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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> image thief
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 132, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/18/2004 03:43:04 PM · #76
Originally posted by smokeditor:


yep, just print screen and then paste into photoshop and save as. All images stolen!


Yup - though that is about the least efficient way to do it. Flash files can also be decompiled back to the underlying components and saved that way. It looked from a quick glance that soup's flash doesn't actually contain the pictures though - I assume it is using links to load the images from somewhere else ? Decompiling the flash gives the URLs of those directly. I just used print screen, as you mentioned above though.
 08/18/2004 03:45:30 PM · #77
Originally posted by soup:

is there a way to disable print screen from the server?
i don't see any other way it could be done. they arent embedded in the swf.


Your rights to mess with my machine don't extend outside of the browser, other than via security holes. I quite like it that way. Even if browsers were written to break the PrintScreen functionality and report incorrect information, if the image is on my screen, it is in my video card and I can save it off if I really care.

Also, I'm assuming URLs are embedded in the SWF ? I can just decompile the SWF and load the images or save them off directly, ignoring the size reduction in the flash file.

If you want people to see them unobstructed, they can copy what they can see. This is also why current DRM schemes limit your ability to view or listen to information as typically as soon as you can see or hear it, it can be copied. DRM also attempts to limit or restrict digital reproduction, but again at some point it has to be converted to human audible or visible format and then it can be copied, though no longer with a digital reproduction.

This also explains a lot of the motivation for digital speaker systems, as then there can be an ecrypted data stream all the way to the final speaker output, getting rid of the analog driver to a speaker, which can be recorded.

Message edited by author 2004-08-18 15:47:57.
 08/18/2004 03:49:40 PM · #78
well you can decompile it - but it's reading from a text file that contains the directories for the images - the SWF tells what text file to look for. so i guess you could back track to find the actual images, by trying different URL's
there is no actual URL listed - there is a gallery.txt file for the menu text - and an info.txt file for the thumbnails, and larger versions in each directory.

but - no they are not part of the SWF file - loaded JPEGS into a container movie clip.

EDIT: they are not shrunk down versions - 429px long way is how i saved them for the SWF

Message edited by author 2004-08-18 15:51:57.
 08/18/2004 03:51:40 PM · #79
Originally posted by soup:
is there a way to disable print screen from the server?

Nope, sorry.
 08/18/2004 03:55:31 PM · #80
i'm not aiming to breach any security holes, just curious if it could be done.
 08/18/2004 04:01:57 PM · #81
the only way that you can garentee (at least for a day or 2 until some crackors come along) would be to create your own proprietary file format and a viewer that users download -- have the viewer a full screen only app with the printscrn disabled (DirectX or some other way - not that hard) and no windowed mode with code to degradate the image in memory if taskswitched so as not to pull it from VRam.

Of course this would only work on the assumptions that nobody wants your pics badly enough to decompile the viewer and reconstruct the file format and that the decoder algorythm remains propriatary to you and have some heavy anti-crack code as well.

But who will download a program just to look at your pictures? or more importantly who would want to write it?

Message edited by author 2004-08-18 16:03:59.
 08/18/2004 04:05:03 PM · #82
Originally posted by soup:
well you can decompile it - but it's reading from a text file that contains the directories for the images - the SWF tells what text file to look for. so i guess you could back track to find the actual images, by trying different URL's
there is no actual URL listed - there is a gallery.txt file for the menu text - and an info.txt file for the thumbnails, and larger versions in each directory.

but - no they are not part of the SWF file - loaded JPEGS into a container movie clip.

EDIT: they are not shrunk down versions - 429px long way is how i saved them for the SWF


Yup, I knew they weren't part of the SWF, I'd already pulled it apart 5 minutes after you posted asking people to have a look :) That's how long it took to find, download and get working a SWF decompiler. I'm assuming I could then load the text file and just read the URLs from that.

Message edited by author 2004-08-18 16:06:08.
 08/18/2004 04:11:42 PM · #83
Originally posted by Spitfire:
the only way that you can garentee (at least for a day or 2 until some crackors come along) would be to create your own proprietary file format and a viewer that users download -- have the viewer a full screen only app with the printscrn disabled (DirectX or some other way - not that hard) and no windowed mode with code to degradate the image in memory if taskswitched so as not to pull it from VRam.

Of course this would only work on the assumptions that nobody wants your pics badly enough to decompile the viewer and reconstruct the file format and that the decoder algorythm remains propriatary to you and have some heavy anti-crack code as well.

But who will download a program just to look at your pictures? or more importantly who would want to write it?


There are a few more questions to ask...

How many different versions would you really want to put together?

You would have to have a MacOSX version.

You would probably consider a Linux version since Linux as a Desktop just edged ahead of Apple.

If you write it for those two Operating Systems, you might want to consider expanding to support a plethora of other environments...

In the end, there is more hassle then it would be worth, even if you just put it together for MS Windows, you would be cutting off all sorts of people that may want to view/see your images and would subject yourself to all sorts of loudmouthed email about how bad a person you are, especially for creating your own proprietary viewing format.

Way to much work for nowhere near any kind of legitimate return. All DRM systems are like that, to much work, not enough return.
 08/18/2004 04:21:12 PM · #84
the text file looks like this
&files=image1.jpg|image2.jpg|image3.jpg|...etc&

they dont have the URLs either.

Originally posted by Gordon:
Yup, I knew they weren't part of the SWF, I'd already pulled it apart 5 minutes after you posted asking people to have a look :) That's how long it took to find, download and get working a SWF decompiler. I'm assuming I could then load the text file and just read the URLs from that.



 08/18/2004 04:33:39 PM · #85
This is Awesome!!! :

//www.photoshopcontest.com/viewpost?post_id=57409

Sorry it happened!

Message edited by author 2004-08-18 16:34:29.
 08/18/2004 05:28:00 PM · #86
Originally posted by Seanachai:

example #2



My gosh! He barely even edited that one!

I wouldn't mind if people used my images for things, but I'd like to know, and I'd prefer that they did more than just something like that. A lot of the photos I take are ones that people want to put on their websites and stuff so I had to come up with a (c) symbol thingy that was visible so that I wouldn't be AS freaked out if they put them on their websites (like this).

*sighs* It's not like my pics on here are good enough for people to steal anyway.

Message edited by author 2004-08-18 17:35:22.
 08/18/2004 07:58:20 PM · #87
Some people just have no shame. It's awful someone would use a photograph that isnt theirs and post it somwhere like it is. Anyway I saw Gordons Post and had to do this. My Husband downloaded a program a very long time ago called captura. You can use it to capture a portion of the screen or the entire screen if you want to. [thumb]11394[/thumb]

Message edited by author 2004-08-18 20:03:45.
 08/18/2004 08:06:44 PM · #88
They are NOT posting the pictures as if they were there own (own = they took them with their own camera). The website is not a photography contest! The site seems to be dedicated to PHOTOCHOPPING eg: editing a picture to change the content of it, sometimes this gets very very involved and takes hours to do well. Examples would be putting a different face on a person or something of that sort. However!!! I do believe the person should get permission to use someone's pictures.
 08/18/2004 08:16:22 PM · #89
Originally posted by kyebosh:
They are NOT posting the pictures as if they were there own (own = they took them with their own camera). The website is not a photography contest! The site seems to be dedicated to PHOTOCHOPPING eg: editing a picture to change the content of it, sometimes this gets very very involved and takes hours to do well. Examples would be putting a different face on a person or something of that sort. However!!! I do believe the person should get permission to use someone's pictures.


They are creating a derivative work of copyrighted material no matter how you look at it - they can't do that (from a legal standpoint) unless they have permission of the copyright holder. I should rather say they can't distribute a derivative work - fair use would allow them, and us, to create such works for private use.
 08/18/2004 08:36:33 PM · #90
Originally posted by kyebosh:
They are NOT posting the pictures as if they were there own (own = they took them with their own camera). The website is not a photography contest! The site seems to be dedicated to PHOTOCHOPPING eg: editing a picture to change the content of it, sometimes this gets very very involved and takes hours to do well. Examples would be putting a different face on a person or something of that sort. However!!! I do believe the person should get permission to use someone's pictures.


It's also in the sites TOS that you agree to when you join that you will not post copyrighted images without permission. So, at the very least, this person is guilty of violating that.

Message edited by author 2004-08-18 20:36:46.
 08/18/2004 09:17:40 PM · #91
Fair use or not, nothing in that guy's "entries" demonstrates Photoshop skill. The strength of the images rests solely on the photos he's ripped off. If any of those win, it's a feather in the photographer's cap, not his. Shame!
 08/18/2004 09:42:24 PM · #92
Don't get mad get even. send the lame bozo an email
//www.photoshopcontest.com/send?user_id=7096

Edit: alright this sounds pretty childish, and I didn't send him email but I thought those ripped off would like to be able contact serps.
P.S. After reading the comments on that site, I am pretty sure that it is a kiddie attraction

Originally posted by e301:
Those wishing to complain should use the form at this page

I'll be interested to see the reaction

E


Message edited by author 2004-08-18 21:54:03.
 08/18/2004 09:50:57 PM · #93
Originally posted by pottersclay75:
I think the website should be responsible for removing the pirated pics ASAP. The example of seeing your pic on a poster in a store and this problem are not that far apart. The site owners are profiting from the site, therefore they are using your stolen pics to make money. Granted they dont know that when someone posts a pic, but they have a responsiblity to remove the pics once they are aware of it

I think pottersclay is on the right track. Going after the individual thief won't do much good as long as the site condones, enables and profits from this criminal activity. The most depressing part for me was reading the comments left by voters on the first two examples. It seems that the members there think it is ok, and that everybody does it. When this is repeatedly stated in the comments it is impossible for the site admins to say they are not aware of how prevalent it is on their site. It's pretty obvious that the preventive measures they currently have in place are not adequate.

I would encourage all those who have had images stolen to band together and send a joint e-mail to the site admins threatening legal action. The point would be force the admins to require that anyone who posts an image on that site that is not entirely their own to secure permission for use in advance of posting; and that any such image be posted with credit and a link to the original. If wouldn't be too hard to find an attorney who would be willing to go after them. Once the issue is brought to the attention of a court with jurisdiction, repeated infractions could very easily be made to result in financial penalties against the site and it's admins.
 08/18/2004 09:58:46 PM · #94
You think the ad that showed up at the top of the website has anything to do with it?

It was an ad for services offered by a Copyright Lawyer!

Maybe he is the one running the site :(
 08/19/2004 12:40:49 AM · #95
Adine, thanks for finding my "Bad Hair Day". I sent a request to have it removed. I noticed another one there:

Photoshopped copy

Original

08/19/2004 01:06:04 AM · #96
DPC isn't the only site he is stealing from, he is also taking photos from another site I post to:

Photoshopped copy
Original

08/19/2004 01:36:54 AM · #97
And now one is here...

From the comments in regards to example one over at that site.

Thanks to the bitter person for the URL to that website! Not only do I plan on using some of their photographs in the future, I joined the site! OH, btw, They don't allow the entrants of that site to use copyrighted material. It has to be original. :)

Bummer
08/19/2004 02:17:27 AM · #98
Originally posted by awpollard:
And now one is here...

From the comments in regards to example one over at that site.

Thanks to the bitter person for the URL to that website! Not only do I plan on using some of their photographs in the future, I joined the site! OH, btw, They don't allow the entrants of that site to use copyrighted material. It has to be original. :)

Bummer


That's Ok... I'm there "Evil Grin"! Now.. I recommend more join! Every time they use one of our photos they will lose it quick smart and sooner or later get the idea!
08/19/2004 02:28:35 AM · #99
I am very reluctant join this thread as the 'opposition' since the mood here seems to be one of outrage, but I think everyone needs to stop a second, take a deep breath, and try to think about the 'stealing' from this point of view.

The point of PhotoshopContest.com, and many others like it, is to show a person's skill in using Photoshop to manipluate an existing image into something different. Look at Fark's Photoshop threads, Something Awful's Photoshop Phridays, and Worth 1000. Sometimes pictures are tweaked for humor, to shock, even simply to share a subtle but elegant trick of editing. Not everyone is good at it, or can be creative enough to truly bring something of their own to a picture they've modified, but I sincerely think that they respect the work of the original creator (and in fact have selected pictures because they were impressed with them or saw something in them that they liked), are not trying to misrepresent the 'original' image as their own creation, and most importantly are doing it for fun and respect, not profit.

Sampling and remixing is a huge part of modern culture, in music, video, and art. The very fact that we live in times where intellectual property and copyright are such hotly debated, emotional issues, pushing the boundary of what constitutes acceptable re-use can be a statement in and of itself!

Please take another look at the intent of these people before you condemn them. Just like DPC, they are using a website for entertainment, to share, and to develop skills. Would you be upset seeing the cover of National Geographic modified in a skillful way? What if it's to communicate an idea or tell a joke using the cover as context? Or something commenting on the nature of the magazine itself? What if I modified the cover not in Photoshop but with a ball-point pen or in a collage? How do you even decicively separate parody, critique, and artistic re-use from 'stealing'?

Finally, what does making these websites take an image down actually get you? How does it protect your integrity or your pocketbook? In my opinion, the only thing it does is make a lot of people on those websites think you're an uptight jerk, and could quite possibly call down a shitstorm of extremely juvenile image-raping Photoshopped retribution that there's nothing you can do anything about, legally or otherwise.

Please, let them have their fun, they're not trying to claim anyone's work as their own apart from the changes they're making.

08/19/2004 02:33:41 AM · #100
Originally posted by bledford:
I think we should preemptively seek out individuals who possess SMRs (Software for Mass Reproduction) and take them out before these copyright infringement attacks take place. Adobe should be held responsible for issuing software licenses to these terror...er...infringists and be held equally responsible for their actions. In light of this, I suggest we all initiate denial of service attacks on adobe.com.

Sorry, I'm in a weird mood.


Bledford, you are my new hero. That is funny on so many levels. Your next post, too!

:)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/30/2025 07:34:49 PM

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: 05/30/2025 07:34:49 PM EDT.