Picture Stealing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ste1976
  • Start date Start date
People act hurt Sprog because they feel taken advantage off, and they have been, why you insist on disregarding this as a flaw in their character is the reason I made my valid point.

I agree with what your saying about the know risks of placing work on the internet, however finding a house with the front door wide open doesn't mean its open season on stealing stuff just because they should have locked it.

My understanding of your word leads me to think, why are you so willing to just accept the problem, instead of embracing and supporting the right to have legal copyright?
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
My understanding of your word leads me to think, why are you so willing to just accept the problem, instead of embracing and supporting the right to have legal copyright?
Click to expand...

Because it will be the death of the internet.

The internet wasn't set up and unleashed unto mankind to flog pictures of daisies and sunsets. By all means use it as a tool to promote your art but accept that it's a free-for-all and unless you take reasonable precautions to protect yourself from theft, it's going to happen... fact.
 
So internet theft is not the same as real theft ?:thinking:
 
I'm not arguing that it isn't theft, never have done, I'm not trying to defend the act of internet theft I'm just trying (in vain it would seem) to point out that it's pretty much impossible to police and that the onus is on the user to ensure their stuff doesn't get nicked.
 
I have hundreds of pictures copied from my website.. I bet I get loads lifted every week. They all have my watermark on that spells out my website so I don't bother and see it as adverts :)

If someone takes the whole collection then I have strong words and they apologise.. but taking a few from each colection and keeping watermarks i aint botherd..

Hundreds of my pics on myspace and probably as many on facebook now.. not to mention footy websites. I even added "MySpace SUX" to the watermark on one collection and they still got lifted..
 
sprog said:
the onus is on the user to ensure their stuff doesn't get nicked.
Click to expand...

That at least makes sense, theft is going to happen, if you think your images are likely to be a target and you don't want them stolen, take the proper steps to protect them.
 
J Gordon said:
Interesting debate as ever, this one. I always go after thieves and mostly they settle pretty quickly, often because they haven't considered copyright applies to photography rather than malice.
To the poster who said it is 'flattering' to have your work stolen, if your car was stolen would you be flattered by the thiefs choice?
Click to expand...

Understand your point, but that's a straw man. Someone taking your car denies you the use of the car. Someone using a copy of a photo does not deny you the use of the photo. The technology specifically allows multiple perfect copies to be created - someone having one of those copies does not "steal" the copy of the owner. It's a different issue.

We should bear in mind the one and only purpose that copyright exists - to protect the public good. The only intention behind copyright law is a form of encouragement for people to further whatever the art form is - FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC. Not for the good of the person doing the work, that is entirely incidental.

Of course in the interests of money these days copyright law has been totally turned around, and the focus is solely on protecting "property" and making as much money as possible. But that is neither the intention nor the foundation.

So back on the topic, the question itself should be framed from the viewpoint of the public good - whether using photos will ultimately be against the public good, or in the public interest.
 
Moadib said:
We should bear in mind the one and only purpose that copyright exists - to protect the public good. The only intention behind copyright law is a form of encouragement for people to further whatever the art form is - FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC. Not for the good of the person doing the work, that is entirely incidental.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that is utter nonsense. The copyright law was created to protect the CREATOR of an artistic work. The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.
The rights cover; broadcast and public performance, copying, adapting, issuing, renting and lending copies to the public.
 
awp said:
Sorry but that is utter nonsense. The copyright law was created to protect the CREATOR of an artistic work. The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.
The rights cover; broadcast and public performance, copying, adapting, issuing, renting and lending copies to the public.
Click to expand...

"Utter" nonsense? Thank you for that...

What you say is accurate up to a point, but you are missing WHY those rights are granted. They are granted as the "carrot" to encourage people to keep creating, and thereby to further the field in which the activity is taking place. i.e. the PURPOSE of copyright was to promote art and science - NOT to allow mini-monopolies. Of course copyright is mis-used (and misunderstood) as such, but that is human nature to seek and take advantage where possible.

There's a lot of info on the 'net about the origin of copyright if you look around. It's very different to how it's understood today. Photography had a BIG impact on copyright - whereas with art there was an original and thereafter merely forgeries or copies. photography suddenly allowed multiple "originals" (prints) from the same source negative.

Like everything else, these are just social agreements we make among ourselves - it's not an unavoidable natural law like gravity.
 
