I do a reverse image search every now and then to make sure my better images (all three of them :)) aren't being used without my consent. While this process isn't fool-proof, it is pretty thorough!
For example, plug in the following url and see how many results you get. This is an incredible image and has been on the internet since 2010 (I remember seeing it for the first time last summer).
I wouldn't concern myself with the possibility of images being stolen from here. They're all uploaded at far too small a size to be any use to anyone except perhaps as fillers on a website somewhere.
There's no way that they could ever be turned out as salable images and certainly not as prints.
With all due respect, that shot of the moon is a good example.
It's out of focus and full of Jpeg artifacts, suggesting that it's been cropped from something larger or has been enlarged from something smaller, although I'm not sure how much smaller it could be.
The trouble with the internet is that every image posted upon it, is considered by many to be 'fair game' and the only way to avoid the possibility of image theft, assuming they're worth stealing, is not to upload them in the first place.
@jester That is somewhat true enough Jester; at least in hardcopy. But an image can certainly be used by a website to help sell their wares (for example, a couple of my dog pictures I've found on dog-supply sites). As the internet becomes increasingly popular (and hard-copy prints less-so), designers don't need super HQ images; the ones on the internet will do quite nicely. Heck, I'm kind of surprised someone hasn't marketed Facebook banners yet; they can be extremely low quality and still have an impact. Anyway, take it or leave it :)
Lua Natal, wish I would have taken it.photo 635I am sorry, I had to post this. A friend of mine that is from Brazil sent this to me. It was just to good not to post. This is what the super moon looked like, viewing it from Brazil.
Thi si what the person posted along with the picture, so was curious whyit would have made the PP to begin with, since it was not an original.. maybe these are not monitored that closly, just wondering?
@shirljess As long a picture fits the algorithm, some combination of favorites/comments/views, it will automatically make it on the PP, no matter what. I'm assuming that Ross @scrivna can manually remove something but, yeah, it's sort of an automatic process. :/
@beautifulthing I see, thanks for the explanation.. for some reason, I assumed that someone must be at least glancing at the pics that make it on the PP.
@beautifulthing
you know what Ross needs, he needs website admins/moderators who can flick the switch on any craziness, the guy can't be everywhere at once. Maybe a yank and an aussie so that the main time zones are covered. PPP popular page police.
I'll do it if there's a uniform and I can issue reprisals
Hey, at least he mentioned he did not take the photo. He's not taking credit. As long as I've been here, it's been OK to post someone else picture as long as we don't take credit for it. Kudos for that.
Hmmm .... though this brings up a very interesting point. It's been posted without consent from the owner. Am I opening that can of worms ... again?
@chewyteeth@beautifulthing I fav'd that shot, Terry's a good guy - and he wanted to share a photo of his friend's from Brazil that he thought was amazing. Maybe something got lost in translation - maybe his friend sent it without mentioning whether he shot it or not - who knows? But I know Terry's an awesome guy and wouldn't deliberately try and pull the wool over anyone's eyes. And pixelated or not, his friend's photo or not - it's still a beautiful shot. He pretty clearly stated that it wasn't his photo, so it's not like he duped anyone into getting it onto the pop page. Just don't want a bunch of peeps to start getting their panties all in a bunch over this:)
@dmortega I did a lot of searching on this particular image - I don't even know if the true origin or artist is known anymore. It is said to be a pic of the super moon from at least 2 years ago on a beach in Indonesia. Beyond that, I didn't find much. I'm not entirely convinced that it's not a composite.
@sdpace --- It looks like a composite. Still, posting pictures found on the internet is copyright infringement. It doesn't matter how many times it's been copied. It's been posted without consent.
@jester also - completely agree with not worrying about images being stolen from here. My brother runs a few websites and I was talking to him about the possiblity of that and basically he said the same thing - you're just not going to be able to lift a useable print off of here. And even if you were, you can't look at it in terms of lost revenue (if you're selling your work) - because anyone that's going to take the time to lift a photo off the internet to print and frame is not the type that's going to spend real money buying that sort of thing. So, unless they were turning around and selling it (which they wouldn't be able to, with the image quality) then you just kind of have to not worry about it.
@dmortega that wasn't the case here, however. It was a shot sent to him by a friend. So I'm positive it wasn't his intention to post something without the original photographer's consent.
