Author | Thread |
|
06/30/2005 03:52:31 PM · #101 |
We're just having fun, we're not a lynch mob...
Speaking of challenge voting & commenting,
how about an invitational challenge similar to the one where only people that had more comments given than received were eligible to enter...
Only this time, it would be only those people that have more comments given than forum posts would be eligible?
I'll have to work on commenting in that case - to make up for the 188 comments differential (to be 189 after I click on Post)
|
|
|
06/30/2005 03:54:06 PM · #102 |
Sharing a story. One of my friends- who makes his living doing photography- was in my office about 2 weeks ago. While I was on the phone he picked up one of the local magazines and was flipping through and suddenly came across one of his photos in an ad. He had only used the photo once, as a gift to a downtown restaurant (not the ad BTW). He called the guy and asked if he knew anything. He said "No." He called the buisness in the ad. The ad had been produced by a local graphics company. Turns out the guys that did the ad had taken the photo off the wall one night, unframed it, scanned it and then put it back. The company's reply; "Kinda seemed like public domain to us." He settled for $2000.00 and a public apology (1/4 page newspaper ad).
|
|
|
06/30/2005 03:56:08 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by vxpra: Sharing a story. One of my friends- who makes his living doing photography- was in my office about 2 weeks ago. While I was on the phone he picked up one of the local magazines and was flipping through and suddenly came across one of his photos in an ad. He had only used the photo once, as a gift to a downtown restaurant (not the ad BTW). He called the guy and asked if he knew anything. He said "No." He called the buisness in the ad. The ad had been produced by a local graphics company. Turns out the guys that did the ad had taken the photo off the wall one night, unframed it, scanned it and then put it back. The company's reply; "Kinda seemed like public domain to us." He settled for $2000.00 and a public apology (1/4 page newspaper ad). |
Holy Lord. 
|
|
|
06/30/2005 03:56:18 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by srdanz: Speaking of challenge voting & commenting,
how about an invitational challenge similar to the one where only people that had more comments given than received were eligible to enter...
Only this time, it would be only those people that have more comments given than forum posts would be eligible?
I'll have to work on commenting in that case - to make up for the 188 comments differential (to be 189 after I click on Post) |
I'm only 10,171 behind (soon to be 10,172) ... : ( |
|
|
06/30/2005 03:56:30 PM · #105 |
Add 3 years (at least) from the DPC profile photo, and say 10-20 pounds - the two images aren't that dissimilar. Entirely different lighting, etc...
Yes, not conclusive - but not obviously inconclusive either. JMO.
|
|
|
06/30/2005 04:17:09 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by glad2badad: Add 3 years (at least) from the DPC profile photo, and say 10-20 pounds - the two images aren't that dissimilar. Entirely different lighting, etc...
Yes, not conclusive - but not obviously inconclusive either. JMO.
|
They are the same person. You have to look closer:
//www.photonski.com/images/95992
Look at the profiles, her husband name is Ed.
Now look at her dpchallenge profile and gallery:
//www.dpchallenge.com/profile.php?USER_ID=5554
Notice the 3rd photo in her Highest Rated Photographs and look at the title. "Where's Eddie".
Ed. Eddie.
It's the same person.
|
|
|
06/30/2005 04:37:54 PM · #107 |
I think we all need to go to the philippines and straighten this out.
I will email her and see if she has any spare rooms. WHO'S WITH ME????
//www.gigipaler.0-zone.com
|
|
|
06/30/2005 04:43:44 PM · #108 |
ironically, her award mentions the copyright of the photographer on the bottom of the matte. |
|
|
06/30/2005 04:50:14 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by srdanz: We're just having fun, we're not a lynch mob... |
You mean I went out and bought a pitchfork and fashioned a few torches all for nothing?! |
|
|
06/30/2005 04:53:18 PM · #110 |
Although watermarking might not be a bad idea... and it could be done automatically by DPC on upload (using the given data we have on our user accounts), watermarking a jpg is not exactly perfect. JPG is lossy as it is... and to add a watermark on it might not help, although the small size of the pictures legal for the challenges may help, however most likely a resize could destroy the watermark. |
|
|
06/30/2005 05:06:46 PM · #111 |
Mav's right, assuming this is the same Gigi. She got DQ'd because she couldn't come up with an original (it was a phenomenal countryside shot if i recall, from a place that was green when it should have been brown). This was immediately following a thread where someone pointed out that she had only voted 50 times or something and she got bashed. We heard the "Poor Gigi is only on dial-up why must we discriminate against poor countries" argument, then the DQ, then the "Poor me, I quit" thread, spawned by a friend of hers on DPC.
