pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Missouri xmas card shot ends up on Czech storefront ad  (Read 9276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

zymmetricaldotcom

« on: June 11, 2009, 03:36 »
0
Wow.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31214408/

The store owner says "he thought it was computer generated (??)" therefore ok to use.   


« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2009, 07:04 »
0
These two statements from the Czech store owner are particularly telling:

"Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, said the photo was from the Internet."

He says that it was "from the Internet".  I guess he feels that anything on the Internet is free for the taking!  Unfortunately, I think that this is a common feeling among the general population.

"Details were sparse, but he said he thought it was computer-generated."

How could anyone think that this image was computer generated???

bittersweet

« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2009, 07:09 »
0
Smith said next time she posts a photo on the Internet, she's going to lower the resolution or add an electronic watermark to make it hard to reproduce.

"This story doesn't frighten me, but the potential frightens me," Smith said.


Well, duh...

She posted high resolution images of her family on "several" public networking sites, apparently with absolutely no privacy filters whatsoever attached.

Is she nuts??

« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2009, 07:13 »
0
Not nuts, just unaware.

My sister did a similar thing with a family shot. She didn't even know she could resize a picture, has never used Photoshop or any editing program, and certainly never thought the picture could have any value to anyone else. I got her to take it down and 'educated' her.

Uploading to social sites has become too easy!

« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2009, 07:28 »
0
She didn't even know she could resize a picture, has never used Photoshop or any editing program, and certainly never thought the picture could have any value to anyone else.

Exactly. That would apply to 90%+ of people that I know who are not in the image business.

« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2009, 07:34 »
0
I don't believe that blaming the victim is appropriate.

We should all be able to leave our windows open to get some fresh air without having someone trespass and steal everything.  And if someone does come in and steal something, then we shouldn't be blaming the victim for leaving the windows open.  We should blame the thief (since they are the ones that actually did something wrong).

People should be able to post their family photos on the Internet (to share with friends and family) without someone stealing them and using them for profit.  This photo was used in a marketing campaign to increase sales.  The company should have at least asked for permission (and preferably offered a small amount of money for usage).

bittersweet

« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2009, 07:55 »
0
I don't believe that blaming the victim is appropriate.

Of course the person who used the image is in the wrong! That point was not even in debate. I just find it hard to believe that someone participating in MULTIPLE networking sites can be so entirely clueless.

Am I wrong for believing there is a difference between being a newbie to the internet and someone who has a blog and is active on multiple networking sites?

« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2009, 07:57 »
0
Hey, she lives right around me somewhere.

« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2009, 08:20 »
0
Hey, she lives right around me somewhere.

Well that's awesome...

Sorry for my language, but what idiot is putting full res images of anything online if it isn't for selling it? Why would anyone upload huge 5-10 MP snapshots in the first place? Do most people already have monitors with 3500x2333 pixel resolution??? If you want to "share your family photos" do it on a image hosting site that allows private folders.

Can't stop shaking my head.

The lady didn't do anything wrong but I don't do anything wrong either driving my Ferrari into a bad neighborhood with the keys in the ignition and leaving the car running by itself for an hour... Guess what happens?

Some people just ask for trouble...

« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2009, 09:20 »
0
It 's all about MISINFORMATION, really.
I read even in consumer product magazines where some established writer actually mentions , "royalty free" means download for free. This was an article on films, etc.. which of course, if you were the average reader, you would also take it from this "expert" that IS,SS,etc.. "royalty free" images are free to use.
Secondly, there are many people who are seeing the world as one safe place to open the windows to let anyone in. Unfortunately, this leads some to realise the world is not that safe.
Example being, one of my oldest contact on flickr, had some of the most impressive photos . She uploaded them in full size . That was until she found one of those images of her adopted sister being used by a porn site. When I found that out, I instantly emailed her to tell her she should stop uploading full size to her flickr.She did better, she blocked everyone except her family . Still, it was a lesson too late.
Thirdly, we all know that facebook ,flickr,etc... can use your images "if they choose to". So I warn my friends about this. Yet, they still upload all their images
on their facebook for all the world to see. Everything , including the most revealing and some even embarassing shots.

