Wed, August 25th, 2004 by Derek Powazek
We've all been there. You work hard to put up interesting photos every day. And then you're surfing along and there's one of your pics - on someone else's site.
In some cases, someone duplicating your work is fair use (examples include parody and critique - like all good things in life, it depends on context). But most of the time it's just your photo, decorating someone else's site. It's uncool. It's illegal. It happens.
I've been building websites for about ten years and this has happened to me too many times to count. I've tried everything from letters from lawyers (expensive, time-consuming, annoying) to ignoring it (nagging feeling of injustice, bottled anger, annoyance). Technological solutions backfire and email harassment only leads to high blood pressure. What to do?
After lots of trial and error, I've come up with a new approach, and I wanted to share.
Here's the stone cold fact: If you put images on the net, they will be stolen. Period. Copyright protects you in theory, but we all know there's nothing to stop someone from grabbing an image from your site and putting it on theirs (except, of course, for good manners and bad karma).
So the people who want to rip you off will always find a way to do so. So let's forget about them.
Then there are a lot of well-meaning folks with websites who have no clue how to use FTP or HTML. They'd give you a credit link, but they don't know how, or even that they should. These are the people we can help.
I created a little image widget on my site that gives the viewer a bit of HTML code which just creates a 250x250 mid-size version of one of my photos and links it back to the original. Now all a viewer has to do is copy and paste this code on to their site, and all their work is done. (You can see one in this very post.) Quick and easy.
I implemented this with a combination of Movable Type to manage the images, the MTImageEmbed plugin to generate the smaller jpegs, and a page that uses SSI to grab the image number out of the URL and format the code. But all of that is just tech details - it wouldn't be that hard to implement this in any photoblogging software. You just need to pull in the image's URL and SRC and plop the right code into a textarea somewhere.
The point is, this gives us a middleground in between fighting it and ignoring it. The image provider gets links in and appropriate credit, and the image poster gets a pretty image for their site without any hassle. Everybody wins.
This is just what I've come up with. It may not be right for everyone. But I just wanted to put the idea out there. I'd love to see others implement it, and maybe even push the idea further.
August 25th, 2004 at 3:30 am
I think you've come up with a brilliant idea there. I always find it such a compliment when someone puts one of my photos on their site, but at times Ive noticed they havnt linked back. I think you've done well with this because it invites folk to enjoy your work for personal use, and also gives them the option to purchase.
Reminds me of mp3's - at first the record companies were up in arms about them, but now they have accepted that mp3's exist and are offering people an honest avenue.
Great idea!
August 25th, 2004 at 6:15 am
i love it. such a well-meaning idea! when i first saw it from your site, i wanted to implement it. but i realized, if anyone would really do it, meaning, steal OTHER images for their perusal or take your great idea, get your code but change the captions, then they'd do it regardless if you've set up a great middleground to scraping images. it's like photo-terrorism. people will always try to find a way, the wrong way, to doing things.
August 25th, 2004 at 9:28 am
you're neat, derek.
August 25th, 2004 at 9:35 am
Giving people the tools to exercise fair-use properly is a great idea.
August 25th, 2004 at 10:42 am
I was wondering if it wouldn't be reasonable to use some java script which replaced the image with a watermarked image when the mouse moves over it?
August 25th, 2004 at 10:45 am
Personally, I subsribe to the free art concept. I don't much care how or what other people do with my photographs since I never placed any financial stake or ego in my photos in the first place. You save yourselves a lot of headaches...if you just don't care. I'm not saying that everybody should do this however. Its only my own personal view on the matter. I realize that a lot of photographers and artist depend on their work as a means of supporting themselves, but as amateurs, I think this is the best way to get your images out there in the world, by sharing it openly.
August 25th, 2004 at 11:34 am
Frank, someone could still just do a screen capture of the image to get a copy of it. (In Windows this is as easy as hitting the "Print Screen" button.)
August 25th, 2004 at 12:07 pm
You're right, Brandon, it wouldn't be fail safe. Even when I wrote it I knew that the determined image thief could also open up the source code through the browser and get the url for the unaltered image, copy the address, and save it that way. I was only thinking it would make it difficult. (Looking at source code was how I learned html; I do it frequently.)
