| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2007 01:06:41 PM · #51 |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:10:39 PM · #52 |
Just a note to those who said something about "crappy" images not being stolen.
In general, this is likely right - but it's not fool-proof either.
2 years ago, there was quite the fiasco that happened. Hundreds of family snap-shot images were stolen off of blogs, personal websites, etc - all of young children in diapers.
These photos were then uploaded to a diaper-fetish site (yes, these do exist - in droves) that was a very thin front for nothing more than a child pornography set-up.
Law Enforcement in both the USA and Canada were involved in this - as well as at least 2 government agencies.
The site eventually shut down, and the owner arrested, along with at least 1 other person (whose involvement I am unsure of).
Point here is - like others have said - NOTHING is safe on the 'net.
Yes, copyright notices "helps", disabling right-click copying "helps" - but NOTHING short of never sharing your images is 100%.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:14:30 PM · #53 |
| I wonder if there's a way to require a password or PIN to execute the right-click command(s)? This would restrict the option to registered users, and possibly provide a way to track who's downloading what ... |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:19:00 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I wonder if there's a way to require a password or PIN to execute the right-click command(s)? This would restrict the option to registered users, and possibly provide a way to track who's downloading what ... |
Nope. None of the right click blockers, trappers or restricters are in any way effective to someone who knows how to configure a browser or proxy. The image is on my machine (that's how I can see it) so I can do what I like with it (technically, if not morally or legally). Even the things that mosaic chop up the images into pieces are trivially circumvented.
The only thing that partially works is visually obscuring the image. Everything else might help you catch or track someone down (e.g., embedding digital watermarks and paying for constant web searches for those watermarks)
With the way copyright and orphan laws are going, you wont even have the right to sue for infringement, 'oh, I couldn't find the original author - sorry!'
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 13:21:20.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:22:11 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I wonder if there's a way to require a password or PIN to execute the right-click command(s)? This would restrict the option to registered users, and possibly provide a way to track who's downloading what ... |
We could have a transparent DIV layer over the images, unless a user is registered and/or a member.
But seriously, as for now, all we'd like is a little text (easily implemented) under our photos that show that we own them. Not some hidden tiny message at the bottom of each page.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:22:18 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I've read accounts where someone simply posted a picture without permission on their website and the creator collected several thousand dollars. People who infringe are often under the mistaken impression that simply removing the image after being notified that they are infringing is enough to avoid litigation. It isn't. |
That's great if the infringer has the money.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:24:04 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
We could have a transparent DIV layer over the images, unless a user is registered and/or a member.
|
That doesn't work either. We should go back and pull up the last thread where all these technical solutions were shown not to work, it'd be quicker than rehashing them all again.
Notification like you are looking for can help, if the person is ignorant about what they are doing. I have my doubts if anyone really is ignorant about it though, rather than just claiming to be to avoid trouble when caught.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:26:33 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Notification like you are looking for can help, if the person is ignorant about what they are doing. I have my doubts if anyone really is ignorant about it though, rather than just claiming to be to avoid trouble when caught. |
I don't wanna be taking bloggers to court. But, at least with a very visible notice they can't claim ignorance.
No method is going to stop THIEVES, but making it difficult for the casual image "borrower" such as bloggers would save all of us headaches.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 13:29:12.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:28:27 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Notification like you are looking for can help, if the person is ignorant about what they are doing. I have my doubts if anyone really is ignorant about it though, rather than just claiming to be to avoid trouble when caught. |
I don't wanna be taking bloggers to court. But, at least with a very visible notice they can't claim ignorance. |
Okay, so now they can't claim ignorance. They'll just claim 'I didn't think it would do any harm, I'm just doing it for my personal blog, I'm not making any money out of it'
Are you going to prosecute ?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:31:08 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Okay, so now they can't claim ignorance. They'll just claim 'I didn't think it would do any harm, I'm just doing it for my personal blog, I'm not making any money out of it'
Are you going to prosecute ? |
If I feel I must, yes... I'm a good-natured guy, but the warning IS there now. At least for me. It says nothing about making money.
And for your previous point about the thief not having money... that's their problem...
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:34:16 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I wonder if there's a way to require a password or PIN to execute the right-click command(s)? This would restrict the option to registered users, and possibly provide a way to track who's downloading what ... |
Dont even have to right click an image to save it...... One IE hover and a menu pop sup on the left of th eimage. 2 Firefox just goto page info and media tab luists all images. 3 Get the url fromt he source of the page. 4 Get it from your cahce files. 5 Print scren and paste it into photoshop. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:36:56 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
We could have a transparent DIV layer over the images, unless a user is registered and/or a member.
|
That doesn't work either. We should go back and pull up the last thread where all these technical solutions were shown not to work, it'd be quicker than rehashing them all again.
Notification like you are looking for can help, if the person is ignorant about what they are doing. I have my doubts if anyone really is ignorant about it though, rather than just claiming to be to avoid trouble when caught. |
It seems like you're saying that because a 100% effective solution doesn't exist, then no security is better than some? Here's the thing: When it comes to this sort of thing, something is always better than nothing. It isn't going to be perfect. It isn't going to stop all image theft, which seems to be what the detractors always focus on. But it will be a deterrent to some, and then you have that much less to deal with. As long as we all recognize that nothing is foolproof, then I support their implementation here. Limited protection is better than no protection at all.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 13:39:15.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:38:25 PM · #63 |
We ALL know nothing will stop it, but IMO the reason NOTHING has been done is that too many people argue why it won't work.
So what if nothing is fool proof.... give us something to work with.
My suggestion is the simplest of all methods to implement, and at least gives us a tool to use in court, if nothing else.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:43:29 PM · #64 |
something like this could be pretty unobtrusive. yet it says 'Hey someone really doesn't want me to use this picture'. yes you could clone it out, but are you going to? maybe i'll just do another google image search instead. the burlington free press published an almost identicle photo - but cropped vertically. someone else probably has one with out the watermarking...
KT Tunstall in Burlington, VT June 11, 2006
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 13:45:18.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:45:49 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
It seems like you're saying that because a 100% effective solution doesn't exist, then no security is better than some? |
No I'm not saying that at all.
Quality of the experience for the legitimate users (thousands of people ) should be more important than blocking a minority of copyright infringers.
Particularly when any solution you might implement doesn't actually work at all.
Putting in right click blockers, transparent overlays or other easily defeated mechanisms just makes the site less usable for the actual paying users- for what benefit ?
If the technical solutions only make the site more annoying to use and don't protect any images, why would it be a good idea ?
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 13:47:58.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:49:32 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by soup:
something like this could be pretty unobtrusive. yet it says 'Hey someone really doesn't want me to use this picture'. yes you could clone it out, but are you going to? |
Or just crop it out - as you put the watermark away from the interesting part of the image. Though if you put it right across her face, does it stop being unobtrusive ?
I think more than a few people here consider their images art and having a logo plastered across the middle of it seems somewhat contrary to the notion that most of the image is important.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:51:00 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
My suggestion is the simplest of all methods to implement, and at least gives us a tool to use in court, if nothing else. |
There already is one legal copyright on each page that describes the ownership and usage - how does moving it around the page improve your chances in court ? Would 3 be even better ?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:54:00 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
There already is one legal copyright on each page that describes the ownership and usage - how does moving it around the page improve your chances in court ? Would 3 be even better ? |
It's not worth arguing with you about it anymore... you obviously have a closed mind to any implementation, even the most benign.
Let people steal your images if you want...
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:56:23 PM · #69 |
i guess a bit... but you either want to use it or you don't. there is a way around just about every hindrance known to man. most folks are pretty lazy though.
these guys don't like their users images being stolen either...
this is DPC users photo BTW. and it got a WOW ;}
//www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1136683
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 13:57:12.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:57:26 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It's not worth arguing with you about it anymore... you obviously have a closed mind to any implementation, even the most benign.
Let people steal your images if you want... |
I only argue about this in the hope that someone will come up with an original or workable solution that does something. I don't have a closed mind to new ideas. But restating something that is already said on every page seems somewhat pointless. Implementing technical solutions that only annoy legitimate users and don't stop people taking images seems somewhat pointless.
If there was a meaningful suggestion that considered the quality of experience for all of the site users and actually did something to curtail non-authorised image usage, I'd really be extremely interested to discuss it and its implementation.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:59:44 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by soup:
i guess a bit... but you either want to use it or you don't. there is a way around just about every hindrance known to man. most folks are pretty lazy though.
these guys don't like their users images being stolen either...
this is DPC users photo BTW. and it got a WOW ;}
//www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1136683 |
I don't much like people infringing on my copyright either (stolen being a legal term for something quite different). But I see it as the price you pay for having images on line in a visible way. I've had plenty of my pictures appear on deviantart, flickr, myspace and other places without permission. The web sites don't care. The people sticking them on their sites don't care. It isn't worth the trouble to get a lawyer involved. In the photographersdirect case, how are they going to provide the 3000+ pixel image if they 'sell' it ? They can't.
The images I make money from are never 640x480 pixels in size anyway. The ones I want people to see I put on line. The ones I'm concerned about people misappropriating aren't available online or have a visible watermark across the middle (like your 'soup' above). But I wouldn't enter them into a contest where people are supposed to see the images, like that. It just seems totally contrary to the point of the site.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 14:02:20.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 02:03:06 PM · #72 |
i think the point you are missing is that the people who are likely stealing the images don't want any part of hiding the fact. they just hope to use something someone else created as their own for whatever reason. my guess would be that a watermark would lessen the theft by 90%.
that's just a guess. but if 90% of the theft stops and only , say, 10% of the viewers are annoyed at the watermark, it seems beneficial to me.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 02:03:17 PM · #73 |
Hi all,
I just wanted to let you all know that this is receiving attention behind the scenes from Site Council as well. Of course, there's little if anything we can do to stop a sufficiently determined individual from stealing an image - at least, not without mangling the images so badly as to ruin the site for legitimate users.
The challenge, then, as I see it, is threefold:
1. Make image theft non-trivial enough that the would-be thief is aware we're tring to prevent it.
2. Provide sufficiently prominent notice of the photographer's copyright to make it clear that an image thief will know, or reasonably should have known, that his actions were illegal.
3. Minimize impact on legitimate users.
In the meantime, please keep making suggestions here. We are paying attention to this.
Thanks!
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 02:05:23 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by soup:
that's just a guess. but if 90% of the theft stops and only , say, 10% of the viewers are annoyed at the watermark, it seems beneficial to me. |
How many images with 33% coverage with a watermark (like yours) do you enjoy looking at ?
How much would it enhance your enjoyment of looking at the results of a challenge ?
Maybe a poll would be worthwhile, see how many people would like a third of their image obscured through the middle after voting ? It just seems like a classic case of hurting everyone on the site, to protect a few images from people who don't use the site themselves.
Moving the copyright message up to just under/ around the images is a workable option in that it doesn't change the user experience much, other than throwing text around the images where they used to be nicely displayed against a mostly neutral grey. But it doesn't see to actually do anything that isn't already there on every page.
Most people know they shouldn't download music or copy CDs for their friends either. But there seems to be a lot of that going on.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 14:09:23.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 02:09:20 PM · #75 |
well in a strctly business sense - that's a legitmate practice. many here aren't pro and are just trying to get there images seen in hopes of gaining some sort of photographic respect. i can see why it would be painful for someone to find out their best rated image has been attributed to someone elses name... a simple - fairly easy - fairly unabtrusive OPTION - doesn't seem like such a bad thing. i'd like to see a poll on how many would actually be annoyed enough at a watermark to stop participating at DPC.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I don't much like people infringing on my copyright either (stolen being a legal term for something quite different). But I see it as the price you pay for having images on line in a visible way. I've had plenty of my pictures appear on deviantart, flickr, myspace and other places without permission. The web sites don't care. The people sticking them on their sites don't care. It isn't worth the trouble to get a lawyer involved. In the photographersdirect case, how are they going to provide the 3000+ pixel image if they 'sell' it ? They can't.
The images I make money from are never 640x480 pixels in size anyway. The ones I want people to see I put on line. The ones I'm concerned about people misappropriating aren't available online or have a visible watermark across the middle (like your 'soup' above). But I wouldn't enter them into a contest where people are supposed to see the images, like that. It just seems totally contrary to the point of the site. |
|
|
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: 07/28/2025 05:19:54 PM EDT.
