| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2007 06:34:28 AM · #51 |
Hmmmmmm,
all these people waxing lyrical about being people being ripped off, however, can they all swear that they have never had any illegal/unlicensed software on your PC or they have never `borrowed` a music CD to rip a couple of tracks or even downloaded a music track without purchasing it or licensing it correctly?
Having your image ripped is exactly the same, it sucks, its annoying as hell but its on a par with downloading just one music track illegally. No doubt some of you will say "Its not the same." It is, its the world we live in today. Sadly.
(however if you have never had unlicensed software or downloaded the odd music track `free of charge` then this doesnt apply to you, so moan away!!)
In Jacko's case I can fully understand not wanting your child defaced in such a way. That goes beyond any copyright issue. (cute pic BTW)
Remember.. He who casts the first stone.. brother..
Message edited by author 2007-03-04 06:45:15. |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 07:25:21 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Hmmmmmm,
all these people waxing lyrical about being people being ripped off, however, can they all swear that they have never had any illegal/unlicensed software on your PC or they have never `borrowed` a music CD to rip a couple of tracks or even downloaded a music track without purchasing it or licensing it correctly? |
I love it when people ask this question...NEVER had illegal software (I have an envelope with licenses for all the software - CD or downloaded that is installed on all my computers) never borrowed a music CD to rip a couple tracks (never ripped a music CD period), never downloaded a song (this idea of downloading music kind of baffles me, but I guess since I don't have an iPOD/MP3 player or listen to music on the computer I may not understand the need). |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 08:38:34 AM · #53 |
Mark, I -Completely- disagree. There is an enormous difference between software piracy and intellectual and creative property thievery.
We're not talking about people downloading a picture that they haven't paid for and looking at it on their own computer. That is what software piracy is.
Most of the issues surrounding photo use and photo thievery are issues of someone taking someone's art and claiming it as their own. It's plagerism, its fraud, it's the same as if someone took your name off your own work and replaced it with their own.
What's going on here and software/music piracy are Not the same thing. |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 01:45:55 PM · #54 |
Elsmacko - Sorry mate, you live on a different planet..
Theft is theft..
Simple as..
Originally posted by elsmacko:
Mark, I -Completely- disagree. There is an enormous difference between software piracy and intellectual and creative property thievery.
We're not talking about people downloading a picture that they haven't paid for and looking at it on their own computer. That is what software piracy is.
Most of the issues surrounding photo use and photo thievery are issues of someone taking someone's art and claiming it as their own. It's plagerism, its fraud, it's the same as if someone took your name off your own work and replaced it with their own.
What's going on here and software/music piracy are Not the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
03/04/2007 02:06:15 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
I have exchagned two emails with the owner of the offending site. Below is the email train. Up shot is, he going to take them down in with in 24 Hours. |
Well done. I guess it shows that beyond (and before) long a legal action, some simple communication can solve many issues. Especially on matters that, while quite upsetting, are, as  Matthew said, eventually of limited economic impact.
Message edited by author 2007-03-04 14:08:01. |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 02:16:15 PM · #56 |
Hey just shifting topic a bit from theft to prevention of theft.
is there anyway for DPC to lock the images posted here to the page as some sites feature....it may not totaly prevent people from taking the images but at least it takes away the old drag and drop that is so easy to do and which many people abuse.
i know its not totaly cool b/c it would mean members could not do it as well so thread challenges and thread edit challenges would be hard to do. but hey there is always email for that sort of thing and it would, to a large degree restore some peace and order to our very small home here on the web.
just a thought.
(also a reason for my not entering some challenges with my best images....and a reason for me and someother i have spoken with not entering at all unless they don't care about the shot [no copyright i understand])
it would be nice to have the images locked to the page is all i'm saying.....
_bran(great to see the support and comunity again DPC rocks)do_
Message edited by author 2007-03-04 14:19:37.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2007 02:24:34 PM · #57 |
fotodude - it would be a shame never to show your best images because you are afraid that they might get stolen.
There is no technical facility to prevent images being taken from the web. Images have to be copied in order to get on to your computer. They can always be taken - sometimes it take a bit more effort, but they always can.
Your best protection is that images are only released in low res - these images are rarely valuable. You will not lose much.
