×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ImageLogr Scrapes "Billions" of Images Illegally

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the if-you're-gonna-go,-go-big dept.

Privacy 271

PurpleCarrot writes "In what must be one of the largest attempts to scrape images from the Web, the site ImageLogr.com 'claims to be scraping the entire "free web" and seems to have hit Flickr especially hard, copying full-sized images of yours and mine to their own servers, where they are hosting them without any attribution or links back to the original image in violation of all available licenses on Flickr.' The site even contains the option to directly download images that ImageLogr has scraped. What makes this endeavor so amazing is that it isn't a case of 'other people gave us millions of infringing images, help us remove the wrong ones,' but one of 'we took all the images on the Web; if we got one of yours, oops!' The former gets some protection from the DMCA, whereas the latter is blatant infringement. ImageLogr's actions have caused a flurry of activity, and the site's owners have subsequently taken it offline, displaying the following message: 'Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

271 comments

Yeah. That's it. (1, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32297950)

"Improving the site"? You guys can fuck all the way off.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298098)

It seems kind of stupid that you would make your content freely available and then bitch about some site hosting it for you.

OH MY GAWD PEOPLE GIVING ME FREE HOSTING!!!

Idiots.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298150)

The problem isn't that they are hosting it, the problem is that they aren't providing origin links. That's where the primary issue is.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298330)

And now my Facebook profile picture ends up on an Anti-Herpes-Drug ad.

With my luck, every female I know will see it.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (3, Funny)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298534)

And now my Facebook profile picture ends up on an Anti-Herpes-Drug ad.

With my luck, every female I know will see it.

Hey, you're a Slashdotter. Showing up in an anti-herpes drug ad would probably only improve your prospects.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (4, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298752)

Keep up that attitude, and we'll put it on a Pro-Herpes-Drug ad.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298820)

Keep up that attitude, and we'll put it on a Pro-Herpes-Drug ad.

"Herpes. It's what's for dinner."

Yes, I know, way, way too far.
-Taylor

Re:Yeah. That's it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298914)

Not far enough...

Re:Yeah. That's it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298370)

How the fuck do you propose they do that? Should they write over the image with a white font, "THIS IMAGE CAME FROM JOEBLOW.COM"?

Re:Yeah. That's it. (4, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298502)

How the fuck do you propose they do that? Should they write over the image with a white font, "THIS IMAGE CAME FROM JOEBLOW.COM"?

How about doing it the same way Google does it, with attribution and a link to the original source? Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

Re:Yeah. That's it. (3, Interesting)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298598)

It's useful to have an archive. After five or ten years people won't care about these images any more, and won't have a problem with someone archiving them. Unfortunately, the next five or ten years are the period when these images will actually be available. It doesn't really make sense to wait until flickr doesn't exist anymore to mirror its content.

And come on people, try to think outside of the current month. How ridiculous is it going to look in 20 years that content creators protect their images into extinction because of some by-attribution pissing contest of egos? We should be mirroring everything far and wide; protecting our society's creative output from annoying little people who don't cite sources looks preposterous next to protecting our creative output from disappearing off the face of the earth and being unavailable to our children.

Already people are kicking themselves for allowing content to be destroyed. A large number of silent movies (remember, the silent movie era stretched across decades) are completely lost today; not a single copy exists in the entire world. This is a critical part of our culture for film historians.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (5, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298764)

That's not true. My images took work to produce, and they're for my benefit on my site. Your stuff-- you do with it how you will.

If I want my images archived, it's my responsibility and those that I delegate the responsibility to. If someone else has done this, then they've stolen my work, as in ripped me off.

Should I want to use a license that give rights to someone else, I'll do so. Until then, the decision is mine.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (1)

suffe (72090) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298726)

I'm not sure why you say that. Certainly both are problematic but I'd say the copying of the images are the worst of the two. If they just put the original url in an IMG tag and didn't provide a link back, while bad, it wouldn't be as bad. It lets you retain a certain degree of control (even though they are leeching of your bandwidth) and might (I say might) even be perfectly legal.

As someone who hosts content on Flickr, I can say with absolute certainty that I find it a lot more annoying when someone copies one of my photos to their own server and links back to my flickr account then when they just load a photo straight from the flickr servers without a linkback.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298810)

Ole'American little spoiled brat mentality that makes our country the little faggot bully in the kindergarten yard, and the butt joke of any serious nation in the world.
Why are little fag nerds complaining their kitten pictures are being scrapped by some web site?
Where are all the bright armor knights that hate RIAA and their DMCAs and are against intellectual property of any kind?
Is that because when are YOUR images that were download without authorization, and your "copyright" rights that were violated, then it is bad, evil and must be taken offline?
Ole'American "do what I say, but don't do what I do" thing?
You kids are pathetic. If you are really against IP, just don't complain when others violate your IP. It is good to be an anarchist when it is not your town that is being anarchyzed, huh?

