Theft of images of PBase photographers on Hong Kong site

[karen1109]

someone tell me how do you know if someone has stolen or linked to your photos

One (albeit expensive) way is to embed watermarking and tracking technology in your image (Digimarc's technology is an example), so that you can track the image across the web and prove that the image is yours. (I don't believe this works if a smaller image -- as in the case of the pbase thumbnails -- is stolen, since I don't think they retain the watermarking.)

Another way is to use Google for tracking. By typing the operator "link:" (no quotes) with your URL behind it (example: link:www.google.com), it will return with results of pages that link to your page/image.

In this case, I was contacted by someone who'd seen my images on the Hong Kong site and realized they were stolen.

karen

[ginneyl]

one suggestion for the watermarking option: instead of just putting one line of the copyright sign and your name, do a few. i'm sure if there's a few lines they have to clone out, it won't be worth their time. i do it in a smaller font so that when i view the image, it isn't as distracting, but if they print it or zoom in, they can see the watermark. you can check my gallery for examples... specifically the "sky", "sun", "flower" or "scenery" galleries show larger text of the watermark, and "panorama" gallery shows smaller text.

hope this helps some fellow pbasers!

[srijith]

ginneyl, the problem is that a lot of user of pbase would consider your use of multiple watermarks (no offence) distracting. The discussion is on how to watermark, but not make the pictures distracting.

[dbh]

Folks... any image (and other content) viewed with a browser is stored in the browser cache. Anyone can go into their cache at anytime and retrieve whatever has been viewed.

The *disable right-click* fix isn't really a fix.

In addition, if an image is not also a link... you can left-click (hold) and drag any image into an empty browser window. The *disable right-click* fix won't work there and the image is easily *right-click* saved.

Face it, if it viewable... it's *stealable*.

[patsfuchias]

even the photos put in flash are stealeble: see

http://users.pandora.be/oochappan/

but it takes a lot more effort to it
only thing to do: keep the originals and reduce the photo just for screen (800x600 72 dpi f.i.), then it's viewable but worthless to print out ...... pitty for the quality

[patsfuchias]

they even stole my dog on webshots once, now on

http://www.pbase.com/thambi

but webshot itself was fair enough to remove it from the thief ........ cause the thief didn't react on theirs request

ps the more u indicate copyrights , the more you encourage others to steal it , don't you think ? and what the hell , as soon they make a new compilation with parts of your photo's what about copywrights then ?

[karen1109]

Folks... any image (and other content) viewed with a browser is stored in the browser cache. Anyone can go into their cache at anytime and retrieve whatever has been viewed.

The *disable right-click* fix isn't really a fix.

In addition, if an image is not also a link... you can left-click (hold) and drag any image into an empty browser window. The *disable right-click* fix won't work there and the image is easily *right-click* saved.

Face it, if it viewable... it's *stealable*.

Our original point was NOT that disabling right-click will keep the images from being stolen in every situation. The point was that it may slow down those thiefs who quickly right-click through entire galleries (as he did with mine). If there's no low-hanging fruit to steal, these thiefs are more likely to look elsewhere... or steal fewer images.

I am fully aware that anytime I post a photo online, I leave myself vulnerable to having that photo stolen from me one way or another. In the case of pbase, I believe that the tradeoff in exposure is worth the risk. I would just like to ensure that a sufficient number of hurdles are put in the way of the image thiefs. On my end, I've begun adding a visible watermark to my images (in addition to the Digimarc) - which, BTW, I was LOATHE to do, and I'm posting significantly smaller and more highly compressed images (also something I wasn't wild about doing).

I think it's a lot easier to dismiss right-click disablement when you have not been a victim of a wholesale theft of dozens of your images. I spent about 22 hours tracking down the thief, identifying all of my stolen images as well as dozens more stolen from pbase photographers with whose work I am familiar (which meant mapping those images to the originals on pbase) --- all done while navigating through a Chinese-language site (I do not speak/read Chinese), documenting same for the company that runs the site, then wallowing in frustration as nothing was done (until Sheila used her legal muscle to get them to pay attention). If right-click disablement keeps just one person from doing that to me again, it will have done its job.

[altofran]

Hi,

I do agree with you port when you say "If it's viewable = it's stealable", my previous posts about this topic are clear.

However, I don't think it's a good idea to bring to the attention of some people ideas (Cache) that might help them! I even have some tricks to "copy" flash-encapsulated pictures, but I won't tell them. Maybe they already know how to do it, but I don't care, I'm not helping anybody.

The point is, right-click disabling and other stuff can always be overridden, but it doesn't mean that we can't use them to discourage the one who are not computer-aware.

Good evening

[thresholdprod]

Than the issue becomes you're punishing the small person that wants it for their wall paper or what not. I usually set a photo I like/want to study as my wall paper to figure how I can get the same shot, improve on it and/or how easy it is to take something simple and make it look uber.
The real crooks will just work around the security and steal it anyway. A water mark or copyright isn't much of an issue for wall paper but ruins the stolen resale.You can always cut/clone/duplicate any watermark off but then again your dealing with a different level of thief.

I have several of the tricks for getting around the java and flash security. I also have the dvd cracks for my drive for all regions and to get around the "you can't play this on a computer security".Until I got scewed by their security I had no dvd hacks.At the time the only dvd player I had was on my computer and I got hosed when I bought a disk. The point being, the more restrictions/security you put in, the more you will have people knowing how to get around technology. For example look at pop up/under windows. In the beginning very few knew how to stop this technology or where there were programs for killing them. Now just about everyone and their mother has a program for it.The first time I started to try and learn how to get around security was on my adam computer because I wanted to look at the code on my 2010 game(for some reason at 12 I thought if I could just see the code I could build a game).The very act of attempting to stop real theft restricted me to the point I started learning about hacks/cracks/work arounds.

