There is always a school bully, created from a public domain photograph. Please click the image twice to fully enlarge it.
As I said on CabanaBoy’s post of this image - - -
See my finger -
See my thumb -
See my fist, you better run!
Dude, I’m not sure what to say about this. It is not a public domain document. It was originally posted by me and carries a copyright - altered by you. Which brings to something I’ve been thinking about - being able to disable the download option for one’s works.
CabanaBoy- I did obtain the original from the public domain. I will search to locate the original source to prove you WRONG. Prior to doing so, I must ask- did you photograph the boys, if so did you send the photo to an Internet agency? Because of your, accusation, you have caused others to question my reputation. I am 82 years old, I do not lie, cheat or steal. I am so embarrassed! Because of you, I shall NEVER post on this blog AGAIN. However, when I locate the proof, I will post the URL where the original is located, you too shall be embarrassed.
Yeah, I’d like to know where this photo has been posted as well. I took this image in 2004, in Olympia Washington when I was working for the Washington State Legislature during a lunch break at the Heritage Park Fountain. I like this image a lot because it is an example of “Anticipating the Moment” for which Henri Cartier-Bresson was so famous for.
I also posted this image here on the Tropical Exposures Site. So imaging my surprise when I say your version of my image. Below you find a screen shot showing the properties of the original image CRW_1805. Below you will find the same image I posted on this site earlier. I hope you will understand my concern and reaction with seeing MY IMAGE altered by someone else only days after my posting the image here.
Protecting one’s work, while sharing it with others seems to be an increasingly difficult proposition. And with this in mind, I sincerely hope you will not stop posting your work here.
CabanaBoy - I am over the shock and I am sorry for getting angry. I have a folder that I save the public domain photographs. When I work on a photograph, I always use only from that folder. Many of the stock agencies are pulling out of the market and they are placing their item in public domain. I can see how mistakes can be made. Another problem that we face is people submitting photographs and graphics into the public domain that they are not the true owner. I am at the point that I no longer trust them. When I ran across your photograph, I fell in love with it. I believe that it could win in a national competition. I was a serious amateur photographer for about 20 years and professional photographer for about 34 years. I broke my back and that ended my love affair. I then turned to creating custom graphics. I will continue to search for your photograph and I will post the URL so that you may take proper action. I have congested heart failure and the medication has several side effects that cause me to say things that I would normally not thinks of saying. I apologize for my outburst. Sorry… PS: You are an OUTSTANDING PHOTOGRAPHER…
Nothing is private if posted on Internet.
If you want to keep private keep it in your computer…
There are a lot of sites that snag images from various sources, mark them as public domain, or free, or package them up and sell them as clip-art. Almost none of it is true and many people think that if something is on the internet it is public domain. In reality almost everything you encounter is copyright to someone.
I agree on one thing. If I get someone picture and the sell it to make money then I agree that would be stealing but If I use it for my personal use then it’s not. To make copy right you need to register like any other stuff.
That isn’t correct. Copyright exists the moment you press the camera shutter. You do not have to register anything. Except US citizens need to register works with the USCO if they hope to get statuary damages in a Federal court. That does not apply to US citizens who do not have to register with the USCO prior to infringement.
Also it does not matter if you are selling the stuff or not, you can still get hit with a claim from $750 - $150,000. The only reason that people don’t get hit by copyright claims is because it is very expensive to bring a case in a Federal court, and most photographers can’t afford it. However, there has been recent moves to allow photographers to bring small claim cases to court where the damages are capped to $30K.
Additionally if someone wilfully removes any copyright management information, either by stripping EXIF data or cloning out watermarks they can be hit with claims from $2500 - $25000 under the DMCA.
It’s stealing in both cases. You can’t just help yourself to other people’s work.
What ever. Just don’t posted on Internet. Keep it on your computer… That is the best protection…
Just like over here. Any pictures posted over here you thing they stay here. Or others don’t get them? This where sharing boards come out. If you share it on internet with others then don’t complain about copy rights. Sharing is sharing…
Don’t like it, don’t share it. Simple.
Can you point out where I said I think it doesn’t happen? Or that I don’t like it? Or where anybody else said anything similar? No, you can’t. We’re not stupid - we all know what happens. But no matter what explanation/justification you come up with you can’t change facts - it’s stealing. Simple.
OK here are two links the first is to Bing Images where they have indexed the images from my blog site:
This second link is to Google Images where I robot ban Google from indexing the site images:
Do you see the difference? Do you appreciate what we could turn the internet into?
Let me give a quote from Stewart Butterfield the founder of Flickr regarding sharing and the Flickr API:
No one said that - the quotation marks were to delineate the position I was referring to. You said
"In a very clear sense, by making your information public, you already gave permission for it to be redistributed this way".
I think that’s wrong too. She didn’t “give permission” except in some slimey “you clicked through the EULA so screw you” way. It’s true that making it public made it possible to retreive the photos via the API, but that’s not the same as giving persmission.
But to say that people have to play by your rules if they want to make a photo public is bizarre to me. If the software supports the expression of their preference, why should they have to keep their photos private? If there are some that don’t show up in the API’s search methods or have the ‘blog this’ button, who cares? This seems like a basic issue of respect.
Imagine you’re uploading photos of your kids, your family vacation, whatever. It’s not your “work”, and you’re not “publishing” or looking for an “audience”. You’re willing to make them public because you like participating in a global community, but you don’t want some random blogger (from your perspective; sorry lumis) redistributing all those photos. You don’t necessarily understand apis and web services and rss and syndication, etc. – it just seems like fun.
In that case, I don’t think you should have to give up that much control to use Flickr. And in cases like this, a little understanding goes a long way.
Like I said it before… If you share it then don’t complain about someone else using it. (But For your own personal use and not for resale)
But any way I’m finish with This Conversation.
Well I’ll just finish by pointing out that is ‘public’ argument is like saying that if one plants a rose bed within reach of the road one can’t complain if people walking by cut a spray or two.