Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

A different slant on the photo-theft issue

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

User_Removed
19 Nov 2012 - 11:18 AM

There have been many discussions on ePz about breaches of copyright and online photo "theft". I tend to have a different view to many other contributors in that I think that is someone publishes a photo on any internet site they are, de facto, placing it where Joe Public can see it and should be very happy if others assist in that process by copying it on to other sites. But, as I say, not everyone agrees with that.

On a somewhat different tack, most of those allegations of "theft" or "copyright breach" relate to instances of an image being copied from a website or online service and then re-posted elsewhere. Does that differ from "virtual" piracy by merely posting a link to the original site?

In other words, if User A instead of copying an image from User B's website and then posting it on his own website, merely posts on his website a hyperlink to the image on User B's website or Flickr account or wherever, is this OK? I ask because it happens a lot on this ePz forum and no-one seems to object (rightly imho).

.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 19 Nov 2012 - 11:21 AM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
19 Nov 2012 - 11:18 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit
mikehit  56297 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Nov 2012 - 11:34 AM

On the whole, I'd agree with you. People post on the internet to share and achieve some form of recognition - linking images maintains that recognition in a way that copying the picture does not. Add into the mix the possibility that (rarely, but is blown out of proportion) someone may be using the picture as if it was their own to further their own business and you have a combustible mix where the photographer is annoyed because they rightly feel they should share in the financial benefits of the image, and other photographers who see their business being undermined.

Jestertheclown
19 Nov 2012 - 11:43 AM

Hi LF,
I've said, for a long time, that anything that you upload to the internet will be considered 'fair game' by a lot of, probably nearly all of the people that see it and will be copied/used/nicked (delete as appropriate, depending upon your point of view) with no concern as to whether or not they're doing anything wrong.
The answer is, of course, simple. If you don't want people to do that with your images etc., then don't upload them in the first place.
Nothing's going to change and however much people within these forums might like to bluster, you can't stop it.

paulcookphotography

Blogging, pinning an image on Pintrest or similar actions are fine, and generally, i think as long as the person using the image either gives credit or links back to the original artist then its all good (unless the original artist has expressed that they dont want the image used without their permission, for example). Afterall, we post things online so others can see them, so having it shared around networks is a good thing.

However, there are those who take an image and use it as their own, and claim so too. I have had it happen several times where they have either just cropped the image to remove a visible watermark, or added their own over the top. Fortunately i was able to get the situation resolved b the website hosts, as my images had my details embedded in the exif and i could prove ownership.

The only work i dont post online is work i have done as private commissions, and work that has been licensed to various parties (eg, for book illustrations, album covers, etc). Afterall, they have paid to use my work (or paid me to create an image for them), so why should everyone else get to use it for free?

Unfortunately its very hard to stop folk using your work, but thats just the nature of the digital world. Whats more frustrating is when folk come to an exhibition or craft sale and take photographs of your work to post online or print for themselves, lol. Like, helloo! You can buy it, thats what its there for!

GlennH
GlennH  91918 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
19 Nov 2012 - 12:36 PM


Quote: should be very happy if others assist in that process by copying it on to other sites. But, as I say, not everyone agrees with that.

Well, no, because Joe Public isn't really 'assisting' in anything, he's just ignoring, or is ignorant of, copyright law. Either way, there are a proportion of photographers for whom this is a significant source of income.

cameracat
cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
19 Nov 2012 - 12:54 PM

LOL....Smile That old onion....Sad

Don't you just lurve all those posts squeaking on about images getting nicked, Yup! Those ever so high res 1000 pixel wide efforts, All being used by this one and that, All making vast fortunes from the hard graft of other struggling artists.....Grin Giggle.....Smile

I'm just left wondering, What vast amounts are these image bandits making, In a world where image worth is plummeting like a well oiled anvil in mid Atlantic, Fact is your going to need one of them there supercomputers, If you really want to see what some of these images are truly worth, That's because your average desk calculator, Simply does not have enough decimal places..Wink

ie: 00000000000000000.000000000000000.0000000000000.00000000.0.0.0.0.0.1p, Last time I looked on Alamy, That's before they deduct commission to...Sad

So in a nutshell, Its open season on images/text/words of wisdom, Plus everything else you can imagine in this share everything social networking crazy age.....!!!

