No Spoilers-No Images-Just Info About the Dude.

07/20/2007 08:26:00 AM · #1

On another site I belong to, someone had the idea to view the EXIF data of the images of the photographed Harry Potter Book.

The Serial Number of the Camera is clearly part of the photos.

Personally, I feel the photographer should be found and turned over to the proper authorities for doing what he/she did.

Does anyone know of a method to quickly scan EXIF Data off of images posted to the net? It might be possible to track down multiple sites this person has previously posted images to. If that can be done, that information should be forwarded to the folks at Scholastic publishing.

BAMartin

Apple iPhone 5

07/20/2007 08:29:07 AM · #2

What did he/she do that was so bad?

07/20/2007 08:31:48 AM · #3

Originally posted by BAMartin:

What did he/she do that was so bad?

Someone got a hold of an advanced copy of the new Harry Potter book.

This person used a digital camera to snap images of every single page of the book. Not all of it is legible, still most of it is "good enough".

The result of this "work" has been used to spread spoilers about the novel and it also happens to be a major copy right infringement/violation.

EDIT: It was then posted to various web pages and has spread across the net, like wildfire. It's pretty damn rude and "dirty pool" as some would say.

Message edited by author 2007-07-20 08:32:34.

BAMartin

Apple iPhone 5

07/20/2007 08:40:19 AM · #4

Ooohhhh, I understand now. Wow, what a mean spirited person!

goc

Apple iPhone 4

07/20/2007 08:46:22 AM · #5

yea ... it's true, i checked couple of torrent sites and here are some stats :->

... Downloads: 1,027
... 314 seeders and 145 leechers
... Leechers : 1069 Seeders: 196
... Seeders: 506 Downloaders: 372

etc ...

ah. what can you do ? nothing.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/20/2007 08:49:09 AM · #6

What a dummy, it would have been so much easier (and neater) to just scan the images with a book scanner, and then you got a whole legible text in pdf.

And look at it this way: if this guy did it or not, spoilers would have been out the day the book came out anyway...people suck.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

07/20/2007 08:50:00 AM · #7

Taking images of the book is wrong but if they got the copy thru the shipping mistake and talked about it what is the issue?

Ben

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/20/2007 08:52:22 AM · #8

Yeah i wouldn't worry about it to much.
Life goes on.

07/20/2007 08:57:12 AM · #9

This is one of those things that happens all the time, if you run a search for books on any of the torrent sites, youll find millions of books, but nobody cares until they get pissed off by someone ruining something for them haha. Oh well, HARRY POTTER EXPLODES WHEN HERMIONE EATS THE BOOGER BEANS AND RON WEASLY RESURRECTS HIM WITH THE SHROUD OF TURIN!

07/20/2007 09:15:04 AM · #10

Sorry...

I suppose that there will be no reason to get up in arms if someone takes an image you created and spreads it free of charge or misrepresents it as your own work.

Really, I thought that there would be a spot of sympathy towards the author of the infringed work, here of all places.

07/20/2007 09:19:18 AM · #11

Im sure JK Rowlings or whatever is taking action if she wants to. But in all honesty, the vast majority will go out and buy the book anyway. Look at her target demographic as well...I doubt many of the 12 and under crowd are going on torrent sites and downloading files and then uncompressing them with separate applications in order to open them as pdf files so they can sit in front of their computer reading a 500 page book.

Ben

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/20/2007 09:19:34 AM · #12

As JK is a bit strapped for cash nowadays?

I doubt very much anyone would 'misrepresent it as their own work', and if someone downloads these 'scans' and cannot read some of the illegible sections or can read it all likes the book i would imagine most people would still purchase a copy of the book.

So relax. There are far more important things going on.

07/20/2007 09:19:46 AM · #13

Also - its not your work to get up in arms about.

Just sayin.

07/20/2007 09:20:13 AM · #14

Yo I heard that it was the taliban that did it!!!

07/20/2007 09:52:24 AM · #15

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

Also - its not your work to get up in arms about.

Just sayin.

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

Yo I heard that it was the taliban that did it!!!

Are both of these comments really called for?

As people who are (or at least should be) interested in the protections of copy right law for our own work, we should never get up in arms when someone else's copy right is seriously infringed? ...or we should simply stop being concerned about copy right protection once someone reaches a certain level of success?

Look what I got off your own site:

"All images are property of A.J. Sullivan Photography and may not be used without permission."

From what you've been saying in this thread, the above statement is meaningless, you don't believe in it. So, why did you even bother putting it onto your site?

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

As I understand it, the target demographic of the book has increased in age as the character and the original target group the book was written for has aged. You don't usually find many children's books detailing scenes of death targeted at 10 to 12 year old readers.

Message edited by author 2007-07-20 09:58:00.

07/20/2007 10:00:01 AM · #16

My thing is that this happens every day, and lets be honest, are you really out there every day busting copyright infringers? You mean to tell me that every piece of music you have on your computer youve paid for and that you would turn in people that you know for downloading without paying? No. You dont. But yet you are super quick to jump to arms about Harry Potter cause it ruined the ending for you. If you want to be the crusader of the e-universe and turn in every copyright infringer, then I would start attacking the torrent sites, the p2p services, and the local highschool.

I may be wrong, if so have fun with that, it seems pretty miserable.

TCGuru

Canon EOS-40D

07/20/2007 10:01:17 AM · #17

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

LOLOLOLOL You might just be surprised about that!! :)

To the OP:

I think it is perfectly crappy that someone would distribute a copy of the last book for nothing.

