| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/29/2008 11:42:52 AM · #51 |
well I switched the print size from 4x6 to 5x7 and it tells me that "Print quality will be poor รข original is too small for this size."
I am a little upset that he didn't steal mine, :) |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 11:48:58 AM · #52 |
That bastage website, I'm sending my leg-breakers right now!
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 11:54:52 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by IreneM:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RKT:
This is worth another read...wise words from Skip. |
Actually, I think Skip's advice to, in some cases, take infringement as flattery, let it slide or just be happy with the image's removal is dead wrong. |
Me too.
Left a message at this guys site. Will get on to fotki now.
I have a pitchfork, now if only I knew where his village is..... |
well, irene, you're agreeing with a misquote. spaz, i NEVER said take it as flattery and to let it slide. i basically said you don't necessarily need a sledgehammer to rid yourself of an ant.
that article of mine was a starting point for dealing with the issue; i just haven't had time to write the second (or third parts). the primary point was to not freak out when you find situations like this.
as for this one, after a quick summary glance at the thread, it looks like it is something that should easily resolve. either the guy had malicious intent and should burn in hell, or he doesn't really know what he's doing or what he's gotten into and he's in the process of getting an education. |
Hi Skip. Can't speak for spaz obviously, but when I read your article it was also the feeling I got from it, I know these weren't your actual words. I don't "freak out" when image theft occurs but I will always react and at least try and get the image (images) removed from the offending site.
In this particular case, if he's clever enough to steal the images and clever enough to copyright them and clever enough to try and sell them, then I say it is malicious intent. Does he think that everyone in the world will see the stolen images except the owners? Crazy stuff.
Anyway... look forward to the second and third parts of your article. I hope I haven't offended you, it was certainly not my intention. |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 12:00:27 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by booboo_goon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by booboo_goon:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I love it. He's got the images right-click protected. LOL |
Why can't this site do that?! Should definetly be consired in my opinion =| |
Because it's a hassle for the legit and ultimately pointless in protecting images from theft. |
Not saying it would be entirely safe from theft, but it would make it a bit harder to get hold of? |
This is a topic that is a dead horse, my dear. It's been beaten into hamburger too many times to count.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 12:08:32 PM · #55 |
| Looks like Milton's removed your comments from his Guestbook :S |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 12:12:41 PM · #56 |
| Someone should take a screen shot of his image page....ASA |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 12:47:33 PM · #57 |
| It looks like his intention may have been just to make a collection and not sell the images. The print option is no longer available. |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 12:53:31 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It looks like his intention may have been just to make a collection and not sell the images. The print option is no longer available. |
That was my impression also (stated earlier), as he did credit the photographer and photo title for each one.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 12:59:22 PM · #59 |
My question is, "How did the OP find this page of photos?" From his home page or subfolders there are no viewable links to the photo album in discussion.
I know in the URL it refrences "florida" but under his Florida subfolder there are no albums that correspond with the name of "zpsf". Yet the link is still active from the OP. Just kind of wondering.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 01:02:51 PM · #60 |
Now it's going to a member login page.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 01:04:28 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It looks like his intention may have been just to make a collection and not sell the images. The print option is no longer available. |
That was my impression also (stated earlier), as he did credit the photographer and photo title for each one. |
If you click on the individual images, you'll see he still has his copyright on them. |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 01:07:38 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by IreneM:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
It looks like his intention may have been just to make a collection and not sell the images. The print option is no longer available. |
That was my impression also (stated earlier), as he did credit the photographer and photo title for each one. |
If you click on the individual images, you'll see he still has his copyright on them. |
I remember that. Would be best that people who do these kind of collections at least link back to the page where they found it. |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 01:11:33 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by IreneM:
If you click on the individual images, you'll see he still has his copyright on them. |
You sure that copyright isn't throw on by the website automatically?
Nothing gets DPC more like a porcupine with quills to bear than copyright issues. My vote is this guy just has a gallery and has no idea that you can purchase them.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 01:13:54 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
That bastage website, I'm sending my leg-breakers right now! |
Damnit! They misunderstood me and now I have two broken legs. :-(
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 01:14:23 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by IreneM:
If you click on the individual images, you'll see he still has his copyright on them. |
You sure that copyright isn't throw on by the website automatically?
Nothing gets DPC more like a porcupine with quills to bear than copyright issues. My vote is this guy just has a gallery and has no idea that you can purchase them. |
He removed the print option but it appears that the entire album has been removed now. |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 01:55:03 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by IreneM:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RKT:
This is worth another read...wise words from Skip. |
Actually, I think Skip's advice to, in some cases, take infringement as flattery, let it slide or just be happy with the image's removal is dead wrong. |
Me too.
Left a message at this guys site. Will get on to fotki now.
I have a pitchfork, now if only I knew where his village is..... |
well, irene, you're agreeing with a misquote. spaz, i NEVER said take it as flattery and to let it slide. i basically said you don't necessarily need a sledgehammer to rid yourself of an ant.
that article of mine was a starting point for dealing with the issue; i just haven't had time to write the second (or third parts). the primary point was to not freak out when you find situations like this.
as for this one, after a quick summary glance at the thread, it looks like it is something that should easily resolve. either the guy had malicious intent and should burn in hell, or he doesn't really know what he's doing or what he's gotten into and he's in the process of getting an education. |
Well, I summarized what I felt to be your point. I figured that people would actually click the link and read what you wrote.
As for letting it slide, IMO anything short of monetary compensation for infringement, whether gotten by simply billing the offender, a settlement or a full blown trial, IS letting it slide. Some others would be happy with simply removing the photos. My opinion is that's reinforcing the misconception that infringement is wrong.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 03:18:34 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for letting it slide, IMO anything short of monetary compensation for infringement, whether gotten by simply billing the offender, a settlement or a full blown trial, IS letting it slide. Some others would be happy with simply removing the photos. My opinion is that's reinforcing the misconception that infringement is wrong. |
in a perfect world, i'd agree with you ;-)
however, in the real world, it just doesn't work that way. you have to first do all the things necessary to protect your interests before you get infringed on, and second, you have to be able to prove damages. if you haven't done the first, you'll have a really tough time with the second. and, if you aren't making enough of an effort to earn money from photography, you'll have a real tough time proving how much you've been damaged. unless you can show legitmate damages, you'll have a hard time collecting anything. then again, maybe sending an invoice and a letter from a lawyer might get the images taken down quicker, even if the invoice and letter amount to nothing more than a lot of barking... |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 03:30:02 PM · #68 |
| I don't think its been removed. Just hid from everyone, I copied source code before it was hid and it still opens. :-ร |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 03:35:17 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Prime_Time:
I don't think its been removed. Just hid from everyone, I copied source code before it was hid and it still opens. :-ร |
Nice, I love it!
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 04:06:33 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for letting it slide, IMO anything short of monetary compensation for infringement, whether gotten by simply billing the offender, a settlement or a full blown trial, IS letting it slide. Some others would be happy with simply removing the photos. My opinion is that's reinforcing the misconception that infringement is wrong. |
You sound like you work for the RIAA...
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 04:56:16 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for letting it slide, IMO anything short of monetary compensation for infringement, whether gotten by simply billing the offender, a settlement or a full blown trial, IS letting it slide. Some others would be happy with simply removing the photos. My opinion is that's reinforcing the misconception that infringement is wrong. |
in a perfect world, i'd agree with you ;-)
however, in the real world, it just doesn't work that way. you have to first do all the things necessary to protect your interests before you get infringed on, and second, you have to be able to prove damages. if you haven't done the first, you'll have a really tough time with the second. and, if you aren't making enough of an effort to earn money from photography, you'll have a real tough time proving how much you've been damaged. unless you can show legitmate damages, you'll have a hard time collecting anything. then again, maybe sending an invoice and a letter from a lawyer might get the images taken down quicker, even if the invoice and letter amount to nothing more than a lot of barking... |
Any artist, be that a photographer, painter, sculptor, typographer, musician or whatever, that doesn't take the necessary steps to protect their work, IMO, doesn't respect their work or respect themselves as an artist. Maybe they deserve to be infringed on. I know I don't.
As far as proving damages, simply having a means (website, gallery, art fair booth, etc) by which the image is for sale is enough to establish a value. The compensation does not necessarily have to be based on that value. I know photographers that take their highest rate, triple it (that's their "rate" for unauthorized use to date) and invoice the infringer for that in the simplest cases of infringement. Any involvement by a lawyer and those fees are simply added to the invoice. The infringer can simply pay, negotiate a deal or continue to ignore the claim. If they go to trial, they will almost always lose and lose big. If they ignore the subpoena to trial, they will piss off the judge and there will be a default judgement and you can place a lien against any property they might own; like their house.
Of course, if you're selling your images for a quarter on microstock, three times that won't cover postage, but that's a thread for another day.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 04:56:56 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for letting it slide, IMO anything short of monetary compensation for infringement, whether gotten by simply billing the offender, a settlement or a full blown trial, IS letting it slide. Some others would be happy with simply removing the photos. My opinion is that's reinforcing the misconception that infringement is wrong. |
You sound like you work for the RIAA... |
No, I like to see artists get their money.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 05:23:37 PM · #73 |
Damn, someone finally takes one of my shots and I didn't even get a chance to see it...  taterbug sent me an email this morning to warn me (thanks dude!!!) but I didn't even get it till just now...
Message edited by author 2008-01-29 17:24:09. |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 05:38:19 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for letting it slide, IMO anything short of monetary compensation for infringement, whether gotten by simply billing the offender, a settlement or a full blown trial, IS letting it slide. Some others would be happy with simply removing the photos. My opinion is that's reinforcing the misconception that infringement is wrong. |
You sound like you work for the RIAA... |
No, I like to see artists get their money. |
I certainly agree with you. I guess in this situation I'm unsure of what money the artists are missing. I'm quite sure it's much less than the collective angst of this thread seems to indicate. I'm certainly against someone trying to sell my work and I'm also certainly against someone trying to claim my work for their own. But I got no problem with someone saying, "hey, I found this on the internet and think it's cool". It would be nice if they credited the work, but I'd forgive them if they didn't. I see thumbs posted all the time on DPC from other sites which do not credit the original photog.
I guess I'm making the assumption that they guy isn't actually making money from the possible mug you could order. I'm viewing it as oversight on his part.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 05:40:13 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As far as proving damages, simply having a means (website, gallery, art fair booth, etc) by which the image is for sale is enough to establish a value. The compensation does not necessarily have to be based on that value. |
if push comes to shove, i think that it would be a stretch for someone to take some nice photos, put them in an online gallery with rediculous prices, never sell any, find themselves infringed upon, then try to claim rediculous damages.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I know photographers that take their highest rate, triple it (that's their "rate" for unauthorized use to date) and invoice the infringer for that in the simplest cases of infringement. Any involvement by a lawyer and those fees are simply added to the invoice. The infringer can simply pay, negotiate a deal or continue to ignore the claim. If they go to trial, they will almost always lose and lose big. If they ignore the subpoena to trial, they will piss off the judge and there will be a default judgement and you can place a lien against any property they might own; like their house. |
i'm not buying it for cases such as the one that prompted this thread. if this were a case of an established gallery or an established ad agency ripping someone off, i would be agreeing with you 100%. i just think the way you're painting it with a one-size-fits-all brush is a little too blue-sky. otherwise, there would be an onslaught of people out there shooting like mad, registering the hell out of their work, then putting it out to be stolen, just in order to try to slam the infringers--just because there could be such a much greater payoff than selling the images traditionally ;-) |
|
