HAs the London based "onlydreemin.com" gallery been ripping you off too?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by ellis_vener_photography, May 18, 2007.

  1. See:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6665723.stm
     
  2. My friend avoid posting large rez images and she doesn't tag them. Does that really prevent her images from being stolen?
     
  3. I notice that their store pages are currently offline.
     
  4. Folks: we're just seeing the beginning of this. While this appears to be a very open-and-closed case of ripping-off-for-profit, this sort of stuff is made all the more likely as our society gets more complacent about people ripping off ALL sorts of content. Don't think that being complacent about the massive degree to which people - especially student-aged kids - skip out on paying for the entertainment they rip off online (music, movies) isn't just going to make this worse. Plenty of artists and their publishers/distributors/partners make material available for free or nearly so, especially as parts of larger promotional efforts. But there is definitely an alarming trend towards a "if I CAN get to it somehow online, then I deserve to 'own' it" attitude. The Icelandic art student in question here, whose work was ripped off, probably has many fellow students that sit down every Friday night and watch a movie that they've ripped off using BitTorrent and a listing on PirateBay.

    Watching a ripped-off movie, or finding a slippery way to avoid paying a dollar for a tune by your 'favorite' artist (whom you must really respect, huh!) doesn't seem like, on a case-by-case basis, such a huge offense... but I'm always amazed by people who are able to feel badly for their fellow art student, ripped off to the tune of a few thousand dollars, but not feel badly at all that the hundreds (or thousands) of people it takes to make a large project (like a film) lose millions. Ethics should apply at all scales. But don't think that the sense of media entitlement isn't polluting people's sense of what their wedding shots, product catalog shots, or other commissioned artwork should be worth, too. This is a big, multi-faceted problem, and it all comes back to how young minds are (or are NOT) shaped when it comes to understanding what goes into creating anything of value.

    Every kid should wait tables for a week, pick up garbage for a week, and spend a little time along side professoinals working in a creative capacity. Otherwise they're completely disconnected from the reality of what it takes to produce what they want and (obviously) take for granted. It's up to parents to establish in their kids an understanding that the movie, song, JPG of their family dog, and the meal that just got served to them is the result of somebody's WORK. OK, sorry for the rant. I just think it's important to look at this in the wider cultural context, not just as a case of one photographer who was lucky enough to SEE she was being ripped off, and diligent enough to track it all down (good for her). By the way, she's pretty talented, too!
     
  5. http://rebekkagudleifs.com/blog/2007/05/17/official-apology-from-flickr-founder/

    "I don?t feel flickr should be held accountable for the fact that someone downloaded my photos from there for commercial use. I have been aware since day one that this is a risk of displaying your work online, and although i believed i had covered my ass by uploading my photos at 72dpi, 1200׸00 pixels, this clearly IS large enough to use for making large prints. Presumably with the help of software that can convert small jpg?s into large tiff files.

    Something i was not aware of before.

    In light of what has happened, i have decided to limit the dimensions of my uploads to a maximum of 800 pixels across, instead of 1200."
     
  6. It also helps to really use a high level of compression like 4 or 5 instead of a lower level like 8 or above.

    "watermarking" doesn't hurt either.
     
  7. It looks like the only-dreemin site has been partially taken down. Just try browsing their wares.
     
  8. How does anyone get to work out that this gallery is in London? It's in Leicester, according to their website.


    ("Say, buddy, do you know Bob? Bob from London!?")
     
  9. They claimed to be London based.
     
  10. They claimed to be London based."

    Where? Not disputing, just curious.
     
  11. but I'm always amazed by people who are able to feel badly for their fellow art student, ripped off to the tune of a few thousand dollars, but not feel badly at all that the hundreds (or thousands) of people it takes to make a large project (like a film) lose millions.
    Hear, hear.
     
  12. "but I'm always amazed by people who are able to feel badly for their fellow art student, ripped off to the tune of a few thousand dollars, but not feel badly at all that the hundreds (or thousands) of people it takes to make a large project (like a film) lose "

    I think the difference comes from the fact that the few thousand the art student lost may make them homeless. No one feels bad for the producer/director/actor/studio head who can't upgrade his Ferrari to a Lambourghini (No clue if I spelled that correctly...)...
     
  13. Well, one of these days maybe we'll get it right.

    I do agree with basic copyright law. I don't like that I can't make a backup copy of a CD or a DVD, only for my own use -- I feel that violates the spirit of the basic law.

    On the other hand, thank goodness some of us can hope to get some recompense for all that hard work, and be able to defend ourselves as needed!

    I think, in the end, it's the calm voice expressing the reasoned argument that will win the day. Fairness counts, and in their bones people do realize that. Just takes a bit of education, I guess.

    This next may look contradictory, but really it's not (think about it):

    Good luck to the artist, and may that gallery get whatever they deserve. Throw the book at 'em!
     
  14. A option to help prevent some of these problems:

    Isn't there some code that can be applied to a web page to prevent the images on it from being downloaded? I saw that on a web page years ago, but didn't make note of how it was done.

    Seems handy.

    Lack of this code is one reason I don't post images that are important to me online -- yet.
     
  15. Michael: Alas, no. If you can see an image on your computer's display, there's a way to capture it and save it. There are some very light-weight ways to discourage unsophisticated users from lifting images they surf to, but that's like child-proofing your medicine cabinet. Your best bet is simply to post your images at a low-enough resolution as to make them unappealing to the unscrupulous people that would (as in the case being discussed) use them out of context.
     
  16. YOu can still buy prints from them at ebay

    http://stores.ebay.co.uk/only-dreemin-UK_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZQ2d999QQftidZ2QQtZkm
     
  17. I'm not sure low resolution/high compression helps that much in this situation. Someone
    rotten enough to pull sh!t like this in the first place is also rotten enough to sell prints that
    look O.K. in ebay images, but look awful in an actual print.

    M. Hendrickson: If they can see it they can copy it. You may be able to stop right-click, but
    you can't stop screen grabs.
     

Share This Page