| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/07/2007 02:30:41 PM · #151 |
I don't think I see any reference to this anywhere in this thread, but I just went to download a posted shot that was asking for processing help, and here was the default filename:
"Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_46XXXX" (number changed by me)
Now THAT is new! Admittedly it's easy to get around, but to get around it you have to have READ it, and if you have read it you are less likely to pirate it unless you are hardcore, I'd think.
Has this been mentioned on some other thread I've missed?
R.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 02:32:27 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Has this been mentioned on some other thread I've missed?
R. |
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=541657
Message edited by author 2007-02-07 14:32:36.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 02:33:10 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Yes, but people are too lazy to do that for a low resolution image. It could prevent major theft. You would still have theft on some obscure sites, but you probably would not have alot of casual theft. |
Yes, and the one's that go to all the trouble to steal an image are the ones that I would want to prosecute, not the pre-teen with a pretty blog.
I wonder how many of the nude images here are on obscure porn sites. |
I would guess not very many. Most of the images here, while high quality, are not the generally anything that would be of interest to a porn site. There are exceptions, of course.
But mainly, the porn sites are a much larger target for investigation -- both from government and service providers -- than your typical blog site. It's just not worth it to them to post content that is asking for trouble.
David
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 02:58:15 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by David.C:
I would guess not very many. Most of the images here, while high quality, are not the generally anything that would be of interest to a porn site. There are exceptions, of course.
But mainly, the porn sites are a much larger target for investigation -- both from government and service providers -- than your typical blog site. It's just not worth it to them to post content that is asking for trouble.
David |
You're likely right. I was thinking more about the user-submitted amateur sites... but most of the images here probably wouldn't be "appealing" enough for that.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 03:30:55 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't think I see any reference to this anywhere in this thread, but I just went to download a posted shot that was asking for processing help, and here was the default filename:
"Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_46XXXX" (number changed by me)
Now THAT is new! Admittedly it's easy to get around, but to get around it you have to have READ it, and if you have read it you are less likely to pirate it unless you are hardcore, I'd think.
Has this been mentioned on some other thread I've missed?
R. |
<------- HARDCORE
I dont steal peoples pictures but anything else lol if i can see it i want it. However if anyone wants DPC to try a ethod (any method other then watermarking) Ill retrieve the image and mail it to ya in the same res that it displays just to make the point.
Message edited by author 2007-02-07 15:31:42. |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 03:34:53 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't think I see any reference to this anywhere in this thread, but I just went to download a posted shot that was asking for processing help, and here was the default filename:
"Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_46XXXX" (number changed by me)
Now THAT is new! Admittedly it's easy to get around, but to get around it you have to have READ it, and if you have read it you are less likely to pirate it unless you are hardcore, I'd think.
Has this been mentioned on some other thread I've missed?
R. |
<------- HARDCORE
I dont steal peoples pictures but anything else lol if i can see it i want it. However if anyone wants DPC to try a ethod (any method other then watermarking) Ill retrieve the image and mail it to ya in the same res that it displays just to make the point. |
Dude we are not stupid we get the point. The problem lies in the fact there is no sure fire way to stop image theft short of having the image self destruct. Plus this has been debated to death. Now where is that dead horse? |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 03:37:53 PM · #157 |
Pretty much anyone with a little PS skill CAN steal any image that is displayed on screen. That is easy. What we want is just more tools to slow down (NOT STOP) direct theft.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 03:39:44 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
I dont steal peoples pictures but anything else lol if i can see it i want it. However if anyone wants DPC to try a ethod (any method other then watermarking) Ill retrieve the image and mail it to ya in the same res that it displays just to make the point. |
There are actually a few methods that can defeat things like PrintScreen though they are fairly obnoxious. E.g., a flash script that spams the clipboard at 30Hz or something. You can probably still get past those with some sort of window grabber though.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 03:45:20 PM · #159 |
I had an idea just now, that I'm gonna test.
The thought is to have a flash script (or Java) flicker the image at 30 fps. If my theory is correct, the effect should not be visible, but should cause "sync" issues when trying to use screen capture.
