You are not a photographer

MWHCVT said:
Do you honestly think that they're not? under what definition are they not infringing the photographers copyright? bringing google into the frame was foolish, google are not hosting the images that show in there searches the thumbnail links directly to the website/server that the image is hosted/displayed on
Click to expand...

One more point, I am not being foolish if I am asking questions about something if it is a grey area to me and if I were to call you foolish you would be the first to complain to a green lettered mod, so please refrain.
 
tiler65 said:
Why does TP allow linked photos then to be placed in image tags or whatever they are called. Loads of photos in threads have no permission then...should TP ban all hotlinked photos?
Click to expand...

tiler65 said:
One more point, I am not being foolish if I am asking questions about something if it is a grey area to me and if I were to call you foolish you would be the first to complain to a green lettered mod, so please refrain.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that when ever that is done and it's not the posters photo then it's normally broken to a link by a mod, hell I've done it myself in the past that said if I have I'll include add a link to the webpage too

EDIT: Decided that I don't care if your trying to start and argument as it's only going to go down one route and I personally don't need any gardening leave at this time as it covered in snow
 
Last edited:
I just can't believe there is an argument about copyright infringement going on :shrug: seems to have taken the thread in a weird and irrelevant direction.

I have spent best part of an hour looking through this site and I am partly peeing myself and partly gobsmacked by some of the horrific images here - and have no doubt some them them truely are horrific.

Personal favorites are the female model in the park posed as if she's taking a crap in the bushes and the serious looking chap wearing nothing but blue lame budgie smugglers (both about page 12). Special mention to the photographer that thought having parents kissing while dad is holding his baby at arms length, upside down, by the ankle over a laminate floor was an awsome pose! (about page 15).
 
tiler65 said:
How are they infringing copyright?
Click to expand...

They are grabbing photos off the web, editing them (removal of copyright info) then re-uploading them to their site.

Note, these are not links to images. They are uploaded and hosted by them

Here is an image url from a random one
Code: 
http://youarenotaphotographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/wtf-eyes.jpg

Clearly hosted by the site, not linked to.
 
vixmix said:
I just can't believe there is an argument about copyright infringement going on :shrug: seems to have taken the thread in a weird and irrelevant direction.
Click to expand...

Believe it, photographers at all levels do not appreciate someone copying their photos, editing them and re-uploading them.

The site may be funny (it is) but the whole concept of putting together a commercial site based on others work without their permission is wrong. Oh, and they are exploiting photos for commercial gain too...
 
Every time someone posts this thread about that site I click on it and start laughing. It's up there with AwkwardFamilyPhotos.com.
 
MWHCVT said:
I think you'll find that when ever that is done and it's not the posters photo then it's normally broken to a link by a mod, hell I've done it myself in the past that said if I have I'll include add a link to the webpage too

EDIT: Decided that I don't care if your trying to start and argument as it's only going to go down one route and I personally don't need any gardening leave at this time as it covered in snow
Click to expand...

But not always as I have already shown you.

There is a difference between asking questions, like I have done and arguing. You would only get gardening leave if you became abusive - why would you want to do that?
 
RichardtheSane said:
They are grabbing photos off the web, editing them (removal of copyright info) then re-uploading them to their site.

Note, these are not links to images. They are uploaded and hosted by them

Here is an image url from a random one
Code: 
http://youarenotaphotographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/wtf-eyes.jpg

Clearly hosted by the site, not linked to.
Click to expand...

Thanks, now I see that they are hosting them, I understand that it may infringe copyright.

One more question....what copyright info is being removed as I was lead to believe that simply putting a watermark and/or the copyright symbol served no purpose in copyright protection apart from to deter said thief. Is it that the exif info is being stripped so no electronic tag of copyright can be displayed?
 
munch said:
I have an original oil painting from an unknown artist and I never tire of looking at it. I Got it for next to nothing because nobody else liked it.

What I am saying is beauty is different things to different people.
Click to expand...


Was it a painting of someone holding their child above their head by it's ankles? :lol:
 
MWHCVT said:
it matters not if the water mark is there or not it's still a website full of copyright infringement.

Truth be told I might not like the images, but there is a big difference in not liking something and openly mocking it :(
Click to expand...

I'm of a mixed view, on the one hand, if this was people playing with the camera trying to better themselves, learning what they can and cannot do then yeah, it should not be done. I look at pictures i've taken, and still take at times and cringe.

But...

People charging for this sort of thing! It's like mocking a company, it is shocking!
 
Laudrup said:
Every time someone posts this thread about that site I click on it and start laughing. It's up there with AwkwardFamilyPhotos.com.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I see it. It's not like they are just your every day type images, but just not good ... they are a class to their own!
 
So explain to me what defines u as a photographer?

here is my definition of a photographer:

Someone who is serious about their photography to actually spend the hours apon hours and some £££ to learn how to shoot and does so quite regularly. not some one who reads "understanding exposure" once and then uses their camera once a year.

a photographer is someone thats constant reading and learning and using there camera to practise what they have learned.

That to me is a photographer
 
I'm doubting the people who 'produced' the images on that linked site read much on photography. they're more so really badly processed images than just badly photographed.
 
Well here is my 2pence on the the thread, firstly that site is clearly breaching copyright, the images are hosted by the site not linked too, I doubt any self respecting person would allow their images to be used in that way, on the other side I do find the site somewhat amusing, if these are from paid jobs them oh oh dear, I would be placing the togs camera in rather unpleasant places if was handed any of these after paying a wack of hard earned cash for them, however if they are from people attempting to learn about their camera and photography on the whole, then fair play we all begin somewhere.
 
