| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2008 09:57:21 PM · #1 |
ok, if you're a member, you pay $25 a year. if you're not a member, you're paying nothing.
what would you be willing to pay per year to have dpc help you protect your images? $50? $100? $250? $500?
as a professional photographer, i pay easily over $1000 a year for memberships in various professional organizations. not only do i get cool magazines, but i get access to insurance services, marketing support, and legal services, in addition to lot of other benefits. the costs simply goes with the territory.
so, what would it be worth to you for dpc to be able to provide a little more than simply renaming your files? |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 10:04:40 PM · #2 |
Depends a lot on what would be proposed. It would be a major negative feature for me if:
1/ images were visibly watermarked
2/ right click blockers or other pointless and annoying scripts were employed
3/ images were displayed as flash/ with overlays etc
4/ images were resaved with embedded watermarks
I'd be all in favour of new measures that were:
a/ effective
b/ didn't reduce the quality of experience for legitimate viewers
c/ didn't reduce the image quality
I'd be strongly against ineffective measures that were easily & trivially bypassed, particularly if they get in the way of typical usage of the site. Mostly though I believe in innocent until proven guilty and that we shouldn't punish the majority of reasonable viewers for the crimes and misdemeanors of a few bad visitors to the site.
Message edited by author 2008-01-30 22:28:11. |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 10:08:38 PM · #3 |
I can't answer your question yet without seriously considering what it is worth versus the theft of an image that is only good for use on the web. My market is more along the lines of prints at least 16" by 20" so the measures in place are sufficient to protect my images from being duplicated in that size.
What I wonder is how much it would actually cost this site to put in place some of the measures that some members/users have suggested. With all of the members that this site has, wouldn't an increase of $2.00 to the price of membership at least be in the ball park of the cost of implementing some of these measures? I wouldn't think that it would cost much, and then spread out across all of the members it should not take much more per person.
Or am I way off base? |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 10:34:19 PM · #4 |
i'm thinking more of the back-office support, such as assisting with the copyrighting process, actually having some legal boilerplate in place to send to offenders, maybe even having a paid person tasked to handle responses. this wouldn't be geared towards helping out every member, just the ones willing to pay for it. i don't think a $2 bump would do it. but, if 100 people put up $100, you might get somewhere.
i pretty much agree with you, gordon, as far as not reducing the dpc experience across the board; however, i think that those willing to pay should have the options of chosing their protections.
while it might seem unfair that there would be a heavy-hand-of-dpc ready to reach out and strike offenders only on the behalf of those paying for such a service, the thing is, if it's really that important to you, you have to make the investment/contribution. |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 10:37:49 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Skip:
i'm thinking more of the back-office support, such as assisting with the copyrighting process, actually having some legal boilerplate in place to send to offenders, maybe even having a paid person tasked to handle responses. this wouldn't be geared towards helping out every member, just the ones willing to pay for it. i don't think a $2 bump would do it. but, if 100 people put up $100, you might get somewhere.
i pretty much agree with you, gordon, as far as not reducing the dpc experience across the board; however, i think that those willing to pay should have the options of chosing their protections.
while it might seem unfair that there would be a heavy-hand-of-dpc ready to reach out and strike offenders only on the behalf of those paying for such a service, the thing is, if it's really that important to you, you have to make the investment/contribution. |
I think that sort of thing sounds potentially sensible. |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 10:48:07 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Skip:
while it might seem unfair that there would be a heavy-hand-of-dpc ready to reach out and strike offenders only on the behalf of those paying for such a service, the thing is, if it's really that important to you, you have to make the investment/contribution. |
I don't think that seems unfair at all. That's life. If you want something like a new camera, for example, then you work, save your money, and then spend your saved money on your new camera or whatever you want to. Some choose the new camera, others choose vacations or services like what you described.
I think that would be a welcomed option to many of (but not the majority) of the members here. |
|
|
|
01/30/2008 10:53:32 PM · #7 |
If there was a way, with a program that DPC could employ, to detect a 'screen capture'.
If a screen capture could be detected, somehow, then wouldn't make sense that a lock could be put on an image, along with email warnings?
I don't know if this is possible.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2008 10:57:47 PM · #8 |
Right now it only costs $45 to register your images in the US. The VA short form takes about 10 minutes to fill out. The first one might take someone a bit longer to do, but after that, it's like falling off a bike... once you learn how, you never forget.
What happens if DPC screws up on a registration and the person didn't get their images registered before they were published or before an infringement? Is DPC going to help with the legal fees that the photographer is going to incur because they didn't have their images registered? For a full blown court battle it could be up to $50k. If by some chance DPC did take responsibility, I would suspect membership fees would be going up dramatically.
But if DPC was part of the process in any way, they could be held liable in some manner if something got messed up. I don't think they will want to do this.
If it's that important to someone, they should make the effort to get their images registered. That's the least they should do.
Mike
Message edited by author 2008-01-30 22:59:18.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2008 11:01:56 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Right now it only costs $45 to register your images in the US. The VA short form takes about 10 minutes to fill out. The first one might take someone a bit longer to do, but after that, it's like falling off a bike... once you learn how, you never forget.
What happens if DPC screws up on a registration and the person didn't get their images registered before they were published or before an infringement? Is DPC going to help with the legal fees that the photographer is going to incur because they didn't have their images registered? For a full blown court battle it could be up to $50k. If by some chance DPC did take responsibility, I would suspect membership fees would be going up dramatically.
But if DPC was part of the process in any way, they could be held liable in some manner if something got messed up. I don't think they will want to do this.
If it's that important to someone, they should make the effort to get their images registered. That's the least they should do.
Mike |
I think registering your images is a GREAT idea.
Even amateurs should register. Everyone needs to make a habit of this. This will definetly help that professional that sells his photo, and that stock photo that the weekend photographer shoots, making legit business abide by the rules.
The thing is, it is real easy to steal an image on the internet from those illagitamte sources.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 01:02:20 AM · #10 |
What about some sort of 'bot/crawler that simply looked for "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited" on the web, and returned a list of links that were not part of dpchallenge.com with thumbnails and links in a member area? People who were interested could browse that section periodically, looking for their images and then indicate somehow that the issue was resolved and it would be removed from the list.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 05:50:25 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Right now it only costs $45 to register your images in the US. The VA short form takes about 10 minutes to fill out. The first one might take someone a bit longer to do, but after that, it's like falling off a bike... once you learn how, you never forget.
What happens if DPC screws up on a registration and the person didn't get their images registered before they were published or before an infringement? Is DPC going to help with the legal fees that the photographer is going to incur because they didn't have their images registered? For a full blown court battle it could be up to $50k. If by some chance DPC did take responsibility, I would suspect membership fees would be going up dramatically.
But if DPC was part of the process in any way, they could be held liable in some manner if something got messed up. I don't think they will want to do this.
If it's that important to someone, they should make the effort to get their images registered. That's the least they should do.
Mike |
valid points, all, but not really any show-stoppers. there is a wide range of ways dpc could provide assistance to those paying for the services, and there is also errors-and-ommissions insurance that they can take that would cover them for "something getting messed up".
Originally posted by horse:
The thing is, it is real easy to steal an image on the internet from those illagitamte sources. |
Originally posted by spaz:
What about some sort of 'bot/crawler that simply looked for "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited" |
these are some of the reasons i put this out there as an added-on service. even though you have to be prudent and make an effort to protect yourself, there's just not a lot you can do to prevent theft in the first place. i think you need a means to deal with it after it happens. just like a very large toy store with lots of entrances and exits; yes, you want to curb shrinkage, but you know it's going to happen. yes, you are going to deal with the pimply-faced teenager lifting something on a dare, but that's not your real concern. your real concern are the ones systematically combing your store and carrying out large-scale grand theft.
which again, begs the question, what would it be worth to you to subscribe to a service that would help you deal with it?
Message edited by author 2008-01-31 05:51:44. |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 09:19:14 AM · #12 |
Double my membership fee.
- would this be a one time fee? If a measure like the 'bot/crawler' was implemented, I think a one time fee to have access to the area (like a separate forum area) where the results are displayed would be ok. If it is more a 'service' type measure that is implemented, I would be willing to pay the fee on a yearly basis.
I have never had an image stolen, as far as I know, but I like the idea of being protected since this is currently the only place online I have any photos. And you never know, someday I may actually produce a photo someone wants to steal. |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 09:57:14 AM · #13 |
Skip, maybe DPC should be asked if they are willing to put themselves at risk by signing off on this, even if there is insurance that protects them, before it goes too far. Also, how many times do you think an insurance carrier will pay out on claims before they raise the cost of the premium beyond affordability or just flat refuse to insure a risky client? It's no different than car insurance or even camera insurance. If you file more than a few claims, your rates are going to go up or you could be dropped by the insurance carrier because you are costing them too much.
And when it comes down to it, there is nothing that DPC can do to stop someone lifting off images. About the only power they have is to ban someone after the fact. They can't even legally go after someone unless the copyright holder gives them authority to do this. And then throw in that this is an international forum with users from different parts of the world with different laws and legal systems. All this would be would be a suitcase lock and give some people a false sense of security... and DPC images will still be showing up who knows where.
And then you have the case of those that are willing to pay and those that won't. So now DPC is going to have to either force people to pay if they want to be a member, or set up and keep track of the additional levels of membership.
Frankly, I'm probably one of the strongest advocates of protection for our images on DPC. That's why I always jump in to encourage people to get their images registered (at least here in the US and other countries that have similar laws like ours). But something like this I see as being a headache for DPC, an added cost for those that pay for it... and in the end it does not protect the images from being ripped off. Maybe someday when we have the ability to embed our identity information in an image there will be a way to track where they go and who uses them... but then that opens up another whole can of worms of big brother keeping track of what we do.
Mike
Message edited by author 2008-01-31 09:57:55.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 10:12:01 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Maybe someday when we have the ability to embed our identity information in an image there will be a way to track where they go and who uses them... but then that opens up another whole can of worms of big brother keeping track of what we do.
|
You already can. Photoshop comes with the facilities to embed digital watermarks and also track them. It just costs you money.
If you want to protect your images (and find them being used) you could sign up to use digimarks system.
Not sure how well it works though. |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 10:12:40 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by horse:
The thing is, it is real easy to steal an image on the internet from those illagitamte sources. |
Originally posted by spaz:
What about some sort of 'bot/crawler that simply looked for "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited" |
these are some of the reasons i put this out there as an added-on service. even though you have to be prudent and make an effort to protect yourself, there's just not a lot you can do to prevent theft in the first place. i think you need a means to deal with it after it happens. just like a very large toy store with lots of entrances and exits; yes, you want to curb shrinkage, but you know it's going to happen. yes, you are going to deal with the pimply-faced teenager lifting something on a dare, but that's not your real concern. your real concern are the ones systematically combing your store and carrying out large-scale grand theft.
which again, begs the question, what would it be worth to you to subscribe to a service that would help you deal with it? |
It's about long term losses. If you are so focused on the large scale theft of a $100 item that you miss 100 pimply teens stealing a $1 item, are you coming out ahead?
The best that DPC could do is some kind of user alert system, perhaps a tutorial from an IP attorney on how to handle instances of infringement and possibly some sort of directory of IP attorneys in different regions willing to handle such cases.
