Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by Lightmancer, Nov 18, 2011.
Life in these social media times... who's content is it???
Oh goody. Well, I'm not that fussed, I'll never upload anything that I consider to be not thievable, and I NEVER upload the full size of anything I do. I know sometimes people want to see that but sorry, not happening.
It is beginning to feel like there is nothing sacred at all. Our "stuff" isnt safe on the internet. People steal it, they use it to make money, they change it and call it their own. I had my first experience of this about 10 years ago when I was creating graphics for various Windows based shell alternatives. Its not a pleasant feeling at all.
If it is online someone can steal it, all we can do is make it harder so to do. Avoiding uploading to google+ is a good start....
Streetshooter, thanks for correcting the link - Tapatalk isn't that clever
Copyright theft is rife enough without Google encouraging it by makign it easier. I find Tineye very useful too.
This is a non-story. The image you see displayed on G+ is not the original image. So what if you can save it directly with no metadata. Even if there was metadata all you have to do is download the image, (which is the original image and contains all the metadata) and strip it out.
Incidentally, try downloading reduced size images in Flickr and you'll find the same thing. Only the full size image contains the full exif data. Also, right click disabled and 'no download' settings are useless. In the former case all you have to do is disable JS; for the latter, go to 'inspect element' or 'view page info' find the address for the image file, copy, past and save.
As has been said many times, if you don't want your images used, don't post them on the internet. The real issue is not whether you occasionally have one of your images used without acknowledgement or consent but whether the people hosting your image - i.e. google, facebook etc, are engaged in a rights grab that enables them to make money from your images.
Google's practice in this regard is not perfect but is better than many others.
Olli is right, in that images can easily be stripped of metadata. However I think it does show the problems of how any created material is treated on the internet. I was involved in a "heated" debate at mu-43 regarding proposed US legislation, and its certainly not my intention to start that up again here, but there are real issues as to what publishing anything on the internet means.
Anything we write, any photographs, video and music we post are just sitting there, and its almost impossible to protect against uses of that material that we might not like, or indeed to track down such use. The notion of getting it removed or god forbid, getting some financial reward for what we create, is also usually out of the question.
For example, I know normally quite reputable web designers, who seem to see nothing wrong in just grabbing images from flickr or other sources on the net and using them without credits or of course a fee. The irony of course is that should anyone copy THEIR designs they suddenly get very angry.
What do we do? Well I have no particular answer other than my gut reaction, which usually involves something painful happening to the body parts of people who steal my work!! and there is certainly a role for legislation of some kind, though just how successful that might be, is something I have doubts about.
Currently, probably all that we can do is make it very clear that our work is NOT free to use and hope for the best. When I post anything on Google+, I do it via a link to my blog and immediately under that link is my copyright assertion statement. This doesn't of course mean that anyone who wants to steal it will be in any way deterred, but at least if I, or the pictures libraries who sell my work get wind of it being used without permission, we have some evidence that it has been clearly stated that respect of copyright is expected.
Finally however, I would say, that companies like Google and Flickr could show that they at least subscribe to the notion that peoples creative work is entitled to be respected, which they and many other internet sites currently don't.
Exactly. I have had a few examples of my images being used without my permission. In each case I have sought and gained redress. Theft is theft. Google and others do not take this seriously.
I'd be interested to know how you managed that, Bill
I don't have a financial interest in my images, but I do like to have at least credit or a link back to Flickr if they are used elsewhere.
I recently found a site with a lot of my photostream on it (and many other Fickr users' 'streams) without any links back or acknowledgment of source.
I complained to the site (twice - no a sniff of a response) and to Flickr (whose response was "we cannot control the content of 3rd party sites")
Google's attitude to copyright is flexible, to say the least
In two cases I used "whois" to find out the name and address of the person behind the website and wrote a recorded delivery letter to them with an invoice. Both cases resulted in a payment for use. In the third I had an image being used from Flickr on a Russian website. I had the image blocked by Flickr and the website removed from their affiliate program.
This is exactly why I usually have big ugly watermarks on my stuff and avoid posting them anywhere but my Zenfolio web gallery because it's easy to watermark them there. It's true that copyright info can be stripped out of metadata, but at least Zenfolio doesn't strip it out upon upload, which I think is outrageous because it keeps honest people from contacting the photographer if they run across the photo somehwere without attribution. Flickr and betterphoto.com used to strip it out but I hope they've stopped by now.
Big watermarks are ugly, yes, but it really irritates me when my images are stolen because I put a lot of time into photo-editing. Watermarks can be removed, of course, but I figure it's rare to go to that much trouble if the watermark is on important parts of an image. Don't buy the popular myth that reducing your resolution to 72 dpi is any protection, because the image can up-rezzed very easily.
A side issue is the negative imact on pro photographers of the web being full of photos that can be freely lifted with no consequence. Too many people think why buy at even microstock prices when you can just steal? In a similar vein:
Separate names with a comma.