Panoramio still allowing our images to be pirated

[Kevin Childress]

Once again I am asking that Panoramio implement some degree of protection against our photos being downloaded from Panoramio/Google servers. I am also asking other Panoramio contributors who are concerned about their images being pirated, to please take a stand here to support your position. I ask that everyone hear my argument before posting a quick reply saying that I am the one who should do something differently. Furthermore, I am not looking for advice on how to handle the problem once it occurs; this thread is about getting ahead of the problem.

In the last few weeks alone I have encountered more than two dozen cases of blatant copyright infringement involving my images. I’m not talking about Panoramio API; I’m talking about images that were downloaded from Panoramio/Google servers and then re-uploaded to websites that span a broad agenda. Over 50% of those cases involve use of my images for commercial purposes. Panoramio is the only place I have uploaded these specific images at that specific resolution; there is no question about the source of the images.

Of course one of the first replies will be something like, “…anyone with half a brain can get the image from cache if they really want to”. I completely reject that idea. It is not common knowledge for people to know how to retrieve images from cache. I also anticipate replies saying, “…you just can’t stop a thief”, and I agree that skilled criminals are had to protect against. However, when you live in a high-crime neighborhood, it doesn’t mean that you should intentionally leave your front door unlocked just because a burglar might crawl through a window. A lot of this crap could be avoided!

Many people will quickly point out things that we should do in order to deter downloading of our images, like not uploading to the internet to begin with, adding watermarks, providing only minimal resolution/file size, etc. To that, I say NUTS! Instead of asking the victims to change their behavior, I plead with you to direct some of that energy toward trying to convince organizations like Panoramio, who make it so easy for our images to be pirated, to change their behavior! Panoramio/Google are the only ones who can institute some degree of deterrence against the downloading of our images from their servers. Watermarks and small resolution files may protect our images from being printed but that provides zero level of protection from the images being downloaded and completely facilitates distribution of the digital file and subsequent file sharing on unauthorized websites. NUTS!

Understand that Panoramio is way behind in the area of providing some degree of image protection (which strikes me as hilarious considering that our images are Panoramio's product). Today, all respectable photo-sharing sites provide some degree of access control. By “access control”, I mean the sites allow the contributor to decide how their images are viewed and accessed. For starters they have all disabled right-click options. I mean seriously, this one is a no-brainer!!! Most also allow the contributor to determine the resolution at which the file is displayed. And they all allow the contributor to give their product away, if that’s what they choose to do. Do you see a theme here … something called allowing the contributor to decide???

As I’ve said before, Google already has this technology. Google implemented these basic protections at the onset of launching Google Plus so obviously Panoramio's parent company understand the threat. I don’t think it is too much to expect that Panoramio at least try to help protect the contributor’s images. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Edited to add instructions for those who want to search for their images being used outside of Panoramio API:

1) (this part is an option): It helps to have a large-scale thumbnail viewer when searching for your images. I use a Panoramio-user created tool for this named Panoramio Photo Viewer. Here is a link to the tool. This link currently includes my Panoramio user number, which is seen at the end of the URL. Simply replace my Panoramio user number with your own and refresh the page. It may take a couple of minutes to load the page if this is the first time you have used this tool. Now you have a large-scale photo viewer that is very helpful in the search. Notice that it puts your most popular photos at the top ...

2) Ironically I use two Google tools to find the images in question (hard to believe, huh?). First, I use Chrome for my browser. Second, I use Google Image Search to find the images. Google has developed an extension for Chrome that makes this real easy. If you use Chrome, go to the Chrome web store and install this extension. I can say this tool works very well! If you use don't use Chrome, I think you can still search  by using Google Images. Go to Google images and look in the search box for a small camera icon ... click on the icon and follow the directions.

3) If you installed the Chrome extension, just go to your thumbnail page and right-click on an image. In the dialog box you will see an option for "Search Google With This Image". Click on that option and review the results. 

This search will also find your images that are being used by API. But after you review the results for a few different searches you will begin to recognize who uses API and other results that seem odd. Make sure to scroll to the bottom of each page of search results. Sometimes there are more than one page of results ...

Happy hunting! 

[Galatas ©]

I agree 100% . It just isn't acceptable for Panoramio to encourage users to upload fullsize originals without watermarks , as they do , and then refuse to offer us even basic protection against copyright thieves.

[Jethrohoyt]

Most of us lock our car doors and hide our valuables when we leave our cars. We are taught to be careful in this manner from an early age. Writing your name on your wallet or your camera won't stop it getting stolen especially if you leave your car unlocked with the windows down.

Basic protection is locking the doors and winding up the windows.

