An open note to all


Status
Not open for further replies.

Zoomer

New Member
Feb 4, 2002
645
0
0
Singapore
reverac.com
Originally posted by Digipix


As long as the protected image travels the web, it can be tracked. Like I said, what you are protecting are your own assets and this service is mostly used by those doing Stock Photography. It's true that it's a huge amount to spend on tracking, that's why when a culprit is caught and put to justice, he will have to pay a whole lot more to compensate the copyright owner's loss. This is just one of the solutions available and I'm not recommending it for that company. Just wanted to make a point that it's easy to commit a crime, but it's not easy to get away.
Digipix, the watermark can be easily destroyed by even simple manipulations/modifications. Not worth the $ to pay for a easy to get around product.

If the image is saved at too low a jpeg level, and the encoding is not strong even, there is a good chance that the watermark is lost too.
 

shawntim

New Member
Feb 13, 2002
487
0
0
This is the Internet. Public Domain. Millions of Users.

As much as those people who are at fault reposting pictures in sleazy forums, the photographer who shot her and posted her picture on the Internet is also morally responsible for the mess if there was one.

It would be naive to think that anyone would give a hoot to digital copyrights on the Internet. If you first posted it and it gets into the wrong hands, don't blame others so quickly. Blame yourself first. For not having the better judgement even if you posted with her consent.

Digimarc and watermarks are deterrent methods to curb copyrights. But by the time the images are tracked down, the harm is already done.
 

Wolfgang

Senior Member
Apr 29, 2002
5,688
0
0
40
Riddle Realms
wolfgang.clubsnap.org
Originally posted by shawntim
This is the Internet. Public Domain. Millions of Users.

As much as those people who are at fault reposting pictures in sleazy forums, the photographer who shot her and posted her picture on the Internet is also morally responsible for the mess if there was one.

It would be naive to think that anyone would give a hoot to digital copyrights on the Internet. If you first posted it and it gets into the wrong hands, don't blame others so quickly. Blame yourself first. For not having the better judgement even if you posted with her consent.

Digimarc and watermarks are deterrent methods to curb copyrights. But by the time the images are tracked down, the harm is already done.
And your argument would hold water the way a piece of paper with holes would.

To use an analogy. The singapore roads or roads all over the world. It's a public place. Hundreds upon hundreds of thousand of road users.

It's almost like saying i cannot walk on the streets because i live in fear that some irresponsible driver would come by anytime and knock me down after beating the red light.... Traffic rules (even with legal deterrance) still get broken every single day. But it's alright because people are doing it? Just because there are hundreds and thousands of road users and the fact you might not get caught makes it alright?

And going by your logic, if your house ever gets broken into, please don't ever heap all the blame on the thief. It's as much the house owner's fault for having all these precious jewellery in his house in the first place, as it is the thief. Even with alarm, grills and locks (which can be broken anyway), the thief would have made off witht he loot and it will be your fault for going out.

How can that be?

So we now have to let other people, especially socially and morally irresponsible ones, to dictate what we can or cannot do? And whats worse, the fact that you say that the photographer is equally culpable in this case that really takes the cake.

I fail to see why this has to be the case. ;p
 

shawntim

New Member
Feb 13, 2002
487
0
0
If you insist on thinking that "straight", then I cannot care more to explain to you. You have clearly extrapolated my analogies to beyond what I've meant.

The photographer has been bestowed a right a convey visual information to the masses. Think war photography, photo journalism - media: Magazines/Internet/exhibitions. The ethics of the photographer in these cases has always been debated, I sure u know.

The photographer should also understand the medium in which his photos are distributed. Images are duplicated the instant they are viewed on the Internet.

Thousands of users hit Clubsnap every day. Even if CS becomes a paid-only exclusive site, where ppl are sworn not to pirate images, you will still see them reposted elsewhere.

In your analogy of a thief breaking in, it would likened to a hacker trying to break in. Whose fault? The hacker's of course.

But if you leave your door open 24/7, the thiefs will come and take whatever they like. Whose fault? The owners : why did they not secure their homes in the first place, knowing that there will be itchy-fingers dying to repossess your items?

