My site has been ripped off - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/18/2005 07:03:55 AM · #27

Hey John Falk, are you running scared? I see you have taken the website down.

colda

Nikon D800

02/18/2005 07:06:27 AM · #28

It's not uncommon as we all know for people to base their design on other people's work. This practice is a bit dodgy at best (certainly when it comes down to ripping an entire site) but even when this practice takes place there is no excuse for putting up such work up as a commercial site.

If he was going to do this then we should at least have completed the work offline and ensured that his finished product does not look like a direct copy of the original, not to mention the basic concept of asking permission before commencement.

Totally agree at being upset, such actions are far from acceptable.

Darren

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

02/18/2005 07:07:53 AM · #29

He's online now, maybe he is reading this post. Maybe he will speak up.

02/18/2005 07:08:39 AM · #30

Originally posted by stevesmith:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Why not give the guy a chance to respond before jumping to conclusions?

What?????

John Falk has stolen someones website and photographs. What sort of excuse could he have for that? "Oh, I'm sorry. I have never heard of copyright". ??

I can think of at least one legitimate explanation. Let's give him a chance to respond.

-Terry

02/18/2005 07:09:53 AM · #31

Originally posted by Arcanist:

I searched high and low for both photographer's names on the internet. John Falk shows up nowhere. Jeff Ascough however has a well known and established presence.

That would actually support the explanation I am thiking of.

-Terry

02/18/2005 07:10:25 AM · #32

Originally posted by jeffascough:

Yeah I would love him to respond. At the moment he hasn't replied to my emails, and he conveniantly wasn't at home when I called him this morning.

Or sleeping... it's 3:10 AM California time.

-Terry

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/18/2005 07:10:45 AM · #33

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by Arcanist:
I searched high and low for both photographer's names on the internet. John Falk shows up nowhere. Jeff Ascough however has a well known and established presence.

That would actually support the explanation I am thiking of.

-Terry

Which is what?

jefalk

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

02/18/2005 07:11:15 AM · #34

Though the present result was obvious, it was not intentional in that degree. Regardless, I do appologize and I did not realize that the rest of the pages got imported all at once. As I have never designed a website prior, I did get some help and will make sure that the entire depths of that matter is resolved at once. I had them take the site down because it was not intentional.

jeffascough

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

02/18/2005 07:11:34 AM · #35

For those that arrived late selected screenshots are at //www.jeffascough.com/DWF/Falk/index.htm

Let me just say that I am appalled that this has happened. Not so much for me, but for any brides that visited his site and thought that the work on there was his.

Thanks for all the support on here guys.

Jeff

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

02/18/2005 07:11:52 AM · #36

something is fishy:
//www.jfalkphoto.com/Gallery/
almost every file has a modification date of 2/18/05.

i guess this was discovered extremely quickly.

Message edited by author 2005-02-18 07:13:14.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/18/2005 07:14:04 AM · #37

Originally posted by jefalk:

... and that would be the explanation I thought of that would explain it.

-Terry

colda

Nikon D800

02/18/2005 07:14:10 AM · #38

Originally posted by jefalk:

John,

Can I ask you why you did not see fit to ask permission?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/18/2005 07:14:39 AM · #39

Originally posted by jefalk:

Then why did you copy all the image files to your server?

Arcanist

Nikon D810

02/18/2005 07:16:58 AM · #40

Originally posted by stevesmith:

Which is what?

There are ways of downloading a site and then reusing the codebase to create a new site from it. Some 'Professional Webdesigners' use this tactic to quickly and often expensively reproduce high-quality websites for unsuspecting customers. In this case, the talent of a professional is not needed, in fact, it would be deterimental to the cause.

The unfortunate result is that someone who's profile shows he has photographic talent (Jfalk) becomes associated with the plagarism that the 'hack' webdesigner then produces. Web code is hardly copywrited, although in essence it may be protected, Rapid Development relies on reuseable code and this may simply be the case in this situation.

Kavey

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

02/18/2005 07:19:54 AM · #41

Originally posted by jefalk:

Good to see your apology and your quick action in having the pages removed. Copyright is something that is very important to anyone in creative professions and I'm sure this episode has given you an insight into how strongly people feel about it.

Wishing you luck in developing a site that presents your business professionally, does not infringe on the rights of others and helps you achieve your aims.

jefalk

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/18/2005 07:22:23 AM · #42

this is my direct email to Jeff: Jeff, I am presently on the East coast, and though I understand your feelings of being upset, the manner in which you obviously spoke and threatened my wife on the phone at 2am was inexcusably unwarranted.

As I have never designed a site before, in entertaining some help, I did not fully realize the depths of importing, and it happened only a week or so ago. Regardless, I have had it taken down, and I am sorry for what happened. This is not a matter of bad intentions nonetheless.

Thank you,

John

Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+, S22 Ultra

02/18/2005 07:23:05 AM · #43

Originally posted by stevesmith:

Originally posted by jefalk:
Though the present result was obvious, it was not intentional in that degree. Regardless, I do appologize and I did not realize that the rest of the pages got imported all at once. As I have never designed a website prior, I did get some help and will make sure that the entire depths of that matter is resolved at once. I had them take the site down because it was not intentional.

Then why did you copy all the image files to your server?

I think he answered that.

-Terry

Tiberius

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/18/2005 07:30:49 AM · #44

Originally posted by stevesmith:

He thought copyright means the right to copy everything!!!

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

02/18/2005 07:31:58 AM · #45

I'm sorry but I just don't get this. Did he or his web designer not test the website before uploading it?

Maybe it's just me. But I find it difficult to believe this was just a mistake.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

02/18/2005 07:33:35 AM · #46

In anycase, I think Mr. Falk learned a valuable lesson. Ouch.

02/18/2005 07:35:47 AM · #47

Originally posted by Tiberius:

Originally posted by stevesmith:

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Why not give the guy a chance to respond before jumping to conclusions?

What?????

John Falk has stolen someones website and photographs. What sort of excuse could he have for that? "Oh, I'm sorry. I have never heard of copyright". ??

He thought copyright means the right to copy everything!!!

The following is a reply I sent to Steve previously:

I am not posting this to the forums, because if this is NOT the explanation, I don't want to give John a convenient out.

It is a very common practice in web design to design a site by starting from a site that looks like the end result you are looking for, sometimes even using the existing images as placeholders. One can then modify the site design as needed, ultimately replacing the placeholder images and content with actual images and content.

The fact that the counter on his site showed only 23 page views, and the fact that a Google search for sites that link to his comes up empty (//www.google.com/search?as_lq=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jfalkphoto.com%2F&btnG=Search) both support that theory.

-Terry

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/18/2005 07:37:00 AM · #48

Originally posted by stevesmith:

I'm sorry but I just don't get this. Did he or his web designer not test the website before uploading it?

Maybe it's just me. But I find it difficult to believe this was just a mistake.

When I design site I usually upload them and test them on the 'net. The results are usually more accurate that way.

Given the site was up less than a week, it's likely it was still in the testing phase.

-Terry

Arcanist

Nikon D810

02/18/2005 07:37:58 AM · #49

I spend everyday, coaching someone who has been in front of a computer for years, how to use a mouse or scroll a web page. Most people do not understand the potential ramifications of some actions with a computer, or what 'posting a web site' on the internet may do.

If you were told by a 'knowledgeable person' that they could create a web site for you that looked just as professional as say: another photographer's website, and they said, just copy that person's site down to your harddrive, grab your pictures and give me all the info on this USB jumpdrive (you have no idea what a jumpdrive is, but you'll do what he says to do)...it is likely that mistakes can be made.

Benefit of the doubt here people. 23 hits on the counter before the site was wiped. Immediate removal of the site upon discovery of what really happened. I think this is a simple case of a sad and unfortunate mistake.

Truegsht