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

Re the locked stolen photo what to do thread

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

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

boony
boony  7978 forum posts United Kingdom3 Constructive Critique Points
19 Dec 2012 - 4:15 PM

I leave you all alone for a few days and you've had a party on my post lol!

Chris L - I'm suggesting YOU represent the O.P. mate. Go halfs on any money you get, should be enough for a pint over christmas. Or half a pint at the very least! And you are assuming you are the only person I'm talking to in my replies, there are other people on the forum, other people who posted and other people I was replying to.

I'm in no way suggesting that ANYBODY should let use/theft/"borrowing" of their pics or whatever you want to call it (this isn't just you Chris, all the contributors to this thread are included) just slide without any action. What I am suggesting is that they need to be sensible about seeking recompense, non of us on here are Rankin or Leibowitz or Bailey I would 20 or 30 quid or if you're lucky 50 quid for the image that's been nicked here would probably be more than fair.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
19 Dec 2012 - 4:15 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed
19 Dec 2012 - 6:10 PM


Quote: I'm in no way suggesting that ANYBODY should let use/theft/"borrowing" of their pics or whatever you want to call it (this isn't just you Chris, all the contributors to this thread are included) just slide without any action. What I am suggesting is that they need to be sensible about seeking recompense

What do you suggest they do Boony? Smile

By the way do you you still think they can't go to court without hiring lawyers and that it would be impossible for them to convince the court that the picture had been stolen? Smile

paulcookphotography

Just caught up on this, but with regard to your comparison caps in the original thread Chris, it would be impossible to prove the image was stolen. However comparing them both to the original image would show your caps came from the same image

GlennH
GlennH e2 Member 91880 forum postsGlennH vcard France1 Constructive Critique Points
20 Dec 2012 - 6:55 AM


Quote: Just caught up on this, but with regard to your comparison caps in the original thread Chris, it would be impossible to prove the image was stolen. However comparing them both to the original image would show your caps came from the same image

Same sky, same lens, same field of view, same distortion, exactly the same view point, same flare off of the lights, and yet impossible to prove. You're pretty demanding Paul. It's not normally possible to overlay two independently taken photos in Photoshop and have them perfectly aligned, regardless of whether or not a piece has been snipped off.

If you need further evidence, simply ask for two original images.

Last Modified By GlennH at 20 Dec 2012 - 6:55 AM
thewilliam
20 Dec 2012 - 2:37 PM

One colleague was plagued by snappers stealing the copy and images from his website. Whenever he updated, the new version was soon pirated.

Then he peppered the text with seemingly random capital letters. If you wrote just the caps, the message read, "website stolen from .... ".

The bigger libraries always know whether an image is one of theirs. Your images can be easily watermarked, so were they?

User_Removed
20 Dec 2012 - 2:40 PM


Quote: with regard to your comparison caps in the original thread Chris, it would be impossible to prove the image was stolen

When did I say that my comparison caps "proved that the image was stolen" Paul?

GlennH
GlennH e2 Member 91880 forum postsGlennH vcard France1 Constructive Critique Points
20 Dec 2012 - 3:46 PM


Quote: Your images can be easily watermarked, so were they?

Not my picture William if that was directed at me; the author hasn't taken part in this thread. There was a name in the corner - obviously no real deterrent when most of the world hasn't a clue about copyright. Personally I wouldn't place a collection of that ilk on Flickr, although it'd be nice if breach of copyright wasn't quite as rampant as it is.

paulcookphotography

The thread is about an allegedly stolen image, Chris. You posted caps as a comparison of what the 'original' picture is, and what the 'stolen' image is. I did not say YOU said it proved anything. I said (and i can do this in another language if it makes it easier) the comparisons cannot prove it was stolen for reasons i have already explained

User_Removed
20 Dec 2012 - 3:50 PM


Quote: the comparisons cannot prove it was stolen for reasons i have already explained

Nobody ever said the comparisons would prove it was stolen Paul, am I correct?

paulcookphotography

What was the purpose of your (inaccurate) comparison, Chris?

GlennH
GlennH e2 Member 91880 forum postsGlennH vcard France1 Constructive Critique Points
20 Dec 2012 - 4:28 PM

Given that the photo exists as a 1024 pixel longest-side version on Tim's website, and seems to have been on Flickr as well, the invalidation of other comparisons seems something of a moot point.

paulcookphotography

Perhaps, Glenn, but it appears Chris was attempting to show that the 'stolen' image was the same as his comparison image, which, as the thread was about Tim saying his image had been stolen, he is supporting that notion

So my comment that the comparison images cannot prove the image to be stolen (as it only shows the comparisons come from another source as they are both slightly different crops of another image) is valid. Chris may not have directly said anything was stolen, but it appears his comparison was in support of that notion. Although it does appear to be a black arguing white scenario

User_Removed
20 Dec 2012 - 5:11 PM


Quote: What was the purpose of your (inaccurate) comparison, Chris?

I posted the two images to see how many people would still be stupid enough to claim they could have been taken by different photographers and would still be arguing along those lines days later.

paulcookphotography

My apologies then, I thought you were attempting to show people the stolen image and a crop of the original in support of the theft allegations. Given the context of the thread, I'm sure you can understand that I and possibly others jumped to that conclusion Tongue

Last Modified By paulcookphotography at 20 Dec 2012 - 5:23 PM
User_Removed
20 Dec 2012 - 5:25 PM

I'll clarify further Paul because I think you need to admit you were wrong in something you said:

After the caps were posted Paul you said, and I quote, "comparing the caps you posted alone would be inconclusive. That would only show both could have been taken at the same time from slightly different elevations or shooting angles"

You're completely and utterly wrong about that. There are things that match up in those photographs that would not match up if they were taken at different elevations or shooting angles.

I doubt there's a single person who agrees with your assertion "both could have been taken at the same time from slightly different elevations or shooting"

1-30-11-2012-23-06-10.jpg
1-30-11-2012-23-06-36.jpg

So Paul, you still think that they could have been taken from different angles?

Last Modified By User_Removed at 20 Dec 2012 - 5:27 PM

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.