| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2007 10:48:10 PM · #51 |
Okay I just wanted to make sure that you were sending it to the right place. I was going to post this link for people to see how to have their images protected.
A lot of people know that they have to have copyright protection on images and much more but fail to get it and pay for it. So they add copyright logos, or say that it is copyrighted.
Just an FYI for everyone. If you put your images/files/text/whatever online EXPECT it to be stolen. Sad but true. The advantage to having something copyrighted is that you can take things a bit further and take them to court. My suggestion is either don't post pictures if you don't want them stolen, you pay for them like Johnna does, or just deal with it.
Some people add pictures to their images like  idnic does saying that the image is protected. Now Off my head I don't know if she actually pays or had paid for them to be protected or not but trust me if I wanted to take them I would think twice because of that picture.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 10:58:23 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by elemess:
Can anybody translate Arabic? Google's translation is sketchy at best and Babelfish doesn't have Arabic.
I'd like to know what she titled my picture. And what the text on the photo is. Oh, and the poem she wrote for it.
(I'm so proud - it's my first stolen shot! Yay me!) |
i can translate if you still want , but i am not sure where your picture is so if you can put the linkn ont he page th epicture is posted on, i'll let you know |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 11:12:00 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by zaflabout:
Originally posted by elemess:
Can anybody translate Arabic? Google's translation is sketchy at best and Babelfish doesn't have Arabic.
I'd like to know what she titled my picture. And what the text on the photo is. Oh, and the poem she wrote for it.
(I'm so proud - it's my first stolen shot! Yay me!) |
i can translate if you still want , but i am not sure where your picture is so if you can put the linkn ont he page th epicture is posted on, i'll let you know |
That would help, wouldn't it?
Here it is. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 11:25:03 PM · #54 |
the title is :
literal trasnlation
water runs through my "veins"(i am not sure if it's veins) and irrigates them.
basically her veins are thirsty and needs water:)
**********************************
now the poem:
(my understanding of it)
my bones get warm from it's light,
the water runs throug my veins and irrigate them
for you , the one that makes me thirsty,
drink before dirt comes in the pure water
nothing will last forever,
sooner or later something is going to block your way.
*************************************
i am not sure of the last two verse
i must say she has pretty solid vocab
hope that was helpfull,
if anyone else need trasnlation let me know
cheers,
|
|
|
|
04/13/2007 11:23:29 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by zaflabout:
the title is :
literal trasnlation
water runs through my "veins"(i am not sure if it's veins) and irrigates them.
basically her veins are thirsty and needs water:)
**********************************
now the poem:
(my understanding of it)
my bones get warm from it's light,
the water runs throug my veins and irrigate them
for you , the one that makes me thirsty,
drink before dirt comes in the pure water
nothing will last forever,
sooner or later something is going to block your way.
*************************************
i am not sure of the last two verse
i must say she has pretty solid vocab
hope that was helpfull,
if anyone else need trasnlation let me know
cheers, |
Thanks! I figured it was something innocuous, but wanted to be sure. |
|
|
|
04/13/2007 03:12:14 PM · #56 |
| HAHHAHHA!!! I just got a note from Yahoo! They took my image off her page :) Lovely people :) |
|
|
|
04/13/2007 03:50:56 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
HAHHAHHA!!! I just got a note from Yahoo! They took my image off her page :) Lovely people :) |
That's great! Nice to see that they did the right thing ...hopefully they'll do the same for the rest of the 'borrowed' images ... |
|
|
|
04/13/2007 04:10:54 PM · #58 |
Hmm.. I just remembered it was only a few months back that the ban on flickr was lifted in dubai etc.. The user certainly worked pretty fast assembling her collection..
Perfect example of how ppl find it easy to dilute the ethics of copying pictures because of the nonchalance[sp] towards downloading music..
|
|
|
|
04/13/2007 06:13:06 PM · #59 |
wel if she borrowed the photos, there's a pretty good chance she borrowed the 'poem' as well...
the funny thing about people borrowing stuff from you - you never seem to get it back. when you loan something to them, on the other hand, the odds of it being returned seem a lot higher...
|
|
|
|
04/13/2007 07:47:05 PM · #60 |
My image is on there and quite frankly, since its such a small image and can be of no commercial value at all I dont see a problem (personally speaking).
As for the comments/faves? I know even though they are praising her for the image, the praise is indirectly aimed at me & its nice to see people enjoying the image. Maybe I am not making enough of a deal oout of it, but to be honest, it aint really bothering me that much. |
|
|
|
04/13/2007 09:37:36 PM · #61 |
Here is another one, at least they give credit and link names back to DPC.
Site |
|
|
|
04/13/2007 09:55:46 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Simms:
My image is on there and quite frankly, since its such a small image and can be of no commercial value at all I dont see a problem (personally speaking).
