Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Famous Wildlife Photographer Busted For Using Stock Images

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the they-all-look-the-same dept.

Media 182

Nobody knows better than Award-winning wildlife photographer Terje Helleso how hard it can be to get that perfect shot in an out-of-the-way location. That's why he used stock photos. The 47-year-old photographer passed off hundreds of stock photos as his own over the course of several years. From the article: "On Wednesday, a deeply regretful Helleso spoke to local radio. He gave economic problems as a reason, but mostly it was about his own unreasonably high demands on himself to be successful, he said. 'I was under pressure, mostly from myself, and I gave in to temptation. Looking back, I’m surprised that I got away with it for so long, and that I managed to keep up appearances to my wife and everyone else,' he said."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417386)

> He gave economic problems as a reason, but mostly it was about his own unreasonably high demands on himself to be successful, he said.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Re:Yeah. (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417400)

...Helleso, who is famous not only for his art, but also for being a strong advocate of keeping digital photography real and speaking out against manipulation or theft of material...

Ha ha is right..

Re:Yeah. (3, Funny)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417502)

...Helleso, who is famous not only for his art, but also for being a strong advocate of keeping digital photography real and speaking out against manipulation or theft of material...

Ha ha is right..

Well, it's easy to preach something you're not following yourself. ...he'd make a fine politician.

An obvious reminder (4, Insightful)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417392)

On Wednesday, a deeply regretful Helleso spoke to local radio

Regretful because he was caught. If he wasn't caught, probably he would have been quite happy.

Re:An obvious reminder (5, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417432)

I realise that it is trendy to be cynical of anyone who has gained any form of celebrity, but I think that it is also appropriate to remind people that the person behind the spotlight is as human as anyone else that you meet. Just like us, the make mistakes. Just like us, sometimes they are regretful because they were caught. And just like us, sometimes the regret that they express is sincere.

I don't know this photographer, so I don't know how sincere that regret is. On the other hand, I'm not willing to let cynicism overwhelm me by simply assuming that he is insincere.

Re:An obvious reminder (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417496)

yes, we're human: we get in car accidents, we trip and fall down the stairs, we say things we don't really mean

but we don't betray our own principles over an extended period of time in a calculated conscious manner

that's not being human, that's being a scumbag

"I don't know this photographer, so I don't know how sincere that regret is."

his regret is 100% sincere: he regrets being caught

save your human empathy for people who deserve it. this guy doesn't deserve it

Re:An obvious reminder (4, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417614)

Everyone deserves empathy. That's how empathy works. If you're applying some formula to decide whether someone's worthy then you're not really demonstrating empathy at all.

Re:An obvious reminder (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417748)

Very eloquently put. I'm considering copying and using it as my own. But ehh......

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417766)

True. The correct word would naturally be "sympathy".

You can empathise without sympathising. Not everyone deserves sympathy.

Re:An obvious reminder (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417776)

Empathy and sympathy does tend to get mixed up a bit. I can understand that it's embarrassing and humiliating to be exposed as a fraud, that is empathy. But I don't have any sympathy for him, because he dug that hole for himself. After all those lies he has very little credibility when he claims to regret it, that's not me starting out as a cynic but a direct result of his actions. Besides there's nothing inherent to empathy that means I should believe in the good of all people, only that I am able to put myself in their shoes. And putting myself in his shoes I see a self-serving prick who is now seeking sympathy from the gullible. Perhaps in time he will be able to prove that he truly wants to make amends, but it'll take more than getting caught with the hand in the cookie jar and saying "I'm sorry" to do it. At least with me.

Where to find sympathy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418898)

It's in the dictionary, between shit and syphilis

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418076)

There are many people who don't get empathy from me and this is one of them. How could he expect not to be caught? This is so stupid that I cannot imagine the mental process that led to it.

Stock photos are available for everyone to see, the human eye is very efficient at recognizing patterns. Especially in the world of photographers, people who would admire him for getting awarded that prize would certainly have seen the stock images he used and these people were professionals who would examine his photos carefully, even if only to try to learn something from his technique.

Maybe his downfall came only because he didn't expect to win that prize, but I cannot imagine how he could think he would never be caught. Dishonest people don't realize how many witnesses there are looking at what they do.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418328)

The human eye can't recognize patterns at all. The human brain on the other hand... well anyway I'll just type in my captcha and get this thing posted.

Re:An obvious reminder (1, Insightful)

ricosalomar (630386) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418572)

That's not really what empathy is. Think of empathy as an automatic response, like when you wince when you see someone get a paper cut, or get kicked it the nuts.
Sympathy is more intellectual, you consider the circumstances, and cognitively place yourself in the situation.
Then you weigh whether the person deserves your sympathy. This is where your ethical beliefs may come in to play.
Or you could think of it this way: A person without sympathy is a hard-ass, while a person without empathy is a sociopath.

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418148)

Empathy is not the same as sympathy. I might understand that a man raped and strangled killed children because he was abused as a child. I might emphasize with him putting myself in his place and wonder what abuse might have done to me. It wouldn't mean I have the slightest bit of sympathy if he danced on the end of a rope for his crimes.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418798)

The word you're looking for is empathize.

Re:An obvious reminder (3, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418266)

Aside from any question of another human being *deserving* our empathy, our empathy doesn't perform any useful function for *us* unless we're willing to extend it to people who are unsympathetic. For example, consider the following part of the article summary:

He gave economic problems as a reason, but mostly it was about his own unreasonably high demands on himself to be successful,

The reason that this man is a fit object for *empathy* is that unreasonable demands on ourselves to be successful is something we all feel now and then. The reason he is not a fit object for *sympathy* is we don't necessarily do something foolish or unethical because of it. Unrestrained ambition for undeserved position is what did Macbeth in. Combine that with a little hubris and you have the most common formula for stupid, self-destructive behavior there is.

Empathy guides are sympathy to those who deserve it, and enables us to learn from the examples of those who don't.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417924)

I think somehow both he and you deserve a little empathy.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418000)

Get some grip of reality, you idiot.

Nature knows no "good" and "bad". We life-forms individually assign those values to things. "Bad" becomes "hurts us" and "good" become "helps us". Regarding resources.
So obviously following from that is the fact that one individual's "good" can be the other one's "bad".
That's why modern criminology has abandoned those concepts.

Now think about what reasons people have for their actions, and you will notice that people never ever think that they themselves are bad. (OK, except for "emos". ;)
They either say "I think it is the right thing to do." or "I have no choice but to do it.".

How much do you wanna bet that he thought he had no choice but do do this?
It doesn't matter if he did. What matters is that in his perceived reality (yes, an unbiased view is physically impossible for everyone of us), it looked like that.
Maybe he knew other choices, but those were even worse. In which case there still really was just that one choice.
So he chose it.
And if you had been in his situation, with his memories, you would have acted exactly like this.

That's why it's just human.

Out of the perspective of the one paying him for those fake pictures, it may have hurt them, which would make it bad. (It definitely didn't hurt the stock photo maker, since information is not a physical object or product, and hence can't be sold, owned or stolen. Only the actual work is worth something. And you can hardly steal that.)

But it didn't hurt anyone of us, now did it?
Avoid him if you plan to pay someone for making pictures if you want., but quit being a dick despite it having absolutely no relationship to your life whatsoever. Go be angry about your government instead. They at least fuck up your life.

Or in other words: Get yourself a brain [wordpress.com] and seriously think about things for a couple of years [flickr.com] or so, before commenting again. You look like a 13 year old who thinks he's wise, but really is the biggest fool.

(Of course most people here on /. aren't grown-up enough to comprehend all this, and will mod it down out of a knee-jerk reaction to a few key words/phrases that are negatively associated or don't fit into their simple model of reality. Which is also just human, I guess...)

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418128)

Wow, such a sophomoric attitude.

How much do you wanna bet that he thought he had no choice but do do this?

What evil thing are you doing 'without choice'?

But it didn't hurt anyone of us, now did it?

When people shoplift, they say the same thing, sometime in court. It shouldn't shock you that it's no defense.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418566)

yes! let' s all forget that our entire society is organized around the concept of appropriation of other people's work and crucify this scumbag!

what a hypocrite, typical self-righteous circle stuck in a loop....

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418782)

Maybe you can make a movie about scumbag zombies. That would be great.

Re:An obvious reminder (2)

hihihihi (940800) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417522)

i don not think it is cynicism in any way to consider him insincere, from TFA:
"In late August, a local official for a hunter’s association accused Helleso of doctoring photos, after being tipped off by Internet users.
a Swedish website and forum, started examining Helleso’s pictures and soon found even more. They have since dedicated an entire website to the photographer’s fakery.
Helleso (...) denied everything initially.
But as evidence mounted, including GIF animations showing exactly how animals from stock photos on the net turned up in his pictures, Helleso admitted to everything on Sept. 3"
Dosn't look like sincere regret at all! more like a forced one...

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417638)

Dosn't look like sincere regret at all! more like a forced one...

No, he sincerely regrets that he thought he could get away with it. He won't do that again. At least not until he has analysed how he got caught, and has found ways to avoid that.

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417758)

he got caught the same way everyone who builds up large fabricated stories get caught; by a small detail, which lead to another detail and so on.

In this case, the small detail was that the lynx was meant to have been photographed in mid summer, but still have a full winter coat on. A small matter that you wouldn't think would be the issue that catches someone out, you would have thought that since the photos were being submitted to photographic awards and agencies one of those experts might have picked up on the photoshopping (after all you can tell by some of the pixels and I've seen a few shops in my time).

All together, the big picture looks believable, it's only when someone notice the tiniest detail out of place that everything comes apart.

Re:stock photos on the net turned up (3, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418022)

So whose stock photos are they though?

Why is this "idle" and not a 400Million (YourCurrencyHere) copyright case?

Re:stock photos on the net turned up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418100)

Because he most likely purchased the stock photo CDs, and they come with a rather liberal license.

Re:An obvious reminder (4, Funny)

professionalfurryele (877225) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417970)

Cynicism is the word people who don't live in the real world misappropriate to describe people who do.

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419194)

There's making a mistake or making a bad decision.

And there's doing something "over the course of several years".

They are vastly different things.

He consciously decided to do the same thing over and over again. If he was really regretful he would have stopped doing it long ago. If this was digging up a few photos from years ago and nothing since then then yes it might be something he could genuinly be regretful for - but it isn't.

He's had time to stop doing it and either be better at taking photos, submit crappier photos, or change careers.

The speaking out against the very thing he was doing is a good indication he was regretful in the sense that he felt guilty about it. But not regretful enough to simply stop doing it - which is what the those who say he's only regretful of being caught mean.

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419232)

I don't know this photographer, so I don't know how sincere that regret is.

You know he got caught and you know he didn't reimbursed those he defrauded, so you know for a fact that his claims of regret are mere attempts at lessening the severity of his punishment, and nothing more.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417450)

What an original comment! I've never heard this cliche'd line used on a person who's remorseful-after-being-caught before. This is very much the first time anyone has said, "That person is only apologetic because they got caught". You are truly a very creative and deep, profound thinker!

Re:An obvious reminder (1, Redundant)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417458)

Rule One of Life -- Never Get Caught

There is no appeal, no reprieve, no forgiveness, no redemption, and no hope. Once you are caught, you can never be uncaught.

Re:An obvious reminder (5, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417698)

Rule One of Life -- Never Get Caught
There is no appeal, no reprieve, no forgiveness, no redemption, and no hope. Once you are caught, you can never be uncaught.

The problem here is the concept that anything is ethical and proper until you are caught. The real "truth" is that he shouldn't have been doing this in the first place, regardless of if he was caught or not.

Yes, I know human nature is that you act impulsively and ignore ethics and principles. That is why we try to pound them into kids at an early age with the remote hope that eventually some of that is going to sink into their skulls that unethical and immoral behavior eventually leads to ruin and it is better for everybody including yourself if you don't even start down that path.