August 25th, 2004 at 12:25 pm
I think there's still something to be said for the watermark-on-rollover idea. It could be a way to provide information about the image and its source without the site citing it needing to be reliable about attribution.
A clever person could probably figure out a way to make one generic watermark layer with something like
This image is the work of Derek Powazek.
You can see more of his art at
http://www.ephemera.org
[copyright statement]
I wonder if it's possible to somehow serve this watermark as a new positioned element over the original image without having to make a new image. What if the watermark were a separate image with a layer that's a grid of tiny alternating white & transparent pixels and dark text? And then you used CSS to position it directly over the cited image? Would the image show through faintly? Somebody clever try this and let me know if it works.
August 25th, 2004 at 12:53 pm
I guess my big question is: How are people going to use this idea? Derek, do you have any examples of people using your images on their sites?
Seeing examples may help people to understand the possibilities here. We do have one example in Derek's original blog post above, but I'd be interested in seeing how it has been used in the "real world".
August 25th, 2004 at 1:07 pm
brandon, i tried it out in this post:
http://www.hchamp.com/other/archives/000162.html
i think if you put your work online, you'll have to let go somewhat or you could spend all your time policing the web.
i've gone after the most egregious violations (like rannie's experience with complete lifting). the creative commons licenses have muddied the water somewhat and i've had both good and interesting experiences with that. interestingly, some of my biggest battles are with people who really should know better.
August 25th, 2004 at 1:21 pm
great idea derek, kudos for sharing it with the community.
now at least people have another option of doing the right thing instead of just trying to get away with something they shouldn't.
oh, and the 'poopy' q/a is brilliant! gave me a good laugh this morning.
August 25th, 2004 at 2:30 pm
I love that people like you exist Derek, Brandon, anyone who takes it upon themselves to donate their brains and time to a community whether online or whatever. Neat tool Derek, I hope it catches on.
August 25th, 2004 at 4:12 pm
It's a very interesting concept and a cool little tool Derek. It would certainly make it easier for any of my friends and collegues to use my photos on their blog or site if they wanted to. KUDOS
Now in all seriousness do I think this is a rational response to image theft?
Unfortunately, most of the people who outright lift your photos from your site and post it on their own usually do this, with the intent of pawning it off as their own work.
It's not the ignorant web users out there who are accidentally posting your images on their sites. Generally the people who are stealing images and using them as their own are more than aware of what they are doing. or as Heather wrote, they should know better.
I don't believe that is right. I don't care how good or crappy my image is. It is my image.
Elwin wrote, "as amateurs, I think this is the best way to get your images out there in the world, by sharing it openly."
I totally agree, I encourage people to use my images on your site, I generally don't care. I even mention on my "about page" that in most cases I will let you use my images on your own site, with one stipulation, that you credit me with the image or at least link back to me. I just think that credit should be given where credit is due.
Just imagine if you came up with all these great ideas. Now imagine a co-worker presenting your ideas and getting all the recognition for those ideas.
It's flattering to know that people like your pictures. It's also flattering to know that your pictures and text are good enough to be recognized as a "site of the week". Now imagine that this happened to you, you would feel good, wouldn't you.
Now imagine if all that recognition went to someone else who was posing as you. They used your images and text to get their own site recognized as a "Site of the Week" Should I just not care?
Elwin also wrote, "You save yourselves a lot of headaches...if you just don't care"
Heaven knows that I don't make any money off my photoblog, It's really a labour of love. It's true, I don't have anything financial at stake, but there is no way you could seriously ask me to not care about it. If i didn't care about the photos that I put online, do you seriously think I would go through the trouble everyday of sharing it on the web?
Excuse me if I am being overly dramatic about this. Photography is my passion, it's a very big part of who I am. if you don't care about your images, why do you post them online for others to see? (deep down , whether you admit or not, we all want our images to be seen, we all want recognition).
In both cases where I have been ripped off, I was lucky enough to have someone spot the offence. I do have to wonder, how many more instances are not caught.
OKAY SORRY... i will end my rant here.
August 25th, 2004 at 5:26 pm
I'm going to be a minority here and say that I don't like it. And let me apologize for getting on the soap box I'm about to get on.
I have my email address on the bottom of every page on my web site (just about). If somebody wants to use a photo, all they need to do is ask. Chances are, I'll say yes if you are not profiting from it or are using it for a political reason outside of my own beliefs. But I want that to be left to my discression.
The think I like least about it is that it makes stealing images --kind of-- okay, you know, as long as you include the credit.
That is not okay with me. Thank you for using my name in credit, but if you use my image as the centerpiece of a multi-million dollar ad campaign, I want my piece of the pie. If you use my image to endorse President Bush, I want to say "no way!". And if you steal my image and pass it off as your own, you better hope you didn't profit from it because you will certainly be hearing from an attourney.
I don't even like the idea of the rest of you guys using this system. It makes intellectual property theft more prolific, making myself an easier target.
In the end, I'm not for any system that makes it easier to use my images than a simple email inquisition. Ask first, I'll probably say "yes."
August 25th, 2004 at 5:30 pm
Actually, Rannie, I didn't mind the rant; you touched upon many well deserving points and I also think that Darek's idea is a truly awesome one, Good work man. It certainly does allow another venue for those who wish to give credit to the original person, but as Rannie mentioned this is where the loophole exists.
There still are people out there that want the recognition of being as 'famous' as someone else. I don't mind, like Rannie, if people use my photographs or even emulate them to a certain degree, but it's to the point where a person does it for this social status they wish to achieve or the commercial benefit they may gain.
Now, if the same thing happened to me, especially commercially, certainly I would be infuriated - all my work and my passion has been left in the hands of another person, all my work is meaningless to that social, or commercial, point and all the labour I endured has gone to waste - I gain no benifit except for the personal fact that I know for myself that I created the piece. People have right to, in my mind, be selfish of their works; it is there creation, their 'children'.
In fact, this has even led me to change my copyright notice - I used to have it claim very strict holdings, but now I agree much with that I do not mind the use of my photos as long as they have due credit -inspired by Rannie. Even if I, too, fall under a pitfall, I think it will happen eventually to everyone that comes under the social spotlight, we all might be under the gun at one point, so to speak.
So, I'll end my long rant as well, which repeated a great deal of what is spoken all ready, but I just wanted to thank Darek for his creation, ultimately. Good job, man.
August 25th, 2004 at 5:36 pm
Hmm, actually, now that Lane mentions that, and I can't delete my comment or revise it
I do mind, to a certain degree, by which the usage comes into context. Something I wasn't very keen on a few seconds ago, considering I just got my internet working again, hehe 
I exactly agree with lane, as well, so I suppose that here is my own personal comprimise and have, once again, edited my copyright back due to the point that Lane made (I don't want to seem flexible, but merely bending to the points I agree with as they are suggested and opened up). The context means a great deal, and if the two reasons that Lane mentioned to me as well. I suppose, with further thought, that the context is a great importance to the usage of the work - if it's displayed openly as an art with full accredit to me, such as say in the project Rannie was in, then I would probably not have a problem - but I wish, still, to have the discression like Lane mentioned.
Ugh...sorry for the two semi-meaningless posts guys. -_-
August 25th, 2004 at 5:39 pm
"The think I like least about it is that it makes stealing images --kind of-- okay, you know, as long as you include the credit."
I'm not sure that I understand your point. How does Derek's code make stealing images ok? He's taken a stab at creating a reasonable solution for fair use that makes sense to me.
What am I missing?
August 25th, 2004 at 7:53 pm
Heather,
I guess what I don't like is the thought of the wide-spread practice of people using other people's photography on their sites without the simple courtesy of asking.
August 25th, 2004 at 8:13 pm
lane, the wide-spread practice of people using other people's photography on their sites without permission has pretty much exisited from day one on the internet and is business as usual today. the idea of "everything should be free" and "it all belongs to me" are commonplace and unfortunately seem to be indelibley woven into the fabric of our web.
derek's experiment and the whole idea of creative commons licensing is finding unique ways to deal with an existing problem. i think that people need to be encouraged in thinking differently.
because people are striving for alternate solutions doesn't mean that they are right for everyone. many people had a giant panty-twist when cc licensing first came out (remember when everyone thought that mt licensing would default to cc?).
bottom line, if you don't like it, you don't need to participate -- you can rely on the existing norm of people asking you to use your work.
August 25th, 2004 at 8:23 pm
You are right about my ability to not participate. However, mass participation of lending photos without requiring permission effects me whether I participate or not. It contributes to the "everything should be free" ideology that in turn makes image theft more wide-spread.
August 25th, 2004 at 11:45 pm
Lane, excuse me, but that's crazy talk.
We're all photographers here. We all have websites. But let's not fall into the trap of thinking we all need to agree.
I'm giving a blanket permission for *personal sites* to use a *special version* of my photos in a certain way, and making it super easy for them to do so. That's my decision, and my right. And it doesn't effect you one iota.
If you want to make different decisions when it comes to your work, please do! Experiment. Figure out what works for you.
But let's not pretend that we all can't find out own path. That's the beauty part of owning a copyright - you get to pick which exceptions you grant.
August 26th, 2004 at 1:00 am
I understand where Lane is coming from. my earlier comment was mainly directed at non commercial sites. In these cases I am pretty relaxed about usage.
Of course if you are a commercial site. You better ask me for permission before to use any images. Cause a) i wanns get paid if you are getting paid and b) I want to decide if I want to be associated with the commercial project.
August 26th, 2004 at 6:32 am
I like your little script. It will help the honest person use the image easier.
The dishonest person, I agree, let them steal the image. If they spread the image around and make it a huge revenue provider, more power to them. I have no problem sharing any revenue with them if they can market one of my images better then me.
We the photographer, will discover their theft eventually and if it comes to court we will be the only holders of the "original." Any dispute can remedied as long as we have the proof of ownership.
August 26th, 2004 at 7:15 am
Copyright theft ranks up in my top lame list with royalty free and copyright buyout.
August 26th, 2004 at 7:31 am
It looks like Lane is concerned that this idea will help create a culture of "take without asking". His photos aren't available under those conditions and he doesn't want people to mistakenly think they are.
I can see his point. It's logical.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's really much he can do to stop that sort of confusion from happening. The widespread use of Creative Commons should be a much bigger concern to him. It actually grants people the right to do whatever they want with an image, provided they follow a few photographer-defined restrictions.
This "freely available with certain restrictions" attitude is becoming more prevalent, because people want it. It's useful.
All these different options can make things confusing and difficult, but the only alternative is to have fewer options. If there was only one version of copyright and only one way to share images, then no one would be confused. But that's not the world we live in.
People want options. They just need to be educated about which options are valid and legal under which circumstances, and that's the tough part.
August 26th, 2004 at 11:49 am
There IS only one version of copyright. Creative Commons is not law, it's a license. As long as copyright law has been around, there have always been various licenses available. That's the whole point - giving the power to the creator of the work.
Just because I'm giving permission for personal sites to use some of my images in certain ways doesn't mean that copyright law doesn't apply to me. I'm just making it easy for people to use my images in a way I approve of. Basically, I'm asking them for a favor: You can have this image if you link back. This is encouraging the best kind of fair use.
But, seriously, do you really think that me doing this, or even lots of people doing this, will lead to confusion? If anything, it'll just make people more aware of the issue.
The truth is, every creative work is automatically copyrighted, little (c) or not. And it is always, always, always illegal to take an image from someone and call it your own, or take an image and use it in a way that's not fair use, without the copyright holder's permission. Always.
And it's important to remember that Fair Use, which allows copying in certain cases, trumps all of this stuff. So anyone can copy a work (or, usually, a portion of the work) for the purposes of fostering comment and critique of the work. For example, when I wrote Design for Community, I didn't have to ask permission to use screenshots of the websites I was talking about in the book. That's classic fair use.
What's been called "the culture of take without asking" exists already. That is the problem I'm trying to solve by giving people a way to use images that are properly attributed.
August 26th, 2004 at 11:54 am
"The truth is, every creative work is automatically copyrighted, little (c) or not."
Thats totally true, but it will help if you have the copyright logo, and even more so help in court if your works are registered.
August 26th, 2004 at 12:29 pm
Derek said:
"There IS only one version of copyright. Creative Commons is not law, it's a license."
Okay... that's fine. Non-lawyers like me tend to use words that are ambiguous and not exactly legally specific.
My point is that there are a lot of different options. And more options lead to confusion. But education can help to clarify that confusion. Therefore, if you want options, education is very important. If you agree that education is important then you probably have to admit that a confusion exists.
That's all I'm saying.
All these different conversations about copyright, licenses, etc. help to prove the point that it's all a bit confusing.
I think Lane has a logical concern, but not a very realistic one... if that makes sense.
August 26th, 2004 at 12:33 pm
I guess another way to put it is: Freedom is a great thing, but it requires responsibility.
It's logical to be concerned that people will misuse their freedoms, but taking away freedoms probably isn't the best way to fix that problem.
August 26th, 2004 at 12:44 pm
Why am I having Spider-Man flashbacks? "With great power ..."
Education is always a good thing. But I truly believe that we were all raised with moms that told us not to take it if it ain't ours. Everybody knows that.
Like i said in the beginning, my approach is not for the people who knowingly steal. There's nothing I can do to stop that. This approach is for the people who want to do it right (ie fair use) and just need a little help and encouragement.
I think if more photoblogs had pages that explained in clear terms what is and isn't okay with the photographer, it could only help the education process, not hurt it.
August 26th, 2004 at 1:03 pm
Agreed. All these abstract concepts are difficult to distill into words. Basically, this is how I see it.
freedom = good
education = good
confusion = bad
more freedom = more confusion
more education = less confusion
trying to minimize confusion by minimizing freedom = bad
trying to minimize confusion by maximizing education = good
I'm not sure if this means I agree/disagree with Derek/Lane. It's certainly not a zero-sum game.
August 26th, 2004 at 5:14 pm
I'm trying to understand how Derek's cool tool does anything other than address a need.
I think there are red herrings being tossed around here.
Lane, honestly your concern seems to me to be maybe a little reactionary and focused in the wrong direction.
If you leave your pictures on your front lawn, it's possible that people will steal them. Period. Put a sign up and telling them not to, or put a sign up telling them to ask first, or provide them with a shopping cart, your choice, but don't lose sleep over it. And don't expect your neighbours to stop having garage sales just because some idiot might take something off your lawn by accident.
Derek's cool tool doesn't create or promote an attitude of wrongful entitlement, rather it addresses a need and facilitates communication. I disagree with your concern as strongly as I disagree with the argument that says, for example, that safe needle exchanges promote drug abuse. No, they don't. Or if they do in some measure, that is still outweighed by the benifits. They are a rational humanistic response to drug abuse and they save lives.
Bottom line is, as Brendon perhaps implied, education. There's no reason on earth why Derek's cool tool won't have a positive effect by educating people about use, as well as facilitating acceptable sharing.
For myself, I absolutely completely do not care to worry about people appropriating my images. Just not worth it. If someone steals from me I might or might not make a scene about it. Depends on the case. If I was going to worry about that I wouldn't publish my pics, period. Part of the trade off of public exposure is that the public has access to you and your work. This was true before the internet even!
August 26th, 2004 at 5:25 pm
Sorry BrAndon. Oops.
August 26th, 2004 at 6:52 pm
"Lane, honestly your concern seems to me to be maybe a little reactionary and focused in the wrong direction."--Matto
Matto, I admit that I think you are right a little bit. Perhaps the overall heading of the thread contributed to the misdirection because although Derek's widget may have a need and might solve a lot of problems that some photographers are facing, it does little in my eyes to curve image theft, a REAL problem.
I think it is important for Derek, Heather, and everybody else who has made great arguments contrary to my view to know that I have NO desire to limit your rights to use such techniques. I don't know freedoms came into the context of this argument, but I have no interest in limiting anybody's freedoms.
As a professional photographer, I do have a serious concern with the value of photography. There is a growing culture in "take first, ask questions later...or don't ask at all". It started with MP3s, where the value of music has dropped to almost zilch during the P2P heyday. A culture was created where just about everybody believed that music should come accross the internet free as the air we breath.
I'm not suggesting that anybody here should not have the right to give away your photography without requesting permission. I am *encouraging* people to request permission.
And when the time comes when it is appropriate to charge for your photography, I encourage you to understand the cost of business and charge accordingly.