Sometimes you have to put aside conceited arguments about copyright and have a good belly laugh at how genuinely, catastrophically terrible those photos are. Copyright theft is the last thing that people need to worry about if they images have washed up on there.

To be fair, blanking out the water-mark is doing those businesses/induhviduals a favour. Some might say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but this is one of those occasions where it looks like there might be such a thing.

The photos are terrible. Why get all bent out of shape over the copyright, unless you're taking photographs that are of a similar appalling quality and might get featured on there?
 
Hear, hear.

Sometimes I wish they handed out happy cookies on this place.
 
Diamond hell said:
Sometimes you have to put aside conceited arguments about copyright and have a good belly laugh at how genuinely, catastrophically terrible those photos are. Copyright theft is the last thing that people need to worry about if they images have washed up on there.

To be fair, blanking out the water-mark is doing those businesses/induhviduals a favour. Some might say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but this is one of those occasions where it looks like there might be such a thing.

The photos are terrible. Why get all bent out of shape over the copyright, unless you're taking photographs that are of a similar appalling quality and might get featured on there?
Click to expand...

Regardless of how good or bad the images are, the website is still in infringement of copyright, its all well and good having a giggle at them, which I'm sure we all have, but that still doesn't give the site and right to use the photos in the first place
 
I'd love to say something profound about happy clients mattering the most, and beauty is on the inside and all that.... but I think I just wet myself looking through some of those photos :D
 
Cagey75 said:
... do you you honestly, really care though??
Click to expand...

Not suggesting in the slightest i take images anywhere nearly as poor as these, but if a site used one of mine in this way, be it a good or bad photo then yes I would
 
But that's the point, you wouldn't [nor would most sane people] take anything like these! Again, I see them more as extreme processing rather than just strange photos.
 
The point for me however is that they've got 36,000 liker's on facebook, now some of those are bound to be photographers that have a good knowledge of copyright however I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them are not and it's sites like this that are making it more publicly acceptable for people/companies to take a photographers image and use it for what they want..be that on a commercial basis or one there blog or whatever...hell we all know that most people would not be able to differentiate between a stunning image and a rubbish one, so there is not really a lot of point going on about these being rubbish or not, let's face it there are those on this forum that if they know it's a HDR then it's rubbish as far as they're concerned :cuckoo:
 
Thedodo said:
Not suggesting in the slightest i take images anywhere nearly as poor as these, but if a site used one of mine in this way, be it a good or bad photo then yes I would
Click to expand...

As cliched as it might be, I think it's worth suggesting you get out more.
 
MWHCVT said:
The point for me however is that they've got 36,000 liker's on facebook, now some of those are bound to be photographers that have a good knowledge of copyright however I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them are not and it's sites like this that are making it more publicly acceptable for people/companies to take a photographers image and use it for what they want..be that on a commercial basis or one there blog or whatever...hell we all know that most people would not be able to differentiate between a stunning image and a rubbish one, so there is not really a lot of point going on about these being rubbish or not, let's face it there are those on this forum that if they know it's a HDR then it's rubbish as far as they're concerned :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Wouldn't your sig technically violate the copyright of the Award of Merit statuette?
 
I suspect that a lot of people are forgetting that this site will come under US copyright laws.

Because Fair Use applies over there, I suspect that copyright isn't being breached as the photos are being critiqued and/or reviewed.


Frankly anyone taking those and charging for them deserves all the P taking that they get! :)
 
Laudrup said:
Wouldn't your sig technically violate the copyright of the Award of Merit statuette?
Click to expand...

Well my signature contains code for the image you can see, this was provided by the people who represent TP so I'm not in a position to answer your question, may I humbly suggest you direct your question to the staff of the forum via the appropriate avenues
 
Last edited:
esquisite said:
No no no if it was just people having fun then great. Its people selling themselves as pros and selling this work
Click to expand...

There have been several cases where they've knicked photos of people messing around, off personal Facebook pages, etc and presented them as examples of "shocking professional photography", when it is nothing of the sort.
 
If this was posted on any other forum outside of photography, it would go down as hilarious, I doubt one person would complain. Why do some photographers get so sore about anything photography related like it's personal to them?

In saying that, I just checked the link again and it's since been updated with more images. The first one was the strange dodge & burn woman[??] when I saw it first- now it's a large girl in the sea - ok, that one is uncalled for - there's nothing wrong with that one only the girl is on the larger side. If she was a hot model, they wouldn't be taking the ****, I don't like if they get personal about it. But the likes of the 2 below it ... w ... t ... f?? :D
 
Last edited:
have lodged this on my task bar ,for those days when i feel lazy and can't be bothered ,a swift kick up the rump to motivate me :bang: :)
 
Cagey75 said:
If this was posted on any other forum outside of photography, it would go down as hilarious, I doubt one person would complain. Why do some photographers get so sore about anything photography related like it's personal to them?
Click to expand...

I've told you before - this photography thing is a very serious business. No fun to be had here.
 
Last edited:
I still don't believe you, I mean, there are some great comics on here!
 
I'm with the group who find this site funny, the links are provided by suggestions and apparently they are all portfolio and marketing shots found in the public domain. The blurry shot of a mouth spitting out some gum is one of personal favourite but I honestly cannot understand the thought process that goes into these images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top