Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 153

Thread: WARNING to all - leeching of pics (summer breeze deleted!)

  1. #81
    Senior Member Virgo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    West of Singapore
    Posts
    4,816

    Default

    Don't agree with you lavenderlilz. A pic is the whole entity, thus resembles the entire book.

    Quote Originally Posted by lavenderlilz
    My personal view:

    I see it as similar to photocopying, ie, its not illegal to photocopy up to the limited number of pages (NOT THE WHOLE BOOK) under the law as long as its for personal reference and commercial use.
    Kind Regards
    My Picture Website

  2. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    hErE lAh
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Virgo
    Don't agree with you lavenderlilz. A pic is the whole entity, thus resembles the entire book.
    I could be wrong on this. My point was that I do right click on pictures that I like for personal reference and no other use. Unless the site owner or photo owner disables the right click, I will still do so for reference.

  3. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavenderlilz
    My personal view:

    I see it as similar to photocopying, ie, its not illegal to photocopy up to the limited number of pages (NOT THE WHOLE BOOK) under the law as long as its for personal reference and commercial use.



    This I agree with. When your pictures get leeched, don't complain

    don't get me wrong, this thread wasn't started as a complain, maybe some people here are trying to, but at least the title reads "warning to all" - i'm wearing eyeglasses too but i don't really read it wrongly.

    i'm not that upset about the leeching, i'm more upset at where it ended up at and the kind of discussions that were being carried out on it, since it openly discussed female assets of the models - and explicit ogling.

    besides, some of these dudes got leeched off their pbase sites. so well, shouldn't the paying pbase members be more angered at it than i am ?

  4. #84
    Senior Member glennyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,587

    Default

    i think pple copying photos here or leeching does not happen to onli to the protraits sections.. there has been fans, fanclub owners... signing up to CS so they can have access to photographs...

    they would then leech these photographs and then reproduce and sell them to shops... therefore they are using ur photographs as their own to make $...

    i have made a announcement on the Kopitiam, maybe u guys might want to give it a support and make it going up and to make sure everyone gets the picture right....

    i for one oppose the idea of leeching, and i for one who do not condone such acts of mischief and utter disgrace to the photographic society.

    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=97578

    this thread is the mini announcement i have made, maybe u guys might want to support the act against Photograph Piracy.

    we should be on our guard against such sick pple... I am a photographer whose work was stolen and reproduced without my permission. and the entire section of my particular portfolio became a non-value item.. and i have wasted my effort in shooting them, post-producing and printing....

    Lets stand up againts PIRACY !!

  5. #85

    Default

    glennyong

    nice.



    i believe this thread has served its intended purpose - most, if not all, members have already altered something on their galleries after reading this warning thread to prevent sammyboy forums from posting any further discerning comments, esp seemingly derogatory stuff on the female gender.

    i think it has also warned members and provided certain solutions to how to prevent or at least minimise unauthorized leeching on their prized pictures.


    i'll vote for the thread to be closed, but it's up to you guys if you all want to continue discussion here - or up to the mods if they want to close this already.

    thanks everybody for looking, have many nice days ahead !

  6. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    hErE lAh
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sequitur
    don't get me wrong, this thread wasn't started as a complain, maybe some people here are trying to, but at least the title reads "warning to all" - i'm wearing eyeglasses too but i don't really read it wrongly.

    i'm not that upset about the leeching, i'm more upset at where it ended up at and the kind of discussions that were being carried out on it, since it openly discussed female assets of the models - and explicit ogling.

    besides, some of these dudes got leeched off their pbase sites. so well, shouldn't the paying pbase members be more angered at it than i am ?
    No I know you didn't start this thread to complain and it was a warning as seen from your earlier posts. I wasn't referring to you on that point.

    Yes its totally NOT NICE (can't think of a better word at this time of the night) for those forum goers at such unsavory sites to "dissect" and "discuss".

    While there will be some who do get angry that their photo subjects ie models are subject to such unsavoury comments but there will be others who are unhappy simply because the pictures were leeched.

    I know this sounds sad but until there is a watertight solution to the problem, better don't post if you don't want your pictures leeched.
    Last edited by lavenderlilz; 21st October 2004 at 12:49 AM.

  7. #87
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Jurong
    Posts
    467

    Default Cutting up a picture into multiple pieces

    Another way is to "cut" the picture into several small pieces, and then display the picture inside a "table"....
    if they want to download, they will have to download multiple pieces and then stitch them up again.... making it much more troublesome for them...

  8. #88
    Senior Member glennyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,587

    Default

    lol... that is also very cumbersome to us to cut and arrange leh.... time consuming... hahahahhaa.......

    y not place it in a macromedia website.. haha.. were u can view and click.. but NOT dling them ? hahaha.. and the best part is...

    macromedia webbys are very nice and interactive..

  9. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zorro18
    Can this be done at the gallery level or every individual pics. The latter is quite tedious...
    it can be done on gallery level.

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ken111111
    Another way is to "cut" the picture into several small pieces, and then display the picture inside a "table"....
    if they want to download, they will have to download multiple pieces and then stitch them up again.... making it much more troublesome for them...
    Not much of a deterence actually; any screen capture software (like SnagIt!) or even the good 'ol "print screen" button does the job.