Sadly, some adults either never learned those lessons or have deliberately chosen to ignore them.

BTW, I do think you can have "forgiveness" after a fashion. Those who you've wronged can have restitution, you can admit what you did was wrong, and you can "do the time" if you have broken criminal law. Somebody who can fess up, admit they have done something wrong, try to make things right and not do it again is to me somebody much more worthy of my sympathy and mercy than somebody who acts like a jerk and pretends like it never happened in spite of being caught red handed. You might not be able to be "uncaught", but you can be forgiven for what is human weakness if you try to be better next time. That is for me what is hope that humanity can become better in the future, however you define "better".

Re:An obvious reminder (-1, Troll)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417820)

That is why we try to pound them into kids at an early age

Well, children are easy to brainwash. So I guess that is a good time to do it. Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact.

Re:An obvious reminder (2)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417916)

That is why we try to pound them into kids at an early age

Well, children are easy to brainwash. So I guess that is a good time to do it. Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact.

I take it that you don't have kids of your own. Good luck with that.

BTW, why the restriction of making "sure to include the fact that your morals are [an] absolute universal fact"? I don't think that is necessarily required to pass on ethics and moral values. Even a belief or lack thereof of some higher power or divine influence is not necessarily a prerequisite. I personally think that having an open mind to better philosophies is always a good thing, but some sort of standard of behavior is always needed at some point, at least if you want a functioning society where people can at least interact with one another.

It sounds like you are a bit closed minded on this point, so I won't belabor this issue too much.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417946)

I take it that you don't have kids of your own.

Did you reach that conclusion just from reading that one comment?

I don't think that is necessarily required to pass on ethics and moral values.

I didn't say that it was.

better philosophies

Depending on who you ask, isn't that subjective?

It sounds like you are a bit closed minded on this point

How did you reach that conclusion? How much do you know about me?

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418018)

I don't think that is necessarily required to pass on ethics and moral values.

I didn't say that it was.

The statement "Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact" certainly suggests it.

better philosophies

Depending on who you ask, isn't that subjective?

Possibly, but at least a bunch of them that most of humanity agrees about have been bundled in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since several of those rights come into conflict with each other at some point, it's obviously not a holy book of dogmas that you can blindly follow. However, knowing about them and realizing that such conflicts exist and that hence there are no simple rules you can blindly follow or apply, seems like a pretty good start to me. And there are of course also a bunch of rules of thumb, such as Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

It sounds like you are a bit closed minded on this point

How did you reach that conclusion? How much do you know about me?

First you go on the offensive by comparing one person arguing about teaching children about cultivating a moral compass with brainwashing and trying to make their world view identical to his own. Then when that person rebukes those statements, you suddenly start playing the victim of false accusations based on some off the cuff comments? Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrisy and watch a little less Calimero.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418110)

The statement "Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact" certainly suggests it.

It does? I thought it was just me implying that I disagree with toting the existence of absolute morals as a fact.

Possibly, but at least a bunch of them that most of humanity agrees about have been bundled in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Alright.

First you go on the offensive

Despite being sarcastic, I was not trying to be offensive. Really, the way he worded that just made me think of brainwashing for some reason. That probably wasn't his intention, but I just thought it was amusing how some people probably really would do that and decided to voice my disagreement with that behavior.

you suddenly start playing the victim

I asked him to clarify things. I don't understand what he is thinking. I merely wanted to know how he reached the conclusion that I was closed-minded. The fact that I started off on the "offensive" has little to do with that, I think.

Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrisy

Why? How is that hypocrisy? Do you think that calling someone a hypocrite is an argument in and of itself?

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418532)

First you go on the offensive

Despite being sarcastic, I was not trying to be offensive. Really, the way he worded that just made me think of brainwashing for some reason. That probably wasn't his intention, but I just thought it was amusing how some people probably really would do that and decided to voice my disagreement with that behavior.

I'm not sure how you expect anyone reading your reply to make that up from what you wrote. Since you directly replied to a statement of his, the (imho) logical conclusion is that you did claim that his argument equalled arguing in favour of brainwashing children and imposing your own world view on them.

It's just like this reply of mine to your post suggests that I am convinced that you believe you stand behind what you wrote above, rather than that I am making stuff up based on associations evoked by what your wrote and then am arguing against my own thoughts in a reply to you.

Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrisy

Why? How is that hypocrisy?

1) you draw a completely nonsense conclusions from what the OP wrote based on one comment of his (turning teaching children about ethics into brainwashing them into copies of yourself).
2) he says that interpretation is nonsense and that you are closed minded if you interpret what he said as suggesting that children should be brainwashed
3) you complain that he judges you as being closed minded based on that comment of yours

The hypocrisy: it appeared that you judged his world view based on one comment, and then complained he did the same to you.

Do you think that calling someone a hypocrite is an argument in and of itself?

No, but it's hard to discuss with someone who needs a very extensive explanation for every point you try to make. In fact, it sort of corroborates the argument that you are in fact fairly closed minded (or a crafty troll).

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418596)

I'm not sure how you expect anyone reading your reply to make that up from what you wrote.

What I will say is that I think I should have clarified what I meant. It happened sometimes.

1) you draw a completely nonsense conclusions from what the OP wrote based on one comment of his (turning teaching children about ethics into brainwashing them into copies of yourself).

I already said that that wasn't the case.

2) he says that interpretation is nonsense and that you are closed minded if you interpret what he said as suggesting that children should be brainwashed

Well, even if I did interpret his post that way, I don't see how interpreting text differently from someone else makes someone closed-minded. I think someone is closed-minded when they believe that they are 100% correct and cannot be wrong (when they do not doubt themselves) and not when they merely disagree with someone else.

No, but it's hard to discuss with someone who needs a very extensive explanation for every point you try to make.

So my alleged hypocrisy had nothing to do with it, then? Would you rather I assume I know what you're thinking and then create an argument based on that assumption?

In fact, it sort of corroborates the argument that you are in fact fairly closed minded

What is your definition of "closed-minded"?

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418708)

1) you draw a completely nonsense conclusions from what the OP wrote based on one comment of his (turning teaching children about ethics into brainwashing them into copies of yourself).

I already said that that wasn't the case.

This is really getting really silly. Yes, you already said that. In reply to the post where I accused of being a hypocrite. However, I was explaining why I accused you of being a hypocrite, which happened *before* you said that. Hence, my explanation did not take that fact into account, since my fut-o-visor is currently broken.

2) he says that interpretation is nonsense and that you are closed minded if you interpret what he said as suggesting that children should be brainwashed

Well, even if I did interpret his post that way, I don't see how interpreting text differently from someone else makes someone closed-minded. I think someone is closed-minded when they believe that they are 100% correct and cannot be wrong (when they do not doubt themselves) and not when they merely disagree with someone else.

The problem was not you disagreeing with him, since you didn't. As you explained before, you were only disagreeing with a straw man argument you made up yourself. The original closed-mindedness argument stems from the fact that it seemed (note: before you explained otherwise later on) that you immediately misconstrued his perfectly reasonable statement as him arguing in favour of brainwashing children.

And regarding how this relates to being closed-minded: if you are closed-minded, you are very likely to immediately project everything other people say into black&white statements that either match or disagree with your worldview, rather than taking a step back and thinking about what they may really mean. It also reduces the ability in general to think about stuff, and introduces the requirement for very extensive, detailed explanations.

Which finally is why it's often hard to distinguish between trolls and closed-minded people.

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418952)

Yes, you already said that.

Just re-clarifying it.

The problem was not you disagreeing with him

Well, I was just telling you how I define closed-mindedness.

if you are closed-minded, you are very likely to immediately project everything other people say into black&white statements that either match or disagree with your worldview

I don't know. I don't think someone is truly closed-minded as long as they admit that there is at least a possibility that they are wrong.

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418256)

unethical and immoral behavior eventually leads to ruin and it is better for everybody including yourself if you don't even start down that path.

It's more complicated than that. You yourself, in an attempt to illustrate that things are unethical even if you aren't caught, brought the reasoning back to how bad it is if you get caught. Had he not been caught, there would have been no ruin.

Now, I agree with you. What he did was wrong and he shouldn't have done it; that is according to my own particular set of ethics (though that particular one is shared by many people, I wager). At the same time, I could make an argument that he caused no harm. The original photographers released their photos to a stock photo company; they were paid for the work (probably when he downloaded a copy of it) in the same way they would have been otherwise. There is little to suggest that the original photographs would have even been up for the awards they won, much less still won them, so that's a specious or hypothetical argument at best. And though much harm has come to him--for being caught (yes, we're back here full circle)--a lot of good came as well, and only he can judge if it outweighed the bad.

Ethics are complicated things, particularly to explain. How wrong is something, really, that hurt nobody but (possibly) the one who did it, and who did it with full understanding of the possibility? And likewise, if the only real harm is in getting caught, then aren't we right back to the question of whether or not it is unethical or improper if you don't get caught?

As I said, I don't actually think so; I'm not defending him. My personal interpretation says it's wrong. But it is, at best, very complicated -- and that's probably why so many people never "learn" it. They've learned it, just not accepted it as truth. Philosophically I find that hard to fault even as I disagree.

Re:An obvious reminder (4, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418394)

This guy would be an example of misplaced priorities, even if he didn't get caught. Why perpetuate this *particular* fraud? Surely as frauds go it's not the most financially rewarding.

I think it's because once he got started in the field and got a little taste of respect from other people, he got hooked. Everybody likes getting external validation, but he set the respect of others over his own respect for himself. This man's offense combines hubris (that he wouldn't get caught at such an obvious fraud) and insecurity in a manner that's worth thinking about.

Ironically this man wasn't egotistical enough; at least not in the right way. He didn't value his own artistic integrity over the approval of others. That's an artistic virtue that isn't always attractive or likeable (Picasso springs to mind), but it is an honest attitude that sustains an artist in hard times and doubles the rewards in good times. There's even a kind of pig-headed magnificence to it.

“When I was a child, my mother said to me, 'If you become a soldier, you'll be a general. If you become a monk you'll end up as the pope.' Instead I became a painter and wound up as Picasso.”

-- Picasso

Yeah, that Picasso was an egomaniac who thought he was a creative genius, but he was right, and he could back it up any time he cared to. If anyone claimed he painted the way he did because he didn't have the technical ability of his nineteenth century predecessors he could prove them wrong if he felt like it, which he seldom did because he was secure in his ego. Picasso knew he deserved his success in the way few of us ever do.

When you read a novel with a character who is successful because of plagiarism and gets away with it, that character is always pathetic. In movies or stories with a sympathetic con-man protagonist (e.g. Terry Pratchett's *Going Postal*), they guy is sympathetic because the art of the con is more important than the financial payoff. Plus, he's usually shown plundering rich, undeserving people.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418846)

SkyOne's Going Postal TV movie was awesome, BTW.

Sorta trailer here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f42iED5-yX0 [youtube.com]

Re:An obvious reminder (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417494)

Indeed. "Regretful" is when you confess BEFORE anybody finds out the truth.

Re:An obvious reminder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417630)

Damn right!

I work hard to get my images. I get up at ridiculous times of the night and day, travel very long distances to catch the light. I sit in horrible weather to get that one shot. My wife has the patience of a saint to put with me not always being about, while I'm out "chasing the light" and this person decides he can take the work of some one else who has sacrified their time with their families to secure a shot to make a living?

The sad thing is he knows how hard this game is, not like he's a PR/AD-man doign a desk job and just stealing stock shots, he's a photographer. He did work hard once, he knows the sacrifices you have to make and one day he just lost his faith in his art and decided it was easier to just steal someone else's hard work.

In future no one will trust any of his shots as they won't know whether he took them or not, he's killed his own career as pro shooter.

Re:An obvious reminder (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417654)

On Wednesday, a deeply regretful Helleso spoke to local radio

Regretful because he was caught. If he wasn't caught, probably he would have been quite happy.

Exactly. It should have said: "On Wednesday, Helleso guiltily spoke to local radio". The guilty regret being caught. He had been sliding down that slippery slope for a rather long time, and had repeatedly denied any wrongdoing before finally being cornered.

Just another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417424)

FAIL!

Meh (1)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417440)

Deep down where there should be outrage, there's just nothing.

It's not the first time this has happened. (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417452)

It's not like this type of fraud hasn't happened before. Does anybody else remember Milli Vanilli? [wikipedia.org] No? Good! In ten years, probably less, Terje Hellesco will be just as forgotten, for the same reasons.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417528)

man, _everyone_ knows milli vanilli. they have a catchy name and the documentaries re-run every now and then and are so ridiculous they've been featured on many popular commentary style cartoons, they're a running joke.

but faking pictures of lynxes.. meeeeeeeeeeeeeeh

Re:It's not the first time this has happened. (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417530)

Does anybody else remember Milli Vanilli?

The thing I remember most was the burning of their recordings. Did the music somehow sound different now because it was two fat guys singing? To me it was more of a display of the shallowness of the people who bought the music more than an exposure of of the front men.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened. (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417740)

That was pretty much my thought on that situation... And, that the actual singers should have had any appropriate awards turned over to them. Then it happened a few years later with Ashlee Simpson.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418244)

I wonder if - 20 years of technology later - we had found out that they couldn't sing well, but were using digital pitch and tone correction (autotune/melodyne style) to make them sound awesome there would be any fallout at all. It's basically what every cute boy/girl pop star is doing, to varying degrees, but now it's mainstream so it must be okay.

Flawed analogy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417604)

The studio musicians on Milli Vanilli's album not only knew what was up, but willingly did it. And it's not like MV went and grabbed tracks from existing albums or audio libraries, everything was recorded fresh, And no matter who the actual artist was, the album stands on its own as a finished product. Maybe the correct lead singers were not credited properly, but the actual musical and creative content of the album itself is nothing fraudulent. The artist still is Milli Vanilli, except MV consists of the actual musicians on the album, and not Pilatus and Morvan.

This photog simply picked already taken photos from a library, and then passed them off as his. MUCH DIFFERENT from MV.

Re:Flawed analogy. (2)

RDW (41497) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418002)

The studio musicians on Milli Vanilli's album not only knew what was up, but willingly did it. And it's not like MV went and grabbed tracks from existing albums or audio libraries, everything was recorded fresh

Yes, this one sounds closer to the Joyce Hatto case, where (classical piano) recordings by other artists were shamelessly plundered, obviously without consent:

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/joyce-hatto-the-great-piano-swindle [moreintelligentlife.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Hatto [wikipedia.org]

Re:Flawed analogy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418032)

This photog simply picked already taken photos from a library, and then passed them off as his. MUCH DIFFERENT from MV.

Is it really?

While I'm not into the whole wildlifwe photograph thing I can imagine that there are two possible ways to appreciate the pictures.
You could like how visually stunning the the resulting picture is or you can admire the work behind it.
Now, as I have understood it a large portion of good wildlife photography is luck. Two equally skilled photographers could wait outside for days and only one of them returns with a good photo because he was lucky.

In the first case where you just enjoy the resulting image you are in the same spot as with the MV case. It does not matter if it was photoshopped or not as long as the end result is of high quality.
In the latter case it is a matter of if you are more impressed with the endurance it takes to wait for the right moment or if you are more impressed with mad photoshop skills.

In any case I do not agree that this is very different from the Milli Vanilli case. Those who admired the person instead of the resulting work have been fooled. Those who enjoyed the resulting work can keep enjoying it regardless of how it was made.
Perhaps it is in order to find out who took the stock images that Terje used.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened. (4, Informative)

Pesticidal (1148911) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417764)

A better analog is the indie PC game Limbo of the Lost [wikia.com] that stole all its backgrounds from numerous other commercial games. And the developers would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids...

Re:It's not the first time this has happened. (1)

jebaneer34 (2263130) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417856)

Big smile on that one!

Re:It's not the first time this has happened. (2)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417966)

It's not like this type of fraud hasn't happened before. Does anybody else remember Milli Vanilli? [wikipedia.org] No? Good! In ten years, probably less, Terje Hellesco will be just as forgotten, for the same reasons.

Yeah, now let me show you the clear difference between being caught red-handed, and the slow deliberate creep of audio manipulation that can tarnish an industry using the weapon of time, with one simple word.

Autotune

Tell me how in the hell this legal(and now practically encouraged) vocal butchering is really all that different than the crimes of yesterday. In either case, it sure as hell doesn't sound like what's coming out of the source. Worse yet, now it doesn't even sound natural.

Re:It's not the first time this has happened. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418792)

Yah, I remember them. For me they are the byword for the cynical music industry and the syncrophatic entertainment "news" corps that allows it to thrive. It would have been impossible for Milli Vanilli to be successful without the protection of those making money off of them.

Propaganda photog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417454)

Government funded celebrity enviro photog revealed as the fraud he is. Swedish EPA not sure whether they'll keep him on staff.
http://www.ifbushdidit.com/tag/terje-helleso/

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417460)

Why is a non-edited image considered better than an edited image?
In the end it's still a nice image of a wild animal. If it matters how it was created then your are probably enjoying the image for the wrong reasons anyway.

Re:So? (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417490)

The point isn't that he edited the image, it's that he claimed credit for having taken the picture in the first place.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418714)

Actually, at least part of the point IS that he edited the image, because (FTA): "Norwegian-born Helleso, who is famous not only for his art, but also for being a strong advocate of keeping digital photography real and speaking out against manipulation or theft of material"

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417512)

It doesn't matter unless you claim it's non-edited. By entering a photography contest with edited image he claims it's non-edited. It's the same as winning a marathon by riding a motorcycle. What does it matter if you rode a motorcycle, you finished before all the runners, right?

Part of photography is capturing the perfect moment. If you edit reality too much it's not photography anymore. It may still be a magnificent work of art, just not photography.

Re:So? (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417518)

Depends on the type of photography. Art photography? Go ahead and edit it all you want. Journalistic photography? Anything else than mild color correction (and I do mean "correction") is wrong. Nature photography is probably somewhere in the middle depending on the context. (in this case, the photographer claimed documentary intent, not artistic).

Re:So? (1)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418042)

To expand your comments a bit...
Nature photos are usually considered "journalistic" when published in a magazine, even a hunting mag. Pretty much the definitive nature photography magazine, National Geographic made a policy back in 1982 that they would not do manipulation of objects, after using a "Scitex" device to digitize and move a pyramid. They issued a statement:

At the beginning of our access to Scitex, I think we were seduced by the dictum, 'If it can be done, it must be done.'
But there's a danger there. When a photograph becomes synthesis, fantasy, rather than reportage, then the whole purpose of the photograph dies. A photographer is a reporter — a photon thief, if you will. He goes and takes, with a delicate instrument, an extremely thin slice of life. When we changed that slice of life, no matter in what small way, we diluted our credibility. If images are altered to suit the editorial purposes of anyone, if soda cans or clutter or blacks or people of ethnic backgrounds are taken out, suddenly you've got a world that's not only unreal but surreal.
At National Geographic, the Scitex will never be used again to shift any one of the Seven Wonders of the World, or to delete anything that's unpleasant or add anything that's left out.

Most non-journalistic venues allow plenty of manipulation, especially contests (except for NG which allows only exposure and color adjustment, including burn/dodging).

I do find NG's comment about removing people from images particularly interesting, after Hillary Clinton was removed from a white house picture in a newspaper [huffingtonpost.com] earlier this year. If that paper ever had credibility before, it no longer does.

Re:So? (1)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417622)

It can depend how the photo is presented or 'sold' and how much editing has been done.

If the person is saying "I sat for 15 hours in the freezing cold/boiling desert and took this rare photo", if it is edited then, well, what they are showing you isn't the photo they took.

Irony (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417468)

Norwegian-born Helleso, who is famous not only for his art, but also for being a strong advocate of keeping digital photography real and speaking out against manipulation or theft of material, denied everything initially.

Seems to be a pattern of those who most want to control information actually being the ones to plagiarize it from others, all while lying about it. Somehow, this isn't really shocking, though.

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417576)

Yeah, like when RIAA infringes copyright (for profit), it's $3 per song and when a black single mother does it, it's $126,314 per song. Also known as American justice.

I do find the results rather shocking. Then again, IANAP (I am not a psychologist/psychopath).

Some aspirations... (1, Funny)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417476)

So he was "under pressure from himself" to become rich and famous, but not to be honest or even a decent human being. I hope, he will die in a fire. Or move to US.

Re:Some aspirations... (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417898)

I hope, he will die in a fire.

Indeed, he deserves no better!

Or move to US.

No, that would be cruel! Faking doesn't deserve that harsh of a punishment!

Discussion on flashback (2)

klui (457783) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417492)

It redirects to https so Google translate won't work.

http://www.flashback.org/t1641161 [flashback.org]

Re:Discussion on flashback (3, Interesting)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418220)

Är aktiv jägare och läste på jägareförbundets blogg om naturfotografen Terje Hellesøs bilder och huruvida dom var äkta eller inte. Själv blev jag mycket skeptisk när jag kollade in hans sida, men jag är helt okunnig vad gäller fotografering så jag frågar expertisen här vad ni anser. Jag är inte okunnig vad gäller djur och natur och Terjes berättelser om hur han "blir vän" med lodjur etc. låter väldigt tvivelaktiga. Terjes sida där han även försvarar sina bilder:

"Am active hunter, and read on the Hunter's [organisation] blog about the nature photographer Terje Helleso's pictures and whether they are real or not. Personally I got very sceptical when I looked at his page, but I am completely ignorant with regard to photography so I am asking the experts here what you reckon. I am not ignorant with regards to animals and nature, and Terje's explanations of how he "makes friends" with deer etc. sounds very suspicious. Terje's page where he even defends his pictures:"

A reminder from the MAFIAA (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417532)

Won't anybody think of the poor photo models who got cheated out of any money due to this guy's copyright violations?

And crappy at Photoshop too. No suprise here. (1, Insightful)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417550)

In my opinion a good Photoshopped picture that looks awesome is worth just as much as a good snapshot someone took. A friend of mine is a Photographer and a fairly decent semi-professional PS guy too, and his Photoshops are at least as neat as his originals. They sometimes take days of hard work to composite. Photoshopping is a skill at least as high up as photographing, and if the guy managed to make some neat wildlife composites - stock material or not - I couldn't care less. I might even hang one up on my wall if it looks cool and I like it.

However, the example they show is a typical, über-shitty I-have-no-clue-what-I'm-doing PS job that takes about 1,5 seconds to be recognised as a bad PS job by a digital imaging expert. Old school photographers who can't handle digital imaging at aren't willing to go back to school to learn it but still think they can reap the benefits of digital imaging deserve all the flak they get. Like this guy. Still to many of those around. I have no pitty for him. That is one crappily PSed image on the level of an intern and people should demand their money back from him. ... Then again, if they didn't notice, maybe it's their own fault? ...

My 2 cents.

Emphasis of parent post: (2)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417580)

Yepp. Those sure are some bad composites [designtaxi.com] . Apparently a few professionals actually did notice and rose the stink. His reward is up for review, his site is offline [helleso.com] and he's probably out hiding somewhere. This guy is toast.

This is pretty old news here in Sweden by now (5, Informative)

bergelin (1320345) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417644)

This is pretty old news here in Sweden by now. He won the prize of wildlife photographer of the year and has held several courses, so I'm pretty sure he cashed in on this.

When the accusations started, he said that he was completely innocent and a lot of people believed him thanks to his reputation (one of the most - if not the most famous - wildlife photographers in Sweden.) However, he wouldn't show the raw pictures which added on to the suspicions.
A large "investigation" started on internet forums and eventually people found the original pictures of animals that he had pasted onto his pictures. Like http://a.yey.nu/QHL7RE.jpg [a.yey.nu] for example (mirror reversed). This forced him to admit of course.

The funny thing is that he has been outspoken against editing of photos and said never to use Photoshop on his images: "I'm a photographer, not a pixel artist".

This pains me (2)

froogger (695841) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417674)

Especially because I, just like Hellesö, is a Norwegian photographer living in this part of Sweden (northern Småland). When I saw his book Året (http://www.fotosidan.se/shop/viewproduct.htm?ID=17869) where he took one great shot every day of a full year I was flabbergasted and couldn't believe it was possible. Obviously it wasn't. Everybody manipulates photos, just by adjusting the ISO you're manipulating, but he stole stock photos, passing them off as his own. And yet, I accept his apology as heartfelt, and just wish he had redefined his works instead of passing them off as "real". If you're interested in nature photography, do check out his portfolio still. His style, where presence takes precedence over clarity is novel and refreshing.

Re:This pains me (2)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418310)

"If you're interested in nature photography, do check out his portfolio still."

But how will I differentiate his real work from the stock photos he claimed were his?

Re:This pains me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418748)

Very creative people often have a mental disorder and think they that rules don't apply to them. We can all be judgmental to someone like that, but should also remember that we have all done things that aren't always appropriate. He may have hurt someone competing with him, but we should help him pick himself up and see how he does now that he has been exposed. He can still use his talents in a constructive way.

In other news, coworkers stole your idea (2)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417678)

Plagiarism is everywhere, and only gets worse as people are better connected.

Information wants to be free, and people want free information... especially to call their own to make money or higher grades or other personal gain.

Why this slashdot post should be under YRO.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37417862)

I'd like to point out something that in this case all media "forgot" to quote who revealed this. It was on the controversial forum on flashback.se that people dug up the proof of the photos being fake and exposed the fraud. Since (swedish) media have been so eager to write so much dirt on flashback about how much rasism, drug-related-discussions,etc exists on flashback I think that they could give flashback some credit when they do something good if the media want to call themselves well balanced in their news reporting. Also, free speach online maybe isn't that bad if it can expose frauds like this........ but it seems media would rather avoid that discussion, so we can blindly continue to "improve" our monitoring, surveilance and ant-terrorism laws...

Really sad... (2)

Trracer (210292) | more than 3 years ago | (#37417922)

The whole issue was raised when a state wildlife inspector got puzzled when Terje had seen so many lynxes (sp?) in such short time when the inspector, (for 30+ years or so) only had seen a couple.

On a personal note, as a Swedish avid amateur photographer I've personally been a part of the discussions on the Swedish phtography forums where Terje has been posting and he has always sounded snotty and acting like a jerk. So this suits him right. His wife who is a photographer too also has doctored photos of lynx-sightings altho she has also claimed Terjes cheating was news to her. It's unfortunately that this happened since it taints the reputation of other (legit) Swedish nature photographers.

He preached against manipulation (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418046)

That he used stock images is just one small aspect of the story, the whole story is so much larger than that.

It should be mentioned that he preached never to retouch or edit the pictures you take. He claimed himself to pre-visualize the whole image, only to create the image in the camera and carefully take that one shot (in contrast to what many other wildlife photographers say, that they take series of pictures of animals in the wild in hope that one of them will be the one that catches your eye). One of the more outrageous claims was how he framed the composition of two flying dragonflies over a pond. In the description of the image he told us of all the choices he made before pressing the shutter. Today these claims seem more like boasting about his own ability. Not all his images are fake and he is a good photographer, just not as good as he claims and he puts it on a bit thick when talking about his own skills. In his own blog he even critizised Steve Bloom for manipulating images.

Also, he was a fervent advocate of hunting down people using other photographers pictures without permission. In his blog he lashed out at a photo site when they used one of his pictures to illustrate a article about him. The editor apologized for the mistake and offered to pay for the used images. Another time he came down really hard on one of his fans, having used one of his photographs as inspiration for a painting she did. He himself pointed out the differences and how that painting would be impossible as a photo. Then he uses stock photo images in manipulations and claims that they are his own (unedited) works.

Unfortunately he has a big following of fans that still defend him. He has groomed, through various photography forums and his own blog, an almost sect-like cult around him. Any mediocre images he posted was raised to the skies and any critizism was hammered on by the fans with comments like "you don't know how to appreciate his greatness", "he has progressed so much further in the field of photography than you, how dare you criticize him", etc.

At Fotosidan.se (a Swedish photography forum where he was very active for a few years) one member claim that he noticed that several of Hellesøs images got top votes, earning them spotlight positions on the website. Several voters had very typical undistinctive names (the swedish equivalents of "John Smith"), never posted any work themselves, only rated Hellesøs images and only gave top scores. The member brought this to the administrators attention but the practice continued. When Fotosidan started logging the IP-addresses these accounts were deleted according to that member.

Hellesø claims to have asked for forgiveness, but in fact, all he has done is taken down his blog (with the evidence, luckily Google caches it still) and the regret he wants us to think he shows is overshadowed by him victimizing himself. He even went so far as to compare the search for truth about his alleged original work as a witch hunt like he was Khadaffi or Breivik (the norwegian bomber and mass-murderer). So far he has done very little to deserve any forgiveness. He has lied from day one until he was revealed big time. Until the first hard proof came he claimed in radio interviews to be subjected to a plot, even when wildlife experts questioned why pictures of a lynx taken in the summer still had the winter fur, and that he never had seen any traces of the lynx prey, despite him claiming to see 150 lynx sightings in 19 months (much more than skilled wildlife experts and hunters have on record). Also he claimed to have found the racoon dog in a place of Sweden where it should not have be, and the hunt started to find it since it might be a carrier of rabies. He has used his pictures and "expertise" as proof in political debates.

