PKR
Mentor
From: The Verge
Google shows how easy it is for software to remove watermarks from photos
To highlight the need for more secure copyright protections
By Nick Statt@nickstatt Aug 18, 2017, 5:51pm EDT
"Google’s research division today detailed just how easy it is for computer algorithms to bypass standard photo watermarking practices, stripping those images of copyright protection and making them vulnerable to reposting across the internet without credit. The research, presented at a leading computer vision conference in Hawaii back in July, is described in detail in a paper titled, “On the Effectiveness of Visible Watermarks.”
“As often done with vulnerabilities discovered in operating systems, applications or protocols, we want to disclose this vulnerability and propose solutions in order to help the photography and stock image communities adapt and better protect its copyrighted content and creations,” Tali Dekel and Michael Rubinstein, Google research scientists, explain in a post published on Google’s research blog earlier today."
More
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/18/...-algorithm-watermark-removal-photo-protection
.
Google shows how easy it is for software to remove watermarks from photos
To highlight the need for more secure copyright protections
By Nick Statt@nickstatt Aug 18, 2017, 5:51pm EDT
"Google’s research division today detailed just how easy it is for computer algorithms to bypass standard photo watermarking practices, stripping those images of copyright protection and making them vulnerable to reposting across the internet without credit. The research, presented at a leading computer vision conference in Hawaii back in July, is described in detail in a paper titled, “On the Effectiveness of Visible Watermarks.”
“As often done with vulnerabilities discovered in operating systems, applications or protocols, we want to disclose this vulnerability and propose solutions in order to help the photography and stock image communities adapt and better protect its copyrighted content and creations,” Tali Dekel and Michael Rubinstein, Google research scientists, explain in a post published on Google’s research blog earlier today."
More
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/18/...-algorithm-watermark-removal-photo-protection
.
fdarnell
Well-known
Perhaps many do not know the history of current US copyright law. It was actually championed by Sony Bono of Sony and Cher fame when he became a politician in the 70's. The law was basically set up that when you clicked the shutter, you immediately held the copyright.
Some might say this in an unenforceable law, since there's no real way to know. However, given modern encryption technology, block chain etc, I would think that camera companies would be able to establish this unequivocable ownership within a digital camera.
Of course it would still be up to us to enforce what's ours and what's theirs. The internet has devolved so many aspects of life that photography is just kind of along for the ride of devolution.
The problem for photographers is if you want recognition you can either drink the internet Kool aid or you can go your own way.
Much like the MGTOW movement and third wave feminism, perhaps there will be a group of photographers shunning the internet to broadcast their work worldwide.
New RFF Postcard Project anyone? Maybe I already missed out on the latest one, but it's an enjoyable summer project.
Some might say this in an unenforceable law, since there's no real way to know. However, given modern encryption technology, block chain etc, I would think that camera companies would be able to establish this unequivocable ownership within a digital camera.
Of course it would still be up to us to enforce what's ours and what's theirs. The internet has devolved so many aspects of life that photography is just kind of along for the ride of devolution.
The problem for photographers is if you want recognition you can either drink the internet Kool aid or you can go your own way.
Much like the MGTOW movement and third wave feminism, perhaps there will be a group of photographers shunning the internet to broadcast their work worldwide.
New RFF Postcard Project anyone? Maybe I already missed out on the latest one, but it's an enjoyable summer project.
fdarnell
Well-known
No sooner had I posted the above than RFF Postcard Project #10 has come to life!
PKR
Mentor
While I don't care for the camera movements (photomatics), this method of public presentation seems fairly safe.
Elliott Erwitt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB36aBbmcQ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqDzaCnRyfM
.
Elliott Erwitt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB36aBbmcQ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqDzaCnRyfM
.
Steve M.
Mentor
One can copy a copyrighted anything if it's for their use only. Copyrighted books allow short copying and publishing with common sense rules for reviews and teaching, and sometimes requiring approval from whoever holds the rights. Taking a screen grab and reposting it would be fair use to me as long as it did not show the image in a "bad" light. Even then, if you didn't get permission when necessary, it just means a take down. I can copy any image anywhere and not have anything to fear as long as I do not publish it, or display it commercially. I can photograph anything on the street and shot it w/o any problem, but I can't photograph people in their homes and display those photos commercially. I could probably be arrested for trying to shoot photos through your window anyway.
There is no image theft in college that I ever saw. It's appropriation, homage and influence. That's all. I am sure no one ever saw someone make an exact copy of something and attempt to pass it off as their own. That is image theft. Go into any large museum and you will see art students copying old masters works. They're not gonna put them in a gallery with their name on them. I can make an exact copy of a Picasso painting or print and display that online or in a gallery and sell it, but I can't sign my name to it or try to pass it off as a Picasso work. By the same token, anyone can take a photo that for all practical purposes looks exactly like, for instance, Ansel Adams, but they can't attempt to pass it off as one of his prints.
Referencing art is a quagmire anyway, with people like Chagall, who just turned over a sketch to a printer to be made much larger, and then signed his name to the prints. That's what is called "after" Chagall, and anyone in the art game knows it's not by the hand of Chagall.
Of course, gallery sales rep may not point that out, but it behooves the buyer to be up to speed on these things. It's like buying a Dali print.....not in a million years would I expect those to be actually made by Dali. He committed so much fraud it's not even funny.
There is no image theft in college that I ever saw. It's appropriation, homage and influence. That's all. I am sure no one ever saw someone make an exact copy of something and attempt to pass it off as their own. That is image theft. Go into any large museum and you will see art students copying old masters works. They're not gonna put them in a gallery with their name on them. I can make an exact copy of a Picasso painting or print and display that online or in a gallery and sell it, but I can't sign my name to it or try to pass it off as a Picasso work. By the same token, anyone can take a photo that for all practical purposes looks exactly like, for instance, Ansel Adams, but they can't attempt to pass it off as one of his prints.
Referencing art is a quagmire anyway, with people like Chagall, who just turned over a sketch to a printer to be made much larger, and then signed his name to the prints. That's what is called "after" Chagall, and anyone in the art game knows it's not by the hand of Chagall.
Of course, gallery sales rep may not point that out, but it behooves the buyer to be up to speed on these things. It's like buying a Dali print.....not in a million years would I expect those to be actually made by Dali. He committed so much fraud it's not even funny.
PKR
Mentor
There are 3 big (1 of them pretty famous) Art Schools in my city. There are also 2 major universities, that offer BFA/MFA degrees.
Some students from these schools commonly "appropriated" digital files from both local and non local photographers. The use was sometimes for school assignments, where they stole photos rather than create them for their assignments. The method was to slightly alter the image .. move a tree a little, add some clouds to a cloudy sky, minor stuff. And then, they would file for copyright on the altered image.
This was the impetus for using hidden watermarks in my work. They are easily discovered at close examination.
FujiLove
Well-known
The perfect business model: post boring images online in high resolution with no protection, then make tons of money in 'damages' when anyone uses them.
Who needs talent when you have a copyright lawyer?
Who needs talent when you have a copyright lawyer?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
If someone used the photos, they obviously had real value and the photographer had enough talent to make an image someone wanted. Copyright lawyers protect the rights of creatives to earn a living. Full stop. The only people who see them as anything else are the thieves.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
Who would want to use boring images when so many interesting images are available? Sounds like a losing proposition to me, even before the lawyer takes his percentage.
PKR
Mentor
PKR
Mentor
You mean, who needs talent when you can steal it?
Mr. Prince responded on Twitter: “Phony fraud photographers keep mooching me. Why? I changed the game,” he wrote on Wednesday. His Instagram account, which previously had over 70,000 followers, is currently disabled.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/arts/design/richard-prince-instagram-copyright-lawsuit.html
From DP Review
Richard Prince must face lawsuit over image theft, judge rules
Published Jul 27, 2017 | Brittany Hiller
Controversial artist Richard Prince must face a lawsuit over his unauthorized use of photographer Donald Graham's photo 'Rastafarian Smoking a Joint,' a federal judge has ruled. The ruling concerns a 2015 lawsuit Graham filed against Prince after he failed to heed a cease and desist order. Prince and Larry Gagosian, owner of the Gagosian Gallery where the pilfered image and others were displayed, had claimed the work is 'transformative' in an effort to have the case dismissed.
Though Prince has managed to escape past lawsuits unscathed, this latest one may prove different. Talking about the 'transformative' claims, U.S. District Judge Sidney H Stein stated, "The primary image in both works is the photograph itself. Prince has not materially altered the composition, presentation, scale, color palette and media originally used by Graham."
Graham's version of the image was acquired from another Instagram account where it was featured; he had it enlarged and printed with his own Instagram-style comment beneath the original user's caption. The exhibit at Gagosian contained a total of 38 of these 'borrowed' images, including the Rastafarian photo cited in the lawsuit. The court's ultimate ruling on the lawsuit could set a major precedent for fair use as it relates to Instagram images.
More
https://www.dpreview.com/news/52735...ust-face-lawsuit-over-image-theft-judge-rules
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/graham-prince-no.%2015-cv-10160-sdny-07-18-17.pdf
css9450
Mentor
Weren't we all hoping this thread was dead and buried? Seems its back for another round...
PKR
Mentor
css9450
Mentor
FujiLove
Well-known
Well, the photo in this case looks nothing special, as was Ken Rockwell's image of an M3. Yet Ken was awarded $10,000 and the photographer in this case was looking for substantial damages. Ken's image was, as far as I can tell, earning him nothing in licence fees before it was used on the other website. And what was the photographer earning from this shot? $5 per use on a stock site?
Neither image justifies the claimed loss of earnings.
FujiLove
Well-known
No, I meant what I said: copyright cases seem like an excellent way for photographers to make good money from photos that would otherwise not sell or be lost under the growing mountain of identical photos posted online.
In fact, someone else said the same thing earlier on this thread. That a photographer they knew made half their income from prosecuting cases of image theft.
So it makes total business sense for every photographer to post everything they own online, in high resolution and with no protection. Wait for someone to use your image and...Bam! $10,000 for an image that would otherwise earn zero.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
This is like saying it should be legal to shoplift an item that has sat unsold on the shelf for years. The store wasn't going to sell it anyway, so what right do they have to complain?
css9450
Mentor
I suppose every occupation has its "ambulance chasers". That doesn't make it the norm.
FujiLove
Well-known
No, I'm saying the opposite. The illegality of it is obviously making some people lots of money. So logic dictates more photographers should enable copyright theft by leaving their work lying around, so they can also jump on the litigation gravy train.
I tried to find the post where someone mentioned that half the income of a photographer they know came from prosecuting copyright issues, but it must be on a different thread - maybe the Ken Rockwell thread.
Now that Google and others provide tools to easily trace illegitimate image use, I'm tempted to post all my images in high res somewhere. Maybe all my crappy shots could generate a second income?
Anyone know a good no-win-no-fee copyright lawyer? Post their details here and let's all get started. Those dumb small business owners with no idea about copyright law currently trawling around for images to use on their websites won't know what's hit them. They'll literally have no idea that using a photo illegally that they could have licensed for $2 may lead to them losing their business, and maybe even their homes if their legal bill is high enough.
Yay!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
It is exactly what you're saying. You've spent this entire thread trying to paint image owners as 'bad guys' for defending their property rights.