gladiatorsfan1

gladiatorsfan1

Lives in United States Alpharetta, GA, United States
Joined on May 1, 2012

Comments

Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
In reply to:

Tord S Eriksson: Encouraging others to steal copyrighted pictures is still a criminal offence, I bet, not only in the US.

And why would this seem to be applauded by Facebook is not that surprising, as that company tell you explicitly that Facebook have the right to freely access your uploaded photos, to do what they want with them! And they always strip the EXIF from your photos for that reason only, I bet!

If anyone here believed the water-stamp on your pictures was fraud-proof, then you have a very naive conception of the world around you!

The copyright part of the metadata is retained but the EXIF camera data is not. When you upload an image that has the copyright metadata filled-in, Facebook automatically inserts it into the description of the image. If you then download that same image, the camera's EXIF data (camera name, shutter speed and other EXIF data) you will see that this data is removed but the copyright data remains.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: Well dpreview. What kind if question is that? ;-). "Someone went around stealing pies from bakeries. What you think? Does that deserve criticism?"

;-).

I'm actually shocked at their passive approach. But then again, they are not in the business of selling images are they? They are in the business of getting as many hits to their site as possible instead of being responsible to the professional photography community.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 01:49 UTC
In reply to:

svuori: His attitude certainly invites flaming. However, false sense of security ought to be pointed out. If some individuals find out that certain bike locks can be opened with a pen (actually happened) I'd much rather learn about this and take necessary steps to prevent easy theft of my bike, therefore I wouldn't "shoot the messenger".

Protection of the photos is inadequate (if you don't want people to get them for free) and should be fixed. If something like disabling javascript and a few photoshop tricks is all that is required, don't blame the one who says it aloud.

A watermark does not serve as "protection", it never has. A watermark serves as a warning that this image belongs to the photographer/artist who created it.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 01:47 UTC
In reply to:

jnd: There's nothing wrong with showing how to save some image from a site or how to modify it, in this case removing some overlaid text. The reasons for doing that and how it is described are up to discussion of course.

That's not up for discussion. This jerk told you in a very direct way why he did this. He actually documented himself stealing a photo that he felt (and stated) was rightfully his. That's illegal and he could be sued for this.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 01:42 UTC
In reply to:

Smeggypants: I found Jesse Chen's tutorial in 20 seconds on a web archive and really what he isn't teaching isn't rocket science. It's pretty simple.

If you don't want to people to steal your images then don't publish them.

Not it's not criminal, it's a civil case.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 01:34 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Well, Facebook is known for enticing people to post inappropriate things... now we known they hire people who do that kind of thing. ;-)

Seriously, this doesn't speak well of Facebook nor of UC Berkeley, and I wouldn't be surprised if either or both took action against Chen. I also can see the potential for a multitude of legal actions (civil damages suits) against Chen -- he explicitly advocated and facilitated theft, and gave examples of things he stole. The shocker is I don't see anything suggesting that Chen appreciates the seriousness of this, or even openly regrets having done it.

Dude, really? I guess you've not had the pleasure of being threatened with a lawsuit, then. These matters are civil as opposed to being criminal. These cases usually do not go to court and are settled by the parties outside due to costs. But what Jesse Chen did was very unlawful and if facebook has any integrity at all they would fire him from their Facebook Photo team. You know that he's on their photo team, right? Perfect place for him and rather than doing the right thing Facebook will probably make this guy employee of the month.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

tripodfan: The wrong thing with the article is not the fact that the technique is presented, it is that the use of the technique is advocated. The article is needlessly inflammatory, in that it advocates people to do wrong.

But as far as inflammatory articles go, there must be authors of articles advocating far worse---things like racism, sexism, homophobia---who are attracting less heat than Jesse Chen.

I know, it's a photography website. But we are talking about an article on the internet. My point the internet is a dirty place. This article is just a smudge on a mound of poo.

But whether you agree with what he did or not, it is illegal and he actually stole that commercial photography company's work. The internet is a dirty place but it is by far not a lawless place.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 01:23 UTC
In reply to:

Kirppu: So he told people how to use graphical editing software...?
did you know that you can print fake money with colour printer.
ps: it's illegal or in the grey area of legal, but is it illegal to tell people it's possible?

No quite, Kirppu. He took his own photo from Grad Images, stole it, then wrote a blog about how he did it. That is copyright infringement (CI) of another persons intellectual property (IP).

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 01:21 UTC
On Nikon D4 overview article (860 comments in total)
In reply to:

PHOTOJOE55: Why Did NIKON put USB 3.0 ON D800 and USB 2.0 on D4. Also, the D4 has an ETHERNET PORT but why? NIKON seems confused as to what it's for! The camera is 802.11b,g & n compatible, but that is not what the ethernet port is for. The WT-5 transmitter adds $1,000.00 to the D4. They weren't very forthcoming with that information either. They don't say if the WT-4 unit is backward compatible as that would have been quite a cost saving measure. And as far as uploading your images without a computer, sure you can with the Transmitter and an IPHONE. By the way, IPHONE can upload it's own photos as well, and has been for some time now. Making the camera "WI-FI" CARD compatible would have cut the cost. One other thing-NIKON says since they are a Global company, they may be built in any of the NIKON plants. That may be fine until the FIRMWARE UPDATES need to be done, that will be done by serial number & BUILT-IN PLANT And by the way, this is no "fire sale" there's no reason to rush. .. JOE PRETE

So that pro hockey shooters like myself can have an ethernet drop cable down on the arena floor to ftp my photos up to the team's server. I specifically purchased my D4 for ethernet. I can shoot the hockey game, tag my photos as the period goes on and when the period ends, simply plug my camera into the cat 5 cable and away they go in seconds! It's a fantastic camera and I've used it for 9 months now.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2013 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

MPA1: Just in time for the Olympic Games....

Nope. Not until later this year. :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

John Fleming: You're going to have to take out a second or third mortgage to pay for this baby!

Interesting that nikon says - “It reflects our on-going philosophy to turn ‘feedback into fact’" Where oh where is the "new" upgraded 80~400 VR that people have been asking for for years just to name one??? A new 80~400 VR would fly off the shelves....

John

They are listening to pros.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 21:31 UTC
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11