Stolen pictures on SmugMug - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/14/2006 09:48:04 AM · #126

The world is not going to spontaneously combust if the pictures stay up a few more days. I would like to know the sales of the pictures, I bet its close to $0.

06/14/2006 09:54:47 AM · #127

Nobody said the world would spontaneously combust. And so what if the sales are zero?

06/14/2006 09:58:57 AM · #128

Let's pretend for a moment that someone came across an edit you'd done of another person's image and then put in your portfolio, as we frequently do here. Suppose they reported you for theft and the admins shut down your account immediately and then spent the next 72 hours investigating the situation. I'm pretty sure the letters you'd be sending wouldn't be letters of praise for their quick action. Act first, investigate later isn't always the best course of action.

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

06/14/2006 10:00:28 AM · #129

Do you people think e-mailing someone is like calling them on the phone. Cause it isn't. Not everyone checks their e-mails every hour or everyday. To me the time frame was perfectly normal. The only people that should be discussing this is the smugmug administrators, the gallery owner, and the persons photos that were stolen. It really is none of our business.

Message edited by author 2006-06-14 10:01:22.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

06/14/2006 10:02:06 AM · #130

Originally posted by rex:

... It really is none of our businees.

Considering that many images showing up on the account in question came from DPChallenge accounts I think an interest is understandable.

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

06/14/2006 10:03:31 AM · #131

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by rex:
... It really is none of our businees.

Considering that many images showing up on the account in question came from DPChallenge accounts I think an interest is understandable.

Were any of them your photos?

NO

Then it is none of your business.

06/14/2006 10:05:47 AM · #132

Originally posted by mk:

No, but swift investigation is. Swift investigation is as much an action as promptly closing an account without investigation. A cursory glance over the user's galleries would have confirmed a pattern of theft that stretched far beyond one or two images from here. Given the images the user had stolen (Norman Rockwell, etc), the investigation could've taken no more than an hour before locking the site and contacting the user for an explanation.

06/14/2006 10:08:19 AM · #133

I'm glad I don't have a forum full of people who are experts on how quickly I should be accomplishing my job. :)

Seriously people, interest is one thing. Ripping them a new one because you don't think they jumped fast enough, especially when your only involvement consists of having seen this thread, is another.

Message edited by author 2006-06-14 10:13:09.

bod

06/14/2006 10:10:10 AM · #134

Originally posted by pepperspray:

Given the discrepancy between your timing of events (24hrs) and deapee's (approx 60 hrs) ...

From the various postings in this thread ...
The first gallery was closed within 18hrs, the rest within 41hrs.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

06/14/2006 10:12:22 AM · #135

Originally posted by rex:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by rex:
... It really is none of our businees.

Considering that many images showing up on the account in question came from DPChallenge accounts I think an interest is understandable.

Were any of them your photos?

NO

Then it is none of your business.

Thank you for your opinion, but I'll decide what is and is not my business. Anytime photo's are used without the photographers' permission I'll have an interest.

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

06/14/2006 10:17:43 AM · #136

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by rex:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by rex:
... It really is none of our businees.

Considering that many images showing up on the account in question came from DPChallenge accounts I think an interest is understandable.

Were any of them your photos?

NO

Then it is none of your business.

Thank you for your opinion, but I'll decide what is and is not my business. Anytime photo's are used without the photographers' permission I'll have an interest.

It seems like you follow me around sometimes just to disagree with me. To avoid being banished from this site by the admins and saying something I regret I will just ignore this thread and ignore you.

devbobo

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/14/2006 10:24:34 AM · #137

as this seems to be of some interest, here's a crude timeline of my involvement...

Pls note, the time/dates quoted are the time/dates from this thread.

06/11/2006 08:04:48 PM alixmiles PMs me at dgrin.com
-Here in Australia, it was a public holiday, I was out all day and didn't log on until late, probably around 11:30pm (my time).
-It took a bit of time to find the thread since alixmiles didn't provide a direct url.
-Check the infringing image in the original post and check out the gallery.
-IM andy...the gallery is password-protected.
06/12/2006 10:13:41 AM I post my original message
- Go to bed
- Wakeup Tuesday morning, check DPC thread
06/12/2006 04:42:49 PM reply to Alienyst that I accidently said site when I meant gallery
- Go to work
- Arrive home, spend time with my family, have dinner, etc
- Log on start to read all posts in this thread.
- Realise that there are references to other images, check out the gallery posted by nsoroma79
- PM Andy...the gallery is password-protected
06/13/2006 08:01:04 AM post this message
- continue reading the thread while browsing the user's smugmug site and all the other offending content
- IM Andy with my concerns over other content.
- Post numerous other replies on DPC
06/13/2006 09:00:43 AM site is password-protected as confirmed by Di's post

Message edited by author 2006-06-14 10:33:11.

