Some of my Photography

Oh bother. New users can only upload a maximum of 5 photographs. And I can’t be bothered to hot link.


Water and glass paid stock photography. Table is an adjustment gradient layer. And white line is from phone photograph of car lights caught in slow shutter.

Hyundai grabbed from Hyundai Canada website (cgi model render no doubt). Rest of picture taken with camera phone. Lights, smoke, and action, err I mean fog made with a light white brush in Photoshop.


Chinese vegetable chopping knife. Taken in sink and captured with phone camera. I believe my old blackberry. I used a table light and photoshop.


Natural light and photoshop. Camera phone.


Exhibition photograph low resolution. Sold of course. Taken with a Nikon D80 and a tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 @ F 2.8 for 30 seconds - 45-Celcius.

1 Like


Playful photograph of my wall. Other pictures grabbed from google image search. Except for self portrait hanging over badgers fireplace.

For fun project. Image of shoe mine. Everything else google search image grabs. Except for women faces. Fellow photographer let me use model after I helped him.


Photograph my own. Camera phone. Edited in Photoshop. Layered to resemble double exposure.


Picture taken in city garden among the million dollar houses neighborhood. Million dollar photo?


Yogurt poured into container. Yogurt actually fruit juice. Second container on angle with sleeve same container as yogurt but edited with “free transform and warp.”

d35042dc-87f7-4bca-8bf8-9c27b4c43541
140x184 pixel enlargement paid work. Client wanted image to be enlarged to 3000 x 4000 pixels and clear.


Discreet tummy tuck. Photoshop paid work.


Lots of lens flares. Camera phone. Hand held.


Brother wolf.


Terminator theme or Battlestar Galactica cylon idea.


This image is a screen shot taken by a woman from her i phone or whatever.


Another before and after Photoshop edit.


Camera phone. Day image converted to night.


Glass ball with flame inside on top of Luxury car seat. A Dodge Viper I think, can’t remember.


To do list heh…


Camera phone. Image edited in Photoshop to make it look like a ultra wide angle/ fish eye lens.

Ahh I found it. Another exhibition photograph I took with Dslr and tripod. Year 2010. Just after watching Tron 2.

Sold and this is “low resolution.”

ya lost me at google image grabs.

It’s really very simple “printer driver”. Hey do you know printer, copier and fax machine on those other forums?

So simple. A lot of what I posted is strictly photography. But some of it are many layered photoshop edits to make a photograph in photoshop. so I added my sources like I would anywhere so as not to plagiarize.

However, I’m afraid just adding a credit, does not necessarily make it legal to take someone else’s copyright material without their explicit permission and can still land you trouble.

1 Like

That’s interesting. Here in Canada you have to give the government $10,000 dollars to copyright your image. You have to send them a print and list it as art when making an application. I have done this.

Then if someone steals my image. That is if I know it. I can make a legal argument that they stole it.

I know photographers that host 100’s of their own pictures on servers in Canada and their images are not copyrighted. Legally. Are you going to spend $10k on every image. I think not. So instead photographer places watermark and claims he has copyright.

What you said is like saying I don’t need to file a u.s pateint with the u.s government. I can just claim it’s my patient because I made it and I say so. I’m not going to get in legal trouble. A judge will throw it out. Or it wont even go to court.

I know my user name is corrupt with a K (intentional spelling error). And maybe this is why I’m eliciting this response.

First google image grab. I’m not making profit. Second yeah I said i used google image search. Like most texture artists do for 3DS MAX and such programs.

One more thing. WTF!!!

Second thing. After I a time I can’t delete thread or edit it. I’ve got one like and two critical comments. WTF!

I clearly stated which photographs were mine. And in the fantasy images which photographs I sourced with my own camera. And in the photographs I edited people and stomach fat away I clearly stated the images were not taken by me.

I should have just stuck to my own photography. Damn! Thanks for nothing. I hate stupid ignorant people who know noting about nothing.