  11. #91
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Actually, in my earlier post, I mentioned about the stricter enforcement of copyrights which is coming into effect at the end of year. It's basically a result of the free-trade agreement with the US. So I was wondering if it works both way, can we get the site shut down if it's hosted in the US? (That's if it's hosted in the US).

    Anyway, to deter screen-captures, I was experimenting with flash some time ago. What I did was to cut up my pictures into strips and place alternate strips onto 2 different frames of a flash movie. The I set the movie to play at around 30 frames per second to alternate between the 2 frames with looping.
    While the movie is playing, you will be able to seeing the full picture since the frames will be alternating so fast for your eyes can't detect the change.
    However when you try to screen capture, you will only see the strips that are visible in the frame that was captured at the instant. To drive leechers mad, you can even divide the pictures into more strips and on more frames.
    This works as long as the movie frame-rates is slower than the refresh rate of the monitor, which is roughly around hertzs.

  12. #92

    Default Copyright Tutorial

    See my post here.

  13. #93
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Singapore la
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sebastiansong
    downloading without permission FOR ANY REASON IS WRONG. Its like saying I steal from the rich to save the poor, its ok but if I steal and keep the money myself then I am wrong... there is no grey area here. Just because others do it doesnt mean u are right to do so. Bookmarking is ok not downloading.

    the key is if you don want leeching, you don post, period. You post, you open yourself to the possibility of leeching.
    I really agreed with you ,,,,,,,,,,

  14. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kex
    how does one prove a digital image is owned by them ?since there is no negatives..
    well if you can shoot raw then that could serve as the negative.

  15. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prismatic
    Actually, in my earlier post, I mentioned about the stricter enforcement of copyrights which is coming into effect at the end of year. It's basically a result of the free-trade agreement with the US. So I was wondering if it works both way, can we get the site shut down if it's hosted in the US? (That's if it's hosted in the US).

    Anyway, to deter screen-captures, I was experimenting with flash some time ago. What I did was to cut up my pictures into strips and place alternate strips onto 2 different frames of a flash movie. The I set the movie to play at around 30 frames per second to alternate between the 2 frames with looping.
    While the movie is playing, you will be able to seeing the full picture since the frames will be alternating so fast for your eyes can't detect the change.
    However when you try to screen capture, you will only see the strips that are visible in the frame that was captured at the instant. To drive leechers mad, you can even divide the pictures into more strips and on more frames.
    This works as long as the movie frame-rates is slower than the refresh rate of the monitor, which is roughly around hertzs.
    Wah.... Prismatic, can post your demo or not.. sounds like a codeable idea.... maybe can experiment after exams.... haha...
    But then, CS will have to edit their forum code to display flash liao...

  16. #96
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Update: Hotlinking outside of ClubSNAP's domains has been disabled.
    yipppee!!!

  17. #97
    ClubSNAP Admin Darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,510
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sehsuan
    yipppee!!!
    ermmm ... hold your horses first ... I think this only applies to the Gallery server for now. Need to check with Edmund if he did the same for the Members server (eg where the nick.clubsnap.org domains are).

  18. #98
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    569

    Default Another suggestion

    Actually another thing that can be done on a site level is to display the images via a script which imprints the user name (since portraits and poses is only viewable by registered members) over the images as a watermark. Using imagemagick or something similar, you could imprint multiple watermarks of the viewing member's name over the image.

    This won't help in preventing leeching but it will serve as a deterrent for distributing as the leecher's identity could be verified from the image itself (you could even embed user information into the image header etc).

    Downside is it required a whole lotta work on the admin side and it would only be useful if the user registration information is somewhat accurate.

    P.S. Just a suggestion. Don't shoot me if I'm wrong.

  19. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prismatic
    Actually, in my earlier post, I mentioned about the stricter enforcement of copyrights which is coming into effect at the end of year. It's basically a result of the free-trade agreement with the US. So I was wondering if it works both way, can we get the site shut down if it's hosted in the US? (That's if it's hosted in the US).

    Anyway, to deter screen-captures, I was experimenting with flash some time ago. What I did was to cut up my pictures into strips and place alternate strips onto 2 different frames of a flash movie. The I set the movie to play at around 30 frames per second to alternate between the 2 frames with looping.
    While the movie is playing, you will be able to seeing the full picture since the frames will be alternating so fast for your eyes can't detect the change.
    However when you try to screen capture, you will only see the strips that are visible in the frame that was captured at the instant. To drive leechers mad, you can even divide the pictures into more strips and on more frames.
    This works as long as the movie frame-rates is slower than the refresh rate of the monitor, which is roughly around hertzs.
    besides flash, can also use java applet to display the photo and write codes to prevent screeen capture. But that doesn't prevent them from using digital camera to take pic on the monitor!

  20. #100

    Default

    I have a idea. those that save their files in their own domain, add to the list of ban DNSes. sammyboy. since sammyboy's HTML pulls the image, just ban the DNS/IP. it should do the trick. I hope this helps.

    other than that, add watermark.


    to make it legal, you need to copyright the images first. then if they appear on other forums, just send a legal letter to the forum admin.

    per image it can range from $XX to $XXXX depending on the value of the image or potential lost of revenue.

    once again.. just my 2 cents.. this is what most US photogs do.
    Last edited by anka; 22nd October 2004 at 12:53 AM.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •