Checkbox for "right-click protect"

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6

02/10/2006 01:17:46 PM · #53

Can I just say I feel Gordon has been very correct in his assessment of the situation (which is not to say anything against BobLob), but as a former image thief in college (I had to learn web design somehow!), I can tell you that there truly is no way to stop someone who wants to steal the image. None. Zero.

The solution, on a grander scale, is a secure image file standard. OS vendors will have to agree on how to treat such images and certainly, not allowing the copying of the item via Print-Scrn will be among the first priorities.

In the meantime, please realize that in order to make serious money off of your images (i.e. putting them into print) thieves would need a file on the order of 20-50 times the resolution of an image on DPC.

kteach

Nikon D50

02/10/2006 06:08:19 PM · #54

Many times I've come across an image where someone has commented on how to improve it with post processing, so I right click the image so that I can open it with Photoshop and hopefully learn from the advice given. Other times, people post their pictures and ask for advice, so I'll see what adjustments might be possible. It's a learning experience for me. I understand people's concerns about stolen images, but it seems like anyone who wants to steal an image will find SOME way to do it.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/10/2006 06:21:57 PM · #55

Originally posted by bledford:

The solution, on a grander scale, is a secure image file standard. OS vendors will have to agree on how to treat such images and certainly, not allowing the copying of the item via Print-Scrn will be among the first priorities.

That is draconian and extremely wrong.

Here are a few other examples where this line of thinking is also wrong...

Speed Limit signs should broadcast their maximum speed and all cars within range will automatically drive no faster then that speed, any circumvention of the system would be considered a federal crime.

All VCRs and Tivo machines shall be created to make it impossible to duplicate any copyrighted material... Oh wait, that would defeat the purpose of those items.

I believe two examples is more then enough. Just because it is on a computer doesn't mean it is okay to create draconian systems when the majority of citizens would find it absolutely insane to apply similar measures to activities outside of computing.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

02/10/2006 06:38:49 PM · #56

I agree with Gordon on all his points - (also no disrespect to BobLob who has valid concerns and opinions). There really is nothing you can do to stop a kid (or adult) from stealing your image and posting it on "LookAtTheKickAssPhotoIHonestlyTookMyself.com" - for those who steal and profit, they are usually found out and there are legal means of resolution.

Personally, I think this is always blown out of proportion to the actual reality of the problem. Now, if a 16 year old stole your car and said it was his, that would be depriving you of something, but A) these are low-res copies of electronic images and stealing them does not prevent you from still selling them and B) All methods suggested to resolve this issue only punish the extreme majority of honest people who like to share clean photos - and/or they just end up making lots of money for third parties who sell the illusion of security.

Much ado about nothing is my opinion on the subject. When an incident occurs, these threads fire up and then shortly (and rightly) flame out.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/10/2006 06:42:58 PM · #57

Originally posted by Nelzie:

That is draconian and extremely wrong.

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't understand how the establishment of voluntary, secure image file format is particularly draconian.

Originally posted by Nelzie:

Here are a few other examples where this line of thinking is also wrong...

Speed Limit signs should broadcast their maximum speed and all cars within range will automatically drive no faster then that speed, any circumvention of the system would be considered a federal crime.

This analogy does not fit, as *all* drivers are forced to comply with such a system. A new image file format need not replace any existing formats. Those who seek to protect their images simply have the option to do so.

Originally posted by Nelzie:

All VCRs and Tivo machines shall be created to make it impossible to duplicate any copyrighted material... Oh wait, that would defeat the purpose of those items.

Fair use laws give me the right to do exactly what those machines intend (within constraints). I cannot, however, publish those recordings beyond my own personal use. An image copied from a Website is subject to fair use as well, but republishing on another website is simply not fair use. The myth that publishing an image on the Internet constitutes putting the image into "public domain" perpetuates the ability for people to make the connection in their minds between the example you gave and still photography.

Originally posted by Nelzie:

I believe two examples is more then enough. Just because it is on a computer doesn't mean it is okay to create draconian systems when the majority of citizens would find it absolutely insane to apply similar measures to activities outside of computing.

I'm impressed that you are capable of speaking for the collective majority of the world's citizens, but I prefer to look at the reality of the situation. There is a problem with publishing images on the Internet. Generally speaking, copyright laws are well-known enough to stop most people from getting stupid with other peoples creations, but it seems increasingly popular on the Internet to simply take someone's work and call it your own...and that to me is "extremely wrong."

