Stolen images and watermarks - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/22/2008 12:30:48 PM · #1

pineapple told us about the TinEye image search in this thread. I did what most of you probably did: I checked where some of my images show up on the Internet. TinEye has only indexed a fraction of the net so far, but still I could find some of my images.

I have to admit, I was pleased to see them being used. It means that people like and appreciate them. And I was a bit disappointed that I couldn't find any results (yet) for some of my favorite images.

Some participants here on DPC are very passionate when it comes to stolen images. My own reaction may be delight, outrage or anything in between, depending on what people do with the image. Let me try and categorize different uses and add my comments:

1. Linking
If someone links to one of my images (possibly even using a thumbnail), I am delighted. Go ahead.

2. Copying with credits
If someone copies one of my images, publishes it on their own site and mentions where they took it from (preferably including a link), I don't mind (except for case 6 listed below, this also applies to cases 3-5).

3. Copying without credits
If someone copies one of my images, publishes it on their own site and does not mention where it originally came from, I'm not too happy. However, I'm not harmed in any way by this, so I don't see any reason to freak out.

4. Copying and claiming as your own
If someone copies one of my images, publishes it on their own site and claims it as their own, I find this unfriendly. It's pretty pathetic and probably the person doing this has more problems of their own than I have with them using my image. ;-)

5. Copying and using for profit
If someone copies one of my images and uses it for profit, I find this unfriendly. However, I don't think there's much money to be made with an image of 600 x 400 pixels... So any action I could take would probably cost me more in time and trouble than anyone could ever make with the picture.

6. Use for objectionable site / purpose
If someone uses one of my images on a site promoting something I (and probably most people) find objectionable (racism, for example, or an unfriendly kind of business), I have a problem with that and I would ask them to stop using it.

7. Alteration
If someone edits one of my images and then publishes it somewhere, I probably won't like that (particularly when in connection with point 6). Well, it depends on how much of the original image remains and what the new image is used for. If you would like to use one of my images as a background for a photoshopped picture showing you shaking hands with Elvis or something like that, go ahead. ;-) (And a more general comment: I find it unfriendly to alter an artist's work, in all domains. As an example, I don't like it when movies are censored for certain countries and entire scenes are removed. Either show the whole thing as it was supposed to be shown or don't show it at all. Please don't mutilate it.)

These are all the cases I can think of right now (Well, all the cases you would find out about. If someone wants to download one of my pictures, print it and glue it to their bike or something, go ahead and enjoy - as long as it doesn't fall into category 6.). Let me know what your opinion is.

Now to a second point: Watermarking. Some photographers put a big watermark with their name or website in the middle of their pictures (they publish elsewhere, you obviously can't do this in challenges). Some have even suggested something similar should be done with challenge images after the voting period.

Watermarking makes cases 3-7 above more complicated. It results in people either not using the pictures at all or in them trying to remove the watermark and thereby mutilating the image. Both does not provide any benefit to me. And in addition, the watermark reduces the appeal of an image significantly, so that people are less likely to like it and link to it. Also not what I want.

For these reasons, I don't like watermarks. I actually find it tragic when a beautiful picture is ruined by a watermark. I love the work of

IreneM, for example, and I found it almost painful to see some of her best images ruined by a big watermark right in the middle of them on her personal website. I love to look at beautiful images like hers, examine the details and just enjoy the fascination. This experience is completely ruined with a big watermark in the middle...

I therefore think that watermarking does more harm than good when it comes to promoting one's work. I see only one situation where I think it is useful: If you want to provide a full-quality version of one of your images to someone (for whatever reason, to let them judge the print quality, for example), but want to prevent them from using it directly (without paying you, for instance).

Let me know what you think. (And sorry for the loooonnng post...)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/22/2008 12:40:02 PM · #2

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Let me know what you think.

I think it's refreshing to see someone taking a rational approach to the problem. ;-)

I think stock sites are obligated to watermark images, for the reasons you mentioned. If DPC enables watermarking, I'm pretty sure it will be optional.

lunensa

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

05/22/2008 12:44:32 PM · #3

Alright! I can't take it anymore! I have been bad :o( When I first got on this website, I LOVED the photography so much, I saved some onto my computer. I showed them to family and friends. I NEVER told them I took them or anything, and I showed them DPC, and showed who and where I got my images. (btw because of it, I became a member here, and my mother is considering it too...does that help?)

