighty Thor featured actors you've never heard of and special effects that would have been cheap by 1991's standards.

Syfy premiered the film a day after Marvel released theirs. If you were fooled by this one, there's no sense in ever making that known. Some secrets are okay to die with.

Chop Kick Panda AND The Little Panda Fighter

DreamWorks Animation's Kung Fu Panda was such a success, it got the ripoff treatment twice! With Jack Black and several other household names lending their voices, the movie became the studio's biggest opening for a non-sequel.

That got other companies thinking. And reproducing.

In Brazil, Heavy's Little Bear was re-titled to The Little Panda Fighter. Its packaging was meant to confuse consumers into purchasing this film instead.

The Terminator

Legendary director James Cameron would never pass off someone else's idea as his own, right? Well, about that...

The Terminator, Cameron's classic sci-fi/action/horror flick, has been accused of plagiarism. Two different times. By the same acclaimed author. As it turns out, Cameron traveled pretty far back in time for "inspiration," much like the titular cyborg from his first hit film.

Harlan Ellison is an iconic science fiction writer. Two of his episodes for The Outer Limits are stories that very closely resemble The Terminator.

In one of the episodes, called "Soldier," two warring foot soldiers from the future are transported back in time to 1964. The hero sacrifices himself to save a family that the transported villain attacks. Ellison accused Cameron of ripping him off. A settlement was reached between the two.

Atlantic Rim

So someone took advantage. Or, tried to.

The Asylum was back at it again, this time with Atlantic Rim. Because if you can't beat 'em, rip 'em off. With only $500,000 to spend, the filmmakers did their best to make something as similar as they could to del Toro's hit movie.

They didn't, and very few were tricked into thinking this movie was that movie. Maybe next time, guys.

Orca

Before Spielberg's Jaws, the notion of a summer blockbuster didn't exist. Since 1975, the biggest movies of the year hit the multiplexes in the hottest months.

Two years after that great white terrorized Cape Cod, another marine predator hoped to take a bite out of our wallets.

Sharks are sometimes hunted by killer whales (orcas)-even white sharks. So naturally, director Michael Anderson and Paramount and everyone else figured they'd repeat Spielberg's triumph with a better, smarter monster.

Not quite. Richard Harris subbing for Robert Shaw in this less suspenseful Jaws copycat only amounted to about $14-million worth at the box office.

Battle of Los Angeles

Alien invasion movies are not easy to reproduce without a lot of money. At least not these days on a grand scale. 2011's Battle: Los Angeles is one of those $100-million aliens-attack-a-city blockbuster.

It made more than $200-million in return. So why not duplicate it?

That's what the fine folks over at The Asylum thought. With virtually the same basic plot, this mockbuster premiered on Syfy only days after the big one hit theaters.

What did people think of it? Same thing they always do about these sorts of movies. It's so bad it's good.

Tangled Up

Tangled was a winsome and funny new take on the Rapunzel fairy tale. With something for everyone, the movie's box office return approached the $600-million mark.

Brightspark noticed, just as everyone else did, and got creative. No, not creative. Deceptive.

With a spin on the title and some familiar cover art, they distributed Tangled Up. Surely people were duped by this one. If you're not paying attention, you might think you're buying the Mandy Moore-voiced musical charmer.

But if Tangled Up went into your cart, you were had. It looks nothing like Tangled, nor would the two be confused for one another, save for the misleading cover.

Body Heat

In it, an insurance salesman is roped into offing a seductress's husband. Lawrence Kasdan made a very similar movie in 1981.

In Body Heat, William Hurt steps in for Fred MacMurray. Kathleen Turner takes over for Barbara Stanwyck. The plot is virtually identical.

Despite its striking similarities, Body Heat is not an official remake of Double Indemnity -only "inspired" by it, they said. But it didn't seem to bother anyone. The 1981 take was highly acclaimed.

The Da Vinci Treasure

At the height the Dan Brown craze, when Tom Hanks and his longer, straighter hair was gracing the big screen, another movie was lurking nearby.

Not in theaters of course. No, The Da Vinci Treasure was only available on DVD.

Even with the likes of former stars C. Thomas Howell and Lance Henriksen, The Da Vinci Treasure couldn't swindle the masses. Despite a title and plot close enough to the Howard film, this one was soon forgotten.

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games franchise was adapted from a massively popular 2008 book series. So, that must be where the movies get their basis. Not according to lovers of Japanese cinema.

