DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> What Bull Sh*t !!!!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 52, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/20/2009 09:57:17 PM · #26
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Matt, yes it is a good stock earner - and still under an exclusive rights contract to Avanti Press.

If you are selling it as stock how do you know the videographer didn't simply purchase it?

Also, would the stock image license allow one to use the image on their own greeting cards and sell them? ...like this?

Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about the one second frame i the middle of a youtube video, but I probably would be upset about the greeting card. (unless that's the place you licensed it to or your stock agreement allows it)


Let me correct myself....the image was not sold through a stock image site. It was leased with exclusive rights to Avanti Press through a direct contract. Avanti can use the image on cards, stationary, etc - and can let other retailers sell the items for them.


Retailers like Carlton Cards :)



I've seen it at Petco pet stores too. My son thought I was nuts when I said hey I know who took that photo. LOL

Matt
 08/21/2009 08:11:01 AM · #27
So sorry to hear about the bad luck Linda. I was doing well at processing until I started feeling badly, now I've slowed down. I still have ShutterPug pics to post, when I get to them!
 09/04/2009 12:00:49 AM · #28
YouTube sent me this email today:

We received a counter-notification under Section 512(g) of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act in response to a complaint you filed with us. In
accordance with U.S. law, we have reinstated the following URL(s) to
YouTube:

Video link

If you would like to pursue this matter further, you will need to work
directly with the offending party or obtain your own legal counsel.

Sincerely,

The YouTube Team

Feel free to harass this guy if you wish
 09/04/2009 12:03:34 AM · #29
I get the 'This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions. ' message...
 09/04/2009 01:15:49 AM · #30
I'm sorry your rights are being stepped on like this. Youtube needs to have a better way of protecting artists and preventing copyright violation.

Also, harassment commenced : )
 09/04/2009 01:29:34 AM · #31
Hi everyone. Why is there no "right-click" prevent download save to disk pop-up in DPC which will stop and frighten 90% of the gang bangers script kiddies who thieve? I know u can Prt Scr and Ctrl V a web page into PS and then crop it, save it, perjure it, if you really want that image, and I would also hide all DPC images behind the login and just have a holding home page to attract visitors, new signups etc. The higher the fence, the harder it is to climb...

EDIT: I suppose the Watermark question has been asked elsewhere on the forums but surely it's not too hard to write a Watermark Script inside the DPC engine so that images viewed by DPC guests are "damaged/embossed" goods until bought via DPC Prints or viewed behind a login?

Message edited by author 2009-09-04 02:17:15.
 09/04/2009 01:55:51 AM · #32
Lots of the stolen images have major copyright watermarks all over them, I'm shocked youtube/ google is so cavalier abouy broadcasting stolen content when they quit showing broadcast TV clips, legally it is the same thing, except the pockets of the damaged parties aren'y as deep.
 09/04/2009 02:19:22 AM · #33
Originally posted by geinafets:
I'm sorry your rights are being stepped on like this. Youtube needs to have a better way of protecting artists and preventing copyright violation.

Also, harassment commenced : )


Thank you! I too left a comment , though I do not see it yet. Perhaps it takes a bit to show up?

09/04/2009 02:34:41 AM · #34
Another tack you might take; there is a "current" logo that pops up so there is a tie in. Current shows this "viral video school" on Thursday nights at 10 PM. Current TV might be interested in knowing that if a law suit would occur, they would be a co-defendant, since they are sponsoring this fellow. Should they not be aware that their logo is being used over stolen images, they might want to take action, if nothing else then to forestall liability come the eventual lawsuit from someone.

Current TV, LLC
118 King Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
[p] (415) 995-8200
[f] (415) 995-8201
info@current.com

If you have never heard of them Al gore is on the board and the women reporters who were just released form North Korea were on assignment from them. this is a real company with some notion of copyright and liability. ill bet this is the soft spot to get this guy to quit stealing images.
 09/04/2009 02:59:24 AM · #35
Originally posted by Magnum_za:
Hi everyone. Why is there no "right-click" prevent download save to disk pop-up in DPC which will stop and frighten 90% of the gang bangers script kiddies who thieve?


