ImageLogr Scrapes "Billions" of Images Illegally

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ImageLogr Scrapes "Billions" of Images Illegally

Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 21, 2010 @08:02AM from the if-you're-gonna-go,-go-big dept.

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.'"

65 of 271 comments (clear)

Google image search? by crow · 2010-05-21 08:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Isn't this essentially what Google's image search does? The difference is that if you want the full-sized version, Google sends you to the original web site.
1. Re:Google image search? by Pojut · 2010-05-21 08:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Not exactly. Underneath the images is the domain name where the image resides, and if you click on the image it still takes you to the page with a frame on top displaying the smaller version of the image.
  Heh. Frames.
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
2. Re:Google image search? by emurphy42 · 2010-05-21 08:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That, and Google respects robots.txt (or at least says they do, and I'm sure someone has been watchdogging them on it).
3. Re:Google image search? by Peach+Rings · 2010-05-21 08:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Frames are the right way to do it, and I applaud Google for using them instead of listening to pseudo-engineer web designers who think they know anything yukking it up about how frames are so five years ago.
ah... by charliemopps11 · 2010-05-21 08:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Can we just make a rule that any image you post on the internet doesn't belong to you anymore? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a decade ago anyway.
1. Re:ah... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-21 08:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I certainly wouldn't mind if you used your magic powers to create copies of items in my house. Feel free to duplicate all you want.
  If that's not what you had in mind, your analogy is stupid and flawed.
2. Re:ah... by Pharmboy · 2010-05-21 08:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Can we just make a rule that any image you post on the internet doesn't belong to you anymore? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a decade ago anyway.
  Perhaps we can do that with text, too, since there really is no difference in text and photos in this context. Of course, that means that all worthwhile content will disappear, such as news websites, individual blogs, Google Earth, Maps, etc.
  The complaint isn't about getting paid, it is about attribution. I release most of my personal photography under CC with attribution. I have also written many nasty letters to competitors who lift our images from our website to use on competing websites. (we shoot everything, even stuff I can get manufacturer's photos of, to insure we have a unique look). The reason I do this is not only because I don't like working for free for other companies, but it dilutes our efforts to maintain a unique look. That and I don't need someone competing with me unless they are willing to spend the same amount of resources into photography that we have. ie: I don't want to subsidize my own competition.
  So, no, I think I should be able to keep the copyright on stuff I create.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
3. Re:ah... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-21 08:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Thank you. I'm a photographer that has some pics up on flickr and picasa, but I don't put my full best quality version of any image on either site ever. The moment I do, I know it's 100% completely and totally out of my hands, no matter what "technology" a site claims to have in place to prevent it.
  Frankly, I LIKE that the web works that way. That's not a bug, it's a feature. It's the BEST feature of the internet. Anyone using the internet would be well served to learn how to use it to their advantage and how to avoid being bit in the ass by it.
4. Re:ah... by mellon · 2010-05-21 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I know, maybe we should just DRM everything!1!!1 That'll solve the problem.
  No offense, man, but the universe doesn't owe you copyright. And unfortunately, the tradition of copyright depends on copying being hard. Now that it's easy, there's really no way to prevent people from doing this. You can send them nasty letters, but the water's coming in faster than you can bail. Like every other content producer, eventually you're going to have to learn to make money from the people who are willing to pay you.
  I'm not saying it's just, or right, or good, but that's how it is. If somebody makes a shitload of money off a picture you took, sue *them*. Don't waste your time on small-time stuff.
5. Re:ah... by DeafZombie · 2010-05-21 08:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I know of some people who would prefer you just took the original items away, no need for copying.
  