Seems ol' Gig has a history of controversy if nothing else. |
|
|
06/30/2005 05:09:38 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by kiwiness: Someone from the Philippines used one of my photos and won first place in a photo competition there. Is that low or what? Sheesh!
|
ps Kiwi - it could have been worse, Bro. She could have entered your photo and lost :) |
|
|
06/30/2005 05:16:15 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Pedro: She could have entered your photo and lost :) |
Blasphemy! Is that even possible? ROFL! |
|
|
06/30/2005 05:49:35 PM · #114 |
Went to see what all the hubabaloo was about.
That is just nasty to swipe someone's photo and treat it as your own.
I saw she had entered another shot.
Does this one look familiar to anyone? It is along the same vein as the first place winner - matches. Would not surprise me if this one was also swiped as well.

|
|
|
06/30/2005 05:59:54 PM · #115 |
I wonder if it's possible that she honestly didn't realize it wasn't her picture? Maybe she downloaded it awhile back, tried taking some similar pictures herself, forgot about it for a year, found it again and assumed it was one of hers?
Nordlys |
|
|
06/30/2005 06:05:59 PM · #116 |
I peeked at the profile of kiwiness. I just cannot help see the irony of the situation and point out what he has done with one of his own photos.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=47063
He certainly has open it.
I hope the guilty person is duly brought to justice. |
|
|
06/30/2005 06:11:32 PM · #117 |
|
|
06/30/2005 06:12:37 PM · #118 |
|
|
06/30/2005 06:58:30 PM · #119 |
Maybe she just tried to take a photo of the same subject and by a coincidence, it just happened to look exactly the same!!!!!! |
|
|
06/30/2005 07:10:33 PM · #120 |
There are extreamly easy ways around this, it wouldn't protect much. The only real protection for photographs on the internet is keeping the file small so taking it is useless or shadowing a logo over it.
The latter may be a good choice for anyone who is worried of people taking their photos. When they are uploaded they could check off a box. Maybe you could choose too if the logo shows up after voting so your photo is vulnerable for a shorter period of time.
Originally posted by Nitrox: Ok, I am not going to get into the right or wrong aspect of who did what, when, or how on this subject.
However, why does DPC not make a few simple coding changes that keep people from right clicking and saving photos to ones PC??? My suggestion would be that this only applies to challenge entries. Any images that are in a users portfolio are fair game since a user can rightfully put copyright information on their non-challenge entries. I am just saying that challenge images should not be able to be saved to someones machine. |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 07:13:04 PM · #121 |
I was curious how you ended up finding the "alleged" theft it in the first place?
The internet is a big place and though my work isn't as good as yours is, I'd like to keep my eyes out for my own things, just in case.
Any tips?
|
|
|
06/30/2005 07:14:44 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by woohoopepper: Wow, this is like something out of "The Twilight Zone" |
Ain't that the truth. Someone one who does coffee table books steals a 640 mp photo to enter in some on line photo contest. Makes no sense. Not saying she did not do it......just seems rather strange.
Sorry about your photo being ripped Gary.
Message edited by author 2005-06-30 19:15:15. |
|
|
06/30/2005 07:16:09 PM · #123 |
I have done a little research on the person, or people with same name, I have concluded that one online photo album included numerous photos, however, not the match photo, wouldn't you think that if you won first place in a competion, you post it on your webpage, I would....but then if I stold the photo and won, wellllll, I wouldn't...hmmm |
|
|
06/30/2005 07:18:14 PM · #124 |
dont worry, bad things will happen to those who lie, cheat and steal.
It may not be today or tomorrow, but karma will catch up to them eventually and zap em good
James |
|
|
06/30/2005 07:18:52 PM · #125 |
The changing of the dpc code does not prevent the copying of the image. An image is saved in the users temporary internet folder and can be retrieved from there without using the browser. Otherwise using a download program the link can be used. There is nothing that dpc can do to prevent this from happening. |
|