What do YOU do?

[Elmo]

Carolyn Wright aka the Photo Attorney has posted "The DMCA Takedown Notice" over at Black Star Rising. Read More...

[Jeffrey_Nye]

Originally Posted by Mike Hallock

I have the option of disabling the RIGHT CLICK! Everyone should be using it.

I agree, but every web browser still allows the image to be snagged.

Which then brings me to an idea. If we were to design software that would allow someone to steal, say Windows OS or Mac, or some other way to circumvent their software that protects content, we would be in violation of the DCMA. We also would find ourselves in a lot of hot water.

Why is it that the web browsers and their makers are allowed to continue making it so folks can bypass the NO RIGHT CLICK software we put into our web sites to protect our content?

Not an attorney, but in my reading of the DCMA, there is no exception provided for that. Lots of others exceptions, but not that.

Also if I recall when blank and burnable CDs came out, the RIAA had a "tax" put into the price of the blank CD's. Perhaps we should get a portion of the income from IE, Mozilla, Opera etc.....?????

Maybe there could be a class action? Everyone is a photographer now, so the class would be huge.

Originally Posted by Will_Mass

I agree that a web pic does not have the same value as a nice print, and have thought of offering low cost web sized image for people to use in this way.

I have to disagree with this as well Will.

It costs essentially the same to produce that little web sized image as that 5x7 or even 8x10 print. The only cost difference may be a dollar or two. You still have the same costs of getting to the show, paying your insurance, taxes, extra photographers, let alone make any profit. So the value is the same if not even more. You are basically leaving money on the table.

I have been toying with the idea as well of doing the web size image, but only as an add-on or bonus to large orders. But for someone to just buy the cheapest thing being that web sized image (and of course not trying to print it and they will, you know it) is enough to get me not to do it.

My 5x7 is the cheapest thing. No 4x6's even. I can do them, but they cost the same as my 5x7. Too many will buy the cheapest item. Figured in to the pricing of that 5x7 is the what I need to make a decent profit at the show.

On average, I sell 1 5x7 to every participant at an event that I am at. Some don't buy, but those that do, make up the difference. So it averages out.

Having anything smaller or cheaper would mean I take less home. Why would I or anyone do that?

That's all Folks! (cue Bugs Bunny music)

[Will_Mass]

Just looked over Carolyn Wright's site.

I think I love her!

[Jon Applegate]

Its a tricky one, we have the same problem, every cheerleader and his/her dog takes our pics even though they are watermarked and right click disabled
that doesnt stop them! I try and be realistic and do a bit form everyones replies here. We sell web res images to coaches at £2 per pic for their websites, they often buy 20-30 so it makes it worthwhile, we tell competitors its illegal on our website, but if they do scan a bought pic I cant stop them. But I do ask for a credit and or link.
And yes it is all publicity, I don't want to alienate potential clients by being too prissy about my pics, I want them to be excited enough to use them, buy them, post them whatever. It all raises my profile and makes them want to look at the photos next time so it becomes a habit.
Hope this is useful
Jon
squeezephotography.co.uk

[MikeA]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey_Nye

Why is it that the web browsers and their makers are allowed to continue making it so folks can bypass the NO RIGHT CLICK software we put into our web sites to protect our content?

Not an attorney, but in my reading of the DCMA, there is no exception provided for that. Lots of others exceptions, but not that.

Jeffrey,

This is not just the web browsers, this is the Operating Systems, and it's a basic function. It's been there forever, and is very useful for purposes other than stealing photos. It would be a sad day when all of our operating systems were knobbled in an attempt to prevent image thieves from stealing low res versions of work posted on the internet.

Rant:
I think most of the posters in this thread need a reality check. DMCA notices for blog images? What? Is there that little work out there that you have time for this?

How do you value your time? Really?
If you think about it, Anyone worth their salt has to be worth at least $50+ an hour. All you can achieve by sending out the notice is that you have less exposure than you did before, and you will have invested time and energy into having the culprit scared enough to pull the image.

Opportunity cost. You could have spent the time bringing in some dollars. Chasing trivial copyright violators is an income limiting activity. If your web images become popular for some reason, you could land up spending all day chasing violators.

Just put a reasonable watermark that directs viewers to your website on every image, don't post hi-res images on the open internet, and get on with life.

Mike.

[KevinStecyk]

Originally Posted by MikeA

I think most of the posters in this thread need a reality check. DMCA notices for blog images? What? Is there that little work out there that you have time for this?

Since that response appears directed at me (or at least I would fall into the category), I'll answer.

I ain't a professional photographer. I've got time and energy to defend my work. If a business wants to use my images, then it has at least four choices: 1) pay me (or at a very minimum, ask nicely); 2) don't use my images and use stock or purchase someone else's images; 3) use her own pathetic looking images, or 4) don't use images period.

Unless you're exceptionally slow (both physically and mentally), it takes about 15 minutes or less to file a DMCA.

Originally Posted by MikeA

How do you value your time? Really?
If you think about it, Anyone worth their salt has to be worth at least $50+ an hour. All you can achieve by sending out the notice is that you have less exposure than you did before, and you will have invested time and energy into having the culprit scared enough to pull the image.

The culprit is lucky I didn't sue her sorry ass. In Canada, you need not register your images to receive statutory damages.

As far as exposure, her exposure I can easily do without. If you read my response carefully, my images were downgraded to save her file space. So they looked terrible. Besides, I could care less about *exposure*.

As far as my time is worth, I could easily have made it an attractive money venture. Simply provide a lawyer with a pdf of the website, DMCA notice, her name and address. And then wait for the check to arrive. I was, however, feeling generous that day.

Originally Posted by MikeA

Opportunity cost. You could have spent the time bringing in some dollars. Chasing trivial copyright violators is an income limiting activity. If your web images become popular for some reason, you could land up spending all day chasing violators.

It's rare that my pictures are taken. When they are misappropriated, I act.

I do a lot of things when I could be out there bringing in dollars (at more than $50 per hour.) But do things I enjoy anyway. For example, I wasted more time writing this response to you than I did writing her DMCA notice. But I love you Mike, so I consider this a worthwhile investment of my time and energy.

Originally Posted by MikeA

Just put a reasonable watermark that directs viewers to your website on every image, don't post hi-res images on the open internet, and get on with life.

She didn't take hi-res images.

[ChrisPurves]

My problem with all this web image theft is not the fact they are taking them. It is the ones you link to my site to put it on their site. I had three youngsters do that. They were at a dog show learning to be handlers. All three are active on a dog forum and linked about 50 photos from my website to their posts in the forum. I was checking my traffic and had about 1000 hits from this forum. You can imagine the bandwidth it burned up. Everytime someone else replied to the post they quoted it and my photos showed up again. So in one thread there was 20 or 30 copies of my 20 photos. AND there was four threads with my photos in them.
These were all teenagers posting about "look at me at the dog show" posts and did not realize they were causing a problem.

I pulled the offending photos from my site so the links broke. My bandwidth dropped to less than 20% of the day before. I contemplated adding a watermark that said "Stolen from Photos-Now" but that was kind of low.

Cheers
Chris