Re:Yeah. That's it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298192)

I wondered the same. You are posting for all of the world to see. When you post up a pic for all to see, I guess you feel comfortable knowing that you can take it down later if you change your mind but that logic is flawed. The issue is getting the recognition though. On a random page, it is very hard to say, hey, that's mine and not as obvious as going to www.photobucket.com/someuserwithcoolpics and knowing those were created by the user someuserwithcoolpics. Use EXIF data I guess..

Re:Yeah. That's it. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298332)

Mods, please mod my post offtopic/troll due to website pumping.

Like I said in the post above yours, my primary problem is that they aren't including origin links. In the case of my own site, for example, I get most of my images from either Wikipedia, IMDB, or some other large website that uses industry-provided screenshots/pictures. If it comes from a gaming site that took the screenshot themselves, there is almost always a watermark on the image indicating where I got it from.

In the rare instance that I take a picture from an individual's site, I always link back to it. The most recent example was in my look back at Robot City [livingwithanerd.com]. I not only provided a link to the original article/website I pulled the images from, but I even encouraged my readers to check out the website itself.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298548)

That is still copyright infringement in most cases.

You have no right to redistribute another persons original works without prior authorization by the original creator or someone who has been given that right through licensing from the original creator.

You can link back to their original source, and you may be able to create a reduced quality copy for non-profit educational purposes, but that is about it without going through extra effort.

Re:Yeah. That's it. (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298372)

Context also matters. A picture from my collection means something different in the context of my other pictures and my site in general than it does as a stand-alone picture. Off of my site, I can't control that context.

There's also copyright issues: when you (illegally) copy my pictures and put them on your site without comment or notice, other people are liable to expect that they are free to use howsoever they chose. Imagine having a picture of you, ripped from your site, appear in a political ad for something you despise.

Brainfart (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#32297972)

When they started getting angry people complaining, did the conversation go something like:

"Oh yeahhhhhhh. Tootally forgot about copyrighted stuff. Ooops."

so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32297980)

So, I assume it scraped the 'publically visible' images from Flikr and not the protected/private images?

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298276)

No, those too. Also fusked all the hidden nudes from everyone's Photobucket account. BRB fapping...

~~
Of course it didn't save the protected/private images; if a spider can't find a link to the image, it can't save it, now can it?

Don't cry now (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32297994)

Oh I see, it's ok for everyone to steal music and movies in support of "freedom from record companies" but as soon as someone takes something of YOURS it becomes a problem. Give me a break. If you download music, books, movies, tv shows, etc. for free and violate the owners' copyrights, don't start crying foul now. Go ahead and have a legitimate beef if you actually own all the content you have.

Re:Don't cry now (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298348)

When people download media that violate the owners copyrights, they at least don't cut the actual copyright notices from the media (movie credits, etc).

Google image search? (2, Interesting)

crow (16139) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298004)

Isn't this essentially what Google's image search does? The difference is that if you want the full-sized version, Google sends you to the original web site.

Re:Google image search? (2, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298046)

Not exactly. Underneath the images is the domain name where the image resides, and if you click on the image it still takes you to the page with a frame on top displaying the smaller version of the image.

Heh. Frames.

Re:Google image search? (4, Insightful)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298398)

Frames are the right way to do it, and I applaud Google for using them instead of listening to pseudo-engineer web designers who think they know anything yukking it up about how frames are so five years ago.

Re:Google image search? (3, Interesting)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298074)

That, and Google respects robots.txt (or at least says they do, and I'm sure someone has been watchdogging them on it).

Re:Google image search? (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298590)

I'm sure someone has been watchdogging them on it

I hope so. The rest of us sure haven't. And your comment would be applicable in many other situations....

Re:Google image search? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298894)

Speaking of robots: Does anyone know how theirs presents itself? IP-Ranges, user-agent string?

"Currently offline" (-1, Redundant)

ewg (158266) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298008)

"Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon."

Re:"Currently offline" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298078)

I know we aren't supposed to read TFA, but summary?

and the site's owners have subsequently taken it offline, displaying the following message: 'Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon.'

ah... (2, Insightful)

charliemopps11 (1606697) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298018)

Can we just make a rule that any image you post on the internet doesn't belong to you anymore? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a decade ago anyway.

Re:ah... (-1, Troll)

kalirion (728907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298084)

Can we just make a rule that any item you leave in an unlocked house doesn't belong to you anymore? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a millenia ago anyway.

ftfy

Re:ah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298226)

If you store anything on the internet, what you are storing is a number. People most certainly are allowed to recreate the number 462826674840809873425894986513859764213550 even if I have declared it to be my own and stored it in a house with unlocked doors.

Welcome to reality. Enjoy your stay. If you have any complaints you have one and only one option available to you: change it.

Re:ah... (1)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298314)

Except there's a pretty clear difference between me coming up with the oh-so-neat number "462826674840809873425894986513859764213550" independently, or just copy/pasting it from your post into mine. And I swear I came up with that same number all by myself, too!

Re:ah... (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298632)

Avast! I am the real creator of number 462826674840809873425894986513859764213550 !
Why, just look at my slashdot id....

(nevermind!)

Re:ah... (1)

smurphmeister (1132881) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298522)

If you store anything on the internet, what you are storing is a number. People most certainly are allowed to recreate the number 462826674840809873425894986513859764213550 even if I have declared it to be my own and stored it in a house with unlocked doors.

That's the same combination I use on my luggage! Takes me forever to get into my suitcase though...

Re:ah... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298238)

I certainly wouldn't mind if you used your magic powers to create copies of items in my house. Feel free to duplicate all you want.

If that's not what you had in mind, your analogy is stupid and flawed.

Re:ah... (0, Troll)

kalirion (728907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298546)

You don't mind if I make a copy of your family while I'm at it too, do you? Too much of a bother to get my own the old fashioned way.

Hell, I'll just "copy" your identity too. It's just information, and information wants to be free!

Re:ah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298832)

Heh...

Like anyone would want the identities of Slashdot users...except maybe to sell them socks and lube, but that would require slashdot users actually have money.

(And we all know they don't, what with all the whining about overpriced music and movies and the high costs of bandwith...)

Re:ah... (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298324)

Can we just make a rule that any item that takes absolute minimum time and effort to reproduce doesn't cost money anymore? Anyone with sense already figured that out in 1978.

FTFY

Re:ah... (1)

charliemopps11 (1606697) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298476)

If you have a duplicator machine, you are more that welcome to come over to my house and copy any or all items within. Oooo... except my computer. There are images on there and I don't want to get a DCMA notice.

Re:ah... (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298780)

Can't we just make a rule that this tired strawman argument doesn't belong to anyone anymore, since it's a worthless analogy? We're taking about: A) digital data that is copied without disturbing the original, and B) Once you've posted it in a public place (aka the internet), it's there essentially *to* be shared and copied, that was the PURPOSE of the internet.

Perhaps a better analogy for you: When you go to Times Square with you camera, do you intentionally frame your shots to avoid taking photos of any of the signs, ads, light-up stuff, or anything there meant to be seen? After all, you're "stealing" the sign, ad, light-up thing by making an illegal copy of it, right? And once you post that photo on the internet, showing others you're trip to New York, you've compounded your crime by a second copyright infringment of copying the photo in the camera to your computer!!!

Oh Noes!

Re:ah... (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298304)

Can we just make a rule that any image you post on the internet doesn't belong to you anymore? Anyone with any sense already figured that out a decade ago anyway.

Perhaps we can do that with text, too, since there really is no difference in text and photos in this context. Of course, that means that all worthwhile content will disappear, such as news websites, individual blogs, Google Earth, Maps, etc.

The complaint isn't about getting paid, it is about attribution. I release most of my personal photography under CC with attribution. I have also written many nasty letters to competitors who lift our images from our website to use on competing websites. (we shoot everything, even stuff I can get manufacturer's photos of, to insure we have a unique look). The reason I do this is not only because I don't like working for free for other companies, but it dilutes our efforts to maintain a unique look. That and I don't need someone competing with me unless they are willing to spend the same amount of resources into photography that we have. ie: I don't want to subsidize my own competition.

So, no, I think I should be able to keep the copyright on stuff I create.

Re:ah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298630)

"Of course, that means that all worthwhile content will be preserved,...."
there, fixed that for you

Re:ah... (2, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298668)

I know, maybe we should just DRM everything!1!!1 That'll solve the problem.

