Slashdot Mirror
Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves
sandbagger (654585) writes "Stop Stealing Photos is a resource in the pro photographer community for protecting consumers. How? By identifying wannabes who use images in their portfolios that they did not create. In this case, one 'photographer' built a massive social media presence, in many platforms including Linked In where he includes System Architecture in his skills. However, such advocacy web sites are very manual and often run by non-programmers. How can the tech community help consumers in protecting them from phoney on-line presences? Or is this vigilantism?"
...vigilantism.
vigilante ... noun -s often attributive
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante, adjective, watchful, vigilant, from Latin vigilant-,
So, yes. But what's your point? The site shows original pictures and then their rip-offs. This is bad how?
Now I have a single resource to go to for all my 'good enough to steal' photograph needs!
I've collected them since 1986 (via BBS back then). This is baloney.
01/01/01
Only thing technology related is the fact that it's a web page.
And involves cameras.
And IP theft.
All of which are regular topics on Slashdot.
Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to come here and comment... are they? Blink twice if yes.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Show me what was stolen.. Come on.. Just try it. You cant. Nothing was stolen. And the sooner you pin headed pricks figure this out, the better for everyone.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I love it. Two posts down from this at the mo' shows exactly what you're saying.
The better the camera, the better the photographer.
Anyone can be a photographer! :)
Hire the "big fat phony" guy from Family Guy.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I love it. Two posts down from this at the mo' shows exactly what you're saying.
Even "freetards" care about people claiming other peoples work as their own. It's not that he stole, it's that he lied.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Regardless of ones feelings about 'ownership and public domain', which is a totally different discussion; non-destructive copying of information is not stealing. It may be considered copyright infringement, or espionage, etc., but i will repeat again for you small brained morons: its NOT stealing.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There's a difference between copying a photo and claiming to be the original photographer.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
tfs:
"How can the tech community help consumers in protecting them from phoney on-line presences?"
you need a profit driver so people will invest in it, both money wise and time wise. I suggest being aggressive about posting people on there, but letting them apply to be removed (for a fee).
Exactly! One is copyright infringement and the other is fraud and, semantically, much closer to stealing.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
you small brained morons
Do you understand that insulting people makes them less open to what you are saying? By calling people you have never met "small brained morons" you are actually hurting your cause.
I see this old semantic game blooms anew on Slashdot. "It isn't stealing". Fine. It's fraud. Don't worry that your reputation is shot and/or somebody else is trading on your good name. It isn't stealing. Oh... the victim feels much better now.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Blink.
*blink* ... *blink*
Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
Blink
Fretards!?
What do intellectually challenged French people have to do with this?
Have a little sensitivity please!
Uh, just read the comments on this page. There is no upper limit on the amount of "tard" exercised by the freetards.
There's a difference between copying a photo and claiming to be the original photographer.
By copying the photo you are getting the benefit of using the photo on your site.
However, by claiming to BE the photographer, you are defrauding EVERY client who ever books with you from that time on, since they expect you to have the skill to shoot that original photo.
The authorship was misattribited
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
non-destructive copying of information is not stealing. It may be considered copyright infringement, or espionage, etc., but i will repeat again for you small brained morons: its NOT stealing.
ProTip - don't call the other side names right out of the gate. Not only does it cause them to instinctually self-insulate against your position, it actually weakens it, as a person with a strong argument doesn't need to engage in ad hominem attacks to make their point. But, I digress.
That's a real grey area when dealing with digital "stuff." Philosophy time:
If Person B make a copy of Person A's house key (a type of "information," when you think about it), Person B isn't actually stealing anything; that part comes later...
Of course, you then have to ask yourself the question, "How did Person B come to be in possession of Person A's keys?" Presuming that Person A did not hand the keys over willingly, it can be assumed that Person B stole them in order to make a copy.
