Stealing Photos (was: Re: Why is the Cincinnati meet such a big secret?)
Sherman Cahal
news:<3f7a8133$0$558$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
>"Sherman L. Cahal" <she...@ezwv.com> wrote in message
news:e5ada9cf.03100...@posting.google.com...
>> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.baaedubaa> wrote in message
news:<3f7a8133$0$558$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
>>> Harry Sachz wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's next, blocking website access to those we wish to ostracize?
>>>
>>> That's already happened.
>>
>> I'd like to see evidence of this. If I remember correctly, some people
>> were upset that you lifted photos off of their sites and posted them
>> on yours for "educational" purposes. They have a right to ban anyone
>> who steals their information and photos. Much like the reason I banned
>> several users off of my BB.
> Intellectual property is bullshit. Let's not start this again.
SPUI, you steal photos for your own pleasure and for your own personal
web-page. Many sites have this thing called copyright, and something I
quoted before, that stealing is ILLEGIAL unless it is for purely educational
purposes. I see you are not using it for "intellectual" purposes - you just
slap them on a black and white page and that is it. Does it apply to your
classes? No. Are you a professor? No. Do I go around and steal photos? No. I
ask politely to the newspapers and media organizations for their photos and
they have always agreeded, so why can't you do the same?
It is also bad practice to sort through a web-site's root directories. You
can find files that are not meant to be seen, etc. and takes up bandwidth.
Just because you are at "MIT", does not mean you have the God-given right to
steal photos for your own purposes that is not educational nor purposeful.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.baaedubaa> wrote in message
> news:<3f7a8133$0$558$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
>
>
> SPUI, you steal photos for your own pleasure and for your own personal
> web-page.
Stealing means that one person gains something *and* another person loses
something. Nothing is lost when I add photos to my site. Therefore it is not
stealing.
> Many sites have this thing called copyright, and something I
> quoted before, that stealing is ILLEGIAL unless it is for purely
educational
> purposes. I see you are not using it for "intellectual" purposes - you
just
> slap them on a black and white page and that is it.
So if I add lots of bullshit fancy formatting it's OK?
> Does it apply to your
> classes? No. Are you a professor? No. Do I go around and steal photos? No.
I
> ask politely to the newspapers and media organizations for their photos
and
> they have always agreeded, so why can't you do the same?
>
What about when you scan maps? Did you ask AAA to post the old maps you have
online?
If all 'intellectual property' laws were actually followed, nothing would
ever get done.
> It is also bad practice to sort through a web-site's root directories. You
> can find files that are not meant to be seen, etc. and takes up bandwidth.
Nice to bring up a different issue. If you don't want people looking through
the directories, change the server settings so they can't be seen.
>
> Just because you are at "MIT", does not mean you have the God-given right
to
> steal photos for your own purposes that is not educational nor purposeful.
Everyone should have the right to use others' 'intellectual property' as
they wish.
Dave Sturm
> Everyone should have the right to use others' 'intellectual property' as
> they wish.
Well, "Fair Use", does imply yes, but *requires attribution*.
Do you reference below the picture the original website and taker of
the photo? Or even better, have only a thumbnail on your site, and
have it linked to the original photo.
If the original photo becomes no-longer-available on the web, *then*
post your 'stolen' one, still maintaining the proper attribution.
Chris Bessert
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> >
> >> Intellectual property is bullshit. Let's not start this again.
> >
> > SPUI, you steal photos for your own pleasure and for your own personal
> > web-page.
>
> Stealing means that one person gains something *and* another person loses
> something. Nothing is lost when I add photos to my site. Therefore it is
not
> stealing.
Well, by your definition, it would be stealing. If you stole some of my
photos, I would then LOSE control over my own images. I also LOSE proper
credit for them as well. Plus, while I'm no Bob Chessick, sometimes people
do get paid (or otherwise compensated) for the use of their photography,
so I would then LOSE that. There is a great deal of LOSS when someone
steals
another person's work. Period.
> What about when you scan maps? Did you ask AAA to post the old maps you
have
> online?
How old are they? If they are past a certain age, the copyright on them
will have expired and they are public domain. Digital photos taken in the
last few years are not in this category.
> If all 'intellectual property' laws were actually followed, nothing would
> ever get done.
Of course, that makes no sense. Intellectual property laws are followed
on a daily basis, yet life still goes on and tasks are completed.
> > It is also bad practice to sort through a web-site's root directories.
You
> > can find files that are not meant to be seen, etc. and takes up
bandwidth.
>
> Nice to bring up a different issue. If you don't want people looking
through
> the directories, change the server settings so they can't be seen.
Huh?? That's like saying it's the murder victim's fault for getting in
the way of the bullet... or the burglary victims fault because they
cut holes in the side of their house and installed doors and windows...
or the identity theft victim's fault because they were the ones who
chose to have credit cards and checking accounts...
No, just because you *can* look into a web server directory doesn't
mean you *should* just steal anything that's in there. That's just
simple, common sense!
> Everyone should have the right to use others' 'intellectual property' as
> they wish.
Well, that's fine... for you to have that opinion. You are allowed to
have that opinion. I don't have any problem with you having that opin-
ion. But, just because you THINK that way doesn't mean the law and
everyone else is on your side. I would encourage you to campaign for
the laws of the land to be changed--to have the entire patent and
copyright system thrown out and all laws protecting the rights of others
nullified. If you can accomplish that, fine; go out and steal whatever
you want from whomever you want. But, I've gotta tell ya... I don't
think you'll get very far.
Let's put it this way. What if you went out, bought an expensive digital
camera with all the bells and whistles, spent weeks or months of your
life taking photographs... excellent photographs... of something. You
then put all those photographs together into a portfolio of images,
professionally presented. Then I decide I want to steal all of your
work, turn it in as my own, get paid for it, get a promotion based on
it and retire on the earnings I make. Does that sound like a good thing
to you? If so, I have a long list of jobs I need to do... if you would
do those for me, I would like to steal the results and turn them in as
my own work. It would really make my life easier and I can goof around
while I get paid for your work...
Do you see why everyone gets up in arms if you steal their stuff?
Later,
Chris
--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
Justin
"Dave Sturm" <stu...@maine.edu> wrote in message
news:69762484.03100...@posting.google.com...
Absolutely do not link to photos on other sites, that's bandwidth theft and
is not tolerated by hosts.
My site, and most I suppose, come with 'hotlink protection' so someone can
not link to your photos via a thumbnail or imbed them in their html.
Justin
Harry Sachz
> Well, by your definition, it would be stealing. If you stole some of
> my photos, I would then LOSE control over my own images. I also LOSE
> proper credit for them as well. Plus, while I'm no Bob Chessick,
> sometimes people do get paid (or otherwise compensated) for the use
> of their photography, so I would then LOSE that. There is a great
> deal of LOSS when someone steals
> another person's work. Period.
If anybody has any of my old pics, post them to your heart's content. I
wouldn't be losing a damn thing if that happened. Lighten up, everybody.
>> Nice to bring up a different issue. If you don't want people looking
>> through the directories, change the server settings so they can't be
>> seen.
>
> Huh?? That's like saying it's the murder victim's fault for getting in
> the way of the bullet... or the burglary victims fault because they
> cut holes in the side of their house and installed doors and
> windows...
> or the identity theft victim's fault because they were the ones who
> chose to have credit cards and checking accounts...
No, it's like saying it's your fault if I walk by your house and look in the
window because the curtains are opened. If you don't want anybody peeking,
close the blinds.
> No, just because you *can* look into a web server directory doesn't
> mean you *should* just steal anything that's in there. That's just
> simple, common sense!
I have perhaps 1 GB of road photos that I've collected over the years on my
HD. Many of them are my pics, some were sent to me, and some were pics on
websites that I wanted to save. They are just benignly sitting there, when
I want to view them I view them but I would never post them on a public
webspace without permission of the person who took the photo, and I'm not
going to delete them because somebody cries that I'm "stealing."
>> Everyone should have the right to use others' 'intellectual
>> property' as they wish.
>
> Well, that's fine... for you to have that opinion. You are allowed to
> have that opinion. I don't have any problem with you having that opin-
> ion. But, just because you THINK that way doesn't mean the law and
> everyone else is on your side. I would encourage you to campaign for
> the laws of the land to be changed--to have the entire patent and
> copyright system thrown out and all laws protecting the rights of
> others nullified. If you can accomplish that, fine; go out and steal
> whatever
> you want from whomever you want. But, I've gotta tell ya... I don't
> think you'll get very far.
>
> Let's put it this way. What if you went out, bought an expensive
> digital camera with all the bells and whistles, spent weeks or months
> of your
> life taking photographs... excellent photographs... of something. You
> then put all those photographs together into a portfolio of images,
> professionally presented. Then I decide I want to steal all of your
> work, turn it in as my own, get paid for it, get a promotion based on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dan is not getting paid for anything.
> it and retire on the earnings I make. Does that sound like a good
> thing
> to you? If so, I have a long list of jobs I need to do... if you would
> do those for me, I would like to steal the results and turn them in as
> my own work. It would really make my life easier and I can goof around
> while I get paid for your work...
>
> Do you see why everyone gets up in arms if you steal their stuff?
>
> Later,
> Chris
--
I see no changes all I see is racist faces
misplaced hate makes disgrace to races
Steve
In this case, what I would do is "steal" the photo, and give proper
attribution to the site from which it came. (For example - "This NO
PARKING sign from 1893 comes from <a
href=http://www.foo.com/no_parking>Foo.com's No Parking signs</a>.")
--
Steve
GO YANKEES!
Civil Engineering (Course 1) at MIT
Chris Bessert
>
> > Huh?? That's like saying it's the murder victim's fault for getting in
> > the way of the bullet... or the burglary victims fault because they
> > cut holes in the side of their house and installed doors and
> > windows...
> > or the identity theft victim's fault because they were the ones who
> > chose to have credit cards and checking accounts...
>
> No, it's like saying it's your fault if I walk by your house and look in
the
> window because the curtains are opened. If you don't want anybody
peeking,
> close the blinds.
No, that's not it at all. If you simply look at the photos in some-
one's server space (or even download them for personal use), that's
fine. Then is *is* the webmaster's job to secure them if he/she does
not want others to "find" them. So, if you find 'em, look all you'd
like. Just don't copy them, slap them up on your website and pretend
they're your own work. THAT'S the illegal/unethical/wrong part.
So, look in my windows all you want... as long as you don't mind
being called a peeping tom...
> I have perhaps 1 GB of road photos that I've collected over the years on
my
> HD. Many of them are my pics, some were sent to me, and some were pics
on
> websites that I wanted to save. They are just benignly sitting there,
when
> I want to view them I view them but I would never post them on a public
> webspace without permission of the person who took the photo, and I'm not
> going to delete them because somebody cries that I'm "stealing."
Well, no one here is talking about photos "benignly sitting...on
[your] HD." We're talking about people ripping off others' photos
and putting them up on their own websites without permission or
credit. So, use all the HD space you'd like...
> Dan is not getting paid for anything.
Of what are you speaking here?
Kevin Flynn
> Everyone should have the right to use others' 'intellectual property' as
> they wish.
Omigod, absolutely not! There are people who make their living from
their intellectual property. What you suggest is akin to me saying
it's all right for me to come into your office and appropriate
whatever I want, including part of your paycheck.
Singers get royalties from their work, authors from their books,
designers from their plans. This is not a free-for-all. Have some
respect.
John Lansford
>Sherman Cahal wrote:
>> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.baaedubaa> wrote in message
>> news:<3f7a8133$0$558$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
>>
>>> Intellectual property is bullshit. Let's not start this again.
>>
>> SPUI, you steal photos for your own pleasure and for your own personal
>> web-page.
>
>Stealing means that one person gains something *and* another person loses
>something. Nothing is lost when I add photos to my site. Therefore it is not
>stealing.
Uhhh, no. You can steal ideas as well as physical objects, but copying
someone's photos and using them yourself is a form of theft. I guess
you think that copying music over the Internet isn't stealing either.
>Everyone should have the right to use others' 'intellectual property' as
>they wish.
>
As long as you give credit where credit is due, ask for permission,
and pay for the use when required. Otherwise, you're as much a thief
as someone robbing a bank.
John Lansford, PE
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Sherman Cahal
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> > "SPUI" <sp...@mit.baaedubaa> wrote in message
> > news:<3f7a8133$0$558$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
> >
> >> Intellectual property is bullshit. Let's not start this again.
> >
> > SPUI, you steal photos for your own pleasure and for your own personal
> > web-page.
>
> Stealing means that one person gains something *and* another person loses
> something. Nothing is lost when I add photos to my site. Therefore it is
not
> stealing.
You do not attribute photos very well either. Notice that on my site, when
someone *submits* photos, I give them proper credit.
It is stealing, because I spend a lot of time and use a lot of money
traveling (gas, food, etc. on the road), and it upsets me when someone just
goes and uses them without permission - making my efforts for photography
useless when someone just goes out and steals them.
I guess you enjoy stealing other things as well?
> > Many sites have this thing called copyright, and something I
> > quoted before, that stealing is ILLEGIAL unless it is for purely
> educational
> > purposes. I see you are not using it for "intellectual" purposes - you
> just
> > slap them on a black and white page and that is it.
>
> So if I add lots of bullshit fancy formatting it's OK?
Roadfan does not use a lot of fancy formatting, but they have the sense to
ask for photos and add proper attribution quotes.
So how did you get into college anyhow? Have you been warned or kicked out
of MIT yet? I mean, you write all those research papers - do you cite your
sources? Or do you just go and plagiarize everything you see? There is this
thing called the "MLA" format for citing and so forth - do you use this? I
think that citing works for papers and documents is the same as citing
photographs and information that is lifted.
> > Does it apply to your
> > classes? No. Are you a professor? No. Do I go around and steal photos?
No.
> I
> > ask politely to the newspapers and media organizations for their photos
> and
> > they have always agreeded, so why can't you do the same?
> >
> What about when you scan maps? Did you ask AAA to post the old maps you
have
> online?
> If all 'intellectual property' laws were actually followed, nothing would
> ever get done.
>
> > It is also bad practice to sort through a web-site's root directories.
You
> > can find files that are not meant to be seen, etc. and takes up
bandwidth.
>
> Nice to bring up a different issue. If you don't want people looking
through
> the directories, change the server settings so they can't be seen.
Or just find the IP address of the snooper and ban them from the server.
> > Just because you are at "MIT", does not mean you have the God-given
right
> to
> > steal photos for your own purposes that is not educational nor
purposeful.
>
> Everyone should have the right to use others' 'intellectual property' as
> they wish.
BAWAHAHAHA.
No.
Sonic
> Chris Bessert wrote:
>
> > Well, by your definition, it would be stealing. If you stole some of
> > my photos, I would then LOSE control over my own images. I also LOSE
> > proper credit for them as well. Plus, while I'm no Bob Chessick,
> > sometimes people do get paid (or otherwise compensated) for the use
> > of their photography, so I would then LOSE that. There is a great
> > deal of LOSS when someone steals
> > another person's work. Period.
>
> If anybody has any of my old pics, post them to your heart's content. I
> wouldn't be losing a damn thing if that happened. Lighten up, everybody.
Yes you will be losing a lot, espescially if you would return to
publishing your material. I finding shocking this "I could care less"
attitude about this you have. Espescially since you personally took
many steps to prevent photo stealing as much as possible when you were
still with aaroads.com. I may be mistaken, but didn't you also agree
in the outrage when the MAT Highway Top 100 was ripping off exit lists
and passing them as their own?
Personally it is a big deal to me. Right now I have a number of
historical newspaper photos that I would like to include. However,
until I am certain that the method of acquisition, archives of a
public library, is official via 'public domain'. I have even
contacted the newspapers of record or binding to that photo. IN cases
where I do have permission or have legal standing, I have included the
photographs. Some are still in the stages of discussion and an
ongoing, yet way on the backburner, issue. As someone told me at work
this week, "It's better to ask and be certain than taking and askign
for forgiveness later."
There are numerous cases going on right now: A publishing company in
promoting US 15 used word for word descriptions and photos from three
websites. When called out on it, they said that they thought these
sites were official state websites because they received permission
from the states involve to use staet material. One is currently
persuing legal ation with the publishing company.
I personally have been told I over-source..when writing a webpage I
have my MLA handbook next to me and if uncertain from there I go to
kurumi.com for his sourcing. If there is one centralized thing I
would like Marc Fannin to push is for a standard of websourcing for
internet pages. Again the reason for over-sourcing..is 1 part
covering my ass but held together by my personal ethics on writing a
research paper...because I view my pages in aprt as ongoing research
paper.
When a recent photo of mine was used in an online magazine, I was very
flattered that they wish to use it and also jsut as flattered that
they asked me for permission. I was more than greatful. I also
checked with any contributor that had photos on the particular topic
"photos concerning I-64" just to over my own ass in case they used an
additonal photo.
We have a policy at gribblenation.com and state-ends.com that if a
photo is uedwithout permission is to contact them about it. On cases
of personal homepages where they are showing where they are
repesenting, we offer to send them a copy of the photo that they can
uplaod to their server. Legal action will be considered if our
material is being used without our permission.
I personally and a few others are exploring the possibility of getting
an official copywrite for our webpages etc.
You may see it as 'nothing to lose' but you are very much in the
decided minority.
<snip>
Compañero Señor Yämamøto
If I steal it, I say so, If the person doesn't want me using it, I
withdraw it. If you use my stuff, it's fine, as long as you a: don't
make any $$$$ off it and b: you attribute it appropriately. Copyright
only applies to one part of my site-and in that case, I made an effort
to get permission from the copyright holders to reproduce their work.
I actually had a bit where JP Wing was running some of my photos that
someone else appropriated(he was unaware of that), and when I
complained, he quickly resolved the situation and apologized. I think
that stands as an example for all of us.
--
Comrade Mr. Yämamøto the REAL one
(look for the can in the plain brown can)
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
http://infoshop.org
take the "spam" and make a sandwich, then reply by e-mail
Chris Lawrence
> Stealing means that one person gains something *and* another person loses
> something. Nothing is lost when I add photos to my site. Therefore it is not
> stealing.
Actually, if someone would have gone to Sherman's site to see the photos
but are now going to yours, Sherman has lost traffic and pageviews for his
site. So, it is stealing (even by your bogus standard).
> Everyone should have the right to use others' 'intellectual property' as
> they wish.
I doubt your professors at MIT have that attitude toward your coursework.
You do not, and should not, have the right to take someone else's work and
pass it off as your own. That is plagiarism, which at any decent
university will--quite rightly, I might add--result in you getting your
ass handed to you.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <ch...@lordsutch.com> - http://blog.lordsutch.com/
Magyar
"Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message
news:3f7df...@corp.newsgroups.com...
In reference to roadfan, in dealing with our maps/images, 98% of the are
government documents which fall under a different copyright (if any) than
"our" photos. I make a point of proper attribution more for letting people
know where they can find said material and so I can never be accused of
"making stuff up."
Sandor G
Magyar
"Sonic" <apri...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:81086de.03100...@posting.google.com...
> I personally and a few others are exploring the possibility of getting
> an official copywrite for our webpages etc.
Speaking of copyrights.
From the 2004 Photographer's Market book about copyrighting "visual"
material.
"Contact the Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress, Washington DC
20559, [Phone(202)707-9100] and ask for Form VA (works of Visual Art).
Registration costs $30, but you can register photographs in large quantities
for that fee. For bulk registration, your images must be organized under one
title, for example, 'The works of John Photographer, 1990-1995.'"
Sandor G
Jim Geiger
> Just because you are at "MIT", does not mean you have the God-given right
to
> steal photos for your own purposes that is not educational nor purposeful.
Oh, but you don't like flame wars or anything now, do you?
You fucking swarthy, emaciated, little hypocrite.
--
.............................................
Jim Geiger
Sherman Cahal
news:vnt3eqe...@corp.supernews.com...
Nope. I think everyone can agree (minus one person) that stealing anyone's
photos or property is illegial and will not be tolerated.
william lynch
10/3/03 8:44 PM:
> x-no-archive: yes
> MIT has a very strict policy regarding obeying copyright laws. In fact they
> have people assigned to ensure compliance throughout the university. If you
> believe that your copyright is being infringed and your copyrighted material
> is
> being distributed on MIT servers, I would highly recommend contacting
> copyri...@mit.edu or sto...@mit.edu. MIT tends to deal with
> such infringement quite strictly with possible severe punishments for students
> and even faculty/staff can be disciplined. For more information on MIT's
> copyright policies, see http://web.mit.edu/copyright/policies.html
>
If SPUI gets booted out, I hear that Chico State is
not as uptight regarding intellectual property theft.
John David Galt
>> I personally and a few others are exploring the possibility of getting
>> an official copywrite for our webpages etc.
Magyar wrote:
> Speaking of copyrights.
> From the 2004 Photographer's Market book about copyrighting "visual"
> material.
> "Contact the Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress, Washington DC
> 20559, [Phone(202)707-9100] and ask for Form VA (works of Visual Art).
> Registration costs $30, but you can register photographs in large quantities
> for that fee. For bulk registration, your images must be organized under one
> title, for example, 'The works of John Photographer, 1990-1995.'"
You don't have to register your work or even include a notice for it to
be copyrighted. But it can make it easier to sue if you plan to do that.
Since all written work is copyrighted by default, if you want your
material to be free for anybody to use, it would be nice to say so on
the web page.