As I've said before on this subject let "he who has only their own images on their hard drive cast the first 71/2" disk drive."

I don't condone this type of copyright viloation. Its more of making people aware of the fact its wrong.You must remember the first rule humans are stupid(at least according to my cat). Some people don't understand what a big deal it is.

The way I view the issue of the small people grabing your images and saving them is to how we were as kids cutting out pictures from magazines and putting them up on our walls. Maybe we should have bought print copies and put them up but what harm did we really do.

Bill

[sheila]

I do not have a problem (and I think I can speak for Karen too) with folks copying images as wallpaper or printing out, in my case, poor res images (as I now post no images over 200kb) - no worries - but I draw the line at passing off

Cheers
Sheila

[dbh]

Folks... any image (and other content) viewed with a browser is stored in the browser cache. Anyone can go into their cache at anytime and retrieve whatever has been viewed.

The *disable right-click* fix isn't really a fix.

In addition, if an image is not also a link... you can left-click (hold) and drag any image into an empty browser window. The *disable right-click* fix won't work there and the image is easily *right-click* saved.

Face it, if it viewable... it's *stealable*.

Our original point was NOT that disabling right-click will keep the images from being stolen in every situation. The point was that it may slow down those thiefs who quickly right-click through entire galleries (as he did with mine). If there's no low-hanging fruit to steal, these thiefs are more likely to look elsewhere... or steal fewer images.

I am fully aware that anytime I post a photo online, I leave myself vulnerable to having that photo stolen from me one way or another. In the case of pbase, I believe that the tradeoff in exposure is worth the risk. I would just like to ensure that a sufficient number of hurdles are put in the way of the image thiefs. On my end, I've begun adding a visible watermark to my images (in addition to the Digimarc) - which, BTW, I was LOATHE to do, and I'm posting significantly smaller and more highly compressed images (also something I wasn't wild about doing).

I think it's a lot easier to dismiss right-click disablement when you have not been a victim of a wholesale theft of dozens of your images. I spent about 22 hours tracking down the thief, identifying all of my stolen images as well as dozens more stolen from pbase photographers with whose work I am familiar (which meant mapping those images to the originals on pbase) --- all done while navigating through a Chinese-language site (I do not speak/read Chinese), documenting same for the company that runs the site, then wallowing in frustration as nothing was done (until Sheila used her legal muscle to get them to pay attention). If right-click disablement keeps just one person from doing that to me again, it will have done its job.

FYI... There are several free programs that can quickly download entire websites (including all photos) down to whatever level is desired. Anyone's entire PBase account can be had from just the home URL.

The people that really want to steal your stuff already have (and know how to use) these tools. So we're not teaching them anything new here.

Like I said above... "If it's viewable... it's *stealable*." By posting material on the *public* web, we all accept this risk.

It's elementary, if you don't want to lose it, then don't post it on the Web.

[srijith]

dbh, what the others including karen and sheila are trying to say is that while they agree that Internet and tech savy users or someone who is bent on stealing can easily circumvent the small protection that the javascript right-click-disabling script provides, it would at least prevent i-see-nice picture-i-right-click-save-save-post-them-as-mine-get-some-praises kind of "nobees".

[patsfuchias]

It's elementary, if you don't want to lose it, then don't post it on the Web.

Indeed
How else microsoft became a big compagnnie ....... ! As soon someone goes into business, they turn into clear .... and they'll contact you if they need something.
Confort: everything exist already ............. only that unique moment that you copy with your camera/pencil/brush/PC to re-order it , is art ...... and nobody can steal that satisfaction !

[srijith]

Came upon this interview with Noah Grey . The part which might be interesting to this thread

You make clear in your FAQ that you feel hurt if people misuse the pictures you post on the web. Post-Napster, post-Creative Commons, what are your thoughts about copyright and creative control on the net?

Ah, this does touch a nerve with me - I keep meaning to write at length about this someday, but in a nutshell ... I'm mystified and slightly angered by the growing feeling among many on the web that the rights of artists over their own work just aren't important (or are at least of equal importance to the user's desire to do whatever they want with it). I think I understand and appreciate the value of openness as well as anyone - Greymatter is one of the most well-known opensource programs in the world, after all (and in fact I've now put it under a Creative Commons license).

The ethic of openness and sharing is a great one, but somehow that got mutated in a lot of people's minds into the idea that it should be the users deciding what's open, and not the artists. (Leaving aside the whole public domain and corporate-greed brouhaha, which is only tangenital to the issue of individual artists and their control over their own work.) I currently have a script on my site which disables right-clicking, so that my photos cannot be too easily saved to disk - and I've come under no end of criticism from some quarters for that. Yes, I realise it's an imperfect solution and I know all too well there are many ways to circumvent it, but if nothing else it does serve notice that I don't *want* my work used in ways I don't approve of. And with the people that have criticised me for using this method, their argument is never that there are better ways to protect my work (and if there were, I'd be glad to hear of them), but rather only that I apparently shouldn't be protecting it at all, and that people should have an untrammeled right to do whatever they wish with my work, because they can.

Ok.. I woudn't agree that "Greymatter is one of the most well-known opensource programs in the world", but the rest is worth a good thought.

[hugodrax]

Do not put images online that you do not want stolen. Image theft occurs all the time and if you earn a living from those images the only thing you could do is limit them to 512x384 for sample shots only.