| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2008 06:06:23 PM · #26 |
The bottom line is:
If someone wants to steal/borrow/use/share your image, they're going to. Especially steal. If there's money to be made off it, they'll get it no matter what.
Watermarks, right-click restrictions, quantum anti-theft algorithms. They're all just stop-gap measures meant to make us feel better about whatever protections we think we might have.
The suggestion that if you don't want your image shared around the internet, don't put it on the internet, is a solid one. There are legal means protecting your property if money is being made off of it illegally, but to put energy into creating false senses of security is not helping anything.
On a personal level, if I had to see watermarks all over images on this site and/or have to deal with them on my own images (in the case of it not being an opt-out), I can't see myself hanging out here for very much longer. What a pain that would be. Especially when I know how easily watermarks can be removed.
Sometimes I get a sense that people think they're worth a hell of a lot more than they really are, and this sense of outrage over people that share your photos on the internet kind of floors me. Yes, it's good to try and get credit where and when you can, but this idea that you can ever protect your images from being taken/stolen/shared at all is simply ridiculous. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 06:12:01 PM · #27 |
look up the US copyright website.
at least if you register them you'd have some strong legal leverage if you'd like to try to track down all those 're-used' images, and prosecute those re-using them.
personally i don't have the time to try to track the entire internet on a regular basis, and live peacefully with the fact there are losers using the internet.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 18:13:33.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 06:22:42 PM · #28 |
and what are they stealing? a low-res, web-size version of a photo? it's not like they have access to the originals or a hi-res print version. what can they do with whatever they can grab by right-clicking from your portfolio/challenge entries?
the only real way to stop someone from a screen grab and still allow one of the main activities here (help with editing other people's photos) is to not post your work online. if you're THAT worried about it and think your work is THAT valuable, that's the only way.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 06:59:10 PM · #29 |
Interesting perspectives. :)
I think that Langdon has to tread a fine line, since some of you have mentioned not liking watermarks to the point of quiting the site, I think if you look at the threads for "someone stole my image" you would find that there are lots of us who feel equally strong the other way.
Putting a disclaimer in your comments when you post an image does nothing at all. If the fact that the file name is "copyrighted_image_use_prohibited" means nothing to the person stealing then a little comment is not going to help.
I really do not think that a partially desaturated watermark takes away from the image. it is still good enough for stock sites to be able to have on there and still sell stock.
The US copyright website is nice, but since not all members live in the USA it is a mute point.
If a member wants help with editing an image they can quite easily not watermark that image (since I am talking about an option) or they can upload a non watermarked version to their workshop and link to it, so that would not be effected at all.
I am not caring so much about individuals taking images for their own enjoyment, but when you have the situation I did last week where my image was being used to promote a money making event...that is what ticks me off.
I am really not trying to cause controversy or argue with anyone, just have healthy discussion. :)
thanks for the input. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 07:42:52 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Interesting perspectives. :)
I think that Langdon has to tread a fine line, since some of you have mentioned not liking watermarks to the point of quiting the site, I think if you look at the threads for "someone stole my image" you would find that there are lots of us who feel equally strong the other way.
Putting a disclaimer in your comments when you post an image does nothing at all. If the fact that the file name is "copyrighted_image_use_prohibited" means nothing to the person stealing then a little comment is not going to help.
I really do not think that a partially desaturated watermark takes away from the image. it is still good enough for stock sites to be able to have on there and still sell stock.
The US copyright website is nice, but since not all members live in the USA it is a mute point.
If a member wants help with editing an image they can quite easily not watermark that image (since I am talking about an option) or they can upload a non watermarked version to their workshop and link to it, so that would not be effected at all.
I am not caring so much about individuals taking images for their own enjoyment, but when you have the situation I did last week where my image was being used to promote a money making event...that is what ticks me off.
I am really not trying to cause controversy or argue with anyone, just have healthy discussion. :)
thanks for the input. |
You didn't list the one solution several people have made, which is guaranteed to work (i.e. don't upload your photos in the first place). Granted you may not find that as an option for you but it is the only real solution out there. Watermarking doesn't work either. Trust me, if I wanted to I could remove whatever watermark you added in 5 minutes tops. Sure a watermark will prevent the casual person from using it as a wallpaper and such but those really aren't the people you should be worried about. The ones you should be worried about are way more savvy than that. For those people you need a legal solution not an IT solution.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 19:44:32. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 07:55:21 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Interesting perspectives. :)
I think that Langdon has to tread a fine line, since some of you have mentioned not liking watermarks to the point of quiting the site, I think if you look at the threads for "someone stole my image" you would find that there are lots of us who feel equally strong the other way.
