Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:00 pm
I agree that it's pretty galling to see your work used without credit, but it's also a back-handed compliment that someone thought it was good enough to pinch. I generally only post at 700 or 750 pixels wide so the images won't print that well and they're usually marked with my name and the web address of the Collection where I'm a volunteer.
I haven't refused anyone who's asked for permission to use any of my photos, but when I find that people have linked to photos on my webspace it takes the biscuit. They're using my bandwidth without my permission and without the courtesy of asking me. On the occasions where I've noticed this happening I usually replace the file with a blank background and the words "Why not try asking before stealing?". I've got into some ping-pong conversations with people who've done this and they all tend to regard anything posted on the web as public property. Whilst I appreciate that there's little I can do about this, there's still room for courtesy.
These people rarely have the talent to create any content of their own.
Rob
I haven't refused anyone who's asked for permission to use any of my photos, but when I find that people have linked to photos on my webspace it takes the biscuit. They're using my bandwidth without my permission and without the courtesy of asking me. On the occasions where I've noticed this happening I usually replace the file with a blank background and the words "Why not try asking before stealing?". I've got into some ping-pong conversations with people who've done this and they all tend to regard anything posted on the web as public property. Whilst I appreciate that there's little I can do about this, there's still room for courtesy.
These people rarely have the talent to create any content of their own.
Rob
Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:46 pm
I once had this entire site stolen, sort of. Some numbnuts copied the front page of the Luftwaffe Resource Center, renamed it and changed some text and installed it on his site. Linking all subfiles and images directly from my site. I was made away of it by a visitor and e-mailed the thief and he dropped the site immediately.
BTW, I try to give credit where it is due, if you ever see one of your pictures miscredited or lacking a credit then let me know immediately.
BTW, I try to give credit where it is due, if you ever see one of your pictures miscredited or lacking a credit then let me know immediately.
Linking to Photos
Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:00 am
After reading all of the commentary..Robbo's got my attention personally.
Am I to understand, it is considered "bad form" to link to another site
in order to post a photo to WIX forum? I need to have permission from
the original links photo poster ? This is only the 2nd forum I've ever been
on..only been on the web 3 or 4yrs...I wasn't aware of this...Please
clarify?
Am I to understand, it is considered "bad form" to link to another site
in order to post a photo to WIX forum? I need to have permission from
the original links photo poster ? This is only the 2nd forum I've ever been
on..only been on the web 3 or 4yrs...I wasn't aware of this...Please
clarify?
Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:24 am
Airnutz, I can only speak for myself on this subject. I have no objections if I'm asked, but I don't particularly like it when people link to files on my webspace without my knowledge. I have a daily traffic limit on my account and this has been breached a number of times in the past. I'd rather have some choice where this traffic comes from.
When people have asked if they can include any of my work on their sites they usually load the images on their webspace rather than linking to mine. However, when people don't even ask, a run on a particular file usually shows up on my webstats and that helps identify where the requests are coming from. It's much akin to running a power lead from your neighbour's house and not telling him.
At the end of the day it comes down to courtesy. I think it's only decent to credit someone for their efforts in providing an image and if you're going to use their resources to display it on your site or anywhere else you choose to post it, then you ought to ask.
It's just my opinion, and I hope I've managed to articulate it. Anything I post here is given freely for everyone's enjoyment - after all, I take great pleasure in seeing everyone else's photos.
Rob
When people have asked if they can include any of my work on their sites they usually load the images on their webspace rather than linking to mine. However, when people don't even ask, a run on a particular file usually shows up on my webstats and that helps identify where the requests are coming from. It's much akin to running a power lead from your neighbour's house and not telling him.
At the end of the day it comes down to courtesy. I think it's only decent to credit someone for their efforts in providing an image and if you're going to use their resources to display it on your site or anywhere else you choose to post it, then you ought to ask.
It's just my opinion, and I hope I've managed to articulate it. Anything I post here is given freely for everyone's enjoyment - after all, I take great pleasure in seeing everyone else's photos.