So, really. Why do they do it, even after being warned ?
It 's much like the same for smokers. We all think it'll only be the other fella
who will get cancer, not us. Same mentality goes for putting all those large images of high res on the web.  That being said, not many of these people know how to use Photoshop,etc. So they upload the full size image that came from their camera. Lots of people with more money to buy those expensive cameras, you know? That's why none of them are microstockers. They don't need the money ;)


michealo

« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2009, 10:44 »
0
Hey, she lives right around me somewhere.

You thinking of getting her and her family to model?
You already know it well sell (or get stolen anyway) ;-)

I did tell you that you were in competition with Flickr , facebook, etc ;-)

« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2009, 10:46 »
0
I should!  My wife knows her from Mom's Club.

michealo

« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2009, 10:50 »
0
I should!  My wife knows her from Mom's Club.

The media would love the story:

"Reluctant model Mom gets contract with one of the worlds top stock photographers"



« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2009, 15:06 »
0
Sorry for my language, but what idiot is putting full res images of anything online if it isn't for selling it? Why would anyone upload huge 5-10 MP snapshots in the first place?

I know a lot of people who choose their cameras for the pixel size.  Many of those are my fellow engineer colleagues.  They have no clue that they don't need those pixels and bigger memory cards.  And they are attracted by the big numbers (more megapixels must mean better photos!)

Many more people have no idea they can downsize their images, nor see a need for this (especially with broadband connection), and they certainly have no idea how they can do it.

I also see in SP newbies with some cash in hand that buy DSLRs but they know nothing about photography and they seem to think a good camera has to do everything.  :D
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 15:09 by madelaide »

« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2009, 16:06 »
0
OK, I should be pitching this to a company but I guess someone else can do that for me:

Since there are so many dummies out there thinking that the internet is just great and nothing else I believe it's also the web sites' responsibility to protect the content to a certain extent.

Right now all the web sites want is images but what do they offer in return? It's not enough that people can order prints and other merchandise with their images on them. It should also include optional watermarking AND resizing.

People should be confronted with a big red banner on the upload page warning them about potential abuse of their images if they chose not to select those precautions.

If you don't want your images to be abused at all - don't upload them. There is never a 100% guarantee. But since most people have no idea what a watermark is, what it does and how to apply it to their images as well as resizing their images it might be a smart move for companies to include that in their basic services.

Some do it already, but for instance at Flickr it's just a joke. There are some really nice shots up there without watermark whatsoever. And do you really believe that the little caption at the bottom - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED is working or deterring thieves from abusing the image...???

A very high percentage of image in use is web size/blog size these days - on Flickr right now it doesn't even really matter if good images are not available in bigger sizes. The small size is big enough for web use. A total gold mine for freeloaders.

Even people who have the same images on the micros don't even bother watermaking them on Flickr. I mean how much money do you WANT to lose?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 19:22 by click_click »

« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2009, 17:00 »
0
I think that one who needs to be asked about all this is the person who isolated those people over yellow background and made the poster.  He/she should know some things about privacy and abuse of photos.

« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2009, 17:49 »
0
I think that it is easy for us, being in the image of producing and selling images, to forget that most people don't realize that photos have value. How many times have we all seen that glazed look in someone's eyes when we say "Stock Photography"? We're a very small percentage of the population. Just like any other profession, it's easy for the professional to see what the public overlooks.

« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2009, 13:30 »
0
There's a story on PDN about how it got from the professional photographer who took it to the billboard:

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/06/how-did-this-familys-facebook-picture-end-up-on-a-czech-poster.html#more

Those of us who spend a ton of time around computers, photography, etc. forget that there are many people who just don't know much about how things run under the hood. My kids' schools do almost everything via e-mail and web sites (except for those wretched forms that need signatures which I fill out over and over... but I digress!) and I live in a pretty high-tech savvy area (Seattle) but last year I offered another kids' mother a JPEG of something I made for school so she could print copies herself. She had no idea what a JPEG image was.

I think that for the photographer who sold the family the digital image, having some clearer language (and a small size image along with the full res one) about only the small size can be posted online would make sense. Like the size restriction in the stock agencies' TOS. Spelling out the details can't hurt.

« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2009, 16:17 »
0
The PDN article was excellent, and it sure holds truth.  Google something, take it.  Chances are nobody will ever find it, and the offender may have really no idea he is doing something wrong. 

Imagine how many of our own images, legally used by the sites who purchased them, are easily accessed through Google Images.  We can not claim Google is the culprit, but maybe it's time for them to add some legal warning about the copyright images are subject to?

« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2009, 20:58 »
0
And you know what is amazing? The image is still at the site PDN shows.  I have just done the search for "happy family" images in Google Images, and, if I wanted, I could have saved the 8MPix image that is still on Danielle Smith's site.  I could not find the image by navigating on her site - everywhere a login/password is required.  However, the image is reachable through the results page of Google Images, and in theory the person who sees it can not be considered a thief. 

Ok, I know that not knowing the legal aspects is no excuse, but you know what I mean. There is a certain established idea that things in the internet are available, and most of the ordinary people don't have any idea about copyright. I only think that someone getting an image or whatever for commercial purposes should be more careful.

« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2009, 21:23 »
0
I only think that someone getting an image or whatever for commercial purposes should be more careful.

To me that's the only point.  I can grab all kinds of pictures from the web; hell, I could fill a thousand hard drives from Flickr alone.  But I can't use them to make money.  And it works both ways.  I have pictures on my website and on places like Facebook and Model Mayhem that are free for the taking.  Not high resolution, but somebody might find a use for them.  Still, my desire to share (or to show off) wins out over my fear of being ripped off.  I'd argue that that's as it should be.

« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2009, 23:33 »
0
And you know what is amazing? The image is still at the site PDN shows.  I have just done the search for "happy family" images in Google Images, and, if I wanted, I could have saved the 8MPix image that is still on Danielle Smith's site.  I could not find the image by navigating on her site - everywhere a login/password is required.  However, the image is reachable through the results page of Google Images, and in theory the person who sees it can not be considered a thief.


If the profile on the social network site is private, no way the Google bots can address the full-size picture. It's gone now but you can fine some other "happy families" unwatermarked on Google images, and as Tineye shows, it's a stock image.


« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2009, 23:36 »
0
"Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, said the photo was from the Internet."

It's amazing those Prague guys have to steal images from "The Internet" if they have a local agency (Pixmac) where they can buy photos for 0.06$;D

« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2009, 14:13 »
0
If the profile on the social network site is private, no way the Google bots can address the full-size picture. It's gone now but you can fine some other "happy families" unwatermarked on Google images, and as Tineye shows, it's a stock image.


I agree it should be so, but the image is hidden somewhere.  It must be in the server, but not linked anywhere visible.

The image is here:
http://api.ning.com/files/k2OnrFYvN8RZlS9PI8gH9WMhdXhI2cpE97FzfoMpmzolkeb0yGkq20FWgBUXh54nBM7wURI8WPsNj8MjVbY9fmLlyDtl6Qxw/IMG_1052.jpg

And I can't find it by navigating in the mother's site:
http://www.twittermoms.com/photo/photo/listForContributor?screenName=ExtraordinaryMommy
because I'm asked to log on.

« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2009, 20:14 »
0
I agree it should be so, but the image is hidden somewhere.  It must be in the server, but not linked anywhere visible.

In that case Google is to blame not to respect the decision of the site admin keeping the picture out of his links. One reason this could happen is keeping a non-linked directory with full size pictures with no "index.html" in where you have to put "noindex,nofollow". When you don't that, the entire directory shows up as a list with files in it, and it's very easy to retrieve/download them.

Many people use the slack size on their server to backup their images full size and they should be aware of that, especially once Google Images is going to be able to read the IPTC metadata. Put a blank "index.html" in every directory you want to keep away from Google or anybody else, and put an "noindex,nofollow" into it. One could expect social networking sites to do that. It's pretty useless to make a profile private if all images on that site are grouped into a server/directory that is in reach of Google and anybody else that knows the proper file names.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2292 Views
Last post July 26, 2008, 10:49
by angel gab
1 Replies
4563 Views
Last post October 11, 2010, 10:37
by Anyka
5 Replies
1568 Views
Last post December 19, 2012, 08:15
by CD123
Windows XP Support Ends April 8th

Started by Uncle Pete « 1 2  All » Off Topic

25 Replies
6290 Views
Last post March 20, 2014, 15:27
by Lucadp
19 Replies
5068 Views
Last post December 14, 2015, 20:02
by disorderly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle