Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves 126

Posted by timothy
from the fightin'-words dept.
sandbagger (654585) writes "Stop Stealing Photos is a resource in the pro photographer community for protecting consumers. How? By identifying wannabes who use images in their portfolios that they did not create. In this case, one 'photographer' built a massive social media presence, in many platforms including Linked In where he includes System Architecture in his skills. However, such advocacy web sites are very manual and often run by non-programmers. How can the tech community help consumers in protecting them from phoney on-line presences? Or is this vigilantism?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves

Comments Filter:
  • Webster's (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oligonicella (659917) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @03:09PM (#46718087)
    vigilante ... noun -s often attributive
    Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante, adjective, watchful, vigilant, from Latin vigilant-,

    So, yes. But what's your point? The site shows original pictures and then their rip-offs. This is bad how?
    • by Yakasha (42321)

      vigilante ... noun -s often attributive Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante, adjective, watchful, vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, So, yes. But what's your point? The site shows original pictures and then their rip-offs. This is bad how?

      None of those images detail whether or not the copyright was transferred. Nor do they explain how the suspected infringer obtained the image (Did they rip it off the web, or buy a stock photo package while being assured everything was legit?)
      Considering the plethora of "Original source unknown" descriptions of those pairings, it seems the investigation into whether or not it actually is infringing is still ongoing.

      So, how is it bad? Just like any other form of vigilantism, it's not, until they get it wro

      • Considering the plethora of "Original source unknown" descriptions

        Plethora? Eight out of fifty-two is a plethora? We have different meanings for that word, I guess. When only one seventh of the photos on that page have not (yet) been identified as not being shot by the people claiming the work as theirs, I'm not that concerned that there's anyone other than Brett and Jizelle doing anything bogus. Wedding photogs are notoriously persnickety about retaining control of their photos, even from the bride and groom much less from other wedding photogs.

        • by Yakasha (42321)

          Considering the plethora of "Original source unknown" descriptions

          Plethora? Eight out of fifty-two is a plethora? We have different meanings for that word, I guess.

          There are more than 52 image pairings if you bothered to actually look over the site. I'm not only talking about Brett & Jizelle. But since you're talking about that post exclusively, I'm sure you saw the update

          Update 04/09/2013

          Updated a few original sources that I had as unknown.

          Regardless of when the original was found, they still don't indicate how or if they've identified the actual copyright owners or how the offending site got a hold of them.

          I'm not doubting Brett & Jizelle being douche-bags. I think the evidence presented is rather compelling and their cann

  • Thanks! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 10, 2014 @03:12PM (#46718147)

    Now I have a single resource to go to for all my 'good enough to steal' photograph needs!

  • Simple (Score:5, Funny)

    by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @03:32PM (#46718369)

    Hire the "big fat phony" guy from Family Guy.

  • by noh8rz10 (2716597) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @03:40PM (#46718461)

    tfs:

    "How can the tech community help consumers in protecting them from phoney on-line presences?"

    you need a profit driver so people will invest in it, both money wise and time wise. I suggest being aggressive about posting people on there, but letting them apply to be removed (for a fee).

    • tfs:

      "How can the tech community help consumers in protecting them from phoney on-line presences?"

      you need a profit driver so people will invest in it, both money wise and time wise. I suggest being aggressive about posting people on there, but letting them apply to be removed (for a fee).

      Didn't a number of sites recently taste the wrath of Mjölnir for doing that with mugshots?

  • I see this old semantic game blooms anew on Slashdot. "It isn't stealing". Fine. It's fraud. Don't worry that your reputation is shot and/or somebody else is trading on your good name. It isn't stealing. Oh... the victim feels much better now.

    • by ewhac (5844)

      I see this old semantic game blooms anew on Slashdot. "It isn't stealing". Fine. It's fraud. Don't worry that your reputation is shot and/or somebody else is trading on your good name. It isn't stealing. Oh... the victim feels much better now.

      I don't understand; what are you complaining about? You're correct. It isn't theft, it is fraud. So why call it theft when it's clearly something else?