The claim? The Hunger Games stole its plot from Battle Royale. They may have a point.

Based on a 1999 novel, the critically acclaimed Battle Royale follows a group of high school students sent by the government to an island where they must fight to the death. In this "game" set in a dystopian future, only one will be left alive.

Yup, that's what The Hunger Games is. And yet, Jennifer Lawrence's four films were global sensations.

The Thief and the Cobbler

We're not sure what to make of The Thief and the Cobbler. In some stage of production over the course of three decades, the film was finally finished (sort of) and released in 1993.

A year earlier, Aladdin graced the multiplexes. The similarities are obvious. But which came first?

Many who have seen Cobbler argue that it ripped off Aladdin. The characters, the plot, and the design of the films are very close.

However, Cobbler was a known project long before Aladdin went into production. People at Disney were certainly aware of it as it bounced around studios for thirty years. We may never know who stole from whom.

Hansel & Gretel

The Grimm brothers' dark tale of a brother-sister duo kidnapped by a witch got the cinematic treatment twice in 2013. The first one was a $50-million project that starred Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton.

That movie grossed $225-million worldwide. The other one sure didn't.

Five days after Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters was released, it was The Asylum's turn. Their version, Hansel & Gretel, went direct-to-DVD. It starred Dee Wallace (the mom from E.T.!) as a witch.

On a minuscule budget, Wallace found the shoot to be a miserable experience. Viewers unfortunate enough to have found the DVD had an equally agonizing time.

Ratatoing

Disney Pixar's Ratatouille was fun for the whole family. The 2007 film won Best Animated Feature at the Oscars and even made BBC's list of the one-hundred greatest films of the 21st century.

One movie not on that list? Ratatoing.

What the heck is Ratatoing? An animated Brazilian film from 2007 about a rat chef who owns and operates the best restaurant in town.

This thing is an animation abomination. It looks and sounds nothing like the movie it's trying to take advantage of, and worst of all, it's meant for kids. Exposure to bad art is among the leading causes of delinquency in children.

Sunday School Musical

What about Sunday School Musical? How'd that do?

Not so good! Sold as a Christian take on High School Musical, the two films have little in common. But the title and the packaging sure look alike.

This one comes from the faith-based wing of The Asylum. According to those who saw it, the film was an unholy mess. For ripoff artists, nothing is sacred.

Home Alone

1990 was a long time ago. So it's safe to call Home Alone a Christmas classic. It may not be safe to call it original.

Macaulay Culkin bedeviling a pair of inept criminals on Christmas Eve while alone in his house had been seen before.

In 1989, a French film called Game Over (or, 3615 code Père Noël) featured a young boy at home with his disabled grandfather on Christmas Eve. The home is attacked by a demented man claiming to be Santa. The adept boy sets booby traps in defense of his home.

Though it's not a comedy, that film's director threatened legal action against Home Alone's producers.

Triassic World

The Asylum saw a pattern forming.

Jurassic World is the sixth highest grossing movie ever made. Triassic World's CGI would have looked pretty decent in the Triassic period.

Released ahead of 2018's Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (the sequel), the movie hoped to capitalize off a mega-franchise. Eat your hearts out, bad movie aficionados!

Critters

Everyone's favorite pseudo-Christmas monster movie, Gremlins, was fun for the whole family. Made for only $11-million, the film topped $153-million at the box office and led to mountains of merchandise.

One can never have too much of a good thing.

The obvious attempt to ride the coattails of Gremlins didn't go too well for New Line Cinema. They made their money back, but Critters would soon fall into obscurity.

The Day the Earth Stopped

In spite of its better performance internationally, it played poorly in the U.S. Apparently expecting a stronger turnout, The Asylum got to work.

They threw together The Day the Earth Stopped. Released on video four days prior, their version starred '80s throwbacks C. Thomas Howell and J udd Nelson. And like the similarly titled Keanu Reeves film, this one used the same source material.

As a result, 20th Century Fox threatened to bring legal action against The Asylum. They never did.

Disturbia

Nine years after he was violated by Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock again had to see one of his classics made a second time.

Technically he'd been dead for twenty-seven years, but everyone else took offense on his behalf.

Disturbia was never actually called a remake. Had it been, it wouldn't be on this list. It's nothing but a modern retelling of Rear Window. Shia LaBeouf plays a teenager under house arrest who spies on his next door neighbor, believing him to be a killer.

LaBeouf was no James Stewart. And Disturbia, positive reviews notwithstanding, was no Rear Window.

