Beta
×

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!

Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the fightin'-words dept.

The Internet 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?"

cancel ×

126 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes... (0)

David Betz (2845597) | about 5 months ago | (#46718061)

...vigilantism.

Re:Yes... (4, Informative)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 5 months ago | (#46718191)

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... (4, Informative)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 5 months ago | (#46718211)

Sorry. I suck at Slashdot's markup.

Text version of the link (or autoformatted, whichever) http://picturedefense.blogspot... [blogspot.com]

Re:Yes... (5, Funny)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#46718453)

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... (1, Funny)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 5 months ago | (#46718791)

Funner fact, Wikipedia has the history of HTML [wikipedia.org] . "Berners-Lee specified HTML and wrote the browser and server software in late 1990."

Re:Yes... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#46719171)

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... (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 5 months ago | (#46719211)

Even funnier fact: Whoosh [imgur.com]

Re:Yes... (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 5 months ago | (#46721295)

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.

Re:Yes... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46720103)

Brett Baughman is awesome! Did you know that he's a coach? Yes, that's right, he's a genuine "success coach", C-Level executive, model and photographer. Wow!

With employment lengths ranging from four months to one year, companies cannot seem to keep a hold on this fast riser! His Linkedin page show just how in demand this man is!

Re:Yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46723833)

Brillant!

Webster's (4, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 5 months ago | (#46718087)

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?

Re:Webster's (0)

Yakasha (42321) | about 5 months ago | (#46721053)

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 (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 5 months ago | (#46722247)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46724099)

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.

This has what to do with slashdot? (-1, Offtopic)

jcochran (309950) | about 5 months ago | (#46718141)

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? (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46718249)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718623)

Blink.

Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (1)

geeper (883542) | about 5 months ago | (#46718647)

*blink* ... *blink*

!BANG! (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | about 5 months ago | (#46718947)

*THUMP-SPLAT*

There are consequences for disobeying me.

Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46718961)

*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? (2)

plover (150551) | about 5 months ago | (#46719081)

*blink* ... *blink*

"Double 'no', got it!
</ZappBrannigan>

Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718649)

Blink

Re:This has what to do with slashdot? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 5 months ago | (#46719333)

>And IP theft.

I think you mean copyright infringement.

Thanks! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718147)

Now I have a single resource to go to for all my 'good enough to steal' photograph needs!

lol (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718201)

You'll never get freetards to agree it's theft. Once it's online, it belongs to "The People".

Re:lol (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 5 months ago | (#46718289)

I love it. Two posts down from this at the mo' shows exactly what you're saying.

Re:lol (3, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 5 months ago | (#46718395)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718723)

Uh, just read the comments on this page. There is no upper limit on the amount of "tard" exercised by the freetards.

Re:lol (0, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46718399)

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 (3, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 5 months ago | (#46718549)

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 (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 5 months ago | (#46719315)

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 (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46718877)

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 (0)

unrtst (777550) | about 5 months ago | (#46719041)

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 (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46719435)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46719557)

I don't think we should be worshiping authority figures. Judges have said things that I've disagreed with many times, and it's okay for people to disagree with them. If a judge says this sort of thing is stealing, then I reject his/her conclusion.

In reality, though, these people usually just mindlessly follow laws. Not a surprise, given that they're judges, but appealing to laws doesn't make one more right than anyone else.

It's certainly not theft in the traditional sense.

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46719603)

Federal government works, at least in the United States, are not entitled domestic copyright protection.

Re:lol (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 5 months ago | (#46719611)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46719749)

I think the problem is not that he copied the images, but that by claiming he did them, he impersonated the real creators.

Re:lol (2)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 5 months ago | (#46719131)

I hope you're not a lawyer because you're bad at analogies and just confused theft with fraud.

Re:lol (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46719381)

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 (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 5 months ago | (#46719805)

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 (2)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 5 months ago | (#46719847)

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 (1)

lonOtter (3587393) | about 5 months ago | (#46723271)

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 (0)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 5 months ago | (#46719165)

ProTip: mine's in yur mom, CanHasDick! Wait, this isn't Battlefield chat, sorry.