Do you listen to mp3? If you do, then you have spoken for me already. As long as there is the Internet, and there are tools to convert CD songs to mp3, digital music piracy will always be rampant. Prove me wrong.
Originally posted by Wolfgang And your argument would hold water the way a piece of paper with holes would.
Yup. That very piece of paper caused more than 200 deaths in Nigeria. Justify this with your analogy.
Barely two weeks after the contestants arrived in Nigeria for rehearsals, during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, came a provocative editorial in a local newspaper, which said that the Prophet Muhammad would not only have approved of the beauty parade but would also have picked one of the contestants as his bride.

That touched off deadly riots that have led to more than 200 deaths.
Malicious content aside, the editor is well-versed in the distribution of information via various media. So the 200 deaths, is none of his fault? His story may first be jovial reporting on first read, but it touched a nerve among the muslims (44% of Nigeria).

Had he first understood the consequences of his editorial and how the article would be intepreted as blasphemous, perhaps the 200 would not have died.

Back to us: If anyone of us post pictures of chio women and wives thinking that it is only reserved for photographic critique, how wrong can he be?

The very reasons why female photos are so sought after is the very reason why pornography is the no 1 industry on the Internet: Men's lust.

I believe you're this uptight over piracy of the photos is because the subject are girls, and especially well-taken ones. Had the images were cars, then only copyright infringements would matter. But we're talking about morals here. If one feels angry over their pictures being misrepresented in sleazy sites, then I would ask, How did the photos first end up on the Internet?"

The photographer can post all he wants. But because there are immoral people out there, he should be aware that such things would happen. In this sense, your note is only as effective as the percentage of well-behaved, law-abiding people reading it.




Originally posted by Wolfgang
How can that be?

So we now have to let other people, especially socially and morally irresponsible ones, to dictate what we can or cannot do? And whats worse, the fact that you say that the photographer is equally culpable in this case that really takes the cake.

I fail to see why this has to be the case.
 

Wolfgang

Senior Member
Apr 29, 2002
5,688
0
0
40
Riddle Realms
wolfgang.clubsnap.org
The photographer should also understand the medium in which his photos are distributed. Images are duplicated the instant they are viewed on the Internet.
Which is very true. And that is why i lament this very simple fact. What has become of common decency?

In your analogy of a thief breaking in, it would likened to a hacker trying to break in. Whose fault? The hacker's of course.

But if you leave your door open 24/7, the thiefs will come and take whatever they like. Whose fault? The owners : why did they not secure their homes in the first place, knowing that there will be itchy-fingers dying to repossess your items?
Which is once again, very true. But now, even if one has safely secured his place, you must still realise that it will not stop people from trying. I am not disputing the fact that people will try but once more, where i am coming from, i am quite disturbed that such behavior is considered "normal".

Do you listen to mp3? If you do, then you have spoken for me already. As long as there is the Internet, and there are tools to convert CD songs to mp3, digital music piracy will always be rampant. Prove me wrong.
And once again, i still agree with you. It is rampant. But what i am more concerned is, is it right? The worrying trend is that everyone think it's ~ok~.

That very piece of paper caused more than 200 deaths in Nigeria. Justify this with your analogy.Malicious content aside, the editor is well-versed in the distribution of information via various media. So the 200 deaths, is none of his fault? His story may first be jovial reporting on first read, but it touched a nerve among the muslims (44% of Nigeria).

Had he first understood the consequences of his editorial and how the article would be intepreted as blasphemous, perhaps the 200 would not have died.
Well, i would like to discuss this with you, but in PM perhaps since it's not really an integral part of this on-going discussion. Media responsibilties is something i do take an interest in.

Back to us: If anyone of us post pictures of chio women and wives thinking that it is only reserved for photographic critique, how wrong can he be?

The very reasons why female photos are so sought after is the very reason why pornography is the no 1 industry on the Internet: Men's lust.
Well, i did post the shots specifically asking for constructive critiques. And no, i have no illusions abt it but i hope you see my point when i state once more, my issue here is not with you nor the way you have structured your argument, but the i take issue with the fact that alot of people consider it alright to re-post shots (may it be of cars or women or landscapes) and they think they are justified in doing so.