Everyone here has a careless attitude about it but if it were something that someone purchased from them and then copied and gave away freely, they would be singing a different tune. Think: Stolen Image/National Magazine/No Recognition or Pay.

I would be willing to bet that the offending person works at a book retail store or owns a retail store. Don't worry, Ms. Rowling will catch em, she always does :) AND, most of us that want to read the book already bought and paid for our advance copies weeks ago so that's not going to matter either... we will still read the ones we bought as well and she still gets the royalties :)

And before people start flaming, no, I will be waiting until I get my bought copy to read it. I also think that the thief was wrong on many levels and so are the many people reading the stolen book.

BTW, those numbers are awfully low... that is less than 1% of her fanbase :)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

07/20/2007 10:03:32 AM · #18

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

I don't care about the ending. I haven't any read of the books.

I own all the music on my PC, I own all the software on my PC.

I respect Copy Right Law because that law is designed to protect my right to economic gain for my work.

How can a person demand that copy right work for them and then ignore copy right for someone else? Again, why bother putting that copy right statement upon your web page, when copy right is absolutely meaningless to you?

Message edited by author 2007-07-20 10:03:45.

phatphoto

Nikon D200

07/20/2007 10:03:45 AM · #19

Originally posted by BAMartin:

Ooohhhh, I understand now. Wow, what a mean spirited person!

Damn muggles! :)

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/20/2007 10:06:13 AM · #20

Yeah, people who spoil endings of books/movies etc are pretty low individuals,

although, if you havent seen "The Sixth Sense".

Bruce Willis is a ghost all along...

hahahah..

However, if you have never seen "The Empire Strikes Back" you are in for a big surprise towards the end of that movie.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

07/20/2007 10:12:09 AM · #21

As far as target demographics, when the first books were first written, they were intended for adults. In an interview with JKR, she stated that she wouldn't even let her own child(ren) read them. He/she didn't even know about them until a classmate asked if JKR was his/her mother, and would there be another book, or something like that.

:)

It's been a while since I read it, but the gist was, her "target" was originally adults.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/20/2007 11:29:35 AM · #22

Originally posted by Nelzie:

Really, I thought that there would be a spot of sympathy towards the author of the infringed work, here of all places.

You mean like the common photographer practice of creating slideshows/websites of images with background music lifted from a CD or something without dist/usage rights?

Or maybe you mean the just grab a web-site you like and copy it's design without regard to the rights of the web/graphic designer?

* Do a search and you will find numerous examples of these and more here - I think the web-site one is still on the front page. Most are concerned with IP rights for what effects them directly, not for all.

Edit: I see your response to a later question. Good for you but most will have some music or software or website design lifted from elsewhere. All my MP3 music is from CD's I bought which is technically/possibly not legit but I don't care since I believe I am able to have a MP3 version of the CD I paid for despite what the music industry thinks. The bit I struggle with is the website design since it's part of my profession, I wonder sometimes if I don't unwittingly borrow from what I have seen over the years (experience is just familiarity in the end) and I am indirectly lifting somebody else's concept. I sort of say well we all learn by seeing what works and does not work in the bigger world and some of those ideas get incorporated into your head but.... anyway too esoteric for this conversation...

Message edited by author 2007-07-20 11:39:18.

07/20/2007 11:48:18 AM · #23

What I am saying, is that copyright law is good and grand and of course I would be angry if someone stole my work. [b]I[/] would go after them, who wouldn't.

I would expect anyone to protect their own work. My criticism is your watchdogging of it. Scholastic is a billion dollar company, JK is a muli millionaire. I think they have resources and the ability to handle THEIR business.

What I find absurd is you wanting to track down the guy who downloaded it and turn him in. As I said before, and you didnt address this portion, is: do you turn in anyone you know to the RIAA who has "illegal" mp3s? If not, why not?

Message edited by author 2007-07-20 11:48:58.

07/20/2007 12:17:08 PM · #24

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

do you turn in anyone you know to the RIAA who has "illegal" mp3s? If not, why not?

It's difficult to determine if someone has a legal or illegal mp3 on their device. MP3's don't have to have tags that can track someone via a serial number.

This guy deserves to get caught, by leaving all the EXIF data in the images he posted to the Internet. It's easy to strip out EXIF and it's easy to read EXIF.

Infringing upon other's Copy Right, because you believe you won't be caught doesn't make it okay to do, in the slightest.

Tracking down and pointing out infringed copy right protected work can be difficult for even the most wealthy. Drawing a line of who deserves the help of others in tracking based upon how much perceived or actual money the victim(s) have is kind of silly, in my opinion.

You haven't been around here long, or at least haven't had an account here for long. People from this site have helped other members track down infringed photos before and have also done so for people not associated with this site.

Copy right is there for you, it's there for me, it's there for JK Rowling, it's there for artists, writers and other folks who bring cultural and other value to the world. Trampling on Copy Right, because it is inconvenient to your pocket book, when it comes to buying someone else's work, while you will rely upon those same protections to fill your own pocketbook not only cheapens the protection, it can also significantly impact your ability to earn.

Why should anyone pay $.99 for the permanent (By backing up the file and what-not) use of a song when they can just copy it for free?

Why should anyone pay $15, $25, $50, $100 for one of your prints when they can just copy if for free or for much, much less than what you are charging?

Doesn't the artists who wrote and performed the song, or wrote the software you use or wrote the novel you read or whatever deserve just as much a chance to profit as you do?

I say they do.

You say they don't.