That is right. But up until that point, some people here are saying no harm no foul. But imagine for a second, one of those photos was sold to a local newspaper or magazine that you would have very little chance of seeing. You don’t know you can sue and I get money from your effort.
But they all had the usual banner on them cropped off by the Flickr owner. Railpictures only started giving the option of a watermark but anyone with a little experience of Photoshop can get rid of those relativly easy
It all boils down to ETHICS. You either have them or you don’t. One method that I am aware of to find for sure that the photo is yours is to hash it with anyone of the programs on the web that is available. One of those is MD-5 hash. This is how law enforcement is chasing down child porn on the internet. In school when taking security classes, we worked with it and it does work fine. The only issue arises when the photo is “doctored” that it won’t work. I am not into the photoshop or other software that allows for changing an original photo, but there may be a way to “sign” the photo in the manner an artist signs their paintings. This is basically where the music industry is/was with the pirating of music. One method of securing it was with DRM (Digital Rights Management.) Technology is evolving faster than ever and it is hard to stay abreast of it. Just my 2 cents worth.
Thanks,
Jim
A good watermark isn’t easily removed in Photoshop. And I still don’t understand what the huge deal is. Low res. shots will not be accepted by any reputable newspaper or magazine. Don’t post full size images and you won’t have to worry about it too much. If you’re really losing sleep over it, I would recommend not posting anything at all. Risking piracy is the price of sharing your work with others on the net. Considering the exposure and resulting print sales and such that posting my pictures online has given me, that seems like a pretty small price to pay.
I’m with Chris, If you are worried about it then don’t post your pix.
I am glad this discussion came up because I have an internet photography ethics question.Is it wrong to post a picture on Flickr e-mailed to you by someone else for the purpose of storing it?
George
I would say it’s OK as long as proper credid is given to the photographer. I put others pix on my rrpicturearchives from time to time, usually nameing the album “from John Doe” or something like that.
My rule of thumb is if I’d be bothered by someone else doing what I’m thinking of doing (with my intellectual property/etc) then I won’t do it to them.
Ethically, it would be wrong to post the image with the hope or intent of being taken for the owner of the image; that is, the person who took the image. If it were placed, for example, on your photo account or gallery, and the other images archived there were consistently described as your own, the image from the other person should be marked as an exception…otherwise it is a deception, and deception is unethical and immoral in this context. Deception isn’t immoral in other contexts, such as in a game, but it is immoral in this context where recognition could give you an unwarranted advantage over the person who actually owns the image, or over others who also archive to that site.
-Crandell
Hey. I’ll give you credit, nice pic. Not into golf but she’s cute.
You and I happen to think this way, but many don’t. The two main camps in Ethics are the teleological (including the Utilitarian ethics) and the deontological. Immanuel Kant was a deontological ethicist who stated that people are not to be treated as a means to an end, but as and end unto themselves. The Golden Rule is of the same theme as what you are saying. Onoro O’Niel put it this way (paraphrase): treat no one in such a way that they would not in principle agree with. If you would not agree to have others pass off your works at their own, then for them to do so is wrong in deontological ethics.
Just for contrast, Utilitarians (to an extent) have no compunction about usurping the rights of a few so that a majority can find greater utility or happiness. The word in study of ethics is “hedons”, or what amount to measures of happiness. The point is, some folks feel that a few should be made to suffer out of necessity for the greater good. Kant would say that it would be better for the human race to die off to the last person than to mistreat or use even one among them so that others could prosper, survive, or be merely happy. The human is an end, never a means.
I hope no one minds this min-lecture, but it may help to understand the topic a bit, and may provide an incentive for some to inquire further…a bit utilitarian of me, ironically. [:D]
So, if I say on the description line, “This photo taken by John Doe” then that would fix it?
George
Well…If you value your friends, wouldn’t you first ask John Doe if that was OK with him?
Yes, as long as you are not also J. Doe. [(-D] If you could pass for J. Doe by using the intial(s), then you have to actually state that it is by another J. Doe. Similarly, for the full name of John Doe. If you are Smith and you acknowledge that it is Doe’s, then you are in the “fair use” that means not for profit/commercial/education (where tuition is paid and salaries, too), etc.
Thanks! She’s also pretty young. I think she was only 15 when I took this picture. Because she is so young, and because she’s tried to make it onto the men’s tour a couple of times she generates a lot of page hits for me. That picture has nabbed me 5,000+ hits on my PBase page. It’s by far one of my most popular.
My mom is a golf addict, so I already know many golf players.
It is indeed no longer private. But that does not mean that it is free for the taking. The copyright law still stands even though most internet users don’t think so.
Ok, well this forum is already old news, since the Flikr photos illegally posted have all been deleted, because someone said they were going to complain to Yahoo, and they sent an e-mail to the user.
Clarify this statement please. Not with your opinion, but with facts, thanks.
Seconded.