Abnormalities in the July 2013 Contest

[Tucky]

In the July 2013 Photo Contest, in the category: Unusual Location
are 2 abnormalities:

1)
The user: tibor rendek
http://www.panoramio.com/user/4650651
has won with 2 images:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92940526 (the first place)
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92940533 (the fourth place)

Is this permissible?


2)
The winning image: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92817582
of the user: neyfireman (http://www.panoramio.com/user/4293821)
is probably a stolen picture, because:

TinEye finds: 614 results
Google image search: 204.000 results
Probably stolen:
http://www.downloadswallpapers.com/wallpapers/2012/janeiro/wallpaper-cristo-redentor-no-rio-de-janeiro-3641.jpg
Presumed author: Ricardo Zerrenner, see the copyright on the right side of the photo: www.zerrenner.fot.br

More pictures in the gallery of: neyfireman
http://www.panoramio.com/user/4293821

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92817618
Probably stolen:
see the copyright on the right side of the photo: gefotografia.blogspot.com

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92817601
Probably stolen:
See the copyright on the upper edge of the picture: Facebook.com/ImbitubaSc

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92817577
Probably stolen:
See the copyright at the bottom edge of the picture: Facebook.com/ImbitubaSc

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92817640
Probably stolen from:
http://aliadaimoveis.com.br/imoveis/venda/terreno/283-bom-jardim-da-serra-serra-do-rio-do-rastro-condominio-altos-da-serra.html
http://aliadaimoveis.com.br/data/imoveis/283/e6b08bc0e44194e9774f658b42cd0998_big.jpg

[hvbemmel]

First of all, there has been a mistake in this contest, because it has not ended yet. With all apologies from the team, but the final results will be available in two days.

I will alert Adam to this thread.

[Adam Lasnik]

Herman, Tucky, thanks!

And indeed, the early ending of the contest is my fault; I will be absolutely re-calculating winners during the first week in September, and will take into account the findings above.

(P.S. -- You're also correct that it's not permissible for the same person to win twice; I had done a manual diff and caught several duplicates, but clearly missed one; appreciate you noting it!)

[Adam Lasnik]

I have taken action on the account mentioned above, and also recalculated the winners for July, so that there is no person winning more than once.  

Thanks again!

[Tucky]

In one other picture is the question about the Copyright not clear.
See the comments on the picture:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/93291705 (Category: Travel)

This post was edited on 04.Sept.2013 at 13:45 by Tucky

[df3vi]

It looks like it has been copied from this source: http://www.traveldee.com/zhangjiajie-national-forest-park-china/ (last photo)

Interesting statistics also: 264 Panoramio views, 71 in the last 30 days (Aug 4th to Sep 2nd). Between Jul 18th and Aug 3rd there were 193, which means it probably got most views before the contest started.
Similar the sixth place, which had 53 Panoramio views in that time frame (and 196 before).
That should answers some recent questions of how many votes does one need to be among the winners...

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

Automatic translation - photo owner (owner?) said in comment:

"Image for examination"

So...?

[Wim Constant]

Are there any honest prize-winners I'm beginning to wonder.

I've already reported this one to Adam:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92511033

Stolen from: http://7unique.blogspot.nl/2009_11_15_archive.html  (Just in the bottom half of the page)

Or maybe from here: http://eroticdance.pl.wrzuta.pl/obraz/8cEp5VSoMcC/tapeta_smieszne_zdjecia#header  Page is over 6 years old!

[Tucky]

As I wrote in the picture comment, I think it is a copy of 28. July 2010 by:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/86729083@N04/7962349386

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:20:08 PM UTC+2, df3vi wrote:

It looks like it has been copied from this source: http://www.traveldee.com/zhangjiajie-national-forest-park-china/ (last photo)

  :
  :

[Tucky]

Hello Wim,
congratulations, you've hit a bullseye!
 
The winning picture http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92511033 (Category: Travel)
of user www.panoramio.com/user/4670871 (Lamprus)
is quite certain stolen, as you have already reported.

Author of this picture is probably "coolmonfrere" (Picture was taken on 6. Aug. 2006), see here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/71594205@N00/207579197

If you compare the Flickr photostream of "coolmonfrere" with the Panoramo gallery of "Lamprus", it is clearly evident that this is not the same photographer, to different is the style and the quality of the pictures. This surreal HDR picture fits well in the photostream of "coolmonfrere", but not in the rather unspectacular PA gallery of "Lamprus".


In the gallery of "Lamprus" we can find probably still more stolen pictures.

