Easy stealing during DIGITAL ERA !!

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/01/2007 12:37:54 PM · #3

IMO you have to be a real IDIOT to take an image from someone else and call it your own.

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/01/2007 12:40:44 PM · #4

I don't think (and would hope) that this is very surprising to many people. If you put something unprotected out where millions of people can access it, of course there's a risk. How big of a risk depends somewhat on what you're doing to protect yourself. You can never eliminate the risk competely but that's the tradeoff in putting your work out for such a broad audience.

downtherabbithole

02/01/2007 12:42:18 PM · #5

even if it's stolen, it's not high enough quality to reproduce well enough that anyone would want to buy it. Besides in th portriate business no one wants to buy a picture that isn't of them, and as for leave behind and send out work (advertisement postcards and whatnot)Photographers have been useing stock images for years now. I wouldn't do it, but I have seen it done. I think it's unethical to attract clients with stock images you didn't take just because it looks better in a given design layout.

people are going to take it if they really want it. we as photographers can put speed bumbs in the way but aside from putting proof across everything there is always screen shots.

02/01/2007 12:44:25 PM · #6

Originally posted by kombizz:

Easy stealing during DIGITAL ERA...

Why are you bringing such an old issue up and more importantly bringing it up here?

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

02/01/2007 01:03:39 PM · #7

Actually YOUR WRONG!

It's no easier to steel images taken by a digital camera..... you now say what? Film images on the net are no different then Digital Images on the net there both just files on a webpage.

There is more images to Steel but Film images that are scanned and on the net are just as easy as digital images posted to the web.

Just because an image is digital doesnt mean that they can be stolen through the web. If the images never touch a machine or posted onthe web they might be on CD's in a file cabinet right next to their film counter parts.

Film that has been scanned isnt necesarilly on the web either.

Image son the web are easier to steel then images in your house. But images on the web arent all from digital cameras alot of them are film too.

You forgot about that.

shanelighter

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

02/01/2007 01:13:24 PM · #8

I think what you're missing is that he is referring to the film era vs. the digital era, not necessarily film vs. digital cameras. And during most of the film era, there was no Internet. Except the internetting in bathing trunks.

Way to nit-pick that one, though.

02/01/2007 01:15:46 PM · #9

Originally posted by shanelighter:

I am pretty sure i didnt miss it. He didnt say just Digital age He ACTUALLY said in whole words "Digital Photography"

Originally posted by kombizz:

During the film era, there was not that many cases about stealing images compare to our new era of digital photography.

Now had he said Film Era and Digital Age without mentioning digital photography... that would be different but people have been putting Film images on the net for almost 18 years that I know of.

Message edited by author 2007-02-01 13:17:28.

TCGuru

Canon EOS-40D

02/01/2007 02:24:46 PM · #10

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by kombizz:
Easy stealing during DIGITAL ERA...

Why are you bringing such an old issue up and more importantly bringing it up here?

Because that little link he posted up there leads to a site FULL of referral links. Even under the word photography, you are led to a yellow pages add.

USING AND TRICKING YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE HERE AT DPC!

This thread should be deleted.

candlerain

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/01/2007 02:25:24 PM · #11

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Now had he said Film Era and Digital Age without mentioning digital photography... that would be different but people have been putting Film images on the net for almost 18 years that I know of.

This is totally wrong... Tim Berners-Lee began creating HTML, HTTP and the first few Web pages at CERN in 1993.

It is funny how people think the World Wide Web always existed... There was no way before then to see images on the Internet. The military was using the Net for data packets only before then.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/01/2007 02:29:05 PM · #12

Originally posted by candlerain:

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Now had he said Film Era and Digital Age without mentioning digital photography... that would be different but people have been putting Film images on the net for almost 18 years that I know of.

This is totally wrong... Tim Berners-Lee began creating HTML, HTTP and the first few Web pages at CERN in 1993.

It is funny how people think the World Wide Web always existed... There was no way before then to see images on the Internet. The military was using the Net for data packets only before then.

AOL 1.3a for dos was out before there was a web browser.

NEXT - SGML PreDates HTML

ANOTHER - (This has nothignt odo with image on web pages) Linux was first released on an FTP server before 1993. The military wasnt the only one using worldwide networks to exchange information priopr to webpages. They were just the first. The interntet existed as message boards and mail before webpages. Alogn with file connection servers.

Yes NCSA Mosaic was first released to the public in 1993. So lets rephrase 14 years ago. Either way I highly doubt the first image featured on a web page let say.. of the NCSA computing center was taken by anything other then film.

I took a guess i cant remember that 93 was the year the webrowser was released. But i was using aol in dos before 93. I was farting around with a 9.6K modem back then.

Message edited by author 2007-02-01 14:31:10.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

02/01/2007 04:55:12 PM · #13

Ahhhh, yes...message boards and BBB on 9.6k. THOSE WERE THE DAYS!

rinac

Pentax K20D

Pentax SMC-F 50mm f/1.7

02/01/2007 05:13:45 PM · #14

Originally posted by TCGuru:

Yeah, they're only google ads though. But I do agree with your last two statements :)

02/01/2007 05:33:34 PM · #15

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Ahhhh, yes...message boards and BBB on 9.6k. THOSE WERE THE DAYS!

Downloading Photoshop Chopped into 2 Meg .RAR's on 14.4K Were the day lol!

Man i remember when we got a 28K modem and thoght it was fast.

Its okay theirs nothing like the 300 Baud Modem on my 1983 IBM PC Jr with an 8088 processor. Ill pull it out and photo it for yall sometime.

Message edited by author 2007-02-01 17:34:48.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

02/01/2007 06:12:49 PM · #16

Anyone else dial into GEnie with their screamin' fast 300 baud modem?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/02/2007 01:55:23 AM · #17

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Anyone else dial into GEnie with their screamin' fast 300 baud modem?

That was the first (and only) place online I was ever propositioned to cyber. Being 13 or 14 and a hunt and peck one finger typer it wasn't too interesting.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/02/2007 02:08:06 AM · #18

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Anyone else dial into GEnie with their screamin' fast 300 baud modem?

No, but I have a 300 baud modem in a drawer somewhere ... used it with a "dumb terminal" to connect to a university VAX mini-mainframe running UNIX ...

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/02/2007 02:09:10 AM · #19

This is perhaps the most bizarre thread I have seen here.

Well, this week anyway.

Keywords: scam, spam, crap, please delete me

TCGuru

Canon EOS-40D

02/02/2007 10:28:31 AM · #20

Originally posted by rinac:

Originally posted by TCGuru:
Because that little link he posted up there leads to a site FULL of referral links. Even under the word photography, you are led to a yellow pages add.

USING AND TRICKING YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE HERE AT DPC!

This thread should be deleted.

Yeah, they're only google ads though. But I do agree with your last two statements :)

No hon, not the google ads... all of the clickable text on that page is a misleading referral link... all you have to do is hover over the link with your mouse to see what URL it points to.... NOTHING to do with the text... completley misleading....

I reported it but apparently it is no big deal around here...

.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

02/02/2007 10:58:18 AM · #21

Originally posted by TCGuru:

There's no deception that I can see anywhere. There's Google ads, some ContentLink advertising, and usefilm site related links. All looks normal.

Intelli

Nikon D300

02/02/2007 11:12:35 AM · #22

gosh.. I remember getting on BBS's and playing RPG games in text format, on my 1400 baud modem... watching the screen load line by line. Did any of ya'll play Usurper or Trade Wars?

02/02/2007 11:24:01 AM · #23

Originally posted by Intelli:

gosh.. I remember getting on BBS's and playing RPG games in text format, on my 1400 baud modem... watching the screen load line by line. Did any of ya'll play Usurper or Trade Wars?

Heh they still have MUD's Multi User Dungeons played through ANSI Telnet. I play on realms.game.org port 4000 alot

TCGuru

Canon EOS-40D

02/02/2007 12:58:00 PM · #24

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by TCGuru:
No hon, not the google ads... all of the clickable text on that page is a misleading referral link... all you have to do is hover over the link with your mouse to see what URL it points to.... NOTHING to do with the text... completley misleading....

I reported it but apparently it is no big deal around here...

There's no deception that I can see anywhere. There's Google ads, some ContentLink advertising, and usefilm site related links. All looks normal.

The first underlined link for photographer goes to this site: //johnrobertpowers.net/form.html?ovmtc=content asking you to sign up to be represented by their agency. Clearly not a link to the photo "Girl Waiting For Subway" as it proposes to be.

The second, Mccain, goes to ask.com and gives you information on Senator John McCain not the photographer Daniel McCain like it says.

The third, another link to the word photographer, takes you here: //www.redbullillume.com/?cmd=frontendFrameset&noflash=false&nojavascript=false and it acts like it will take you to a debate about the ethics of photography.

Hover your mouse on the underlined links and look down in the bottom left hand corner. Redirects. I was just pointing out that each of these is a referral link and that is why this thread was originated.