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.'"
currently offline as we are improving the website
Nay ye scoundrels. Ye hath been slashdotted!
Reply to That ||
That, and Google respects robots.txt (or at least says they do, and I'm sure someone has been watchdogging them on it).
http://www.imagelogr.com/legal
I like microcars
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
Aha, you must mean imagelogr@gmail.com!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
...but almost never before.
Blank until
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
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!
And now my Facebook profile picture ends up on an Anti-Herpes-Drug ad.
With my luck, every female I know will see it.
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).
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"?
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.
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 !
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Keep up that attitude, and we'll put it on a Pro-Herpes-Drug ad.
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.
you are promoting the idea of intellecual property... on slashdot.
good luck with that.
I've never put Katherine Heigl online.
Your scheme is a fraud.
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.
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.
The amazing part is how someone gets enough storage space to store every image on the web.
That sounds expensive to me.
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
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.
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. 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!
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.
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.
As you can see, a quick google search points us to here.
No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
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.
http://www.domainlogr.com/imagelogr.php
This should explain everything
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.