posted on July 3, 2001 11:35:21 PM
I produce and sell posters and have to show them to sell them. I don't want them ripped off. I know I can write on them property of ..., but I think that takes away from the pics. I've seen some folks have the pic change when the mouse goes over it and have something come up saying " this is copyrighted material..." and that seems cool because you can't even right click fast enough. Or others that when right click nothing happens. Is this a HTML code, or a program, or what? Any ideas on what I can do and where I can get it would be a great help.
posted on July 3, 2001 11:40:45 PM
I believe it is javascript, and javascript has been banned from eBay, so anyone using it is in jeopardy of having their auctions pulled.
If you are having a problem with people stealing pics, I would mark them. That would be the easiest way to do it.
Otherwise, you could always join the VERO program, in which case, if you ever saw another auction with your pics in it, you could automatically get the offender's auctions pulled, and if they did it again, suspended.
posted on July 4, 2001 12:22:34 AM
I am by no means an expert on this topic but I have a question -- are you worried about other sellers ripping off your pix, or are you worried about prospective buyers just downloading your pic, printing it on a laser printer, and being happy with that, instead of placing a bid and buying your original?
Both are legitimate concerns. From what I understand, any steps you could take to make your pic "inaccessible" (from "right-clicking," or whatever) can be circumvented by anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the computer. I know that for my own purposes, when I've found a photo to be un-"right-clickable", I can open the page in Netscape Composer and get the picture from there. (And when it comes to this kind of thing, I am dumb, dumb, dumb. If I can figure it out .... )
I hate to contradict Crystalline Sliver but the only way to truly protect yourself is to rudely impose your identification somewhere where it ruins the image itself. You need to strike a balance between marring the image and still letting the buyer see what he's getting. (Especially for artwork), you don't need to obliterate the image to put your watermark on it -- a true, fussy collector will not be happy with a laserprint that contains a watermark that overrides the image, even to a small degree.
posted on July 4, 2001 10:44:29 AM
I don't believe javascript has been banned from your ebay auction descriptions, only a couple of specific scripts have been banned.
posted on July 4, 2001 11:08:28 AM
there are also those smart ass who steal your pic,place an order or BIN or be the high bidder,then list your item using your description and picture for resale either on the same site or other sites.
they will not send payment until someone buy the item from them at a higher price than they bidded on.
you in fact become his supplier and drop ship for him to his customer,if there is any customer.
may be a watermark which said THIS ITEM HAS NOT BEEN PAID FOR YET
P.S. I didn't make them clickable, because I didn't want to steal their pics, just show you how easy it is to get them.
[ edited by ecom on Jul 4, 2001 12:12 PM ]
posted on July 4, 2001 01:05:08 PM
ecom - i don't see any protection there from right clicking on those two - or was that the idea. I'm more concerned with folks not bidding and printing them on a lazer printer ect... but I haven't thought of folks bidding and reselling after they received a higher bid. That's very interesting.
I did see at a poster site that as soon as your mouse pointer went anywhere on the pic, the pic disapeared and a notice came up saying it's copy protected. Does anyone know about that system or have even seen it. thanks all
posted on July 4, 2001 01:12:55 PM
Make it diffucult to get them as an easy printable. It helps to tilt the picture on an angle. That can be fixed in a photo program but most people don't have a clue how to do it.
It likes what you do against robbers you make your house harder to steal from and the will go to the next one. take the picture at an angle. Take it just below good print out quaility. They will still be good quaility pictures the web and won't look any different but when one goes to print the out the quality is not there. Play with the pixels.
Mark it but at a suttle spot. By doing these three things it makes hard and most will just move on.
The right clicking thing is a joke. No big deal. THe easiest thing to do it just download the WHOLE web pages. The pic will be saved and you can then print it out. No big deal a third grader can do it. So stopping a right click is a joke and waste of time.
posted on July 4, 2001 03:21:25 PM
or you can bypass the right click by going to "View" and "Source" in IE, and just find the URL for the pic in the source code.
posted on July 4, 2001 04:53:23 PM
i write "ebay scan do not replicate" in a semi-transparent font on all of my scans. with the semi-transparent font you can still see the picture clearly. it doesn't seem to affect my bidders.
my items are usually one of a kind autographed photos/playbills and the last thing i would want is someone to print it out and try to sell it as authentic.
posted on July 4, 2001 08:52:57 PM
jacowa: Posting auction #'s is not allowed in AW forums. I would suggest deleting that link from your post quick before the moderators attack....
That should be a TV show.....
"When Moderators Attack" - I can see it on FOX already.
BTW, those were very funny pics, and a really "crappy" font to use in an auction (pun intended )
posted on July 4, 2001 09:01:17 PMI hate to contradict Crystalline Sliver but the only way to truly protect yourself is to rudely impose your identification somewhere where it ruins the image itself. You need to strike a balance between marring the image and still letting the buyer see what he's getting. (Especially for artwork), you don't need to obliterate the image to put your watermark on it -- a true, fussy collector will not be happy with a laserprint that contains a watermark that overrides the image, even to a small degree.
As a buyer, I've had to "step out" of several auctions, all because the seller decided to slap on some identifying mark right in the middle of the picture.
One seller, who I asked if I could get pics sans watermark, lost nearly $1,000 worth of business from me all because he (rudely) told me he didn't want to.
Of course, his competition was more than happy to provide pictures sans marks, and i've been a loyal bidder ever since.
UBB error...why did "I" become "B"??
:\\\\\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
[ edited by Crystalline_Sliver on Jul 4, 2001 09:02 PM ]
posted on July 4, 2001 09:48:35 PM
In the program I have with my scanner, I can use the tools provided within the program to highlight, draw lines, circles or numerous other things to the pic I have scanned. Nothing goes on the original item being scanned. I use the highlight pen "tool" to show any blemish on the item via the scanned pic. Never touches the item in question.
posted on July 4, 2001 09:49:46 PM
Pretty funny, eh? If you run your own website, you can store photos on it and also view your access log files, which tell you how often people have been accessing the pages and graphics on your site. This person probably noticed that he was still getting hits on his Fendi photos even after his auction had ended . . from there, it would be easy to find the offending seller. Then, he placed new photos on his server with the same names as the Fendi photos. Simple, and very clever.
Sorry, but I also had to delete your last post as posting a link to another message board unless it is eBay's message boards is a violation of our Community Guidlines.
Darn, I just can't get this right, can I? Could you by any chance tell me which policy that violates, since I couldn't find a site for it within the guidelines, and I looked pretty hard.
posted on July 4, 2001 10:39:46 PM
Oh, so there actually isn't a policy against a link to another message board, unless the message on the other message board contains a link to an auction? But this wouldn't apply to messages on the eBay discussion board? I'm confused at the distinction. That sounds like some pretty involved policing on your part. You guys have a tough job.
By the way, I wasn't promoting the auction, I was just pointing out how funny it was, since it involved a seller who stole another seller's photos (related to the topic of this thread), but just created hyperlinks to them on the other seller's server. The seller, annoyed by this, changed the photos on his server to display pictures of his cat, his dog's buttocks, and cat doodoo in the grass (instead of photos of an expensive handbag). It's really not very funny unless you see the auction. It's something that's been posted on every other board around, and I just wanted to share it with you all.
posted on July 4, 2001 11:10:21 PM
Jacowa - thanks for trying to lead me to a stupid sellers auction as an example of folks ripping off pics. Your explaination was great and probably even better than the actual auction
posted on July 5, 2001 03:48:04 AM
I know this is sort of veering off the topic, but I'm amazed at the number of obviously scanned/copied photos being sold on Ebay.
posted on July 5, 2001 04:06:17 AM
I know this is sort of veering off the topic, but I'm amazed at the number of obviously scanned/copied photos being sold on Ebay>>
I don't sell photos on line but I have restored very old and damaged photos for years.
Anyway most people are to dumb to know the difference bewteen what we are used to and a scanned and some really don't care. For a lot of the star photos, war photos etc. . . what is the real difference, a developed copy or a scanned and printed one. These days a scanned and printed one can look much better then the developed copies if the person knows what they are doing. Of course many of them don't.
posted on July 5, 2001 10:20:35 AM
You know this whole "picture piracy" is somewhat interesting.
It seems photographs are clearly protected by copyright.
However, the originality requirement for "scans" and digital camera work has never been fully fleshed out for copyright.
A "scan" on a scanner is little different from a digital camera picture - but only for portability and what you can fit onto the scanners surface. Scanners literally do the same thing as a digital camera. A scanner is a digital camera. Which is the same as a copy on a copy machine.
So what is the difference between a digital camera image and a "copy" made on a copy machine ?
Where is the modicum of originality in digital images as opposed to a "copy" of an object ?
Photography always had "lighting", "camera angle", even the type of film or camera equipment used to define elements of originality.
But all these things are different with digital images. Lighting, camera angle, etc., can all be done or changed after the image is "copied" or "shot", and done very easily and inexpensivly in seconds.
The things you can do with a digital image on software that costs under $100 is amazing - and is getting better every day.
Is using software to manipulate an image "creative" and "original" when it can be exactly replicated by anyone with the same software ? How do you determin who is the originator or creator of the image ? Is the software author the creator of the changes and manipulation of the image or is the person that clicked the mouse utilizing the software the creator ? An element of copyright prosecution is that it must be shown or implied that the infringing party had access to the image, and that the image is essentially the same.
What happens if the image is a common object and the person who copied it used software to change it ? For instance, reverse the image and change the lighing/brightness and/or even change the colors, you can even add a different backround - we now have a common object image that is now different from the original, and as different as the software allows it to be.
If I scan the image of a book or use my digital camera to create the image for an auction, is it copyrightable ? Where is the originality as opposed to the image just being a copy? What about the book publisher's copyright to the book cover graphics ?
"Watermarks" are easily removed and changed, so that doesn't help, even if the image rises to copyright protection.
The problem goes beyond copyright. Digital images can be changed very profoundly and undetectable. What "news" or other images can be believed ? For decades, altered images could usually be detected by even an amateur, and always by a professional, but digital image manipulation is to the point of being undetectable.
Literary works present an interesting dilemma with computers. It is now possible and affordable to use a software program to produce literary works in every possible combination of intelligable English words combinations/sentences and save it in a database. Kind of like generating Pi out to the 1-millionth decimal.
So is this computer generated literature protected under copyright?
What about "literature" that is spell and grammar checked with software ? Is the part of the work "created" by the spelling/grammar software still original - how could it be? "Originality" has thus far been defined as a human endeavor - how does this comport when software is involved ?
These issues may have to be addressed sooner rather than later.
posted on July 5, 2001 11:40:41 AM
reamond - thanks for your thoughts but now I feel even worse than before. Well I guess it's like anything else - if they want it badly enough, then they will get it.
So I guess the real question is - what's the best deterrent or what's the easiest way to get them to think " I don't want it that badly" and still not take me hours on every pic to accomplish that?
)