  --
  The Binary Anti-Pattern [http://beyondboolean.blogspot.com/]
6. Re:ah... by blair1q · 2010-05-21 08:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Looking at something and copying it are two very different things.
  (Albeit, it's literally impossible to look at something on the web without making a local copy, at least in RAM, which may be saved to a temporary file on disk and retained for years, or until the authorities toss out your hard drive because the retention period for evidence in your case has lapsed...)
  Copying something and serving it to the public are two very different things.
7. Re:ah... by Angst+Badger · 2010-05-21 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Can we just make a rule that any image you post on the internet doesn't belong to you anymore? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a decade ago anyway.
  Only if you want to see all of the professional and most of the amateur content on the internet yanked overnight. While the current "intellectual property" laws are absurd, reasonable, limited term copyrights do actually benefit both the creators and the common good.
  Try this thought experiment: In the absence of copyright and also the absence of net neutrality -- we're 50% there already -- then everyone's creative work ends up being copied by a few large media corporations and made available only through their sites. Forget direct access; the handful of megacorporate ISPs won't provide it for sites that don't pay their fees. Forget about any payment or even credit to the creators. Independent creators are essentially frozen out, and the general public just gets the same kind of bland, focus group tested crap that ends up on television.
  Thanks, but I'll pass. Comcast and Verizon are bad enough as they are. I don't want to find out what they'd be like with a monopoly on all networked content.
  
  --
  Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
8. Re:ah... by pz · 2010-05-21 09:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem is that most people who use a camera take snapshots, not photographs. Given the explosion in digital photography over the last decade, I'd wager that a vanishingly small number of times a shutter is pressed out of the billions total does it get pressed by someone who is trying to create art, whether commercial or otherwise.
  Most people don't care about their photos, their snapshots. There's no effort to create them. There was no thought put into the composition, no setup to speak of .. it's just a snapshot. And, as such, most of the people do not understand why it is a big deal that anyone should care about photos. The public does not realize that it costs potentially a lot of money and time to create professional images. Witness some of the comments on this Slashdot thread.
  I applaud the parent poster for caring enough to make that effort, and for taking the time to defend their work against dilution. It's a mark of professionalism and high quality that likely pervades the rest of his operation.
  
  --
  
  Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
9. Re:ah... by ittybad · 2010-05-21 10:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  As you can see, a quick google search points us to here.
  
  --
  No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
10. Re:ah... by AK+Marc · 2010-05-21 10:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Hell, I'll just "copy" your identity too. It's just information, and information wants to be free!
  
  Feel free. However, if you lie for financial gain, that's fraud. Identity theft isn't a crime. If someone asks me my name and I tell them "George Bush" I won't be arrested (unless I'm lying to a government official in certain capacities). It's when I go to the bank and tell them I'm George Bush in order to steal the bank's money that it becomes a crime. I have no problem with someone stealing my identity. I have an issue with fraud. Those are unrelated, and no one would be confusing them except for a long and expensive campaign by financial institutions for blaming their customers for the financial institutions being victims of fraud because of their lax security.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
11. Re:ah... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-05-21 11:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The public does not realize that it costs potentially a lot of money and time to create professional images. Witness some of the comments on this Slashdot thread.
  Witness this comment: I know precisely how much work can go into creating professional images - I've been to more than a few professional photo shoots because I have family members in the business - and the overhead of support crew and the time spent to get just a handful of perfect shots can be enormous (if the photog works that way). But copyright is not about how much effort goes into creating a work, if it did then the phone book would be copyrightable.
  There will always be a market for commercial photography because it is by far a commission-based business. A world without copyright would be make stock-photography, which admittedly some people consider their bread-and-butter, less profitable but would have the effect of boosting the business for commissioned work since less stock photos would be available. Furthermore there will always be artistic photography because real art needs to express itself in the way irrelevant to money in the way artists like van Gogh did.
  So, while I'm all for proper attribution, that doesn't mean that copyright in anything like its current form is necessary to the modern world. Even if it does personally benefit guys like the GP by protecting his business.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
12. Re:ah... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-05-21 11:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You don't mind if I make a copy of your family while I'm at it too, do you? Too much of a bother to get my own the old fashioned way.
  Huh? That's non-sensical. Are you proposing making life-size cut-outs of my family and populating your house with them? Go for it if that's what you want.
  
  Hell, I'll just "copy" your identity too. It's just information, and information wants to be free!
  Go ahead and copy it. But if you use it to commit fraud then realize that the fraud is the problem there regardless as to the means by which you committed the crime.
  But, its not surprise you would get all of that so completely wrong - your beef with the phrase "information wants to be free" is like disagreeing with "water is wet." It refers to the fact that once published, in any fashion, you can't put information back into a cage because you no longer have control over other people's copies. It isn't some sort of hippie slogan, its a statement of fact about the basic nature of information.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
13. Re:ah... by Pharmboy · 2010-05-21 11:57 · Score: 2
  
  The only issue I have with your perspective is that to judge what is "art", "commercial art" and "just some snapshot" is rather subjective. Technically, they are all equally protected under the law, which I think is a good thing. I CHOOSE to release most of my personal, non-commercial photos under a very permissive license (I have put up over one hundred on Wikipedia, for example), but it is my choice to make.
  My understanding that if you take a snapshot and publish it in the U.S., then it is copyright protected once you create or publish it, regardless of quality. We really can't have a search engine that decides what is art, what is commercial art, and what is more of a "disposable snapshot". That is why attribution is absolutely necessary. Coincidently, it is also quite easy to do, and Google does a good job of it while only storing a thumbnail of the original (fair use) and leaving the original to be viewed in its original context. I'm not sure that wholesale copying and indexing full size photos, even with attribution, is legal in the U.S. without written permission. While I'm not likely to file a lawsuit over it, I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea either.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Offline? by jDeepbeep · 2010-05-21 08:09 · Score: 3, Funny

currently offline as we are improving the website
Nay ye scoundrels. Ye hath been slashdotted!

--
Reply to That ||
Kill by girlintraining · 2010-05-21 08:09 · Score: 2, Informative

The web is full of landmines. They're going to download and repost something that someone who has good lawyers is going to demand they remove, and then they'll die... quietly.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
even funnier is their "legal" page... by microcars · 2010-05-21 08:12 · Score: 5, Funny

http://www.imagelogr.com/legal

--
I like microcars
Re:Yeah. That's it. by Pojut · 2010-05-21 08:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem isn't that they are hosting it, the problem is that they aren't providing origin links. That's where the primary issue is.

--
Living With a Nerd
Re:If you want to contact them for any reason... by Jugalator · 2010-05-21 08:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Aha, you must mean imagelogr@gmail.com!

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Take it Offline by imag0 · 2010-05-21 08:18 · Score: 2, Informative

If you want something completely under your control, you do not put it online. How hard is this?
1. Re:Take it Offline by blair1q · 2010-05-21 09:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I've never put Katherine Heigl online.
  Your scheme is a fraud.
Re:"Currently offline" by Farmer+Tim · 2010-05-21 08:18 · Score: 4, Funny

...but almost never before.

--
Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
Nice euphemism by RKThoadan · 2010-05-21 08:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like how they say they are trying to "make people happy" as if it's just some minor bureaucrat the need to appease when it's more like "we flagrantly broke the law and are trying to get out of Dodge!"
Re:Copyrights? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2010-05-21 08:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Wait...is this a case where anti-copyright people are complaining about someone stealing their stuff?
Where did you see the word "stealing"? All I saw were complaints that a company was illegally copying and reproducing images in violation of copyright law. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the people posting comments here are "anti-copyright" either, although personally I'm in favor of a lot of copyright reform.
Re:Information wants to be free, yes? by TheSpoom · 2010-05-21 08:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

I highly doubt that the majority of Slashdot, who are largely developers who rely on copyright's protections for their income, say that copyright should not exist. Software patents, however, are a different matter. Get it right.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:Yeah. That's it. by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-05-21 08:28 · Score: 5, Funny

And now my Facebook profile picture ends up on an Anti-Herpes-Drug ad.
With my luck, every female I know will see it.
Re:Don't cry now by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-21 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