YES - someone can take a hammer to the windows, but I bet locking the doors would deter 75% of thefts (depending on your neighbourhood).

I did a survey of my top images as a result of this post and find numerous unlicensed, unrequested, NONE API copies and derivatives all over the Internet.

Of course one answer would be no not leave your camera or you wallet in the car or in other words don't upload your best images to Panoramio - just post the chaff, the stuff we take in order to get the good shot. But that's not the spirit of Panoramio. We compete with each other and get our game up, but at what cost.

Please stop making excuses and fudging the issue. Lock the bloody doors! Disable the the Save Image As function. 

[AustinMN]

I had an old friend years ago that used to say "Locks are there just to keep honest people honest."  I believe that is primarily what Kevin is talking about.  It's about people who are stealing because it's so easy to steal that they don't really think it is stealing.  We're not talking about the 10% determined thieves.  We're talking about the 90% opportunistic, or just plain ignorant, thieves.

Austin

[Draken]

Kev

Are you asking only for a) "access control", i.e., the contributor decides at what size their images are viewed and access, and b) disabilitate the right-click options or you think some more measures should be taken in order to avoid the theft?

If yes, which other protections could be included?

Needless to say, I fully support the protection of our copyright.

[Kevin Childress]

See original post ... edited to add instructions for those who want to search for their images being used outside of Panoramio API 

[Matthew Walters]

My memory (may be a little hazy now) is that we were due to get protection of the full sized images in the new browser but that was dropped when too many users (or maybe some users) complained about the number of clicks required to get to the full sized version. Catch-22 and all that.

Perhaps this will change now that the zoom tool is finally here, allowing you to zoom in without accessing the full sized image.

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

Sorry Kevin (& others)

I have to oppose you and to say what you know, but you don't like to hear:

I fully support copyright protection, but crucial  role in your copyright protection is in your hand.

I like Panoramio for many reasons, one of them is transparency. I have full control how my images are displayed on Panoramio (yep, they are displayed as identical, binary copies of my uploaded files). I am aware they are public. And I agree with this implementation. In fact, they are the reason why I am not using e.g. Flickr.

OK, What can Panoramio do to provide some additional protection:

a) Downsize, re-sample all shared photos

Downgrade of current service. Step backward for users (like me) who choose Panoramio because of advantage to have here access to original files, option to check EXIF on other users photos, see "the results of work" of different cameras...

b) Sharing control & restrictions, no API or API restriction - user can decide who and at which quality can see his photos

This is against Panoramio idea of sharing, I think. And also against the business model (API) that keeps Panoramio advertising free. Removing API will remove photos from GE - Panoramio photos on GE are special use of API. For targeted sharing control, there are other services and platforms.

c) Injected watermarks

Will you like it? I don't.

d) Disabled right click on photos

It will downgrade users browser experience. You will not be able perform simply other useful contextual actions, like picture search.

Which of these measures do you prefer? Any idea of others?

All these above mentioned changes would add some additional protection over our photos, pros with some cons. But in the end, they (expect sharing restrictions) will not prevent thieves from robbery - and they will make Panoramio less attractive for fair uses. Sharing restrictions are the thing I don't expect to be implemented on Panoramio without complete change of business model.

[Jethrohoyt]

Disable right click on Photos. 

You are right Thomas they will not prevent thieves (the point that Kevin made and I supported) but as Austin says (and I said way up there) it will reduce the incidence to 10 to 25%.

The script to turn off right click is very easy and common. If no one understands what we are talking about go here. The designer of these pages know what we are talking about and could do this at the drop of a hat without changing the user experience at all.

Leave it on in thumbnails and turn it off in the new browser or view original files. 

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

Thanks Jethro for suggestion.

From suggested options - right click is easiest to implement and  is the least obtrusive.

From last year meeting with admins - I positively know they know how to disable right click. ;-)

But their opinion about this restriction is very close to the one of mine I've posted before.

Anyway, if right click is going to be disabled, it shall be done only on other users photos. I'd like to keep an option to get back my own data - just in case owner need it. 

[Draken]

I wouldn't mind having my own right-click option disabled. I don't need to retrieve low resolution, 72 dpi images. I store full resolution photos in my computer and/or external disk. 

The photos I upload can be used in the web –if they are stolen– but are not printable for commercial uses.

[™Ken Kruse™]

There is not a lot I can add except I concur with Kevin. 

As for the argument of diminishing the user experience, the only time I have ever really needed access to the right click function is when I've edited others photos for discussion in the critique forum, with permission of course. I think it is one of those "in theory" points people cling to more than is really needed. 

Google/Panoramio is getting tons of good, free material from up-loaders and nothing from viewers except maybe some usage statistics. It seems to me Google should err on the side of favoring their free suppliers rather than the casual user. I look at it like this, without photos Panoramio would have nothing, why not protect that asset and the people supplying them?

