| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2005 09:54:06 AM · #1 |
I logged out to see what access to DPChallenge someone would have without being a member or registered user. Here is what I found.
1. They can view all photographs in current challenges.
2. They can view all photographs in View result challenges
3. They can view all photographs in Challenge Archives and Challenge History
4. They can view all photographs under Photographs and browse the same way we can.
5. They have access to âLearnâ > How do they do that and tutorials.
In other words they have at there finger tips 1000âs of photographs that they can copy and past into an editing program and make a few adjustments, some donât even do that, and call it there own. Here is what I propose to limit theft of images.
1. If you are not logged in as a registered user or member you cannot click on the thumbnails. They will not open up to the larger size.
2. Have a better monitoring system on non-active accounts. If they have not had any activity in a predetermined amount of time DPC emails them with a âmust replyâ email to their email address on file. If DPC does not receive a reply back within a predetermined amount of time then that account will be suspended until such reply has been received.
3. And as brought up by another user, after 'voting' is over a DPC watermark is placed over images. And when uploading to your portfolio an option to add watermark overlay.
Do any of you think this will help? Any comments, or concerns?
Message edited by author 2005-07-02 09:55:03.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 10:02:28 AM · #2 |
Absolutely agreed! :)
The watermark is not nice to look at, but somehow I think it can help! |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 10:03:03 AM · #3 |
i like this idea but maybe make it so if u are a member u can view the image without the water mark.
*runs for cover from registered users!* sorry guys but i think members should get a little extra..another reason to pay.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 10:15:44 AM · #4 |
I understand that there can be a problem occasionally, but I would not like to see watermarks on the photos. To make them effective, they would have to be pretty intrusive. (If they were along the border, one could just crop it out.)
There's not too much someone can do stealing a 640x640 photograph.
Maybe DPC can get their own digimark style watermark ID? Aren't those embedded invisibly? |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 10:31:24 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
There's not too much someone can do stealing a 640x640 photograph.
|
Ya dont think so ???
try this ... download the demo of genuine Fractals...
grab ANY image from this site
upsize it to 3000 x 2400 and save it to .tif
change the exif data
now tell me you cant do anything with a 640x480
We need to either site watermark or user watermark one or the other |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 11:11:07 AM · #6 |
| The only way to stop image theft is to not upload your images to ANY website. I personally think we have a good community here and if I see a photo anywhere else that I have seen before then I will try and find the orginal owner and notify them. Admit we can't find everything but we can find a lot this way. I personally don't care if someone wants an image of mine to put on there desktop. I find it flattering if someone wants to look at a photo I took everytime they look at their computer. For profit is another story all together. |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 11:21:54 AM · #7 |
I just don't see what would be so hard and why so many is against my first two options.
1. If you are not logged in as a registered user or member you cannot click on the thumbnails. They will not open up to the larger size.
I don't believe this would be to hard to code. Let the lurkers see the thumbnails but not let them open them in a large file.
2. Have a better monitoring system on non-active accounts. If they have not had any activity in a predetermined amount of time DPC emails them with a âmust replyâ email to their email address on file. If DPC does not receive a reply back within a predetermined amount of time then that account will be suspended until such reply has been received.
This has been a problem I believe for a long time now. Old accounts and non-active accounts are not being taken care of. Why does DPC leave these accounts active? Is it to make the community appear to be larger than it actually is? I have asked 3 or 4 times to have my old account deleted but it remains.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 11:26:15 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
I just don't see what would be so hard and why so many is against my first two options.
1. If you are not logged in as a registered user or member you cannot click on the thumbnails. They will not open up to the larger size.
I don't believe this would be to hard to code. Let the lurkers see the thumbnails but not let them open them in a large file.
2. Have a better monitoring system on non-active accounts. If they have not had any activity in a predetermined amount of time DPC emails them with a âmust replyâ email to their email address on file. If DPC does not receive a reply back within a predetermined amount of time then that account will be suspended until such reply has been received.
This has been a problem I believe for a long time now. Old accounts and non-active accounts are not being taken care of. Why does DPC leave these accounts active? Is it to make the community appear to be larger than it actually is? I have asked 3 or 4 times to have my old account deleted but it remains. |
Agreed with you....there are a lot of accounts here I think of people that no longer come around. Those should be wiped out but at least send out e-mail giving them a week to come back and if not delete their account.
Message edited by author 2005-07-02 11:26:35. |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 11:27:09 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
2. Have a better monitoring system on non-active accounts. If they have not had any activity in a predetermined amount of time DPC emails them with a âmust replyâ email to their email address on file. If DPC does not receive a reply back within a predetermined amount of time then that account will be suspended until such reply has been received.
This has been a problem I believe for a long time now. Old accounts and non-active accounts are not being taken care of. Why does DPC leave these accounts active? Is it to make the community appear to be larger than it actually is? I have asked 3 or 4 times to have my old account deleted but it remains. |
What does this have to do with image theft? Lots of members leave for awhile and then come back. If a "thief" wants to use an account to steal photos, why wouldn't they just create a new one if the old one was terminated? And why do you have two separate accounts? The non-active accounts are not "being taken care of" because preference is being given to more important parts of the site. |
|
|
|
07/02/2005 11:29:37 AM · #10 |
I absolutely applaud the idea... but I won't drive any cars loaded with dynomite to get the idea across.
Other than that, you have my full support.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 11:52:07 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by SDW65:
2. Have a better monitoring system on non-active accounts. If they have not had any activity in a predetermined amount of time DPC emails them with a âmust replyâ email to their email address on file. If DPC does not receive a reply back within a predetermined amount of time then that account will be suspended until such reply has been received.
This has been a problem I believe for a long time now. Old accounts and non-active accounts are not being taken care of. Why does DPC leave these accounts active? Is it to make the community appear to be larger than it actually is? I have asked 3 or 4 times to have my old account deleted but it remains. |
What does this have to do with image theft? Lots of members leave for awhile and then come back. If a "thief" wants to use an account to steal photos, why wouldn't they just create a new one if the old one was terminated? And why do you have two separate accounts? The non-active accounts are not "being taken care of" because preference is being given to more important parts of the site. |
I signed up as a registered user Feb. 19, 2003 but never participated other than 1 comment. Never voted, or posted...see profile HERE. When I received a new camera as a gift in June 2004 I wanted to go back and participate at DPC. I could not remember my password. I email and done everything to get it but was unsuccessful so I created another account and have use it and it only since signing up with DPC again on June 12, 2004. I don't have two accounts because I want two accounts. I would go back and search the threads where I have posted that I have asked repeatedly for DPC to do away with my first account but it's hard to search. I have also email the admins about it's deletion. So once again I will ask "PLEASE DELETE THIS ACCOUNT".
Hope that explains why I have two accounts. And I believe there are many more out there like that.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 04:18:31 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
try this ... download the demo of genuine Fractals...
grab ANY image from this site
upsize it to 3000 x 2400 and save it to .tif
change the exif data
now tell me you cant do anything with a 640x480 |
I'm certainly not printing that anything larger than 4" x 6"..
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 04:34:40 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
I logged out to see what access to DPChallenge someone would have without being a member or registered user. Here is what I found.
1. They can view all photographs in current challenges.
2. They can view all photographs in View result challenges
3. They can view all photographs in Challenge Archives and Challenge History
4. They can view all photographs under Photographs and browse the same way we can.
5. They have access to âLearnâ > How do they do that and tutorials.
In other words they have at there finger tips 1000âs of photographs that they can copy and past into an editing program and make a few adjustments, some donât even do that, and call it there own. ... |
There is nothing wrong with this at all. I hope the guests that stop by enjoy their visit and feel welcome to stay. Restrictions would only make quests feel unwelcome.
In a community that (last time I checked) was based on the free exchange of ideas and accomplishments, centered around the core of the challenges, with the intent that all are able to improve. Restrictions would only hinder this.
Throw open the doors -- as far as I'm concerned, guests are welcome to stay as long as they like. Most won't stay long before becoming hooked -- it's in the air or something.
