Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves 126
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?"
Yes... (Score:0)
Re:Yes... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's another site that can help. They have templates for emails/letters and guidelines on how to approach the situation when you find your stuff in use elsewhere. ahref=http://picturedefense.blogspot.com/rel=url2html-27041 [slashdot.org]http://picturedefense.blogspot...>
Re:Yes... (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry. I suck at Slashdot's markup.
Text version of the link (or autoformatted, whichever) http://picturedefense.blogspot... [blogspot.com]
Re:Yes... (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot markup for links is pretty simple. <a href="link goes here">Text goes here</a>
Fun Fact: Tim Berners-Lee used Slashdot markup as his inspiration for the HTML 1.0 standard back in 1993.
Re:Yes... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yes... (Score:2)
I picked the 1993 date from his RFC http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft... [w3.org]
Which is also the date that wikipedia article states as the date it was formally defined as a draft standard.
Re:Yes... (Score:2)
Re:Yes... (Score:2)
The notes at the bottom said to use [URL: blah blah blah] to auto link a URL (angle brackets instead of square brackets). That's what I tried. I know standard HTML.....I just didn't try it.
Webster's (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Webster's (Score:1)
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 wrong.
Then some honest photographer or artist gets to live with the stigma, and reduced business, from being labeled a thief. That kind of branding never goes completely away no matter what kind of redaction is published on the shaming site.
I think public shaming is a great way to deal with people that actually steal stuff. But the point of doing the whole C&D letter followed by a lawsuit is to give everybody a chance to have their say before the punishments start.
Re:Webster's (Score:2)
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.
Re:Webster's (Score:2)
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 canned, expected response of blaming the nameless, faceless, "already gone so there is no point in pursuing it" ex-employee only serves to seal the deal. I think that much of the time, vigilantes like this are doing a public service. However I also think the negatives of being wrong outweigh any possible benefit of their actions because safer, lawful, working measures are already in place to deal with this kind of situation.
The vigilante debate is quite old. You asked how its a problem, the answer is well known.
Re:Webster's (Score:2)
So, how is it bad? Just like any other form of vigilantism, it's not, until they get it wrong. Then some honest photographer or artist gets to live with the stigma, and reduced business, from being labeled a thief.
If they're innocent, then they can prove they bought copyright, or were tricked. Problem solved.
Right. And I'm sure every accused criminal that was later exonerated suffered no ill-effects. They've never failed to get a job due somebody seeing the original, but not the fix.
You'll have to bring something new to the 1000 year old "Is vigilantism a good thing" debate if you want to continue.
Re: Webster's (Score:2)
When you are trying to make a buck off of other people's work, and book clients on work you are misrepresenting, there is a serious problem.
I don't need copyright, fraud, or theft explained to me, thanks. Nor does any explanation of why "action x, y, & z is bad" justify vigilantism.
Now I'm curious why a demonstrated ignorance of history with the likes of "Why is vigilantism bad?" is considered "insightful", but a clear historical precedence based answer is "overrated"? Probably too many moderators so its too easy for topics to be hijacked by "+1 agree" mods. Don't know. Would be interesting research.
This has what to do with slashdot? (Score:0, Offtopic)
Title pretty much says it all. Only thing technology related is the fact that it's a web page. But then again, what is on the Internet that isn't a web page? (And for you pedants, I know about ftp, ntp, nntp, etc., so don't bother pointing out the slew of TLA and ETLAs out there.)
Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only thing technology related is the fact that it's a web page.
And involves cameras.
And IP theft.
All of which are regular topics on Slashdot.
Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to come here and comment... are they? Blink twice if yes.
Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (Score:2)
!BANG! (Score:2)
*THUMP-SPLAT*
There are consequences for disobeying me.
Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (Score:2)
*blink* ... *blink*
Message received.
A fleet of predator drones have been deployed to carpet-bomb your coordinates.
We appreciate your cooperation in volunteering to become collateral damage in America's Global War on Terror ©
Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (Score:3)
*blink* ... *blink*
"Double 'no', got it!
</ZappBrannigan>
Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (Score:2)
>And IP theft.
I think you mean copyright infringement.
Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (Score:2)
>And IP theft.
I think you mean copyright infringement.
I sure don't.
A photo that a photographer has copyrighted is intellectual property; to claim that other person's work as your own is fraud, which is defined as "theft by deception." thus, IP theft.
Pure copyright infringement ('pure' as in, "without intent to defraud") is what happens when you download a movie or such without permission, and is a completely different legal grey area beyond the base argument.
Thanks! (Score:5, Funny)
Now I have a single resource to go to for all my 'good enough to steal' photograph needs!
News for nerds (Score:0, Offtopic)
R.I.P., old Slashdot
Re:News for nerds (Score:1)
Re:News for nerds (Score:1)
I think the quality of articles on soylent news is much better, but there arent enuf comments there to take up my workday reading them. As soon as there are more than 50 comments on the average story I would imagine that will be when /. Becomes a site I go to once a month instead of once every 10 min.
How can you "steal" a pic off the 'net? (Score:0)
I've collected them since 1986 (via BBS back then). This is baloney.
Re:How can you "steal" a pic off the 'net? (Score:1)
I think this image [itespresso.es] reflects the whole thread.
Re:How can you "steal" a pic off the 'net? (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you feel differently if someone used your source code as a reference for a contract gig?
Re:How can you "steal" a pic off the 'net? (Score:2)
It's using someone else's copyrighted property to sell one's own services./quote?
Few people are saying its 'proper' to that, without permission, but its still not stealing.. call it what it is. And you people need to stop spreading false information about copyright, Its not because its copyrighted that you cant make copies, its due to the lack of permission of the copyright owners.. Many people let you do just that.. but they still 'own' it..
Using wrong terms and spreading lies only make you look stupid.
Re:How can you "steal" a pic off the 'net? (Score:3)
Call it stealing, call it fraud, call it whatever the hell you like (unless it is in a court of law, then you kind of have to get the term right), passing off someone else's work as your own is wrong and generally some form of crime (civil or criminal).
Thieves? (Score:0, Troll)
Show me what was stolen.. Come on.. Just try it. You cant. Nothing was stolen. And the sooner you pin headed pricks figure this out, the better for everyone.
Re:Thieves? (Score:4, Informative)
The authorship was stolen.
FTFY (Score:3)
The authorship was misattribited
Re:FTFY (Score:2)
misattributed
Somebody apparently stole my ability to spell, or at least to spell-check before hitting submit.
Re:FTFY (Score:3)
you mean malattributed. it wasn't an mis-take, it was mal-icious..
Re:Thieves? (Score:0)
Show me what was stolen.. Come on.. Just try it. You cant. Nothing was stolen. And the sooner you pin headed pricks figure this out, the better for everyone.
Hey, I just invented a Unix-like system that I call Lenux. I made it and all the code in it all by myself. I also created BeeSD and Windaze operating systems and I created all of the Ralling Stanes music. You can hire me to create things for you.
Are you starting to see exactly what was stolen here?
Re:Thieves? (Score:0)
Re:Thieves? (Score:2)
There is no way you are possibly that dense. Must be troll. Must be troll. Please be a troll.
Re:Thieves? (Score:1)
Re:Thieves? (Score:2)
Hahahahaha.
Photographers (Score:0)
The better the camera, the better the photographer.
Anyone can be a photographer! :)
Re:Photographers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Photographers (Score:3)
Does he have an Ivy League degree too? Let's make him Pres... oh... crap.
Re:Photographers (Score:1)
I see you have a fancy stove. You must be an excellent chef.
I see you have a fancy mouth...
Re:Photographers (Score:2)
Anyone can be a photographer!
A better camera will make a better photographer. Notice that "better" is a relative term. An abysmal photographer with a better camera may be a horrible photographer and still not a good photographer.
Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Hire the "big fat phony" guy from Family Guy.
