The Observation Deck

Joe Ott wrote:Sorry to read about your frustrations Ivor.

What was done is wrong. Plain and simple. Sorry it has happened. It sounds like you have people on your side though. That's good.

Like Jim mentioned, it's a bump in the road. There will be more. I doubt it will slow down somebody with talent like you have.

Last years LHS yearbook includes some of my pictures. I don't recall anybody asking to use them. It's theft. I'm not even sure where they got them from. Somebody made money off of it.

The yearbook included a DVD. On it are at least 20 of my pictures. About 15 of those clearly show my copyright! I would bet some of yours are on there as well. Were you paid for them?

The yearbook isn't a free flyer passed out with thumbnail images. People pay $50 for them. Jostens makes money off of it. I'm sure the HS makes something too.

I don't post many pictures anymore. Go see how many are in my LO photoblog. Zero.

It costs me too much money in equipment and time to give them to someone who will profit from it.

For those wondering about how to prevent images from being stolen, the only answer is to not post them.

Keep in mind when you are browsing the internet it's not like watching tv where what you see is broadcast to you. Basically, everything you see on your screen has been downloaded then rendered through your browser. If you look hard enough you will find the images on your hard drive.

Of course there are many ways to suck images off the net too. From a simple screen print to slick Firefox add-ins.

I add copyrights to my images. At least when you see them in print with your copyright it's obvious who owns them.

~~
Great points Joe and Jim,

If it's posted it's there. The copyright helps - if you can trace it. The other part is the low rez. From years ago, I decided to make conscious decisions on what designs I posted. And all low rez. Could they be re-engineered, yes. Photos can be also. So, unfortunately the idea of information being free, includes our intellectual property - but only if we post it.

Writers are also going through this angst...probably even more so, as text is the bloodstream of the web.

If you post, think how it can be used.

Now one other consideration. A PDF is encapsulated post script (EPS) at it's base code. A lot of times it's converted at Print quality (300 DPI). That means a photo inside this format can be easily transferred into other print mediums. If however, it's been dumbed down to web quality (72 DPI), that can at least prevent high quality theft on the web. I see this all the time.

I haven't checked, but Jim does the Observer dumb-down the PDF version of the Observer Newspaper? If not, this is a good opportunity to nip this venue for theft in the bud.

.

OK as long as we are speaking of this. The top image Joe's image from Cox, it is available at 300dpi, and with a little work I could print this 2' x 3' at pretty close to photo quality.




So in under five minutes I click on Joe's link, grab photo and remove 50% of the copyright. If I was a high end publication, it would take me 15 minutes to gran it clean. While one could argue, that would show a willingness to steal the image. One could also argue that it is the 10% change needed to make it "art or satire" Or maybe the person could grab the image, run it through some mindless drab brush filter, and claim it for art.



I know this might upset you, and at one time it upset Ivor, to me any image you have to write ©frankfosterphotography@franksphotos.org 2009, is probably an image, that shouldn't have been posted on the net. I personally see the writing on images, as tacky. Cool is invisible watermarks, that are actually numbers hidden a single pixel at say 6 different locations and leave a copyright, disclaimer, price, and contact information. Change and crop that image almost anyway and the chance of one of them still being there is pretty good. Hidden initials very easy to do, so you can see it when printed, etc. Real Lancelot Secret Chimp stuff.

Dustin is correct, writers have always suffered from this, then artists, then photographers, then musicians, then filmmakers. We heard reel to reel tapes will ruin the industry, cassettes would ruin the industry, "sampling" would ruin the music industry. mp3/mpg will ruin the industry... None have, none will. The same is true for photography and the net.

If people take your images send them a cease and desist letter. Make it clear, they STOLE your image, and they will be taken to court. Do not screw around. You being lax on this makes it hard on Me, Rhonda, Dustin, Ivor, everyone, etc.

To me a good photo not shared is a tremendous shared moment missed. A photo, image, story, intellectual property stolen is a missed opportunity to sell some work!

LO pdfs. Dustin, they are low rez, but I wanted to keep them clean enough to print on a home based printer. So it is a fine line we push. I have been able to save an image no longer on file from our pdfs. That said, the Lakewood Observer project is about amplifying artistic and civic intelligence, and showing off Lakewood good deeds. The very nature of the project is like a mosh pit of word and image jazz.

That said, we have all been burned I am willing to bet more than once. I feel Ivor's pain. Time for artists to get tough.


.

Excellent.

Write on!

Ivor, I've looked up your pictures in the booklet. The re-prints did not do them justice that's for darned sure.

Dee Krupp wrote:Ivor, I've looked up your pictures in the booklet. The re-prints did not do them justice that's for darned sure.

Dee

I would agree. The entire project is poorly handled. Sometimes it is best not to have your name on some things.

.

You definitely have a legal case. As with all legal matters, the obstacle is cost to start up actions. One thing you have that people in the old days did not is the ability to publicize bad behavior on the net.