Putting a disclaimer in your comments when you post an image does nothing at all. If the fact that the file name is "copyrighted_image_use_prohibited" means nothing to the person stealing then a little comment is not going to help.
I really do not think that a partially desaturated watermark takes away from the image. it is still good enough for stock sites to be able to have on there and still sell stock.
The US copyright website is nice, but since not all members live in the USA it is a mute point.
If a member wants help with editing an image they can quite easily not watermark that image (since I am talking about an option) or they can upload a non watermarked version to their workshop and link to it, so that would not be effected at all.
I am not caring so much about individuals taking images for their own enjoyment, but when you have the situation I did last week where my image was being used to promote a money making event...that is what ticks me off.
I am really not trying to cause controversy or argue with anyone, just have healthy discussion. :)
thanks for the input. |
I agree about Langon having to be careful. This has been discussed ad-nauseum.
Stock sites are not there for photographic beauty and enjoyment, they are there to sell an image. Period.
It's a moot point, btw.
You had also suggested disabling right-click saves. That is what moved me to say that it would deter the learning and practice process. Not watermarking. ;)
I stated watermarking disrupts the pleasure of viewing an image. You will find many here with that opinion. Like you said, it is a fine line to walk. :)
Understandably you are mad about your image being taken. I would be too.
I didn't say that placing the copyright statement would be a fix all, but most people don't even notice the "copyright_image_reuse_prohibited" at the end of the file name. If they see the copyright statement, maybe it will let them know that you will seriously hunt them down and burn their village if they steal from you. Possibly an added scare tactic. NOT meant to be a fix-all. Just a suggestion anyway. That's pretty much the only option you have right now other than not putting them on the web in the first place.
Like  yanko said, if someone is hell bent on getting your image, they will not care if you mark it, disable saving it, etc... they will just find a way to take it and do what they want anyway.
Sad, but true... |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 07:59:56 PM · #32 |
I know I don't have much voice here and I understand where both parties are coming from, I might have a solution that could solve some of the issues.
I don't remember where I saw it but there is a flash overlay that D&L could code into the site so that it overlays the all of the images. Here's the upside to it, you only need one SWF file and call it to every image that way it covers all the images without using up a ton of space.
The swf file has lines that blink on and off and move side to side randomly so if someone were to right click they would get the flash menu, if they print screen they get lines all over the image, if they view source they see the flash file again and all in all it's a safe image.
Someone mentioned that they are small images and they can't make prints from them but I don't think that is the point here. I think the fact that the image was still stolen and used against the owners consent is still wrong. If you steal a penny or a billion dollars it's still theft right?
I know that a lot of people have told me that my copyright image is loud and uncalled for but that is it's job and I have had people contact me over using my images, You might want to consider it E.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:02:53 PM · #33 |
Dang! Talk about bringing on the torches!
It's funny how many people on this site get up in arms when images from DPC are found on some other site. It's like a mass army rallying to help get those "stolen" images taken down. How dare they, right? Yet, one of our own mentions something that may help deter some of that with a watermark, and out come the masses in reverse. I don't get it.
Watermarks do not have to be invasive. I've used a light watermark on images posted to my Smugmug site and they get plenty of views (and I have the option to stop right-click, which I take advantage of). Smugmug is not some fly-by-night organization, yet they offer the option. Anyway, I'm getting off track...
Anyone remember Skip? He "proofed" all of his images in his portfolio here. How about Brad? He's active at DPC, successful at what he does, and he watermarks his portfolio images also.
I think it was Brad or Shannon ( Scalvert) that mentioned where someone had borrowed a small image and using professional resampling software was able to turn that small low rez image into a book cover jacket.
As for beating a dead horse...how many threads are created on a weekly basis about "trolls", "not enough comments", "comments without substance", "the demise of this site and losing quality photographers", etc, etc, ...
Give basssman7 a break. He found his image used in a manner that was not "educational" or "recreational" in use. Again - how is that so different from the big "another stolen image" thread?
His idea has merit (and yes it's been discussed before - big whoop!). |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:08:36 PM · #34 |
I would like the OPTION of being able to add a watermark AFTER the challenge. It would be a nice bonus to have on my DPC images. That is all.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:16:21 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
My feeling has always been that if you have a picture that you're worried about people stealing, don't put it on the Internet in any way, shape or form.
Watermarking the images would suck a lot of the enjoyment out of voting on the challenges, in my opinion. |
What he said. Not just voting though... It would suck a lot of enjoyment out of the site in general. If you're worried about piracy, don't post or don't post high res... |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:18:26 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Give basssman7 a break. |
What would constitute giving him a break? Agreeing with him? Btw, Brad and Skip don't show their portfolios. They are either hidden or they were removed.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 20:18:46. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:25:39 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I know I don't have much voice here and I understand where both parties are coming from, I might have a solution that could solve some of the issues.
I don't remember where I saw it but there is a flash overlay that D&L could code into the site so that it overlays the all of the images. Here's the upside to it, you only need one SWF file and call it to every image that way it covers all the images without using up a ton of space.
The swf file has lines that blink on and off and move side to side randomly so if someone were to right click they would get the flash menu, if they print screen they get lines all over the image, if they view source they see the flash file again and all in all it's a safe image.
Someone mentioned that they are small images and they can't make prints from them but I don't think that is the point here. I think the fact that the image was still stolen and used against the owners consent is still wrong. If you steal a penny or a billion dollars it's still theft right?
I know that a lot of people have told me that my copyright image is loud and uncalled for but that is it's job and I have had people contact me over using my images, You might want to consider it E.
|
That's similar to the transparent pixel trick. The problem is browsers cache web pages when you view them. In other words, all the graphics, photos and other files are downloaded automatically into a cache folder. So I don't need to right click, just browse for it on your own computer.
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 20:26:31. |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:27:47 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I know that a lot of people have told me that my copyright image is loud and uncalled for but that is it's job and I have had people contact me over using my images, You might want to consider it E.
|
Can I copy yours? LMAO! :)
@ gladtobeadad, thanks. :) |
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:33:34 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by yanko:
That's similar to the transparent pixel trick. The problem is browsers cache web pages when you view them. In other words, all the graphics, photos and other files are downloaded automatically into a cache folder. So I don't need to right click, just browse for it on your own computer. |
You're right you could but the downside to that is there are only a handful of people that know how to do that and even the time it would take to search all of the folders to find that one image would be more trouble than it's worth so lets say that if you have 100 people all trying to get the same image about 70% of them would move on if they couldn't right click, then another 25% would say forget it if there was a clear pixel or a flash image in front of the actual image they were after. Leaving 5% of the smarter people trying to get the image, 3% would give up after looking for 20 minutes and I have to say that 2% is much easier to email and ask them to remove the image from their site than 100% right??
In any situation for theft if someone wants it bad enough they will get it. The point is to filter out as many as you can and hopefully cause more trouble to steal the image or anything for that matter.
So if we can add something like that to the site I think it would be good but again my voice is the size of an ant.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:34:31 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I know that a lot of people have told me that my copyright image is loud and uncalled for but that is it's job and I have had people contact me over using my images, You might want to consider it E.
|
Can I copy yours? LMAO! :)
@ gladtobeadad, thanks. :) |
I basically used this idea from Leroy and made my own image but if you were to find one of his they are vary similar.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:35:05 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by yanko:
That's similar to the transparent pixel trick. The problem is browsers cache web pages when you view them. In other words, all the graphics, photos and other files are downloaded automatically into a cache folder. So I don't need to right click, just browse for it on your own computer. |
I think maybe some people are over thinking this. I know that there is no way to absolutely keep people from stealing an image. If you can see it on your screen you can get it. However dpc is a great place for poachers to go because there is a large number of high quality photos all in one place to steal from. Having some or all of these options put into play will not stop a determined person, but for most it will be enough to make it not worth their effort and they will go and steal somewhere else. That to me makes it worthwhile.