Re:Simple (Score:1)
need a profit driver. (Score:3)
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).
Re:need a profit driver. (Score:2)
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?
One of the oldest semantic games played on /. (Score:1)
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.
Re:One of the oldest semantic games played on /. (Score:3)
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. OTOH, if you call it stealing, then you'll get mired in a gigantic semantic dogpile as hundreds of people re-litigate what constitutes "stealing."
We don't even need to raise the "Is it stealing?" question in this case. It's clearly fraud. So call it "fraud." Geez...
Re:One of the oldest semantic games played on /. (Score:2)
I've referred to it as "reputation fraud," but yes, we appear to be in general agreement.
Help Consumers? (Score:3)
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!
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
Did you spell the embarrassed word three times differently for a purpose or did you only spell it two times differently? ... 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 ...
Unfortunately my spelling correction does not trigger on your post
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
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 *.
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
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? The only alternative I see is to have them prove their merit. But no photographer with any self worth should ever do "practice" shots to prove they can take good pictures. That would be like going to a mechanic and saying "Hey, change my tire.. and then I'll decide if you changed it well enough to get paid."
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
I don't read anonymous posts. I simply can't have a conversation with someone when I can't tell if it's the same someone. If you don't feel that your argument is worth your name, then I don't feel that it's worth reading.
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
... says Mr holophrastic.
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
umm...yes? Says I?
I don't understand you reply.
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
I don't read anonymous replies. Put your name to your argument or neither the argument nor the name has any value.
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
My appologies, I don't read anonymous replies. Without knowing if it's the same anonymous or a different anonymous, I simply cannot carry on a conversation with some unknown quantity of persons.
Re:Help Consumers? (Score:2)
I don't read anonymous replies.
So, copying is stealing after all? (Score:2)
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?
Re:So, copying is stealing after all? (Score:3)
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 credit for those images.
Re:So, copying is stealing after all? (Score:1)
Re:So, copying is stealing after all? (Score:2)
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 for the sordid title...
Now, I had always held the opinion, that if the 10 Commandments were the same sort of "living and breathing document" that certain folks would like our Constitution to be, the Scripture would've by now included an injunction against such file copying together with the more general "Though Shall Not Steal". Unfortunately, mine was not the prevailing opinion — not around here. Not since the Napster infamy — until now, when, suddenly, the majority is realizing, the victims of such thefts can be perfectly relatable humans.
Re:So, copying is stealing after all? (Score:1)
Gaaahhh .... (Score:2)
Care? (Score:2)
Re:lol (Score:2)
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
I love it. Two posts down from this at the mo' shows exactly what you're saying.
Even "freetards" care about people claiming other peoples work as their own. It's not that he stole, it's that he lied.
Re:lol (Score:0, Flamebait)
Regardless of ones feelings about 'ownership and public domain', which is a totally different discussion; non-destructive copying of information is not stealing. It may be considered copyright infringement, or espionage, etc., but i will repeat again for you small brained morons: its NOT stealing.
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
you small brained morons
Do you understand that insulting people makes them less open to what you are saying? By calling people you have never met "small brained morons" you are actually hurting your cause.
Re:lol (Score:2)
There is "insulting people", and there is responding to someone who said "freetards" with a straight face.
I will say though that sparrows have small brains, too, and rock a lot! So it's not about size, the trick is to slip a finger or two in there as well, to make it seem gigantic.
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
non-destructive copying of information is not stealing. It may be considered copyright infringement, or espionage, etc., but i will repeat again for you small brained morons: its NOT stealing.
ProTip - don't call the other side names right out of the gate. Not only does it cause them to instinctually self-insulate against your position, it actually weakens it, as a person with a strong argument doesn't need to engage in ad hominem attacks to make their point. But, I digress.
That's a real grey area when dealing with digital "stuff." Philosophy time:
If Person B make a copy of Person A's house key (a type of "information," when you think about it), Person B isn't actually stealing anything; that part comes later...
