Members Mr. Botch Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 We've discussed electronic distribution, theft, and reparations of music on this forum, and its not just the music industry that's being turned inside out: I read an interesting article in Popular Photography by Neal Matthews, called "Grand Theft Photo". He outlines some of the trials and tribulations that a pro photographer, Robert Burch, has gone through. I'll just summarize a few points I found interesting: 1. It's estimated that nine out of ten uses of copyrighted images are unauthorized. 2. Mr. Burch found one of his images used in a travel brochure. He took the online travel agency to court, won a $64,866 settlement, but the law gives him no way to collect. He has since received death threats. 3. As of November, Mr. Burch has found 535 websites that use his images without permission/reimbursement. 4. A photo you take is automatically copyrighted the instant you press the shutter. However, without registering your photos with the US government (www.copyright.gov) your chances of getting a lawyer or winning any decisions are, according to the article, nil. Registering your photos will cost you $45, or $35 on-line. 5. Mr. Burch has spent $25,000 to $30,000 of his own money in the past ten years in legal fees; so far he has recovered $14,000 to $15,000 6. Think a "digital watermark" will protect your pictures? According to the article, saving any web-based JPEG as a TIFF, and then saving it back as a JPEG again, will remove any watermarks! I don't have any software that does this, but would be interested to find out if that's true. One interesting tidbit is the music industry goes after kids and moms for downloading music illegally for their own use (NTTAWWT), but in the photo world it is legitimate businesses that are using the copyrighted works illegally; one illegal use of his images was done by Wayne State University, Mr. Burch's own alma mater! Another area: in the last couple weeks I've seen some YouTube postings of a comedian/ventriloquist who has a puppet called "Achmed the Dead Terrorist", via links sent to me by friends. He does a few other characters, and they all seem to be on YouTube also. This comedian has a couple of DVDs out, and I'm guessing he tours and does live shows around the country. But, if you've already seen his material, why would you pay to see it again? (Emeril audience members, who die laughing at the same lines for years and years, are exempted ). And has Amazon really thought this one thru? They're soon marketing an electronic handheld screen reader, enabling you to "download" any book you wish. How long will that market stay stable? It's a changing economy out there; I don't have any solutions, but the similar problems in other areas besides music, I found interesting. Sorry for blabbing so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 Pictures are different in that they have little utility for individuals, unlike music where individuals are the primary consumers. So it does make sense that it would be mostly businesses that are mis-using pictures. People just have zero respect for intellectual property. The software world does a little better since they have some means to protect themselves, but of course most of it is cracked. There's just a lot more danger downloading cracked software than with other types of stuff. It's pretty easy to slip something evil into a cracked software package and put it out there. So it gives some people some pause, but plenty of people still steal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 The photography issue is interesting, because as you say, major businesses are grabbing images and plugging them in to brochures and what have you. How ridiculous is that? iStockPhoto is like pennies for stock images. Another area: in the last couple weeks I've seen some YouTube postings of a comedian/ventriloquist who has a puppet called "Achmed the Dead Terrorist", via links sent to me by friends. He does a few other characters, and they all seem to be on YouTube also. This comedian has a couple of DVDs out, and I'm guessing he tours and does live shows around the country. But, if you've already seen his material, why would you pay to see it again? I have Beggar's Banquet, why would I want to see the Rolling Stones live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr. Botch Posted January 15, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 ...why would I want to see the Rolling Stones live? I've been wondering that for years... :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ultravibe Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 6. Think a "digital watermark" will protect your pictures? According to the article, saving any web-based JPEG as a TIFF, and then saving it back as a JPEG again, will remove any watermarks! I don't have any software that does this, but would be interested to find out if that's true. Point me to a watermarked digital image and I'll test it - but that sounds EXTREMELY unlikely. That would be a matter of the conversion to TIFF somehow interpreting the pixels that the watermark covered - and the process doing it automatically (i.e. not through some software-based, intelligent analysis tool). That would be like, for instance, if you inserted 3 seconds of silence on a track, then someone downloaded the mp3, saved as .wav then saved back as mp3 and the silence was miraculously gone, replaced by the original music. Pretty much impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 It's a shame that more people don't make use of the excellent -- and super cheap -- www.iStockphoto.com licensing system. I use it for stock shots for web sites. There are some restrictions on what you can do with them -- as there are with any stock shots -- but at $1 a small photo, it's a great bargain