@pwallis --- I understand it was unintentional. Let's just call this a learning curve. Downloading a photo without consent of the owner is copyright infringement.
"My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?
Photocopying shops, photography stores and other photo developing stores are often reluctant to make reproductions of old photographs for fear of violating the copyright law and being sued. These fears are not unreasonable, because copy shops have been sued for reproducing copyrighted works and have been required to pay substantial damages for infringing copyrighted works. The policy established by a shop is a business decision and risk assessment that the business is entitled to make, because the business may face liability if they reproduce a work even if they did not know the work was copyrighted.
In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a “copy” of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work” – is distinct from the “work” itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer’s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a “fair use” under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a “fair use” under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person’s assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law."
Source: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
@grizzlysghost I am for sure that Terry would never do anything that he thought was underhanded here. He is an upstanding citizen that protects his great city every day of his life. Could we please just check with him before we all go talking about him in this manner???
@buttercup Mary, I am not talking about him. The photo he posted reminded me of an important aspect of our trade (or for some, our hobby) so I started a thread about how to look up your photos online to ensure they weren't being used without your permission. Others recognized the photo he posted and made the decision to add to this discussion. I am sure he's an upstanding guy.
@grizzlysghost I know you aren't talking about him but I think the thread that you started got off track and some people started talking about Terry. You started a very interesting thread and I know a lot of people will be reading and following it. My hopes were that the people that are talking about Terry see my comment to you and do the right thing. No offence to you. I love our thread...:)
@buttercup --- FWIW, if you read the posts you will find the majority of people are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Myself included. However, everyone needs to be made aware of the copyright laws.
Do you know anything about what happened because people were downloading illegal music? People, average everyday people, were getting sued by the musicians. The same trend is happening with the illegal use of photographs. Sharing links is not the same as downloading a picture found online either by ourselves or from someone else. Once he learns about this he can make the decision with knowledge. It's his choice then. It's something each of us needs to understand.
@buttercup While their discussions do deviate somewhat, some of them bring up a valid point. Especially those for whom recognition on the PP and Top 20 are an important goal. Seeing a stock image take a slot on these boards that could (or should) instead be filled by an image that was hard-earned can be a very personal issue. For some folks, striving for a position on the PP might be the only thing keeping them going and this is the sort of thing that could make them give up altogether; which would be a shame.
I live near Terry and met him through 365. We've become friends, and I know him well enough to say that he posted this just to share a beautiful photo with his fellow 365ers. He loves interacting with the people on this site and never even looks at the popular page so I know he would never have anticipated this photo making it there, let alone causing a big controversy. Say what you want about the picture. I understand where you're coming from, but please don't disparage Terry. He's one of the kindest people you could ever know.
@ladyjane I agree... there's a photo on the pop page now (not the one Aaron gave a link to) that is photoshopped and its my understanding the people so impressed they've fav'd it weren't aware it wasn't real. I don't think the user that posted it had the INTENT to deceive however... I think its just laziness on the part of others to pay attention to details. LOL
As for the photo Terry posted... that is not his fault it made the pop page and may very well (likely) be on the top 20. PEOPLE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS BEFORE CLICKING FAV. He stated VERY clearly in the description it was NOT HIS PHOTO, so why were people fav'ing it????
@jsw0109 I have to say I'm with you on that Jeff (I'm sure you are talking about the bird and moon). I really, really try to get it all done in camera. If I want a bat in front of a moon shot, I will go to a bat cave on a moonlit night and take a couple thousand shots rather than pasting a bat silhouette on it :)
@grizzlysghost actually that's not the shot I was referring to... but it IS one of the supermoon shots. Its a beautiful picture, but the landscape in the picture wasn't there when the photo was taken. And it IS frustrating to see because it has more faves than my supermoon which is NOT superimposed into a landscape. What you see at the bottom of my photo was the actual landscape and the moon is the actual moon.
@ladyjane I think everyone has a different threshold for post-processing. Personally, I would explain what I'd done because I would just feel like I was fooling people and that makes me feel really uneasy. But for others, it's not a big deal. I know I do work pretty hard to create an effect in-camera (meaning for example I have to throw limes into the air a few dozen times to look like I am levitating them rather than hanging them from string), so it irks me a bit to see shortcuts being taken. But to each their own I guess. It has made me very careful about the photos I "Like" though :) @janmaki and his toast scandal is still my very favorite of all time though, and he handled it BRILLIANTLY! http://365project.org/janmaki/365/2012-03-17http://365project.org/janmaki/365/2012-03-18
@ladyjane manipulating and processing and all that is all good, but I feel it is only ethical to represent it as such when an artist chooses to go that route. If I think there is a chance that something about a photo that makes me love the photo was manipulated in any way, I ask in the comments of that person's photo. If they don't reply, I don't fav. There are times I do something in processing that enhances colors or whatever, but I have the balls to admit it. I'm not going to pretend to be better with the camera or luck or whatever than I actually am.
@bardejov It turns out they thought they had the right to use the images since I had entered them into contests (with a party that wasn't even associated with them). Their reasoning was that since I had "put them out there" they could be used. Whether they really believed that or not is up for debate, but needless to say, they stopped using the images.
@jsw0109 I LOVE your Super Moon shot... I thought I had commented on it, but just now looking at it in your album, I see that I didn't... regardless, it is an amazing shot! :)
@jsw0109@grizzlysghost It's an interesting ethical question for sure. I missed the toast scandal - you see, now to me that's real art, because he set up the scene before snapping the shot. I'm going to go try to find the fake super moon shot now.
@ladyjane the clever part of the toast scandal was that he got so many people to fall for it LOL... but I guess a lot of people felt swindled and wound up regretting fav'ing.... Funny thing is, had the set up been in the description, I would have fav'd it.
@ladyjane I felt totally betrayed by Jani's toast, but only because I had just done my levitating limes shot. He even had the speed light blurs built in; that clever, clever Fin! Totally made my limes look like I had hung them from strings too. Then he came out with the scandal article; that's when he became my hero LOL :)
@jsw0109 Just saw the bird silhouette thing - UNBELIEVABLE. "Great capture!" "Beautiful composition!" My ASS. Use your eyes, people! Think and stop being so gullible.
I loved Jani's toast scandal! I don't have any trouble with photoshopping on here, its such a fine line between enhancing and changing. I would however not try to pass things off as real if they're not (except my own wrinkle-free face - oh dear, theres that fine line again)
In a way I think it's the end result that counts. If a toast making company wants to buy my toaster pic, they don't care whether there's string or no strings. And if some random people looks at it and gets the "wow"-feeling about it and then moves on, no harm in that either. Most of the pictures people see are manipulated, and I think people are getting also aware of that.
Of course, in a community like 365, it's a bit different story because we are taking this stuff more seriously and like to know how the shot is made and how to try something similar. And nothing beats the feeling of getting the shot pretty much nailed right away in the camera.
Believe me, if my toaster had more ooomph, I most likely would've tried to toast 34 loafs to get the shot. I would've loved the shot and told all about it to you guys and you would've said "Awesome!". But the end result would've remained the same. Would there have been more favs, less favs... who knows.
@janmaki Before I saw your awesome string setup, I was going to replicate your shot by glueing all of my furniture and toaster to the ceiling and taking a shot of the toast "falling" out of the toaster! I am SO glad you cleared it up the very next day, before I bought all of that glue! :)
"So why cant people just say its photoshopped, HDR'd, sooc etc etc in the tags, I'd willingly 'fave' a great edit just as much as a sooc photo any day". . @lorraineb
Because they don't have to. Plain and simple.
It really doesn't matter whether anyone feels they have been duped or tricked or not. It's a vision of the photographer. It's their's no matter if it's sooc, enhanced, or manipulated. Unlless the photo is used for advertising or reporting, it's all art. The artist does not have to say anything because it is up to us to make our own decisions. Either you like it as is or you don't.
Not to change the subject but I want to bring up an incident from a couple of days ago. In the recent watermark debate, a woman was defending her watermarking by saying that some of her photos were stolen and she found them on other sites. I found this intriguing and sincerely wanted to see what had been stolen and where it turned up. She thought I was accusing her of lying and got all defensive when I asked for some links to the stolen photos. But then she did provide some links but they were to her own FB account. I have never ( that i know of and doubt that I will ever ) had any photos stolen, and really just wanted to see where they turned up and if people were trying to sell them and did they alter them or put their own watermarks on them and stuff, so I put them in tineye and they only turned up on her FB. I did not call her on this, because my intention was not to prove that she was lying, but she made such a ridiculous scene that, if anyone saw said thread, I just want to clear the air. Sorry for all the words. Please carry on.
So I can find any old image on the internet and superimpose it on my own photo, and call it art? Man, the possibilities are endless. See you on the PP!! ;)
@ladyjane --- If you are directing this to me ... good grief! Of course not. If you read up further you will see my comments regarding copyright infringement. Copying any photograph and resusing it without permission from the 'owner' is illegal.
Now, putting that aside, superimpose any of your own pictures and yes call it ART! It's up to you how you handle your own photos.
@dmortega No, I wasn't directing that at anyone in particular. I read your post about copyright infringement yesterday, and I agree with what you just said about doing what you want with your own images. I was just being a smart-ass - no offense meant. :)
@dmortega My point was to avoid the confusion that people have as to wether the work is their own or not (as the case has been with more than one photo mentioned in this thread) I believe in being honest and will willingly discuss any of the techniques used in my images.
I totally agree with your statement "superimpose any of your own pictures and yes call it ART" your OWN phtotos being the key word! But then get you can get really fussy and ask about layers etc which are widely available and used, by myself as well as untold others.
@lorraineb --- No one should be posting anything they don't own without the owners permission. However, there are plenty of free photos out on the internet that are available to use any way we want. If someone is doing that here they still don't need to explain it to anyone. There are no rules imposed stating we cannot post picture done by others. If we have permission to use the photo then by all means go for it. I just don't see why it's such a big deal when it's not copyright infringement.
@5unflow3r tl;dr Haha, that was a lot of words! :) The two pictures of mine that I posted links to (earlier in the thread) on Cesar Milan's web site don't show on TinyEye either, but they are clearly on his site (legally of course, there was another site that pulled them off of his that I had to address). So, TinyEye is not infallible. Good, but not perfect!
@grizzlysghost Oh yes, I figured it wasn't infallible. I guess I am still feeling a bit daunted by how this person freaked out when my intentions were not to insult or call her out on something. It just escalated and escalated; even when I was ignoring the conversation, it continued on. If those were my photos that were suposedly stolen, I would be calling out the thieves and posting where the photos are illegally located. It almost seemed like she wanted to protect the thieves...LOL
@jsw0109 Instead, he's deleting any negative statements and continuing to thank people for their comments and faves as though everything is on the up and up. I was happy to give him the benefit of the doubt - until now.
I saw someone posted a link to this thread on the picture. After reading all the comments, it is his choice to make. I do hope if he is keeping it that it is with the permission of the photo's owner otherwise he is keeping it knowing it is copyright infringement.
@dmortega Yep, and he ignored the link, thanking everyone in the group of posters BUT the person who posted it. Links to the Tineye search and this discussion were posted last night - he deleted those, as well as all of the statements pointing out the inaccuracy of the photo. What you see on there now is new, and my guess is that it won't be there for long.
@beautifulthing Yes 13th April, I chose a fitting shot! I don't want to come across as hounding the guy, but its difficult to find out he's deleting and ignoring our comments. I just hope he doesn't get into the top 20 as that would really dishearten me from 365.
@beautifulthing well, how he responds from this point on will probably affect my decision to join the 365 meet up this month in Indianapolis. Which would be a shame, because I'd LOVE to get into the catacombs under the city... but I'd never feel comfortable with the knowledge that he deleted any comment pointing him to the truth regarding that photo... so I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that he does the right thing TODAY
@lorraineb --- If it gets onto the pp and into the top 20 it's because of all those who fav'd it and commented. Even negative comments are probably counted. I just can't believe he is knowingly deleting the comments and not the photo. What's up with that?!
@dmortega I know, its disheartening.
Oh well life goes on, and my photo on PP today was taken be me, yesterday, and I'm happy with that, well over the moon really, or shouldn't I mention the moon ; )
@dmortega@beautifulthing@jsw0109@38mm I just posted another comment on his photo about doing the right thing since everyone who "knows" him says he's such a stand-up guy. I've said my peace *twice* and others have as well. If Ross isn't going to do anything about it, I'm sure the community will be in an uproar when the top 20 comes out...that is, those who aren't duped by the pixellated beauty of the Brazillian Super Moon.