In Canada it looks like the standard application fee is $144 per application.

And you need a My Canada Business Account to use the e-filing option
Doesn’t look like that, or the GCKey account, has any fee involved.

In Canada work is protected by copyright on fixing in media, digital or otherwise. Registration allows for additional damage awards should it be stolen.

You can register up to 750 photographs in one application (with A LOT of caveats, of course.)
Sounds like Photoshop digital art is considered Art in Canada. There it looks like the limit might be 10 per application.

I’d say a good number of 3Dmax artists go about getting their textures in legitimate ways on stock sites like Textures . com and others. At least the digital scenic artists I work with in the broadcast industry do it that way. They have a real high liability if they get caught out!

1 Like

Hey Korupt,

Appreciate you sharing your work some of those edits are creative and clearly a lot of time went into them. That said, this whole copyright thing seems to have gone a bit sideways, so let’s clear a few things up in a chill and honest way.

First off crediting a source doesn’t make it legal to use. That’s one of the biggest misunderstandings online. Giving someone a shoutout is good etiquette, sure, but it doesn’t override copyright law. The moment someone takes a photo, designs an image, or creates any piece of original work, copyright automatically exists, no matter where in the world they are. That’s the case in Canada, the US, the UK, the EU, pretty much everywhere under the Berne Convention, which most countries are part of.

So no, you don’t have to file anything to have your work protected. You can choose to register it, which helps legally if you’re chasing damages in court, but the protection is there from the get-go. In Canada, for example, registration is $50 online, not $10,000, and it’s the same in most countries, not expensive. You can even register whole batches of images. But again, you don’t need to register for your work to be protected. It’s just a bonus if you’re going after someone who’s pinched your stuff.

Now, about using other people’s images, grabbing pics off Google is risky, even if you’re just playing around. If they’re not labelled for reuse, you don’t know who owns them or what rights they’ve reserved. And while it might seem harmless if you’re not profiting or it’s just for fun, it’s still technically infringement if you don’t have permission or the correct licence. Whether it goes anywhere legally is another story, but that’s the line you cross the minute you upload/publish.

As for 3D artists and texture users, the pros don’t use random Google grabs. They use stock sites (like textures.com), paid libraries, or shoot their own references. Why? Because commercial projects can’t afford a copyright strike, and honestly, neither can artists building a reputation.

None of this is to knock your creativity. Quite the opposite you’ve clearly got some skills, so why not lean into your own photography more? If you want to do fantasy edits, try mixing in public domain images or use stuff from sites that allow it with clear licenses. There’s loads out there.

And yeah, online forums can be rough when it feels like people are jumping on you. But what you’re hearing here isn’t trolling, it’s folks trying to point you in the right direction so you don’t get caught out later.

All the best with your projects and keep creating, just keep it above board. There’s enough shady stuff on the internet already, no need to add to the pile.


As for your work it’s not ‘graphic design’ per se - it’s photography art, so it’s subjective. If you like it then you like it.

I used to photograph my own textures at the start (before stock sites if you can imagine such a time). Walking in the park to find foliage, or finding some bubble wrap, cork board, and many many other things.

I even learned techniques in Photoshop to create lifelike leaf patterns and many other textures.

It’s so easy to grab an image off the internet these days, you’re not the only one doing it.

2 Likes

Printdriver

I’d say a good number of 3Dmax artists go about getting

Yeah. But I did this for free, and no intention of making money out of it. And a lot of 3d and hdr photography/modeling books I read which I bought mentioned google image search for textures. For learning and such.

And you need a My Canada Business Account to use the e-filing option

Your right I remembered it wrong. but for two hundred images at $50 an image that’s $10,000 and most amateur photographers I know won’t spend that on copyright. Instead they just say their photography is copyrighted.

smurft 2.

egistration is $50 online, not $10,000,

Yeah lets say it is. ( remembered it wrong). But they still aren’t accepting online applications yet(after years and years).

They say they will but aren’t. So you have to print a good picture which costs money. And then send it to them in a container that costs money. And so on and so forth. Through the mail. Unless you live by the government building. And Canada is a huge place. And 200 photographs printed on gloss weighs a lot. And they asked for specific size too. They the gov’t can ask whatever they want. And it’s up to me the photographer to comply or not get copyrighted.

$50 x 200 is $10,000 correct? How many websites containing images of amateur photographer contain at least that many images.

None of this is to knock your creativity. Quite the opposite you’ve clearly got some skills, so why not lean into your own photography more?

I already said: After I a time I can’t delete thread or edit it.

I can’t change what I originally posted by clicking edit because there is no option to do so. Unless you know of a way.

The first image contains one paid stock photography photograph that I edited just to get the glass. And in the agreement it said you can use it for free images or paid. I chose free as for my portfolio.

The Hyundai I copied from the Hyundai website and I doubt they care about

a fan edit

using one of their images for

free

. But if you like I will email them and ask them. I already know the answer though.

All those advertisements they spend millions of dollars on. And I’m advertising their vehicle for free.

Is this an over reaction on your part?

Screenshot 2025-06-25 021202
Mountain cut out of picture. And aquarium glass cut out to make a box. The rest of the picture is gone. Free no profit made once again. Just for fun.

Screenshot 2025-06-25 020828
Figurines cut out of original picture just for fun. A fan edit for free.

Here’s a bender. A photograph of copyrighted material photographed and uploaded online but photographer doesn’t own copyright of figurines but does own figurines. And Wind and the willows is still copyrighted correct? I have nothing to worry about.

The collector finds out I cut out his photograph of copyright he does not own.

I demand you you fly yourself to England and pay for your own hotel. Then I will let you take your own photograph of my figurines which I don’t own the copyright to and after you pay me for my time. You can then cut out the figurines and use in your own fan dedication/joke picture not for profit item.

You guys did not read everything i said. So I used that to make this response. If i could edit my original posts then I’d delete.

There is a difference between a handshake and a legally binding agreement. And forever there are some that will argue that a handshake is just as good as a legal binding one is.

Hey Korupt,

I get you’re frustrated, and it feels like you’re being picked on when your intent wasn’t to steal or profit. But just to be clear, this isn’t about attacking you, it’s about addressing some big misunderstandings around copyright, because this is stuff that trips up loads of people not just you.

Intent doesn’t override copyright
Doing it “for free”, “for fun”, “as a fan”, or even giving credit doesn’t make it legal if the original image is copyrighted and you don’t have permission. This isn’t opinion, it’s law. Fan art, tribute edits, and non-commercial remixes can still be infringements. Most rights holders don’t chase people for it, but they absolutely can.

Copyright is automatic
As others said, the moment you create something original and fix it in a tangible medium, whether that’s snapping a photo, painting a canvas, or designing a logo, it’s protected. In Canada, as in most countries, you don’t need to register for it to be enforceable.

The $10,000 argument doesn’t hold
Even if you had 200 images, you don’t pay $50 per image. You can register collections of works as a single application, that’s how professional photographers do it. It’s not about printing them on glossy paper and sending them in shoeboxes.

The Canadian system might have been clunky years ago, but online applications do exist now, and the registration cost is low compared to the value of the protection it gives.

Stock photography and terms of use
If the stock photo you used was properly licensed and you followed the terms (free for portfolio use, no resale, attribution given if required), then fine. But saying “I think Hyundai won’t mind” is a gamble. Corporations can and do protect their image rights, and “free advertising” isn’t always welcome if it’s off-brand or edited.

Fan edits and figurines.
Even if you own the figurine, you don’t own the IP behind the design, so yes, Wind in the Willows characters (depending on the territory) might still be copyrighted. Same with photographing toys, you’re not necessarily in the clear just because you own the object.

You’re clearly creative and passionate. You’re experimenting, learning, and pushing boundaries, that’s good. But with that comes responsibility to know where the boundaries actually are. Copyright isn’t just a technicality. It’s a way of respecting the work of others, just like you’d want yours respected.

If you’re genuinely not profiting or causing harm, chances are you won’t get sued. But “not getting caught” isn’t the same as “doing it right”. It’s worth learning the rules properly especially if you’re building a portfolio or hoping to work professionally.

So no one’s out to get you. But when stuff like this comes up, it’s better to learn than to dig in. No shame in saying “fair point” and updating how you approach it from here.

1 Like

According to the website I posted, it’s a total of $144 per application.
With actual photos, with some limitations, you can gang up to 750 of them in ONE application for $144.
And their photography IS copyrighted. As soon as any image is fixed in media (including digital) it is automatically protected. If you want more money when it’s stolen, you copyright it.

That’s going to be one of my retirement side hussles. Post a bunch of copyrighted stuff online and wait for it to be stolen. Then rake in the cash for the infringement. :slight_smile:

I see a bunch of scheduled maintenance shutdowns listed on the CIPO site for all Saturdays 5-9pm and Sundays 2-6pm, plus a headlined issue with contact forms in red that they are working on. Otherwise, they do take applications.

2 Likes

PFffft. You don’t understand at all. !!

I did this for educational purposes. No profit. For fun. To educate myself and others. I expected users to ask me how I did it and I would be happy to comply.

A quote direct from the Canadian government website on copyright of artistic material.

These exceptions allow copyrighted works to be copied without authorization or payment under certain conditions or for specific purposes (for example: educational purposes

“I’m thinking of a side hustle for retirement” Oh ok well here’s a scenario. A photograph of a farm scene. 5,000 tractors in front of an industrial scene. One of those tractors window is cut out using the pen tool in photoshop. and then added to another entire different picture.

Whose to say where I got that photograph of that tractor window from? That’s what I’m talking about here. Your blowing this out of proportion for arguments sake guys. Sheesh!

As others have said, no one is trying to attack you personally, but I am afraid you are just not seeming to want to understand copyright law because you want it to be different.

No one is being pedantic or picky. It is simply a matter of law. It is very clear. You seem to be pushing the educational exemption out of its intended use, because it suits you. It’s about intent. You can use,say, a copyright photo of a Ming dynasty vase to illustrate a point for a lecture about C14th Chinese ceramics, may be an allowable use. To do what you want and then claim it’s educational because you’d be happy to tell people how you did it, I don’t think would stand up in the eyes of the law.

I’d suggest doing some further reading into international copyright law. There’s plenty of information out there. Good luck.

1 Like

Oh thank you for not posting anything about my photography or edits I had permission to post, or the fantasy edits I did for fun to show off my skill. Yeah your not flaming me at all for going off topic and telling me TRUST ME THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. Yeah your not flaming me at all.

There was a post about how photoshop opens a facebook image and there appears purple lines and such. Did anyone read the fine print in the user agreement on facebook? As soon as you upload any images to facebook those images become the copyright of Facebook. Not one user stopped the original thread poster and said hey wait a minute. Before you copied an image of Facebook did you first contact Facebook and ask for permission??~???

Maybe they’ve changed their user agreement since I last read it. Corporations usually update their user agreements all the time. As do governments.

There are a lot of image hosts that tell you when you sign up in their user agreements that your images are their property to sell or do as they wish.

It’s still copyright infringement.

It might never come up or be realised but if it is that’s the problem.

Doesnt matter if changed 99.999%

It might never come up.

But at the same time it’s not yours.
It’s a risk.

Your risk. Your client is at risk.

So you copy a photo and take a window from a tractor of a famous something.

You make millions from it.

It’s found out. Your client is sued.

Your client sues you.

It happens.

I’ve been polite do far.

Last thing i say.

Cop on.

1 Like