When people download media that violate the owners copyrights, they at least don't cut the actual copyright notices from the media (movie credits, etc).
but wait... by buddyglass · 2010-05-21 08:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Doesn't information want to be free? If you're going to download movies and music without paying, why can't they scrape your images and serve them up to "whoever"?
1. Re:but wait... by tignet · 2010-05-21 08:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem with your logic is that they aren't just scraping images from people that pirate movies, they're scraping images from everyone. Your question would be better posed as: Since everyone in the world downloads music and movies without paying, why can't they scrape your images and serve them up to "whomever?"
  Revised, I think the question pretty much answers itself. Otherwise, in order for your question to have a logical foundation, everyone needs to be allowed to pirate music and movies, or they need to limit their scraping to pirates.
2. Re:but wait... by buddyglass · 2010-05-21 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  It was shorthand. The meaning I meant to convey was: "If you personally pirate movies/music/software then it would be hypocritical of you to complain about these guys stealing your pics."
  The assumption being that some of the people crying foul about the pic stealing do, in fact, pirate music/movies/software, and are thereby acting hypocritically when they lament the pic stealing.
3. Re:but wait... by idontgno · 2010-05-21 09:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yes, but this leaves out two important factors:
  1) People who don't infringe media copyrights but post pictures to Facebook et al. Not a vanishing minority, btw.
  2) People who infringe media copyrights, post pictures, and don't see it as hypocritical for any number of fractionally-assed reasons (or shallow rationales, if you wish).
  The former category, you are obviously not addressing. So either you lack sympathy for them for some other unspecified reason, or don't care about them because their existence doesn't support the logic of your assertion. In the latter case, they're precisely what you're talking about, but they don't think they do. And denial is a powerful force.
  Hell, a truly rational observer would conclude that hypocrisy might not be bad; that, in fact, it's an absolute requirement for social interaction. If you can act politely to someone you'd just as soon strangle, that's a mild (and socially necessary) form of hypocrisy.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:If you want to contact them for any reason... by Yvan256 · 2010-05-21 08:34 · Score: 5, Funny

You mean they don't want imagelogr@gmail.com harvested by bots?
Why wouldn't they want imagelogr@gmail.com harvested by bots?
What's so wrong about imagelogr@gmail.com being harvested by bots?
I really don't understand why they don't want imagelogr@gmail.com harvested by bots.
Can someone explain to me what's so bad about imagelogr@gmail.com being harvested by bots?
Maybe I should write them, at imagelogr@gmail.com, to ask why they don't want imagelogr@gmail.com to be harvested by bots.
imagelogr@gmail.com !
Re:Yeah. That's it. by Pojut · 2010-05-21 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

How the fuck do you propose they do that? Should they write over the image with a white font, "THIS IMAGE CAME FROM JOEBLOW.COM"?
Google seems to manage with no trouble.

--
Living With a Nerd
Re:Yeah. That's it. by gyrogeerloose · 2010-05-21 08:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

How the fuck do you propose they do that? Should they write over the image with a white font, "THIS IMAGE CAME FROM JOEBLOW.COM"?
How about doing it the same way Google does it, with attribution and a link to the original source? Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

--
This ain't rocket surgery.
Re:Yeah. That's it. by gyrogeerloose · 2010-05-21 08:40 · Score: 3, Funny

And now my Facebook profile picture ends up on an Anti-Herpes-Drug ad.
With my luck, every female I know will see it.
Hey, you're a Slashdotter. Showing up in an anti-herpes drug ad would probably only improve your prospects.