My point is that
1. a not very noticable watermark would help, but do with after voting and give people the option to do it or not so then we have a choice.
2. disabling right clicking and direct linking will not solve the problem either, but just doing those two things (even without a watermark, which is what I would prefer) will significantly reduce the poaching. Just because it will not totally solve it does not mean it is not a step in the right direction and worthwhile.
Again, thanks for the input. Let's please discuss without hostility.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:38:36 PM · #42 |
okay I found his here it is:
Message edited by author 2008-11-04 20:38:55.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2008 08:53:52 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
My point is that
1. a not very noticable watermark would help, but do with after voting and give people the option to do it or not so then we have a choice. |
This will only help deter casual people. The very people you claim that you aren't trying to deter. However, an option is usually never a bad thing. I can't in all honesty argue against having an option.
Originally posted by basssman7:
2. disabling right clicking and direct linking will not solve the problem either, but just doing those two things (even without a watermark, which is what I would prefer) will significantly reduce the poaching. Just because it will not totally solve it does not mean it is not a step in the right direction and worthwhile. |
Define "significantly". What do you base this on? Are you using every single person that finds DPC and puts a shot on their desktop? Are you basing it on professional image stealers? Do you have data culled from similar websites that have tried similar anti-theft deterrents? Is there something you aren't sharing? I think one of the main problems I have is that it's always some kind of hypothetical that is being used as the argument for this kind of over-haul. Perhaps that's also why it keeps getting shot down. Just putting that out there. Again, I can't really say that I'm against it as an option.
Originally posted by basssman7:
Again, thanks for the input. Let's please discuss without hostility. |
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 01:01:29. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 12:59:03 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Again, thanks for the input. Let's please discuss without hostility. |
Just be sure to remember that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are hostile. :) |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:17:35 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Again, thanks for the input. Let's please discuss without hostility. |
Just be sure to remember that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are hostile. :) |
Back at ya. :) |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 08:20:19 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Originally posted by yanko:
That's similar to the transparent pixel trick. The problem is browsers cache web pages when you view them. In other words, all the graphics, photos and other files are downloaded automatically into a cache folder. So I don't need to right click, just browse for it on your own computer. |
You're right you could but the downside to that is there are only a handful of people that know how to do that and even the time it would take to search all of the folders to find that one image would be more trouble than it's worth so lets say that if you have 100 people all trying to get the same image about 70% of them would move on if they couldn't right click, then another 25% would say forget it if there was a clear pixel or a flash image in front of the actual image they were after. Leaving 5% of the smarter people trying to get the image, 3% would give up after looking for 20 minutes and I have to say that 2% is much easier to email and ask them to remove the image from their site than 100% right??
In any situation for theft if someone wants it bad enough they will get it. The point is to filter out as many as you can and hopefully cause more trouble to steal the image or anything for that matter.
So if we can add something like that to the site I think it would be good but again my voice is the size of an ant. |
It's a couple of clicks in most browsers. Tools->Page Info->Media in my particular browser (stock install, nothing downloaded, nothing to add to support this) and there's a list of all the images and options to save them off. Little thumbnail previews. Simple. No searching, no trouble. If you want to use Internet Explorer, on a site that has a lot of right click protection, you can use the 'Save As' option and give it a directory. Again, this isn't obscure or difficult or time consuming. It may take you a couple of seconds more to open the folder and find the image you saved - but there's no searching.
If you don't know how to do it, a quick google search can explain it all, too. Here's a quick example from a site that uses a lot of right click blocking and protection, to the point that I stopped visiting them.
It frustrates legitimate users, while doing nothing to stop even casual image theft, beyond telling people they shouldn't do it. The file name already does that.
It is pretty simple. If you can see it on your screen, you can copy it trivially. We could present everything in a flash frame, which would stop various browsers from working and confuse different operating systems. Quite a few people refuse to view images presented in flash for these sorts of reasons - but it can stop the saving option. Then you'd have to press the PrintScreen button and copy. A few seconds more. Again if it's on the screen it is easy to copy and information on how to do it is easily available. This isn't arcane or secret knowledge known to only a few percent of internet users.
