michaelging Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>I appreciate Photo.net protecting our images as best they can. The question I have, is why is the reproduction of the photos better, in fact alot better on Amazon, than on our site? This seems to be true in Both color and B&W. Thanks</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Michael, can you give a specific example? Perhaps with a screenshot?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Josh , I knew you were going to ask that, and I do not have a specific example of a photo on our site and the amazon site, but in general there seems to be much crisper, with better contrast and tones in both color and B&W. I will see if I can find a exact example.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>That would be helpful. Thanks Michael.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>It's annoying, but really, who cares?<br> It's some lost little corner of the Internet. Nobody is making any money off these shots, so not really worth getting all worked up about IMO.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <blockquote> <p>It's annoying, but really, who cares?<br /> It's some lost little corner of the Internet. Nobody is making any money off these shots, so not really worth getting all worked up about IMO.</p> </blockquote> <p>Each photographer is entitled to decide for themselves what is and is not "acceptable" regarding unauthorized use of their images. And that definition is going to be different for every photographer I am guessing. Some people would give their images away to National Geographic for free and some wouldn't let their images be downloaded on a photo student's computer for further study if they could possibly stop it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Here is one photo that I found , it may in this photo there is not as much of a difference that in some of the others, but I rembered this shot. Could they have a different Gamma on that site that makes them look better?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>I will try again</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Try uploading a JPEG. I have a feeling that will work better.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Never mind Josh, I am a idiot and can't convert the screen shot to a jpeg. Ignore the person behind the curtain.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Try emailing the TIFF to me at contact@photo.net</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <blockquote> <p>"It's annoying, but really, who cares?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Ian, I complained earlier in the thead so I'll contribute to a reply. It is for reasons as stated by Josh; I'm the copyright holder, therefore I should decide to whom I grant permission to for the use of my images. It has neither to do with monetary nor artistic value. I care also because of its potential misuse. Love your work, by the way.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nishnishant Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>What's that guy's intention? I mean how does he make money or anythign else out of blindly re-posting pics from a 3rd party website?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <blockquote> <p>What's that guy's intention? I mean how does he make money or anythign else out of blindly re-posting pics from a 3rd party website?</p> </blockquote> <p>It makes him feel like a big man and helps fill his empty empty life.</p> <p>Seriously though, who knows? As was said earlier "Wondering why people do things is probably pointless. They do them because they can."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpo3136b Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Someone needs to slap this dude with an audit. </p> <p>That's right. I said it! Audit! </p> <p>I bet the folks over at Amazon would love to join him in such an audit. We can get to the copyright issues after someone gets done billing the people who would do such a thing after they've been obviously and repeatedly warned not to. There have got to be half a dozen or more copies of the photo.net usage policy posted inside that thread. Probably more. I would have searched the whole thing, but I got tired of looking at those sad attempts at illustrating animals with human faces and who knows what all else.</p> <p>I bet there would be some kind of way to charge this guy some heavy taxes for possessing intellectual property if it occurred in the right community. My community charges me tax on the photo equipment I posses because I have my little garage sale license. Payments out to a web hosting company count in those cases as "leased services". So, it seems to me that when Mr. Serene appropriates images that have some kind of commercial value associated with them, he's possessing property that has a taxable value in some communities. I'm not a lawyer, but I bet if someone pointed a lawyer and an accountant along that azimuth, towards this dude; I bet some kind of settlement, deletion, or better yet, fat billing would take place.</p> <p>I wonder if Amazon would be liable to my state, county and local communities for revenue lost through taxes lost if someone was so naive as to post up stuff from around here for the sake of someone else's gain? Maybe we could get those sidewalks we always wanted. Just spitballing. </p> <p>It's clear that my photos are probably not good enough for that guy's theft industry; yet, I would love to make redefining his "serenity" my new hobby. I pity the person who does this sort of thing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpo3136b Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Ego boosting is a billable service in my book. There are many examples of how people need to pay in order to have their ego stroked. Maybe we should throw darts at some figures randomly tacked up on the wall to figure out how much he should be charged for stoking his ego with someone else's stuff.