Now to the digital part: Person A makes his living from taking pictures and posting them online; Person B copies pictures from Person A's website, puts his own name on them, and proceeds to try and profit from Person A's work - has the crime of theft occurred? While the act of copying the file from one server to another may not necessarily construe theft (although there is a strong chance it's a violation of the CFAA), it would be difficult to argue, especially in a court of law, that Person B did not make the copy with criminal intent in mind; namely, the theft of livelihood from Person A.
Therefore, while the act of copying in itself may not be tantamount to theft, the processes that lead to the copying, as well as the processes that occur afterwards, can often and easily be defined as "stealing."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Consumers who fall for fake portfolios don't need a technology solution. They need a baseball-bat-to-the-head, and a new set of parents. Verifying that someone you are about to pay is worth paying ain't much of a challenge. You're welcome to take the gamble when you want to live life on the edge, but when you want to make an intelligent decision about a person that you hire, it never comes down to a technological solution. It comes down to not being a moron. It was true two thousand years ago; and it's still true today.
Let me know if you need my help. If you're over the age of 20, be embarassed. If you own a house, be very embarassed. If you can't spell embarrassed after 34 years of learning, be a little embarassed!
There has been a serious decline in quality of articles here lately. What happened? Suddenly Slashdot is just yesterday's Reddit.
*THUMP-SPLAT*
There are consequences for disobeying me.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
*blink* ... *blink*
Message received.
A fleet of predator drones have been deployed to carpet-bomb your coordinates.
We appreciate your cooperation in volunteering to become collateral damage in America's Global War on Terror ©
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Your bad analogy led to your incorrect conclusion (though I wouldn't be surprised if you had already made up your mind in that regard).
Of course, you then have to ask yourself the question, "How did Person B come to be in possession of Person A's keys?" Presuming that Person A did not hand the keys over willingly, it can be assumed that Person B stole them in order to make a copy.
Ok, I'll go along with you that far...
Now to the digital part: Person A makes his living from taking pictures and posting them online; ...
The rest of that doesn't matter, because that just broke the analogy. They posted them online, which made them readily available for legitimate copying. When you view an image online, you're not actually getting an image beamed directly to your monitor... you are downloading the image file and saving a copy on your hard drive (normally in your browser cache), then running it through libs to turn it into something you can see on your screen. IE. you and everyone else that looks at those images is making a copy of it.
So... your original analogy would have to have Person B placing a bucket filled with copies of their key on their side walk with signs around the neighborhood saying "please come examine my keys at 123 Happy Photographer St" etc.
At that point, well, I think we'd both say that Person B didn't steal the key. What he does with it afterwards is another matter (further theft, breaking an entering, mugging, kidnapping, whatever). In the digital world, that's just a copyright violation (since we're just talking about a photo, and not using someone else's username+password for nefarious purposes).
*blink* ... *blink*
"Double 'no', got it!
</ZappBrannigan>
John
I hope you're not a lawyer because you're bad at analogies and just confused theft with fraud.
"Freetards"! Thank you, now I know what to call them!
Wish I could mod you up, but I don't have the points so maybe I can siphon up some of the negative bangs.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
ProTip: mine's in yur mom, CanHasDick! Wait, this isn't Battlefield chat, sorry.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
There is "insulting people", and there is responding to someone who said "freetards" with a straight face.
I will say though that sparrows have small brains, too, and rock a lot! So it's not about size, the trick is to slip a finger or two in there as well, to make it seem gigantic.
>And IP theft.
I think you mean copyright infringement.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
ProTip: mine's in yur mom, CanHasDick! Wait, this isn't Battlefield chat, sorry.
Meh, beats what I hear on the rare occasion I make the mistake of playing Call of Dirty online.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I hope you're not a lawyer because you're bad at analogies and just confused theft with fraud.
I'm not, although I question how being "bad at analogies" would disqualify me from legal practice; after all, aren't most Congresscritters lawyers by trade?
I share that hope with you, sir or madam, as you are apparently as bad at making an argument as you believe I am at making analogies.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Your bad analogy led to your incorrect conclusion (though I wouldn't be surprised if you had already made up your mind in that regard).
Your personal feelings about the matter do not affect the accuracy of my analogy, nor does your little act of parenthetical transference. Fraud is defined as "stealing by deception," and if you're taking someone else's work, claiming it as your own, and attempting to profit from it, you're committing fraud.
Feel free to challenge this by copying something the government owns, claiming it as your own, and selling it. Were I a betting man, I'd put my money down on the judge disagreeing with your premise that you did not, in fact, steal anything.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Sounds like you'd rather argue about word definitions than talk about whether or not it's wrong to use someone else's photography without permission, and lie about it being your own.
If I didn't know better, I might think you were trying to change the subject or something.
it would be difficult to argue, especially in a court of law
It's not that it's difficult to argue; it's that some people don't care about logic. Courts just care about laws.
namely, the theft of livelihood from Person A.
What theft? Money they never had and was never theirs cannot be stolen. Potential profit is not the same as owning the money yourself.
[End Of Line]
I don't think we should be worshiping authority figures. Judges have said things that I've disagreed with many times, and it's okay for people to disagree with them. If a judge says this sort of thing is stealing, then I reject his/her conclusion.
In reality, though, these people usually just mindlessly follow laws. Not a surprise, given that they're judges, but appealing to laws doesn't make one more right than anyone else.
It's certainly not theft in the traditional sense.
Federal government works, at least in the United States, are not entitled domestic copyright protection.
Facepalm: They posted them online, which made them readily available for legitimate copying.
In the sense that your computer needs a copy to display it, but in the sense the story is about.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I think the problem is not that he copied the images, but that by claiming he did them, he impersonated the real creators.
They do this because they want people in general to relate to them. If people do not relate to them, they will not stand beside them.
The vast majority of people are completely immune to copyright infringement. They don't make a living selling people permission to copy. Therefore, when they hear "We must do something about copyright infringement!", their reaction is "Meh, doesn't affect me."
Just about everybody is vulnerable to theft. Most people have a shirt on their back and would be cold if someone took it. Therefore, when they hear "We must do something about theft!", their reaction is "Yeah, I don't want anyone stealing my shirt! I'm with you!"
This is their motive for trying to confuse people about the issue.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Kind of counter productive, in this case... Hollywood has made a huge noise about this sort of issue for such a long time that most people have had the topic forced into their consciousness and are aware that copyright infringement IS NOT theft.
So, their natural reaction is going to be "I know you are fucking with my head and you're making me angry."
But no one likes having someone take credit for their work. That's an issue that touches even the guy flipping burgers. If they framed the issue accurately, they'd get more sympathy for their position.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
For years highly-moderated posts on this very site kept repeating, that, because by copying a file one has taken nothing from the owner of the original, such copying can not be called "theft"...
And now this... What happened? Could we really be so shallow in our convictions, that they change to opposite as soon as the victim of a crime is someone we find easier to relate to? A small-time photographer vs. a large studio or a music label? Why is it Ok to steal from the latter, but not from the former?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
No. its 2 different discussions.
We can have the second, but it will also fall on stupid/deaf ears around here.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think the quality of articles on soylent news is much better, but there arent enuf comments there to take up my workday reading them. As soon as there are more than 50 comments on the average story I would imagine that will be when /. Becomes a site I go to once a month instead of once every 10 min.
.... summary ... is word salad ... my head ....
Not the way RIAA and MPAA see it
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
to check an individual image, pass it to tineye.com, which will return all the places it has seen that image, or an edit of it, on the web. that can be
very helpful in finding the actual creator of the image.
Yes, it is stealing in the sense that "stealing" is synonymous with "theft" and the act of copying such things without permission has been defined as theft in many legal jurisdictions.
Just because you don't want it to be so don't make it be so.
Taking someone elses work and claiming it as your own is, in fact, stealing as far as I'm concerned - and as far as most of the civilized world is concerned. As long as you spread it but don't claim to be the creator then that's fine by me. Oh, by the way, calling random strangers "small brained morons" simply reflects back on your own mental stature.
Hey, the "Mona Lisa" is MINE!!! All MINE!!!
