| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/29/2013 10:03:52 PM · #1 |
The Instagram act! Don't see where this has been posted. If it has ignore.
So an unmarked image that ends up continents away, can just be grabbed up to post in say a condom advert? o_0 |
|
|
|
04/29/2013 10:27:11 PM · #2 |
In our overly entitled culture, the word NO seems so terribly obsolete.
If I see a car parked on the street, but cannot seem to find the owner, that doesn't mean I can take it for a drive.
You may not know to whom an image belongs. But you damn well know that it isn't yours. If you can't find the owner, that means you don't get to use it. No matter how perfectly it would fit with your plans. Suck it up and hire someone to create a similar image, or simply move on.
Message edited by author 2013-04-29 22:31:05. |
|
|
|
04/29/2013 10:33:45 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
In our overly entitled culture, the word NO seems so terribly obsolete.
If I see a car parked on the street, but cannot seem to find the owner, that doesn't mean I can take it for a drive.
You may not know to whom an image belongs. But you damn well know that it isn't yours. If you can't find the owner, that means you don't get to use it. No matter how perfectly it would fit with your plans. Suck it up and hire someone to create a similar image, or simply move on. |
Only response so far. But it's appropriate, precise and to the point. Gave me a hard laugh actually :D |
|
|
|
04/29/2013 10:43:18 PM · #4 |
| The key here seems to be defining a "diligent search made in accordance with regulations." Given the existence of services like TinEye, I think appropriators had better document their attempt to find the copyright-holder, and regulators (or judges) should apply a fairly strict interpretation of "diligence" ... |
|
|
|
04/29/2013 11:46:30 PM · #5 |
| I don't think even the most diligent web searches should be enough to steal someones work. If I throw most of my challenge entries into TinEye or Google image search, it still doesn't find them even though they are easily accessible on DPC. The current image search sites only reach the a small percentage of the web. I don't think the means exist for what I would consider a diligent search. |
|
|
|
04/30/2013 12:07:06 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by bhuge:
I don't think even the most diligent web searches should be enough to steal someones work. If I throw most of my challenge entries into TinEye or Google image search, it still doesn't find them even though they are easily accessible on DPC. The current image search sites only reach the a small percentage of the web. I don't think the means exist for what I would consider a diligent search. |
Was thinking the same thing. I cant even find most of my dpc/flickr images. |
|
|
|
04/30/2013 09:14:07 AM · #7 |
i never understood why these laws get passed.
the point of a law is to address a public or safety concern, this does neither. |
|
|
|
04/30/2013 01:35:01 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
04/30/2013 01:38:25 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
In our overly entitled culture, the word NO seems so terribly obsolete.
If I see a car parked on the street, but cannot seem to find the owner, that doesn't mean I can take it for a drive.
You may not know to whom an image belongs. But you damn well know that it isn't yours. If you can't find the owner, that means you don't get to use it. No matter how perfectly it would fit with your plans. Suck it up and hire someone to create a similar image, or simply move on. |
Seriously - this is a brilliant analogy..
Mark Simms likes this. |
|
|
|
04/30/2013 01:39:33 PM · #10 |
| I don't see the value in such legislation. People don't need this, as Mike said. We all seem to be on the same page, yet, somehow, legislators are somewhere miles away! |
|
|
|
05/03/2013 05:37:56 AM · #11 |
A nice summary of the main points of the legislation:
//www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/03/instagram_act_explained/
And just to point out that this doesn't only apply to us here in the UK:
Originally posted by :
Q. Are overseas works safe?
No.
American photographers illustrators and even writers have threatened a "firestorm" of litigation as their works are swept up into the scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
05/03/2013 07:32:03 AM · #12 |
include your copyright in the exif.
I am sick of these lobby groups getting what they want by buying politicians. We need everyone to wake up to this game, too many people dont care.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2013 11:16:34 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I don't see the value in such legislation. People don't need this, as Mike said. We all seem to be on the same page, yet, somehow, legislators are somewhere miles away! |
You know, I was jut having a conversation with someone at breakfast this morning, and the subject of government not acting in the public interest came up. I opined that today, it's incredibly easy for the public to whisper in the ear of their representatives... the problem is all the lobbyists shouting into the other ear! |
|
|
|
05/04/2013 12:42:34 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Mike:
include your copyright in the exif.
I am sick of these lobby groups getting what they want by buying politicians. We need everyone to wake up to this game, too many people dont care. |
You could do that but it still will not fully prevent someone from just grabbing the image, stripping the exif data, and then posting it as there own somewhere else. Sometimes it's not easy (or possible mayhap) to find that individual or even find your work til a long extended search over time before it finally shows up. The stinker is that it is falling more on the shoulders of the original copyright holder to be diligent on protecting their copyright.
I fully agree with the following statement and example:
Originally posted by ambaker:
In our overly entitled culture, the word NO seems so terribly obsolete.
If I see a car parked on the street, but cannot seem to find the owner, that doesn't mean I can take it for a drive.
You may not know to whom an image belongs. But you damn well know that it isn't yours. If you can't find the owner, that means you don't get to use it. No matter how perfectly it would fit with your plans. Suck it up and hire someone to create a similar image, or simply move on. |
The burden of proof and responsibilities of finding these violations shifts even more onto the original copyright holder's shoulders. That's just wrong.
Thanks for the heads up [user]Memberdmadden[/user]. I had been trying to find out who exactly the individual was who originally posted my work, Rainy Daisy Days, on Favim.com and listed it as Author Unknown. Would have loved to slap them up with a bill for use of infringed works. The problem with Favim.com I could not find who posted it and there opening statement on their webpage is "We've created this image gallery of the most awesome and prettiest pictures on the Web to be a warehouse for your inspiration. You can change images here with the same ease as a painter touches strokes the canvas with their brush, or as fast as a photographer's camera snaps another picture." I never found this particular site infringment through TinEye since I began do random searches a few years ago. I just happened to have found my infringed work recently through a Google Image search (and it was posted to the site back in 2011 - who the hell knows how many people have used the work).
Bottom line I sent a DCMA letter this morning and posted comments on the specific webpage showing my infringed work stating copyright violation. Within 30 minutes it was removed. But I still took pictures/documentation and who the individuals who FAVed the work just in case I may need that proof in the future.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2013 03:26:38 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i never understood why these laws get passed.
the point of a law is to address a public or safety concern, this does neither. |
You're being sarcastic right? |
|
|
|
05/04/2013 05:10:07 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by CNovack:
You could do that but it still will not fully prevent someone from just grabbing the image, stripping the exif data, and then posting it as there own somewhere else. Sometimes it's not easy (or possible mayhap) to find that individual or even find your work til a long extended search over time before it finally shows up. The stinker is that it is falling more on the shoulders of the original copyright holder to be diligent on protecting their copyright. |
your are right, but this law makes it legal for person to use an image if they cant find out who owns the image. so you put it right in the exif and watermark.
if they intentionally strip it out or remove the watermark. that's not legal.
its always up to the copyright holder to protect their material.
Message edited by author 2013-05-04 17:10:22. |
|
|
|
05/04/2013 05:28:44 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Mike:
your are right, but this law makes it legal for person to use an image if they cant find out who owns the image. so you put it right in the exif and watermark.
if they intentionally strip it out or remove the watermark. that's not legal.
its always up to the copyright holder to protect their material. |
Unfortunately this assumes that the "end-user" is the one who stripped the EXIF information. Anyone can strip the EXIF and repost an image, thus the "end-user" would be none the wiser.
Yes, we should protect our assets as much as possible but in the end the car-on-the-street analogy holds - it is the responsibility of end-user to act responsibly and not steal.
I use "end-user" in lieu of "copyright violator". |
|
|
|
05/04/2013 10:14:33 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
Unfortunately this assumes that the "end-user" is the one who stripped the EXIF information. Anyone can strip the EXIF and repost an image, thus the "end-user" would be none the wiser.
|
good point.
|
|
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: 07/27/2025 09:27:50 AM EDT.