Does it make a difference where the photos are stolen from? I noticed that some sites have a disclaimer saying that any image you upload are royalty free but of course you still keep copyright. What could someone do with a royalty free image? Is there anything you could do?
 
Moadib, he is right you are talking utter rubbish. Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with "the good of the public". A quick google would have told you that.

"Copyright is a legal concept that gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited period of time. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who (if anyone) can perform it or adapt it to other forms, to benefit financially from the work, and other related rights. It is one form of intellectual property (distinct from patents, trademarks, and trade secrets), and applies to any particular expression of an idea or information, which is substantial and self-contained in a fixed form."

Bold added to bits i thought should be pointed out.
 
If I sold my photo's for a living, I would not want the person buying to be put off by an ugly watermark etc. I would simply reduce the size of the image to mybe 600 pixels wide, and at 72dpi, its not going to be a mega print is it?

The trouble I suppose is with web designers, it is far too easy to take someones photo, even at 600px wide, and make it an imortant part of your site design. Trust me!!

I hope everyone here who is moaning about their photos being nicked have the decency not to download MP3's, and use pirate software etc....

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I would simply reduce the size of the image to mybe 600 pixels wide, and at 72dpi, its not going to be a mega print is it?

That means if a person printed your 600px wide image at 72 dpi they would get an 8 inch wide image. A lot larger than you think. Dpi is irrelevant in the image file. Dpi is for printers!!!!!!!!! Setting the printer to 300 dpi would make a 2 inch image when printed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ThisPhotoGuy said:
EdinburghGary said:
I would simply reduce the size of the image to mybe 600 pixels wide, and at 72dpi, its not going to be a mega print is it?

That means if a person printed your 600px wide image at 72 dpi they would get an 8 inch wide image. A lot larger than you think. Dpi is irrelevant in the image file. Dpi is for printers!!!!!!!!! Setting the printer to 300 dpi would make a 2 inch image when printed.
Click to expand...


I have a lot to learn lol :) I always thought 72dpi would be less quality when printing say compared to 150 or 300 dpi. Are you telling me then an 8inch print will be of identicle quality whether it is 72 or 600 dpi?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Of course 72 dpi is worse than 300 dpi. All I am saying is that having your hypothetical image at 72 dpi is irrelevant as it is the printer that needs to set at the relevant dpi.
 
People don't steal images for print nearly as often as they steal them to populate their website! 72dpi @ 600px is more than big enough for that. Have you any idea what they should be paying to use a pic on a website for a year? Thought not.

BTW As far as I can tell watermarks have no effect on legitimate uses of my pictures. Obviously when a licence is paid for a watermark free version is available.
 
ThisPhotoGuy said:
Of course 72 dpi is worse than 300 dpi. All I am saying is that having your hypothetical image at 72 dpi is irrelevant as it is the printer that needs to set at the relevant dpi.
Click to expand...


Still not sure if I understand. Keep it simple, 600px image, 72 dpi, what kind of quality at what size could one expect?

I might buy ink and try it out :)
 
awp said:
Thought not.
Click to expand...


You thought wrong! I have been designing web sites for years and I own a marketing / design company which employs SEVERAL designers and tog's (edit, a tog) on a full time basis, I am well aware of what images cost for use on a commercial site:) I also agree it's FAR TOO EASY to steal images for use on a web site.

Gary.
 
Moadib said:
the PURPOSE of copyright was to promote art and science
Click to expand...

SORRY! still utter nonsense. The purpose of the copyright law is to protect the creator (author) of a work. PERIOD.
 
EdinburghGary said:
You thought wrong! I have been designing web sites for years and I own a marketing / design company which employs SEVERAL designers and tog's (edit, a tog) on a full time basis, I am well aware of what images cost for use on a commercial site:) I also agree it's FAR TOO EASY to steal images for use on a web site.

Gary.
Click to expand...

apologies then - we are on the same side - you can't tell easily from the written word on a forum sometimes.
 
awp said:
apologies then - we are on the same side - you can't tell easily from the written word on a forum sometimes.
Click to expand...

I have had two of my sites ripped off in less than a year, and I am talking "screenshot taken, new domain name" type of rip off :)

I simply hunt them down and once found the site goes, the last time within ten minutes of making the call.