--
This ain't rocket surgery.
Re:Don't cry now by sexconker · 2010-05-21 08:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are you fucking joking?
The first thing to go when ripping a DVD is the FBI warning.
Re:Yeah. That's it. by Peach+Rings · 2010-05-21 08:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's useful to have an archive. After five or ten years people won't care about these images any more, and won't have a problem with someone archiving them. Unfortunately, the next five or ten years are the period when these images will actually be available. It doesn't really make sense to wait until flickr doesn't exist anymore to mirror its content.
And come on people, try to think outside of the current month. How ridiculous is it going to look in 20 years that content creators protect their images into extinction because of some by-attribution pissing contest of egos? We should be mirroring everything far and wide; protecting our society's creative output from annoying little people who don't cite sources looks preposterous next to protecting our creative output from disappearing off the face of the earth and being unavailable to our children.
Already people are kicking themselves for allowing content to be destroyed. A large number of silent movies (remember, the silent movie era stretched across decades) are completely lost today; not a single copy exists in the entire world. This is a critical part of our culture for film historians.
About Us by ThisIsAnonymous · 2010-05-21 08:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Imagelogr.com is an image & picture search engine. We try to index pretty much every picture & image currently available on the free internet. With our powerful search engine finding these images should be fairly easy. We also offer a few image manipulation tools to stand out from the competition.
From the main page. This is pretty funny.
1. Re:About Us by blair1q · 2010-05-21 09:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm confused, but I haven't dug through their schema at all, so, if they're an index, don't they have some sort of cross-referencing information to tell you where the picture came from or what it's a picture of? If all they have is the picture and maybe its filename, what sort of searching can you do?
Re:Yeah. That's it. by Dishevel · 2010-05-21 08:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?
Yes. I am sure it is too difficult for him.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Yeah. That's it. by blair1q · 2010-05-21 08:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Keep up that attitude, and we'll put it on a Pro-Herpes-Drug ad.
Re:Yeah. That's it. by postbigbang · 2010-05-21 08:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's not true. My images took work to produce, and they're for my benefit on my site. Your stuff-- you do with it how you will.
If I want my images archived, it's my responsibility and those that I delegate the responsibility to. If someone else has done this, then they've stolen my work, as in ripped me off.
Should I want to use a license that give rights to someone else, I'll do so. Until then, the decision is mine.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Information wants to be free, yes? by Wildclaw · 2010-05-21 08:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I highly doubt that the majority of Slashdot, who are largely developers who rely on copyright's protections for their income, say that copyright should not exist
Most developers work on custom solutions and programs (providing services), and aren't really benefiting at all from copyright protection.
Re:Yeah. That's it. by Skarecrow77 · 2010-05-21 08:59 · Score: 4, Informative

you are promoting the idea of intellecual property... on slashdot.
good luck with that.
The submitted missed the amazing part twice by NaCh0 · 2010-05-21 09:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

The amazing part is how someone gets enough storage space to store every image on the web.
That sounds expensive to me.
1. Re:The submitted missed the amazing part twice by tool462 · 2010-05-21 09:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Not if you use The Cloud.
Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him? by rts008 · 2010-05-21 09:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

ftfy
The only thing you possibly fixed for charliemopps11 was the mis-perception that you are capable of valid analogies.
Now if ImageLogr was actually moving the images from the 'owners' webserver to their own webserver instead of making a copy, then you would be presenting a valid analogy.

Can we just make a rule that any item you leave in an unlocked house doesn't belong to you anymore? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a millenia ago anyway.
'Can we just make a rule that any item you display to the public might be copied? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a millenia ago anyway.'
ftfy

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
No! by History's+Coming+To · 2010-05-21 09:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

The DMCA is evil! Everything should be free! Copyright infringement isn't theft, it doesn't deprive anybody of anything!

(What? It's my stuff?)

I'll DMCA their arses! That's my stuff! I sell those, you're taking away my living!

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Re:Information wants to be free, yes? by tool462 · 2010-05-21 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't forget that Slashdot is also home to a large number of unemployable malcontents who don't like copyright either because they don't like paying for music.
Next headline... by careysb · 2010-05-21 09:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Google brings ImageLogr servers to its knees by scraping images from them. (Details at 11:00)
Damn by Alexvthooft · 2010-05-21 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well I am not the best photog out there, but I do get paid for my photos every now and again....
And a lot of my work is on Flickr.
Well we'll see.