      If you call it by the correct name, you'll get community support, even among the "copying is not theft" crowd. O

  • by holophrastic (221104) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @04:14PM (#46718889)

    Consumers who fall for fake portfolios don't need a technology solution. They need a baseball-bat-to-the-head, and a new set of parents. Verifying that someone you are about to pay is worth paying ain't much of a challenge. You're welcome to take the gamble when you want to live life on the edge, but when you want to make an intelligent decision about a person that you hire, it never comes down to a technological solution. It comes down to not being a moron. It was true two thousand years ago; and it's still true today.

    Let me know if you need my help. If you're over the age of 20, be embarassed. If you own a house, be very embarassed. If you can't spell embarrassed after 34 years of learning, be a little embarassed!

    • Did you spell the embarrassed word three times differently for a purpose or did you only spell it two times differently?
      Unfortunately my spelling correction does not trigger on your post ... and how the funk should I know what the correct spelling is when I only see english words in the internet? Half the time misspelled ...

      • True spelling hat tricks are when you unintentionally spell the same word three different ways in one post. Holophrastic's entry on the list will have an *.

    • It depends on the portfolio. How am I supposed to verify a portfolio except to have the photographer shoot some new shots on a memory card I give them and supervise through the entire process of loading into the camera and handing back to me?

      Lots of people don't know about reverse image searches. In fact it's a relatively new technology. And then how do I know that other people aren't ripping off *my* photographer?

      So how pray tell do I verify that someone I'm about to pay is in fact as good as they claim?

      • Welcome to abstraction layers. You've forgotten what you're doing. The goal here is not to verify the portfolio. The portfolio wasn't the goal. You weren't buying the portfolio. The portfolio was a sales tool -- to help you discuss what you want. So stop seeing the portfolio as anything more than that.

        Now, sit back, relax, take more than ten minutes, and think of what it was that you were actually trying to accomplish. If you can explain what you actually want, you'll have stated what you need to do.

  • For years highly-moderated posts on this very site kept repeating, that, because by copying a file one has taken nothing from the owner of the original, such copying can not be called "theft"...

    And now this... What happened? Could we really be so shallow in our convictions, that they change to opposite as soon as the victim of a crime is someone we find easier to relate to? A small-time photographer vs. a large studio or a music label? Why is it Ok to steal from the latter, but not from the former?

    • I know what surprised me is the implied attribution.

      So I grab a pretty picture of people eating cookies and put it on my website where I advertise my home-made cookies. We can debate whether that is theft or not.

      What's surprising is that the person in question is a photographer and, therefore, it's implied that the pictures on the website advertising his photography business are pictures that he took.

      Personally, that's where I have the issue. Not so much in the "stealing" of images but "stealing" the cred

    • But, see, I am not trying to do business as the owner of said file copy and profit therein.
      • by mi (197448)

        But, see, I am not trying to do business as the owner of said file copy and profit therein.

        A distinction without difference to the point I was making. You copied a file created by someone else. That someone else's own copy is still in place and just the same, therefor, the prevailing logic went, your copying can not be called "theft". What you do with the copy your created after you created it (enjoy it yourself, show to others, attempt to profit) is completely irrelevant to whether your act is eligible fo

        • I am going to agree to disagree on that. My biggest disagreement is the use of the "stolen" asset. It is one thing if the "thief" is using it for personal or educational uses, and entirely another thing if they are using it to make a profit or enhance their business. It reminds me of when I used to do my own email and web hosting. I would happily give away free email addresses to friends and family if they asked. Then, one day while checking logs, I noticed what seemed to me to be one user hammering ou
  • .... summary ... is word salad ... my head ....
  • What measures are being taken to ensure they shame the right people? Get the wrong people, and defamation suits would prob. succeed. Look at, for a relevant-but-in-a-different-field example, the Griffin Black Book - listed poker players who counted cards as outright cheaters - which is untrue since the rules don't prohibit it, that's a casino policy [hint: not the same]. They sued, won, and the company - citing the lawsuit/outcome filed for bankruptcy.

"Morality is one thing. Ratings are everything." - A Network 23 executive on "Max Headroom"

Working...