I believe you're this uptight over piracy of the photos is because the subject are girls, and especially well-taken ones. Had the images were cars, then only copyright infringements would matter. But we're talking about morals here. If one feels angry over their pictures being misrepresented in sleazy sites, then I would ask, "How did the photos first end up on the Internet?"
Not only because of the fact that female subjects are involved, but the fact that these are people. it would be all too easy to dismiss them as a pretty face and disregard how they feel as a person. Even if it was a guy portrait and it ends up at some sleazy sites, i would still take offense. Gender is not an issue.

But now, if we are talking about in animate objects, i basically think you can't really use it in some sleazy website and even if it was used, i would ask for that shot to be removed.

The photographer can post all he wants. But because there are immoral people out there, he should be aware that such things would happen. In this sense, your note is only as effective as the percentage of well-behaved, law-abiding people reading it.
Yes. I am aware. Everyone is. But i wonder why no on has yet tried to bring the issue up? So long everyone keeps mum abt his/her works being mis-usd in such a manner, people will continue to do so with impunity. And the fact that everyone accept that this is a way of life, then the issue will never be solved. Eventually, the photographic community will only have themselves to blame if they keep silent.

Thank you for at least discussing this through.

I do apologise if my tone in my previous mail was harsh but if it was anything, it's how strongly i feel abt this issue.

Regards;
Wolfgang
 

Wolfgang

Senior Member
Apr 29, 2002
5,688
0
0
40
Riddle Realms
wolfgang.clubsnap.org
Originally posted by StreetShooter
Sadly, I have to agree with Shawntim.

Get real.

Or, as another wag put it: "Privacy? Get over it."
And this is why i feel so sad over it. It's now almost accepted as reality. And nothing can be done to curb, change or make a difference.

:bheart:
 

Klause

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,417
0
0
35
Bedok
Visit site
Originally posted by Wolfgang


And this is why i feel so sad over it. It's now almost accepted as reality. And nothing can be done to curb, change or make a difference.

:bheart:
Wolfus, don't be sad.

It is not 'almost accepted',but it's already reality. And I must agree that nothing can be done to curb it. This , u may say, is the dark side of the internet and technology.
 

Wolfgang

Senior Member
Apr 29, 2002
5,688
0
0
40
Riddle Realms
wolfgang.clubsnap.org
Originally posted by Klause


Wolfus, don't be sad.

It is not 'almost accepted',but it's already reality. And I must agree that nothing can be done to curb it. This , u may say, is the dark side of the internet and technology.
Yes... :rolleyes: Reality. The fact that we must come to accept now is, if everyone decides to do something wrong and do it often enough, it will become a form of "acceptable" behavior.

No worries Klause. It's not personal. Just disgusted that things have become this way. Common decency, courtesy and respect for another individual's right isn't that big an issue anymore...

:( :bheart:
 

kingpin

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2002
2,260
0
36
Visit site
Agree with Shawntim's perspective. But I think there is still hope if we continue to stand up for what's good and right. Naive and idealistic maybe. But in today's world we have to stand up for what we believe in. Hopefully that belief is good n right. For those of us with kids we should teach them the correct values. Wolfgang - I like your fighting spirit. With u on that.
 

oceanxp

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2002
549
0
16
NUS
Visit site
unless you digital sign your photo ...

unless you put your name on every foto you send ...

unless ...


the list goes on ... life in internet does not work this way ... we can only do some user educations such as this ( at the min ) ...

a photographer should never post any pictures of anyone before he seek their permission .. if i have do , it will be solely for personal sharing ( too bad if some google searches find it !! )

:cry: well, let keeps the thing going .. let hopes we build and educate more photographer along the way ; people do make mistakes ; what turn us around is the skilled education for self to turn it around ..

well there is nothing we can do if those fotos got out there right now .. all we can do is apologies :cry:
 

Revo

New Member
Oct 7, 2002
396
0
0
38
Singapore bo gway hai!
Visit site
I think both wolfgang n shawntim, both had a point....

This is the internet...where malicous pple are everywhere....

A couple of months back where i was still very much addicted to a game Diablo 2 expansion......

I first saw the very very very ugly side of pple on the net....which left me very very shock n surprised....

And it was oni a game, where led to pple being selfish, self centered and ......words cannot described how i feel...

Anyway, the watermarking practise would put of some of these leechers off but not all...since there are some who are just plain *ahem ahem* (fill in choice of words).

We can oni hope they comply with CS regulations or rather the photographers wishes to not distributing the pics...