Everyone, lets try not to freak out about it, it's just a picture at the end of the day, i'm sure he's not the first, or last person to make this mistake.
@Scrivna ---- I might agree with you but intentionally deleting the negative comments and disregarding what people are saying about copyright infringement makes me think this is not a mistake.
@lorraineb@dmortega Yep - all the 'negative' or questioning comments have again been deleted. That's twice now that the comments have been 'cleaned' up. Stacy's new comment is still there but for who knows how long.
@lorraineb again?? I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt still after the first comment of mine he deleted, but doing it again??? *wipes hands*
@jsw0109 I tried that Jeff, now I've asked him to remove me from his friends list if. What a sorry mess, mind you I've learnt a lot from this, to look at the photos properly before adding comments and faves, rush jobs to 'catch up' can get you involved in all sorts of trouble! ; )
@jsw0109@emjay8 Haha, I just checked your shots! Were you sitting in each other's laps? :) Great shots, sure makes a difference with a cool foreground like that!
you know, I have to get this off my chest... I find it totally pathetic when I was one of the people originally defending Terry (who his a perfect stranger to me, but someone who's character I believed was nothing less than respectable) (just unhide all comments in this thread and read from the beginning)... and only SECOND GUESSED him as a result of more than ONE deleting of my comments trying to bring the truth to his attention and now I have multiple people making personal attacks on me and name calling. So nice to see how ugly some of the people on 365 really are.
@andycoleborn No, I kind of am too. LOL I mean shoot---to have a photo that someone thinks is so awesome that they covet it? Yeah, that would be kind of cool...I think...maybe. LOL
@jsw0109 Well that's really crappy. I mean everyone wants to think that someone is honorable, nothing wrong with believing in someone until you have believable proof of otherwise.
@5unflow3r I'm mature and wise enough to learn from an incident, regardless of how ugly, let bygones be bygones, and move forward. It will be interesting to see how many of them are equally as mature and wise... as of right now, I'm not being given much choice to believe anything other than they're going to be petty. That saddens me. I'm keeping my fingers crossed though, that that won't be the case in the coming days. I have learned one valuable lesson though - its best to let the emperor run around naked than to point out that he's wearing no clothes. Pointing out the truth turns you into a villain to those that aren't ready to accept the truth.
@jsw0109 Well I hope that this weird situation is resolved, and that people get over this. At first the situation seemed fairly straight forward. If people weren't so gaga over this photo, things would not have gone this far. It's really quite crazy.
@jsw0109 Good morning, I've just read through both threads, and what a sad sorry state it has become, both of us were defending the man just to get shot down, people want to hear it from their point of view only, blinkered. And yes sadly it will be in the top 20 this week for all the wrong reasons, as you said taking the place of someone else's shot.
@lorraineb@dmortega@jsw0109 I feel very strongly about this. That person admitted that the photo is not theirs. No matter how awesome it is, it needs to be deleted. It's absolutely not OK to post someone else's work, and it's simply wrong if it keeps a legitimate photo out of the Top 20.
@lorraineb@5unflow3r Now that I know it was his daughter that caused all the trouble with the deleting of comments (and she probably had the best intentions - wanting to protect her dad's feelings)... I still believe Terry is a good guy and wish him well. However, his failure to personally address the problem also has me believing that all those faves and all the gushing love for that photo had an affect on him and his better judgment. I know he did not post it with the intention of deceiving people, but by avoiding the truth about the photo and leaving it up, he HAS duped people, even with the new description. I wouldn't upload a photo I believed a friend took on 365, but even if I had, once I learned my friend didn't take it, I certainly wouldn't leave it up, but I guess that makes me a monster.
"Now that I know it was his daughter that caused all the trouble with the deleting of comments." @jsw0109
Are you telling us, his daughter was doing the interacting with us? Not him? She is signing on as him, deleting comments, and responding on his behalf? Hmmm .... it just gets more bizarre, doesn't it?
it's fine to give someone the benefit of the doubt for the first several days of an issue but now that comments that are less than glowing CONTINUE to be deleted, it makes a person wonder, regardless of who's doing the deleting.
