Those are some pretty funny images!
Done
Hey Jim-did you check to see if any of your photos were snitched for the above website? You might want to check the very last two pictures. Those units seem to have number boards that look a little iffy, if you know what I mean-especially the 2 helpers.
[(-D]
[(-D]
This thread is just too much!!!
Haven’t laughed that hard in a while…
[#ditto]
Gee i really dont know what your crybaby they stole my picture post is about. I am sure when i posted my response several months ago about how i didnt like my picture taken while on a train that you said you have the right to do what ever you wanted as long as you are not treaspassing. In that railfans have the right to do as they please ( with in the law) . Now we have someone reposting pictures and i dont see the problem with this . I guess its a matter of who been hurt by this, you feel violated in that your picture was altered and taken from you. cry me a river, I guess im going to have bergie come down on me for this post but!!! Now you have an idea how we feel. I dont want my picture taken posted on the internet or altered and maybe something happen … Like being fired, Is this alittle dramatic maybe but its meaning is the same, someone stole from you as someone stole from me. ( that is the way i feel when my picture is taken with out my permission) but enough of this . questions
-
how many sw1500 does the trra have? numbered?
-
what is the highest engine # does the trra own?
ALL TOGETHER NOW…WHO CARES?
I like this one!
That’s pretty good photo editing, although, it is a little odd…[:D]
Copyright infringement is stealing. Period. I fight it when practicable (got a couple of the stolen LPGA shots taken down after I made the post above), but it’s not always so (one of my shots of Christie Kerr is features on a Baltic Golfing site…if I knew the language, I could complain).
It’s a sad irony that the ability to share photos via the internet has led to a huge increase in piracy. So I do care…but I also know that if I want to share my stuff on the net, that piracy comes with the territory.
Chris: Of course no one wants to steal mine. LOL
The answer is a digital “watermark” lots of photo sites are using nowadays…
downside is, it does seem to take away from the image…but it certainly would deter cyber pilfering.
What would be cool would be a digital watermark embedded in the photo which does not affect the picture, but would reveal the true source of the photo with the proper query…like a personal encryption device where the read key can be made public, but the write key is so hard to break it is not worth the effort, like the PGP stuff…
I can really apreciate that the folks who put so much effort into taking great shots don’t want others to take credit for their work…especially other folks who pass it off as their own and get paid.
How would you feel if you did a great project at work, only to have a co-worker take credit for it?
With the addition of your post, it seems that there are three distinct issues.
-
Creating a fictitious image from a photo.
-
Photographing someone who does not want to be photographed.
-
Infringing on the copyright of a photo.
Number 3 is illegal, but I am not sure how the law would apply to numbers 1 and 2. Number 1 would seem to be just artistic license if the artist owned the photo. Maybe I missed it, but with the TRRA engine in the first post, I see no indication that the one w
The watermark is perfect when it “ruins” (for theft purposes) a picture that the photographer is seeking to sell (you see it a lot in online art catalogs, too). I’m not looking to steal anything for anything beyond personal use (say, my wallpaper), but a full watermark kind of ruins that.
Putting on something unobtrusive but still very visible (and impossible to crop out of the picture if the picture is going to have any meaning) I have no issue with in any application. Even the masters signed their works.