Originally posted by SDW65:
... Here is what I propose to limit theft of images.
1. If you are not logged in as a registered user or member you cannot click on the thumbnails. They will not open up to the larger size. ... |
Sorry, but contract negotiations have not been reopened for discussion. :D
Seriously, by agreeing to the terms of use of this site you have agreed that DPC can display your images however they see fit in the course of running or promoting the site. Specifically this section of the Terms of Use:
6.2 You hereby grant DPChallenge.com a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any rights you have in the Member Information and Media, and otherwise to make use of the Member Information and Media (including publishing, disseminating, broadcasting, manipulating, reproducing, editing, translating, performing, modifying, or displaying any part of the Member Information) and/or Media alone or as part of other work in any form, media, or technology whether now new known or hereafter developed, to enable DPChallenge.com to continue the specific operation or marketing of the site. This includes, but is certainly not limited to email "newsletters."
They could print up a 'Best of DPC' calender and sell them to promote awareness and to help pay for the use of the site if they so wished. What DPC does with the content on that is posted to this site is up to them -- don't want that applying to your images, then don't post them here. As I mentioned above, last I checked, this site was about friends freely sharing and learning -- not about showcasing talent and ability. There is a lot of people with a lot talent and ability on this site, but it is far from the best place to showcase their accomplishments. Restrict this free flow of information and the atmosphere of the site will change for the worse, I fear.
Originally posted by SDW65:
... 2. Have a better monitoring system on non-active accounts. If they have not had any activity in a predetermined amount of time DPC emails them with a âmust replyâ email to their email address on file. If DPC does not receive a reply back within a predetermined amount of time then that account will be suspended until such reply has been received. ... |
The current monitoring system is sufficient.
Removing old accounts affects the community in a few ways, but just in case it has not been spell out before, I'll list the ways that I see (as I see them, of course):
Server space: The cost in server space for a profile is small, a few database links and portfolio space for members. Of which, the portfolio space is the only part that can take any significant amount of room. However, after the membership expires the portfolio space is gone, so server space is already 'self'-monitoring under the existing system.
Server Update time: Keeping the database links up to date (for favorites, threads participated in, etc) takes server time. An excessive amount of time spent updating a lot of accounts could slow the site for everyone. However, no one has suggested (yet) removing the accounts of active users, even those that are barely active. And those accounts that are not active at all have nothing to update. Current system is doing fine in this regard.
Username: There are only so many useful combinations of letters and numbers that make an interesting username. I know my first choice was already taken and (last I checked) that individual had not participated in the site since before I joined. Doesn't matter -- I still would not want the name now that it has been used. Way too much of a chance for misunderstanding -- which, again, would only hinder the atmosphere of the site. Unique usernames are essential for identification and clear communication between users.
Favorites: Does it really matter if the individual that liked a photo is not currently as active as others? Not as far as I can tell. A favorite is a favorite until they decide otherwise.
Forum participation and comments: Removing accounts breaks the continuity of the threads they participated in. Even if the content of the thread is not altered, the poster has no identity anymore.
Votes: The votes placed must be kept intact or the challenge results will shift. One account removed, with their votes, would not overly affect a challenge (except maybe the early ones with few voters), but a change in policy would affect far more than just one account. Best to leave these in.
Challenge submissions: These are not a part of a persons portfolio so space is not an issue. They are however linked to a certain identity, and thus that identity needs to remain intact.
All said, I think it's best to leave all accounts intact -- even if the person the account is attached to wishes otherwise.
Originally posted by SDW65:
... 3. And as brought up by another user, after 'voting' is over a DPC watermark is placed over images. And when uploading to your portfolio an option to add watermark overlay. ... |
Digital watermarks are nearly useless. On paper the watermark is not something that can be removed without destroying the image, but this is a digital medium. Any watermark added to each and every image would be relatively easy to isolate -- just grab a dozen or so watermarked images and analize the common elements (the watermark), then subtract that from any image that has the watermark.
Digital watermarks do not stop images from being used anymore than copy protection schemes prevent software from being copied. They are an example of punishing the many for the actions of the insignificant few -- and serve only to alienate the intended audience. Presumably, the intended audience is 'the many', but with the inclusion of a watermark the audience shifts to the insignificant few.
Besides, I would have to ask for a DQ on the grounds of the addition of a major element to the image. ;)
[quote-SDW65] ... Do any of you think this will help? Any comments, or concerns? [/quote]
No, it won't help. Image theft is not a significant problem to warrant more attention than it already gets. It just doesn't happen often enough to bother with on anything but a case by case basis. Sure there are a few cases here and there -- a couple of times a year or so -- and along with them comes a lot of ranting and raving about an imagined loss of whatever it is those ranting and raving have imagined they might have lost (even though, in most cases, they didn't have it to begin with). Each of these cases is handled by calm heads in an intelligent manner and the images are removed -- all is well again. Each instance is smoothed over easily because it is an insignificant ripple in fabric of all things that are right. Major problems (the ones that warrant such extreme measures) are not easily smoothed over -- the overpopulation in China is a good example of a major problem that required extreme measures to control (the one child/family thing). A few photos being altered and put up on another site is not a major crisis for the many -- it is significant to the few that are directly affected, but it is also easy for them to resolve.
Just my view of the matter -- you did ask you know. :p
David
|
|
|
|
07/02/2005 11:10:34 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
There is nothing wrong with this at all. I hope the guests that stop by enjoy their visit and feel welcome to stay. Restrictions would only make quests feel unwelcome. |
I do not see how guest only being able to view thumbnails would make them feel unwelcome. They would still have access to all the thumbnails but must register if they would like to see the larger 640x version of the thumbnail. I think this would help keep some people from copy and pasting a 640x picture and going to another site and claiming it as there own. And yes if the enlargement is done correctly they can take a 640x picture and make a good 8x10 print out of it. See this example I copies and pasted a very nice picture into CS and by only upsizing at 5% increments was able to get a good (very good) 8x10 picture out of it. I only did this as an example. Which side of this picture do you think I enlarged?
Originally posted by Britannica:
In a community that (last time I checked) was based on the free exchange of ideas and accomplishments, centered around the core of the challenges, with the intent that all are able to improve. Restrictions would only hinder this. |
The last time I checked a person is not a part of a community unless they are a registered user of member. If they are a guest then that is what they are a guest, I donât have a problem with guest visiting that is (like you said) how we get more registered users and members. But limiting what they are have access to will not IMO offend them but make them want to become a registered user or member to have access to the site.
Originally posted by Britannica:
Throw open the doors -- as far as I'm concerned, guests are welcome to stay as long as they like. Most won't stay long before becoming hooked -- it's in the air or something. |
See above comment. I feel limiting access to large files would make them want to become a user. We need to convert the 2:1 ratio of visitors to user.
Originally posted by Britannica:
Sorry, but contract negotiations have not been reopened for discussion. :D
Seriously, by agreeing to the terms of use of this site you have agreed that DPC can display your images however they see fit in the course of running or promoting the site. Specifically this section of the Terms of Use:
6.2 You hereby grant DPChallenge.com a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any rights you have in the Member Information and Media, and otherwise to make use of the Member Information and Media (including publishing, disseminating, broadcasting, manipulating, reproducing, editing, translating, performing, modifying, or displaying any part of the Member Information) and/or Media alone or as part of other work in any form, media, or technology whether now new known or hereafter developed, to enable DPChallenge.com to continue the specific operation or marketing of the site. This includes, but is certainly not limited to email "newsletters."
They could print up a 'Best of DPC' calender and sell them to promote awareness and to help pay for the use of the site if they so wished. What DPC does with the content on that is posted to this site is up to them -- don't want that applying to your images, then don't post them here. As I mentioned above, last I checked, this site was about friends freely sharing and learning -- not about showcasing talent and ability. There is a lot of people with a lot talent and ability on this site, but it is far from the best place to showcase their accomplishments. Restrict this free flow of information and the atmosphere of the site will change for the worse, I fear. |
I am in no way saying what DPC can and cannot do and have read the TOS and rules more than most, maybe :P Again going back to the above mentions, I feel it would be harder for someone to steal a photograph from the site if thumbnails was all that was available unless they were a member or registered user. If they want full access all they have to do is register, itâs free.