As for the comments/faves? I know even though they are praising her for the image, the praise is indirectly aimed at me & its nice to see people enjoying the image. Maybe I am not making enough of a deal oout of it, but to be honest, it aint really bothering me that much. |
But if everyone reported her, she would be more likely to not do it again. |
|
|
|
04/13/2007 09:58:18 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Here is another one, at least they give credit and link names back to DPC.
Site |
I don't think any of those people would be bothered by that though, it is not selling photography and is not claiming ownership or otherwise. They are just there as illustrations. |
|
|
|
04/13/2007 10:13:35 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Hmm.. I just remembered it was only a few months back that the ban on flickr was lifted in dubai etc.. The user certainly worked pretty fast assembling her collection..
Perfect example of how ppl find it easy to dilute the ethics of copying pictures because of the nonchalance[sp] towards downloading music.. |
I think she's based in Qatar and spends big chunks of time in UAE. Or the other way 'round. |
|
|
|
04/14/2007 12:57:54 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by elemess:
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Hmm.. I just remembered it was only a few months back that the ban on flickr was lifted in dubai etc.. The user certainly worked pretty fast assembling her collection..
Perfect example of how ppl find it easy to dilute the ethics of copying pictures because of the nonchalance[sp] towards downloading music.. |
I think she's based in Qatar and spends big chunks of time in UAE. Or the other way 'round. |
Lol! we're so involved in a perfect stranger's life...
|
|
|
|
04/14/2007 01:18:16 AM · #66 |
I was looking at the site that Jo-Jo gave us and I noticed Larus's picture on there so I did a google search on his name to see if anyone else did the same thing and I did NOT know that...
Larus is a large genus of seabirds to which most gulls belong. It has a world-wide distribution, and many of its species are abundant and well-known birds in their ranges.
They are in general medium to large birds, typically grey or white, often with black markings on the head or wings. They have stout, longish bills and webbed feet.
The taxonomy of the large gulls in the Herring and Lesser Black-backed complex is very complicated, different authorities recognising between two and eight species. See also Hybridisation in gulls.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2007 01:18:48 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
Hmm.. I just remembered it was only a few months back that the ban on flickr was lifted in dubai etc.. The user certainly worked pretty fast assembling her collection..
Perfect example of how ppl find it easy to dilute the ethics of copying pictures because of the nonchalance[sp] towards downloading music.. |
DPC motto: hope for the best, prepare for the worst..if nothing else works then take pics of hot girls...
Isn't that motto the truth!!!
Message edited by author 2007-04-14 01:19:29.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2007 01:20:28 AM · #68 |
which by the way i went to the flickr site too and reported her 2 days ago. So maybe that helped some too.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2007 01:27:11 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
Larus is a large genus of seabirds to which most gulls belong. It has a world-wide distribution, and many of its species are abundant and well-known birds in their ranges. |
Doesn't that constitute group entries and sharing of an account and therefore shouldn't they (the Laruses ...Lareese? ...Lari?) be banned from the site? |
|
|
|
04/14/2007 01:30:09 AM · #70 |
she stole annah's  as well without giving any credit:
//www.flickr.com/photos/dala3_al-thani/282563457/
the crazy thing is she got same number of faves and even more comments than annah got for this picture!!! |
|
|
|
04/14/2007 06:05:59 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
which by the way i went to the flickr site too and reported her 2 days ago. So maybe that helped some too. |
I sure hope it does (help). I would hope that everyone with a bootlegged picture there takes the 2 minutes it takes to fill out an NOI and send it to Yahoo! so this girl understands that she can't go around doing things like that.
(btw, to report an incident of infringement, all you have to do is click the report abuse link at the bottom of the page. it will give instructions) |
|
|
|
04/14/2007 06:14:26 AM · #72 |
I disagree (surprise surprise), I have emailed asking her to put a link to my DPC profile and to properly credit me. I have no issues with my work reaching a wider audience, but as long as I am properly credited and the viewers given a means to look at my other work.
If she was making money out of it then it would be a different kettle of fish, but personally, if my work is being admired from a crowd away from DPC, then surely thats a good thing. Maybe you should all broaden your horizons and look at the bigger picture.
I mean, the image has been favourited more times than on DPC, and is being admired by a less photography orientated audience, its nice to hear comments from those not analysing every single aspect of the processing and maoning about graininess and hear `Dave Average` saying
"Wow, what an amazing photo"..
Self indulgent? yes, but its nice to have ones images enjoyed.
But if you guys want to limit the exposure your images recieve then feel free to ask her to take them down and stop others enjoying them.
But wait a tick, what if one of these average users likes it so much they contact me (using the link she hopefully puts up) and offer me XXX amount for a fullsize print.. Damn, I hope even more of my pictures are used on non-profit sites!
Did I mention that in the email I actually invited her to visit my DPC profile and use any other images in a non-commercial capacity. I certainly hope she does.
Message edited by author 2007-04-14 06:30:22. |
|
|
|
04/14/2007 06:23:32 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
HAHHAHHA!!! I just got a note from Yahoo! They took my image off her page :) Lovely people :) |
YAAAAYYY, Great, your have just limited your exposure as a photographer!
like I said, make it work for you, send her an email asking to link to your DPC challenge profile. Or even your microstock gallery if you have one. Or a link to the DPC-Prints! version of it.
So many opportunites wasted.
Message edited by author 2007-04-14 06:31:06. |
|
|
|
04/14/2007 05:02:46 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
A lot of people know that they have to have copyright protection on images and much more but fail to get it and pay for it. So they add copyright logos, or say that it is copyrighted.
/snip/
Now Off my head I don't know if she actually pays or had paid for them to be protected or not but trust me if I wanted to take them I would think twice because of that picture. |
Just to make sure everyone understands, you need not pay to have your images protected by copyright law. They are protected as soon as they are "recorded" on your SD card (or on film, or on photo paper, or however you've created them). Protection is automatic. You do not "lose" copyright protection by not registering. Registering has some marginal benefits for those of us for whom this is not our primary gig, but they are not actually very significant.
Not only that, it's likely that your images are protected in most countries, even if you are not "from" those countries (so long as you live in a country that subscribes to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works -- this is now every member nation of the WTO, which is just about everyone -- your work is protected in all other Berne convention countries). You can register, and there are circumstances where you might be required to (some countries require this if you want to enforce copyright in the courts), but for threatening, seeking take-downs of your images, etc., it's generally not necessary.
That said, for those of you (like  simms) who are looking for wider distribution, consider licensing your portfolio under a Creative Commons license. Choose your terms; you can make it so people cannot change it, but can use it for non-commercial purposes; can use it and change it for non-commercial purposes; can use it for any purpose; etc. "Attribution" is required in most creative commons licenses(that is, they have to say it's your image).
There are a variety of Creative Commons licenses available.
I am a creative commons adherent. My images are generally released under a Creative Commons License (though I reserve the right to impose a more restrictive license in some cases, especially as to images of my family). I am preparing to go through and put additional restrictions on some images (such as those of my daughter, for example, which I don't want changed by others).
If what you want is for your images to be seen, to be enjoyed, Creative Commons gives you that option. The licenses are enforcible, by the way, and some of the uses made that started this thread would have been in violation of most Creative Commons licenses (where the use was unattributed).
Something to think about.
Rob
P.S. I should acknowledge that I play a formal role in a sub-group of Creative Commons, but I don't get paid for that involvement or have any financial interest in Creative Commons other than as a volunteer.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2007 05:42:27 PM · #75 |
Fantastic reply, defintely `post of the week` in my opinion. Great info.
Originally posted by rheverly:
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
A lot of people know that they have to have copyright protection on images and much more but fail to get it and pay for it. So they add copyright logos, or say that it is copyrighted.
/snip/
Now Off my head I don't know if she actually pays or had paid for them to be protected or not but trust me if I wanted to take them I would think twice because of that picture. |
Just to make sure everyone understands, you need not pay to have your images protected by copyright law. They are protected as soon as they are "recorded" on your SD card (or on film, or on photo paper, or however you've created them). Protection is automatic. You do not "lose" copyright protection by not registering. Registering has some marginal benefits for those of us for whom this is not our primary gig, but they are not actually very significant.
Not only that, it's likely that your images are protected in most countries, even if you are not "from" those countries (so long as you live in a country that subscribes to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works -- this is now every member nation of the WTO, which is just about everyone -- your work is protected in all other Berne convention countries). You can register, and there are circumstances where you might be required to (some countries require this if you want to enforce copyright in the courts), but for threatening, seeking take-downs of your images, etc., it's generally not necessary.
That said, for those of you (like simms) who are looking for wider distribution, consider licensing your portfolio under a Creative Commons license. Choose your terms; you can make it so people cannot change it, but can use it for non-commercial purposes; can use it and change it for non-commercial purposes; can use it for any purpose; etc. "Attribution" is required in most creative commons licenses(that is, they have to say it's your image).
There are a variety of Creative Commons licenses available.
I am a creative commons adherent. My images are generally released under a Creative Commons License (though I reserve the right to impose a more restrictive license in some cases, especially as to images of my family). I am preparing to go through and put additional restrictions on some images (such as those of my daughter, for example, which I don't want changed by others).
If what you want is for your images to be seen, to be enjoyed, Creative Commons gives you that option. The licenses are enforcible, by the way, and some of the uses made that started this thread would have been in violation of most Creative Commons licenses (where the use was unattributed).
Something to think about.
Rob
P.S. I should acknowledge that I play a formal role in a sub-group of Creative Commons, but I don't get paid for that involvement or have any financial interest in Creative Commons other than as a volunteer. |
|
|
