Theft Of/Stealing Images, Artwork ?

MattKing · Feb 20, 2017

I was talking to a friend of mine who had attended a presentation made to his photo club by someone who was experienced with both extrapolation software and tools available to protect against web image theft. As part of the demonstration, the presenter copied a minimally sized thumbnail (not the full sized image) from one of the members uploads on the club site, and then showed a 2 foot by 3 foot print obtained from that thumbnail, using extrapolation software. By all accounts, the poster sized print was remarkable. The photographer whose thumbnail was used was shocked by how good the result was (they hadn't been warned).
Information may well be lost, but the replacement information is becoming better and better.

Skiver101 · Feb 20, 2017

pdeeh · Feb 20, 2017

Skiver101 said:
View attachment 173458

Skiver101, please pm me your contact details so that I can invoice you for image use.
Many thanks
Leo

Skiver101 · Feb 20, 2017

pdeeh said:
Skiver101, please pm me your contact details so that I can invoice you for image use.
Many thanks
Leo

...they told me you were dead Leonardo. Contact me at:

Cell Block H
La Bastille de Paris
Paris
France

blockend · Feb 20, 2017

I recall a woman on a stall selling fake Faberge eggs, surrounded by posters demanding No Photography! The irony was lost on her. There are two aspects to the OP's question, what is moral and what's legal. The two are unrelated. Morality covers a range of ethical questions, legality is what lawyers make it. If you're huge and someone clones your work, there'll be sufficient left overs once the lawyers have had their slice to put a smile on your face and win the ethical argument. If you're nobody and can't afford the law, suck it up and put it down to experience. One indisputable fact is if you post something in a public place and someone rips it off, you'll need a massive amount of determination to get any redress.

blockend · Feb 20, 2017

mynewcolour said:
By uploads I was thinking about files at 72dpi.

You're right, handing over images at print resolutions could (technically) be used for almost anything.

On my DSLR the quality settings are Raw, jpegs Fine large and small, Medium large and small, and Small, large and small, in descending order of quality. The better small file looks very good on my large desk top screen. Almost any digital source posted on Flickr could be subject to very elegant cloning. On the other hand Flickr allows the opportunity to post dated images in a public forum, and offer access to Raw data in case of dispute.

mynewcolour · Feb 20, 2017

blockend said:
On my DSLR the quality settings are Raw, jpegs Fine large and small, Medium large and small, and Small, large and small, in descending order of quality. The better small file looks very good on my large desk top screen. Almost any digital source posted on Flickr could be subject to very elegant cloning. On the other hand Flickr allows the opportunity to post dated images in a public forum, and offer access to Raw data in case of dispute.

What's your point?

blockend · Feb 20, 2017

mynewcolour said:
What's your point?

It's self evident.

dmr · Feb 20, 2017

MattKing said:
As part of the demonstration, the presenter copied a minimally sized thumbnail (not the full sized image) from one of the members uploads on the club site, and then showed a 2 foot by 3 foot print obtained from that thumbnail, using extrapolation software. By all accounts, the poster sized print was remarkable. The photographer whose thumbnail was used was shocked by how good the result was (they hadn't been warned).

I tried out the demo version of Genuine Fractals when it first came out and I was not really that impressed. I've also seen the on-line demos of whatever they are now calling it this month and the one review (shill?) site had some blow-ups that were very impressive. I'm very sure they have really improved the technology and as you say, the substitute information is getting better.

mynewcolour · Feb 20, 2017

blockend said:
It's self evident.

Not to me sadly. Oh well.

blockend · Feb 20, 2017

mynewcolour said:
Not to me sadly. Oh well.

The point is almost any image can be filled to a printable level, given sophisticated enough interpolation software. Even low res internet uploads have stacks of information. The message is if it's posted on the web, you've virtually given it away.

mynewcolour · Feb 20, 2017

blockend said:
The point is almost any image can be filled to a printable level, given sophisticated enough interpolation software. Even low res internet uploads have stacks of information. The message is if it's posted on the web, you've virtually given it away.

Absolutely, and thank you for clarifying.

Keeping uploads at low pixel dimensions does still dissuade miss use, and effectively prevent some uses.

blockend · Feb 20, 2017

dmr said:
I tried out the demo version of Genuine Fractals when it first came out and I was not really that impressed. I've also seen the on-line demos of whatever they are now calling it this month and the one review (shill?) site had some blow-ups that were very impressive. I'm very sure they have really improved the technology and as you say, the substitute information is getting better.

One of the best arguments for digital photography - and there are a number against it - is the development of future editing software. There's no reason why a 6mp file couldn't render a 100mp second generation file at some point. This may not be relevant for most creative or family photographers, but it could give future historians unprecedented detail on the millennium years.

blockend · Feb 20, 2017

mynewcolour said:
Absolutely.

Keeping uploads at low pixel dimensions does still dissuade miss use, and effectively prevent some uses.

I agree, and it's only sensible to upload publicly accessible files at the lowest resolution, unless you're gifting them to the world. You will at least make it tougher for commercial entities to use them free and gratis. The bigger story is technology will fill in the gaps.

Wallendo · Feb 20, 2017

blockend said:
One of the best arguments for digital photography - and there are a number against it - is the development of future editing software. There's no reason why a 6mp file couldn't render a 100mp second generation file at some point. This may not be relevant for most creative or family photographers, but it could give future historians unprecedented detail on the millennium years.

Unfortunately, an upconverted image would not be useful to historians since it would not be historically accurate. Upconversion creates new details which can be visually pleasing, but cannot restore any details which were not somehow captured by the initial file.

blockend · Feb 20, 2017

Wallendo said:
Unfortunately, an upconverted image would not be useful to historians since it would not be historically accurate. Upconversion creates new details which can be visually pleasing, but cannot restore any details which were not somehow captured by the initial file.

I think the answer is yes and no. The original file is just data (zeros and ones) interpreted by software into a picture. If the program can interpret the gaps in a convincing way, it will able to bridge information in a way a negative cannot, at least the kinds used in most hand held cameras. A 35mm negative will show individual silver halides long before a 50mp file will cease providing data. Each depends on a suitably sharp lens, obviously.

Theft Of/Stealing Images, Artwork ?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency