MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Huffpost -- does google now sell stockphotos?  (Read 7123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2013, 16:02 »
+1
And I blame Google too. Do a search for just about anything and you will find TONS of unwatermarked images with no copyright info. And some images are fairly large sizes. Because people use those large sizes (not knowing any better) in their blogs, online newsletters, etc. and google indexes those images. Someone could have legitimately paid for the images, but they aren't responsible for Google indexing the images, that's on Google.

I know because one of my best sellers appears in a google search, at a fairly large size, watermark free. Because some inexperienced nitwit "intern" posted it in their blog. Now it's there for all to steal. I don't see how I can report it as a copyright violation when there isn't a watermark, which means someone paid for it.

It is all very discouraging. :(

I've stumbled into several of my images that same way, Cathy. One is of a rare "strawpile" cactus that I lucked out and found blooming in an out-of-the-way corner of the desert near Alamogordo, NM. Not long ago I came across my image on Google, with no watermark and the copyright info stripped out of it. Anybody could take it. P*ssed me off to no end.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2013, 16:09 »
0
OK, I just looked up the tog via the second link on dreamstime.
I didn't look up the first link, to the photo on Featurepics, a website I've never knowingly visited before.
Am I blind, stupid, or is there no photographer credited on the photo page, and no obivous link to the photographer port on Featurepics, in case anyone wanted to see what else was on his port?
There is no requirement on Featurepics for a credit for editorial. Then:
"11.3 No use trace
All parties acknowledge that FeaturePics cannot possibly trace or enforce any reliable checking methods to prevent unauthorized use of any images downloaded."



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2013, 16:23 »
0
There is a link underneath the Facebook button "Creator: rjs"
Thank you  :) I'll go with stupid  :-[, as I actually saw the facebook button and even clicked it to see what would happen!

« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2013, 16:30 »
0
Thank you  :) I'll go with stupid  :-[

Nah, tiny nickname :)

I actually saw the facebook button and even clicked it to see what would happen!

LOL

« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2013, 16:41 »
+1
In my message to HP Legal, I didn't accuse them of deliberate wrongdoing, just pointed out that "Google" isn't a proper attribution, and asked the obvious questions.  I'll post if I get an answer.

I encourage others to do the same. 

« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2013, 16:56 »
+1
That's a better approach, Stockastic, for sure. So, okay, you and I will play good-cop-bad-cop. I'm cool with that. :-)

« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2013, 23:39 »
0
And I blame Google too. Do a search for just about anything and you will find TONS of unwatermarked images with no copyright info.

you can only blame the RF licence for that.

it would be fairly easy to track down RM infringers but with RF it's impossible for the photographers especially if the same image sold dozens or hundreds of times.

« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2013, 06:31 »
+6
And I blame Google too. Do a search for just about anything and you will find TONS of unwatermarked images with no copyright info.

you can only blame the RF licence for that.

it would be fairly easy to track down RM infringers but with RF it's impossible for the photographers especially if the same image sold dozens or hundreds of times.


No i blame google for not implementing a program that rectifies the problem, instead of adding one that further promotes stealing. They have the money and technology. And while i am at it, i blame the agencies for stripping our copyright data. I dont necessarily have to know everyone that bought my images, but everyone who sees my images on the internet should know they belong to me and they need to purchase a license.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2013, 06:53 »
+2
And while i am at it, i blame the agencies for stripping our copyright data. I dont necessarily have to know everyone that bought my images, but everyone who sees my images on the internet should know they belong to me and they need to purchase a license.
Totally agree, but whereas something like HP should know about metadata, I doubt if many bloggers etc have a clue. Nevertheless, if the metadata is there, it can only be a help. (deliberate, rather than ignorant, thieves will easily get rid of it, should they choose)

« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2013, 11:03 »
+2
And while i am at it, i blame the agencies for stripping our copyright data. I dont necessarily have to know everyone that bought my images, but everyone who sees my images on the internet should know they belong to me and they need to purchase a license.
Totally agree, but whereas something like HP should know about metadata, I doubt if many bloggers etc have a clue. Nevertheless, if the metadata is there, it can only be a help. (deliberate, rather than ignorant, thieves will easily get rid of it, should they choose)

Which brings up another good use for google to put their billions of dollars to good use for...create an anti-removable watermark for images. If they are going to be the be-all of the whole internet and put everyone's images in their database, the least they could do is protect copyrights.

« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2013, 13:43 »
+2
No i blame google for not implementing a program that rectifies the problem, instead of adding one that further promotes stealing. They have the money and technology. And while i am at it, i blame the agencies for stripping our copyright data. I dont necessarily have to know everyone that bought my images, but everyone who sees my images on the internet should know they belong to me and they need to purchase a license.

the problem is systemic and starterd from the very early stages of the WWW.

why browsers included the option to save images with one click ?

instead they dont give you a way to save/steal youtube videos unless you install some addons.

neither to save flash games or flash files.

it's always images and text and with google images stealing images became 100% mainstream and easier like never before.

nobody in the web industry is showing the slightest remorse, if the next version of IE/Firefox/Chrome disables the "save image as" function there would be riots in the street.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2013, 21:17 »
0
The chocolate cake slice has been found by an Alamy poster on a file sharing site called Clickr, posted by a 'Sirita' http://www.clker.com/clipart-chocolate-cake-slice.html.

"Clker.com is an online sharing service where users share free public domain vector cliparts, or share public domain photos and derive vector cliparts from those photos using clker's online tracer.", above the paragraph where they offer no warranty and take no responsibility for their content.
http://www.clker.com/disclaimer.html

B*stards: they have no online DCMA takedown form - you have to snail some lawyers in the US, apparently, taking ages and costing postage and paper.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2013, 21:53 »
-2
Blaming Google is a nice easy target (cheap shot) but there are at least 30 search engines and they will all find photos. Then the horrid social media sites that seem to be based on "borrowing" information and others work. Pintrest is at the top of that list but Flickr is just as notorious for stolen works, showing on individuals collections.



It's just as invalid as people saying disable right click will offer protection. Futility.

« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2013, 03:28 »
0
displaying the image as CSS is a lot better as the browser can't give a "save as" option !

you need some addons to save CSS images but it's only for power users, not for the lamers stealing from google images.

on the other side CSS images arent usually indexed by google images at all but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2013, 04:35 »
0
displaying the image as CSS is a lot better as the browser can't give a "save as" option !

you need some addons to save CSS images but it's only for power users, not for the lamers stealing from google images.

on the other side CSS images arent usually indexed by google images at all but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

An image in a browser is an image.  There is no "displaying an image as CSS".

Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2013, 06:20 »
+1
Xanox, try this

css {
    if (printscreen){
        format c:/ 
else {
        System.err.println("Thief!");
    }
  }
}


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: August 06, 2013, 07:18 »
0
If someone screendumps the page with the image and crops it, the metadata is lost anyway.

« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2013, 08:42 »
-1
well it was obvious i was saying "USING CSS" rather than "AS CSS", thanks.


« Reply #44 on: August 06, 2013, 08:45 »
-1
If someone screendumps the page with the image and crops it, the metadata is lost anyway.

i've still the feeling screendumps are for power users, not for random leechers.

actually you don't even need addons, most of the cases just save the whole page in a directory and find the images.

some have server side hotlink protection but c'mon there are many ways to skin a cat.

« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2013, 11:19 »
0
No reply from HP Legal.  And last time I checked those photos still credited "Google".

I hope more people are questioning this.  But being lawyers, they may simply not reply to anyone not directly involved - i.e. the actual people who own those images.

Ron

« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2013, 11:21 »
0
No reply from HP Legal.  And last time I checked those photos still credited "Google".

I hope more people are questioning this.  But being lawyers, they may simply not reply to anyone not directly involved - i.e. the actual people who own those images.
Post it over on Alamy, they know a lot there about these things and HP as HP buys images from Alamy if I am correct.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2013, 11:35 »
0

« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2013, 12:26 »
0
Some guy on the Alamy thread seems to be convincing people that it's all fine because the images were used by "Professor Dennett" in his TED talk, so it's an educational use.   What BS.  This is Huffington Post, not a grade school classroom.  HP obviously intends to make money from this piece.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: August 06, 2013, 12:29 »
0
Some guy on the Alamy thread seems to be convincing people that it's all fine because the images were used by "Professor Dennett" in his TED talk, so it's an educational use.   What BS.  This is Huffington Post, not a grade school classroom.  HP obviously intends to make money from this piece.
That post confused me too. But why have a forum if not to debate constructively?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
43 Replies
16055 Views
Last post June 05, 2018, 12:47
by dorin
11 Replies
5309 Views
Last post March 20, 2011, 04:10
by jm
32 Replies
13437 Views
Last post February 23, 2013, 00:00
by Stacey336
2 Replies
2003 Views
Last post February 07, 2017, 16:55
by Sean Locke Photography
5 Replies
1844 Views
Last post September 22, 2017, 05:12
by obj owl

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results