Unless Drew and Langdon want to start a law firm catering to the needs of DPC, I doubt much beyond that will happen.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 10:15:45 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Unless Drew and Langdon want to start a law firm catering to the needs of DPC, I doubt much beyond that will happen. |
Given that we can't even buy a t-shirt or a cap after 7 years, I wouldn't hold my breath, certainly. |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 11:31:45 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Unless Drew and Langdon want to start a law firm catering to the needs of DPC, I doubt much beyond that will happen. |
Given that we can't even buy a t-shirt or a cap after 7 years, I wouldn't hold my breath, certainly. |
Good point.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 03:25:23 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Maybe someday when we have the ability to embed our identity information in an image there will be a way to track where they go and who uses them... but then that opens up another whole can of worms of big brother keeping track of what we do.
|
You already can. Photoshop comes with the facilities to embed digital watermarks and also track them. It just costs you money.
If you want to protect your images (and find them being used) you could sign up to use digimarks system.
Not sure how well it works though. |
It doesn't work very well other than in a very narrow area of use. Just like with any protection schemes available, there are ways around it. Also, not all software supports reading the signature. And as you said, it does cost. It's another piece of the protection puzzle, but it's not a solution. Maybe someday it will expand so the casual hobby, amature and semi-pro's can take advantage of it or something like it.
Mike
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 03:35:44 PM · #19 |
My thoughts are to stop the dimwitted thieves who do the right click save as... then upload to their portfolio on another website without even so much as changing the file name. I think that those that are really determined to steal images will do so no matter what protection scheme is in place. If we stop those casually stealing images then I think that's a great start.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2008 03:42:51 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
My thoughts are to stop the dimwitted thieves who do the right click save as... then upload to their portfolio on another website without even so much as changing the file name. I think that those that are really determined to steal images will do so no matter what protection scheme is in place. If we stop those casually stealing images then I think that's a great start. |
Hopefully we don't get right click blockers. I quite like that button on my mouse and use it fairly often. If you happen to use firefox, try pressing 'Ctrl-I' and go to the media tab to see why right click blockers are just pointlessly annoying. Never mind the fact that you can just switch off the blocking equally easily by disabling javascript (another one click)
Even dimwitted thieves can work that one out in a few seconds.
Message edited by author 2008-01-31 15:43:38. |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 04:26:04 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Photoshop comes with the facilities to embed digital watermarks and also track them. It just costs you money....Not sure how well it works though. |
Digimarc
Note that some of the rules would have to be changed to accomodate digital watermarks -- since they're designed to be invisible, that might be possible.
Other possibly useful Links:
Photo Law News
Berne Convention (international copyright agreement)
Legal Handbook for Photographers
US Copyright Office -- note that currently you can sign up to beta-test their digital upload submission process, and save $10 on the registration fee. |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 04:28:41 PM · #22 |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 04:54:05 PM · #23 |
The amazing thing about digimarc is that the company has been in business for 13 years or so, has lots of government contracts, is bundled with Photoshop etc, but they have no evidence of any successes on their web site, in their press releases or testimonial sections from customers.
I find that interesting. You would think if they were regularly catching unauthorised usage, they'd shout it from the rooftops. But after quite a bit of poking, I can't find anything on their sites. Any success stories out there ? |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 05:17:57 PM · #24 |
"The only purpose I can see for watermarking is for passing secret messages. I see no cases ever, even at Digimarc's site, in which anyone benefited from it. If anyone ever had caught an image thief I'm sure Digimarc would tell us."
--Ken Rockwell on Digimarc
Also ...
Dan Heller on watermarking images |
|
|
|
01/31/2008 05:20:38 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"The only purpose I can see for watermarking is for passing secret messages. I see no cases ever, even at Digimarc's site, in which anyone benefited from it. If anyone ever had caught an image thief I'm sure Digimarc would tell us."
--Ken Rockwell on Digimarc
Also ...
Dan Heller on watermarking images |
Yup, I've read those in the past, too. It seems strangely quiet for all the money digimarc claims to be making. |
|