No offense, man, but the universe doesn't owe you copyright. And unfortunately, the tradition of copyright depends on copying being hard. Now that it's easy, there's really no way to prevent people from doing this. You can send them nasty letters, but the water's coming in faster than you can bail. Like every other content producer, eventually you're going to have to learn to make money from the people who are willing to pay you.

I'm not saying it's just, or right, or good, but that's how it is. If somebody makes a shitload of money off a picture you took, sue *them*. Don't waste your time on small-time stuff.

Re:ah... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298506)

Thank you. I'm a photographer that has some pics up on flickr and picasa, but I don't put my full best quality version of any image on either site ever. The moment I do, I know it's 100% completely and totally out of my hands, no matter what "technology" a site claims to have in place to prevent it.

Frankly, I LIKE that the web works that way. That's not a bug, it's a feature. It's the BEST feature of the internet. Anyone using the internet would be well served to learn how to use it to their advantage and how to avoid being bit in the ass by it.

Re:ah... (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298708)

So if you post a photo of yourself, your wife, your kids, or some other loved one, are you ok with some ad company using that photo in an ad campaign of theirs (no matter what the product) without asking for your permission or giving you any monetary compensation? I know I'm not. Just because I post something on the Internet doesn't mean I've given up my copyright ownership of the item.

Re:ah... (2, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298870)

Looking at something and copying it are two very different things.

(Albeit, it's literally impossible to look at something on the web without making a local copy, at least in RAM, which may be saved to a temporary file on disk and retained for years, or until the authorities toss out your hard drive because the retention period for evidence in your case has lapsed...)

Copying something and serving it to the public are two very different things.

Kill (2, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298044)

The web is full of landmines. They're going to download and repost something that someone who has good lawyers is going to demand they remove, and then they'll die... quietly.

They are already changing the site.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298056)

They have already taken the site down to mitigate the copyright issues, FYI

If you want to contact them for any reason... (1)

microcars (708223) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298076)

http://www.imagelogr.com/contact [imagelogr.com]
it's a Gmail address that is obscured a bit so it doesn't get harvested by bots or something.

ironic

Re:If you want to contact them for any reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298174)

What

imagelogr@gmail.com

? Is that it?

Re:If you want to contact them for any reason... (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298436)

You mean they don't want imagelogr@gmail.com harvested by bots?

Why wouldn't they want imagelogr@gmail.com harvested by bots?

What's so wrong about imagelogr@gmail.com being harvested by bots?

I really don't understand why they don't want imagelogr@gmail.com harvested by bots.

Can someone explain to me what's so bad about imagelogr@gmail.com being harvested by bots?

Maybe I should write them, at imagelogr@gmail.com, to ask why they don't want imagelogr@gmail.com to be harvested by bots.

imagelogr@gmail.com !

even funnier is their "legal" page... (5, Funny)

microcars (708223) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298088)

Re:even funnier is their "legal" page... (1)

krelian (525362) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298566)

It's kind of strange. Wouldn't you need a lot of money to be able to afford the resources that retrieving and storing all these images require? If you are willing to invest in that kind of operation wouldn't you at least consider the legal implications that kind of service needs to deal with?

Re:even funnier is their "legal" page... (1)

DigitalReverend (901909) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298818)

If I were to do something like, I wouldn't store anything. I would leave the image stored on Flickr and then just rewrite the url through some type of proxy server that makes it appear as if it is coming from my server.

Copyrights? (0, Troll)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298092)

Wait...is this a case where anti-copyright people are complaining about someone stealing their stuff?

Re:Copyrights? (2, Funny)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298294)

Wait...is this a case where anti-copyright people are complaining about someone stealing their stuff?

Where did you see the word "stealing"? All I saw were complaints that a company was illegally copying and reproducing images in violation of copyright law. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the people posting comments here are "anti-copyright" either, although personally I'm in favor of a lot of copyright reform.

Re:Copyrights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298378)

Jesus christ...

INFRINGING COPYRIGHTS.

That isn't theft. It's also not murder. Or rape. Or nuclear proliferation. And, as far as I can discern, it's also not incest.

Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?

Re:Copyrights? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298488)

I really don’t have much issue with people copying my stuff, as long as they give credit / link back to where they got it. It seems that these guys weren’t.

Google’s image search also caches thumbnails of every image on the web, after all...

So does TinEye...

Actually kinda cool... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298132)

(Yeah, I'm a shameless pirate. We'll get that outta the way up-front. Arrrhhhh, matey!)

