| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/18/2004 01:59:09 PM · #51 |
There is no copyright prevention if the image appears on screen and it doesn't have to be downloaded at all - a screen grab will see to that.
To scupper the thieves you'd have to plaster it with copyright info on the uploaded file beyond recognition. Any subtle info can be cloned out - very easy, especially by those who are so desperate as to use others' work anyway.
Tragic and unfulfilling if you ask me - it's pathetic. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:01:49 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
what about a default dpchallenge watermark applied to all images entered for the challenges? Sort of like the corbis watermark... It could either be applied by the site automatically or we could download an image that we could layer over our pictures in photoshop, but this would be optional. thoughts? |
Then your images wouldn't look very good.
They are of such low quality print-wise that I don't think anyone is going to profit from taking a photograph from here or your website.
This comes up quite a lot and there really is nothing you can do. I have seen a lot of my work -photography and 3D on other sites. If you have your own website you can look at your logs and see where your hits are coming from.
Quite a lot of people will post photographs linking directly from your site, so by looking at the logs you can see who they are and what they are saying.
Sometimes people have posted my work and discussed it (quite a nice feeling) others have claimed it as theirs.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:04:18 PM · #53 |
There are certainly several approaches to "anti-right-click" protect images, but none of these will protect against those that really wish to steal the image. If it can be displayed, it can be stolen.
I really don't care for the "default watermark" idea, in order to be useful it would need to be so obtrusive that it would inevitably detract from the images.
Our best recourse is to complain loudly to the admins of any site found to have misappropriated images on it, and to ask to have the user's account suspended or better yet terminated. In cases where the thief is running his/her own site, we can approach the ISP with our information. This last approach was very successful in dealing with a recent situation like this.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:04:25 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by moodville:
]Example 5
Looks like he visits DPC a lot. |
I had a look at the link! Thanks for posting it! Time to get out my bazzzzooka!! ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:14:51 PM · #55 |
| The thieving git. Send the boys round. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:15:53 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Honestly, there isn't much that can be done about this. As another poster has stated, once you post it on the Internet, it is 'free'. |
Posting on the internet only makes an image freely available, not free. It's just like leaving your keys in your car- anyone can take it, but it's still a crime.
While screen captures are always an option to steal an image, not everyone thinks of that. Simply coding a transparent box over this site's images would discourage some people. Right-clicking on an image then would only get you the invisible box, not the photo.
|
Of course posting the image on the 'net doesn't make it free, hence my use of 'free' instead of plain ole free. The image is made freely available to view and subsequently 'steal' if one is so inclined.
No amount of extra coding, save converting all images to 100% black boxes would be able to stop such theft. Especially when there are endless conversations across all sorts of forums regarding this issue and someone remarks about the 3 or 4 ways to defeat the rather simplistic 'protection' methods discussed here.
Message edited by author 2004-08-18 14:18:08. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:18:49 PM · #57 |
I think we should preemptively seek out individuals who possess SMRs (Software for Mass Reproduction) and take them out before these copyright infringement attacks take place. Adobe should be held responsible for issuing software licenses to these terror...er...infringists and be held equally responsible for their actions. In light of this, I suggest we all initiate denial of service attacks on adobe.com.
Sorry, I'm in a weird mood. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:20:11 PM · #58 |
Is he a member here, or does he just frequently visit our site?
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:22:19 PM · #59 |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:23:18 PM · #60 |
You rock, seanachai... I'm joining just for that!!!!!! :o)
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:23:26 PM · #61 |
If nothing else, we can make sure that those sites where this happens know about this person's activities.
There was a similar thread a couple months ago about someone doing a similar thing on DeviantArt.com
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:24:13 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by bledford:
I think we should preemptively seek out individuals who possess SMRs (Software for Mass Reproduction) and take them out before these copyright infringement attacks take place. Adobe should be held responsible for issuing software licenses to these terror...er...infringists and be held equally responsible for their actions. In light of this, I suggest we all initiate denial of service attacks on adobe.com.
Sorry, I'm in a weird mood. |
Heh. Next you'll be telling us that you have reliable information suggesting that these so-called SMR's are in the posession of Adobe and Photoshopcontest.com, and could be used at any time... |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:29:28 PM · #63 |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:29:35 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by computerking:
Heh. Next you'll be telling us that you have reliable information suggesting that these so-called SMR's are in the posession of Adobe and Photoshopcontest.com, and could be used at any time... |
Not only that, but I have credulous, er I mean, credible evidence that there are agents among us, on this very website, posing as original creators of photographic images. Still, these individuals are here only to plan their next use of SMR technology against us. I have a memo that fleshes all of this out, but I don't seem to be able to find it...
Message edited by author 2004-08-18 14:30:30. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:29:37 PM · #65 |
must have worked there were over 800 guest a few mins ago |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 02:29:54 PM · #66 |
I'm interested to know how you found the thief. Hoe ever did you know they were there?
I just did a search using google images which is one of the tools these guys at Photoshopcontest.com use. I couldn't see anything of my stuff.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 03:14:12 PM · #67 |
i would say that there is a whole different mind set between dpc and that site. dpc is about creating pictures that can be verified as original. while the whole point of the other site is to photoshop an original picture into another version of the original.
when you start with a premise like that, you are bound to have problems with people creating their own work. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 03:21:18 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by Spurs:
at least no right click and saving images |
yup ... i agree ... it's a good idea |
It is pointless and annoying. It is not a good idea.
It does nothing to stop people stealing images, is easily circumvented and only serves to frustrate legitmate users. There are no upsides to 'right click' removal. It is a bad idea. The only vaguely slight advantage would be to issue a copyright notice, so that someone who didn't realise they were perhaps about to violate copyright law would be more informed. It is unlikely that the people doing this repeatedly, and repeatedly getting banned on the linked site here don't know it is a violation and actually care anyway.
The only way you can stop someone stealing an image is not allow them to display it on their computer, or sufficiently corrupt the image on their display to make it unusuable. This also makes it unviewable. Large 'PROOF' marks across the middle would be an example of this.
Message edited by author 2004-08-18 15:27:37.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 03:24:55 PM · #69 |
i'm curious if anyone knows ways images can be stolen when served up by a flash SWF file.
you can try to steal one here if you'd like, and let me know if you succeed.
route108.com
its mine so you wont get in trouble for trying.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 03:29:49 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by soup:
i'm curious if anyone knows ways images can be stolen when served up by a flash SWF file.
you can try to steal one here if you'd like, and let me know if you succeed.
route108.com
its mine so you wont get in trouble for trying. |
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 03:32:32 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by soup:
i'm curious if anyone knows ways images can be stolen when served up by a flash SWF file.
you can try to steal one here if you'd like, and let me know if you succeed.
route108.com
its mine so you wont get in trouble for trying. |
yep, just print screen and then paste into photoshop and save as. All images stolen! |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 03:36:19 PM · #72 |
Hehehe... I was just going to do that...
Some are faster then others.
The point Gordon is making and the point I suggested earlier is that if you display it online (or anywhere in the public for that matter) it can be 'stolen'.
The only way to really stop that is as I suggested blind the populace of the world or simply refuse to display your work in a public forum, such as the Internet or a public location in the physical world.
*fixed 'bling' into 'blind' my typing sucks sometimes...*
Message edited by author 2004-08-18 15:37:22. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 03:38:38 PM · #73 |
just to show how easy it is. we now have two.
 |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 03:41:59 PM · #74 |
didnt even think of that - thanks.
that's part of why i kept them only 429px on the long side. so the draw to copy wouldn't be as great.
is there a way to disable print screen from the server?
i don't see any other way it could be done. they arent embedded in the swf.
not that i am all that worried, just more curious.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 03:42:38 PM · #75 |
Also plenty of swf decompilers out there... Anyways, I don't think I would be mad if someone would use my images with his name, all I could feel is pitty. Size of the images we upload here or anywhere else is not good enough so they can sell it, so if anyone posts my image with his name all I can really feel is pitty. If he would sell it that would be a different story... Just imagine what a sad person can one be to post someone else's work and say it's his own...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/11/2025 01:43:19 PM EDT.