Of course, you then have to ask yourself the question, "How did Person B come to be in possession of Person A's keys?" Presuming that Person A did not hand the keys over willingly, it can be assumed that Person B stole them in order to make a copy.
Now to the digital part: Person A makes his living from taking pictures and posting them online; Person B copies pictures from Person A's website, puts his own name on them, and proceeds to try and profit from Person A's work - has the crime of theft occurred? While the act of copying the file from one server to another may not necessarily construe theft (although there is a strong chance it's a violation of the CFAA [wikipedia.org]), it would be difficult to argue, especially in a court of law, that Person B did not make the copy with criminal intent in mind; namely, the theft of livelihood from Person A.
Therefore, while the act of copying in itself may not be tantamount to theft, the processes that lead to the copying, as well as the processes that occur afterwards, can often and easily be defined as "stealing."
Re:lol (Score:1)
Your bad analogy led to your incorrect conclusion (though I wouldn't be surprised if you had already made up your mind in that regard).
Of course, you then have to ask yourself the question, "How did Person B come to be in possession of Person A's keys?" Presuming that Person A did not hand the keys over willingly, it can be assumed that Person B stole them in order to make a copy.
Ok, I'll go along with you that far...
Now to the digital part: Person A makes his living from taking pictures and posting them online; ...
The rest of that doesn't matter, because that just broke the analogy. They posted them online, which made them readily available for legitimate copying. When you view an image online, you're not actually getting an image beamed directly to your monitor... you are downloading the image file and saving a copy on your hard drive (normally in your browser cache), then running it through libs to turn it into something you can see on your screen. IE. you and everyone else that looks at those images is making a copy of it.
So... your original analogy would have to have Person B placing a bucket filled with copies of their key on their side walk with signs around the neighborhood saying "please come examine my keys at 123 Happy Photographer St" etc.
At that point, well, I think we'd both say that Person B didn't steal the key. What he does with it afterwards is another matter (further theft, breaking an entering, mugging, kidnapping, whatever). In the digital world, that's just a copyright violation (since we're just talking about a photo, and not using someone else's username+password for nefarious purposes).
Re:lol (Score:2)
Your bad analogy led to your incorrect conclusion (though I wouldn't be surprised if you had already made up your mind in that regard).
Your personal feelings about the matter do not affect the accuracy of my analogy, nor does your little act of parenthetical transference. Fraud is defined as "stealing by deception," and if you're taking someone else's work, claiming it as your own, and attempting to profit from it, you're committing fraud.
Feel free to challenge this by copying something the government owns, claiming it as your own, and selling it. Were I a betting man, I'd put my money down on the judge disagreeing with your premise that you did not, in fact, steal anything.
Re:lol (Score:2)
Facepalm: They posted them online, which made them readily available for legitimate copying.
In the sense that your computer needs a copy to display it, but in the sense the story is about.
Re:lol (Score:3)
I hope you're not a lawyer because you're bad at analogies and just confused theft with fraud.
Re:lol (Score:2)
I hope you're not a lawyer because you're bad at analogies and just confused theft with fraud.
I'm not, although I question how being "bad at analogies" would disqualify me from legal practice; after all, aren't most Congresscritters lawyers by trade?
I share that hope with you, sir or madam, as you are apparently as bad at making an argument as you believe I am at making analogies.
Re:lol (Score:2)
They do this because they want people in general to relate to them. If people do not relate to them, they will not stand beside them.
The vast majority of people are completely immune to copyright infringement. They don't make a living selling people permission to copy. Therefore, when they hear "We must do something about copyright infringement!", their reaction is "Meh, doesn't affect me."
Just about everybody is vulnerable to theft. Most people have a shirt on their back and would be cold if someone took it. Therefore, when they hear "We must do something about theft!", their reaction is "Yeah, I don't want anyone stealing my shirt! I'm with you!"
This is their motive for trying to confuse people about the issue.