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpo3136b Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Okay, I may have been a little volatile in my expressions. However, I believe that such a copy-paste venture is irresponsible and ill-conceived. To continue along those lines after numerous complaints suggests a disregard for others that is discourteous and unprofessional. I still think that he should be audited and billed for the stuff he took.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>"It's clear that my photos are probably not good enough for that guy's theft industry"</p> <p>John, the 6 images of mine in his posts are neither top-rated nor most-viewed. In fact they are rather ordinary pictures you'd have to dig deep to get at, so my guess is that this fellow is a Pnet member familiar with gallories, forums, and contributors. He's probably just choosing nothing more than what catches his eye.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpo3136b Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Okay. I know I was a little hot headed. But, I retain my opinion. Want to squelch the bootleggers? Send revenuers.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p><em>how does he make money or anythign else out of blindly re-posting pics from a 3rd party website?</em><br /><br />What he was doing with all of those images isn't any different than ripping off some movies to bring to a party in a lame, tone-deaf attempt to impress people you wish were your friends. He's damaged goods, socially, but he definitely had an agenda - and needed ammo. And as many locals on that forum were pointing out, it looks like there is some sort of dubious social currency for him in having a gargantuan posting frequency score. Us busy-bodies may have three film cans, but he's got a bulk roll.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_kennedy Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 <p>Not sure if I should be happy or sad to learn NONE of the stolen images were mine...</p> <p>My photos must really suck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB_Gallery Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 <p>I am about to go look on the site but this is it for me on this site I am afraid, this is the third time this has happened and I simply can't take a chance, back into the private folder they go until I get my new professional site up, then it is bye-bye photos on Photo.net. <br> I will re-upload a handful with watermarks but other than that, this is totally unacceptable.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 <p>Daniel: Unless you're also going to display images on your own personal site with watermarks, you're not going to have your images any more protected there. If a person can see an image on their computer screen, they can run off with a copy of it. Period. There are no exceptions. One thing certainly WILL happen, though, if you pull your work down from this web site... fewer people will get to see it. Only you know if that's the right approach.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabbiinc Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 <p>Daniel, I understand your sentiment. But you should be putting your watermark on all your work regardless of wether it's on this site or any other. All images can be stolen via the net. Just the fact that you can view it means your computer has already loaded it into RAM, all you have to do is tell it to keep it there.</p> <p>The same thing happened on Flickr and I am sure just about any other site of this nature.</p> <p>It's the attitude of the viewers. <a href="http://www.amazonsellercommunity.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=165612&start=480&tstart=0">link</a> just past half way down you will find this<br /> "<em>In my opinion, when photographers utilise the photo.net website, they have already agreed to the terms of use for those photos. That means anyone can copy these photos to anywhere as long as they agree to the terms of use. Photographers who don't agree to their terms won't use that site.<br /> <br /> The value of some photography is viewing with aesthetic appreciation. Some photographers just want to spread their work. This is one very good way of free advertising for photographers to get their names out there. Serenity is a quite a collection of photos, no doubt about it. <br /> <br /> Some people are tired of the stife on the Soapbox perpetuated by a small inbred group of people who don't offer anything substantially productive for the amount of time they spend here. Some personalities here are truly toxic. I imagine Serenity has offered some sellers a way to escape onto a high road.<br /> <br /> <strong>I don't believe anyone has stolen anything by posting these photos or that anyone profits from advertising these photos.</strong> If that were true, Amazon would have disontinued allowing these photos to be posted..</em> "</p> <p>It's up to you as much as anyone else to keep your images safe from people like this. Admittedly removing your images from P'net does do that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Lear Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Not sure if I should be happy or sad to learn NONE of the stolen images were mine...<br />My photos must really suck.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ha! That's funny Derek but by that logic, 99.99% of all images submitted by the ~900,000 members of Photo.net must also suck... including mine. (sad face smilie removed so as not to upset Josh the smilie hater during this trying time)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now