--
Be yourself and aim high!
Re:Yeah. That's it. by cyberworm · 2010-05-21 09:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Exactly. As a photographer it's my responsibility to archive my negatives/chromes/digital files. I'm certainly NOT using Flickr as an archive. I'm definitely NOT putting print resolution files out there for the world to download either. Generally I'm ok with the average person seeing my image and using it in a non-commercial way, such as a desktop wallpaper or to just enjoy looking at. It's why I put it out there. To be seen and enjoyed. I think the parent is wrong to say that these images won't matter in 5-10 years. Different images will withstand the test of time for different reasons. One good example would be of photos of the Word Trade Towers circa 2000. 10+ years later, and you're not getting another new photo. These guys have effectively robbed photographers of their control over their images and the kiss to go along with this screwing is that you have to ask them to take the images down. That's like some guy stealing my bike and then having to go ask him for it back.
They know what they are doing is illegal by www.sorehands.com · 2010-05-21 09:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

They know what they are doing is illegal. Why else would they use domains by proxy to hide their identity?
The only reason they blocked, ooopp...I mean "Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website."
I am curious if their robots actually identified themselves or respected the robots.txt file.

--
Fight Spammers!
Re:Yeah. That's it. by postbigbang · 2010-05-21 09:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

You know nothing of my work, yet you accuse me of stealing. Your assumptions are wildly incorrect. You've used the reply as your basis to blather your inability to grasp professional and personal photography, models and their rights, and the role of objects in photography all in one mad dash that adds the idea of a photography tax. Good Friday for you.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Don't cry now by Shoe+Puppet · 2010-05-21 09:43 · Score: 2, Informative

That's not a copyright notice.

--
(+1, Disagree)
Re:Don't cry now by McDutchie · 2010-05-21 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Parent is not insightful; it's a troll. Downloading illegally is not even in the same league as downloading and then republishing without even identifying the author, no matter how much the RIAA/MPAA want you to believe otherwise.
Re:DMCA? Only in America by PurpleCarrot · 2010-05-21 12:25 · Score: 2, Informative

ImageLogr.com -> A 173.236.52.170 WHOIS 173.236.52.170: OrgName: SingleHop, Inc. OrgID: SINGL-8 Address: 621 W. Randolph St. Address: 3rd Floor City: Chicago StateProv: IL PostalCode: 60661 Country: US ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.singlehop.net:4321 NetRange: 173.236.0.0 - 173.236.127.255 CIDR: 173.236.0.0/17 OriginAS: AS32475 NetName: SINGLEHOP NetHandle: NET-173-236-0-0-1 Parent: NET-173-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.SINGLEHOP.COM NameServer: NS2.SINGLEHOP.COM Comment: RegDate: 2010-03-23 Updated: 2010-03-23
Allocated to an ISP in the United States.
Re:Yeah. That's it. by bhiestand · 2010-05-21 21:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Keep up that attitude, and we'll put it on a Pro-Herpes-Drug ad.
"Herpes. It's what's for dinner."
Yes, I know, way, way too far.
-Taylor
Actually, not too far from the truth. Do a google image search for genital warts. You know all those spam sites that return "The Best ____" where ____ is whatever your search term was? :) Yeah, they're offering the Best Genital Warts, free shipping, etc. Google's improved their algorithms, but there used to be a ton of spam links in the first two pages of results.
Old screenshot: genital warts image results (SFW).

--
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
What really happened... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-21 22:46 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.domainlogr.com/imagelogr.php
This should explain everything
Re:And the point is...? by Spad · 2010-05-21 23:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Storing != Publishing without attribution.
They Were Lying by Toad-san · 2010-05-22 01:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

The site is gone, and this explains why:
http://www.domainlogr.com/imagelogr.php
They were bullsh*tting everyone, almost daydreaming. Nothing was there, nothing was probably going to be there, they apparently didn't have anything like the resources for that sort of archiving.
They got caught in their bullsh*t, and chickened out. Bidda boom.