|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2010 05:56:28 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by keyz:
So , good news everyone ... i'm thinking to do a firefox plugin to unwatermark all photos. Next rainy sunday, it should be done... |
I am sure there would be some legal consequences to doing that.... I also think that when you purposely create something that disregards the wishes of the photographer that owns the image, as well as the owner of the site that you would be in violation of terms of use which would get your membership terminated as well as anyone else that uses your plug-in, and likely a lot more then just that:
2.4 If DPChallenge.com determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that you will breach a term or condition of this Agreement by designing, manufacturing, marketing or selling a Product that infringes the rights of others or otherwise does not meet the standards of DPChallenge.com, DPChallenge.com may cancel any order for such Product without any liability to you or any third party
and also: 4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that (i) infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, rights of privacy and publicity, (ii) is libelous, defamatory or slanderous, (iii) condones, promotes, contains or links to warez, cracks, hacks or similar utilities or programs, (iv) contains explicitly sexual content, (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise, (vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others, (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages the use of drugs or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.
and let's not forget:
5.7 Manipulation. Registered Users may not: (a) use any device, software or routine in any attempt to interfere or disrupt the Website; |
All fine. But do you think that a non-member would care? Or do we want to close the complete site to anyone who is not signed in?
This is not difficult to script and likewise you can outsmart explorer or any other browser. So it is a thing to look into.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2010 06:07:26 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
These are tough times and I heard there are people in this thread willing to pay for annoying members to leave. Let's start the bidding at $50... |
Well I’m mighty grateful you think I’m worth that much, or at least the riddance of…;p |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 06:20:23 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by macrothing:
Ahh, civility.
If every good photographer with strong views in the Forums were pushed out of DPC, you'd be left with a 'harmonious' Forum and a poorer collection of Photography. Most 'artists' have strong views & personalities, just because you don't like what they say (this place isn't primarily about forum writings), doesn't mean they aren't good at 'art'. I rarely read the Forums so don't really know the issues some of you seem to have with  Ivo, but I do look at the photographs and would miss seeing images of the calibre of Ivo. I also think DPC would be poorer without that 'contribution'.
|
Totally agree. You have great images and a keen eye and would be missed dearly if you left Ivo. Just cut the attitude! As you know I visited your profile page and was truly amazed at some of your images, great stuff. So be nice and snap your shutter instead of your mouth. ;| |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 06:22:43 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
All fine. But do you think that a non-member would care? Or do we want to close the complete site to anyone who is not signed in?
This is not difficult to script and likewise you can outsmart explorer or any other browser. So it is a thing to look into. |
why would you be encouraging something that is clearly against TOS, not to mention encourages image theft? So why would you want to "look into" it? |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 06:27:24 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by keyz:
So , good news everyone ... i'm thinking to do a firefox plugin to unwatermark all photos. Next rainy sunday, it should be done... |
I am sure there would be some legal consequences to doing that.... I also think that when you purposely create something that disregards the wishes of the photographer that owns the image, as well as the owner of the site that you would be in violation of terms of use which would get your membership terminated as well as anyone else that uses your plug-in, and likely a lot more then just that:
2.4 If DPChallenge.com determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that you will breach a term or condition of this Agreement by designing, manufacturing, marketing or selling a Product that infringes the rights of others or otherwise does not meet the standards of DPChallenge.com, DPChallenge.com may cancel any order for such Product without any liability to you or any third party
and also: 4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that (i) infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, rights of privacy and publicity, (ii) is libelous, defamatory or slanderous, (iii) condones, promotes, contains or links to warez, cracks, hacks or similar utilities or programs, (iv) contains explicitly sexual content, (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise, (vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others, (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages the use of drugs or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.
and let's not forget:
5.7 Manipulation. Registered Users may not: (a) use any device, software or routine in any attempt to interfere or disrupt the Website; |
I'm sure that it wouldn't be well considered to diffuse such plugin, but if it give me the possibility to see photos without watermarks, i'll do it.
I'm just talking about the fact that anyone can get original pictures, this works for full sized pics from your portfolio !!!
So when some people talk about protection ... i'm talking about the doors fully open too get all pictures. I'm not fighting with you or stealing your work: in security when you say you find a fail this is to improve the security of the system !!!!!
So point to point to your "@Ã [})## lawyer aggression:
2.4 I'm not manufacturing a product to rape your rights, i'm just using pictures available to anyone, you just don't see them
4.2 I don't promote warez and drug selling to eldery and the bad taste of stereotypical libelous defamatory generally offensive watermarks
5.7 I do not disrupt the website : I use it and I show problems that your should know if you think your images are protected.