Zoom

Then, in 2006, another movie with the same premise went to theaters.

Zoom starred Tim Allen in a role similar to Russell's. This action-adventure-family-comedy also had a high school for kids with superpowers!

While Sky High saw some financial return (it made $86-million), Zoom was a super flop. Both had budgets of $35-million, and Zoom only made a fraction of that back.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Movies That Shamelessly Ripped Off Other Movies | Collider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They say there are no new ideas under the sun. Nowhere does that ring truer than in Hollywood. Sometimes we get two movies with the same plot in the same summer (remember Deep Impact and Armageddon ?). Other times, movies just blatantly steal from another movies and hope we won't notice.

# data[].attributes.body
Very similar ideas and same concept

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the news of Donald Glover's hit "This is America" possibly being a product of plagiarization, I coincidentally discovered the same scenario in the arts. For those who aren't aware, Glover is being accused of ripping off a song, "American Pharoah", by the lesser known rapper named Jase Harley. When you listen to both songs, there is an uncanny similarity that cannot be denied. Coincidence or plagiarism?

The same case seems to be happening in the arts this moment with Linden Hopwood and Kip Omolade. While perusing the interwebs for emerging artists and new works, I came across a recently debuted piece by Hopwood and automatically saw a resemblance to Omolade's Diovadiova Chrome Michelle III (below). There are some differences but overall the two piece are strikingly alike. I understand that is possible for artists to have overlap when it comes to conceptualizing and producing work but I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow when comparing the two paintings. Is this a case of creative coincidence or blatant plagiarism?
Leave your comment below and let us know what you think.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Linden Hopwood Channels Kip Omolade: Coincidence or Plagiarism? |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the news of Donald Glover's hit "This is America" possibly being a product of plagiarization, I coincidentally discovered the same scenario in the arts. For those who aren't aware, Glover is being accused of ripping off a song, "American Pharoah", by the lesser known rapper named Jase Harley.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We know it's wrong, we know it's tacky, we know it's uninspired and easy to call out; but we do it anyway. No, I'm not talking about ghosting. I'm talking about something far, far scarier - a little thing we like to call plagiarism. Just in case you tuned out the first 20 times English teacher named it and shamed it, let's go over the definition: It's when you pass off someone else's previously created shit as your own. Considering how mimicry is basically ingrained into our DNA (monkey see, monkey do, after all) the rip-off's ubiquity in the art world will never fade. It's a bummer.
Still, that doesn't mean we can't strike back against it. With the advent of Google, Photoshop and other tools, it's never been easier to snuff out fakes. Enter DoctorWeir, the vigilante behind the blog Sad but True: Plagiarism in Heavy Metal Art. When they're not working as a visual artist, DoctorWeir (who maintains a masked identity to ensure privacy) acts as a watchdog for art theft - more specifically, plagiarized LP artwork. Visual imagery is essential to heavy metal culture, the author says, which makes exposing pilferers all the more important. We reached out to DoctorWeir to discuss Sad but True, artistic detective work, the fine line separating "inspired by" and "stolen from," and much more.

What inspired you to create this blog?
As a professional artist for almost 20 years, I have some experience with what you can and can't do with other people's media. All the time I see examples of minor and major plagiarism happen on metal album covers and, of course, no discussion about it happens. Nothing happens because a lot of people seem to have this idea that things like "fair use," "parody," "collage," etc., just absolves you of any responsibility of what you take from the internet, and that simply isn't true. There are criteria for each of those things to apply, and when it comes to commercial products like album covers (and anything that someone is profiting off of in general), you have a lot of restrictions on what you can and can't do.

After I launched the blog, I have received a ton of feedback online, and it is clear that a lot of people are simply not educated on this topic. My only goal is to help draw some light to examples that I have seen that are not okay.

Where do you personally draw the line between homage and rip-off?
Parody and homage, to me, mean that you are honoring the overall vibe and theme of a well-known thing, but you still create the entire thing yourself from scratch, and the most important part is that you are also adding your own spin to it. That is the key part that I think a lot of people miss. If I am in a band and I wanted to make a homage to Metallica's Ride the Lightning, I could have a stormy background with SOME kind of object in the middle being electrified, and the whole album cover could be blue. It could look very close, but I would need to make sure that I didn't directly cut and paste any elements from the original work, and I would need to make sure that whatever object I put in the middle of the piece wasn't an electric chair or even something CLOSE to an electric chair. It would have to be something more associated with whatever my band was about.