[Jethrohoyt]

Your last line is  "Not a bad idea" Tomas ! I agree entirely with your sentiment. Thank you.

[Kevin Childress]

Galatas, Jethro, Austin, Draken, Matthew, Tomas, and Ken, 

Greetings from 34,000 feet, somewhere over west Texas, USA. And I just learned that even at this altitude I can still download and redistribute all of Tomas's photos!  (just giving Tomas a hard time)  :)

Thank you all for voicing your opinion on this issue. I honestly believe that it is possible to reach a very comfortable middle-ground with all of the points made here. The big question that remains ... is Panoramio listening ... ? 

Instead of replying to the many points that have been made, let me simply summarize my request: I want to see Panoramio implement some degree of protection over out photos being downloaded from Panoramio/Google servers. So far they have only given us three different views at which our images can be downloaded (at three different resolutions), and have shown no good faith toward protecting their investors. 

As for the right-click option: I agree the contributor should always have access to the original file, but that's a separate matter from making it so easy for the thief to steal that high-res file. At the very least, just take away the "save as" and "save link URL" option in the right-click dialog. Panoramio/Google could easily implement a profile option that allows the contributor to decide if they wanted to allow their photos to be downloaded or not. This profile setting would determine how the right-click/save-as feature works. Like I said, Google already has this technology ... is Panoramio listening ... ?

I did mention "access control", and there were a couple of remarks to that. "Access control" only means that the contributor has the option to determine at which resolution their photos are displayed on the internet. The key word here is "option". I could limit my resolution display and Tomas could display his full size images and we would both be happy. Options ...

[Matthew Winn]

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:00:44 PM UTC+1, Kevin Childress wrote:

Of course one of the first replies will be something like, “…anyone with half a brain can get the image from cache if they really want to”. I completely reject that idea. It is not common knowledge for people to know how to retrieve images from cache. I also anticipate replies saying, “…you just can’t stop a thief”, and I agree that skilled criminals are had to protect against. However, when you live in a high-crime neighborhood, it doesn’t mean that you should intentionally leave your front door unlocked just because a burglar might crawl through a window. A lot of this crap could be avoided!

The fact that you don't like that answer doesn't mean it's not true. Although techniques for retrieving images are not common knowledge among the population as a whole, you're brushing aside the two vitally important facts that destroy your argument: these techniques are common knowledge among the subset of people who like to steal images, and it's trivially easy to search the Internet to find these techniques. The person who wants to download a picture they like so they can use as their desktop wallpaper isn't a problem. The problem is the person who's being paid to go out and steal images for their company's website.

A better analogy than your locking-the-front-door one would be to imagine you were protecting your house with a combination lock, but it's a combination lock where all locks are manufactured with the same combination and the user is unable to change that combination. It gives the appearance of protection, but requires only a minimal amount of effort to get past that protection. Another analogy might be simply leaving your door open with a sign outside saying "Please don't steal my stuff". Most people will obey the sign, but it's not those people you need to guard yourself against.

Security is part of my job, and one of the worst things you can do with security is create the illusion of protection where no protection exists. It encourages people to indulge in risky behaviour in the belief that someone else is looking after their interests, whereas if they had been aware that they were unprotected then they would have been more cautious in the first place. If Panoramio provides a mechanism that appears to protect images without actually protecting against theft then that will merely encourage people to upload full-size unwatermarked images in the mistaken belief that nobody can steal them. What do you think the thieves will think of that?

There are loads of sites that already offer the sort of nonprotection you want, and does it stop theft? Not even a little bit. Your ideas have already been tried many times, and they have never, ever been effective.

[Nick Weall]

Maybe the only thing worse than having your photographs stolen is not having any stolen ~

[df3vi]

I agree with Matthew. Once published, there is nothing you can do to physically protect your photos from being downloaded. They have to be downloaded to be viewed, so the data is on the user's PC then.

Disabling a right click is just an illusion of protection, because a simple screen shot will do the same. Rarely the highest resolution is needed by the offenders. And if the full resolution is viewed, several screen shots can be put together again easily.

Maybe the only thing that Panoramio could do is adding water marks just like Google does with their satellite images. But do we really want to have printed "Panoramio" and/or the user name all over the photos we view? I think it would totally spoil them. And putting a copyright notice on the edge of a photo, as some people do, is easily cut or pasted away.

Btw, it wasn't much different in the pre-digital era. Pictures had been repainted, books had been reprinted unauthorizedly, and even buildings had been copied.