Rob
Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:09 am
Wow! This is the first time I have heard this kind of logic in regards to internet protocol. If I place a physical link in a post directly to your photo, do you have a problem with that- or only if I embed the photo in the post itself? I find it odd that you want to place photos in a public forum (the internet), yet want to exclude some from seeing them. Isn't the idea to get as wide an exposure as possible to maximize public interest in the subject?Robbo wrote:Airnutz, I can only speak for myself on this subject. I have no objections if I'm asked, but I don't particularly like it when people link to files on my webspace without my knowledge.
What you suggest would be like an art gallery placing a photo in the front window and then complaining that there are too many people looking at it!
You might consider a free Webshots account. They host the photos but don't allow them to be embedded in the post itself. You can also make a file available by invitation only.
Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:08 am
Hi Airnutz and BDK !
I think what he's trying to say is.....
In most cases, if someone has their own website, free or not, it's usage is measured by downloads, or the amount of outbound traffic. By just looking at a webpage with pictures, you are downloading them. That generates outbound traffic. If an embedded image, example
Embedded = something posted with a [img] http://whatever / tag
Not embedded= something posted as an http://whatever, link
Anyway if its embedded, say, in this thread, in this forum, every person who opens this page of this thread, downloads the image. If the person owning the image is paying for a website with a set download limit until they get to the next payment level, then he's going to get to the next payment level pretty quick. Most of the time without his knowledge, and usually pretty quickly, < 24 hrs. It works on free acounts also. How many times have you looked at a post with a ,,,,hmmm,,geocities link for instance, and it says limit reached. An average normal joe website, will not generate the traffic needed to reach these limits, unless the above happens.
I've seen this with both personal, and corporate websites. I manage a corporate website. One day after runnning and posting the logs, I noticed that our hit count quadrupled. Being the good IT manager I am, I just posted it internally, and didn't give a crap. That was until the Marketing guys came to me in glee wanting to know what brilliant piece of promotional material of theirs drove the hit count up by 4+ times in less than 48 hours. It turns out that a couple of numbskulls at a forum using the same software as this forum, decided that womanphone.jpg and satisfaction.jpg would make good, directly linked/[img]embedded, avatars. Everyone who opened a thread with one of those two's post in it.........Needless to say, the marketing guys were bummed and I was pissed (I shouldn't have to talk to marketing people, it's just wrong).
Sorry about the long post.
Bottom line, embedding images from private websites, is, and always has been, bad form. It's costing someone money for no reason in most cases.
I think what he's trying to say is.....
In most cases, if someone has their own website, free or not, it's usage is measured by downloads, or the amount of outbound traffic. By just looking at a webpage with pictures, you are downloading them. That generates outbound traffic. If an embedded image, example
Embedded = something posted with a [img] http://whatever / tag
Not embedded= something posted as an http://whatever, link
Anyway if its embedded, say, in this thread, in this forum, every person who opens this page of this thread, downloads the image. If the person owning the image is paying for a website with a set download limit until they get to the next payment level, then he's going to get to the next payment level pretty quick. Most of the time without his knowledge, and usually pretty quickly, < 24 hrs. It works on free acounts also. How many times have you looked at a post with a ,,,,hmmm,,geocities link for instance, and it says limit reached. An average normal joe website, will not generate the traffic needed to reach these limits, unless the above happens.
I've seen this with both personal, and corporate websites. I manage a corporate website. One day after runnning and posting the logs, I noticed that our hit count quadrupled. Being the good IT manager I am, I just posted it internally, and didn't give a crap. That was until the Marketing guys came to me in glee wanting to know what brilliant piece of promotional material of theirs drove the hit count up by 4+ times in less than 48 hours. It turns out that a couple of numbskulls at a forum using the same software as this forum, decided that womanphone.jpg and satisfaction.jpg would make good, directly linked/[img]embedded, avatars. Everyone who opened a thread with one of those two's post in it.........Needless to say, the marketing guys were bummed and I was pissed (I shouldn't have to talk to marketing people, it's just wrong).
Sorry about the long post.
Bottom line, embedding images from private websites, is, and always has been, bad form. It's costing someone money for no reason in most cases.
