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.'"
http://www.imagelogr.com/legal
I like microcars
...but almost never before.
Blank until
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.