[RoarX]

I don't know for sure, but I believe the wast majority of those who steals our photos are using a small copy on a website or in a "picdump" type of blog. A simple screen shot and they got what they need. Not sure if any countermeasures is effective against them. Perhaps making the "show full size file" button optional for the user and better display of exif data in the photo page will reduce the theft high res material from Panoramio. 

[hvbemmel]

Matthew, thank you for your post, can I quote you when necessary?

I'm afraid your right. I tried everything, for testing purposes, even the cache thing without any programming or so, start with an empty cache look for the biggest files, add .jpg and Bob's your uncle.

Before starting the new explorer originally there would be no access to the original because of this issue. Part of the Panoramio public however, is very interested in the (technical) details and that's why the original is accessible also for other users as the owner. 

@df3vi  Google owns the copyright of their images and can watermark them. I will not allow Google to watermark my photos. 

Google will not do this because of two reasons. First, they are not the owner and second they don't want to have the copyright because then they could, should, would pursue every offense against the copyright, they'd rather want us to do that, or not do that, ourselves (which is now the only legal way ). Considering how many photos are stolen I can condone this from a business point of view.

We have all the right to put one or more watermarks on our photos. We should not forget that even watermarks can be removed and as you point out there will not be a large public to look at them even when they are selected for GE

[Kevin Childress]

Matthew Winn wrote:

Although techniques for retrieving images are not common knowledge among the population as a whole, you're brushing aside the two vitally important facts that destroy your argument: these techniques are common knowledge among the subset of people who like to steal images ...

Matthew, I respect what you're saying but I'm not brushing aside anything and I'm not disillusioned. As I alluded to in my OP, I fully acknowledge that people with the technical skill can get to the image if they want. But help me understand ... help me estimate the number of folks we're talking about.

Matthew Winn wrote:  

The person who wants to download a picture they like so they can use as their desktop wallpaper isn't a problem.

Actually I see these people as part of the bigger picture, and definitely a part of the bigger problem of aiding redistribution of a pirated image. This is just the sort of misguided individual who is likely to re-upload my image (or yours) to any number of sites, for any number of reasons. 

Matthew Winn wrote: 

The problem is the person who's being paid to go out and steal images for their company's website.

Link this back to the subset of people we discussed above ... how many people are we talking about here? Surely there aren't as many people with this skillset as the simple folk who "only want a desktop wallpaper". 

Matthew, Is it your opinion that Panoramio should do nothing in attempt of addressing these concerns? We agree there are typically two types of people involved with this mischief. What do you propose Panoramio could do to try to protect their investors, and what do you propose the investors should do to protect their own investment? 

 

[Panamon-Creel]

Not much technical skills required to get images of the web even if they have some protection on it. Really only skill required is how to use a Web search and follow some instructions, so someone that is determined can get images they want with little technical skills.

Low protection schemes like no right click, cloaking,...etc. might tether the fly by "oh nice wall paper" type of folks but those are the ones of lesser concern anyways. Auto slicing images gives more inconvenience to folks which might not want to spend the time on reassembling  the sliced image but again it is not 100% protection, takes server processing power and would be against the Panoramio virtue of not modifying the original image file. 

More effective protection schemes like large Copyright Watermarks affect the viewing quality of the image so not acceptable to many and again would be against Panoramio virtue of no original file modifications if it is expected to be automatically applied. Therefore if you want a good protection of your images apply a large watermark that is very difficult to remove yourself prior uploading and accept the consequences of diminished viewing quality and the image not being selected for GE. 

Pick your poison :)

[hvbemmel]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:32:11 PM UTC+2, Kevin Childress wrote:

Matthew, I respect what you're saying but I'm not brushing aside anything and I'm not disillusioned. As I alluded to in my OP, I fully acknowledge that people with the technical skill can get to the image if they want. But help me understand ... help me estimate the number of folks we're talking about.

Just Panoramio members or also just web users? In the first case we are talking about at least hundreds of thousands, in the second case about many many millions. I'm not a computer genius, far from that, I'm just interested in what can be done and I have enough knowledge to find out where I can find things on my computer. So when someone told me long ago that everything what I look at on internet is downloaded to my computer first I searched and found. And when they started to hide it in the application data starting with XP I found it there just as easy.

However, I know there are children for whom I'm just a rusty granddad. So I dare to say that every photo can be found by every average computer user. Even easier when he looks in Google first. search string find downloaded photos computer number one on the list http://www.ehow.com/how_5977145_search-pictures-downloaded-computer.html . this works for IE and is much easier even how I find them. I'm sure there are enough results that will show you how to do it with chrome, FF etc.

The most time consuming is removing a watermark, but not impossible and well, read what Panamon_Creel says about that.

[Matthew Winn]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:32:11 PM UTC+1, Kevin Childress wrote:

Matthew Winn wrote:

Although techniques for retrieving images are not common knowledge among the population as a whole, you're brushing aside the two vitally important facts that destroy your argument: these techniques are common knowledge among the subset of people who like to steal images ...

Matthew, I respect what you're saying but I'm not brushing aside anything and I'm not disillusioned. As I alluded to in my OP, I fully acknowledge that people with the technical skill can get to the image if they want. But help me understand ... help me estimate the number of folks we're talking about.  

I don't know how many people can do it. I do know that it's simple enough that anyone who knows enough to save an image with a right-click would also know enough to find out how to evade the "security" of many sites. Browsers like Firefox have addons that can do it with a click or two. Opera's ability to turn off stylesheets with a single click gets round the protection of many sites. If you needed to have programming skills to evade security then it would be a different matter, but you don't. You just need to be able to read.

Matthew, Is it your opinion that Panoramio should do nothing in attempt of addressing these concerns? We agree there are typically two types of people involved with this mischief. What do you propose Panoramio could do to try to protect their investors, and what do you propose the investors should do to protect their own investment? 

My opinion is that people shouldn't be misled into believing that they're protected by security that doesn't actually work. There's not actually anything that Panoramio can do to genuinely protect people, so it's better that people know they're at risk and take precautions themselves than think they're safe and put their full-resolution images up only to find those pictures being entered into contests, reproduced in newspapers, or even - perhaps worst of all - finding themselves accused of being the one stealing the images.

Unfortunately there's no easy way to warn people of the risks. The ideal solution is for everyone to be aware that there is a risk of theft before they upload their first picture so they're encouraged to reduce the size of the image or watermark it. But you can't force people to read things. The Panoramio "place the marker where the picture was taken" instruction proves that.

I don't think there's any technological solution to this problem. You can't protect people from their own refusal to understand the risks. (Yesterday I was reading a report that said that over 10% of people protected their ATM cards with a PIN of 1234, and 6% use 1111. That's a sixth of all cards compromised with two tries.) To be honest, I don't think we should protect people from wilful ignorance. There's a point at which people need to take responsibility for understanding what they're doing instead of expecting others to assume all responsibility for their protection. By now people ought to understand that the Internet is not a place of perfect safety. You shouldn't run every program that's emailed to you. You shouldn't mention on Twitter things that are better kept private. You shouldn't give your bank details to anyone who asks for them. And you shouldn't upload files in the expectation that nobody will be able to steal them.

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

 

Nick Weall : Maybe the only thing worse than having your photographs stolen is not having any stolen ~ 

:-DDD

Well done, Nick!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxXW6tfl2Y0 

sorry to link the content which is very likely uploaded by person having no copyright, but Nick's paraphrase force me to do it. 

And I think it's time to see the problem from other perspective. ;-)

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:50:57 AM UTC+2, Matthew Winn wrote:

...one of the worst things you can do with security is create the illusion of protection where no protection exists. It encourages people to indulge in risky behaviour in the belief that someone else is looking after their interests, whereas if they had been aware that they were unprotected then they would have been more cautious in the first place. If Panoramio provides a mechanism that appears to protect images without actually protecting against theft then that will merely encourage people to upload full-size unwatermarked images in the mistaken belief that nobody can steal them. What do you think the thieves will think of that?...

 Good point, Metthew!

How can I forget about this, when I wrote my first post in discussion here? 

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

Not exactly... my last line is: "I can get over it". ;-)

[Phil Howell]

Hi Kevin,

I think that you are trying to cut against the grain or go against the tide.

I am a profession web developer with well over 10 years of experience. The simple fact is that if you can see it in your web browser, it is trivial to copy it. At the very minimum a simple Alt+PrtScn on Windows or a Command+Shift+3 or 4 in Mac OSX will defeat any protection that anyone has devised. And if the person wants the original file then there are a number of simple, failsafe alternative methods to get that too. 

This is a fundamental "limitation" of the web that is based on HTML and the HTTP.

In my opinion the other sites, that you mention, are just trying to provide the pretence of some sort of copyright protection to satisfy their users, in the full knowledge that it provides no real deterrent.

I put "limitation" above in quotes because it can also bee seen as a tremendous strength. It is the transparency, openness, and the ability to share on of the web that has facilitated its amazing growth, usefulness and strength.

The challenges for professional photographers (which I am not, but sometimes I dream of giving it a try) is to work out how to harness these constraints/strengths (like we harness a lens' limited depth of field for artistic effect).

My thoughts on this are:

It is incorrect to think of a stolen image as a missed sales opportunity. People who only want to get an image for free, would, by definition, never have paid for it.

Rather a stolen image is a potential marketing opportunity. I think that profession photographers should place their web address discreetly, but clearly, on their images that they post to the web. Now each stolen image is a new advert, reaching new and ever wider audiences, with the potential to drive buyers to your site. I understand that it is quite easy for the address to be removed but what more can you do?  

Well actually there is something... The powerful new image search now allow photographers to track down their photos. If you find your photo being used in ways that you don't approve, especially if they have removed your site address, send them an invoice. If they pay then they can have a clean image without the site address on it so long as they provide attribution (unless they pay even more). This is a sale that you probably would never have gotten if the image wasn't stolen. In most cases however, particularly the smaller non-corporate web sites, they will probably just quietly remove the image or ignore you; oh well, you win some and you loose some.

Nick Weall's comment reminded me of a vague quote I remember, attributed to someone at Adobe. It went something along the line of: "We find it extremely frustrating that Photoshop is the most pirated software in the world. The only thing worse would be if someone else's was pirated even more."

[Phil Howell]

I'll just add that significant disadvantages can come with attempts to hide the access to the original image file. 

For example, a common approach, to hide the file, is to use Javascript to dynamically fetch the image from the server instead of having the URL to the image visible in the page's HTML source code. 

As an aside, this doesn't work of course, as there is an extremely popular plugin, available for all the browsers, that allows you to view the generated source code produced by the Javascript and hence see the URL to the file.

However whilst this method is in-effective against piracy, it is 100% effective at hiding the image from all the search engines' indexing robots.  Your images are guaranteed not to be found by a user doing a Google or Bing image search. I personally want my images as high on search results as possible, not missing completely.

Edit: Just to clarify - I made a bold statement of fact that it would be 100% effective at blocking search engines. In truth this may not be correct any more. Because this is such a common approach the software engineers at the search engine companies have probably made their robots smarter so that they can find those images too. But my general point remains, messing with the standard way things are done on the web can have unintended consequences.

[Phil Howell]

Are we likely to hear any "official" word from the team on this issue?

We have heard some strong arguments, for and against, and it is clear that it is an issue that a number of the community members are concerned about. But the discussion is a futile effort if Panoramio doesn't engage in the conversation as well.

The response doesn't need to be a final decision on the issue, but it would be nice to know that we are at least been given the common courtesy of been listened to.

[Draken]

Phil

This issue had been discussed in the past and the Team then gave their views on it.

As a practical note, the Team consist of only 5 people and the Community Manager is who sometimes participates in the forum. However, it would be impossible for him to keep track of every thread on every language forum. Moderators can draw his attention to this thread but as I have stated he has already responded. Users are being listened to by the moderators who are mediators/middlemen between users and the Team.

[Phil Howell]

Thanks Draken,

This issue had been discussed in the past and the Team then gave their views on it. 

I have searched and found the following discussions:

• https://groups.google.com/d/topic/panoramio-suggestions/aRuVe21BElc/discussion
  
• https://groups.google.com/d/topic/panoramio-questions-support/QO-GWzr3Tbc/discussion
  
• https://groups.google.com/d/topic/panoramio-questions-support/_63EIZgb8CM/discussion

But I could not find any "official" response. Is anybody able to find this or know what the current position is?

OT:

I understand the difficulty of supporting a large user base with a small team, that only a fraction of all the things that the community and the team want to do with Panoramio can be done given the constraints of time, people and money. In other words, that all changes need to be prioritised. 

I also appreciate the tireless, free work that the moderators do, and I trust that these issues are being raised with the team. But it seems to me that information does not effectively flow back to the community from the Team. I don't think that the moderators are, or should, be authorised to speak on behalf of the team. And the team, in particular the Community Manager, is probably so busy doing stuff that they don't have the time either.

However I think that this one sided communication could be alienating the user community from Panoramio.

Is it possible for more informal communication from other team members in the forums? Or can the moderators have access to a issue/development tracking system such that they can keep us informed of what the team has accepted/rejected or is currently working on? I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that a constructive conversation, that goes both ways, is vital to the ongoing success of this site and I'm worried that we a loosing that.

[Kevin Childress]

Phil Howell wrote:

But I could not find any "official" response. Is anybody able to find this or know what the current position is?

Phil, this is the third such thread I have started on this issue. I searched and searched and could never find the first one.

But here is a link to the second one: http://www.panoramio.com/forum/view/panoramio-group-__root__?place=topic%2Fpanoramio-questions-support%2FMojkbOetfSQ%2Fdiscussion

 

[Phil Howell]

Ok, thanks Kevin. 

I didn't find that thread in my searching, but I do recall seeing it now.

From that I guess we can take Gerard's comment as still the current Team position:

We do not have any current plan on disabling default browser behavior. 

As Herman already explained. When you open a photo in a browser the photo is already downloaded and it is temporary stored in the computer. Any user with minimum knowledge could get that file, even if we disable Right-Click from browser behavior. 

The new version of the photo viewer will offer not-originals but full-screen versions of the photo, but that still does not protect your photo.

Your photo is protected by the Creative Commons licence and you can claim your legal rights to any infringement that occurs. If that happens in Panoramio or any Google property you can do so by filing an easy DMCA complain. If that happens in another site, you will need to write to that site. 

You can get more info at:

http://www.panoramio.com/help/copyright

And this is also probably what Matthew Walters was referring to as well?

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

On October 2011 we (moderators) had a meeting with team. Besides other things, we had informal discussion about copyright issues and copyright protection. What Phill have digged here is perfect summary of what we have heard there.

[starman79]

Hi folks,

 

There is an interesting article about this topic including all the issues above:

 

http://www.naturefocused.com/articles/image-protection.html

 

In the very beginning, the author writes: "Put plain and simple: the only way to protect your images from being downloaded or stolen off a web page is to not put them online in the first place".

 

And in the conclusions: " However, in my experiences in having my images used without my permission (at least those that I am aware of), many of the people doing so had little knowledge that they were guilty of copyright infringement - so perhaps education about copyright infringement and image theft is part of the solution".

 

 

[Scott99]

Hi Kevin,

 

There is a book called "The Legal Handbook for Photographers" by Bert P. Krages, an attorney specializing in how laws affect photographers and copyright litigation.  I bought it after being detained for 25 minutes by a policeman who didn't like me taking photographs from a pedestrian walkway on a bridge in a direction that included an Oil Rifinery (not the main subject I was interested in, but from my perspective so what if it was the main subject?). 

 

In anycase, for your problems, there is a lot of information about possible legal options and business stategies if people violate your copyrights.  Here's the main take away from the book with respect to defending copyrights:  Even though photographers are covered with virtually autoamatic basic copyright under the Berne Convention, registration (presumably with the US copyright office in your case) is extremely important in order to have any practical enforcement value.  Basic copyright allows one (in the US, at least) to only collect the lost economic value of the infringement, and that's usually not enough to justify taking someone to a federal court.  With registration, one can collect lost economic value, punitive awards, and attorney's fees.  That makes things much more attractive for the copyright holder, and scary for the infringer.

 

The book's author mentions that with copyright registration, many photographers have used that leverage not to go to federal court, but to reach a settlement.  He further reports that some photographers have reached very amicable settlements, and the original infringers became valued clients.  As mentioned by someone in a previous post,  One business model suggested in the book is for photographers to track down infringers with the intent to convert them into clients.

 

As for myself, I don't have the time or inclination to vigorously police what happens to my photos.  I simply upload comparatively small photos that are of limited value, fully expecting that some will be pirated (one Panoramio guy copied one of my photos, uploaded it to his gallery, then mapped it next to my original.  What was that about?).  I do occasionally get personal messages requesting to use some of my photos.  I always tell people that they may right-click/save the requested photos for their personal use, and thank them for the courtesy of asking.  In one case, a restaurant wanted some large, high quality prints to hang on their wall.  I was not willing to transfer full resolution electronic copies to the restaurant and let them get the prints at their local photoshop.  Instead, I arranged for prints to be made and shipped to the restaurant from a reputable photoshop that I trusted not to retain my electronic copies.  Woo Hoo!  I turned pro for a day!

 

Even if Panoramio were to disable right-click/save, or implement other measures, I still would not upload high resolution photos for the reasons mentioned by others.

 

I'm kind of with some of the others in that I think the only thing worse than pirating my photos would be pirating someone else's photos.  Hey man, at least people think you have skill.  If nobody was interested in stealing your stuff, that would be bad news indeed.  I'm sure there are plenty of people on Panoramio who wish they had your problem.

 

Best regards,

Scott

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 7:07:48 AM UTC+1, Scott99 wrote:

Even if Panoramio were to disable right-click/save, or implement other measures, I still would not upload high resolution photos for the reasons mentioned by others.

Wise choice, wise choice... :-) 

[s_salmiah]

How about if Panoramio remove the option "View the original image" in the Photo Explorer?

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:50:12 PM UTC+1, s_salmiah wrote:

How about if Panoramio remove the option "View the original image" in the Photo Explorer?

Please, no! 

This is the one thing I am strongly against... for this reasons:

This feature (access  to original uploaded image) makes Panoramio quite unique. This feature is there from the early days of Panoramio... and removing something unique and a supported for long a period of time is a bad idea. In fact, I choose Panoramio as my favourite photo site because I have here absolute control: I can decide what resolution is suitable for publication of my photos. I need not to rely on system selected degree of resizing (which might be too much small or too big for my purpose). And if I want, I can use Panoramio as "backup" for my original JPG files. 

Transparency and freedom. That's what I like.

[Michael Burton]

My preference would be to allow me to set the size that can be downloaded, allow for an image request, and for a watermark to be added to the image on download. 

Some may choose to allow full resolution images to be used without watermark, others only with watermark and still others only allow lower resolution with or without watermark. 

I would like to see the request image button on the image page so that those that want the image for commercial use could contact the owner.  Google could monetize the image request if they were looking for a way to recoup cost or add a revenue stream. 

I like being able to see the full size images on Panoramio. I would hate to loose that. I agree that images will still be used without permission but it would give those that are honest an avenue to maintain that honesty.

I have seen undocumented Panoramio images being used for commercial gain without consent. 

I guess there are several options for photographers that want to provide images for GE and Panoramio. Stop uploading until the problem is addressed. Remove images from the account that are in danger of being infringed. Supply only lower resolution images. 

Personally I will continue to provide the highres images while the issue is being discussed. Once the action and status if this issue is resolved I may change my stance. I love to share with Panoramio but don't feel that the current situation will provide the highest quality images to the service. 

If Professionals were protected and rewarded think of what could happen. 

[hvbemmel]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:31:56 PM UTC+1, Michael Burton wrote:

Personally I will continue to provide the highres images while the issue is being discussed. Once the action and status if this issue is resolved I may change my stance.

 The discussion is among us, the users. For the team this is not an issue at the moment, meaning they are not planning to change the possibilities. For the new explorer they made it more difficult to reach the original, but anything you want to do to protect your photos is totally up to you.

[Yorkshire Sam]

I agree that Panoramio should help ius in stopping piracy, instead I notice today that they have now even added a download button to make it even easier for image thieves!!!!   Along with the advertising that has appeared also I can see a mass migration from the site as a result of these changes.

[hvbemmel]

The download button is only available to you for your photos. You will then download a copy of your original photos with titles, tags and geo data.

The only way you can see advertising within Panoramio is when you have malware on your computer; Panoramio has no advertising on the site!

[Tomas K☼h☼ut]

Yorkshire Sam:  

I agree that Panoramio should help ius in stopping piracy, instead I notice today that they have now even added a download button to make it even easier for image thieves!!!!   Along with the advertising that has appeared also I can see a mass migration from the site as a result of these 

Sam (or Simon?) just to add to what Hvbemmel said:

Whenever you see advertising on comments or images uploaded to Panoramio, you can report it as commercial spam (see Panoramio team email addresses). I personally don't regret the time wasted by these reports - sooner or later they are handled. Panoramio stays reasonably clean.

About "mass migration from Panoramio" - I am not sure where you've got it. Do you have any figures proving this? Anyway - if there is any mass (?) migration, there will be more reasons for this. ;-)

[df3vi]

My preference would be to allow me to set the size that can be downloaded, allow for an image request, and for a watermark to be added to the image on download.

Well, actually you have that already, by choosing the size of photos you upload.
If you want a watermark, add it. Who's stopping you from doing so?

[jellyfish949]

I absolutely like your thinking. I not sell my photos. I have several 100 in panoramio. I would never loose the time to check if they were used somewhere without my consent. So I know it and then ... a lawyer? in the court? I really hope panoramio stays as it is. Simple, open, transparent.  

[Wim Constant]

Op vrijdag 4 januari 2013 19:25:49 UTC+1 schreef Yorkshire Sam het volgende:

I agree that Panoramio should help ius in stopping piracy, instead I notice today that they have now even added a download button to make it even easier for image thieves!!!!   Along with the advertising that has appeared also I can see a mass migration from the site as a result of these changes.

There is ONE WAY and ONE WAY only, to prevent your pictures from being stolen:
Keep them private and don't upload them.

You can disfigure or minimize them, that reduces the risk of theft, but they can still be stolen

But I think, we joined Panoramio, because we want the world to see our photos.

So accept the possibility of theft of your photos

[Draken]

Wim

The download photos link is only visible for you (when you are logged in), you won't see it on my page or anyone else's to that effect.

[Wim Constant]

Op dinsdag 16 april 2013 21:54:19 UTC+2 schreef Draken het volgende:

Wim

The download photos link is only visible for you (when you are logged in), you won't see it on my page or anyone else's to that effect.

Yes, I know, I was reacting on this comment of Yorkshire Sam: I agree that Panoramio should help ius in stopping piracy.

My point: Stopping piracy is absolutely impossible.