DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> "Collecting" Images & Copyright
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 28, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/09/2008 12:39:34 PM · #1
You guys seen this site?

//www.papree.com

Where you can "collect" images from all over the web... I know it's not as bad as some of the stuff being stolen on flickr but is it still copyright infringement?

Also should we be allowed to display a copyright notice our images on dpc, or have dpc overlay a small standard size watermark on everyone's images? Keeping it a standard size and font would make it visible, but neat enough not to get in the way of voting.
05/09/2008 01:02:46 PM · #2
Their TOS seems contradictory to the site's goals. Harvest pictures! Anything you like! From anywhere! But only your own.

Originally posted by papree:

Copyright Complaints

We respect the intellectual property rights of others and we prohibit users from uploading, posting or otherwise transmitting on the Papree website or service any materials that violate another party's intellectual property rights. When we receive proper Notification of Alleged Copyright Infringement, we promptly remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing material and terminate the accounts of repeat infringers as described herein in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. If you believe that any material on the Site infringes upon any copyright which you own or control, you may send a written notification of such infringement to our Designated Agent.
05/09/2008 01:03:25 PM · #3
Here's what they have to say: Link
05/09/2008 01:10:59 PM · #4
Isn't this a DPC image? DPC Image?

This one for sure is a DPC image! DPC Challenge Image

Message edited by author 2008-05-09 13:17:37.
05/09/2008 01:19:40 PM · #5
This looks nasty bad. Go out and fetch lots of pictures. Don't break any copyright laws but by the way we're not lawyers so what do we know.

Looks like there is a bunch of dp challenge shots there already:

//www.papree.com/photo/gallery?loginid=dpchallengecom

Message edited by author 2008-05-09 13:20:30.
05/09/2008 01:23:16 PM · #6
Personally I don't see any copyright infringement in collecting pictures off the internet for personal use. It's good form though to link the original or credit the artist. It's against copyright to use it commercially or to claim it as your own (although I'm not even positive the second is technically a copyright issue and not some other part of the law. It's wrong anyway.)

Message edited by author 2008-05-09 13:23:50.
05/09/2008 01:25:38 PM · #7
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Personally I don't see any copyright infringement in collecting pictures off the internet for personal use. It's good form though to link the original or credit the artist. It's against copyright to use it commercially or to claim it as your own (although I'm not even positive the second is technically a copyright issue and not some other part of the law. It's wrong anyway.)


Hmm...I never thought of it that way.
* No one is claiming these shots as their own.
* No one is making money from them.
* There is a link to the original so users aren't uploading pirated images just linking to ones that they like

Darn you Doc for making me see the other side! I was looking forward to grumbling all day! :)

Message edited by author 2008-05-13 18:06:01.
05/09/2008 01:44:32 PM · #8
As long as they are properly linked and credited appropriately, I think it's probably ok, and it is good exposure for DPC.
05/09/2008 01:55:18 PM · #9
Originally posted by Citadel:

Darn you Doc for making me see the other side! I was looking forward to grumbling all day! :)


Just look at your temporary internet files. Your computer is doing the exact same thing. If they are guilty, so is every internet user.
05/09/2008 02:15:15 PM · #10
I dunno - it's complex. Make no mistake, they are benefiting from others work even without any sales or anything. I always find the google story interesting... they have copies of huge libraries & images for providing something they benefit from...

Don't know the answer..... other then don't put it online if you don't want it distributed...
05/09/2008 02:24:35 PM · #11
Originally posted by Katmystiry:



This one for sure is a DPC image! DPC Challenge Image


Wow, thats MY image.
I feel as if i've finally "made it"... i may weep now. </sarcasm>

Thanks Kat.
05/09/2008 02:40:08 PM · #12
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Citadel:

Darn you Doc for making me see the other side! I was looking forward to grumbling all day! :)


Just look at your temporary internet files. Your computer is doing the exact same thing. If they are guilty, so is every internet user.

Not exactly -- the copy on your hard drive is there so that it can be displayed to you. that's nothing like re-uploading the image to another site so others can see it.

