Why I don't post my images online

[junqbox]

Further to the story earlier this about the surf image appearing on a T-Shirt at Lowes (why do I always shout that in my head ;-) ), comes this follow up story on the SMH site today-

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...118-2cx6x.html

[darkbhudda]

Isn't it ironic that a news website is writing an article about stealing photos.

I see club posters with images I've seen on Model Mayhem all the time. I doubt any of them have paid for the photo. Pretty standard practice in promotional design.

Photographers complain about graphic artists who complain about designers who complain about clothing manufacturers who complain about other stores stealing their design. Then the photographer goes and creates a slideshow with music he took of the internet without paying a licensing fee.

Sheila Smart found a UK police department steal [sic] her image for a brochure on bicycle theft.

At least she won a case against them so not all bad news for her.

[Steve Axford]

You can always choose to hide your talent under a bushel, and then nobody will steal your images, but also nobody will see them. I think we can focus on the exceptions (the stealing) rather than the norm at times.

[Xenedis]

You can always choose to hide your talent under a bushel, and then nobody will steal your images, but also nobody will see them. I think we can focus on the exceptions (the stealing) rather than the norm at times.

Agreed.

One has to find a healhty and comfortable balance between the visibility and associated risk of copyright infringement associated with publishing one's intellectual property online.

The world would be a lesser place if photographers, musicians, writers, artists and other creative types didn't publish their work.

[norwest]

I read the reader's comments and well, I read the reader's comments. Clueless. Agree with Steve's and Xen's view.

[junqbox]

The world would be a lesser place if photographers, musicians, writers, artists and other creative types didn't publish their work.

Very true, but publishing covers many mediums. Prints are easier to control, and even if they're copied, subsequent images will never be of the same published quality as the original. I have no problem against anyone else publishing their material how they choose, it's my choice not to use the online medium.
Plenty of people get to see my images, so I don't believe I'm 'hiding under a bushel', and I don't believe the article accurately represents how wide spread this practice is (much wider) as regularly demonstrated on this site with people posting threads along the lines of 'I found my image is being used in/at blah, blah, blah, What should I do about it?

[ricktas]

Actually I reckon we have maybe a dozen or so posts like that since AP started, and there are over 600,000 posts in the site database and the site started in July 2006. It happens, yes, but the overall percentage of occurrences is very low, and as far as I am aware only one of them was claimed to be linked to being stolen from Ausphotography directly, though this was never proven.

One of the people in that Article conducts their own post processing workshops. They supply the students with a disc of images to work with at their workshops, and the students are encouraged to continue to use the photos at home to practice what they have learnt. None of these photos are watermarked, and there is no mention on the material that the image is not be given to others, etc. I know this because two people that are acquaintances have done these workshops. I called them last night, and they went through the pack they have. Not once in any of it does it state that the photos are copyright and that their edits cannot be posted online etc. In fact, the photographer encourages them to use them to practice their editing as much as they wish. I do not know if it was one of these photos from the workshop disc, that was used inappropriately, but the photographer might want to rethink the wording in their training pack.

I think the article certainly highlights an issue, but not once does it explain how the photo came to be in the hands of the infringing party. We are only getting a partial story here (as we do with most 'news' media).

There are ways to ensure your photos are not used like this:

1. watermark them judiciously
2. Digitally watermark them (digimark or similar). Digimark tracks when a photo is uploaded to the net with your code attached and reports it back to you.
3. Make your albums private in your online gallery, and password protect them if you wish.
4. Read the terms and conditions of any site you upload to.

I have publicly viewable albums, private albums and password protected albums on photobucket. Their tracking software shows that none of the photos in my private albums or password protected albums are being viewed or linked to by anyone, other than those I want to give access to.

Yes, it is your choice to not post photos online, and we can only respect your choice, however there are a lot of options that allow you to post images online safely and minimise the chance of them being 'borrowed'. I have over 6000 photos online in my photobucket account and I regularly run tineye over them, and not once have I found a photo being used by someone else. Maybe that means I have my account setup exactly how I want it and am protecting my photos well, or that my photos are not good enough for some would be copyright infringer

Note that I have the firefox tineye add-on installed, all I have to do is right click a photo on the net and select 'search image on tineye' from the pop-up right click menu and get an answer in a few seconds.

As an aside, only active members of AP can access the critique forums on the site. Try it, log out and then click on FORUMS, you have no access to the CC forums. Inactive members, and members who join up but have not posted to the site, also cannot access the CC forums. We can also access a list of who has viewed a particular thread on the site, so if a photo from a thread is found to have been taken, we can see exactly who has looked at the thread, which narrows our investigation down to only those members.

I respect that you are wary of posting your photos online, but there are a lot of ways to ensure your photos are protected when doing so. It is simply about choice, and how and where you choose to post them, ensuring you do so with controls in place. The facilities to protect your digital assets exist, but a lot choose not to use those facilities, and then wonder why the image was used in breach of copyright. So many, just upload their stuff to the net and do not consider any protective protocols at all.

[Warbler]

Which Digimark package do you have Ricktas and what does it cost? I've visited their site, but they're coy about cost. None published.

Cheers,
Tim

[ricktas]

Which Digimark package do you have Ricktas and what does it cost? I've visited their site, but they're coy about cost. None published.

Cheers,
Tim

I don't have one, my list was just detailing what can be done.

[CapnBloodbeard]

What was the article? The link just comes up with a contents page.

There is the risk of images being stolen, but I think the benefits of putting images online more than outweighs the potential risk ## it isn't even comparable.

Personally, it would be like not taking up photography in case my camera gets stolen...

But people should be aware of the settings, T&C of sites and competitions they post to ## there are a lot of places that take license or even copyright over your images without people realising.