Originally posted by Britannica:
The current monitoring system is sufficient.
Removing old accounts affects the community in a few ways, but just in case it has not been spell out before, I'll list the ways that I see (as I see them, of course):
Server space: The cost in server space for a profile is small, a few database links and portfolio space for members. Of which, the portfolio space is the only part that can take any significant amount of room. However, after the membership expires the portfolio space is gone, so server space is already 'self'-monitoring under the existing system.
Server Update time: Keeping the database links up to date (for favorites, threads participated in, etc) takes server time. An excessive amount of time spent updating a lot of accounts could slow the site for everyone. However, no one has suggested (yet) removing the accounts of active users, even those that are barely active. And those accounts that are not active at all have nothing to update. Current system is doing fine in this regard.
Username: There are only so many useful combinations of letters and numbers that make an interesting username. I know my first choice was already taken and (last I checked) that individual had not participated in the site since before I joined. Doesn't matter -- I still would not want the name now that it has been used. Way too much of a chance for misunderstanding -- which, again, would only hinder the atmosphere of the site. Unique usernames are essential for identification and clear communication between users.
Favorites: Does it really matter if the individual that liked a photo is not currently as active as others? Not as far as I can tell. A favorite is a favorite until they decide otherwise.
Forum participation and comments: Removing accounts breaks the continuity of the threads they participated in. Even if the content of the thread is not altered, the poster has no identity anymore.
Votes: The votes placed must be kept intact or the challenge results will shift. One account removed, with their votes, would not overly affect a challenge (except maybe the early ones with few voters), but a change in policy would affect far more than just one account. Best to leave these in.
Challenge submissions: These are not a part of a persons portfolio so space is not an issue. They are however linked to a certain identity, and thus that identity needs to remain intact.
All said, I think it's best to leave all accounts intact -- even if the person the account is attached to wishes otherwise. |
Man I glad I donât use this philosophy on my HD. Clean up, speeds up - not slows down. I just believe that non-active accounts be suspended until the person returns. After a while (time DPC determines) delete the account. The votes can still be counted and held in an account called deleted users. It would be nice to search through the photographer profiles and only bring up active accounts. If DPC does not wish to delete non-active accounts then maybe they can add an additional search feature to the photographer profiles (active / non-active users). I don't want someones account to be deleted if they are gone for a month, two, three, etc. But if they have not participated in a year or more DPC could put there account on hold by sending them an email requesting them a reply. If thats not received after a period of time then delete.
But this is the last time I will bring it up. I donât have to worry about anyone stealing my pictures since they are all below average anyway. I was just suggesting a few things to maybe improve this site and hopefully help the good photographer from having there photographs stolen.
I guess most people feel that everything is ok and in a ânot broken donât fixâ state. I guess what I donât understand is why we rant about stolen pictures but when someone offers a possible solution to slow it down there views are considered vain or stupid. I guess my input is not good enough.
Message edited by author 2005-07-02 23:31:41.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2005 12:23:08 AM · #15 |
I fail to see how forcing people to register is going to reduce the relatively small number of problems we have with people "borrowing" images. At best, it would chase off the most apathetic, poorly motivated plagiarizer. However, limiting guests to viewing thumbnails may reduce the number of people who would join DPC. Without viewing the pictures at their submitted resolution, most of the photos here aren't particularly impressive. If I would have been restricted to viewing thumbnails before I joined, I probably would have just written DPC off as a slightly-better-than-average collection of digital snapshots.
In principle, I don't think that watermarking images would be a bad thing if (1) we had a substantial problem with images being stolen, and (2) watermarking would significantly reduce or eliminate the problem. In practice, I'm afraid that any type of copy protection you try to implement would be like the security at airports: inconveniencing everyone and probably doing little or nothing to eliminate any serious threat.
Allowing users to add copyright statements (which should not mention the photographer's name, at least during 'voting') to challenge submissions might not be a bad thing, but understand that any technical measure that is put in place will be insufficient to prevent anyone willing to work at circumventing your efforts. |
|
|
|
07/03/2005 12:55:50 AM · #16 |
I agree with metoecus. I don't think there is a substantial problem, and I don't think there is an effective countermeasure to the thefts w/o severely harming the site.
Message edited by author 2005-07-03 00:57:01. |
|
|
|
07/03/2005 02:24:40 AM · #17 |
I vote no on all suggestions. This is an open photography site. Limiting what the general public can see does not benefit me as a photographer. It limits my potential audience and thus my potential income as a photographer. By participating here you open yourself up to the potential for theft. This is an unavoidable fact. I do not want anyone adding anything to my photographs. I do not want anyone altering my photographs. I also do not want anyone stealing my photographs but understand that by participating here it could happen. If it does, I have the entire DPC community backing me up. They are watching out for me on other sites. They will rally behind me and back me up if it happens. I trust this site to maintain my rights and integrity as a photographer. To do otherwise would be to be paranoid and would not allow me to sleep at night...
Edited because I can not type properly in the dark...
Message edited by author 2005-07-03 02:26:32.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2005 05:15:25 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
... I guess most people feel that everything is ok and in a ânot broken donât fixâ state. I guess what I donât understand is why we rant about stolen pictures but when someone offers a possible solution to slow it down there views are considered vain or stupid. I guess my input is not good enough. |
No reason to be down on yourself -- your input is welcome, as I hope mine is. I disagree that your suggestions will accomplish what you expect them to, not that you should not put them forward for discussion.
If you want to know where most of my disagreement comes from, I can sum it up easily enough. Most of what you suggested (certainly not all) restricts everyone to prevent a very small minority from doing a small harm. This 'punish everyone for the crimes of the few' view of things just doesn't sit right with me -- it, in my experience, is just another aspect of the 'everyone is bad unless forced to be good' insanity. I'm not suggesting you have this sorry mental state, but it is this chord in me your suggestions strike a sour note on. This mentality is one I disagree with strongly -- I have simply never seen a circumstance in which it is true, and far too many that show the opposite to be far more likely.
Address the problem you see in a manner that does not restrict the few out of fear of what they 'might' do based on on what a very small number have done, and I will be much more likely to agree with it. But nowhere have I suggested you should not attempt to address the problems you see -- merely that I disagree with you proposed method of addressing.
David
|
|
|
|
07/03/2005 08:26:43 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
And yes if the enlargement is done correctly they can take a 640x picture and make a good 8x10 print out of it. See this example I copies and pasted a very nice picture into CS and by only upsizing at 5% increments was able to get a good (very good) 8x10 picture out of it. I only did this as an example. Which side of this picture do you think I enlarged?
|
My guess would be the right side as evident of the background building being very blurry on the right but not the left. Very nice photo by the way.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2005 09:00:22 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Most of what you suggested (certainly not all) restricts everyone to prevent a very small minority from doing a small harm. This 'punish everyone for the crimes of the few' view of things just doesn't sit right with me -- it, in my experience, is just another aspect of the 'everyone is bad unless forced to be good' insanity. I'm not suggesting you have this sorry mental state, but it is this chord in me your suggestions strike a sour note on. This mentality is one I disagree with strongly -- I have simply never seen a circumstance in which it is true, and far too many that show the opposite to be far more likely. |
Touche'
|
|
|
|
07/03/2005 09:20:07 AM · #21 |
| I want my photos just the way they are, and I want them to have the widest possible audience. I can't see myself losing money by a few people stealing some 640x photos, what can they do with them? Of course it's irritating when other people pass your work off as their own, but I believe that these risks do not warrant the level of security suggested at the start of this thread. |
|
|
|
07/03/2005 09:36:49 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Which side of this picture do you think I enlarged?
|
Of course it's going to look good if you enlarge it and then shrink it down to 640 pixels again... that's just silly cos you haven't changed anything.
|
|