The copyright violation (if there is one) is not the copying of the file (like to your browser cache) itself, but the "reproduction" involved in posting it for others to see.

Also, linking to the image so that it displays on another site violates the DPC TOS regarding deep-linking, and is a theft of bandwidth. I think the "proper" way to reference a photo which is not your own is to place a text-link to the photo's display page (NOT to the photo alone).

Message edited by author 2008-05-09 14:42:07.
05/09/2008 02:50:10 PM · #13
You are welcome Zepp. There are quite a few more DPC images I saw there but didn't post them all. Those that don't wish their photos posted by others might want to go check the site out.

Originally posted by ZeppKash:

Originally posted by Katmystiry:



This one for sure is a DPC image! DPC Challenge Image


Wow, thats MY image.
I feel as if i've finally "made it"... i may weep now. </sarcasm>

Thanks Kat.
05/09/2008 03:00:55 PM · #14
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Citadel:

Darn you Doc for making me see the other side! I was looking forward to grumbling all day! :)


Just look at your temporary internet files. Your computer is doing the exact same thing. If they are guilty, so is every internet user.


Do you make money from your temporary internet files? Do people look at your T.I.F.s? Are they displayed for all to see?

The simple fact is that without those images, the people at Papree won't make any money, so they are using those images to generate money. The simple fact is that as the creator of an image, you have, with a very few and narrow exceptions, complete control over the use of that image. You, personally, may not wish to do anything about it, but that decision is up to the creator.
05/09/2008 03:22:16 PM · #15
Why isn't hotlinking disabled on DPC?
05/09/2008 03:29:29 PM · #16
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The simple fact is that without those images, the people at Papree won't make any money, so they are using those images to generate money. The simple fact is that as the creator of an image, you have, with a very few and narrow exceptions, complete control over the use of that image. You, personally, may not wish to do anything about it, but that decision is up to the creator.


Welcome to the internet. I'd disagree with your assertion that "with a very few and narrow exceptions" clause, but I hear you. I highly doubt one would be able to successfully prosecute such an operation. I completely doubt you could prosecute the people who are linking the photos.

Someone pointed out that Google makes money due to linking as well. Nobody is decrying them as far as I know. It's all a sticky morass and your repeated use of the word "simple" reminds me of a quote by historian Jacob Burckhardt..."Beware the terrible simplifiers."

Message edited by author 2008-05-09 15:29:56.
05/09/2008 03:55:13 PM · #17
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The simple fact is that without those images, the people at Papree won't make any money, so they are using those images to generate money. The simple fact is that as the creator of an image, you have, with a very few and narrow exceptions, complete control over the use of that image. You, personally, may not wish to do anything about it, but that decision is up to the creator.


Welcome to the internet. I'd disagree with your assertion that "with a very few and narrow exceptions" clause, but I hear you. I highly doubt one would be able to successfully prosecute such an operation. I completely doubt you could prosecute the people who are linking the photos.

Someone pointed out that Google makes money due to linking as well. Nobody is decrying them as far as I know. It's all a sticky morass and your repeated use of the word "simple" reminds me of a quote by historian Jacob Burckhardt..."Beware the terrible simplifiers."


You would likely not be able to sue the site itself unless you could show the terms of their site violate the law. There's certainly a disconnect between their disclaimer about "Don't violate copyright." and their disregard for images that are clearly protected. I wouldn't want to defend what they're doing in court should someone get pissed off enough to go after them. Claiming ignorance is not an excuse. If the site is moderated, which Papree.com clearly is, they are responsible.

A lawsuit would be a chore, but it's easy to get them to stop displaying your image should you wish.

Successfully suing someone for infringement really is pretty simple.

You may not believe it to be so, but it's certainly more verifiable than some other things you do believe.

Message edited by author 2008-05-09 15:56:04.
05/09/2008 04:24:15 PM · #18
And they even have the gaul to put a transparent gif over the image to stop you right clicking...

Anyway, to ask again, it's really easy to disable hot linking, why isn't it disabled?
05/09/2008 04:27:46 PM · #19
Originally posted by rob_smith:

Anyway, to ask again, it's really easy to disable hot linking, why isn't it disabled?

I believe (I'd have to re-check to be sure) that you are allowed to hot-link to your own images from your own website, for things like promoting sales of your prints. I don't know what technical issues would be involved in disabling it for some while enabling it for others ...
05/09/2008 07:08:56 PM · #20
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You would likely not be able to sue the site itself unless you could show the terms of their site violate the law. There's certainly a disconnect between their disclaimer about "Don't violate copyright." and their disregard for images that are clearly protected. I wouldn't want to defend what they're doing in court should someone get pissed off enough to go after them. Claiming ignorance is not an excuse. If the site is moderated, which Papree.com clearly is, they are responsible.


BitTorrent just got hit with $110 million in damages for a similar thing you are claiming. However, I still don't think they (the photo site, not BitTorrent) are violating copyright (I guess that's my opinion though).

I would consider it to be similar enough to this case described in wiki:
A US court case in 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.

You can read the fair use wiki for yourself.

Message edited by author 2008-05-09 19:09:24.
05/09/2008 11:15:02 PM · #21
Too lazy to read all this - is the gist that people are "collecting" other people's images from the internet, and displaying them on papree.com, without permission from the copyright owner? Is that what papree.com is about?

If so, what exactly is the argument that this is not copyright infringement?

As for the Arriba Soft case, I understand (but have not read all of that decision) it related to a search engine that used thumbnails and initially inline-linked the thumbnails to a photo page that was not the copyright holder's webpage (not good for Arriba Soft). But the search engine soon changed (probably on advice of counsel) and no longer inline-linked the photos. Instead, the thumbnails were linked to the original copyright holder's website. That use was found to be OK because, among other things, the thumbnails were found not to be a replacement for the actual photo and, to view the actual photo a user had to go to the copyright holder's website - traffic was not diverted from the copyright owner's site, but to their site. Even so, I believe it was a close case.

And none of those factors apply to papree.com as I understand this. Someone correct me if I have this papree.com thing wrong.
05/10/2008 12:09:43 AM · #22
Originally posted by Patents4u:

Too lazy to read all this - is the gist that people are "collecting" other people's images from the internet, and displaying them on papree.com, without permission from the copyright owner? Is that what papree.com is about?

If so, what exactly is the argument that this is not copyright infringement?


The issue is that they are not simply lifting the photo and posting it on their account. An account holder basically creates a portfolio of interesting photos they found on the web. When you view the photo, it clearly states where, on the internet, the photo is. Basically, just like the 'favorites' folders right here in DPC, except without boundaries.

If you really want to test the legality, find some NFL photos on papree and report them to the NFL. From what I hear, the NFL takes no prisoners when it comes to copyright.
05/10/2008 12:21:00 AM · #23
There are close to 100 dpchallenge photos on the site according to google. Perform this search: site:papree.com dpchallenge and you will get back pages of results. You have to sign up to see some of them from the looks of it, but the URLs are visible at google. At least they have the links back to the original site. I guess that is worth something at least.

edited for spelling...

Message edited by author 2008-05-10 00:22:43.
05/10/2008 12:44:32 AM · #24
Originally posted by Trinch:


When you view the photo, it clearly states where, on the internet, the photo is. Basically, just like the 'favorites' folders right here in DPC, except without boundaries.


Doesn't matter if they tell you where they got it or who the copyright owner actually is (removing a copyright notice is illegal anyway). Telling me who took the photograph or where I can go to see the same photograph does not cure the infringement. Nor is there any sane hope of pleading fair use on the facts as I know them. I really cannot see a valid argument to support it. It does not strike me as a close case.

As for DPC, we've all agreed to certain usage so that is with consent and nothing like the site in question.
05/10/2008 02:53:26 AM · #25
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by rob_smith:

Anyway, to ask again, it's really easy to disable hot linking, why isn't it disabled?

I believe (I'd have to re-check to be sure) that you are allowed to hot-link to your own images from your own website, for things like promoting sales of your prints. I don't know what technical issues would be involved in disabling it for some while enabling it for others ...


Really, do people do this? I just upload mine to my own server.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/01/2020 04:37:49 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/01/2020 04:37:49 PM EST.