Who is this Michael-something guy anyway?
most people have had the topic forced into their consciousness and are aware that copyright infringement IS NOT theft.
Most people I know (that aren't technical) don't even understand what copyright infringement is, and often describe it as someone 'stealing' someone's stuff. A lot of people think it's not theft, but there are also many who do.
[End Of Line]
between -downloading & listening to- Metallicas "Justice for all" and claiming to have -written & recorded- Metallicas "Justice for all"?
namely, the theft of livelihood from Person A.
What theft? Money they never had and was never theirs cannot be stolen. Potential profit is not the same as owning the money yourself.
If you're taking money and credit for work someone else did, that they expect to be paid for, you're committing fraud, which is defined as "theft by deception."
Civil courts award money for loss of livelihood all the time. Ever read the briefs from a wrongful termination suit where the plaintiff won?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
>And IP theft.
I think you mean copyright infringement.
I sure don't.
A photo that a photographer has copyrighted is intellectual property; to claim that other person's work as your own is fraud, which is defined as "theft by deception." thus, IP theft.
Pure copyright infringement ('pure' as in, "without intent to defraud") is what happens when you download a movie or such without permission, and is a completely different legal grey area beyond the base argument.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Civil courts award money for loss of livelihood all the time.
I don't care what courts do, or what judges say. I reject copyright entirely, as well as the idea that making money off of some data that someone else assembled is anything like theft in the sense that most people understand it. Maybe, legally, it is described using those terms sometimes, but I disagree with that.
[End Of Line]
Civil courts award money for loss of livelihood all the time.
I don't care what courts do, or what judges say. I reject copyright entirely, as well as the idea that making money off of some data that someone else assembled is anything like theft in the sense that most people understand it. Maybe, legally, it is described using those terms sometimes, but I disagree with that.
You are more than welcome to hold that opinion, but keep in mind that if you act on it, and get caught, a court is not likely to agree with your premise, and very much can punish you by depriving you of fiscal security and/or your freedom.
The fact that they can do both of those things is why I very much do care what courts do and judges say.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I care in the sense that I believe these policies are making society worse, but not in the sense that their arguments will convince me to change my position.
[End Of Line]
Look, I know a lot of really bad artists, photographers and programmers desperately need to be able to take other people's work, but the problem comes when you republish or redistribute the work.
I'm a [fairly good] artist, photographer, author and programmer. I also do a great deal of open-source stuff, and use a lot of [correctly licensed and attributed] work from other folks.
Sometimes, I even pay for it.
We can make as many copies as we like (although some IP rights holders are working hard to eliminate that -I'm not one of them).
It's when we republish, redistribute or re-attribute them, that the fun begins.
If I put a photo on the Web, it's obviously because I want lots of folks to see/use that photo.
I usually don't even care whether or not they attribute it to me.
However, when some no-talent monkey takes my work, and claims it as theirs, I get a bit peeved.
Not too peeved, however, because they will be expected to do it again, on demand.
What is upsetting, is when someone takes my work, and then makes money on it. They may or may not attribute it to me, but that's immaterial, if they are not sharing the profits with me.
Sort of like the musical distribution industry.
Lots of musicians would LOVE to sell directly to their fans.
However, freetards see this as license to steal the work of those musicians, and prevent them from getting ANY money.
The only people that can actually collect money on the work of artists are these lawyered-up distributors.
Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Basic common sense, really.
What he means: Until people get prosecuted for IP theft, as opposed to copyright infringement, the literal crime does not exist, thus acting like such a thing exists is nonsensical.
Not agreeing with it, or disagreeing with it, just what I saw it.-
What measures are being taken to ensure they shame the right people? Get the wrong people, and defamation suits would prob. succeed. Look at, for a relevant-but-in-a-different-field example, the Griffin Black Book - listed poker players who counted cards as outright cheaters - which is untrue since the rules don't prohibit it, that's a casino policy [hint: not the same]. They sued, won, and the company - citing the lawsuit/outcome filed for bankruptcy.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot