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?
Title pretty much says it all. Only thing technology related is the fact that it's a web page. But then again, what is on the Internet that isn't a web page? (And for you pedants, I know about ftp, ntp, nntp, etc., so don't bother pointing out the slew of TLA and ETLAs out there.)
Now I have a single resource to go to for all my 'good enough to steal' photograph needs!
You'll never get freetards to agree it's theft. Once it's online, it belongs to "The People".
Stuff that no longer matters
R.I.P., old Slashdot
I've collected them since 1986 (via BBS back then). This is baloney.
01/01/01
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 ----
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
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).
http://www.isitdownrightnow.com
http://isitup.org/
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"?
The authorship was misattribited
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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!
*THUMP-SPLAT*
There are consequences for disobeying me.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
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.
.... summary ... is word salad ... my head ....
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.
between -downloading & listening to- Metallicas "Justice for all" and claiming to have -written & recorded- Metallicas "Justice for all"?
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 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