Poll: Should we prevent gallery downloads?

[Mike]

Thanks for the opinions guys. I appreciate it. However, don't lose focus of the original question. Should we go back to the old way (allowing right-click-download) or keep the new system that prevents any kind of download ?

We will ALWAYS have copyright notices on the site and watermarking on the images.

[EScanlon]

This might be a bit convoluted, but might effect the "choice" option.

In the code for the site, are ALL member's galleries made "downloadable" and / or public (meaning non-registered user viewing) or can it be done selectively? By this I mean to ask if as a group you either make them downloadable or public, or does the program permit individual gallery options.

One possible way, is if the program allows the download select to allow those members who don't mind if their pictures get downloaded to "open" their galleries, and others can "close" theirs (as far as downloading). The last option would allow the individual to make his images "public" and therefore downloadable by anyone, or only viewable by registered members and presumably only available for download by members. Whom we would hope would adhere to the "club's" consensus as to whether to ask permission or not.

Personally, I don't mind my pictures being used, and those that I've posted that belong to others, I've tried to give credit to.

2¢

Enrique

P.S.: I didn't vote in the poll.

[Zedrally]

Why not have 2 galleries?

One for no downloads, the other for what ever happens!

MOM

[Bambikiller240]

Please consider voting. Your opinion (vote) counts as much as anyone else's and it's important (IMHO) that everyone who has an opinion voices that opinion in the poll.

It's like the election, if you don't vote you miss an important opportunity to make a difference.

[Alfadog]

I have no problem w/ people copying my images onto their hard drives ... People's images should not, however, be used elsewhere on the net or for commercial purposes without the owner's permission.

Of course! Unfortunately that does not work in practice.

The question really is "should right-click be disabled" - is that right Mike?

Personally, I still haven't decided :cross-eye ... There are pros and cons for each, some of which you guys might not have thought about so perhaps it might be a good idea to think it through first:

Pros for disabling right-mouse button

- Image theft is made more difficult.

- Your car pictures wont get spread around the Internet (as much) without due credit. A lot of the time pictures are spread around like this simply because people don't know any better. With this implemented, they will.

- You can still save the image, just wait for the toolbar to pop up on the top-left! OR PM the user (can we link the photopost system with the forums Mike?).

Cons for disabling right-mouse button

- You can still save the image!! Most people who can create websites can get around the disabled right-click. So we're not actually stopping those who steal the images and post it on their website with ill-intent, only those who do it without knowing it's not wanted (the majority of cases anyway I think).

- New (innocent) users who don't know about the loophole might not figure it out.

- Less convenient for us.

That's what I can think of. Please, if anyone has anything to add (or subtract!) to that please say so. This is a discussion, not an argument. I hope it stays that way! :cheeky: (still haven't decided)

[RB30-ZED]

I dont think we need to protect the gallery.

It also stops you cutting and pasting text and web address to photo replys.

[280z]

if someone REALLY wanted to steal the images for resale or whatever dumb reason, that right click blocker wouldnt do anything. you would have to place your own person logo like in the attached picture. now i can be certain that none of you sneaky little punks who have been snooping around in my gallery could claim my photographs as your own.

im just happy that we finally have a new poll!

[26th-Z]

I am very happy to see this poll. Thanks, Mike.

I wish to point out that copyright laws DO exist already and that anyone is entitled to pursue litigation under the protection of copyright laws. In all the circumstances that I have read in previous posts about this topic, only one complaint seems to be legitimate. Evidently, someone copied someone's photo and is selling it on eBay. That is a copyright violation. Everything else is not. One of the most vocal complainers about this topic scans and posts copyrighted material all the time. The information is posted without any intent to sell; it is for informational purposes only. That is no different from anyone else posting the same information elsewhere. It is a right we enjoy called "freedom of the press". It is a shame people take offense from their copied pictures, but in the United States of America, we are free to do that.

One of the things that makes this site above and beyond all the other sites dealing with our subject is the photography. I truly believe that locking up the galleries will diminish this site and cause it's demise.

[HS30-H]

One of the most vocal complainers about this topic scans and posts copyrighted material all the time.

It is a shame people take offense from their copied pictures, but in the United States of America, we are free to do that.

You don't seem to be making any differentiation between photos posted in the Gallery, and photos posted as an aid or topic of discussion in a thread. I think in the second instance, the "Fair Use" part of copyright law is applicable. I don't think I have any copyrighted material in my Gallery ( even the Nissan event flyers and postcards are copyright-free ) and if I post anything in a thread that is copyrighted then you can rest assured that I do so with the intention of it being covered by what I understand as the terms of "Fair Use" for discussion.

Or maybe you are just making a point about this "most vocal complainer" rather than about the subject itself?

So, *only* the law of the United States of America is applicable to this site? In that case I'm not sure I understand just how national law applies to the Internet. As far as I am aware, this is a matter that is still open to interpretation and will be argued at length by the lawyer of your choice at extremely expensive rates. Probably without any definitive result.

Since you seem to know what you are talking about, perhaps you can advise me on one particular case that I would like to seek opinion on? A member of this site has taken a picture from a UK-'based' website, and has put it in his Gallery at classiczcars.com. Does this case get judged under the USA's "freedom of the press", or the law of the United Kingdom - where it was taken from? The photo in question is now wearing a classiczcars.com watermark.........

I realise that this site was 'built', is administered, and indeed is owned, in the USA - but where does that leave its 'members'? Not all of us reside in the USA. Is this site ( with all the intangible nature of the Internet taken into account) actually in the USA as far as its legal status is concerned? As far as I am aware, this is a matter that is still open to interpretation.

Personally speaking - and I have said this many times before - I have NO problem with members or indeed non-members of this site downloading 'my' photos from the Gallery here and keeping them on their computer. When I post them in the Gallery I implicitly understand that they can do this if they want to. They can even send them to their friends, print them out and hang them on their wall, or use them as toilet paper for all I know. BUT - when they post them somewhere else that I can see on the net, and especially when they take off the classiczcar.com watermark and try to pass them off as their own ( or even try to evade the responsibility by saying "I don't know where this came from, but..." ) then I WILL make an effort to point out that what they are doing with my photo upsets me.

What's wrong with that? Oh, I forgot - that's just "whining" isn't it?

Alan T.

[hls30.com]

I agree that not having them ""right clickable" would slow most people down, and I like MikeWs idea, but unfortunately, each poster already has that power in making the choice to upload or not. People have tried locks before (ebooks, etc...) and found that they did not work. At this point in technology, no image is safe-if there was a way to ironclad a copyright for something in general circulation, there would be no counterfitting.

Any picture you put on the web can be taken. If it is accessable, it can be captured and posted anywhere else.

While I am not saying look at porn, if you check out the industry, the only way they have slowed down the unpaid spread of their images is through the use of paid hidden doorways, and passwords. Even so, an article I read somewhere said that an image is available only on the license holders site(s) for an average of 4 hours.

Look to the numbers quoted by the music industry. Every attempt at general circulation insures theft and misuse.

I am not going to stop posting pictures for fear some numbnut will steal my images and use them for some plot to rule the world. I post them with the expectation that I iwill find them somewhere else! I post the pictures for the members here, to share what I have done and to get feedback. If you want to keep control over the use of your pictures, limitting access to them is the only sure way I can see.

Will

Any attempt is better than no attempt.

[Murph]

The most important points I've picked up from all of this so far (and what I believe):

•If they want the picture....they will get it. The current system is very easy to get around. Seem rather pointless to me as 90% of people will get around it.

•If you're putting your images up on a public site, expect people will download them. This just seems stupidly obvious to me. I just don't see how any body could actually expect to put images on the web, yet not have people download them? You can use the flashiest software to try and stop them downloading the image, but if they have it on their screen.....then they as good as have your file.

[26th-Z]

No whining at all, Alan.

I think you just made some very good points and explained your position very well. And I don't particularly disagree with you. In fact, pointing out your "technique" of posting known copyrighted material with your intent is very well put. Your association of photograph to topic is an excellent way to express intent. In that respect, a gallery posting would be much less appropriate.

Your other comments about litigation are well expressed also. I can tell you from experience that when a situation gets to lawers and courtrooms, the only thing we know for sure is that a lot of money will be spent. Or made!

Respect for the watermark is key. I see the use of a watermark much more frequently and I agree that it is inappropriate to crop it off.

I'll bet the original intent of this site's gallery, or most others, is to file and display images that might otherwise require special software that individual users may not have on thier computers. Our gallery also contains the structure to hold "collections" from contributers - say - the collection of photos from the national convention. In that respect, I would think that everyone's individual gallery is simply their personal collection. I think of it that way.

What might be appropriate to say is that when one posts an image, they are sharing. Sharing is a basic act of friendship. Sharing also requires that once something is shared, contributed, given away, it is no longer subject to conditions. It has been "given away". One is to be commended for sharing. We celebrate sharing on this site and those who put in a lot of effort to share.

Thanks for sharing, Alan.

Chris