does it annoy you?

Snap_Happy said:
OK - I asked - you're right...

Under XP and below [he's not sure about Vista, but definitely not Windows 7] you could make the users run stuff via a downloaded program, which accessed the base programming of windows to disable other programs from seeing the screen. This can't be done on windows 7, so the data supplier removed that requirement, and now all that is irrelevant to his company!

So, in short - yes you could, if on XP or below [and I think they had done it for other OS's as well] but you can't in the latest version of windows. The joys of progress... :shrug:
Click to expand...

Surely that's dependent on the end users system allowing access to web run programs at that level? I struggle to think of many web users who'd allow a site to make changes at that sort of level?

H
 
boyfalldown said:
Surely that's dependent on the end users system allowing access to web run programs at that level? I struggle to think of many web users who'd allow a site to make changes at that sort of level?

H
Click to expand...

Absolutely - but in his case, it was providing a service where doing anything with the images costs hundreds of pounds, so fairly obviously the users didn't mind certain restrictions!
 
Snap_Happy said:
Absolutely - but in his case, it was providing a service where doing anything with the images costs hundreds of pounds, so fairly obviously the users didn't mind certain restrictions!
Click to expand...

ahhhh understand now - sounds fair then :thumbs:
 
It annoys me that they put edit them, really badly. Like a terrible black and white conversion and then post them. That way it just makes my work look worse.

Is this even allowed?
 
Snap_Happy said:
Neil_g - there are a few more steps you can do, but ultimately, if people want to rip off your images, there are always ways. The only real way to completely stop them is to have full [and these can be web-based] applications to view your photos. This will give you enhanced privileges, including the ability to disable print screen. My brother deals with this problem as part of his job [half this job is writing code to stop people grabbing images for free, half is seeing if he can take images [just as proof of concept, I hasten to add!] from his competitors!].

As I say, it's my bro, not I, who does this stuff, but I can ask if he's willing to share any of the tricks? [although I think it requires quite intense coding...]
Click to expand...

In the current branch of Windows, you could just use Print Screen and then Photoshop to get around technical measures.

There are always ways of getting around technical measures. Move companies spend millions on developing systems to prevent copyright theft, these are quickly broken (normally within hours) for next to no cost and then distributed to the internet.
 
I'm not a working pro so I am probably not the appropriate person to be giving advice. Is it patronising to tell you that you need to give the problem more thought or to change your attitude a bit? Oh well, call me patronising then.

Here's a tip from me though: If you put it online for the world to see (particularly on Facebook or Flickr), you've lost control.
 
mustanir said:
I'm not a working pro so I am probably not the appropriate person to be giving advice. Is it patronising to tell you that you need to give the problem more thought or to change your attitude a bit? Oh well, call me patronising then.

Here's a tip from me though: If you put it online for the world to see (particularly on Facebook or Flickr), you've lost control.
Click to expand...

helpful..............not.

So your working smarter advice is to give the problems a little more thought :shrug:

and your other little gem is to come up with the really useful idea that a photographer should not put their images online, I suppose it solves the problem - tog doesn't advertise, tog goes broke, nobody steals images any longer.........minor hole in plan though :suspect:


next time I need advice I'll be banging your door down.......................:bang:
 
boyfalldown said:
helpful..............not.

So your working smarter advice is to give the problems a little more thought :shrug:

and your other little gem is to come up with the really useful idea that a photographer should not put their images online, I suppose it solves the problem - tog doesn't advertise, tog goes broke, nobody steals images any longer.........minor hole in plan though :suspect:


next time I need advice I'll be banging your door down.......................:bang:
Click to expand...


At least he admits he shouldn't be giving advice...nicht wahr...?

:lol:
 
It does a bit. Only because the photos they take have a whacking great watermark across them, are small and low-res and the full size high-res version are available to download for less than the cost of a pack of 10 fags.

It seems to work out about every one photo sold, 20 more are nicked. :(
 
and your other little gem is to come up with the really useful idea that a photographer should not put their images online, I suppose it solves the problem
Click to expand...

I dunno, maybe some people need to accept that other people don't value good photography as much as they do. The internet provides a really convenient, cheap medium for people to get their stuff out there, but there is an inevitable downside.