Internet Etiquette
Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:54 am
Sooo..If a regular guy like me, wants to provide a photo-example of
a point I'm trying to make on a forum..all I gotta do is link, wwxx.preserv
axa/c_photoxxx.html, ..and I'm fine?
Thanx BDK, O.P.
a point I'm trying to make on a forum..all I gotta do is link, wwxx.preserv
axa/c_photoxxx.html, ..and I'm fine?
Thanx BDK, O.P.
Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:09 am
Although I have the "all rights reserved" rhetoric on my modest website, truth is it's just my way of sharing my pictures with friends and anyone interested. In order to save space, the resolution is below the level required for a really good 4X6. My only concern is proper credit, I'll leave commercial opportunities to the pros that deserve it like AIRIC.
I've been pleased to recently share some Texan photos with the WIX Registry and will submit more whenever I see a gap.
However, I do have a different but related concern. I've noticed that I sometimes get shots that are almost identical to pictures posted here. For instance, a number of pictures I took at Midland in 02 and 03 are nearly identical to some of Chuck Gardner's pictures posted in the Registry. Although I haven't posted my Geneseo 04 shots yet, I noticed the same phenomena when others posted their photos. My concern is that folks might think that I'm copying their work when we just happened to nail the same picture at a very public event. Are folks particularly worried about general air show static, taxi or photo fly pasts or is the concern more related to unique air to air or other special event shots?
I've been pleased to recently share some Texan photos with the WIX Registry and will submit more whenever I see a gap.
However, I do have a different but related concern. I've noticed that I sometimes get shots that are almost identical to pictures posted here. For instance, a number of pictures I took at Midland in 02 and 03 are nearly identical to some of Chuck Gardner's pictures posted in the Registry. Although I haven't posted my Geneseo 04 shots yet, I noticed the same phenomena when others posted their photos. My concern is that folks might think that I'm copying their work when we just happened to nail the same picture at a very public event. Are folks particularly worried about general air show static, taxi or photo fly pasts or is the concern more related to unique air to air or other special event shots?
Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:29 am
Interesting subject.
My Webshots account has 48 albums, with 2,513 pictures, which have been viewed 161,831 times and downloaded 15,552 times and I must admit that I do wonder who, where and why.
Most, if not all my images claim copyright, include my name and email address but other than Scott, I have never been approached by a third party, for the right to use any of my images. To be fair though, I have never seen any used outside of WIX.
I have tended of late, to resize my images to 1200 x 800 with a default resolution of 72dpi and an image size in most cases under 100kb.
If this problem of image theft is becoming a major problem would it be feasible to create another WIX website similar to Webshots which has small thumbnails, allowing the browser to view the images and any that they require, that person/organisation would have to request and pay a small fee, for a copy of the original. This fee, say £0.50 or £0.70, could then be spilt 50/50 between the owner and Scott, to use with the upkeep of WRG/WIX sites?
I would suggest a small fee, to keep the interest in the image going as if the price were higher, would it defeat the object of trying to sell on to third parties?
Any thoughts?
Tony
PS, thinking about it, didn't Setter suggest a similar idea a few months ago (not trying to pinch the copyright on your idea John
)
My Webshots account has 48 albums, with 2,513 pictures, which have been viewed 161,831 times and downloaded 15,552 times and I must admit that I do wonder who, where and why.
Most, if not all my images claim copyright, include my name and email address but other than Scott, I have never been approached by a third party, for the right to use any of my images. To be fair though, I have never seen any used outside of WIX.
I have tended of late, to resize my images to 1200 x 800 with a default resolution of 72dpi and an image size in most cases under 100kb.
If this problem of image theft is becoming a major problem would it be feasible to create another WIX website similar to Webshots which has small thumbnails, allowing the browser to view the images and any that they require, that person/organisation would have to request and pay a small fee, for a copy of the original. This fee, say £0.50 or £0.70, could then be spilt 50/50 between the owner and Scott, to use with the upkeep of WRG/WIX sites?
I would suggest a small fee, to keep the interest in the image going as if the price were higher, would it defeat the object of trying to sell on to third parties?
Any thoughts?
