keith turrill

Looking at the "Pirogeth" site on Xanga, it does appear that the photos are being hotlinked or inline framed from imageshack.us. Listed below is a URL for copyright abuse at imageshack.

 

http://reg.imageshack.us/content.php?page=email&q=abuse

Felix Hug's POW shark photo is there along with many from nature photographer Curtis Forrester. I don't believe that professional photographers would be giving away their images to bloggers.

 

Mr. or Ms Pirogeth (the gender appears ambiguous) apparently did not learn much about intellectual property at Cornell. I can understand how so many schools have problems with plagiarism.

On my own website, each of my images is assigned keywords or tags primarily for the benefit of search engines.

 

Periodically, I will check some of the photo sharing sites such as Flickr by plugging my own sets of keywords into their search engine. That way I can search an entire catalog. It appears that most of the images that get swiped and published do not have borders, monograms, or copyright notices.

 

If a thief can steal three similar photos and two of them have copyright marks, he will probably take the one without the mark. Additionally, small to medium size images are much less likely to get stolen.

Even this weeks POW is a turtle.

<p>The attached link is from a recent June 4, 2006 feature about famous

photographer Bob Shell and the alleged homicide of one of his models. It

appears

that a trial has been scheduled for the week of  September 18.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/xp-67980">June 4,

2006 Roanoke Times article</a></p>

It looks like all of the stolen content just disappeared. Based on this guys taste, the saturation button in his brain must have been stuck.

 

From some of the personal photos, it would appear that bubba has a presence at some school called the Memphis College of Art. He also posted a letter concerning a utility theft inquiry at an apartment.

My photo of three turtles has received over 11,600 views in 11 months. That is almost 4,000 views per turtle.

There are many countries involved with different currencies and laws governing commerce and taxation. It is reasonable that the website would not want to process tranactions.

 

Anything that I sell is by keyword searches. I would gladly pay the $60.00 per year if the images were individually search engine friendly.

For those who may think this website is bad, here is a nice one from Photosig.

 

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1765040&forward=viewportfolio

Based on the number of these threads lately, I often wonder if the American family Foundation in Tupelo started skipping their meds.

<p><i>Run like hell once the local / state-troopers / FBI / sheriffs / CIA / CID / Secret Service / ATF / DEA / Homeland Security / Reservists / or any of the other 18,760 U.S. police agencies start chasing you, snapping pictures as you go.</i></p>

 

<p>Been there and done that. More exciting than T&A shots. However, if they do PN t-shirts perhaps the back could say, <i>"If you got a warrant, I guess your going to come in."</i></p>

My website has a separate section called "Stock" with all images tagged by subject for search engine use. Each stock photo has a button linking to an order form.

 

I would prefer to automate one step further but my host wants $40 USD per month for their canned e-commerce package. For the present time, I am satisfied with my own system. Link to one of the stock photo pages as a sample:

 

http://www.iowapix.com/main_page/stock_images/stock_gallery_4.htm

Street type photos normally do not do that well. Check the bottom paragraph of the ratings breakdown to see how many of the ratings are from new members.

<p>When you opened a Photo.net account, you explicitly gave other members the right to download your images for what would be described as specific conditions of <i>"fair use."</i></p>

<p>Per the Terms of Use:</p>

<p><i>Furthermore, when commenting on photos in the photo Gallery, you may include a version of the photo under discussion in your comment, altered or marked up to illustrate your comments. By uploading photos to the photo Gallery, you grant to other photo.net members permission to copy the photo, to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit, and to attach tthe modified photo to their comments on the photo.</i></p>

<p>From the website's Terms of Use:</p>

<p><i>You agree not to use the Site, other than the Classifieds section of the Site, to advertise products or services or to solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services, or to make donations of any kind, without our express written approval</i>,</p>

<p>This type of nonsense does not belong in the discussion forums.</p>

I grew up in Northern Connecticut and learned how to take photos there. I also learned that I liked the local landscapes a lot more than the indigenous population.

 

I recall numerous real estate agent in that area by name and recall them as being some of God's most wretched beasts. If you have your images registered with the US Copyright Office within 90 days of publication, you might be eligible for statutory damages of $30,000 per violation up to $150,000. It would have me laughing out loud.

As an entirely anecdotal circumstance, a now banned blogger was stealing images from several P/N members and posting them on his own website claiming full ownership. In the dispute that ensued, he changed his website to "Creative Commons."

 

The dilemma that I see is that so much work gets stolen and re-posted on a variety of websites that the "Creative Commons" license may not even be valid if their is no real consent from the author. Future problems with "Orphaned Works" would be similar if pending US legislation passed into law.

I am not certain about the actual methodology that P/N uses for counting views. In the course of making a comment, I might actually go back and forth between numerous images in a folder. Depending on how he website counts views, that might favor sets of multiple images.

 

The Google ads change constantly, but the following example would be one way to get more viws:<div></div>

<p>I took a non-credit intro course in drawing out of curiousity and to help improve hand dexterity after an injury.</p>

<p>Very specifically the instructor stated, <i>"A drawing of a photograph will always look like a drawing of a photograph."</i></p>

I am actually looking for the services described but legitimate businesses are difficult to find.

 

A legitimate business would have a real "brick and mortar" address and be operated by persons using their real names. So every time that I see one of these threads, I make a reasonable assumption that it is total BS.

The website "ArtPapa.com" appears to be a very commercial enterprise owned and operated by Alexei Antonov of Mukilteo, WA (USA). Everything on the website has a price tag.

 

On one occasion, I have had a request from students to use photographs for a school drawing project. The request came from a public school system in Wisconsin so I gave my permission.

 

I think it would be a bit of a stretch for a commercial website to claim fair use for derivitive works. If that particular website needs stock images to use for painting or drawing, they should probably try Shutterstock or one of the other micro stock companies.

At least the website hasn't yet been flooded with those teenage cell phone and point & shoot self portraits that flood Xanga and Myspace.

I correct myself. The folders are still viewable, just not in the member portfolio sequence. It might be just acase of trying to keep things from getting cluttered.

The question of a non-viewable hidden image folder is quite interesting. It would essentially mean that the folding is being used for private storage only. I am suprised that the website would allow that.

I have some old phonograph records in my basement some with illegible labels on them. I don't think that the big-money record companies and recording industry association (RIAA) would allow their work to be orphaned.