| Author |
Message |
lmel900
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Posts: 4998
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 10:40 am
|  |
| angelawaye wrote: | 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. |
I think disabling the right click, smaller images, and a better waterwark together would make it harder for thieves. Even if all microstock sites do that, Google still allows the right click, and anybody can copy images, am I correct? |
|
ajancso
Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 1898
Location: Right Behind You
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 11:19 am
| |
Done |
|
dmg
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: http://dariusz-gudowicz.artistwebsites.com
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 12:23 pm
| |
| pjmorley wrote: | 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. |
Well said. I am not signing.
I was/am strongly against ACTA and I'm afraid that this petition would be a very good weapon for all ACTA supporters.
Small explanation to those who think that right click is their biggest enemie - you don't need to take screeshot or right click to have any image on your HD. If you are watching it with your web browser it automatically lands on your HD and stays there until you manually delete it. That's why the size of preview is so important and why we should watch carefully what sites like SS do with our hard work. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39620
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 12:57 pm
| |
"That's why the size of preview is so important and why we should watch carefully what sites like SS do with our hard work."
My only concern. It's to Late for everyone else. The genie is out.My music is being stolen everyday and theres nothing I can do about it.And I live on those copyrights. I agree SS and the others should step back and rework the watermarks and NO on a larger preview.No buyer needs a 1000 x 900 preview. I to looks cool but thats about it. I wonder how may Programmers are submitters or even worry about this.90% of my income for the last 40 years is from owning copyrights. Thats pretty much over.Anyone can take anything But....Why help them? |
|
tacna
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2155
Location: always new
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:57 pm
| |
Just to add some info - when
big images with degraded quality needed -
examples of large comp images usage can be:
1. Demonstration of full - screen resizable backgrounds for websites. Personally would prefer not a comp, but image with parts replaced by 100% opacity watermark or mosaically included very low quality areas to exclude usage as a real background.
2. Big collages, especially with many items included.
Anything is coming to find a way to produce an impression on a customer, which rarely understands "why". They just want and often consider graphics as a "free" addition from a developer. But this is another story, to explain them why artists have right to make living on their products. |
|
alexis84
Joined: 03 Nov 2009
Posts: 990
Location: Serbia
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 5:21 pm
| |
Done...Share on FB everyone... |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4183
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:44 am
| |
Once something has been sold it is out in the wild and is likely to be available without a watermark or any right click protection on a website. So if you are successful in selling your work then the previews are the least of your worries. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39620
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 6:30 pm
| |
But, why make it easier and why make it come from the source.? |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4183
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:50 am
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | But, why make it easier and why make it come from the source.? |
Yes, I agree. But sometimes people seem to get so worked up about previews that they seem to forget that most theft is likely to be viat images they have sold rather than those on the agencies. I've seen people use a thumbnail of mine on their website and link it to a four or five MP popup, for no better reason than that they happen to have the big size (presumably from a subscription). |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39620
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 9:22 am
| |
Ya, I agree paul. it's a no win.At dinner last night we had a fellow that designs watermarks and such. I told him about this and he said theres a new thing that lots of art sites are doing...When a preview image comes up it fades in and out quicker than someone can save it.. I dunno.Theres got to be an answer. |
|
dmg
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: http://dariusz-gudowicz.artistwebsites.com
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:29 am
| |
Laurin, Paul, it is not about what we see at the monitor but what we get on HD. Why should anyone bother to buy anything if he can get your image from his HD and make it 3000 px wide without any loss of quality in less than 5 minutes. I can assure you that right click will not be used. |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4183
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 6:18 pm
| |
| dmg wrote: | | Laurin, Paul, it is not about what we see at the monitor but what we get on HD. Why should anyone bother to buy anything if he can get your image from his HD and make it 3000 px wide without any loss of quality in less than 5 minutes. I can assure you that right click will not be used. |
I'm not sure how many people would know how to root around in their drive for that - I wouldn't know where to look and I'm not exactly computer illiterate. |
|
canalenes
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 2228
Location: Orygun
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 6:58 pm
| |
I'm very computer un-savvy, but do you know how videos that you rent online are set so that you can only watch them X amount of times and within a limited time period?
I wonder if that could be done with stolen photos with a few modifications. It could give designers enough time to borrow the image to see if they can use it and subsequently purchase it. And if someone stole a photo, it would disintegrate (be rendered unviewable) when the time limit was up........and I should think it could be made to be uncopyable and, thus, not able to be resold over and over again by a thief.
And that concludes my yeoman's two-cents worth. |
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 7:11 pm
| |
| canalenes wrote: | I'm very computer un-savvy, but do you know how videos that you rent online are set so that you can only watch them X amount of times and within a limited time period?
I wonder if that could be done with stolen photos with a few modifications. It could give designers enough time to borrow the image to see if they can use it and subsequently purchase it. And if someone stole a photo, it would disintegrate (be rendered unviewable) when the time limit was up........and I should think it could be made to be uncopyable and, thus, not able to be resold over and over again by a thief.
And that concludes my yeoman's two-cents worth. |
The videos are not on your HD, they are online and the site just stores either your IP address and then limit your view time, or the adobe flash settings store data on your PC to restrict your view times. But both options are easy to by pass. A photo stored on your PC can no longer be altered once its stored. That is similar to hacking or work of a virus. |
|
canalenes
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 2228
Location: Orygun
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 7:24 pm
| |
| semmickphoto wrote: | | canalenes wrote: | I'm very computer un-savvy, but do you know how videos that you rent online are set so that you can only watch them X amount of times and within a limited time period?
I wonder if that could be done with stolen photos with a few modifications. It could give designers enough time to borrow the image to see if they can use it and subsequently purchase it. And if someone stole a photo, it would disintegrate (be rendered unviewable) when the time limit was up........and I should think it could be made to be uncopyable and, thus, not able to be resold over and over again by a thief.
And that concludes my yeoman's two-cents worth. |
The videos are not on your HD, they are online and the site just stores either your IP address and then limit your view time, or the adobe flash settings store data on your PC to restrict your view times. But both options are easy to by pass. A photo stored on your PC can no longer be altered once its stored. That is similar to hacking or work of a virus. |
Ooooo, shoot. Hmmmmm, I wonder if an unpurchased photo could be viewable as a video is from an online site, and only when purchased could it be downloaded onto HD's.
Thanks for bringing this dreamer up to speed a little about computers. ;-) |
|
| |
|
Log in