To think that it does not affect me is near-sighted. There are a lot of photographers, ametures and professionals alike, on photoblogs.org. Trends on this very sight can and do affect the value of photography over the long haul.
So forgive me for being reactionary, it seemed like my one and only chance to express my opinion.
Rant over.
August 26th, 2004 at 7:15 pm
lane, i understand your concern. the "take first and ask questions later" culture has been alive and well on the web since day one, well before the advent of mp3s. what i was trying to say earlier, without much success, is that this idea is woven into the very fabric of the web.
case in point: i built my first home page in 1994 and then with the arrival of the background attribute in the body tag in march 95, created an archive of work that people could use for their own web pages. i had very specific terms of use (like not linking directly to my stuff) and how use should be acredited, etc.
i found my stuff all over the web used willy nilly with little concern about meeting my terms. i took the archive down about 2 years ago and i'm still getting errors in my refer logs with pages that link directly to long gone GIFs.
cc which launched last year is really the first stab at coming up with a solution for non commercial use.
education is the key but i've had experiences where students tell me that their teachers told them to take whatever they wanted from the web. oh joy!
August 26th, 2004 at 8:53 pm
"To think that it does not affect me is near-sighted."
You either think that you're very important or I am. Either way, you're wrong.
You're not the only "professional" on here, so can the attitude. I have, and do, sell my photography to publications. If you read the page that'd got you so worried, you'd see that it's only for personal sites. Professional ones are encouraged to contact me.
As has been said over and over again, people are going to take your images no matter what. Welcome to the web. The idea is simply to guide the people who want to do it right. I gave them a tool to use. You can give them a simple form to contact you with.
Everybody wins.
August 26th, 2004 at 10:12 pm
Derek:
Relax D, Lane wasn't attacking you, or anyone.
Everyone:
Now correct me if I am wrong Lane, but I think what you meant was that what each and every one photographer decides to do in their approach to their business affects everyone of us.
Their are certain matters that are going on in the industry that are negatively affecting EVERY single photographer out there. All the way from photographers not understanding a licensing business model, educating clients on this model, copyright infringement and "buyout", royalty free, and freaking p2p!
Heard of http://www.grokster.com?
How about MGM vs. Grokster?
How about MGM loosing the case?
Photographers can not win a copyright infringement lawsuit against a company such as Grokster. Not yet at least.
Read here:
http://www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0355894p.pdf
How about this crap too:
http://www.http://www.10eastern.com/foundphotos.html
There are people out their fighting for photographers too though. And that is one of my main points. People like Jeff Sedlik, the APA, ASMP, etc. are not fighting for shits and giggles. They are fighting for you. It is the photographers job to find out what is being fought for and why. If someone wants to be a photographer, or is a photographer, then BE ONE. Take part in the industry that will be feeding you.
As for me Derek, I have to tell you that the education you serve on your Link to Ephemera page is great.
August 27th, 2004 at 11:48 am
I fail to see what Grokster, MGM, or P2P have to do with anything we've been discussing here. We're talking about websites, people, and sharing your photography with the world. That's what we do. Once you get into this bank vault protection mentality, well, I wonder why you have a website at all.
August 27th, 2004 at 12:10 pm
Copyright infringement.
August 27th, 2004 at 2:36 pm
Best way to fight copyright infringement? Keep your photos in your house, in a drawer, with a padlock on it.
If you're gonna make your photos available on a website, they're gonna get jacked. The way to deal with it, as I said in the post that started all this, is to either not care, or spend all your time and money fighting. Both suck.
The third path, the one I'm pushing for with my remedial image widget, is to give the people who want an easy way to use an image according to fair use a way to do so. This hurts no one, complies with the law, and is pretty good karma to boot.
All the hysterics about p2p is a totally other issue.
August 27th, 2004 at 3:58 pm
Too bad things got a little heated in here. Looks to me like a bunch of well-meaning people simultaneously arguing different things.
For what it's worth... Nice tool Derek. Good idea. Hopefully your idea will continually evolve into something helpful that many people can benefit from.
Also, I hope none of my poorly worded comments were misunderstood. (That's why I have a photoblog after all.) Less is more, in my case.