Log in

No account? Create an account
What I say? Who knows me? What I said? What I am? disturbing.org.uk Previous Previous Next Next
Wee! I've been ripped off! - Corrosive Shame
Therapy for Life
Wee! I've been ripped off!
I can get a bit obsessive about the logs on my website, as holaholaamigos will attest, so I check them on a regular basis - and today I discovered a link from this page. There's been some copying, cropping of watermarks and a cursory link back; I remaining flattered, but it is a little naughty - yes?

Tags: ,
Current Mood: amused amused

22 lies or Lie to me
sack_boy From: sack_boy Date: October 12th, 2005 09:17 am (UTC) (Link)
You say on your site "All images © Don't steal - ask"

They've taken your work without permission, changed it without permission and then presented it as if it your work and as if it is with your permission. However, they only imply it's with your permission, they don't actually state it. Which is all very weaselly (sorry Roz) and naughty.
From: kingandy Date: October 12th, 2005 09:24 am (UTC) (Link)
Actually, at first glance it looks as though disturbing.org.uk may be organising the NME awards tour. Or certainly as though that's where one should go for more information about it.
From: ikkleblacktruck Date: October 12th, 2005 09:21 am (UTC) (Link)
Sue their asses.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: October 12th, 2005 09:22 am (UTC) (Link)
There would be absolutely no point in that.
From: ikkleblacktruck Date: October 12th, 2005 10:48 am (UTC) (Link)
Sorry, I meant *threaten* to sue their asses.
wulfboy From: wulfboy Date: October 12th, 2005 01:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
Pah! How much money are you going to get from donkeys?*

*You see what I did there?
smokingboot From: smokingboot Date: October 12th, 2005 09:40 am (UTC) (Link)

just an opinion

It is naughty. As they like your work so much, you may find it worthwhile to see if there's some arrangement you can come to with them, but be careful. Don't be flattered that your work is good enough for someone to steal; anyone who's seen it could have told you that. What they have done is sweeter than the usual, but it's still theft.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: October 12th, 2005 10:01 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: just an opinion

For a little fan-site like that one there's little point in taking any further action. But I agree - there's a need to be careful and treat every instance on a case-by-case. I suspect there's more out there where there are not any links back, so I'll never know.
(Deleted comment)
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: October 12th, 2005 10:07 am (UTC) (Link)
I keep meaning to look at "proper" digital watermarking, but I'm not precious enough to the do the transparent/table trick. All the images that are up are low-res versions and won't print very large. The master copies are significantly larger and don't come off my hard-drive except in exceptional circumstances.

Must sort out an ecommerce option at some point though.
From: (Anonymous) Date: October 12th, 2005 10:57 am (UTC) (Link)

The basic mark/check is built into Photoshop, and you can download it and run it with Paintshop, or any other 8bf compatible image package.

They also provide an on-line service where if your marked images turn up somewhere, they tell you. Thats chargeable though.

The prob with watermarks is that any manipulation to an image can wreck the watermark, unless it's "strong", in which case you may lose clarity - but you could always provide a few "sample" images to highlight the quality of 'real' versus 'on-line' versions.

And e-commerce can be as simple as using PayPal (or equivalent) and you manually sending out images, to Cafepress, where they'll print for you as well, or DigitalRiver, who can host and distribute binary for you, and collect payments etc.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: October 12th, 2005 11:07 am (UTC) (Link)
Cheers "mysterious-visitor-with-the-same-IP-as-Pete".

I've used http://www.photobox.co.uk/ for printing in the past. I suspect that some kind of "basic-invisible" watermarking will be ok, combined with the "obvious visual watermark" that's as much about advertising as security.
gaius_octavian From: gaius_octavian Date: October 12th, 2005 11:44 am (UTC) (Link)
You might be surprised. As photographers we have quite different concept of acceptable print quality than most people, probably because most people don't have very good lenses anyway and don't know what a quality print looks like. With smooth interpolation from a halfway-decent printer (or driver) a "web quality" 640x480 image will make an 8x10" print that will satisfy most people. I've had people happily print themselves from the web rather than pay 15p to Photobox to get a print of the 3000x2000 JPEG I've uploaded there...
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: October 12th, 2005 11:46 am (UTC) (Link)
Urgh! What a terrible thought!
gaius_octavian From: gaius_octavian Date: October 12th, 2005 09:52 am (UTC) (Link)
I recently discovered that there are a whole bunch of sites out there that simply scrape LJ. Many appear to be automatic, of the "last n images posted" kind (tho' I'm not sure how they source this other than spidering the whole site). I became suspicious when I saw how many hits the images on my Yulia Tymoshenko community were getting. Anyway, it's trivial to stop, 3-4 lines in an .htaccess file in your docroot will do it.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: October 12th, 2005 10:03 am (UTC) (Link)
Yeah - been aware of those for ages. I don't let it worry me. I believe LJ itself provides an interface to "most recent posts" so I guess it just scrapes that.

I don't have any intention to stop it - but what's your suggested solution? Only allow referrals from the livejournal.com domain?
gaius_octavian From: gaius_octavian Date: October 12th, 2005 10:07 am (UTC) (Link)
I almost never post photos unlocked, so I'd never come across it before. Not sure what LJ will do to the formatting, but there goes:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?livejournal\.com [NC]
RewriteRule .(gif|jpe?g)$ - [NC,F]

That will allow referrals from LJ and directly going to the image by typing the URL into the browser, but will return 403 Forbidden if the image is referenced from an HTML page on another site.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: October 12th, 2005 10:09 am (UTC) (Link)
diffrentcolours From: diffrentcolours Date: October 12th, 2005 12:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
Personally, I'd e-mail them and say that you're flattered that they'd use your photos, but ask them in future to ask for permission beforehand in future.

If you're not worried about fansites etc. using your images for noncommercial purposes, you could use a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license (or similar) to permit this explicitly.

I'm not aware of any digital watermarking / stenography systems for images that actually work, though it's possible that I only get to hear about the ones that don't.
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: October 12th, 2005 01:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
I've looked at the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license before - and the couple of pics I've put up on Wikipedia are on that basis.
wulfboy From: wulfboy Date: October 12th, 2005 01:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
Hey, tell 'em you're pleased they used your photos and that you're looking forward to your complimentary tickets.
load_of_flannel From: load_of_flannel Date: October 12th, 2005 03:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
Allright mate,

Did you hear anything from PALE?
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: October 12th, 2005 03:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah - we've had a brief exchange of email and we're going to talk again when I can make it to their gigs.
22 lies or Lie to me