06/14/2006 10:28:41 AM · #138

Originally posted by mk:

I'm glad I don't have a forum full of people who are experts on how quickly I should be accomplishing my job. :)

SmugMug is not just a forum, it's a business.

[quote]Seriously people, interest is one thing. Ripping them a new one because you don't think they jumped fast enough, especially when your only involvement consists of having seen this thread, is another. [/quote]

"Especially when your only involvement consiste of having seen this thread?"

C'mon. Stating a case or asking pertinent questions is not ripping someone a new one. It's simply stating a case and asking pertinent questions. My lack of direct involvement in the events and images have nothing to do with my interest in the ethics and conduct of a public site that operates as a business and that hosts users who also operate as businesses.

06/14/2006 10:33:44 AM · #139

Originally posted by bod:

Originally posted by pepperspray:
Given the discrepancy between your timing of events (24hrs) and deapee's (approx 60 hrs) ...

From the various postings in this thread ...
The first gallery was closed within 18hrs, the rest within 41hrs.

I stand corrected.

Still too long for a site that has a staff of 15, though, I think. And especially considering deapee's post stating that it took an email pointing out that SmugMug "couldn't possibly have terms that protect them against damages from knowingly receiving, distributing, and selling someone's copyrighted, stolen property". If true, it's disappointing conduct and ethics on SmugMug's behalf, I think.

Message edited by author 2006-06-14 10:34:18.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/14/2006 10:36:30 AM · #140

Originally posted by pepperspray:

Originally posted by mk:
I'm glad I don't have a forum full of people who are experts on how quickly I should be accomplishing my job. :)

SmugMug is not just a forum, it's a business.

I wasn't talking about SmugMug, I was talking about DPC.

Originally posted by pepperspray:

Originally posted by mk:
Seriously people, interest is one thing. Ripping them a new one because you don't think they jumped fast enough, especially when your only involvement consists of having seen this thread, is another.

"Especially when your only involvement consiste of having seen this thread?"

C'mon. Stating a case or asking pertinent questions is not ripping someone a new one. It's simply stating a case and asking pertinent questions. My lack of direct involvement in the events and images have nothing to do with my interest in the ethics and conduct of a public site that operates as a business and that hosts users who also operate as businesses.

Then perhaps my post doesn't pertain to you. You'll notice that I didn't quote anything you said. I'm not saying that anyone isn't free to be all up in arms over an exact timeline. You can do what you like. I personally think it's a little much and that rude emails are over the line but I'm nobody's mom. :)

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

06/14/2006 10:42:57 AM · #141

Thanks for the timeline andy... Helps clear things up a lot.

Hopefully others will read it..

Looks like from the IM about the other images to the closing of the entire site, there was just one hour?

Hrm... That's pretty quick...

I used to have a job where I had many duties and also had to respond to customer calls and make call-backs. I was pretty flipping busy all the time... It would occasionally take me 3 or 4 hours to get around to a call-back... Other times I could get it done within a few minutes.

My customer base was not even one percent of one percent of Andy's...

Maybe a little bit of deep breathing would help this thread?

Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

AAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Picture your happy place...

In my experience, people often get WAY too worked up about the POTENTIAL loss of income...

I would presume that if you have an image that is in the gallery, and it had a sale, you could request sales figures for it... otherwise, are you seriously going to let your blood pressure spike over a few sales lost of nineteen cents?

I keep seeing Normal Rockwell's name being tossed about in here... Do you think that there is ANYbody in their estate that is going to lose sleep over the possible loss of income of 3 sales at 99 cents?

Will the guy try again? Maybe... Perhaps even probably...

But is he really going to be making any real cash off of 640x480 pics?

I know that I sure as hell wouldn't pay nineteen cents for a crummy 640x480 scan of a Norman Rockwell print...

I would hope though that if the revenue for any one picture is over a couple of bucks, Andy would at least have the decency to try to get back to the original photog... After seeing the fuss over a tiny potential loss, I'm pretty sure there would be at least a few that would freak out over a small actual loss.

The government is willing to waive 2 dollars either way on your tax return, so two dollars is probably a good place to start?

06/14/2006 10:44:13 AM · #142

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by pepperspray:

Originally posted by mk:
I'm glad I don't have a forum full of people who are experts on how quickly I should be accomplishing my job. :)

SmugMug is not just a forum, it's a business.

I wasn't talking about SmugMug, I was talking about DPC.

Ok. But wasn't it in the context of DPCers discussing SmugMug's operations?

Originally posted by mk:

I agree that it's rude to send abusive emails. Vituperation helps noone.

06/14/2006 10:48:25 AM · #143

Originally posted by pepperspray:

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by pepperspray:

Originally posted by mk:
I'm glad I don't have a forum full of people who are experts on how quickly I should be accomplishing my job. :)

SmugMug is not just a forum, it's a business.

I wasn't talking about SmugMug, I was talking about DPC.

Ok. But wasn't it in the context of DPCers discussing SmugMug's operations?

Yes. We're discussing it in the DPC forums.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

06/14/2006 10:53:49 AM · #144

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by pepperspray:

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by pepperspray:

Originally posted by mk:
I'm glad I don't have a forum full of people who are experts on how quickly I should be accomplishing my job. :)

SmugMug is not just a forum, it's a business.

I wasn't talking about SmugMug, I was talking about DPC.

Ok. But wasn't it in the context of DPCers discussing SmugMug's operations?

Yes. We're discussing it in the DPC forums.

Yes, we are.

Anyway, it's almost 3am. Time to hit the hay.

Going over SmugMug, it's a good site that has had a lot of good press. It's a shame this last turn of events has not reflected kindly on them.

*shrug*

G'night. Take care.
Petra :-)

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

06/14/2006 11:03:03 AM · #145

Originally posted by mk:

... but I'm nobody's mom. :)

Does he know this? ***Ducks and runs*** Just kidding, I really don't want into this thread.

awilliamsny

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

06/14/2006 11:04:40 AM · #146

Originally posted by pepperspray:

Going over SmugMug, it's a good site that has had a lot of good press. It's a shame this last turn of events has not reflected kindly on them.

Hi pepperspray, I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate? We take copyright, ownership, and photographer's rights *very* seriuosly. I'm a working professional, too, so I know from where you guys are coming from! We're all ears and would very much like to know.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/14/2006 12:01:28 PM · #147

Originally posted by mk:

I'm glad I don't have a forum full of people who are experts on how quickly I should be accomplishing my job. :)

You did -- isn't that one reason you left the SC?

06/14/2006 12:08:35 PM · #148

Ok, so I haven't quite gone to bed yet. But I have brushed my teeth! :-D

Hi, awilliamsny. :-)

Originally posted by awilliamsny:

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?

Sure. It strikes me that this thread regarding Beckstead's account has expressed some discontent, and in some cases outright anger, at what is perceived to be SmugMug's tardiness in fully dealing with an account that was in blatant offence of copyright. Ergo, it has reflected unkindly on SmugMug.

[quote]We take copyright, ownership, and photographer's rights *very* seriuosly. [/quote]

That's good to hear, and I'm sure you do. I'm also fairly sure that this whole palava is not something you come across everyday, and understand that perhaps you've never had to deal with such an egregious case as Beckstead. However, do you also understand the concerns and dissatisfactions of the users here who feel let down by SmugMug?

On the previous page, I asked a couple of questions that I thought were pertinent if deapee's testimony were true. (Sorry, that sounds awfully legalese - it's just too late at night/early in the morning for me to come up with any betterer words!). Anyway, the questions were this:

Given that one gallery on a specific user's site contained stolen material, didn't you think to perhaps cast a passing glance over that user's other galleries? What were the possibilities of perhaps running a statistics query on his uploads - so many in such a short space of time across many galleries might have also given some cause for further investigation, had you taken a moment at the first notification of theft?

Who was in charge from the time the first notice sent to administrators on the 11th June by Arnit, and devbobo's notice to you later, and why didn't they take action?

Originally posted by awilliamsny:

I'm a working professional, too,

Nice work, too! I checked out your site - gorgeous!

[quote]We're all ears and would very much like to know. [/quote]

I'm not a professional and highly unlikely to ever have anything stolen from me, but I hope those who are will respectfully discuss their concerns with you.

Personally, I think that as you are a business with 15 staff, you could have responded to the situation much better than you did. Arnit's initial email should have been answered as promptly as possible, and the offending account momentarily suspended while you browsed the user's galleries looking for obvious infringements. As an internet business with 15 staff, dealing with a copyright issue, 24 hours is timely. 36 hours is passable. 48 hours is getting a bit negligent, I think. Every hour past 48 starts to impact negatively on your reputation, which means you have to work harder to get it back.

Anyway, I'm sure it's a good learning curve for all involved.

Now I really do have to go to bed. It's 4am, and I'm getting crosseyed!

G'night. :-)