@jsw0109 it doesn't matter who is doing what with the account. It's his and he is responsible for what is in it. It's not like the three accounts (that I know of) that are openly run by several people. This is his personal account.
@jsw0109 Jeff you are not a monster, you have people here including me that totally support your opinion on this event, why should you feel bad about it? The facts (as I can see it) are;
1 - Terry thought his friend took the photo and he shared it on 365
2- Aaron spotted it as an image that had been circulating the internet for approx 2 years.
3- Myself, you and I dont know how many others tried to bring this to the attention of Terry in a positive way, no one was being negative about it.
4- 3 was ignored and deleted.
5- The image is still on PP (well it was this morning, I dont know what has happened to it now)
We all have a right to discuss matters on here, sometimes its negative but most of the time its a very positive place to be, heres to some positives! : )
@5unflow3r I wanted to mention it before....but you see how Aaron provided links to the photos that were stolen.....after someon asked him too? Kinda proves you right!
@shadesofgrey@5unflow3r This happened last year, and I think they had my pictures up for about a month before I discovered it. Being a proud Greater Swiss Mountain Dog owner, I love anything GSMD related, so when I discovered their site (which sold a variety of merchandise with pet pictures on them), I noticed Bennett's pictures in their "fan gallery." It looked like a pretty "mom-and-pop" site in that it was pretty basic; almost like a Pintrest thing, and I suspect they were just padding their gallery with images they found on the net, including mine from Cesar's site. Once I pointed it out to them, they took the pictures down right away and that was the end of it. Now... if I had seen the images on any of their merchandise that would have been another thing entirely :)
i saw that shot and commented on it but i had my doubts as there was no exif info on it, i dodn't fav if for that reason. oops and to say it was sent to him by family there, very cheeky indeed.
@kmrtn6 He honestly believed it was taken by the friend who sent it to him, as he explained yesterday in a comment before he removed the photo. He also explained that he hadn't responded to people earlier because he was waiting to hear back from the friend to confirm it wasn't theirs before he reacted (in other words, he wanted all the facts). It was a genuine mistake, nothing cheeky about it.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Thanks, Aaron, for bringing it to our attention!!
There's no way that they could ever be turned out as salable images and certainly not as prints.
With all due respect, that shot of the moon is a good example.
It's out of focus and full of Jpeg artifacts, suggesting that it's been cropped from something larger or has been enlarged from something smaller, although I'm not sure how much smaller it could be.
The trouble with the internet is that every image posted upon it, is considered by many to be 'fair game' and the only way to avoid the possibility of image theft, assuming they're worth stealing, is not to upload them in the first place.
Thi si what the person posted along with the picture, so was curious whyit would have made the PP to begin with, since it was not an original.. maybe these are not monitored that closly, just wondering?
That poor guy thinks its genuine, but who the heck favs a third party picture that pixelated?
you know what Ross needs, he needs website admins/moderators who can flick the switch on any craziness, the guy can't be everywhere at once. Maybe a yank and an aussie so that the main time zones are covered. PPP popular page police.
I'll do it if there's a uniform and I can issue reprisals
maybe this scandal will put an end to moon photography?
Hmmm .... though this brings up a very interesting point. It's been posted without consent from the owner. Am I opening that can of worms ... again?
If there's no rule about uploading pictures other than those that came from your own camera, then it's viewer beware.
I have more of an issue with images that have been Photoshopped with the intent to deceive...but that's a tough judgement call.
"My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?
Photocopying shops, photography stores and other photo developing stores are often reluctant to make reproductions of old photographs for fear of violating the copyright law and being sued. These fears are not unreasonable, because copy shops have been sued for reproducing copyrighted works and have been required to pay substantial damages for infringing copyrighted works. The policy established by a shop is a business decision and risk assessment that the business is entitled to make, because the business may face liability if they reproduce a work even if they did not know the work was copyrighted.
In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a “copy” of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work” – is distinct from the “work” itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer’s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a “fair use” under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a “fair use” under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person’s assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law."