...but I did put them on my desktop. I just wanted to look at them more and see every detail and learn from the creativity on this website.

I can't take the guilt anymore! Am I bad? I have a feeling Sam94720 may not take it personally, but reading other forums I think others will.

And speaking on the subject, since it is...well...personal, I agree with you :o) There are people like me that are just wanting to learn and wanting to appreciate your work. But I know how passionate people are on this site, and I think they will probably disagree.

05/22/2008 12:48:00 PM · #4

lunensa, it brings more people to DPC and lets them enjoy our photos (and potentially even participate themselves).

Message edited by author 2008-05-22 12:48:54.

05/22/2008 12:53:39 PM · #5

Just one correction:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

As an example, I don't like it when movies are censored for certain countries and entire scenes are removed. Either show the whole thing as it was supposed to be shown or don't show it at all. Please don't mutilate it.)

These are typically never altered by anyone EXCEPT the person who holds the rights to the work.

Freedom of expression DOES NOT mean freedom of venue.

The venue, be it a country, theatre, Walmart, Target, whatever basically does what you ask. We cannot show, display, sell, rent, etc. your work of "art" because of X,Y, and or Z.

That's perfectly fine, it's their decision. The rightsholder -- not always the artist, sometimes the production company, etc. -- can then CHOOSE to edit their "art" to remove X, Y, and or Z based on how much they value the display/presentation in a particular venue vs. artistic integrity.

This is not CENSORSHIP. If an artist is prevented from creating the "art", then that would be wrong (except in cases of harm to children or others, obviously). But the artist can create his/her "art" and then stick it in a closet. They got to express themselves, but unless they own their own venue, they may have to alter things based on the sensibilites of the venue-owner.

If Walmart tells the record company that we won't sell a profanity laden rock album, that is 100% within their right. The next decision lies with the record company and possibly the artist. Alter it to sell more copies or keep our "vision", sell less, but be able to look at ourselves in the mirror.

05/22/2008 12:55:45 PM · #6

Originally posted by Sam94720:

I think downloading photos you like to your computer, using them as your desktop wallpaper or showing them to friends is totally ok. I would even encourage it.

It doesn't harm anyone, on the contrary. As your case shows, lunensa, it brings more people to DPC and lets them enjoy our photos (and potentially even participate themselves).

Actually, technically, it DOES harm someone, the photographer. They may choose to ignore it, but stealing is stealing is stealing. A paper clip from work or a pile of cash from a bank.

This "doesn't harm anyone" is the excuse people use to download software, movies, music, etc.

The right thing would be to ask permission.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/22/2008 01:00:07 PM · #7

Thanks for the correction,

HawkeyeLonewolf. If the artist is offered to either change their work themselves or it won't be displayed, that is absolutely legitimate in my view.

However, I have seen some movies on German television where they removed violent scenes and information was then missing to understand subsequent references. I thought this had been done by the TV station, but maybe it was indeed the production company... In any case, it ruined the movies.

togtog

Nikon D300

05/22/2008 01:02:54 PM · #8

I admit I am not always the most, copyright friendly, however when it comes to personal works I would never do something that might harm the author/artist/etc. As for how I feel about anything I create, I guess I draw the line, where someone else is benefiting off my work, without me sharing in that benefit.

However if it is for personal use, I would be more than happy if someone saved something I created and got enjoyment from it. I would rather lean on the side of freedom than locking something down so tight as to suffocate it. I believe art and the feelings that it creates in others to be one of mankind's greatest strengths.

After all, a bird in a cage is nice to look at, however a bird in the wild is truly beautiful.

05/22/2008 01:03:28 PM · #9

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Actually, technically, it DOES harm someone, the photographer.

Could you explain to me in what way I am harmed if

lunensa downloads one of my images, shows it to her friends or uses it as her wallpaper?

I also disagree about software, music, etc. - at least in some special cases, but I don't want to digress, let's keep this about images.

05/22/2008 01:08:22 PM · #10

And an additional comment on stealing: If you steal a paper clip from work or a pile of cash from a bank, it's missing there afterwards. Someone else has less while you have more.

In the fascinating world of digital information, this is not the case. No one loses anything if someone downloads their image.