Re:lol (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46719361)

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 (1)

lonOtter (3587393) | about 5 months ago | (#46719533)

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 (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 5 months ago | (#46721679)

Not the way RIAA and MPAA see it

Re:lol (1)

taustin (171655) | about 5 months ago | (#46719529)

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 (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46720015)

No. its 2 different discussions.

We can have the second, but it will also fall on stupid/deaf ears around here.

Re:lol (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 5 months ago | (#46722363)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46722579)

Taking someone elses work and claiming it as your own is, in fact, stealing as far as I'm concerned - and as far as most of the civilized world is concerned. As long as you spread it but don't claim to be the creator then that's fine by me. Oh, by the way, calling random strangers "small brained morons" simply reflects back on your own mental stature.

Re:lol (4, Informative)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46718431)

There's a difference between copying a photo and claiming to be the original photographer.

Re:lol (2)

BronsCon (927697) | about 5 months ago | (#46718497)

Exactly! One is copyright infringement and the other is fraud and, semantically, much closer to stealing.

Re:lol (4, Insightful)

drkim (1559875) | about 5 months ago | (#46718857)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46723061)

Hey, the "Mona Lisa" is MINE!!! All MINE!!!
Who is this Michael-something guy anyway?

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718707)

Fretards!?
What do intellectually challenged French people have to do with this?
Have a little sensitivity please!

Re:lol (0)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 5 months ago | (#46719145)

"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.

News for nerds (-1, Offtopic)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | about 5 months ago | (#46718225)

Stuff that no longer matters

R.I.P., old Slashdot

Re:News for nerds (1)

Willuz (1246698) | about 5 months ago | (#46718927)

There has been a serious decline in quality of articles here lately. What happened? Suddenly Slashdot is just yesterday's Reddit.

Re:News for nerds (1)

koreanbabykilla (305807) | about 5 months ago | (#46720047)

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? (1)

MXB2001 (3023413) | about 5 months ago | (#46718241)

I've collected them since 1986 (via BBS back then). This is baloney.

Re:How can you "steal" a pic off the 'net? (0)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46718417)

I think this image [itespresso.es] reflects the whole thread.

Re:How can you "steal" a pic off the 'net? (3, Insightful)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about 5 months ago | (#46718427)

"Collecting" isn't the problem. It's using someone else's copyrighted property to sell one's own services.

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? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46718483)

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? (2)

Zmobie (2478450) | about 5 months ago | (#46718871)

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? (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46718279)

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? (3, Informative)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46718375)

The authorship was stolen.

FTFY (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 5 months ago | (#46718859)

The authorship was misattribited

Re:FTFY (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 5 months ago | (#46718875)

misattributed

Somebody apparently stole my ability to spell, or at least to spell-check before hitting submit.

Re:FTFY (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 5 months ago | (#46720713)

you mean malattributed. it wasn't an mis-take, it was mal-icious..

Re:Thieves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718425)

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? (0)

Nephandus (2953269) | about 5 months ago | (#46718465)

Your spell-checker? Pretty sure none of the misspelled entities lost anything, so it couldn't be them...

Re:Thieves? (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 5 months ago | (#46718687)

There is no way you are possibly that dense. Must be troll. Must be troll. Please be a troll.

Photographers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718299)

The better the camera, the better the photographer.

Anyone can be a photographer! :)

Re:Photographers (4, Insightful)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about 5 months ago | (#46718387)

I see you have a fancy stove. You must be an excellent chef.

Re:Photographers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718561)

I see you have a fancy stove. You must be an excellent chef.

This is also true.

Re:Photographers (2)

istartedi (132515) | about 5 months ago | (#46718637)

Does he have an Ivy League degree too? Let's make him Pres... oh... crap.

Re:Photographers (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46718887)

I see you have a fancy stove. You must be an excellent chef.

I see you have a fancy mouth...

Re:Photographers (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 5 months ago | (#46718493)

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 (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46718369)

Hire the "big fat phony" guy from Family Guy.

Re:Simple (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 5 months ago | (#46718795)

Greased up deaf guy works cheaper.

need a profit driver. (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46718461)

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. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#46718913)

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?

slashdot.org (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46718481)

http://www.isitdownrightnow.com
http://isitup.org/

One of the oldest semantic games played on /. (0)

istartedi (132515) | about 5 months ago | (#46718607)

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 /. (2)

ewhac (5844) | about 5 months ago | (#46719391)

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.

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 /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46719537)

if you think that "reputation" is a real thing it is arguably "stealing reputation" (depriving another of their reputation and taking it for yourself). If you don't think reputation is a real thing it's difficult to claim damages to the person who's artwork is being plagiarized.

Re:One of the oldest semantic games played on /. (1)

ewhac (5844) | about 5 months ago | (#46719587)

...it is arguably "stealing reputation" (depriving another of their reputation and taking it for yourself).

I've referred to it as "reputation fraud," but yes, we appear to be in general agreement.

Help Consumers? (2)

holophrastic (221104) | about 5 months ago | (#46718889)

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? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 5 months ago | (#46719515)

Did you spell the embarrassed word three times differently for a purpose or did you only spell it two times differently?
Unfortunately my spelling correction does not trigger on your post ... 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 ...

Re:Help Consumers? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 5 months ago | (#46720893)

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? (1)

holophrastic (221104) | about 5 months ago | (#46721217)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46722213)

Stop being so fucking retarded. Of course the portfolio was a sales tool - it was an indication of what the photographer was capable of. WHat one would be trying to accomplish is a set of photographs of a standard that was indicated by the photographer's current portfolio. If he has lied about that by using someone else's work and claiming it as his own, then no discussions with the photographer and no deep thought about abstraction layers will get you the product you want because the photographer is a fraud. Short of doing a shoot for free before doing your real shoot, or finding a couple of actual real previous clients, you're screwed because of his lies.

I don't know if you're posting after bongs, beers, or sleep deprivation, but it's pretty hopeless.

Re:Help Consumers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46723297)

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.

Let's say that what I'm trying to accomplish is to hire a competent photographer to shoot my wedding (example chosen that's just about the only situation where I can imagine hiring a professional photographer).

I put 'wedding photographer' in google and I find several dozens of photographers that operate in this area and most of them have portfolios on their webpages.

Suppose further that I have already reserved the location and that there's something that makes the particular location a challenging place for photography. For example, there might be a combination of sunlight and shades that makes it difficult to capture proper dynamic range.

Now, let's say that one of the photographers has a set of great photos from the very location. I'll go to them and start the discussion: "Hey, I want photos just like that taken at the same place. Are you available and what you cost?" After some negotiation you reach an agreement on what photos I want and what it costs.

Then I hold my wedding and a few weeks later I get the proofs of the photos. And it turns out that the photographer was bullshitting during the whole discussion and that they didn't have a clue on how to shoot there and every shot is either underexposed, overexposed, or both. The wonderful portfolio shots had been cribbed from some other photographer.

That's the problem.

Re:Help Consumers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46723099)

Have you seen how slick some of these slimy characters are that do these things? The poor victims (clients) find out way too late - after the wedding, and well after the check has cleared and the miscreant is 3 states away...

So, copying is stealing after all? (1)

mi (197448) | about 5 months ago | (#46719971)

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? (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 5 months ago | (#46721467)

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.

Do you understand the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46723987)

between -downloading & listening to- Metallicas "Justice for all" and claiming to have -written & recorded- Metallicas "Justice for all"?

Gaaahhh .... (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 5 months ago | (#46721027)

.... summary ... is word salad ... my head ....

TinEye it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46721919)

to check an individual image, pass it to tineye.com, which will return all the places it has seen that image, or an edit of it, on the web. that can be
very helpful in finding the actual creator of the image.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>