Just get used to it and get over it, Heck! Its free advertising and no advertising is bad advertising.....Wink

paulcookphotography


Quote:
ie: 00000000000000000.000000000000000.0000000000000.00000000.0.0.0.0.0.1p, Last time I looked on Alamy, That's before they deduct commission to...Sad



Hmm, if thats what you think the value of your (or anyone else's) work is worth, i'm hoping you arent aiming to turn pro or work in media, lol

Also, its very easy to re-create a high res image from a 72dpi, 1000px wide image using modern software

Last Modified By paulcookphotography at 19 Nov 2012 - 1:02 PM
779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Nov 2012 - 1:05 PM


Quote: should be very happy if others assist in that process by copying it on to other sites. But, as I say, not everyone agrees with that.


Quote: Well, no, because Joe Public isn't really 'assisting' in anything, he's just ignoring, or is ignorant of, copyright law. Either way, there are a proportion of photographers for whom this is a significant source of income.

Agree with Glenn.


Quote: if User A instead of copying an image from User B's website and then posting it on his own website, merely posts on his website a hyperlink to the image on User B's website or Flickr account or wherever, is this OK?

Of course this is ok. No-one is losing out here. User A gets to share the image(s) and User B retains "control" of the image(s). User A isn't claiming the image is theirs.


Quote: i think as long as the person using the image either gives credit or links back to the original artist then its all good

Broadly I would agree with this unless the site using the image is making money from the image.

Last Modified By 779HOB at 19 Nov 2012 - 1:05 PM
Jestertheclown
19 Nov 2012 - 1:34 PM


Quote: its very easy to re-create a high res image from a 72dpi, 1000px wide image using modern software


I've produced a few prints from 72ppi 1000px. images, for a friend who'd downloaded them from her IPhone and they were all quite passable. She was happy and put a couple on her sideboard.

I'm not sure that you could have done anything else with them though.

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014125 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
19 Nov 2012 - 1:44 PM


Quote: I'm not sure that you could have done anything else with them though.

I have blown similar shots up to A3+ (using qimage) and they have looked pretty good, certainly good enough for people to have them framed on their wall.

Jestertheclown
19 Nov 2012 - 2:03 PM

Hi Chris,
It's not something I know much about. There's always been a school of thought that says that you can't successfully make images larger but if I'm honest, I've never tried.
There was a thread somewhere recently, it may have been on here, in which we were discussing the relative merits, or otherwise, of increasing the size in stages, about 10% at a time, or simply telling Photoshop to increase it by 100%, for example, in one go.
It seemed that there was little difference between the two and that both would work.

User_Removed
19 Nov 2012 - 5:33 PM


Quote: In other words, if User A instead of copying an image from User B's website and then posting it on his own website, merely posts on his website a hyperlink to the image on User B's website or Flickr account or wherever, is this OK? I ask because it happens a lot on this ePz forum and no-one seems to object (rightly imho).

Except that this causes a problem with bandwidth. You are just stealing in a different way from the person. Unless your link ends with .html you shouldn't link to it.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 19 Nov 2012 - 5:34 PM
779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 - 7:26 AM


Quote: Except that this causes a problem with bandwidth. You are just stealing in a different way from the person. Unless your link ends with .html you shouldn't link to it.

I don't understand. If someone is linking to my site from theirs how are they stealing. If I do this on my website : LINK to a photo I like : have I stolen your photo?

Not sure I understand the issue with bandwidth or the need for the link to end in .html either but then I am not Mr technical.

Last Modified By 779HOB at 20 Nov 2012 - 7:26 AM
GlennH
GlennH  91918 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
20 Nov 2012 - 7:51 AM

I think Bugs is referring to hot-linking as opposed to simply posting a clickable URL. The former directly accesses the photo so that it appears on the page that is linking to it; in doing that it uses the bandwidth of the original host site.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
20 Nov 2012 - 7:58 AM


Quote: I think Bugs is referring to hot-linking as opposed to simply posting a clickable URL. The former directly accesses the photo so that it appears on the page that is linking to it; in doing that it uses the bandwidth of the original host site.

Ah, ok. Yes then I guess that is the same as downloading the photo and uploading to your own site and wrong.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.