Aug 17, 2009: Surprised Model

I was cleaning out my computer, and over in the corner under some pizza boxes and a dead hooker, I found this item I'd stashed 3 months ago.
I think it was even posted in the Cellar somewhere, but it's not moldy, and doesn't stink too bad, so here goes.

Danielle has a blog called, "Extraordinary Mommy", and as Mommies are wont to do, posted a picture of her kids... along with Hubby and herself.

Facebook sez, "Don't mind us, we're just whoring out your photos"

See, according to Facebook it's all part of the acceptable use policy you agreed to.......

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/07...t-your-photos/

Not at all surprised.

Yet another reason I have avoided that site.

Come on, she posted the photo on her own blog, and you guys are blaming Facebook?

Here's a fun game. Go to User CP, and under the Miscellaneous heading on the left, click on Attachments. Here you will see a list of every photo you've attached to the Cellar. And underneath each one you will see a statistic like, "52.9 KB, 46 Downloads." That's the number of times people have right-clicked to save your image to their hard drive. 114 people have saved my kid's Halloween photo. 415 people have downloaded a copy of my bruised foot. It's the fucking internet, people, and it's not Facebook's job to save you from it.

I don't think it's all the people who have saved a copy of your pic. In mine, pics in the same thread usually have a similar number of "downloads", so I suspect that some people's browsers download the pics to simply view them. Doesn't mean they've saved a copy. But you're right, it's your own responsibility to post your pics carefully. Trusting the interwebs is not the smartest thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble ...415 people have downloaded a copy of my bruised foot...

are you sure that's accurate, and not just how many times people have clicked on the picture to get a better look or something?

Hmm... I think monster may be right--different pictures that I've posted in the same thread do seem to have very similar download numbers. Maybe it just speaks to the popularity of the thread.

Well, ah... it's still not Facebook's fault.

I hang out on a kitchen remodeling forum, and 3-4 people there have found pictures of their kitchens in ads for companies they've never heard of. The pictures came from a variety of online sites like photobucket as well as the forum itself.

One of the thieving companies used a picture that clearly showed a kitchen with a competitor's products instead of their own.

Heya Janet, nice to see a hardcore lurker posting.

I think there is something very wrong about using pictures for advertising purposes without the permission of the people in the pictures, or the taker of the pictures.

For the people in the pictures, the ad constitutes an implicit endorsement of the product, which is probably fraudulent. For the photo store, it suggests that this is what your photos come out like if you use them; again, deceitful.

For the photographer; that is how professional photographers make their living, and while there is some "fair use" for research, teaching and criticism (and IotD, which consists of all three ), comercial use like the sign is breach of copyright.

But still, as was said before, if you put your picture on the net, you never know where it will end up, and you should expect some weird shit will happen eventually. That is why I am a faceless dwellar - there are no pics of me here. I regret not being in the collage, but that is the price I pay for my invisibility.

It's funny we are talking about this on IotD where most of the images are kinda-sorta stolen. IotD is part of the problem, if you regard it as a problem.

Being in the collage would have been nice, and it's not the same as a photo.

I am pretty careful about the images I use--if I need an image for my blog, for example, I'll use an image which I can get permission for, or can credit enough for my conscience. It's not a perfect solution, but it gets me by. I'm sure people use images I put up, but not much we can really do about it except to put a watermark or copyright notice right on the image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad It's funny we are talking about this on IotD where most of the images are kinda-sorta stolen. IotD is part of the problem, if you regard it as a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum if you put your picture on the net, you never know where it will end up, and you should expect some weird shit will happen eventually. That is why I am a faceless dwellar - there are no pics of me here. I regret not being in the collage, but that is the price I pay for my invisibility.

My flickr pictures have been used (with attribution, and sometimes even after asking permission) on various travel websites, not to mention blog links. One has even been printed in an architecture textbook. I wonder if there are any unattributed commercial uses wandering about...

I've never been turned down when asking a Flickr user's permission to repost on IotD with a link of their choice. Some people never get back to me, but most people just say sure, and just point back to my photostream or webpage.

There's a picture of me in my underwear and stacked heel boots outside an Amsterdam brothel. Because they know that image will get men horny enough to pay for sex.


















No. Not really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl There's a picture of me in my underwear and stacked heel boots outside an Amsterdam brothel. Because they know that image will get women horny enough to pay for sex. No. Not really.