The only way to stop theft is to obscure it to the point that the picture can't be easily seen. That's what stock sites do to protect their assests. There are plenty of companies using stock images still with the watermarks on them in advertising campaigns and internet use. If DPC wants to become more of a commercial site and stop people seeing images properly, watermarks is the way to go.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 08:34:58. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 08:45:11 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
... If DPC wants to become more of a commercial site and stop people seeing images properly, watermarks is the way to go. |
Watermarks do not have to be intrusive, nor will they dampen the viewing experience, if they are applied sensibly.
One of the points made here by basssman7 was that should some lift/borrow/steal (call it what you want) an image with a watermark on it, at least the original photographer would get credit for it (viewers would know where it originated based on the watermark).
Also, I firmly believe a watermark would deter MANY from posting images, "borrowed" from DPC, on other sites because it would much more difficult to make the work appear as their own.
Best way to provide this as a service to DPC'rs, for challenge entries, is to provide it as an option available to the user community.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2008 09:09:44 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Gordon:
... If DPC wants to become more of a commercial site and stop people seeing images properly, watermarks is the way to go. |
Watermarks do not have to be intrusive, nor will they dampen the viewing experience, if they are applied sensibly. |
That's certainly a valid opinion, but not one that I'd agree with or have seen a good example of. If the watermarks aren't intrusive, they'll be ignored, cropped off the side, etc. If they are intrusive, they will be effective and dampen the viewing experience.
In other words, if they are going to be effective, they have to effectively obscure the image. If they don't, then they don't work. Corbis is a good example of this - they use small, unobtrusive watermarks that would be easily removed if you wanted to and had 5 minutes to spare. The people lifting work to claim as their own can no doubt spend the time. Corbis do it that way because I assume they don't want to treat most of their users as thieves, but want to help people track images back to where they can purchase them from, from comps and workups. If they wanted to stop theft, they'd use a big watermark smack in the middle of the image where it can't be removed easily (and would obscure the image they want people to see)
That's without discussing the fact that the place will start looking like a stock site. There are those who might say it already does.
I'm sympathetic to this. I've had plenty of images stolen. I've even had ideas ripped off and published where a shot was copied completely. It's probably cost me quite a bit of money and the occasional prize and that's just the cases I'm aware of. This is a good example. The description is even similar to the one here. Watermarks or right clicking doesn't do anything to stop that sort of thing.
But that doesn't mean bad non-solutions that don't do anything useful (like right click blocking) or things that harm the experience for the vast majority of legitimate site users (like watermarking) are good answers to your frustration.
I'd prefer the site to be more like a gallery than a marketplace. That comes with certain risks that I feel outweigh the drawbacks. We could place huge 'don't steal this' ads all around every image too - it would be as effective and as effectively damaging to the look and feel of the place. Some people have chosen to do that in their comments and I think their images suffer as a result, because it distracts from looking at them. That's their choice. The difference with watermarks is that you force the choice on everyone who looks at your image, if it is on the the front page.
Message edited by author 2008-11-05 11:14:21. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 01:37:47 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
[
The difference with watermarks is that you force the choice on everyone who looks at your image, if it is on the the front page. |
I don't think that anyone was suggesting watermarking the thumbnails. |
|
|
|
11/05/2008 02:01:02 PM · #50 |
So, any of us can watermark our non-challenge entries in our portfolios to our heart's delight....
As a test, a challenge or two could be special "watermarks allowed--not required" puppies. I suspect that images with watermarks will score poorly compared to those without--but a a couple of "test" challenges could prove or disprove that. We would also get to see what percentage of entrants would actually take advantage of the watermark allowance.
I suggest a Free Study be used--some really excellent work in those challenges, and typically 400+ entries--we would really get to see the impact of watermarks on voting, and the number of photographers who bother with watermarks at all. If one's primary interest here is scoring well in challenges, and watermarks would prevent that anyway, then one has a decision to make.....
I think the idea of a higher priced member fee for those who wish to have a "no right clicking" feature added to their images is a win-win solution: those who value it can pay for it. No impact at all to the rest who are not concerned.
Since some of the benefit of the site is members posting an image, asking for suggestions--a global right-click prevention would hinder the "here's my edit suggestion" sorta exchange
As already noted, the only sure protection is not to post images at all. My method is more subtle--images so dull that no one would want to steal them, anyway :-) |
|