So please understand i'm trying to improve security, my goal isn't to break the site or steal your pics.
Dear sir, madam, best regards and have a good light.
Edit : PS : In short just to be clear, I can forget it and never talk again about it. But HIDING THINGS IS NOT A SOLUTION IS NETWORK SECURITY.
Message edited by author 2010-02-12 18:46:01. |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 06:47:22 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by keyz:
but if it give me the possibility to see photos without watermarks, i'll do it |
I am pleased to see you testing the new watermark and checking for flaws in it. What I do not understand is how you can claim that is your purpose, and then creating a plug-in to exploit any flaws found and then offer it to the public. That completely kills your claim that you are checking for security flaws for the good of DPC. I also would like to point out that what you are talking about creating is a website hack to allow you to see images in a way not intended by the site or the owner of the photo. That is legally and morally wrong.
I have no problem accepting your word that you would never steal images, but can you be so sure that those you have already told how to exploit the loophole will not do so? If you create this plug-in, are you positive no one that uses it would ever steal an image because of it?
You are obviously a very intelligent person, so please use your smarts to help the site, not to try to render important site upgrades essentially useless. If you find a flaw, email site admin and explain it, instead of announcing it and offering it to the public.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2010 06:58:34 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
All fine. But do you think that a non-member would care? Or do we want to close the complete site to anyone who is not signed in?
This is not difficult to script and likewise you can outsmart explorer or any other browser. So it is a thing to look into. |
why would you be encouraging something that is clearly against TOS, not to mention encourages image theft? So why would you want to "look into" it? |
No, it is a thing to look into as in closing a loophole. We agreed we wanted this watermarking, so we must also look into and avoid getting around it.
It is not like I am looking into circumventing the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2010 07:00:04 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by keyz:
but if it give me the possibility to see photos without watermarks, i'll do it |
I am pleased to see you testing the new watermark and checking for flaws in it. What I do not understand is how you can claim that is your purpose, and then creating a plug-in to exploit any flaws found and then offer it to the public. That completely kills your claim that you are checking for security flaws for the good of DPC. I also would like to point out that what you are talking about creating is a website hack to allow you to see images in a way not intended by the site or the owner of the photo. That is legally and morally wrong.
I have no problem accepting your word that you would never steal images, but can you be so sure that those you have already told how to exploit the loophole will not do so? If you create this plug-in, are you positive no one that uses it would ever steal an image because of it?
You are obviously a very intelligent person, so please use your smarts to help the site, not to try to render important site upgrades essentially useless. If you find a flaw, email site admin and explain it, instead of announcing it and offering it to the public. |
I just deleted the (few and not enough) details to get original. And I found a flaw that should be called a 0-day flaw ... meaning from the creation of the current structure of the site that allow anyone to get full-sized pics from a portfolio. And this is REALLY easy to find.
All site I mentioned before is DPC. I'll never takes thoses pics to create my own database. They belong here, I respect photogs and I love the meaning of this website. Talking about releasing a plugin who allow you to see DPC as it was last week seem not so bad to me. In this way you can imagine what could be done by "picture thieves".
I talk about this to everybody, because everybody should know that pictures are not protected here. A part of my job is computer security, and when someone say "your secure" I like when it's true (and i'm not saying Langdon is lying).
Bassman7 : sorry I can't give you a like to a full-size pic from your PF because the few I looked are 720p ... same size as the one displayed.
I'll continue this debate sunday ... if I'm not banned. |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 07:27:16 PM · #134 |
keyz, here is my suggestion:
Landon is doing this on his own, he also has a job and wife. It is hard to cover everything that could possibly happen. So instead, why not just send him a PM with your thoughts and suggestion, ideas and solutions. It would make a lot of this arguments just go away and you wouldn't need to defend yourself or others get defensive. Just an idea |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 07:35:47 PM · #135 |
dang, there's that voice of reason raising it's head again. just when things were getting good.
;) :P :P :P |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 07:36:30 PM · #136 |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 07:37:59 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
All fine. But do you think that a non-member would care? Or do we want to close the complete site to anyone who is not signed in?
This is not difficult to script and likewise you can outsmart explorer or any other browser. So it is a thing to look into. |
why would you be encouraging something that is clearly against TOS, not to mention encourages image theft? So why would you want to "look into" it? |
No, it is a thing to look into as in closing a loophole. We agreed we wanted this watermarking, so we must also look into and avoid getting around it.
It is not like I am looking into circumventing the whole thing. |
Ok, sorry. I misunderstood your post. :) |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 07:47:03 PM · #138 |
| To be honest, I quite like Ivo, as annoying as he can be. I suspect he sits back and cackles heartily as he creates these little firestorms. But he is a decent photog. :-) |
|
|
|
02/12/2010 11:15:55 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
keyz, here is my suggestion:
Landon is doing this on his own, he also has a job and wife. It is hard to cover everything that could possibly happen. So instead, why not just send him a PM with your thoughts and suggestion, ideas and solutions. It would make a lot of this arguments just go away and you wouldn't need to defend yourself or others get defensive. Just an idea |
What?
So all of a sudden people are concerned with Langdon's having a life????
Where was all this concern when the loudmouths decided that Langdon didn't give two whits for the security of anyone's images as long as he had use of them to further his greedy, money-grubbing interests as site owner?
 keyz gets cute/sarcastic pointing out a pretty obvious and serious flaw and you jump him????
Where's the equity in that? This discussion has been pretty much nothing but a whipping post for Langdon the whole time, and nobody's said word omne......oh, my mistake, I've been roundly chastised for trying to point out the obvious that people willingly and knowingly uploaded their images. Then, of course, it became Langdon's problem when they got pissed off.
Somebody please explain to me how Langdon should feel anything but disgusted since no matter what he does, somebody bitches.
There's some serious motivation for doing hard work, huh!
Langdon.....kudos to ya......you continue to look forward, make changes, and progress for the betterment of the site DESPITE all that.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2010 11:27:48 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
This discussion has been pretty much nothing but a whipping post for Langdon the whole time... |
I think it was just one or two people complaining. Many expressed gratitude earlier in the thread. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 01:22:19 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
This discussion has been pretty much nothing but a whipping post for Langdon the whole time... |
I think it was just one or two people complaining. Many expressed gratitude earlier in the thread. |
Thats right, the majority of people on here voted for this and I would like to express my thanks to Langdon for his work in getting this implemented.
Lets face it - there are always people who will find fault with almost anything, you cant please all of us !
This thread is in danger of turning into a rant rather than a discussion, rant on if you want but please start a new thread that we can choose to ignore rather than use this one.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2010 01:25:55 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by Sevlow:
This thread is in danger of turning into a rant rather than a discussion, rant on if you want but please start a new thread that we can choose to ignore rather than use this one. |
Seriously! and what about the kids?!
No one has even mentioned the impact on future generations! |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 02:08:57 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
keyz, here is my suggestion:
Landon is doing this on his own, he also has a job and wife. It is hard to cover everything that could possibly happen. So instead, why not just send him a PM with your thoughts and suggestion, ideas and solutions. It would make a lot of this arguments just go away and you wouldn't need to defend yourself or others get defensive. Just an idea |
Yep, I'll do it. But it take a bit of time ... that I don't have much now.
Easy to crack & hard to protect. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 08:15:45 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
keyz, here is my suggestion:
Landon is doing this on his own, he also has a job and wife. It is hard to cover everything that could possibly happen. So instead, why not just send him a PM with your thoughts and suggestion, ideas and solutions. It would make a lot of this arguments just go away and you wouldn't need to defend yourself or others get defensive. Just an idea |
What?
So all of a sudden people are concerned with Langdon's having a life????
Where was all this concern when the loudmouths decided that Langdon didn't give two whits for the security of anyone's images as long as he had use of them to further his greedy, money-grubbing interests as site owner?
keyz gets cute/sarcastic pointing out a pretty obvious and serious flaw and you jump him????
Where's the equity in that? This discussion has been pretty much nothing but a whipping post for Langdon the whole time, and nobody's said word omne......oh, my mistake, I've been roundly chastised for trying to point out the obvious that people willingly and knowingly uploaded their images. Then, of course, it became Langdon's problem when they got pissed off.
Somebody please explain to me how Langdon should feel anything but disgusted since no matter what he does, somebody bitches.
There's some serious motivation for doing hard work, huh!
Langdon.....kudos to ya......you continue to look forward, make changes, and progress for the betterment of the site DESPITE all that. |
EXCUSE ME,,,, I have been nothing but supportive, so get off your high friggin horse and talk some sense for once in your life. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 08:38:14 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
keyz, here is my suggestion:
Landon is doing this on his own, he also has a job and wife. It is hard to cover everything that could possibly happen. So instead, why not just send him a PM with your thoughts and suggestion, ideas and solutions. It would make a lot of this arguments just go away and you wouldn't need to defend yourself or others get defensive. Just an idea |
What?
So all of a sudden people are concerned with Langdon's having a life????
Where was all this concern when the loudmouths decided that Langdon didn't give two whits for the security of anyone's images as long as he had use of them to further his greedy, money-grubbing interests as site owner?
keyz gets cute/sarcastic pointing out a pretty obvious and serious flaw and you jump him????
Where's the equity in that? This discussion has been pretty much nothing but a whipping post for Langdon the whole time, and nobody's said word omne......oh, my mistake, I've been roundly chastised for trying to point out the obvious that people willingly and knowingly uploaded their images. Then, of course, it became Langdon's problem when they got pissed off.
Somebody please explain to me how Langdon should feel anything but disgusted since no matter what he does, somebody bitches.
There's some serious motivation for doing hard work, huh!
Langdon.....kudos to ya......you continue to look forward, make changes, and progress for the betterment of the site DESPITE all that. |
I don't know Langdon at all but I think the man can take a little negative feedback, he is running a business here and if you can't take negative feedback once in a while you shouldn't be in business. He is, after all, the originator of this site and has seen thousands of customers come and go. He has probably the thickest skin here. Who are you Jeb? His personal assistant out to nail everyone who mentions one tiny iota of negativeness? You're sounding like you're looking for a job as a vice president of DPC or something. Calm down dude, sheesh. Then you attack Juliet.... I'll let her reply to your post.
ETA, I see Juliet has replied. Well said Juliet.
Message edited by author 2010-02-13 08:38:45. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 11:13:36 AM · #146 |
| I want some popcorn for this thread! Who has the icon! |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 12:41:27 PM · #147 |
| What is it with you lot, you're always rowing. Can I ask a question? Am I supposed to be able to see the waermark on the image when I open it? Are others supposed to be able to see the watermark? cos I can't, my husband can't see it on my pic when logged in as him and I can't see it if I open it when I am not logged in. Not a criticism or a moan, just a question, and Langdon, I think you're doin a fabulous job:) |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 01:36:50 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by lyn100:
What is it with you lot, you're always rowing. Can I ask a question? Am I supposed to be able to see the waermark on the image when I open it? Are others supposed to be able to see the watermark? cos I can't, my husband can't see it on my pic when logged in as him and I can't see it if I open it when I am not logged in. Not a criticism or a moan, just a question, and Langdon, I think you're doin a fabulous job:) |
You need to opt in to the watermark on your portfolio page: Portfolio>Portfolio Options>Watermark Options...
R. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 01:42:21 PM · #149 |
I'm not going to make this a long post, nor demand anything.
I think I understand Ivo's feelings on the matter, as one of ethics. If you saw an elderly person fall, you would try to help them up. It would not matter if they were paying you, nor if they expected you to be there, nor if they forgot to take their medications or should not have been out walking.
You would reach out and help them up.
DPC is in a position to watermark every entry regardless of account age or membership status. As others have pointed out watermarks while possibly ruining a photo can protect them from theft. So it seems to me also that the ethical thing to do by DPC would be to provide maximum protection, to every photographer.
That said, as I understand it, every image which is watermarked creates a duplicate which must be stored which as cheap as storage is is still a cost to DPC to provide this feature. There were also the man hours to implement the feature. To write the polls, tally the results. Also to listen to members input and provide feed back to them about this. Last but not least the time in hunting down bugs and getting things just right. Some of that is still pending.
So I think Ivo became fixated on seeing an old lady fall and being charged for help, and maybe not the costs of running this site and the time to implement new features. I don't really know but I felt I needed to say something on it.
Good day to all of you. |
|
|
|
02/13/2010 02:12:07 PM · #150 |
| But but... I don't want the watermark so DPC would be kicking me while I'm down, to use your example, rather than helping me up. It is an "opt in" feature, which is good in my opinion. And if you want to opt in, you need to also opt in on a membership. I don't think that is a horrible thing. As someone pointed out, if you REALLY want to, you can buy a one month membership at $5 to protect all your past challenge entries. If you are so concerned about someone stealing your image and wildly profitting from that theft, a $5 investment seems reasonable to me. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 06:25:17 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 06:25:17 PM EDT.
|