Re:lol (Score:3)
Kind of counter productive, in this case... Hollywood has made a huge noise about this sort of issue for such a long time that most people have had the topic forced into their consciousness and are aware that copyright infringement IS NOT theft.
So, their natural reaction is going to be "I know you are fucking with my head and you're making me angry."
But no one likes having someone take credit for their work. That's an issue that touches even the guy flipping burgers. If they framed the issue accurately, they'd get more sympathy for their position.
Re:lol (Score:2)
most people have had the topic forced into their consciousness and are aware that copyright infringement IS NOT theft.
Most people I know (that aren't technical) don't even understand what copyright infringement is, and often describe it as someone 'stealing' someone's stuff. A lot of people think it's not theft, but there are also many who do.
Re:lol (Score:1)
ProTip: mine's in yur mom, CanHasDick! Wait, this isn't Battlefield chat, sorry.
Re:lol (Score:2)
ProTip: mine's in yur mom, CanHasDick! Wait, this isn't Battlefield chat, sorry.
Meh, beats what I hear on the rare occasion I make the mistake of playing Call of Dirty online.
Re:lol (Score:2)
it would be difficult to argue, especially in a court of law
It's not that it's difficult to argue; it's that some people don't care about logic. Courts just care about laws.
namely, the theft of livelihood from Person A.
What theft? Money they never had and was never theirs cannot be stolen. Potential profit is not the same as owning the money yourself.
Re:lol (Score:2)
Not the way RIAA and MPAA see it
Re:lol (Score:2)
namely, the theft of livelihood from Person A.
What theft? Money they never had and was never theirs cannot be stolen. Potential profit is not the same as owning the money yourself.
If you're taking money and credit for work someone else did, that they expect to be paid for, you're committing fraud, which is defined as "theft by deception."
Civil courts award money for loss of livelihood all the time. Ever read the briefs from a wrongful termination suit where the plaintiff won?
Re:lol (Score:2)
Civil courts award money for loss of livelihood all the time.
I don't care what courts do, or what judges say. I reject copyright entirely, as well as the idea that making money off of some data that someone else assembled is anything like theft in the sense that most people understand it. Maybe, legally, it is described using those terms sometimes, but I disagree with that.
Re:lol (Score:2)
Civil courts award money for loss of livelihood all the time.
I don't care what courts do, or what judges say. I reject copyright entirely, as well as the idea that making money off of some data that someone else assembled is anything like theft in the sense that most people understand it. Maybe, legally, it is described using those terms sometimes, but I disagree with that.
You are more than welcome to hold that opinion, but keep in mind that if you act on it, and get caught, a court is not likely to agree with your premise, and very much can punish you by depriving you of fiscal security and/or your freedom.
The fact that they can do both of those things is why I very much do care what courts do and judges say.
Re:lol (Score:2)
I care in the sense that I believe these policies are making society worse, but not in the sense that their arguments will convince me to change my position.
Re:lol (Score:2)
Sounds like you'd rather argue about word definitions than talk about whether or not it's wrong to use someone else's photography without permission, and lie about it being your own.
If I didn't know better, I might think you were trying to change the subject or something.
Re:lol (Score:2)
No. its 2 different discussions.
We can have the second, but it will also fall on stupid/deaf ears around here.
Re:lol (Score:2)
Yes, it is stealing in the sense that "stealing" is synonymous with "theft" and the act of copying such things without permission has been defined as theft in many legal jurisdictions.
Just because you don't want it to be so don't make it be so.
Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)
There's a difference between copying a photo and claiming to be the original photographer.
Re:lol (Score:3)
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference between copying a photo and claiming to be the original photographer.
By copying the photo you are getting the benefit of using the photo on your site.
However, by claiming to BE the photographer, you are defrauding EVERY client who ever books with you from that time on, since they expect you to have the skill to shoot that original photo.
Re:lol (Score:1)
"Freetards"! Thank you, now I know what to call them!
Wish I could mod you up, but I don't have the points so maybe I can siphon up some of the negative bangs.