The man is a liar and a hypocrite and should really be treated as one, but I couldn't care less about him and his, IMHO, uninteresting and uninspiring work. But this affair has so many layers to it, ethics, legal, political, etc which makes the affair interesting.

The thread on Flashback, mentioned earlier, is where the manipulations first was revealed. On this blog they are collected http://terjadebilder.wordpress.com/

Just for the record, I am not a photography puritan and have nothing against editing, retouching and manipulation of images. As long as it is clear what is done. I might appreciate the images equally much. But there might be other qualities aside from the picture itself that I might appreciate. Good manipulation is hard work, and I might like how well it was done, just as well as I might appreciate how a photograph was made without any editing at all. But in my opinion, one picture isn't better just because of this.

Re:He preached against manipulation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418794)

I found this interesting until it starts to repeat like it was cut and pasted... So out would seem the AC is complaining about the photographic plagiarism WITH possible plagiarism... No axes to grind?

Personally, fakes AND haters should share the same public humiliation as punishment.

Re:He preached against manipulation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37419004)

As a photographer who has done photojournalism (never edited the image or manipulated the subjects for spot news), and commercial photography (products, and much more "stylization" and manipulation of all sorts), let me say that this man is no photojournalist. He may try to win Cannes award for advertisement, or some variant of PDN commercial photography award, but never a Pulitzer for his edited photos.

As a former photojournalist, fuck you Helleos. You give PJs everywhere a bad a name and diminish the risk of those who go report in dangerous areas (wars, natural disasters).

As a commercial photographer, you need better photoshop skills. You can't hide bad photoshopping with an "underexposed" image.

Go photograph weddings, and hide your bad photoshopping with "creative" cross-processed look.

Note to self (1)

buckles (168018) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418318)

New business idea. Mea.culpa.com.
Stock excuses, rationalizations, and contrition for sale.

Ppc campaigns.

Nonprofit townsquare version. Virtual public stockade dot gov.

m.tarandfeather.net

Good (1)

zugurudumba (1009301) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418356)

His career is over, and this is how it should be. Plagiarism is very hard to find and prove, but once there's no more doubt, heads roll. It's the only way to send a clear message to the ones who haven't been caught yet or who simply toy with the idea of doing it.

Caught using stock photography! (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418366)

People got suspicious he was using stock photographs when they saw his image of a female lynx sitting in front of a computer with two male lynxes behind her, one of them pointing at the screen. One of the lynxes was looking thoughtful while the other two were smiling.

(Er, seriously, apparently one of the giveaways was the fact that the Lynx in the photo supposedly taken in summar had "winter fur". So it wasn't crappy photoshopping or obvious ripping off that initially tipped people off- if he hadn't made that silly mistake, he'd probably have gotten away with it. He was last seen being led away to jail muttering something about "pesky kids").

Stock photo websites quickly updating (3, Funny)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418506)

iStockphoto is the web's original source for user-generated, royalty-free stock photos, illustrations, video, audio and Flash. Whether you're a designer, advertiser, entrepreneur, professional photographer or blogger, we have millions of affordable images, vectors and clips to help you tell your story.

reinforces my belief... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418570)

If you Photoshop, you're not a photographer but a phony.

Yes Photoshop has it's uses,I use it to do airbrushing or any fancy effects. I then present it as a Photoshopped image and not, "my photograph". But the number of "pro photographers" that cant compose a shot right and have to fix things like color or white balance or composition in PS is appalling.

If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck. Go learn photography and how to use your camera you hacks.

Re:reinforces my belief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418700)

"If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck."

Well, you have just insulted every professional photographer (including documentarians and photojournalists) since the death of the tintype. Photofinishing (post-processing, printing, whatever the hell you wanna call it) is an enormous part of the photographic process, even for so-called "unmanipulated" photos. Even pretentious jackoffs like Cartier-Bresson had significant work done in the darkroom to produce prints--HCB just handed it off to people like Voja Mitrovic (sp?) so he wouldn't have to get his lilly-white and philosophically pure hands dirty.

Re:reinforces my belief... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37419242)

Well, you have just insulted every professional photographer (including documentarians and photojournalists) since the death of the tintype.

That's why we draw a distinction between art for pleasure or for art's sake, and commercial art done to fulfill the terms of a contract. It can still be great art, of course. And anyone who claims that photomanipulation isn't art, whether it be dodging and burning during the printing process or extensive digital editing, obviously doesn't have much familiarity with the process. But again, art for art's sake is one thing, and art for money's sake is something else. They overlap considerably, but they still differ whether the untrained eye can tell or not.

Re:reinforces my belief... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418814)

If you Photoshop, you're not a photographer but a phony.

Yes Photoshop has it's uses,I use it to do airbrushing or any fancy effects. I then present it as a Photoshopped image and not, "my photograph". But the number of "pro photographers" that cant compose a shot right and have to fix things like color or white balance or composition in PS is appalling.

If you cant take the photo with the camera and print it direct from camera, then you suck. Go learn photography and how to use your camera you hacks.

Just one question then....do you think Ansel Adams sucked as a photographer? Because he edited his photos fairly extensively.He was one of the photographers pushing the boundaries of what you can do in the darkroom, and had photoshop been available to him, I'm certain he'd have loved it. Much of what you can do in photoshop is not very different from what you can do in a darkroom. Photoshop just makes is easier, faster, and cheaper, but it's still mostly the same thing.

Re:reinforces my belief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418962)

If you can't adapt to changing technology -- you know, like better lenses, color photography, higher speed film, autofocus, autoexposure, vastly more intelligent flash, digital (and everything that implies), etc. -- then you suck and you're just begging to be made obsolete when the entire field of photography cruises past you. Go learn how the world works and how to deal with it, you hack.

Lesson learned (0)

Lillebo (1561251) | more than 3 years ago | (#37418712)

Stay clear of swedes.

If all he really needs is Photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37418862)

If all he really needs is Photoshop can I have his 600mm f/4?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?