Source: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
Noam Galai's photography was stolen hundreds of times for years without his knowledge. This is his story. http://vimeo.com/20718237
Do you know anything about what happened because people were downloading illegal music? People, average everyday people, were getting sued by the musicians. The same trend is happening with the illegal use of photographs. Sharing links is not the same as downloading a picture found online either by ourselves or from someone else. Once he learns about this he can make the decision with knowledge. It's his choice then. It's something each of us needs to understand.
As for the photo Terry posted... that is not his fault it made the pop page and may very well (likely) be on the top 20. PEOPLE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS BEFORE CLICKING FAV. He stated VERY clearly in the description it was NOT HIS PHOTO, so why were people fav'ing it????
Most people manipulate their photos a bit - but where do you draw the line?
Here is one on Cesar Milan's website in which Bennett got second place: http://www.cesarsway.com/newsandevents/photos/Cutest-Dog-Gallery-Photo-17
And another on Cesar's website that he pulled from my Flickr account for his June 2011 caption contest: http://www.cesarsway.com/packgallery/photogallery/Photo-Caption-Contest-June
@grizzlysghost I can't believe they just lifted your photos like that. Wow.
Of course, in a community like 365, it's a bit different story because we are taking this stuff more seriously and like to know how the shot is made and how to try something similar. And nothing beats the feeling of getting the shot pretty much nailed right away in the camera.
Believe me, if my toaster had more ooomph, I most likely would've tried to toast 34 loafs to get the shot. I would've loved the shot and told all about it to you guys and you would've said "Awesome!". But the end result would've remained the same. Would there have been more favs, less favs... who knows.
#confused
But are they really mine?
Because they don't have to. Plain and simple.
It really doesn't matter whether anyone feels they have been duped or tricked or not. It's a vision of the photographer. It's their's no matter if it's sooc, enhanced, or manipulated. Unlless the photo is used for advertising or reporting, it's all art. The artist does not have to say anything because it is up to us to make our own decisions. Either you like it as is or you don't.
Now, putting that aside, superimpose any of your own pictures and yes call it ART! It's up to you how you handle your own photos.
I totally agree with your statement "superimpose any of your own pictures and yes call it ART" your OWN phtotos being the key word! But then get you can get really fussy and ask about layers etc which are widely available and used, by myself as well as untold others.
An endless argument!! : )
@lorraineb --- No one should be posting anything they don't own without the owners permission. However, there are plenty of free photos out on the internet that are available to use any way we want. If someone is doing that here they still don't need to explain it to anyone. There are no rules imposed stating we cannot post picture done by others. If we have permission to use the photo then by all means go for it. I just don't see why it's such a big deal when it's not copyright infringement.
Hello Terry, theres a problem with the big moon shot you posted thats on PP, take a look here, http://365project.org/discuss/general/12468/protect-you-shots-with-reverse-image-search
no one wants to be difficult about this but your pic isn't genuine (unless your friend actually took it 2 years ago) ....
So is this copyright infringement? Unfortunately I'm beginning to think so,. I hope I'm proved wrong!
Oh well life goes on, and my photo on PP today was taken be me, yesterday, and I'm happy with that, well over the moon really, or shouldn't I mention the moon ; )
Everyone, lets try not to freak out about it, it's just a picture at the end of the day, i'm sure he's not the first, or last person to make this mistake.
:-)
@eyebrows --- ;-)
I've sent Terry a message, lets all take a 5 minute break and practice our breathing.
Poor Terry.
@azza_l Just about!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jase_hoad/7000554915/in/set-72157627609557947/
Sums up my photography I suppose.!
Www.andycstolencandidwork.co.uk\makesme$$$\2nd-income
My condolenses to you also :-)
Are you telling us, his daughter was doing the interacting with us? Not him? She is signing on as him, deleting comments, and responding on his behalf? Hmmm .... it just gets more bizarre, doesn't it?
1 - Terry thought his friend took the photo and he shared it on 365
2- Aaron spotted it as an image that had been circulating the internet for approx 2 years.
3- Myself, you and I dont know how many others tried to bring this to the attention of Terry in a positive way, no one was being negative about it.
4- 3 was ignored and deleted.
5- The image is still on PP (well it was this morning, I dont know what has happened to it now)
We all have a right to discuss matters on here, sometimes its negative but most of the time its a very positive place to be, heres to some positives! : )
@jsw0109 @lorraineb @5unflow3r @dmortega