SummitPost.org

I got a PM about the image theft from Aigisthos and the sender wondered why SP doesn't have any protection. I have wondered the same for years and the PM made me start this thread.
Why don't you implement some sort of protection?
When it comes to the long term quality of the site it's way more important than chat rooms and other junk which has been added lately. Many good photographers have left SP because of this issue and more will.
I don't mind if someone with a small private website use some of my photos for non commercial purposes, but when bastards like this guy use my photo, without telling me, stamping his own fucking copyright all over it and uses it to sell his expeditions it's way beyond what's acceptable.
http://www.expeditionsbergsteigen.com/N ... -2008.html
The person responsible for this theft is Edwin Haas.
Please send sour comments, spam and bombs his way.
Edwin Haas
Nachfeldstr. 4
82490 farchant bei Garmisch-Partenkirchen
Tel: +49 (0) 171 / 4531773
edwin@expeditionsbergsteigen.com

The above is just one example. There are many more. Some are my photos, some are stolen from other SP members.
Again: What about implementing some photo protection here?
It doesn't have to be too complicated.
Look at this site for example. They have some simple protection which at least deters the spur of the moment thieves.
http://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/viewpic.htm/2340790.htm

"Protection" is a waste of time. It simply doesn't work. Yes, there are some people who don't know how to get around it, but those are the same spur-of-the-moment people who want to do things like use your photo as the background of your computer, or email a copy to their grandmother - uses that don't do any commercial harm and actually help to spread your reputation. Also it's inconvenient for SP users who *want* their photos shared. (My photos, for example, are all under a CC-SA license.)
Anybody who stamps his copyright notice on someone else's photo knows he's stealing. I don't think the ten-second delay created by the "protection" in your example (that's how long it took me to get around it) will stop them.

nartreb wrote:"Protection" is a waste of time...
...I don't think the ten-second delay created by the "protection" in your example (that's how long it took me to get around it) will stop them.

That's you. You have proven time and time again that you're a wizard with this.
I think it would help some and the alternative I gave you is just one of many techniques that could be used.

Or I guess this is the alternative.


http://www.summitpost.org/deniz-golu-la ... 300m/12691

Re the fotosidan site that Janne mentioned.



Yes,their system seems to work. (I tried copying the image info and pasting it between the [img][img] markers and lo and behold - nothing.

Matt, can this be done here on SP?

dadndave wrote:Re the fotosidan site that Janne mentioned.



Yes,their system seems to work. (I tried copying the image info and pasting it between the [img][img] markers and lo and behold - nothing.

Matt, can this be done here on SP?

It would be possible I think. But does it help? Crosslinking across sites might be a nuissance but after all the picture is not stolen. In case you can't crosslink you force people to steal rather than crosslink. Where's the gain?

It took me less than three minutes to make a jpeg of that fotosidian picture, and a whole lot of people are familiar with the same tactic I employed. The file is not large enough to print but is perfectly fine for posting on the Internet.

I am nowhere near a genius when it comes to playing games with a computer.

I'm not dismissing the issue, Janne and others, and I know it's frustrating. And while it might not hurt to install some barriers here, it certainly is not going to be hard to get around them. So I guess I'd say that if Matt installs something, fine, but no one should expect it to stop those who are up to no good. It's the "average" user that will be affected, and the troublemakers are typically not the "average" users.

Agreed with nartreb, I like being able to use photos for backgrounds and like it when others do the same with my photos. But I certainly understand your frusteration, I know I would be outraged if people started using my photos for profit without my permission and using it on websites. Not sure how hard this idea would be to implement this, but if the "protection feature" was made on a user basis. A check box or radio button when editing profile called "Do you want Photo Protection?" which then if you say yes makes it so it adds some code to your photos that does functions like "Disable Right click" or something like that. But one big issue comes to mind, the photos are hosted on another host which would mean they would then have to be the photo protection people. So the situation then suddenly becomes complicated. So then suggestions then should come into specifics, what kind of protection are you looking into?

As for the picture, I easily found where it was in the code:


But it does make lazy thiefs at a disadvantage. Especially considering they must be lazy if they don't even ask permission.

Perhaps it was a stupid example (Fotosidan). I know it's easy to get around the problems there, but I wanted to give an example of a site with at some protection at all.
There are other ways, some are very hard to get around, but I have no idea how hard it would be to implement those on SP.

My main reason for the post was to find out if it's possible to add any kind of photo protection feature on SP. I'm sure it's possible. The next question is what kind of defense. I guess it's a matter of weighting how hard it is to make it work and how good protection it gives.

I have difficulties to understand some comments above though. Just because it might not give full protection against all attacks it's not worth trying.
People installing alarms in their houses also know it's not a 100% protection, but at least it stops some thieves.

While no protections SP puts in place will be bullet-proof to bar determined photo thieves, it's still important that SP makes an effort / extends a medium to contributors for protecting photos.

If nothing else, I do not want to see the best contributors of the best and most useful photos and content unwilling to share on SP because they feel zero protections are in place.

Corax wrote:There are other ways, some are very hard to get around, but I have no idea how hard it would be to implement those on SP.

Probably the best thing to do is contact Matt by PM. I'm not sure if he's following this thread, and what we're talking about here is something elves can't do. I can also email him a link to this thread since it's a sensitive issue.

At the end of the day there's always the screen capture button on your keyboard. Not trying to be a spanner in the works but more complex lengths to protect photos won't help much I think. I think subtle watermarks work pretty well personally.

Baarb wrote:At the end of the day there's always the screen capture button on your keyboard. Not trying to be a spanner in the works but more complex lengths to protect photos won't help much I think. I think subtle watermarks work pretty well personally.

That's exactly what I do for route photos. Some photo-sharing sites allow download of the full-size image to "members only." I just do a screen dump; if the image is larger than the physical screen, I copy the top and bottom of the image after scrolling, and paste together. I'm just interested in a one-time personal use, and destroy the copy when I am done.

Some sites overprint a watermark on the web-visible image, unless you have permission to copy the original.

There could be a sp watermark by default on uploaded pictures. A semitransparent but still visible watermark.
Obviously it wouldn't be stating anything about propriety of the image that remains of the photographer, it would simply avoid them being stolen by anyone. And maybe, for those who agree to it, their photos could be downloaded free of watermark, but only by members of sp...
This might make it easier to control theft

Yes, i know, but watermark doesn't necessarily mean ownership. It could be stated in the conditions when you join sp, that there is the option, if you agree, to have images watermarked to protect them from theft. You obviously maintain ownership, but it would avoid (personally speaking...) the hassle of watermarking each image.

logged in members would be able to see sp just as it is now, with no invasive watermarks, but for anyone else it wouldn't be possible to download the clean version.

I don't know what this would require techinically, to be done. But for sure copyright of the image would be unaffected.

Or, an alternative might be to insert some code in the upload page giving the possibility to watermark images with one's username.