Just kind of ironic how the general feeling up to now has been letter and intent of the LAW protects "us", but how many "loopholes/rationalizations" allow unauthorized use of others property.

Those most concerned with receiving protection should be the first to apply the law to anothers benefit.

Otherwise it is just (how you say on this site?) whine.

TexasZ, so if the ends justify the means?

That's a really open and potentially nasty statement. I'm sure that's why you made it and I see where you are coming from.

My point is how far are we going to take it? If we agree to follow the letter of the law then no information nor image may be posted to this site at lease without proper credit and in many cases reproduction would likely not be allowed (in the case of posting a scanned image from a publication like the FSM). I think that we are all intelligent enough here to see where the intent is and if it should be considered ok or not. I for one appreciate it when a question has been asked and someone can post a pic or image of some sort (regardless of it's origin) along with an explanation when assistance is provided as this often really helps with understanding the explanation...a pic says a 1000 words.

I hope that this helps clarify what I was thinking when I typed that.

If we agree to follow the letter of the law then no information nor image may be posted to this site at lease without proper credit and in many cases reproduction would likely not be allowed (in the case of posting a scanned image from a publication like the FSM).

The law does not require yours/mine consent. The law just is. You/I are either legal or criminal.

If we "know" ahead of time that someone would not give permission then we have made a consious decission to BREAK THE LAW. Very simple, no other explaination needed.

Not picking on you, you just happen to be the only person giving the majority (I believe) view.

What about some type of "Photo Encryption"? Do they even make software that does this?

Vicky

Can't we all just get along?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Rules are rule and laws are laws, but in the end this is a meeting place for people how love there Zeds, and even though having a whine is part of life it shouldn't be the focus of the club.

Just treat other people and their property as you would wish them to treat you.

Steven

Funny but when I put my mouse over any image a little tool-bar pops up that allows you to save, print, or email it.

In Internet Explorer and Firefox (at least) this has been disabled in the Galleries. That was the anti-leeching scheme, and it works for those who can't PrtScr and crop!

The text watermark is a great thing (thanks Mike!). Does Photopost automatically include a digital watermark also? Generally, disabling the right-mouse-button is like locking your car. It will stop your family getting in without a key, but it won't stop a crook.

Personally, I do not like the disabled right-click for this reason. Mike, what's your view on this? Do you think it's an effective tool for stopping image theft??

I was trying to leave this thread alone, but.... I have another question.

When you subscribe to cable or Dish Network, or DirecTV, it is legal to tape (record, or TiVO) the programming that you receive, so long as it is used for personal, private, non-commercial usage.

Isn't the same true for images a person downloads from this site to their own hard drive? I mean how would a person be harming the owner of the image by doing so "for personal, private, non-commercial usage"?

Isn't this sort of usage OK?

...as far as making this site so the photos cant be downloaded, it hasnt even been attempted.

Hi Camo! Sorry you don't see how we've made the attempt. Because, I have done what I can to protect your stuff.

Ok lets say I downloaded an image of someone's car off this site. Then I went into photoshop and played with it and changed the way the image looked the color of the car or the background etc.. Would you then still say there is a copyright on the image?

I guess in a way it is but I am wondering what others think about this? :stupid:

I've made another change to the gallery. When someone right-clicks on the image it pops up a window with a copyright notice.

It doesn't totally prevent hackers saving your stuff. But, it makes it a lot more difficult.

Other than hoarding all of the images to your own personal computer, I don't think there is a way to totally PREVENT anyone from accessing your pictures.

This is a war that really can't be won. It's something that has existed on the Internet for years. Just look at the Napster fiasco.

Anyway, this kind of thing will help keep the honest people more honest. That's all we can do for now.

-- Mike

Ok lets say I downloaded an image of someone's car off this site. Then I went into photoshop and played with it and changed the way the image looked the color of the car or the background etc.. Would you then still say there is a copyright on the image?

Now THIS is where it starts to get really grey. Firstly, it is an infringement of copyright to modify an image without permission from the original author to do so. Now, once you've modified it, who's is it? If you've just removed the background, it's probably still theirs. If you modify it so much that it's barely recognisable, it could be yours. See how vague it is? How are we to determine just how much we're allowed to 'borrow'?? According to Michael Fulks at http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag1-6mf.shtml :

The common technique for determining the acceptability of this is called "the man on the street test." If you place the new work next to the old one, would the average, reasonable person without art background say the two pictures are mostly the same? If so, the newer work may be an infringement.

In all cases, it is perfectly legal to make an offline copy of these pictures for solely your own reference. If my understanding of this is correct then Carl, I guess videotaping your favourite show for your own little collection is OK. Is it OK for your friends to watch it with you though?? Hmm... I dont know.

The above is just what I've established based on various sources... it may or not be true, but since it's regarding law, it's probably neither!!