Over and above the two "carbon copies", I have seen various "paid for images" which we have bought for use AND post edited, and the post edited versions appear on our competitor sites. For example, we have a photo of a female receptionist. She had nothing in her hand in the original photo we bought, however, we added a pen. The image with pen is now in wide circulation in our industry!

Annoying but I can't be bothered chasing all of them.

Gary.
 
It is a real PITA but sometimes it's well worth chasing them. :)
 
Blackstar said:
Moadib, he is right you are talking utter rubbish. Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with "the good of the public". A quick google would have told you that.
Click to expand...

Blackstar, this is not about right or wrong - neither you nor he has grasped the point I am making. I'll try again! :)

- We are talking about different things here. You are arguing about copyright law - let's be clear, I AGREE with you. That is what the law says. What I am talking about is WHY the law says that. Where did the law come from, and why?

For the law to exist, society must agree that despite a photo being infinitely reproducible, the creator should receive a payment each time - it's not a natural law like gravity, it is merely a social agreement.

Let's say I am looking at a beautiful sea view. You come up, and I try to charge you for looking at it. Society would never agree to that. Why, because *I* am not relevant to the view. If I am not paid, the view will continue to exist.

However, if that view were a photo, and I the photographer, if I were not paid then my compunction to create and to share would be eroded. THEREFORE society agrees that I should be compensated for my work, and copyright exists. The purpose of copyright is for the good of society at large, not for the individual.

It works for the individual, and I agree with you that it protects the creator, but that is not the origin.

- Secondly, the main point I was responding to was about the comparison of "stealing" a photo as being the same as someone stealing a car. As I mentioned, it is not at all the same, since you in no way deny the owner the use of the photo in the same way as you would by stealing the car.

A more appropriate comparison would be if I were somehow able to clone your car and drive of with a copy - clearly that would impact you....not at all. However, if you were the owner of a car factory, and made your money from making cars, well, you wouldn't be too happy about that.

What would happen in that case? Unless the car factory owner had very powerful friends, you would (should) find that he gets no copyright help at all. Why? Because he is no longer necessary for the development of the car, because we can now copy them at will.

Photography is different, since society recognises the benefit of the eye of the photographer, and we all benefit from that. In the case of "stealing" a car by cloning it, there should be no copyright, since the greater benefit to society is by allowing the copying.
 
awp said:
SORRY! still utter nonsense. The purpose of the copyright law is to protect the creator (author) of a work. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

awp, the point is in no way nonsense. You are talking about the way copyright law is interpreted and applied - for the benefit of the creator. I agree with you.

My point is on WHY the law was created and is perpetuated - for the benefit of society. Society agrees to restrict the freedom on copying in order to provide an incentive for people to create enjoyable images.

Photographers get paid, society gets images. Win:win.
 
Moadib ... I understood where you where coming from the first time you mentioned copyright on your starting post...

I'm not quite sure why your point is relevant to this thread though, all laws are written for the good of society, thats the premise on why we humans sat down and started writing laws in the first place. without laws to protect freewill, art, and the ability to create new we would have no society and little chance of humans advancing.

--

The problem as I see it, is many accept without question that the internet is an unsafe place to show images, end off, no more questions, thats just the way it is...

If we allow ourselves to to be taken in by this lazy attitude the internet won't be such a good place, art will suffer, creativity will retreat back to the studio and art gallery and our amazing new virtual word will be an endless flow of useless dribble, all the talent having left so as to protect their amazing accomplishments.
 
Quite a few times I've had to e-mail people to ask them to remove my images from their website. I give them 72 hours in which to do so, after which the threat of legal action under copyright theft laws will become immediate. It usually works, and I usually receive an apology with a lame excuse attached.

The point made by someone that if it's a 'Blog or something 'personal' then it doesn't matter is actually not true. The point being that if the image stolen is linked to your site from theirs, they're effectively 'stealing' your bandwidth too, depending on how many hits they're getting from that image. This can of course cost money as your host asks for more money to host your increasingly popluar website!

I've had whole swathes of text stolen from my website too. The best one was by a lady who lives literally a few km from here. Her excuse was that it was 'written' by her son back in the UK without her knowledge. The problem here is that Google, when faced with several 'copies' of the same text will often list just a few listings, relegating still more (which could be your own listing) off the page. You then have to click a button to view the other search findings. This could be proven to be detrimental to your business in a court of law, as it's an established 'fact' that most folks don't bother to do so, giving an unfair advantage to the thief.

