Author Topic: Website Advocating Stealing RF Images (Read 21386 times)

djpadavona · « **on:** April 10, 2011, 21:20 »

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/black-hat-seo-tools/295356-royalty-free-images-free.html

This is amazing. Almost everyone in the thread is completely behind the concept of stealing images rather than paying for them. Unfortunately their plan works - find an image you want on IS or wherever, then use Tineye to find it in use elsewhere and steal it from the site.

I had to stop myself from registering and flaming the bejeezus out of them.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** April 10, 2011, 21:24 »

"I use images from iStockPhoto fpr my websites without paying a dme. It says royalty free, so I thought it was okay to use them, considering the fact they get credit for the use. All the images read (istockphoto) in between. Should I remove them? any advice on this. "

I can't believe some people even have the intelligence to turn their computer on when I read things like this.

djpadavona · « **Reply #2 on:** April 10, 2011, 21:26 »

Yeah that post is a beauty.

Every one of these morons has an IP address linked to them, and they are discussing in a public forum how they steal images. You'd think they would keep this private. Any agency which wanted to make an example of them could have a field day. Just follow the IP, check their websites, start looking for potentially stolen images...

Starbucks · « **Reply #3 on:** April 10, 2011, 22:20 »

They may not know anything about stock images, but based on the forum name "BlackhatWorld" (which references a particular type of hacker, usually well versed in illegal activities), I would assume they understand how to do something as simple as masking their true IP address via a proxy. Anyway, each computer does not have it's own permanent, unique IP address. To put it simply - the IP refers to a specific connection, which usually remains the same for a location, but is independent from the identification of a specific computer. Most people have their computer on the same connection all the time, hence the reason it can sometimes be traced back to them. On top of that, they could be posting on the forum from a public wifi. Also, their IP address, even if static, is also probably not the same that their website uses. Furthermore, the only way an agency could get the IP address is by requesting a subpoena for the server of the forum and hope that some sort of log has been kept, and good luck with that.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying they should be stealing our images. But tracking them is not as simple as it sounds.

djpadavona · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2011, 22:25 »

Good info Starbucks. Did anybody click on their profiles to see if they list their websites or emails? Considering some of their posts are at the edge of illiteracy, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them were stupid enough to give away their identities.

Starbucks · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2011, 22:39 »

Good idea... would be rather humorous if they went through all the effort of hiding themselves to then just accidentally let their identity slip

bittersweet · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2011, 22:45 »

This one is my favorite:

Quote

does anyone know how to get Getty images for free (and without the watermark) and other sites as well?

is there a .robot txt that bi passes this? I was thinking of spoofing the website but forgot how to do it,

grp_photo · « **Reply #7 on:** April 11, 2011, 01:10 »

The Tineye-method is actually pretty smart and safe for them. But they don't understand the difference between RF and RM so there is some kind of uncertainty between them because of the Getty-cause. But nevertheless it only works if they need websize Images they still have to buy them if they are in need for printsizes.

fotorob · « **Reply #8 on:** April 11, 2011, 01:56 »

I just sent feedback to TinEye asking for a statement and a way of improving their service to make it harder to steal images.

You can do so too: http://www.tineye.com/getintouch

Phil · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2011, 04:02 »

looks to me like tineye is designed to steal images

pasted a url of one yuri's images

http://www.tineye.com/search/b82a901603c03870844cfe4f767796f432d26c45/?sort=size&order=desc

530 hits,

sort order - biggest size

1700 pixels on the long side, linkdirect to the image so you dont even have to open the webpage.

rubyroo · « **Reply #10 on:** April 11, 2011, 04:17 »

Great catch Dan, and well done fotorob.

Beyond the people who are just downright unethical, I can't help feeling that a part of this is that old perception that 'it's OK to steal from the big guys - they can afford to take a loss'.

I wish there was more realisation out there that the photographer's are losing their tiny cut every time they steal. It wouldn't stop them all, but I'm sure it would stop some at least.

sharpshot · « **Reply #11 on:** April 11, 2011, 04:32 »

At least with RM, we know what images sold are being used for and it should be easier to catch a thief. With microstock RF, it's hard to know who has paid for a license and who is using stolen images. I hope one day there will be a way to put something invisible on images to track them.

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** April 11, 2011, 05:09 »

Digimarc adds an electronic watermark and offers a service to track them, at a cost. However, there seems to be ways to avoid tracking, as discussed in that thread. Or can Digimarc be smarter?

It is intetesting to see the arguments to support stealung images, one of them beimg that a lot of money has already been made with them. That's the same argument many people use for not buying MS software.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #13 on:** April 11, 2011, 10:28 »

Quote from: Phil on April 11, 2011, 04:02

looks to me like tineye is designed to steal images ...sort order - biggest size...
1700 pixels on the long side, linkdirect to the image so you dont even have to open the webpage.

I'm not sure how each agency's agreement reads, but I believe IS updated theirs a while ago to permit up to 1024 pixels on the longest side on a web page, so images that large would be violating IS's agreement anyway. Not saying the theft issue goes away, but the smaller the image, the lower the value the thieves are able to snap up.

What I find pretty ballsy is that they feel quite comfortable discussing theft openly - as if they were discussing where to get coupons or the best deal on a car.

stockastic · « **Reply #14 on:** April 11, 2011, 10:32 »

These dweebs would never pay anything for an image anyway, and no one is reading their blogs.

The only possible way to stop something like this would be to bring down TinEye, on the grounds that TinEye itself is using copyrighted images to make money. If you disagree with that, then tell me: what is the difference, really, between TinEye - or Google - displaying copyrighted images in order to sell ads, and a blogger doing the same thing?

Search Google Images for "isolated apple". Google displays my nice photo, in hopes you'll click on an ad link. Google scraped that image off of a page belonging to a blogger who actually paid for it - but Google paid nothing. You enjoyed looking at my image so much that you in fact clicked on an ad to show your gratitude to Google. Didn't Google just use my image without paying for it?

jamirae · « **Reply #15 on:** April 11, 2011, 11:18 »

did anyone report this to any of the stock sites? I'm thinking of sending it in to compliance enforcement at istock. I know that they work on squashing this sort of thing - it takes them awhile but they have followed through on issues I had when I found my images used illegally. i would bet that if the Vetta and Agency files were being stolen they would jump on it pretty quick.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #16 on:** April 11, 2011, 11:36 »

Quote from: jamirae on April 11, 2011, 11:18

did anyone report this to any of the stock sites? I'm thinking of sending it in to compliance enforcement at istock. I know that they work on squashing this sort of thing - it takes them awhile but they have followed through on issues I had when I found my images used illegally. i would bet that if the Vetta and Agency files were being stolen they would jump on it pretty quick.

I thought about it, but it didn't mention specific images - I'm not sure that discussing how to commit this theft is something IS can go after. Now if these geniuses would care to post the images they swiped...

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #17 on:** April 13, 2011, 14:47 »

Perhaps the best advice to not to think about it. Theft is present in every industry. Retail stores track their "invisible" losses from shoplifting and those numbers go into the thousands per year. Tineye works both ways as it can be used to track theft as well as enable it. I found an image of mine using tineye, probably stolen from flickr, which is why I don't use flickr anymore. (For the record I didn't list commercially available shots on flickr and only posted small sizes)

But who needs tineye when anyone can go to google, search for anything they want, click the images button, sort by largest size and go shopping. The only way to completely stop theft is to remove all of your images from the internet.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #18 on:** April 13, 2011, 15:20 »

To me this is nothing more than evidence of the fact that this industry has strayed too far from what it was originally selling:

SERVICES & CONVENIENCE

It was never about selling imaginary "rights", so get over it. Talk to any veteran of the business from the 80s and 90s who worked at an agency like I have, and you can get them to admit this. The web has forced a change however, because originally, it was very hard to steal stock images because you needed a decently high res file to make any real use of it in print applications.

What we really need isn't more useless legal intervention, what we need is more creativity about how to sell SERVICES & CONVENIENCE in the new digital version of this business, as well as better ways to protect the content on the sites themselves.

I like tin eye's technology, but the idea of using it to drag people into court was seriously not well thought out... most people don't go to court already because what they win (or could win) isn't enough to cover their legal fees or their time and energy. They should focus on using their technology to sell images instead of trying to chase down infringers.

Michael Lancaster · « **Reply #19 on:** October 14, 2011, 05:38 »

In the Chrome, the extension "Search Google with this image" works in the same way as Tineye, so the thiefs cannot be stopped, ever.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** October 14, 2011, 05:55 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 11, 2011, 10:28

What I find pretty ballsy is that they feel quite comfortable discussing theft openly - as if they were discussing where to get coupons or the best deal on a car.

Others seem to be more than comfortable discussing even more heinous crimes openly on the net.

cathyslife · « **Reply #21 on:** October 14, 2011, 06:07 »

old thread alert

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #22 on:** October 16, 2011, 12:50 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on April 13, 2011, 15:20

To me this is nothing more than evidence of the fact that this industry has strayed too far from what it was originally selling:

SERVICES & CONVENIENCE

It was never about selling imaginary "rights", so get over it. Talk to any veteran of the business from the 80s and 90s who worked at an agency like I have, and you can get them to admit this. The web has forced a change however, because originally, it was very hard to steal stock images because you needed a decently high res file to make any real use of it in print applications.

What we really need isn't more useless legal intervention, what we need is more creativity about how to sell SERVICES & CONVENIENCE in the new digital version of this business, as well as better ways to protect the content on the sites themselves.

I like tin eye's technology, but the idea of using it to drag people into court was seriously not well thought out... most people don't go to court already because what they win (or could win) isn't enough to cover their legal fees or their time and energy. They should focus on using their technology to sell images instead of trying to chase down infringers.

Could you leave the door open at your house. You have insurance it won't cost you anything and I need new camera. Going to court doesn't win you anything. The serial numbers don't matter because they should use technology to selling cameras not tracking down me for stealing your equipment.

one message says, Here is a safer way to use this technique:
Look for images that appear on TWO royalty free sites.
For example, image providers will "sell" their images through dreamstime AND istockphoto, therefore it would be difficult for either company to come after you as you could argue you bought the image on the competitor's site.

true we don't know and micro places don't care unless we are exclusive because they don't know. No protection.

princigalli · « **Reply #23 on:** May 17, 2012, 18:32 »

Ignore it.

Stealing happens everywhere. You could spend you time trying to catch thieves or use the same amount of time and effort to produce better work. Most people will not work with those thieves anyway, so don't get too busy with them.

Karimala · « **Reply #24 on:** May 17, 2012, 19:28 »

Old thread alert part deux.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Website Advocating Stealing RF Images (Read 21386 times)

djpadavona

Sean Locke Photography

djpadavona

Starbucks

djpadavona

Starbucks

bittersweet

grp_photo

fotorob

Phil

rubyroo

sharpshot

madelaide

Jo Ann Snover

stockastic

jamirae

Jo Ann Snover

digitalexpressionimages

cardmaverick

Michael Lancaster

ShadySue

cathyslife

YadaYadaYada

princigalli

Karimala

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors