| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2009 07:47:13 PM · #51 |
My apologies to Richard for using one of his images for fodder, but if there isn't issues with people stealing work like this right and left, exactly what is the point of getting all up in arms about what MIGHT happen?
I hate to say this, but all this squawking is a whole lot of noise over nothing.
I think we need some numbers, i.e, how many photogs are here, how many images are currently hosted on the site, and REALLY, how many have been stolen and abused? I have a feeling that shown in those terms, it would be such a ridiculously small number it'd be embarrassing.
Yes, one is too many, and it's not right, blah, blah, blah, but it's being blown way out of proportion by what seems to be a very vocal minority who don't seem to actually have the problem, and cannot even be bothered to take the necessary steps they can take on their own. They're also the ones with the rationale......"Any little bit of security can't hurt, and it's something of a deterrent, so what's to lose?"
FINE!
Remember the REAL facts.
YOUR image, YOUR responsibility. Watermar each and every one of your portfolio images, and register your copyright on the "Great & Valuable" ones that you can't watermark 'cause you entered them in a challenge. The ONLY way you can be guaranteed that your image will not be stolen is to NOT post them on the Web. Even if you have your image watermarked, and the copyright registered, you still have to take the offender to court, and win, going under the ridiculous assumption that you can prove a loss of revenue. And if someone in Europe steals your image and its copyright is registered here, good luck with that.
Doesn't it bother those of you who are so vocal that people like Richard, Irene, Lydia, Gringo, and a whole host of REALLY talented photogs aren't speaking up?
Maybe, just maybe, they aren't worried about the minute chance that their low-res, small image might get misappropriated.
I'm done beating my head against the wall now......if you people cannot see the futility of trying to protect yourself while posting images on the web, I certainly am not going to convince you.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2009 07:53:32 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It looks like Langdon's already implemented the GIF trick. ;-) |
In Firefox, I just displayed a photo from DPC (the winning beer photo), did a
"File > Save Page As... > Web page, complete"
and presto! I had the nice, original sized Sapporo beer photograph on my computer ready to do whatever with.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2009 07:59:14 PM · #53 |
Lets face it, not many of you have got stuff worth stealing anyway...
Sorry. but it`s true.
Me included.. I yearn for the day I find my images in one of the "Someone has stolen our images" thread..
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 20:00:49. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 08:49:53 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I think we need some numbers, i.e, how many photogs are here, how many images are currently hosted on the site, and REALLY, how many have been stolen and abused? I have a feeling that shown in those terms, it would be such a ridiculously small number it'd be embarrassing. |
Umm, just checking a few... 181 matches on TinEye for this photo:
27 matches here:
133 matches for this one:
You get the idea. There's no way to completely prevent image theft, but I don't see any harm in taking some steps to discourage casual swipes. Such measures are commonplace on stock sites, photo contests and image sharing portals, and the transparent GIF alone could make a significant impact. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:03:19 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm done beating my head against the wall now......if you people cannot see the futility of trying to protect yourself while posting images on the web, I certainly am not going to convince you. |
I have a hard time believing this. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 10:59:18 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I think we need some numbers, i.e, how many photogs are here, how many images are currently hosted on the site, and REALLY, how many have been stolen and abused? I have a feeling that shown in those terms, it would be such a ridiculously small number it'd be embarrassing. |
Umm, just checking a few... 181 matches on TinEye for this photo:
27 matches here:
133 matches for this one:
You get the idea. There's no way to completely prevent image theft, but I don't see any harm in taking some steps to discourage casual swipes. Such measures are commonplace on stock sites, photo contests and image sharing portals, and the transparent GIF alone could make a significant impact. |
Agreed. I'll put my thumbs up behind any measures taken to discourage casual swiping that aren't invasive to the image itself. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:18:46 PM · #57 |
| has disabling the right-click option been discussed? |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:24:02 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
has disabling the right-click option been discussed? |
It's already disabled. You can only right-click your own images. Anybody else's will only grab a blank GIF. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:24:50 PM · #59 |
I think that watermark should be included after the challenge results. And the challenges images should be open only for registered people.
I'm a newbie amateur and nobody will steal my images but i voted yes for my many teachers here.
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 23:26:19. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:27:51 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
has disabling the right-click option been discussed? |
It's already disabled. You can only right-click your own images. Anybody else's will only grab a blank GIF. |
humm...not for me. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:31:05 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
humm...not for me. |
Yes for you, too. Right clicking will work, but you won't get the image you expected. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:32:02 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
has disabling the right-click option been discussed? |
It's already disabled. You can only right-click your own images. Anybody else's will only grab a blank GIF. |
humm...not for me. |
You can still right-click other people's photos, but there's nothing to grab (you'll still see the context menu) - try it. :-)
ETA - yeah...like Shannon said. :-P
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 23:32:40. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:32:33 PM · #63 |
Well, I voted for yes... and not for myself. My photos aren't good enough to warrant a watermark protection, but I feel, that there are some amazing photographers on this website, and their work deserves some protection. AT LEAST, give them the option for it.
When I look at some of the photos that are on this site, it is overly apparent that many of the photographers on this site spend an extraordinary amount of time preparing their shots, and they deserve some sort of protection, or as I said earlier, the option to choose it. Anyway, its late, and I'm half way to hammered... so... talk amongst yourselves... |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:36:23 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Sirashley:
Well, I voted for yes... and not for myself. My photos aren't good enough to warrant a watermark protection, but I feel, that there are some amazing photographers on this website, and their work deserves some protection. AT LEAST, give them the option for it.
When I look at some of the photos that are on this site, it is overly apparent that many of the photographers on this site spend an extraordinary amount of time preparing their shots, and they deserve some sort of protection, or as I said earlier, the option to choose it. Anyway, its late, and I'm half way to hammered... so... talk amongst yourselves... |
Exact same as you, I hope to one day reach the level of talent where people would want to steal my images, but until then, I said yes for all those who have excellent shots on this site.
I think the watermark is especially important now that the image size is increasing to 800x800. We already saw what can happen with the smaller images in the case of  DrAchoo, so just imagine with the new higher res images. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:39:24 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
has disabling the right-click option been discussed? |
It's already disabled. You can only right-click your own images. Anybody else's will only grab a blank GIF. |
humm...not for me. |
.
I just did a test... I can still right click and save the image in Firefox... it's the actual image... |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:47:10 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pedrobop:
humm...not for me. |
Yes for you, too. Right clicking will work, but you won't get the image you expected. ;-) |
With some, yes...with others, no...
Like i tried to download Irene's image on the first page, didn't work. But i'v just downloaded three images with the right buttom. Example:
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 23:47:22. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:47:31 PM · #67 |
| How come in Firefox I can still right click and save the images? they are the real image... not a blank gif... the full jpg file... |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:47:44 PM · #68 |
I voted yes ;-/ I totally understand all I produce is crap not worthy of being stolen, although my darling little bubba is linked onto several euro porn sites with out my permissiom and it clearly was taken from this website as I've not posted it anywhere else, so who knows how many euro's I could have gotten for that, but just in case, someday I do something awesome.. I want it watermarked... And for those who disagree, you have your chance to hear your voice heard here too... go vote..
It's really not necessary or beneficial in anyway to help your arguement though, IMHO, to ridicule and belittle the others around you for thinking differently.. That's all this is, a difference of opinion.. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:49:59 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
How come in Firefox I can still right click and save the images? they are the real image... not a blank gif... the full jpg file... |
Try to download irene's blue ribbon on the first page. That image didn't work for me. Others do, normally. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:51:58 PM · #70 |
| aaah, ok.. yea, that one didn't work, but every other one I tried worked fine... can we make it so every image is protected? |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:54:03 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
...my darling little bubba is linked onto several euro porn sites with out my permissiom... |
What are you doing on euro porn sites there kandy? ;)
I voted no, but that can be changed if ideas such as Shanon's are put into effect. I don't want to see a crappy watermark on top of crappy images, or even great images. If it can be done in a way that is unobtrusive and unnoticeable once I have logged in, then I am fine with it. For now, however, the vote is a resounding NO. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:54:41 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
aaah, ok.. yea, that one didn't work, but every other one I tried worked fine... can we make it so every image is protected? |
It's just not fully implemented yet. Could be a cache issue, too. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:01:06 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
aaah, ok.. yea, that one didn't work, but every other one I tried worked fine... can we make it so every image is protected? |
It's just not fully implemented yet. Could be a cache issue, too. |
.
Thanks, I like this feature =) |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:08:18 AM · #74 |
I voted no, simply because I hate looking at watermarked pictures. When I come across them, I just skip over them. It really does ruin the shot, imo. It would be nice for each person to set their own preferences whether they want the shots watermarked. And it would also be nice to be able to over-ride on individual photos.
ok, quickly scanned through, and found this:
1. Put a stretched transparent GIF over every image. Name the GIF "Contact Owner to License Photo". If someone right clicks or drags off a photo, they'll get an empty file with an official-sounding copyright warning.
2. Enable a standardized DPC watermark as a preference on ALL challenge entries, but make them disappear when logged in. Have a pop-up copyright notice appear upon first login (maybe even with a "more info" FAQ link explaining that just because a photo is on the internet does not make it free). That way, the regulars would get a clean viewing experience, and a thief would at least have to register AND ignore a warning to swipe a clean image.
3. Consider using a script to continually clear the clipboard or remap screen grab keystrokes wherever images are shown full size. You wouldn't be able to use copy-and-paste in comments, but it would serve as a speed bump for people trying to take a screen grab when right-click doesn't work.
This works for me. I just don't want to see the watermarks. If we don't have to look at them, great!
I think this vote is skewed because there isn't enough information. People are voting yes, because they want the images protected, people are voting no because they don't want to see watermarks. But if we can have it all, I would assume that the vote would change.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 00:12:10. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 12:14:49 AM · #75 |
I wish we could see an example of what the council is planning for this watermarks. Like its size, position and other things.
I voted yes to help people who are getting "robbed". But i'm thinking about a huge watermark at the images i vote and submit, it's not really nice to imagine. |
|