I've been through all this a few times now, and haven't yet had to resort to using my French nor UK solicitor, though their advice has been very useful. Copyright theft is a heinous crime. Ok, not in the same league as rape or murder or countless other things, but it's still illegal. I will not tolerate the stealing of my work, whether images or words, which has a creative thought process behind it that has taken me the best part of three years of my life to produce, and upon which the fortunes of my family depend to a very large degree.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
If we allow ourselves to to be taken in by this lazy attitude the internet won't be such a good place, art will suffer, creativity will retreat back to the studio and art gallery and our amazing new virtual word will be an endless flow of useless dribble, all the talent having left so as to protect their amazing accomplishments.
Click to expand...

I would hardly say it was a lazy attitude, the internet was established as a means to share ideas, thoughts and information, not as a marketing tool for Dragons Den wannabes.

If you impose capitalist ideals and conditions upon it (which I very much doubt will ever be totally possible) I suspect your 'dribbling' scenario will be achieved far more quickly than if a bunch of artists flounced off in huff 'cos they couldn't sell their amazing accomplisments for minimum overhead.
 
:D Your jesting now right? .... Imposing capitalist ideals, sorry, way to late for that old moan .... The internet is the new wild west, and just like the old wild west, its is already a massively capitalist environment, and just like the wild west it needs laws to keep it from being pure anarchy ..


I don't get your last bit... But I suspect different I suspect.
 
The internet is the capitalist's nightmare. Since when did capitalists want the punters to know the retail price, who's selling it cheapest and the real-world performance of a product, instantly, before they bought it?

The single retailer is dead... long live the screenwipe... Hoorah!

I'm off to nick some jpegs.


Happy New Year!
 
If someone hotlinks one of your images, don't tell them, just replace it with some embarassing photo.............:lol:

I've done that before :thumbs:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Moadib ... I understood where you where coming from the first time you mentioned copyright on your starting post...
Click to expand...

My answer was intended for the people replying to me, who were either disagreeing on the origin of the copyright law, or else I had not sufficiently got my point across. Hence re-stated for clarity.

I'm not quite sure why your point is relevant to this thread though, all laws are written for the good of society, thats the premise on why we humans sat down and started writing laws in the first place. without laws to protect freewill, art, and the ability to create new we would have no society and little chance of humans advancing.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that's the Utopian ideal, but I can't agree that's why all laws exist. That may be the intention, but over time laws can and do get "bent" do be more in favour of the individual than society.

As for why I brought the point up, it was in part ot promote discussion. In part since the thread was focussing on individual damage, to point out that copyright is for the majority, not the individual. And in part becuase some of the analogies given were very misleading, equating to stealing a car. Duplicating something so two people have it is not at all the same as one person taking from another.

The problem as I see it, is many accept without question that the internet is an unsafe place to show images, end off, no more questions, thats just the way it is...

If we allow ourselves to to be taken in by this lazy attitude the internet won't be such a good place, art will suffer, creativity will retreat back to the studio and art gallery and our amazing new virtual word will be an endless flow of useless dribble, all the talent having left so as to protect their amazing accomplishments.
Click to expand...

For the most part I agree, although I doubt that "all the talent would leave" - many people would be fine with their images being seen. Others would upload only small samples, or watermarked.

I agree that if society determines the law, and the law says images should be allowed to be copyrighted, then that must be applied, and people have the right to restrict or permit as they choose. But I do think the whole can so often be much greater than the sum of the parts. Look at the apps written by people preparing virtual tourist sites, gathering pictures from around the world. Or was it MS technology where pictures are combined from around the world into 3D structures which can be viewed, rotated, zoomed etc - stunning applications, and which perhaps could not be possible if things were not freely shared.

For me the law itself is a black/white issue, but the concept itself needs careful consideration which approach is best. Look at itunes v's amarok, openoffice v's MS Office, etc.

My point was just thinking aloud, food for discussion :)
 
Le Chant said:
Great idea, but not from a business website! :)
Click to expand...


Yes, but if you have a photo on your business website called trees.JPG which has been hotlinked, then rename the photo to trees2.JPG, put that on your website.

Add a dodgy photo to your images, which can't seen by any of your visitors, and then call that trees.JPG..........
 
how on earth do you ever find the website/cd on ebay that has your photos on it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top