The minute that I cut and paste original artwork from Ride the Lightning into my own, then I have plagiarized it. This goes for parody as well. You can't just TAKE from the original source material and say it's yours. It doesn't work that way. That said, you absolutely can plagiarize a theme or concept as well, and in the example you posted, it would be up to courts to decide if there was intent to copy (and not a parody) or if it was a coincidence.

But my personal line is pretty simple, and that is, "Is there deception involved?" If the artist is trying to make it clear that they are honoring another work and they are NOT directly cutting and pasting from the source material, then I don't think it is plagiarism. If they are trying to do fishy things like flipping the source material, covering it up with Photoshop filters, and cutting and pasting another artist's painted strokes into their own works in order to make up for their own artistic shortcomings, then I absolutely feel that is plagiarism. And to be clear, it's very common in design to take from all sorts of source material that you don't own and do JUST that, but you have to transform what you are taking SO FAR for it to be acceptable. That is the part people have a hard time with. "What is an acceptable amount of change" is a line that moves depending on the artist.

But I think if you are cutting out a whole skeleton from a Frank Frazetta painting, that's plagiarism. Paint it yourself and you won't ever have any issues.

I've noticed that your evidence for certain plagiarism cases often involves subtle details - such as pilfered texture, posing or shading - that might otherwise go overlooked by a casual fan. Do you use any programs to isolate, identify and compare these elements, or do you do it all by eye?
No, I am just authoring a blog that is the end result of a lot of artists talking with each other over a long period of time. So, it's just the collective eye of many.

A lot of artists are getting really tired of the laziness of the craft at the moment, and are tired of seeing so many shortcuts being taken. Especially when those shortcuts involve taking artwork from other artists. Unless artwork is in the public domain, you can't take it without asking permission and citing the original creator. There's a myth online that "everything in Google is free for me to use" with amateurs. I say "amateurs" because real professionals know the rules already.

How did you come across most of the examples of plagiarism featured on the site? Did you come across them while browsing at a record shop or online? Through your own work? Sheer serendipity?
Some are found by friends of mine. Some are found when we start to see a particular plagiarist's art habits, and when you see their patterns, you can easily guess what their Google searches look like. You'd be surprised how many of them type in generic terms into Google and take results off of the first page they see. I've worked in the video game industry before, and I have seen, firsthand, people get in deep trouble for doing the exact same thing. Different industry, same rules.

Can plagiarism ever be accidental?
Good question, and I am not quite sure how to answer it. There might be some way for it to be an accident, but more often than not, it's just naiveté. I think internet culture has sort of forged a new generation of artists into thinking that if someone uploads something, then it is okay to take from it. That couldn't be farther from the truth. There are fair use rules, of course, but those typically only apply to nonprofit things. This is how come meme culture can thrive without any problems, but cutting and pasting from other artists can get you in trouble.

In your view, do bands carry a responsibility to ensure that their album artwork - like their music - is original? If the artist steals from a previous work that the band may not have been familiar with, is it guilt by association or a failure on the band's part?
I don't think so, no. I wouldn't expect a band to be able to police the people making art for their albums. I am not a lawyer, though, and so who knows? Maybe they would be responsible legally.

Album artwork carries a greater level of significance in the metal world than in other genres, and is taken much more seriously. Why do you think that is?
I think that the designs are just so intertwined with the culture and the music that it all becomes one thing. Everyone remembers getting a big vinyl, or a tape, or a CD, and flipping through the artwork and lyrics while you are listening to your album for the first time. And while that happens with every genre of music, I think that heavy metal just demands a certain type of visuals to sell it.

Ostensibly, you've gotten some angry emails from the artists called out on the site. Has the opposite scenario occurred? Has anyone reached out in appreciation?
Oh, absolutely. The amount of support that I have gotten from other artists has been staggering, and those are the people that I made the blog for. I don't care about any of the comments that people make on blogs or social media.

Has your work as an artist had any bearing on how you approach this issue? For non-artists, these things might not seem like a big deal, but on the other side of the fence, it's personal.
It is absolutely personal. I don't know for sure and I certainly don't dwell on it, but I have a suspicion that I have actually lost work to a known and proven plagiarist. Someone who isn't an artist and isn't trying to make a living like this has no clue how this affects the entire industry. I'll give you an example: There is a joke that gets tossed around, and it basically says that you can get two out of three choices when hiring an artist: cheap, fast and good. You can only pick two, meaning you can get something cheap and fast, but it probably won't be good. You can get something fast and good, but it won't be cheap - because the artist will want to charge more for doing it fast - etc.

When you are stealing artwork from other BETTER artists, of course you can produce something good, cheap and fast. That undercuts the entire industry. When a band can get pretty decent-looking artwork for pennies, it makes the pay curve of the industry seem a bit skewed. And of course, as if it needs to even be said, if you are literally cutting and pasting the very paint strokes of artists like Frank Frazetta, then your artwork is gonna look pretty killer! At least, the part of it that you stole.

Last but not least, what is your favorite metal album cover?
Difficult choice, but I would have to say Sepultura's Arise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
sad but true plagiarism in heavy metal art

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the Online Vigilante Battling Heavy Metal Art Theft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We know it's wrong, we know it's tacky, we know it's uninspired and easy to call out; but we do it anyway. No, I'm not talking about ghosting. I'm talking about something far, far scarier - a little thing we like to call plagiarism.

# data[].attributes.body
makeup artist copies other makeup artist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unfortunately, large companies' ripping off individual artists' designs is nothing new. But when one Australian makeup artist's work was copied without her permission, she was not about to go down without a fight.

Earlier this week, a MUA who posts her amazing, rainbow-colored eye makeup looks on Instagram as @doyouevenblend and lists her name as Katina, noticed that Real Techniques had posted a photo on Instagram of an inventive eyeliner design that was extremely similar to one she posted in December. Real Techniques apparently neglected to mention or tag Katina in their recreation of her look, and rather than accepting the blatant plagiarism as par for the course, the makeup artist decided to fight back.

On Wednesday, she posted a photo on Instagram in which she compares her design and Real Techniques' iteration side by side. The look features bright coral eyeshadow covering the eyelid, a fuchsia shade in the crease, and a swipe of fluorescent yellow eyeliner on the outside half of the eye and right under the brow. The two images are almost exactly the same: The biggest difference is that Katina added another short line of yellow liner in the inside corner of the eye.

She also uploaded screenshots of a back and forth she had with Real Techniques in the comments section of its post. "This is an exact copy of a look I uploaded in December last year.. Down to placement and colours. Where is this image from?" she initially commented. The brush company deflected Katina's accusations and offered to send her a gift: "This is an image that we created using one of our makeup artists! We love your profile, it's so inspirational. We'd like to send you a gift so you can keep creating looks that slay. Please DM us!" But Katina wasn't having it. "[Your] make-up artist didn't CREATE it. They Re-created it," she wrote. "This is not acceptable and incredibly disheartening as an [artist] who put [their] heart and soul into [their] creations. Perhaps employing artists with [their] own creative flair might be a better option? Or just employ the artist who originally came up with it if you love [their] work so much!?... Are u joking?!! A gift? Wow... I've been purchasing your brushes since I started doing make-up 5 years ago. I'm not some greedy blogger on Instagram that just wants free sh*t. What a f*cking joke."

Since the exchange, Real Techniques has removed its post and, according to a new post from Katina, reached out to apologize to her. "@realtechniques have apologised for 'any harm caused' on their behalf, and for the 'misunderstanding,'" she wrote. "For those saying I should 'just be flattered', 'get over it', 'people copy all the time', 'just take the gift and shut up'. You've completely MISSED the point. I NEVER have an issue with anyone re-creating anything that I do." She added, "For anyone that has an issue with the way I reacted to the situation, I'm not responsible for how that's made you feel. I reacted in a way that came naturally to me in the moment (with emotion) and a way that I felt was appropriate. Especially considering the initial response I was given when I asked about the work. Although my use of language may have been harsh, I still have the right to DEFEND myself and my work. This is something that has happened to a lot of artists by major companies and other huge accounts here on Instagram, and I feel it's important to speak up."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Makeup Artist Is Calling This Beauty Brand Out for Stealing Her Look

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unfortunately, large companies' ripping off individual artists' designs is nothing new. But when one Australian makeup artist's work was copied without her permission, she was not about to go down without a fight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Art Plagiarism Case #65 - Caso de Plagio Artístico #65 - @eliana-art | PeakD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Previous Cases of Art Plagiarism By the User / casos Previos de Plagio Artistico del Usuario: https://steempeak.com/f... by jaguar.force

# data[].attributes.body
Billie's Bury a Friend and The Doors' People are Strange have similar 4 note phrases and has similar chord progressions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a statement given to Rappler on May 21, Assistant Secretary Charles Jose, the DFA spokesperson, said the judges of the competition found that "the subject entry was not completely original, which is a major criterion of the competition."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DFA revokes ASEAN art prize for 'plagiarism'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a statement given to Rappler on May 21, Assistant Secretary Charles Jose, the DFA spokesperson, said the judges of the competition found that "the subject entry was not completely original, which is a major criterion of the competition."

# data[].attributes.body
Lil Uzi Vert accused of plagiarizing Korean illustrator’s work

# data[].attributes.body
Plargiarism

# data[].attributes.body
Thomas Pullin's Original Work (Left) And Neda Rabiei's Nockoff (Right) (the bird one)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thanks to the internet it's never been easier for people to rip off something that somebody else created and pass it off as their own. It isn't just individuals who do it either, but major well-known companies like New Look, Forever21, and even Disney. We wrote about one such case before, where artist Tuesday Bassen discovered that Spanish retailer Zara had stolen her designs and were using them without crediting her, and now Bored Panda has compiled an extended list of people who have experienced similar unfair treatment at the hands of people too lazy, or too talentless, to create something for themselves. Scroll down to see for yourself, and let us know how you feel in the comments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
84 Times Artists Caught Companies And Fake Artists Copying Their Work And Selling It As Their Own

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thanks to the internet it's never been easier for people to rip off something that somebody else created and pass it off as their own. It isn't just individuals who do it either, but major well-known companies like New Look, Forever21, and even Disney.

# data[].attributes.body
Dinosaur from the movie.

# data[].attributes.body
Lanny Sommese poster plagiarized by Precious Movie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lichtenstein's use of comic art and styles made him one of America's most famous pop artists, but some have comic artists have a bad taste in their mouths

smithsonianmag.com

The paintings of Roy Lichtenstein, who was born 94 years ago today, are some of the most iconic examples of the pop art movement of the 20th century. Through appropriating the techniques and styles of comic books, a product considered decidedly juvenile and frivolous, Lichtenstein found a way to unite "low" and "high" art in captivating compositions.

However, as Lichtenstein enjoyed worldwide acclaim and his works continue to sell for tens of millions of dollars two decades after his death, comic book artists have voiced frustration at having their creations and genre appropriated with little credit and no money.

Some of these criticisms come over what is perceived as plagiarism by Lichtenstein. "The fact remains that Lichtenstein was simply reproducing the work of the original comic artists, without adding much," comics artist Marc Ellerby told the on the occasion of a large retrospective of Lichtenstein's career at London's Tate Modern in 2013. While expressing respect for Lichtenstein's talents in works like " We Rose Up Slowly," Ellerby also felt that his paintings of single frames hardly did justice to the narratives of comic books that could be hundreds of pages long.

"Lichtenstein did no more or less for comics than Andy Warhol did for soup," echoed Art Spiegelman, creator of the graphic novel "Maus," said in a 2007 interview.

Comics artist Dave Gibbons, who famously drew the graphic novel "Watchmen," has made even more pointed criticisms of Lichtenstein's work. "I'm not convinced that it is art," Gibbons told the BBC in a 2013 interview. "A lot of Lichtenstein's stuff is so close to the original that it actually owes a huge debt to the work of the original artist," he added, comparing it to music where artists usually credit the original creator of a song even when parodying it.

To shine more light on the source material behind Lichtenstein's work, comics enthusiast David Barsalou has spent more than three decades painstakingly tracking down the original strips that the artist painted after in a project called " Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein."

A more personal comment on Lichtenstein's relationship with the comics industry comes from veteran artist Russ Heath, the creator of the original comic panel that Lichtenstein used in his famous painting " Whaam!" In 2014, Heath, who is now 91 years old, drew a short strip about his experience having his work appropriated by the artist while struggling to make ends meet.

Now semi-retired and living on a "fixed income," Heath says he survives with the help of the " Hero Initiative," a charity that supports comic creators in need. "Roy got $4 million dollars for it," Heath said of "Whaam!" "I got zero."

Like this article?
SIGN UP for our newsletter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Comic Artists Who Inspired Roy Lichtenstein Aren't Too Thrilled About It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
smithsonianmag.com The paintings of Roy Lichtenstein, who was born 94 years ago today, are some of the most iconic examples of the pop art movement of the 20th century. Through appropriating the techniques and styles of comic books, a product considered decidedly juvenile and frivolous, Lichtenstein found a way to unite "low" and "high" art in captivating compositions.