for websites and sales literature, brochures, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ultravibe Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 Just tried it - downloaded an image from iStockPhoto (jpg) saved as tif, reopened, saved as jpg. Watermark still there. I'd post results, but the hypocrisy of posting copyrighted photos in a discussion about the unethical use of copyrighted photos is just too much for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr. Botch Posted January 15, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 Just tried it - downloaded an image from iStockPhoto (jpg) saved as tif, reopened, saved as jpg. Watermark still there. Thanks, I was wondering about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 Just tried it - downloaded an image from iStockPhoto (jpg) saved as tif, reopened, saved as jpg. Watermark still there. were you working with a visible or a stega watermark? I'm wondering if the article (haven't read it) might be talking stega and you might be talking visible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 Yeh, if it's any kind of data based watermark, re-saving it via some lossy format will scramble that data because lossy formats completely scramble the contents in the process. Of course it also lowers the quality signficantly to re-save the image again from a lossy format back to a lossy format, since you are compounding the degredation that occurs with those formats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ultravibe Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 were you working with a visible or a stega watermark?I'm wondering if the article (haven't read it) might be talking stega and you might be talking visible I assumed the article was talking about visible watermarking. Stega (to my understanding) is used mainly for code projects. I assume that a digital image could store stega type watermarking in the header information (kinda like metadata) but I can't see that information being passed along on a resave in most instances. Besides, any type of non-visible watermarking won't do much to discourage people using the image, unless browsers and OS's start having built in checking for for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 I assumed the article was talking about visible watermarking. Stega (to my understanding) is used mainly for code projects. you can use it with all kinds of data. I assume that a digital image could store stega type watermarking in the header information you could, but if stored in a specific, defined field, it ain't gonna be too stega (or, less flippantly, robust) usaully, it's encoded right in the body of the data itself. There is some neat statistical math surrounding making it robust to unauthorized detection, even trying to make it robust to compression (basically, the idea is to statiscially flatten the watermark data so that it appears "uncompressible" to the compression alg (sometimes just by pre-compressing it ) The trick is making it robust across multiple compression algs, or even algs that merely have variable weighting...so it's imperfect at best, but there is some work in that area I'm a stats geek, but those guys get deeeheep!!!! Besides, any type of non-visible watermarking won't do much to discourage people using the image, unless browsers and OS's start having built in checking for for it. where it can get used as evidence in infringement cases, tracking dissemination or existence in a library (of data, not your public branch ) in data forensics, etc So it can serve where visual watermarking doesn't (unauthorized reproduction of an authorized instance) A couple of nice features with stega watermarking...the authorized copy contains the watermarking data (as opposed to the authorized copy not having a visual watermark) and that the watermark data can have data unique to that encoded instance (so if it gets copied, you can source-track) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 I knew a gentleman years ago , who at 55 designed a fishing lure with a dancing tail that worked like magic . He went into mfr . it , made a million and subsequently closed shop . When I asked him why he closed down so soon he told me; he was spending so much on lawyers to try and track down and prosecute people making copies that he just said to hell with it. You have to get to a certian size to where you can afford a staff of sharks to keep the wolfs at bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted January 15, 2008 Members Share Posted January 15, 2008 It certainly can depend! you even need to get to a certain size to afford to set up mfr. shop there are some things that help willful infringement of a patent is treble damages (though there are some new willfulness rulescoming out that won't change that, but might alter "the line") the USPTO charges differently for big & small entities, provisional apps (though you can thank DeConcini for messing with the balance iin the day ) some attys can offer sliding scale (hell, the wife is required X amt of pro bono work) like any other part of biz there are costs and benefits, risks and rewards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fantasticsound Posted January 16, 2008 Members Share Posted January 16, 2008 I used to read Popular Photography. 10 or 15 years ago, before the real revolution in digital photography, I read a snippet about a reader who recognized a picture (uncredited) in an ad place in Popular Photography. The reader realized where he'd seen the picture and contacted the magazine and the owner of the photo, who recovered a six figure court ordered payment from the company. The reader recognized the photo from a monthly feature in Popular Photography called "Your photos", a gallery of reader submissions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.