Slashdot Mirror
ImageLogr Scrapes "Billions" of Images Illegally
PurpleCarrot writes "In what must be one of the largest attempts to scrape images from the Web, the site ImageLogr.com 'claims to be scraping the entire "free web" and seems to have hit Flickr especially hard, copying full-sized images of yours and mine to their own servers, where they are hosting them without any attribution or links back to the original image in violation of all available licenses on Flickr.' The site even contains the option to directly download images that ImageLogr has scraped. What makes this endeavor so amazing is that it isn't a case of 'other people gave us millions of infringing images, help us remove the wrong ones,' but one of 'we took all the images on the Web; if we got one of yours, oops!' The former gets some protection from the DMCA, whereas the latter is blatant infringement. ImageLogr's actions have caused a flurry of activity, and the site's owners have subsequently taken it offline, displaying the following message: 'Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon.'"
Ole'American little spoiled brat mentality that makes our country the little faggot bully in the kindergarten yard, and the butt joke of any serious nation in the world.
Why are little fag nerds complaining their kitten pictures are being scrapped by some web site?
Where are all the bright armor knights that hate RIAA and their DMCAs and are against intellectual property of any kind?
Is that because when are YOUR images that were download without authorization, and your "copyright" rights that were violated, then it is bad, evil and must be taken offline?
Ole'American "do what I say, but don't do what I do" thing?
You kids are pathetic. If you are really against IP, just don't complain when others violate your IP. It is good to be an anarchist when it is not your town that is being anarchyzed, huh?
You weren't accused of stealing, read the post again. As it turns out I know a great deal about image rights and licences, and I'm quite surprised that you appear to have a complete mastery of model rights in every country in the world.
People are charged fees all the time for the enjoyment of specific facilities, and those who profit by those facilities are charged more. Why should photographers be any different? If photographers feel they can milk out per-view licences over fixed time periods, I feel the people really responsible for those images should be compensated duly. If you take a photo of a crowd then sell it for large amounts of money, why should people in that crowd not share the profit for their part in it?
The only suprise is there haven't been more lawsuits levied against photographers for using people's images. In a way a tax for profit making photography would be like insurance.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Really dipshit?
Where do you see any attribution there you dumb faggot?
Really dipshit?
Where do you see any attribution there you dumb faggot?
Oh I see, it's ok for everyone to steal music and movies in support of "freedom from record companies" but as soon as someone takes something of YOURS it becomes a problem.
The reason you see hypocrisy here is that you do not understand the topic you're babbling about. Think about that.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)