People on this site are sometimes incredibly precious about their images - sometimes (IMO) unreasonably so.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2007 02:24:50 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by fotodude:
Hey just shifting topic a bit from theft to prevention of theft.
is there anyway for DPC to lock the images posted here to the page as some sites feature.... |
Many previous discussions -- no practical solutions as yet. |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 02:28:15 PM · #59 |
| as long as you can do screen capture, I don't see how you can prevent any image displayed on a website from being copied... |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 02:32:21 PM · #60 |
For those who care, I found Wikipedia's read on the supreme court ruling which speaks to derivative work versus parody. I think it has a lot of bearing on what went on here. It concerns 2 Live Crew and their use of Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman". (I added bolds for those with true attention deficit.)
The core of the link I will copy below:
"Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)[1], was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that stands for the proposition that a commercial parody can be fair use. That money is made does not make it impossible for a use to be fair; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.
The members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew—Luther R. Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, Mark Ross, and David Hobbs—composed a song called "Pretty Woman," a parody based on Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh, Pretty Woman." The group's manager asked Acuff-Rose Music if they could license Roy Orbison's tune for the ballad to be used as a parody. Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody.
Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song under § 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 107). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under § 107; that, by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had taken too much under the third § 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth §107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses.
The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107." |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 08:48:57 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by mouten:
as long as you can do screen capture, I don't see how you can prevent any image displayed on a website from being copied... |
I don't know how Better Photo does it, but you cannot copy any images, not even your own, from there. Apparently there is a way to lock out illegal use of photos. It is probably expensive to do, though, so dp probably doesn't want to get into that. It can be done, however. Even some stock photo sites, you can't copy images. |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 08:59:17 PM · #62 |
no it can't. People can still print screen, or even just take a photo of the screen.
As long as the photo is displayed on a website it can be stolen at the resolution at which it is being displayed. |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 09:01:45 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by JunieMoon:
Originally posted by mouten:
as long as you can do screen capture, I don't see how you can prevent any image displayed on a website from being copied... |
I don't know how Better Photo does it, but you cannot copy any images, not even your own, from there. Apparently there is a way to lock out illegal use of photos. It is probably expensive to do, though, so dp probably doesn't want to get into that. It can be done, however. Even some stock photo sites, you can't copy images. |
i just stole my own photo from better photo using screen print. it can't be stopped.
 |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 09:06:43 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by JunieMoon:
Originally posted by mouten:
as long as you can do screen capture, I don't see how you can prevent any image displayed on a website from being copied... |
I don't know how Better Photo does it, but you cannot copy any images, not even your own, from there. Apparently there is a way to lock out illegal use of photos. It is probably expensive to do, though, so dp probably doesn't want to get into that. It can be done, however. Even some stock photo sites, you can't copy images. |
they just prevent the right click operation. On most sites like this to get a copy of the image you simply go to the top of your browser and go "file - save as" and it will save the page and you will see a folder is created on your drive with all the images inside. Sometimes these are at larger resolutions than is displayed. It is very difficult if not impossible to prevent unauthorised use
Message edited by author 2007-03-04 21:13:12.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 04:19:40 AM · #65 |
Yes, I live on a planet where crimes are not black and white. Where stealing a loaf of bread for food and a millionare defrauding thousands of people out of their live savings is Not equal. "Theft is Theft" is nonsense.
Is -downloading one album without paying for it- and -stealing someone's demo disc and selling it as your own- the same thing? Both are (theoretically) crimes, but otherwise are unequivocal.
Originally posted by marksimms:
Elsmacko - Sorry mate, you live on a different planet..
Theft is theft..
Simple as..
Originally posted by elsmacko:
Mark, I -Completely- disagree. There is an enormous difference between software piracy and intellectual and creative property thievery.
We're not talking about people downloading a picture that they haven't paid for and looking at it on their own computer. That is what software piracy is.
Most of the issues surrounding photo use and photo thievery are issues of someone taking someone's art and claiming it as their own. It's plagerism, its fraud, it's the same as if someone took your name off your own work and replaced it with their own.
What's going on here and software/music piracy are Not the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 04:32:41 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by elsmacko:
Yes, I live on a planet where crimes are not black and white. Where stealing a loaf of bread for food and a millionare defrauding thousands of people out of their live savings is Not equal. "Theft is Theft" is nonsense.
Is -downloading one album without paying for it- and -stealing someone's demo disc and selling it as your own- the same thing? Both are (theoretically) crimes, but otherwise are unequivocal.
[quote=marksimms] Elsmacko - Sorry mate, you live on a different planet..
Theft is theft..
Simple as..
|
The majority of music downloading and software piracy is done by people who would not normally be purchasing these products, IMO. It's not really that big of a problem until those who are stealing these products are using them for their own financial benefit: an ipod DJ making money off working a party, or a photographer selling prints they made using a pirated copy of photoshop.
If you're just listening to some tunes or touching up some personal photos, I don't see how corporations like Adobe or Universal can really complain. They aren't losing money cause they weren't going to make it off these people anyways.
In the case of ripped photos, I don't think the problem lies with the fact that Librodo or Kiwiness had their photos defaced; the real problem is the fact that someone else claimed the copyright to those images as their own.
Message edited by author 2007-03-05 04:33:20. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 04:38:51 AM · #67 |
| Also, another point to consider here is the fact that the ripped images are too small to produce a marketable print. Its not like these people are going to make money off their images, as outside of the internet, they are basically useless. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 04:39:59 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by option:
The majority of music downloading and software piracy is done by people who would not normally be purchasing these products, IMO. It's not really that big of a problem until those who are stealing these products are using them for their own financial benefit: an ipod DJ making money off working a party, or a photographer selling prints they made using a pirated copy of photoshop. |
Are you seriously suggesting that people should be allowed to steal things that they cannot afford, because they would not be able to buy them otherwise?
Originally posted by option:
In the case of ripped photos, I don't think the problem lies with the fact that Librodo or Kiwiness had their photos defaced; the real problem is the fact that someone else claimed the copyright to those images as their own. |
Ironically, the one thing they do have is a copyright in the derivative work. The only legal issue is the copying of the base photographs. Claiming copyright so strongly is hypocritical, but little more.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 04:51:32 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Are you seriously suggesting that people should be allowed to steal things that they cannot afford, because they would not be able to buy them otherwise? |
No, but all the "lost sales" numbers that the music and movie industries like to quote are very misleading because of this.
I'll continue this tomorrow when I'm not drunk...
Message edited by author 2007-03-05 05:08:10. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 05:36:05 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by option:
I'll continue this tomorrow when I'm not drunk... |
Ahhh, a lesson I have learned and re-learned the hard way. Good choice and good night.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 09:34:14 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by JunieMoon:
Originally posted by mouten:
as long as you can do screen capture, I don't see how you can prevent any image displayed on a website from being copied... |
I don't know how Better Photo does it, but you cannot copy any images, not even your own, from there. Apparently there is a way to lock out illegal use of photos. It is probably expensive to do, though, so dp probably doesn't want to get into that. It can be done, however. Even some stock photo sites, you can't copy images. |
Trust me ... if it is on my monitor, I can copy it with 3 keyhits.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 09:47:51 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by JunieMoon:
Originally posted by mouten:
as long as you can do screen capture, I don't see how you can prevent any image displayed on a website from being copied... |
I don't know how Better Photo does it, but you cannot copy any images, not even your own, from there. Apparently there is a way to lock out illegal use of photos. It is probably expensive to do, though, so dp probably doesn't want to get into that. It can be done, however. Even some stock photo sites, you can't copy images. |
A couple of firefox extensions will circumvent this:
Backgroundimage saver https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1853/ saves the image under the transparent GIF
Image Toolbar https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/243/ gives you an image toolbar that lets you save images
Save Images https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3404/ saves all the images on a page.
Basically, if the bits can get to your browser, either your browser can save the image, or some program between TCP/IP and your browser will be able to intercept and save them.
About the only thing that would help is if DPC puts some sort of tag in the image that you can search, either in the EXIF data or somewhere in the photo. But I don't know if Google or any search engine can search EXIF or other parts of the photo. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 09:48:07 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by PurpleFire:
Well I'm glad as a community, we managed to get good sense to prevail.
We should be happy with ourselves! |
I'm proud of you. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:08:44 AM · #74 |
The only way I have seen around this (getting restitution if they sell them) yet is that they don't have model releases from the people in the photographs AND the images could be construed as defamatory. They are pretty gross after all and I would be pissed if someone did that to my face or the face of one of my models.
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:58:09 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
The only way I have seen around this (getting restitution if they sell them) yet is that they don't have model releases from the people in the photographs AND the images could be construed as defamatory. They are pretty gross after all and I would be pissed if someone did that to my face or the face of one of my models.
Just a thought. |
Model releases are fairly irrelevant here - the release is only necessary if the photographs are going to be used commercially (usually meaning in an advertisement). The model has to consent to that additional use. Substantially all other uses (including being used as part of a derivative piece of art) are allowed by default.
Defamation usually relates to words, not images, and is unrelated to the model release. By uploading your image, you have virtually pasted your virtual poster on a virtual wall and you have limited recourse if someone else defaces it (as in real life).
A friendly e-mail to the artist is probably the best solution - an unfriendly one appears to have worked in this case (but out of common courtesy would be something that I would hold in reserve in case the friendly one did not work).
|
|