:confused:
 

oceanxp

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2002
549
0
16
NUS
Visit site
Originally posted by Revo
I think both wolfgang n shawntim, both had a point....

This is the internet...where malicous pple are everywhere....

A couple of months back where i was still very much addicted to a game Diablo 2 expansion......

I first saw the very very very ugly side of pple on the net....which left me very very shock n surprised....

And it was oni a game, where led to pple being selfish, self centered and ......words cannot described how i feel...

Anyway, the watermarking practise would put of some of these leechers off but not all...since there are some who are just plain *ahem ahem* (fill in choice of words).

We can oni hope they comply with CS regulations or rather the photographers wishes to not distributing the pics...

:confused:
what happened ? they steal the goodies while you fight ? or you are in nightmare and you died because they left you ? being deleted from the list .. i saw alot of these but it is a fact ... that is working of the world :D
 

P

piterpen

Guest
:rbounce:
 

Giantnookie

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
210
0
0
29
Visit site
Originally posted by Revo
I think both wolfgang n shawntim, both had a point....

This is the internet...where malicous pple are everywhere....

A couple of months back where i was still very much addicted to a game Diablo 2 expansion......

I first saw the very very very ugly side of pple on the net....which left me very very shock n surprised....

And it was oni a game, where led to pple being selfish, self centered and ......words cannot described how i feel...

Anyway, the watermarking practise would put of some of these leechers off but not all...since there are some who are just plain *ahem ahem* (fill in choice of words).

We can oni hope they comply with CS regulations or rather the photographers wishes to not distributing the pics...

:confused:
It's only a game.
If you're bothered by it, stop playing.
Simple.
You can't judge people base on a game.

Similarly, the whole world is saying that Singaporeans are kiasu, just because of a group of true blue patriotic "kiasuist".

Not everyone in Singapore are like that.
 

yanfengl

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
51
0
0
36
Singapore/ AMK
yfzdomain.hypermart.net
hi all,

just a note after the last post:

copyright is not exclusive to application. it is a right born to common individuals with original artistic* works. (artistic is not defined as art but artifice)

that covers basically any product created by a 'artist' which is not infringing on another piece.

Infringement can be defined as the respeassing on or the misappropriation of another person's rights. Basically, assuming the rights of the owner.

Breach of copyright can happen over a number of levels and in certain circumstances give rise to criminal liability. This are in regard to using the original works for commercial purposes. Penalties range from hefty fines to imprisonment for up to five years or both!

regards
yanfeng
 

Ian

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,547
0
0
58
Perth Australia
Originally posted by yanfengl
hi all,

just a note after the last post:

copyright is not exclusive to application. it is a right born to common individuals with original artistic* works. (artistic is not defined as art but artifice)

that covers basically any product created by a 'artist' which is not infringing on another piece.

Infringement can be defined as the respeassing on or the misappropriation of another person's rights. Basically, assuming the rights of the owner.

Breach of copyright can happen over a number of levels and in certain circumstances give rise to criminal liability. This are in regard to using the original works for commercial purposes. Penalties range from hefty fines to imprisonment for up to five years or both!

regards
yanfeng
Lets clarify your statement a bit :)

There are 2 'levels' of infringement of copyright, primary and secondary as has previously been pointed out.

Primary copyright infringement is dealt with by a civil court, while secondary infringements are a criminal matter and cover such areas as pirating software for commercial gain, commercial scale reproduction of copyright material

Secondly, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works doesn not have the word "artifice" in it's body, the only applicable term is "work" which refers to any item produced that is copyrightable.

The term 'artifice' actually refers to a clever or artistic skill, or a ingenious device (machine). It doesn't refer to the actual item produced.
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
Originally posted by yanfengl
copyright is not exclusive to application. it is a right born to common individuals with original artistic* works. (artistic is not defined as art but artifice)

that covers basically any product created by a 'artist' which is not infringing on another piece.

Infringement can be defined as the respeassing on or the misappropriation of another person's rights. Basically, assuming the rights of the owner.

Breach of copyright can happen over a number of levels and in certain circumstances give rise to criminal liability. This are in regard to using the original works for commercial purposes. Penalties range from hefty fines to imprisonment for up to five years or both!
Huh?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.