Tony
PS, thinking about it, didn't Setter suggest a similar idea a few months ago (not trying to pinch the copyright on your idea John
)
Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:34 am
bdk wrote:What you suggest would be like an art gallery placing a photo in the front window and then complaining that there are too many people looking at it!
No, it's like the art gallery providing electricity to light up the photo and somebody running their own cable off the light to light up something else...
Bandwidth costs money - it's as simple as that.
Embedding a photo somewhere, when it is hosted on another site, is using bandwidth from that site. The correct thing to do would be to link to the site, or the page on the site that contains the photo. At least then people get to see what else is on the site instead of just leeching a single image.
Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:21 am
Rob,
I'm not worried about the obvious professional set up. Like you, I try avoiding interference with photographers trying to make a living. I appreciate folks like AIRIC, Tyson (ICAS poster) and others who share their work so we can learn from it. There is no way that I'm in their league. They deserve every reasonable opportunity to make a sale in what I believe is probably a very tough, competitive way to make a buck.
I'm talking about the general public situations where dozens of photographers are taking the same pictures. The Midland example quoted in reference to Chuck Gardner is pretty easy to explain; a taxiway immediately in front of the crowd line presented plane after plane in good light for front quarter shots. I'll bet several photographers got the same shots. Musuems also present an opportunity for an unlimited number of duplicate but independent shots. Sometimes image theft will be immediately obvious, others times it might take very close, careful analysis of clouds and shadows to make the case.
I'm not worried about the obvious professional set up. Like you, I try avoiding interference with photographers trying to make a living. I appreciate folks like AIRIC, Tyson (ICAS poster) and others who share their work so we can learn from it. There is no way that I'm in their league. They deserve every reasonable opportunity to make a sale in what I believe is probably a very tough, competitive way to make a buck.
I'm talking about the general public situations where dozens of photographers are taking the same pictures. The Midland example quoted in reference to Chuck Gardner is pretty easy to explain; a taxiway immediately in front of the crowd line presented plane after plane in good light for front quarter shots. I'll bet several photographers got the same shots. Musuems also present an opportunity for an unlimited number of duplicate but independent shots. Sometimes image theft will be immediately obvious, others times it might take very close, careful analysis of clouds and shadows to make the case.
Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:12 am
Sorry to put a counter view .
I don't care - I would like an acknowledgement and when someone swipes my photos and uses their name I try to embarass them but at the end of the day "Post it and you lose it applies on the internet - Just accept it or don't post. My photos have been accessed 85,000 times in the last 6 months and I'm sure they are everywhere by now - I just am pleased I had the opportunity to share them . People don't make much money in any case and if you can prove you own a photo in a publication in nearly every case I have and you will get an apology and the payment you deserve.
My Opinion
John P
I don't care - I would like an acknowledgement and when someone swipes my photos and uses their name I try to embarass them but at the end of the day "Post it and you lose it applies on the internet - Just accept it or don't post. My photos have been accessed 85,000 times in the last 6 months and I'm sure they are everywhere by now - I just am pleased I had the opportunity to share them . People don't make much money in any case and if you can prove you own a photo in a publication in nearly every case I have and you will get an apology and the payment you deserve.
My Opinion
John P
Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:25 am
Hi Tony C
I think you are reffering to this one and it would probably be joint intelectual Property (IP) not copyright although IP is a bit of an oxymoron in my case
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... highlight=
Regards
John P
I think you are reffering to this one and it would probably be joint intelectual Property (IP) not copyright although IP is a bit of an oxymoron in my case
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... highlight=
Regards
John P
Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:24 pm
I only post low res images and have no problem with people downloading them as I know they can't do much with them. You will never have two images taken by two different people look the exact same. At the very least the prop position will be different or a slight change in a shadow somewhere. I do work for Gladstone Media, Golden Age of Flight Desk Top Calendar, and we recently came across a site that had posted all the images in the vintage section right out of the calendar. At least they gave the photographers credit but they asked for no permission from Gladstone or any of the photographers. He has since removed the images. I always provide owners and museums free images and I find when most people inquire about buying an image they do not even want to spend $20 on an 8x10. I have no problem if people just ask and they have a good reason for needing the image.
Eric
Eric