IS SOMEONE STEALING YOUR IMAGES ONLINE?

[Greg Heath]

Hello APUG community I wanted to tell you about a cool website I found today.


It is a Free Reverse look-up Engine for images ...to see who is stealing your images from your online websites. It's free. I just helped my Cousin purchase a print of two cats from the original Photographer

http://www.tineye.com/

That photographer on Flickr is "AmesMonkey"....the photo is of two cats in an embrace, which is in a set called "forsale" apparently there are 55 copies floating around the internet.

Enjoy.... No this is not Spam.. Just check it out...
It will let you see IF your images are being stolen and used without your permission. I do recall Photoshop has something like this that is a paid plug-in, but this is a free service.

Enjoy...

Sincerely,

Greg Heath

 

[zsas]

Use them a lot, great site, always surprised me that the big G hasn't bought them out...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I don't have a problem with simple folk using my pics for fun. But I do have a problem of big corporations with deep pockets using my images without paying. It they do that, they're depriving pro photographers a job. I have a problem with that. But this tool is a great equalizer.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Easily circumvented by jailbreaking image meta info, which is what so many do to get away with piracy/online theft.
Several cunning tricks can be employed too to further thwart pirates, but the safest way to go is not to post any images online. Pretty darned tight spot to be in when the internet plays such a big role now in getting artists' message across.

 

[Greg Heath]

didn't know people can jailbreak that info.. That stinks...

Greg

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

^ Images are traced by meta info embedded in the image — no secret there. Police and law enforcement always scrutinise meta data, especially if such images are being presented as evidence in court.
Once that meta info has been hijacked and replaced by something random, the image will not be located as rightfully yours. It makes me sick too, which is why I don't have a webpage. I've experienced image theft before (1999-2001 I think).

More reliable means of image protection are transparent gif overlays, black boxes... . Pointless tricks like right-click disable or Null-Save/Save to are also useless.
And the worst thing of all? It's that key on the top row of the keyboard that circumvents all anti-piracy tools. Can you guess what it is? We lose.

 

[John Austin]

QUESTION, not really a digression

I load my images as very low res' jpgs, can a digital thaumaturge download these and "replace" the lost information to make a sharp big file of them?

I are digitally disliterate, so wants some knowing

 

[Greg Heath]

The neat thing about this site was that IT does not LOOK at the meta data....it supposedly looks at the thumbprint of the image only....

So even if the Meta Data is changed the image should still be found... The video on the "about page" summed it up.

I guess it's pretty new as it's still in the beta stage. Not sure how you might prove your image was stolen not based on the Metadata though..

Greg

 

[brucemuir]

QUESTION, not really a digression

I load my images as very low res' jpgs, can a digital thaumaturge download these and "replace" the lost information to make a sharp big file of them?

I are digitally disliterate, so wants some knowing

No.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

^ Last line is a very good point.
I am not at all convinced by the video. I learned the tricks in computer arts training school 20 years ago. That's a long time in technology, and old tricks are still in use.
A screen capture has no metadata at all. It is the definitive coup d'état.

 

[ROL]

I covered potential theft issues in last year's articles on Webmarketing–>Netproofing & Photo Biz–>Copyrighting.

Suffice to say, copyrighting your work will allow you to sleep at night.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I first joined APUG I have several photographs stolen. I removed the posting and now I post nothing other than items I am selling and then at a low resolution.

 

[polyglot]

Tineye does not look at metadata, it looks at visual structure. Metadata is irrelevant except for cataloguing, searching, etc.

Metadata is trivially replaceable, it's of no evidentiary value whatsoever in claiming ownership for any party. You want to claim ownership in a legal dispute, you produce a negative or a RAW file.

 

[ic-racer]

Still waiting for my images to be plastered across the internet...:munch:

 

[Alan Klein]

Sirius Glass: Who stole your pictures and what were they using them for?

 

[ic-racer]

So I actually tired it. When I use Google Images and search "Shen Hao 8x10" the first thing I get is my own picture, linked to here ( (there was a url link here which no longer exists) ).
When I put that picture into the tin eye it gives me zero hits.

 

[zsas]

IC - that may be due to parts of Apug only being viewable to logged in mbrs and that is why the indexers can't find it maybe?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So I actually tired it. When I use Google Images and search "Shen Hao 8x10" the first thing I get is my own picture, linked to here ( (there was a url link here which no longer exists) ).
When I put that picture into the tin eye it gives me zero hits.

What meta data had you given your picture, if any? If there is no meta data, other than the scanner information, it will not be searchable online.

 

[John R.]

I think Tin Eye is a excellent tool. Idee produces several wonderful tools for image search.
Obviously, having your works copyright registered is your ultimate protection and placing any image online is just bait for sharks but using a non metadata search is just one more excellent tool in an effort to stop image theft.

 

[polyglot]

So I actually tired it. When I use Google Images and search "Shen Hao 8x10" the first thing I get is my own picture, linked to here ( (there was a url link here which no longer exists) ).
When I put that picture into the tin eye it gives me zero hits.

And therein lies the drawback of tineye. It has a tiny database of known images, certainly when compared with google image search. Search didn't fail because it requires login; google found the image based on surrounding text.

 

[Steve Smith]

Just a pedantic point: It's not technically theft as you still have possesion of the images. Theft is when something is taken away from you so you don't have it any more.


Steve.

 

[M. Lointain]

Just a pedantic point: It's not technically theft as you still have possesion of the images. Theft is when something is taken away from you so you don't have it any more.


Steve.

Hey Steve, if you believe that then let me use your car for a day when you are not usiing it, or maybe your wife too..... Pedantically you will still be married.....

 

[Steve Smith]

Hey Steve, if you believe that then let me use your car for a day when you are not usiing it, or maybe your wife too.....

It's not the same. The equivalent would be making an identical copy of my car or a clone of my wife. If I still have the originals then they haven't been stolen.

theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Pedantically you will still be married.....

I think that's how my wife sees our marriage too!!


Steve.

 

[Helinophoto]

tineye didn't find any of mine online, although I know that they are spread far and wide, especially trough sites like tumblr.

Here's a photo of mine right at the top, just did a random search, there are loads of my photos in the pin-up category and such: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/dead+barbie

I don't really mind that kind of viral sharing, especially when the signature stays intact.
I have yet to see any commercial exploitation, if I did, I would definitely call a lawyer and get my fee + suitable compensation.

 

[benjiboy]

If you don't want anyone to steal your work, don't put it on line, I don't.