Because it blocks all the stuff that can hang under the right-click menu. You annoy the hell out of the regular users while the real image thieves install some simple plugins that render the anti-click script useless. So you don't stop thieves and annoy everyone else.

For example all these threads here at DPC with favourites or multiple images in one post. "Open in new tab" sits under the right-click menu. And you don't have to do a printscreen, you can simply save the page and copy the images no problemo. If you don't like your photos stolen, don't post them bigger than 400px and put a 200px copyright logo on them.


09/04/2009 03:09:37 AM · #36
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by geinafets:
I'm sorry your rights are being stepped on like this. Youtube needs to have a better way of protecting artists and preventing copyright violation.

Also, harassment commenced : )


Thank you! I too left a comment , though I do not see it yet. Perhaps it takes a bit to show up?


Actually posted a second comment after I realized my first one didn't show up. My guess is that he has his comments set up so that he has to validate every comment he receives. So my first comment was short, to the point, and called him an ass, but since that one probably won't make it past his validation, my second comment was longer, explaining that what he is doing is illegal and hurtful to the copyright owner. Maybe we can guilt trip him into taking it down. Maybe.

ETA: I just noticed that your comment and my first one are nowhere to be seen, but my second comment is up there. Hmm.

Message edited by author 2009-09-04 03:11:57.
 09/04/2009 03:33:21 AM · #37
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Magnum_za:
Hi everyone. Why is there no "right-click" prevent download save to disk pop-up in DPC which will stop and frighten 90% of the gang bangers script kiddies who thieve?


Because it blocks all the stuff that can hang under the right-click menu. You annoy the hell out of the regular users while the real image thieves install some simple plugins that render the anti-click script useless. So you don't stop thieves and annoy everyone else.

For example all these threads here at DPC with favourites or multiple images in one post. "Open in new tab" sits under the right-click menu. And you don't have to do a printscreen, you can simply save the page and copy the images no problemo. If you don't like your photos stolen, don't post them bigger than 400px and put a 200px copyright logo on them.


I agree, and am on the same page with the annoyance factor, I have made a few sites where just this happens but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. According to the DPC rules, I'm not allowed to watermark or logo my challenge entries, and in order to have a chance at getting a good result I'd like my image to be as large as the rules allow i.e. 640px wide for Basic, so either way we are all screwed. Portfolio (non-challenge) images can be watermarked but I don't see that happening much on the portfolios I've been to. idnic has a yellow warning label in her Photographers Comment box but thats like farting against thunder. See this one for example and renames all her files "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_555555.jpg but we all know that's not going to stop someone.

I get the feeling, as is with most things in life, perception is the rule. Because the image is freely visible on the net, "people" perceive that is Free For Use because it's openly visible and they are too lazy or dumb to research IP theft or have no conscience. I agree with geinafets and ShutterPug, if we all climbed into this stinker and others, over time, our voices wil be heard.

As Charles Schultz said through Charlie Brown, "Speak softly and carry a Beagle."
 09/04/2009 03:55:32 AM · #38
Originally posted by Magnum_za:
idnic has a yellow warning label in her Photographers Comment box but thats like farting against thunder. See this one for example and renames all her files "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_555555.jpg but we all know that's not going to stop someone.


A handful of photographers on here put a warning in the comments section of their images, not just Cindi. By default, all images in DPC are named "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_555555.jpg" in hopes of deterring theft, but if you do an image search using "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited" you will find dozens, if not hundreds of images taken from DPC. I wish people didn't steal, but the vast majority of people are just not educated on the subject and don't care to be.

Message edited by author 2009-09-04 03:56:14.
 09/04/2009 04:11:24 AM · #39
Originally posted by geinafets:
By default, all images in DPC are named "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_555555.jpg" in hopes of deterring theft, but if you do an image search using "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited" you will find dozens, if not hundreds of images taken from DPC. I wish people didn't steal, but the vast majority of people are just not educated on the subject and don't care to be.


Thanks Stef, didn't realise it was being done by the engine!
 09/04/2009 04:25:37 AM · #40
Left him a little little calling him something something :)
I think we should spam the Fu(*^*&R
 09/04/2009 05:01:51 AM · #41
Are we not missing something else? Scroll to the bottom of DPC (or most websites...)

"DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2009 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission."

The fine print is seldom read and often ignored...Purjurors are most likely to fall into this category.
 09/04/2009 05:04:35 AM · #42
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Another tack you might take; there is a "current" logo that pops up so there is a tie in. Current shows this "viral video school" on Thursday nights at 10 PM. Current TV might be interested in knowing that if a law suit would occur, they would be a co-defendant, since they are sponsoring this fellow. Should they not be aware that their logo is being used over stolen images, they might want to take action, if nothing else then to forestall liability come the eventual lawsuit from someone.

Current TV, LLC
118 King Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
[p] (415) 995-8200
[f] (415) 995-8201
info@current.com

If you have never heard of them Al gore is on the board and the women reporters who were just released form North Korea were on assignment from them. this is a real company with some notion of copyright and liability. ill bet this is the soft spot to get this guy to quit stealing images.


Thanks for the info - I will drop them a line :D
 09/04/2009 05:15:02 AM · #43
I posted again and this time it showed up. I doubt this moron will care.

09/04/2009 05:59:30 AM · #44
I hate to be the devil's advocate (I'm not a lawyer at all) here but I think he's in fair use territory. A quick search and a few clicks on Wikipedia led me to the Berne Three Step Test for fair use.
Originally posted by TIRPs:

Members shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.

09/04/2009 07:21:05 AM · #45
Totally sucks what this guy is doing. Especially after it was taken down he claimed to YouTube that it was his.

Would this fall under some kind of parody or news type issue?
 09/04/2009 07:37:36 AM · #46
I think that would be the only way he could make a case, Freedom of the Press! But because the photo is under Contract with Avanti Press, He should have some sort of obligation to them, ShutterPug I think you said the right thing in your post to the comment section below the Video, However I am not sure the posts prior to yours will help, Along with Laws for Copyright Protection There are also laws in place for slander and defamation of character. If this guy decides to be an even bigger ass he can persue that route and cause alot of problems which would not help your case. Wouldn't be a bad idea for those other posts to disappear. I hope you get this taken care of.

Originally posted by RhondaJ:

Would this fall under some kind of parody or news type issue?
09/04/2009 08:35:48 AM · #47
FYI, I just did a Google Image search for "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited", and found almost nothing. I think in the past there were many more images out there with that name. I wonder what changed?
 09/04/2009 08:55:26 AM · #48
Originally posted by citymars:
FYI, I just did a Google Image search for "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited", and found almost nothing. I think in the past there were many more images out there with that name. I wonder what changed?


I found 139 images on Photobucket. Still not as many as I would have expected though.
 09/18/2009 01:21:55 AM · #49
Any updates on the situation? I just posted a few more comments in response to what some of the other commenters said.

Satire is protected by "Fair Use," but since the video is making fun of V-day and gifts, not the photo itself, I don't know if the fair use defense would hold up in court. Since the meaning, impact, message, etc of the video wouldn't be changed without that one photo, I think the videographer would have to remove the photo. I really hope this makes it to court. There is so much copyright infringement on the internet, bet there are relative so few cases that every see the light of day. That needs to change if we ever want to have faith in the protection of copyright again.
 09/18/2009 01:49:18 AM · #50
Originally posted by geinafets:
Any updates on the situation? I just posted a few more comments in response to what some of the other commenters said.

Satire is protected by "Fair Use," but since the video is making fun of V-day and gifts, not the photo itself, I don't know if the fair use defense would hold up in court. Since the meaning, impact, message, etc of the video wouldn't be changed without that one photo, I think the videographer would have to remove the photo. I really hope this makes it to court. There is so much copyright infringement on the internet, bet there are relative so few cases that every see the light of day. That needs to change if we ever want to have faith in the protection of copyright again.


No money for lawsuits and lawyers, so nothing more that I can do. The videographer is an asshole and will not remove the photo. I hope one day he is on the receiving end of having his art stolen....oh wait, first he has to produce something that even resembles true art. :P

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 09:39:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 09:39:22 AM EDT.