Edit: Damn, too slow...
Edit again: On second thought ... that still causes issues with the "learning" aspect of being able to download. Something Langdon & SC are trying to avoid.
Message edited by author 2007-02-07 15:50:30.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 03:49:17 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I had an idea just now, that I'm gonna test.
The thought is to have a flash script (or Java) flicker the image at 30 fps. If my theory is correct, the effect should not be visible, but should cause "sync" issues when trying to use screen capture.
Damn, too slow... |
Most Mpeg movies play at 30 Frames per second... good luck even though games try to push for around 60 FPS or higher
Message edited by author 2007-02-07 15:49:58. |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 03:52:21 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Most Mpeg movies play at 30 Frames per second... good luck even though games try to push for around 60 FPS or higher |
Well in theory you'd have to have a 60 FPS frame rate for this to work... 30 frames on, 30 frames off alternating...
But it's not worth the investigation because it hinders the learning aspect of the site, which Langdon and SC are trying to avoid.
Message edited by author 2007-02-07 15:53:56.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:28:27 PM · #162 |
| I think the idea should not be try and make it impossible to copy (nothing is impossible) but rather just a bit more difficult. Right now I can right click and take what ever. Take away little things like the ability to right click at first, and then work your way to more security later. Even a pop up that said this is copywritten when you right click would be a good idea. |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:32:56 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Most Mpeg movies play at 30 Frames per second... good luck even though games try to push for around 60 FPS or higher |
Well in theory you'd have to have a 60 FPS frame rate for this to work... 30 frames on, 30 frames off alternating...
But it's not worth the investigation because it hinders the learning aspect of the site, which Langdon and SC are trying to avoid. |
You don't even need to bother doing the display. Just wipe the clipboard at that frequency. Doesn't have the same display performance issues. Is completely obnoxious to your viewers/ users though, who, perish the thought, might be using the clipboard for legitimate purposes, but it would work.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:36:43 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
I think the idea should not be try and make it impossible to copy (nothing is impossible) but rather just a bit more difficult. Right now I can right click and take what ever. Take away little things like the ability to right click at first, and then work your way to more security later. Even a pop up that said this is copywritten when you right click would be a good idea. |
We seem to be going around in circles. 'Taking away right click' has two issues. One, it is trivially defeated. E.g., my browser has a check box that says 'Allow scripts to disable or replace context menus' I just deselect that and the script doesn't work. Or I pick 'view media' and get the URL that way.
But, while it is simple to defeat if someone wants to make it work, it is also annoying to anyone who might actually want to use it.
So you have the double issue. It does nothing useful and reduces the usability of the site. No actual gain but at the same time a loss.
Changing the URLs doesn't do anything much to stop someone who wants to take the images, but it does notify them of what they are doing. It has the advantage of no downside from a usability standpoint, which is good.
Anything that's going to be done, needs to 1/ actually do something and 2/ if it doesn't do anything useful, not make the site worse.
As for a copyright pop-up, why would that be a good idea, from the perspective of a paying user who could have reasonable reasons to use the right click menu ? Again, it doesn't do anything to stop misappropriation and is annoying to actual users.
Message edited by author 2007-02-07 16:38:11.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:38:35 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by boomtap:
I think the idea should not be try and make it impossible to copy (nothing is impossible) but rather just a bit more difficult. Right now I can right click and take what ever. Take away little things like the ability to right click at first, and then work your way to more security later. Even a pop up that said this is copywritten when you right click would be a good idea. |
We seem to be going around in circles. 'Taking away right click' has two issues. One, it is trivially defeated. E.g., my browser has a check box that says 'Allow scripts to disable or replace context menus' I just deselect that and the script doesn't work. Or I pick 'view media' and get the URL that way.
But, while it is simple to defeat if someone wants to make it work, it is also annoying to anyone who might actually want to use it.
So you have the double issue. It does nothing useful and reduces the usability of the site. No actual gain but at the same time a loss.
Changing the URLs doesn't do anything much to stop someone who wants to take the images, but it does notify them of what they are doing. It has the advantage of no downside from a usability standpoint, which is good.
Anything that's going to be done, needs to 1/ actually do something and 2/ if it doesn't do anything useful, not make the site worse. |
Heh Gordon and BoomTap... in IE you dont have to right click just hover and a button to save the image appears on the top left of the image anyways LMAO! |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:39:53 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Heh Gordon and BoomTap... in IE you dont have to right click just hover and a button to save the image appears on the top left of the image anyways LMAO! |
You can disable that, along with print Screen and others in IE too. Still isn't much use, but it can certainly be done - but only in certain versions of IE.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:40:43 PM · #167 |
when I'm stealing images helping people with images I just use my left mouse button to drag the image to my desktop. Maybe we should disable left clicking too :P |
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:42:53 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Heh Gordon and BoomTap... in IE you dont have to right click just hover and a button to save the image appears on the top left of the image anyways LMAO! |
You can disable that, along with print Screen and others in IE too. Still isn't much use, but it can certainly be done - but only in certain versions of IE. |
Good thing I use Firefox :-)
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:42:53 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It isn't worth the trouble to get a lawyer involved. |
That's your choice, but, pursuing an infringer to the tune of a few thousand dollars may be worth it to others. Especially, when the infringer will be stuck with the legal fees as well as the damages.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:43:51 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It isn't worth the trouble to get a lawyer involved. |
That's your choice, but, pursuing an infringer to the tune of a few thousand dollars may be worth it to others. Especially, when the infringer will be stuck with the legal fees as well as the damages. |
Good luck with getting trina1254aolol into court ;)
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:44:39 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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 ? |
Yes.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:45:58 PM · #172 |
I gotta say one thing... in preparing my copyright CD's I think I might have found a legit reason for shooting RAW+JPEG...
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:46:45 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It isn't worth the trouble to get a lawyer involved. |
That's your choice, but, pursuing an infringer to the tune of a few thousand dollars may be worth it to others. Especially, when the infringer will be stuck with the legal fees as well as the damages. |
Good luck with getting trina1254aolol into court ;) |
You can get the user's information from their ISP and host. They will cooperate, otherwise they become party to the infringement.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:51:57 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Most people know about copyright and don't care anyway. They think it is 'fair use' to use it however they like if they aren't selling it - after all, what's the 'harm' and so on.
|
A very few short years ago, I confess I was one of those people who didn't know. Today I know. I broke some copyrights, not with malicious intent, but through not really knowing what the law said due to so many sites that proclaim "Internet=public domain". I have been educated and become more smarter. It is NOT a bad idea to try to educate others who honestly might not know better. Those people don't require handcuffs; just tell them. They will be likely to do what is right. As concerned "citizens" of the internet, we CAN do a little bit to educate those people who will be educated. I support an effort to make the copyright more visible - NOT FOR LEGAL REASONS - just because it may tell some unsuspecting MySpacer "hey, using this is against the law."
Originally posted by Gordon:
if you don't want people to see/ use your images, don't post them. It's that simple. |
Contrary to my earlier statements, I'm beginning to agree with the good Doctor. :) However, I think we can, as I said, work to educate. Prosecution won't go far, but we HAVE been successful as a community in finding MANY instances of this and MOST of them have been removed.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2007 04:58:03 PM · #175 |
I never did mention why I dislike this so much. I copy images every day. I take them from photographers web sites and save them on my computer.
I'd much rather be able to link to the image (but flash sites don't let you link to images - one of the reasons I really dislike flash sites in general - imagine actually wanting to be able to point someone to an image or return to see it again - what a silly idea!)
If I can't link to it, I'd like to be able to save it off. All else fails, I printscreen save it, paste and crop it and save it that way. But that's a pain.
I have a growing archive of scrapbooked images from a wide variety of sites that I use for inspiration. It lives beside a whole host of things torn out of magazines or scanned in too.
Anyway, just an example of why someone might legitimately want to save an image.
Message edited by author 2007-02-07 16:58:26.
|
|
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 05:19:52 PM EDT.
