4 ms·

Obscurity is a far more common problem than plagiarism. The best solution for this is to put a signature in the image. Most people aren't trying to steal an ima

by jobu 12y ago

Obscurity is a far more common problem than plagiarism. The best solution for this is to put a signature in the image. Most people aren't trying to steal an image without attribution, they just want to share something they liked.

stevekemp 12y ago
> Most people aren't trying to steal an image without attribution, they just want to share something they liked. As an amateur photographer you'd be amazed how many people think nothing of taking an image and slapping it on their website, or in their print media. People routinely use services like imgur.com to rehost images they have no permission to use, and can and will strip watermarks and be silent when asked for attribution. I'm used to it now, but damn it's frustrating when you take that _one_ great shot and find it everywhere on the internet the next day with no credit.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  > strip watermarks and be silent when asked for attribution. If the watermark can be removed without making the image largely useless then you're not watermarking properly. Sure, its not pretty, but this isn't a pretty world. I never understood the lazy bottom-right watermark. Its trivial to remove and sites like reddit reward fraud because people like to pretend its their content as narratives like "Oh i bought a camera and took my first photo" are eaten up by low-information voters (who i imagine are the plurality of votes on reddit).
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  Get a good C&D template. In this day and age, it's the only protection IP holders have. If someone isn't worth pursuing legally, it's not worth worrying about whether they're providing proper attribution or cutting out your watermarks, just let those people go. If you get ripped off by a commercial publisher, send some letters and get the remuneration you deserve.
  - stevekemp 12y ago
    It used to be the former, now it is the latter. Newspapers, big online sites that should know better. They take pictures and half the time you never even know unless you use tineye, or a friend/colleague will share a link with you "Hey nice work getting included in the New York Times", etc.
- metacorrector 12y ago
  I just can't sympathize, at all. I would prefer (I realize this is not the law) an internet that was considered public domain. If you don't want you picture copied, don't put it in the public domain. I do understand hard work, and skill, and putting in the time that made you the great photographer that you are, and I understand the need to earn a living, and I understand capitalism, economic profits, and accounting profits and economic profits. But a large number of highly trained and skilled people put a lot of hard work and effort into writing the open source software that is running the internet and the webservers that your images are on. I understand your perspective: you'd rather buy a proprietary microsoft operating system and a proprietary microsoft webserver so you could run a proprietary Oracle database to keep track of your DRMed photos. But understand that I wouldn't, I'd rather have a public domain web where photographers share their work like artists do and computer programmers and graphic designers and bloggers and everybody else. I'm just not that excited by your great photo, there are a lot of great photos. full disclosure: I took a significant news photo once and made money selling it. I enjoyed spending the money. I don't chase around the internet stopping people from duplicating it.
  - stevekemp 12y ago
    > If you don't want you picture copied, don't put it in the public domain. Most of my pictures are prints, hanging on walls. But you need a portfolio to attract (paying) clients, so images have to exist! > I understand your perspective: you'd rather buy a proprietary microsoft operating system and a proprietary microsoft webserver so you could run a proprietary Oracle database to keep track of your DRMed photos. So if I said I'm an ex-Debian developer who's released a pile of open-source software, for free? And does so regularly? Seriously you're getting too personal there, and just wrong. Photography started as a hobby because I love people - in the same way that woodworking is a hobby because I like doing things with my hands that are "real". But there are costs involved, I've probably spent close to 10,000 in camera-equipment, to have people steal your work, means that stuff doesn't pay for itself any more. You mention proprietary software? How would you feel if you wrote open-source software and people abused the licenses? That's copyright infringement, and the same thing is a huge deal in the photography world. Sure everybody has a camera, and fly-by-night people will take money for pictures. But that's like hiring a self-taught PHP-programmer instead of a kernel developer. There are skills, styles, niches, and similar involved that clearly differentiate photographers.

by jobu 12y ago

stevekemp 12y ago

> Most people aren't trying to steal an image without attribution, they just want to share something they liked. As an amateur photographer you'd be amazed how many people think nothing of taking an image and slapping it on their website, or in their print media. People routinely use services like imgur.com to rehost images they have no permission to use, and can and will strip watermarks and be silent when asked for attribution. I'm used to it now, but damn it's frustrating when you take that _one_ great shot and find it everywhere on the internet the next day with no credit.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
> strip watermarks and be silent when asked for attribution. If the watermark can be removed without making the image largely useless then you're not watermarking properly. Sure, its not pretty, but this isn't a pretty world. I never understood the lazy bottom-right watermark. Its trivial to remove and sites like reddit reward fraud because people like to pretend its their content as narratives like "Oh i bought a camera and took my first photo" are eaten up by low-information voters (who i imagine are the plurality of votes on reddit).
cookiecaper 12y ago
Get a good C&D template. In this day and age, it's the only protection IP holders have. If someone isn't worth pursuing legally, it's not worth worrying about whether they're providing proper attribution or cutting out your watermarks, just let those people go. If you get ripped off by a commercial publisher, send some letters and get the remuneration you deserve.
- stevekemp 12y ago
  It used to be the former, now it is the latter. Newspapers, big online sites that should know better. They take pictures and half the time you never even know unless you use tineye, or a friend/colleague will share a link with you "Hey nice work getting included in the New York Times", etc.
metacorrector 12y ago
I just can't sympathize, at all. I would prefer (I realize this is not the law) an internet that was considered public domain. If you don't want you picture copied, don't put it in the public domain. I do understand hard work, and skill, and putting in the time that made you the great photographer that you are, and I understand the need to earn a living, and I understand capitalism, economic profits, and accounting profits and economic profits. But a large number of highly trained and skilled people put a lot of hard work and effort into writing the open source software that is running the internet and the webservers that your images are on. I understand your perspective: you'd rather buy a proprietary microsoft operating system and a proprietary microsoft webserver so you could run a proprietary Oracle database to keep track of your DRMed photos. But understand that I wouldn't, I'd rather have a public domain web where photographers share their work like artists do and computer programmers and graphic designers and bloggers and everybody else. I'm just not that excited by your great photo, there are a lot of great photos. full disclosure: I took a significant news photo once and made money selling it. I enjoyed spending the money. I don't chase around the internet stopping people from duplicating it.
- stevekemp 12y ago
  > If you don't want you picture copied, don't put it in the public domain. Most of my pictures are prints, hanging on walls. But you need a portfolio to attract (paying) clients, so images have to exist! > I understand your perspective: you'd rather buy a proprietary microsoft operating system and a proprietary microsoft webserver so you could run a proprietary Oracle database to keep track of your DRMed photos. So if I said I'm an ex-Debian developer who's released a pile of open-source software, for free? And does so regularly? Seriously you're getting too personal there, and just wrong. Photography started as a hobby because I love people - in the same way that woodworking is a hobby because I like doing things with my hands that are "real". But there are costs involved, I've probably spent close to 10,000 in camera-equipment, to have people steal your work, means that stuff doesn't pay for itself any more. You mention proprietary software? How would you feel if you wrote open-source software and people abused the licenses? That's copyright infringement, and the same thing is a huge deal in the photography world. Sure everybody has a camera, and fly-by-night people will take money for pictures. But that's like hiring a self-taught PHP-programmer instead of a kernel developer. There are skills, styles, niches, and similar involved that clearly differentiate photographers.