He photographed with SONY DSC-S980, SONY DSC-P200 or SONY ERICSSON as the EXIF data of his pictures show. Pictures in his gallery with other camera models or without EXIF data are probably stolen, look at these examples:


http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92511024
PA upload: 1. July 2013
EXIF data:
Camera = NIKON D90,
Original Date/Time = 2010:11:25 16:47:12,
Software/Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
is probably stolen.
Author is: Poulios Photography (http://www.pouliosphoto.gr/),
see:
http://www.skaikairos.gr/system/weather_photo_imgs/11927/original/dog%20with%20a%20rainbow%202.jpg
EXIF Data:
Camera = NIKON D90,
Original Date/Time = 2010:11:25 16:47:12
Software/Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows


http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92511010
PA upload: 1. July 2013
without EXIF data,
is probably stolen,
see:
http://travelstyle.gr/portal/gr/destination_articles.php?dest_id=890&id=2015
has been published since: 23. Jan. 2011


http://www.panoramio.com/photo/86762805 and http://www.panoramio.com/photo/86762807
PA upload: 1. March 2013,
without EXIF data,
960 x 720 Pixel,
are probably stolen,
see this picture series:
http://3otiko.blogspot.de/2012/12/blog-post_2566.html
has been published since: 18. Dec. 2012,
960 x 720 Pixel


http://www.panoramio.com/photo/95031960
PA upload: 2 weeks ago
EXIF-Data:
Software/Firmware Version = Digital Photo Professional
Last modification Date/Time = 2009:07:03 01:51:28
1276 x 800 Pixel
is probably stolen,
see this picture series:
http://www.galeriafoto.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/108910/ppuser/4068
has been published since: 5. July 2009
EXIF data:
Software/Firmware Version = Digital Photo Professional
Last modification Date/Time = 2009:07:03 01:51:28
1276 x 800 Pixel


http://www.panoramio.com/photo/86762769
PA upload: 1. March 2013,
EXIF data:
Camera = Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Original Date/Time = 2007:08:17 18:32:56
2592 x 3888 Pixel
is probably stolen,
see:
http://www.retromaniax.gr/vb/showthread.php?1088-%CA%E1%EB%EB%E9%F4%E5%F7%ED%E9%EA%DD%F2-%D6%F9%F4%EF%E3%F1%E1%F6%DF%E5%F2/page31
has been published since: 08/07/29
Camera = Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Original Date/Time = 2007:08:17 18:32:56
2592 x 3888 Pixel


http://www.panoramio.com/photo/92511045
PA upload: 1. July 2013
EXIF data:
Camera = NIKON D300
Software/Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Original Date/Time = 2010:08:10 11:26:02
4288 x 2848 Pixel
is probably stolen.


http://www.panoramio.com/photo/95032201
PA upload: 2 weeks ago
Camera = PENTAX K200D
Software/Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Original Date/Time = 2013:01:09 11:08:30
3872 x 2592 Pixel
is probably stolen.

[Adam Lasnik]

Tucky, thanks again for your research and diligence.

I am traveling at the moment, but my team and I take these reports seriously and will tackle this thread ASAP.

[Tucky]

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 5:57:38 AM UTC+2, Tucky wrote:

    In one other picture is the question about the Copyright not clear.
    See the comments on the picture:
    http://www.panoramio.com/photo/93291705 (Category: Travel)

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 7:20:08 PM UTC+2, df3vi wrote:
    It looks like it has been copied from this source: http://www.traveldee.com/zhangjiajie-national-forest-park-china/ (last photo)

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 9:22:17 PM UTC+2, Tomas Kohout wrote:
    Automatic translation - photo owner (owner?) said in comment:
    "Image for examination"
    So...?

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 1:29:21 AM UTC+2, Tucky wrote:
    As I wrote in the picture comment, I think it is a copy of 28. July 2010 by:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/86729083@N04/7962349386

Hello Adam,
this stolen picture http://www.panoramio.com/photo/93291705
is still displayed in the contest.
Please see the comments above in this thread.
Also, the picture is wrong mapped in Baghdad (Iraq), correctly would Zhangjiajie National Forest Park (China), see the picture comments.
And the user has not objected the accusations in the comments.

[Tucky]

Reminder: Still not processed.

[muba]

Amazing! Apparently taken from a traffic island in Baghdad. Is it worth entering the competition with so many stolen photos paraded before us?

[Baycrest]

Tucky於 2013年9月25日星期三UTC+8下午3時49分54秒寫道：

This photo is actually stolen from this user: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/38361087. Thanks PiEllePi for finding out the original photo!

[Adam Lasnik]

Thanks for your patience, everyone.  I've updated the contest winner results and removed that photo from the list.

[Tucky]

Hello Adam,
and what happens with the gallery from this thief?
The whole gallery of this thief consists only of violating the rules!!!

[Adam Lasnik]

Tucky, at this time, we can only take action related to copyright concerns if the copyright owner or someone authorized to act on their behalf files a complaint.  They can do so here.  

[Tucky]

Hello Adam,

the thief has only 2 photos in his gallery:
- The first photo is not a real image,
- The second photo is completely wrong mapped in Iran and not in China,
  see all the comments from other users on the picture.

Extract from the "Acceptance policy for Panoramio photos":
Unacceptable types of photos:
 - Logos, mini-images, images that are not real photos, scanned documents, text documents, ...
   :
- Photos intentionally geopositioned to the wrong place.

Failing to comply to any of the above conditions may lead to the deletion of the infringing photo, or even of the whole account, without notice.


I think, these two violations are actually sufficient to remove such undesired images thieves.

[Adam Lasnik]

Hi Tucky,

Thanks for the additional information.  It does appear that 50% or more of this member's photos violate our terms of service, independent of copyright issues.

[Draken]

Since the contest has been officially discontinued we won't encounter any more "abnormalities".

[Adam Lasnik]

True (and thanks for noting it in this thread, Draken, in case others missed my announcement earlier today).

I'm hoping this also reduce the incentive and occurrence of misappropriation of photos.