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?"
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!
Here's another site that can help. They have templates for emails/letters and guidelines on how to approach the situation when you find your stuff in use elsewhere. ahref=http://picturedefense.blogspot.com/rel=url2html-27041http://picturedefense.blogspot...>
Sorry. I suck at Slashdot's markup.
Text version of the link (or autoformatted, whichever) http://picturedefense.blogspot...
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
Hire the "big fat phony" guy from Family Guy.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The authorship was stolen.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I see you have a fancy stove. You must be an excellent chef.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
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
"Collecting" isn't the problem. It's using someone else's copyrighted property to sell one's own services.
Would you feel differently if someone used your source code as a reference for a contract gig?
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
There's a difference between copying a photo and claiming to be the original photographer.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Slashdot markup for links is pretty simple. <a href="link goes here">Text goes here</a>
Fun Fact: Tim Berners-Lee used Slashdot markup as his inspiration for the HTML 1.0 standard back in 1993.
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.
Does he have an Ivy League degree too? Let's make him Pres... oh... crap.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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?
Call it stealing, call it fraud, call it whatever the hell you like (unless it is in a court of law, then you kind of have to get the term right), passing off someone else's work as your own is wrong and generally some form of crime (civil or criminal).
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!
*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.
Even funnier fact: Whoosh
I don't understand; what are you complaining about? You're correct. It isn't theft, it is fraud. So why call it theft when it's clearly something else?
If you call it by the correct name, you'll get community support, even among the "copying is not theft" crowd. OTOH, if you call it stealing, then you'll get mired in a gigantic semantic dogpile as hundreds of people re-litigate what constitutes "stealing."
We don't even need to raise the "Is it stealing?" question in this case. It's clearly fraud. So call it "fraud." Geez...
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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
I know what surprised me is the implied attribution.
So I grab a pretty picture of people eating cookies and put it on my website where I advertise my home-made cookies. We can debate whether that is theft or not.
What's surprising is that the person in question is a photographer and, therefore, it's implied that the pictures on the website advertising his photography business are pictures that he took.
Personally, that's where I have the issue. Not so much in the "stealing" of images but "stealing" the credit for those images.