If the product/business model is good then it shouldn't really matter if a few people who weren't going to buy them anyway put them on their facebook or whatever.
 
boyfalldown said:
helpful..............not.

So your working smarter advice is to give the problems a little more thought :shrug:

and your other little gem is to come up with the really useful idea that a photographer should not put their images online, I suppose it solves the problem - tog doesn't advertise, tog goes broke, nobody steals images any longer.........minor hole in plan though :suspect:


next time I need advice I'll be banging your door down.......................:bang:
Click to expand...

what about those of us that do events and put the images online for people to purchase?

grum said:
I dunno, maybe some people need to accept that other people don't value good photography as much as they do. The internet provides a really convenient, cheap medium for people to get their stuff out there, but there is an inevitable downside.

If the product/business model is good then it shouldn't really matter if a few people who weren't going to buy them anyway put them on their facebook or whatever.
Click to expand...

of course it matters. we give the option to buy a low res for a quid for use on facebook et al, why should i let people get away with stealing the images?

if a shop keeps getting things stolen would your advise be to sell more to offset that loss?
 
neil_g said:
of course it matters. we give the option to buy a low res for a quid for use on facebook et al, why should i let people get away with stealing the images?

if a shop keeps getting things stolen would your advise be to sell more to offset that loss?
Click to expand...


When a shop gets a physical item stolen they no longer have the item to sell to someone else. When someone who is to cheap to pay a quid uses a heavily watermarked low res image as their facebook profile pic for a week or two, you have lost nothing.
 
grum said:
When someone who is to cheap to pay a quid uses a heavily watermarked low res image as their facebook profile pic for a week or two, you have lost nothing.
Click to expand...

i have, ive lost at least £1 up to £70 for my most expensive product. how far do i let it go too? if one person steals the image, other people from the same event see the image on that persons facebook and thinks to themself "hmm, i'll have me some of that.." then the money lost increases proportionately.
 
neil_g said:
what about those of us that do events and put the images online for people to purchase?
Click to expand...

my point was the previous posters suggestion that a good solution was not to put photos online was a very quick way to going out of business nowdays
 
neil_g said:
i was agreeing with your point by adding my own, sorry wasnt overly clear..
Click to expand...

I suggest smilies... ;) They may look a little stupid, but at least people can tell when you're being sarcastic.

Otherwise, I think the written word is a little coarse for such niceties. :shrug:
 
neil_g said:
i have, ive lost at least £1 up to £70 for my most expensive product.
Click to expand...


I don't quite agree. That's obviously £1 that you'd never have made in the first place as they wouldn't have been willing to give up any money for it. It's the arguement for piracy, most would just go without than have to pay for it.

I can see your point though in that if one does it; they'll all do it. In this case maybe it's best not to watermark so people won't know where to go to steal their images from ;) lol.
 
grey.squirrel said:
I don't quite agree. That's obviously £1 that you'd never have made in the first place as they wouldn't have been willing to give up any money for it. It's the arguement for piracy, most would just go without than have to pay for it.

I can see your point though in that if one does it; they'll all do it. In this case maybe it's best not to watermark so people won't know where to go to steal their images from ;) lol.
Click to expand...

whilst naive maybe the horsey bunch certainly arent short of a few quid. if they can get away with it sure theyll take the freebie every time. a couple have gone on to order prints after being asked to take the images down.

either way its not money im willing to lose in our business infancy.. every little helps, especially when youre not being paid to shoot and youre standing around outide for 8 hours a day all year round.
 
bass_junkie83 said:
It does a bit. Only because the photos they take have a whacking great watermark across them, are small and low-res and the full size high-res version are available to download for less than the cost of a pack of 10 fags.

It seems to work out about every one photo sold, 20 more are nicked. :(
Click to expand...

See that's what some people in my family are like, I'm more than happy to give them prints of family pics at the cost of the prints, that's not an issue. I'm more than happy to do low res images for facebook for them - again, no problem. But what narks me and gets me in a tizz, is when they just take them, when they print low res images and show everyone/give them to people, when they pass off my images as their own "ooh look at these pics that I took of the kids..." etc etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top