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/10/2006 06:46:36 PM · #58

Originally posted by Nelzie:

Originally posted by bledford:

The solution, on a grander scale, is a secure image file standard. OS vendors will have to agree on how to treat such images and certainly, not allowing the copying of the item via Print-Scrn will be among the first priorities.

That is draconian and extremely wrong.

Here are a few other examples where this line of thinking is also wrong...

Speed Limit signs should broadcast their maximum speed and all cars within range will automatically drive no faster then that speed, any circumvention of the system would be considered a federal crime.

All VCRs and Tivo machines shall be created to make it impossible to duplicate any copyrighted material... Oh wait, that would defeat the purpose of those items.

I believe two examples is more then enough. Just because it is on a computer doesn't mean it is okay to create draconian systems when the majority of citizens would find it absolutely insane to apply similar measures to activities outside of computing.

I agree. Everyone gets treated as a criminal if you do that.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

02/10/2006 06:50:28 PM · #59

Come to think of it, there is one method I would approve of. It's something they do in China - I think it's called "Caning"

...on second thought, after looking that up and seeing it also has a sexual fetish type of application, I retract.

*longs for the good ol' days of torching and pillaging*

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

02/11/2006 01:18:05 AM · #60

Thanks for all your opinions. I just wanted to get another thread going (I haven't seen once recently) on the subject to get comments.

My thinking is that some people may wish to add some small level of protection for images.

The user should have control.

Perhaps the checkbox should be left default to off. It's just a deterrent.

I personally wouldn't protect any of my images, I don't care who uses it, but it might at least add a small deterrent towards those who just wander around ripping pics off.

With stuff like screen capture and the many other ways to get around it, it's almost not worth the effort.

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/11/2006 01:42:12 PM · #61

Originally posted by bledford:

Originally posted by Nelzie:
That is draconian and extremely wrong.

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't understand how the establishment of voluntary, secure image file format is particularly draconian.

By implementing such a system, a person who wishes to view such material no longer has full control of their own computer system. It is draconian, because it would be forced upon all users of all computer systems capable of viewing images, whether they wish to view such content or not.

As has been shown recently with the Sony Rootkit, such systems can bring forth serious concerns about security.

Originally posted by bledford:

Originally posted by Nelzie:

Here are a few other examples where this line of thinking is also wrong...

Speed Limit signs should broadcast their maximum speed and all cars within range will automatically drive no faster then that speed, any circumvention of the system would be considered a federal crime.

This analogy does not fit, as *all* drivers are forced to comply with such a system. A new image file format need not replace any existing formats. Those who seek to protect their images simply have the option to do so.

Except that if such a system were made available, virtually every visual content available on the Internet or otherwise would be quickly protected with the method, thus forcing everyone into using the system, if they wish to see content on the Internet. Therefor, all Internet users would be forced to comply with the system.

Originally posted by bledford:

Originally posted by Nelzie:

All VCRs and Tivo machines shall be created to make it impossible to duplicate any copyrighted material... Oh wait, that would defeat the purpose of those items.

Fair use laws give me the right to do exactly what those machines intend (within constraints). I cannot, however, publish those recordings beyond my own personal use. An image copied from a Website is subject to fair use as well, but republishing on another website is simply not fair use. The myth that publishing an image on the Internet constitutes putting the image into "public domain" perpetuates the ability for people to make the connection in their minds between the example you gave and still photography.

I do not believe that everything posted to the Internet becomes "Public Domain". Just because some people believe that posted images to the Internet are "Public Domain" it doesn't mean that all people on the Internet need to be punished as a result.

It is important to point out that VCRs and Tivo machines both have legal and illegal uses available to them, just like personal computers. Putting a serious lock-down on one technology and ignoring the other two technologies doesn't equate.

Perhaps laws need to be rewritten to state that everything posted, by the original copyright holder, without an copy right statement or other protection (such as behind a UID/Password protected gallery) be "Public Domain" works. Then, everyone would know and understand what they would be getting into when posting their work to the Internet... and that's just a thought.

Originally posted by bledford:

Originally posted by Nelzie:

I believe two examples is more then enough. Just because it is on a computer doesn't mean it is okay to create draconian systems when the majority of citizens would find it absolutely insane to apply similar measures to activities outside of computing.

I'm impressed that you are capable of speaking for the collective majority of the world's citizens, but I prefer to look at the reality of the situation. There is a problem with publishing images on the Internet. Generally speaking, copyright laws are well-known enough to stop most people from getting stupid with other peoples creations, but it seems increasingly popular on the Internet to simply take someone's work and call it your own...and that to me is "extremely wrong."

[/quote]

Of course it is wrong.

Copy right protection systems first and foremost treat all users like criminals. There is no trust between the provider of the content and the user of the content and the end results is a digital restriction system, that supercedes fair use rights and liberties.

Before DVDs were released, it was within Fair Use rights for a home user to take a store bought VCR movie and duplicate that film for the sole purpose of using the copy and storing the original.

That is not an option with DVDs as the DMCA makes such actions illegal by Federal Law. Virtually all store bought DVDs feature a digital restriction management system that permanently gets between your fair use rights, under copy right law.

For instance, with modern technology, anyone could build a central media server within their home, take all of the media within their home and under fair use rights of copyright law be able to store and access all of their media, via such a device. Except for DVDs, doing that with one single encrypted DVD is breaking the DMCA, since the DVD is encrypted.

So no, I will never be for additional digital restriction management systems regardless of how that may negatively impact any proceeds I hope to one day make from my photographic work. DRM takes away fair use rights from citizens and in the end truly does nothing to stop the criminals that produce infringing works.

02/11/2006 04:31:39 PM · #62

Originally posted by Nelzie:

So no, I will never be for additional digital restriction management systems regardless of how that may negatively impact any proceeds I hope to one day make from my photographic work. DRM takes away fair use rights from citizens and in the end truly does nothing to stop the criminals that produce infringing works.

You make good points and I'm certainly against removal of my fair use rights on any creative content I purchase, digital or otherwise. My only point is that you can't argue against all forms of copyright protection by simply crying wolf about your liberties and fair use rights.

The reality is that at some level the creators of art, music, film, etc. have a right to protect that content from unfair reprint, resale, etc. You've selectively pointed out copyright protection schemes which have generally failed to protect the creator and merely annoy the user...but what about the systems that work? What about iTunes? What about software registration/activation? Just because these things end up on your computer doesn't give you the right to copy and distribute to your liking.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

02/11/2006 04:55:56 PM · #63

Originally posted by bledford:

My only point is that you can't argue against all forms of copyright protection by simply crying wolf about your liberties and fair use rights.

I think you can. It has been shown that the media companies want everything their way. What Sony was doing recently would be considered terrorism if done by an individual (installing a worm to stop everybody - regardless of purpose - copying music). Do you honestly think the large scale counterfiting outfits are really stopped by this, it's just the plebs and the media companies know this full well.

An industry that has shown it cannot be trusted should not be allowed more powerful options - as much as I think it could help in a lot of areas. Sorrt for the rant :-)

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/11/2006 05:55:38 PM · #64

Originally posted by robs:

Originally posted by bledford:
My only point is that you can't argue against all forms of copyright protection by simply crying wolf about your liberties and fair use rights.

I think you can. It has been shown that the media companies want everything their way. What Sony was doing recently would be considered terrorism if done by an individual (installing a worm to stop everybody - regardless of purpose - copying music). Do you honestly think the large scale counterfiting outfits are really stopped by this, it's just the plebs and the media companies know this full well.

An industry that has shown it cannot be trusted should not be allowed more powerful options - as much as I think it could help in a lot of areas. Sorrt for the rant :-)

I'm not talking about media companies! I'm talking about you and me and anyone else who wants to protect their personal property. Does no one here care about the rights of the artist?

Nelzie

Canon EOS-30D

02/11/2006 06:53:35 PM · #65

Originally posted by bledford:

I'm not talking about media companies! I'm talking about you and me and anyone else who wants to protect their personal property. Does no one here care about the rights of the artist?

I care about the rights of the artist and to that end there is a currently legal methods for an artist to protect his/her work.

Register your works with the Copy Right office. Then when you discover that someone has infringed upon your works, you will simply win any rewards due to you.

That is what you, me and anyone else that wants to protect their work can do. Yeah, it means work on the part of the person being infringed upon and I am perfectly okay with that.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

02/11/2006 07:04:53 PM · #66

Originally posted by bledford:

I'm not talking about media companies! I'm talking about you and me and anyone else who wants to protect their personal property. Does no one here care about the rights of the artist?

Yeah I do but you cannot have one without the other and the plebs are the last to get access to the technology and have no say on it's direction. Given that I prefer neither and deal with the copyright laws as bad as they are.

In the end it will happen, and has been happening for a while unfortunatly without any real effective opposition to the media companies (btw, somebody earlier mentioned iTunes - let just agree to disagree if that is a good strategy).