As long as it stays on this site where everyone expects everything to be pirated (and, therefore, won't be used in money-making operations without at least trying to find the source and evaluate their probability of suing), I don't really have a problem with it -- and I say that as someone with quite a few pics up on Flickr. Pictures worth using as wallpaper, etc. will be pirated regardless, and I'd rather mine weren't excluded from this popularity just because they're not in a commercial image collection DVD.

Remember, it's like games, movies, music, and kiddie pr0n: trafficking in copies of it (even with no money changing hands) popularizes it and benefits the creator! (What's that you say, MAFIAA? It sounded an awful lot like "sharing kiddie pr0n actually _hurts_ the original producers, so let's encourage it"...)

Information wants to be free, yes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298168)

The majority of Slashdot users always say that copyright should not exist. I hope you will be consistent in praising ImageLogr's actions and denouncing the people who gave them a hard time.

Re:Information wants to be free, yes? (3, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298300)

I highly doubt that the majority of Slashdot, who are largely developers who rely on copyright's protections for their income, say that copyright should not exist. Software patents, however, are a different matter. Get it right.

Re:Information wants to be free, yes? (2, Interesting)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298858)

I highly doubt that the majority of Slashdot, who are largely developers who rely on copyright's protections for their income, say that copyright should not exist

Most developers work on custom solutions and programs (providing services), and aren't really benefiting at all from copyright protection.

Re:Information wants to be free, yes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298552)

You can't take thousands of slashbot's collective opinion as any sort of consistent front stance. Too much contradiction. It spans the entire gamut of leftist commie faggotry to out-and-out creationism.

Take it Offline (2, Informative)

imag0 (605684) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298184)

If you want something completely under your control, you do not put it online. How hard is this?

Re:Take it Offline (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298862)

If you don't want someone to be able to break into your house, don't add doors or windows.

If you don't want a client to rip you off, don't let them pay on invoices.

If you don't want to be eavesdropped on, don't use the phone.

Nice euphemism (2, Insightful)

RKThoadan (89437) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298266)

I like how they say they are trying to "make people happy" as if it's just some minor bureaucrat the need to appease when it's more like "we flagrantly broke the law and are trying to get out of Dodge!"

but wait... (5, Insightful)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298382)

Doesn't information want to be free? If you're going to download movies and music without paying, why can't they scrape your images and serve them up to "whoever"?

Re:but wait... (3, Insightful)

tignet (1303483) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298864)

The problem with your logic is that they aren't just scraping images from people that pirate movies, they're scraping images from everyone. Your question would be better posed as: Since everyone in the world downloads music and movies without paying, why can't they scrape your images and serve them up to "whomever?"

Revised, I think the question pretty much answers itself. Otherwise, in order for your question to have a logical foundation, everyone needs to be allowed to pirate music and movies, or they need to limit their scraping to pirates.

Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298424)

No way! ... you mean everything I post on the internet isn't completely safe, and only handled in the precise means I've prescribed? Next you'll tell me Facebook sells my personal information and Google is reading my email!

So, their servers are 99.9% pr0n ? (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298474)

I'll bet I know who's sending DMCA takedown notices...

What's her name, Tila Tequila? Cindy Margolis? All those chicks that claim they are the most downloaded on the internet, and *thats* their only claim to fame!

So, what's next, a business that scrapes every video and mp3 on the internet? Hey, this isn't a truck you can just dump stuff on, it's a series of tubes!

It's down already. (0, Redundant)

dotfile (536191) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298500)

"Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon."

Double standard? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298580)

Wow, really amazing how slashdot and all the comments get behind copyright law and rights when it's their own stuff being ripped off...

But when it's an artists album or a directors film? No! All copyright is evil! The law is wrong!

Mod be troll if you really want, anyone reading this knows it's the truth, sadly. You can't have it both ways boys and girls.

About Us (2, Informative)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298650)

Imagelogr.com is an image & picture search engine. We try to index pretty much every picture & image currently available on the free internet. With our powerful search engine finding these images should be fairly easy. We also offer a few image manipulation tools to stand out from the competition.

From the main page. This is pretty funny.

Re:About Us (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32298942)

I'm confused, but I haven't dug through their schema at all, so, if they're an index, don't they have some sort of cross-referencing information to tell you where the picture came from or what it's a picture of? If all they have is the picture and maybe its filename, what sort of searching can you do?

Their site as of 1:45PM PDT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298678)

Hehe, if you go to their site you get this...

"Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon."

Looks like they are doing some damage control =)

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32298806)

A new mirror for goatse, tubgirl, and lemonparty.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...