Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

tpzijl · Joined: 09 Nov 2007 Posts: 1682 Location: Dutch Lowlands

signed!

panicattack · Joined: 15 May 2011 Posts: 133

signed!

steveball · Joined: 10 Mar 2009 Posts: 62 Location: Swansea, UK

Signed.

bobmawby · Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 4:40 am

signed

stefanholm · Joined: 04 Oct 2011 Posts: 21 Location: Stockholm

Signed

pjmorley · Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Posts: 3300

Hmmm... I'm not sure about this at all. Whilst I fully agree with the main sentiments of protecting artists as stated in the petition, I think we should be careful what we wish for because it might just come true. I would also be inclined to check the provenance of any petitioner before I sign.

After clicking on the example links in the petition, it appears that the majority are already taken down so it seems there is already an effective system in place to deal with these sort of sites.

Now whilst I am no fan of Google, we should remember that Google is not the only search engine and we should consider the impact of the suggested solution in this petition. Essentially it asks for search engines to police the internet and it asks for a system that goes against the concept of Network Neutrality.

There are more arms to this argument than these two issues but to avoid side tracking and losing the focus of my point amongst a complex and multi-layered, I'll briefly explain my reasons on these two for now.

1. Google and other search engines are just that, search engines. You can't blame them for the content of the internet nor can you expect or even want them to police it. Would we expect map makers to redraw maps because some areas are known to be undesirable?

2. And what is undesirable to one is not necessarily undesirable to another. The danger is that information will be be policed and relegated on moral and/or political grounds that don't abide to views other than those in the mainstream. Remember SOPA, COPA, ACTA, PIPA etc.

This sort of request for censoring content is the thin end of the wedge and the bar for what is considered illegal/immoral will keep shifting.

The way it works at the minute is that fraudulent sites are shut down when discovered but they spring up minutes, hours or days later under a new name. Not perfect but a status quo exists.

The suggestion in the petition won't stop image theft and it won't stop new sites springing up and using stolen images but it will shift the status quo and have a negative impact, perhaps making it easier for big corporations to use any ensuing legislation to suppress competition on spurious claims. There are many issues around misuse of such regulation that will lead to more and more more draconian intervention.

So whilst I agree that images shouldn't be stolen, they are and there are already measures in place to address that. The suggestion in the petition won't prevent the usage of stolen images abuse it does take us one step closer to something less desirable.

If I was from one of the East European countries I'd be able to invoke one of their insightful sayings. I'm not so I'll make one up :-)

Don't invite a monster to dinner unless you have prepared an extra place at the table.

Or as we say in UK and possibly elsewhere. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I won't be signing.

Mike Price · Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 2919 Location: South Wales

tacna · Joined: 11 Feb 2006 Posts: 2124 Location: always new

It is always a spiral movement. Current legislation already allow to take down many of such sites - and you see it. To do life of image thieves more difficult - technical efforts should go to another level. Surviving of alternative search engines, image identification and search services, regulation of scraping, still it is mostly not touched field which needs first of all big financial injections to give a result.

supertramp · Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:43 am

Signed

rudyumans · Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:57 am

Although PJ might have some valid points (not all), the least thing it does is raising questions and awareness. That alone is worth my signature.

pjmorley · Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Posts: 3300

hhltdave5 · Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 9:52 am

I am not very computer savvy when it comes to the different ways of stealing images so excuse me if this sounds over simplified. Would a good protection measure be to simply remove the ability to right click and copy the image?

I suppose someone could just take a screen shot of it but I always believed that the harder you make it for someone to do something illegal the more likely they will go to a place where it is simpler to do. Bad guys will most often take the easy way then spend more time doing things the hard way.

I do also agree that right now I do not see the vast importance of making the resulting images so large. Don't they already have that with the mouse over?

lmel900 · Joined: 13 Mar 2011 Posts: 4956

Susan · Joined: 06 May 2005 Posts: 6280

angelawaye · Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 10:23 am

It is very easy to add the piece of code to disable a right click on a website:
http://www.hypergurl.com/norightclick.html

However, thieves can just take a screenshot of it with a free screen capture program. It does make them jump through one more hoop though.

I think SS should be exploring ways to design/implement a better watermark of some sort.