05/22/2008 01:09:37 PM · #11

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Actually, technically, it DOES harm someone, the photographer.

Could you explain to me in what way I am harmed if lunensa downloads one of my images, shows it to her friends or uses it as her wallpaper?

I also disagree about software, music, etc. - at least in some special cases, but I don't want to digress, let's keep this about images.

Did you give permission? Not in this thread, but beforehand?

Now you may not care and you (or I) may give permission if asked. We may also post a message on all our images that they are free for the taking if we like.

But if not, then it is THEFT and THEFT is harmful. Not physically, but harmful nevertheless.

And a permissive or "it doesn't harm anyone" attitude results then in harm to OTHER photographers. Because the mindset becomes that this is an okay activity, I won't get caught, etc. Each photographer has the right to grant or deny permissions to their works.

However the default is that using the images is denied unless expressly permitted.

05/22/2008 01:14:47 PM · #12

Originally posted by Sam94720:

What if you were selling that image? But someone downloaded a copy. You lost a potential sale. And you devalued your actual sales.

This of course is all moot for a website. In order for someone to view your image, they must download it anyway. It goes from this server to their browser cache for display. So by default, we understand that by posting images here they are going to be "downloaded" in some form, whether actively or passively. However, this download does not give the user the right to use those images in any way they see fit either. Our "license" to them is that they can view it within the scope of this website, downloaded or not. They have no "license" to use the image for background, CD cover, etc.

Artists have 100% of the right to determine where, how, and when their images are used. It's not for the end-user to determine that no "harm" has been done, digital or physically.

And yes, this is the same with movies and music. Without the express rights given to you to download, it is theft.

05/22/2008 01:15:34 PM · #13

I don't think I need to give anyone permission to download my pictures. This is what they are here for. I uploaded them so that others could download them and look at them. Whenever someone visits the site they download pictures to their computer. The information is transferred from the server to their computer and stored there. Clicking on an image and choosing "Save as..." merely facilitates accessing them later.

And dogmatically saying "THEFT is harmful." does still not help me understand in what way I should be harmed if someone saves one of my pictures on their computer...

05/22/2008 01:18:01 PM · #14

Hehe, we basically wrote the same at the same time, so I think we agree when it comes to the technicalities of "downloading".

About selling: As I wrote in the original post, I don't think there is much money to be made with pictures of the sizes used here on DPC.

05/22/2008 01:36:56 PM · #15

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Except with downloading, there is an implied use -- downloadable for viewing within the context of this site. Nothing more or less.

And it's not for you to decide if their is money to be made. Supply and demand. If someone wants the photo, that is demand.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/22/2008 01:38:27 PM · #16

Originally posted by Sam94720:

OK... so *YOU* can make that decision *ONLY FOR YOU*. Not for anyone else. I am stating a fact, not a dogma. Theft is harmful to others. No discussion required there. If you choose not to protect your rights, that is your choice -- but you harm other photographers by creating a mindset that everyone agrees to have their photos stolen.

togtog

Nikon D300

05/22/2008 02:07:20 PM · #17

Sticky sticky sticky...

I personally do not view it as THEFT, no physical asset is being taken, the author is not being denied access to their work. I think it does a disservice to inflate the issue in this manner since a lot of people are going think THEFT is too strong a word for something "potential" as it was put.

I know it is the artists legal right to decide what is done with their works. So by just going ahead without permission is violating their rights. However in all honesty, I believe artists who stranglehold their works are violating others. The world is a pretty sucky place, and artists have a way to improve peoples moods and even their well being.

Since this is a topic of THEFT, then the works have obviously already been created. The artist is simply choosing not to share. Again, this is their right and I understand that, however it doesn't make them very good people imo if someone downloading what is probably a reduced size image, for their own enjoyment, would be against their wishes.

So, in this case, I don't care about their rights anymore, because they obviously do not care about anyone but themselves.

I'm sorry if this rubs some of my fellow artists the wrong way but I'm sticking with it.

Message edited by author 2008-05-22 14:08:15.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/22/2008 02:26:27 PM · #18

Originally posted by togtog:

WOW!

I've never heard this put in quite such a TWISTED way before.

Bravo!

Socialism has failed... an artists work is not created for the public "good" unless he or she chooses them to be. And if they choose to hold their distribution for profit or otherwise that does not make them EVIL.

Regardless... your attitude is awful in that you feel it's ok to STEAL from people you disagree with. Who put you in charge?

togtog

Nikon D300

05/22/2008 03:30:03 PM · #19

I'll take it as a compliment.

You seem to see things in very black and white terms. I never said anything about an artists works being for the public good, nor socialism. Sounds like regardless, you couldn't care less, about the potential benefit to others. It is all about property and absolute control to you. Is it even art anymore or just a product being sold?

I never said that artists who don't turn over their works for the public good nor those who wish to make a profit off their works as evil either.

I simply stated that, I do not respect an artist, nor any person, who only looks out for their self. I believe this to be completely fair, if they do not care about others, I do not care about them.

I also see you completely disregarded my suggestion about your use of THEFT in this discussion. Maybe I should claim you are stealing my air, the air you breathe I obviously can no longer use, but such a claim would be silly.

As for who put me in charge, I was not aware I was asserting that I am in charge, of anything. I thought we were having a debate about intellectual property, copyright, and the rights of artists.

Our opinions on this matter clearly differ but that does not mean I am trying to take charge of anything. Nor did I suggest anyone should or is being forced to agree with me, or do what I say. So I'm not clear where you are coming from on that.

05/22/2008 03:50:06 PM · #20

I assume that people who upload their images to DPC want others the see them. I fail to understand why they would not want them to simply download and save the images (without doing anything else with them).

The only motivation I could think of is: "I want you to look at my image, now. But I don't want you to be able to do this forever. I will decide how long you are allowed to access it. When I say so, you are no longer allowed to look at it." (or alternatively: "I don't want you to be able to look at my image without an Internet connection!").

- Both make no sense to me...

05/22/2008 03:50:41 PM · #21

Originally posted by togtog:

There is no need to address your claim that theft is an invalid term. It is what it is. As for your air claim, if you created the air or somehow owned the air, then fine. It's a silly argument. The art we create *IS OURS* to do with as we see fit. You need to reread what you wrote because you clearly implied that those who protect their rights are evil.

Perhaps the artist who keeps their works under limited release *IS* looking out for others -- his family perhaps? Or perhaps he does "good" with the money he earns by donating to his church or some cause? Again, who are you to say that they who do not openly share all they have -- including their intellectual property -- are somehow morally offensive?

It clearly makes no sense.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/22/2008 03:51:33 PM · #22

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Faulty assumption on your part. If you like an image, do the right thing and ask. Otherwise it's theft.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/22/2008 04:09:35 PM · #23

OK -- enough ... it is not "THEFT" -- that is a legal term, and involves a violation of the criminal statutes.

What it is is "copyright infringement" -- a civil violation of Title 17 of the US Code.

It may be the "moral equivalent" of theft to some, but it is not so viewed by society as represented by the applicable laws.

Fair Use:
If I am teaching an art appreciation class, I can legally download your photo and a similar one by someone else, print up copies for my students, and ask them to contrast and compare the techniques, styles, and intentions/motivation of the two photographers, and it's all perfectly legal.

It's also legal to post in a published blog a review of a photographer's work, and to include examples. It's actually somewhat more courteous to download the photo and host it yourself rather than hot-linking and stealing the photographer's bandwidth.

Of course, proper attribution would be the responsible course of action, but neither that nor prior permission are required to be in compliance.

Both of these are also cases where the use of the photo is more likely to improve any potential commercial value of the images through added publicity than to materially damage the photographer, unless the pictures get justifiably bad reviews ...

Message edited by author 2008-05-22 16:10:22.

Citadel

Nikon D7500

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/22/2008 04:16:23 PM · #24

Originally posted by Sam94720:

6. Use for objectionable site / purpose
If someone uses one of my images on a site promoting something I (and probably most people) find objectionable (racism, for example, or an unfriendly kind of business), I have a problem with that and I would ask them to stop using it.

Just as a quick aside:
There was a post last year some time about this um...villain who like to take our great portrait images and turn them into pictures of monsters. I almost wish I could dig up the thread but on the other hand, I don't need to revisit that nightmare. All I can say is that it was absolutely upsetting. Take the picture of my wife, or my friend or even myself and rip the soul out of it to make some nightmarish image? Never. There is no way that is right or excusable.