I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out, but the problem has nothing to do with Microsoft. You can steal images using a mac and Netscape, without a single MS product installed on your computer. The "problem" is inherent in the way the internet, and the www, are set up. They were designed to facilitate free and easy exchange of information in a borderless environment.
R.
sue the internet!
Sue Al Gore! He invented the internet! And he has that Nobel money just ripe for the plucking....
I dont see how microsoft is the only software producer that has a browser or other peice of software to allow you to save images.
In fact its twice as easy in firefox. Firefox allows you to get images that have a transparent image ontop of them (say Flickr's method) without even looking at the source just goto page info and the media tab which lists all images and has a save button for convience.
Face the fact that even with transparent gifs in divs ontop of the image or javascript. Your files location is listed in the pages code. Hotlink protection can also block that. But you can still take a screen shot so without watermarking it youve done nothing.
Back to the point why bother saying microsoft especially when there are other browsers out there and some that are even better in assisting?
Oh, and if you sue, go to the back of a very long line and be prepared to bleed money all the way to the front ... at which time you will lose. Microsoft is no guiltier of image theft than Xerox is guilty of plagiarism.
Is this a joke? I fyes, good. If not, two out of 100 things come to mind:
1st and foremost, MS has nothing to do with the storage and retrieval of images. The servers storing the images are 99% likely not to be running any MS software, and likewise, as many have pointed out, you can get it off the server without any MS software.
2nd, and more applicable, whenever you install any piece of SW on your machine, there is this thing called EULA, or end-user license agreement, in which you have agreed to 15 pages of stuff.
Read it first, and then you'll realize why I thought that this thread is a joke.
Can I sue the word "sue"? Every time I hear that word I get a headache. No other word has allowed more people to benefit from passing the buck on personal responsibility than that word. So lets ban it! Oh and can I also get a small check in the sum of $10,000,000 for my pain and suffering?
Can I sue the word "sue"? Every time I hear that word I get a headache. No other word has allowed more people to benefit from passing the buck on personal responsibility than that word. So lets ban it! Oh and can I also get a small check in the sum of $10,000,000 for my pain and suffering?
Pity for poor Susan. In her short form she gets the rap for causing headaches.
The only lawsuit tht was won aginst mcdonalds was one claiming that it was shown in commercials that it was beneficial to your health to have it every day.
the best thing to do is put up low quality pixerlated photos that only look good from four or five feet away from the monitor, or if you put the photo browser as a java program you cannot copy and paste or print screen copy because it is runnning in an external program, i believe this works at least
The "problem" is inherent in the way the internet, and the www, are set up. They were designed to facilitate free and easy exchange of information in a borderless environment.
R.
Like...I left my car parked on the street. Someone stole it. I sue the city for allowing the thieves A) access to it and B) open roads that allowed them to drive it away from the spot where I parked it.
Fortunately they only took a COPY of the car. ...but I'm still suing. :)
edit: did I mention how mad I am at the city??. ...what do you mean "what about the thief?" - it's not his fault the city practically laid out the red carpet to my car and all but escorted him in his getaway. Damn city.
I have done everything I can to keep photos from being swiped off of my page, other than put an ugly watermark on them. Yet despite all of this, all someone has to do is click the photo and drag it to another window, and bam, they can swipe the photo.
So, my question is this. Can we as photographers sue Microsoft?
Here is my reasoning....
The recording industry sued and shut down Napster because they created a product that allowed people to share music, or as they put it, steal music.
Microsoft has created a product that allows Web surfers to steal our photographs....aren't they as "guilty" as Napster?
Maybe I am wrong with all of this, or maybe there is another JavaScript code I need to add to may pages to prevent this that I don't know about, but it seems to me we should all file a class action lawsuit!
You put a photo on the internet and it becomes fair game (for the most part).
Make it small and not printable. That's your only option, other than not displaying your images online.
There are JavaScript things you can do to keep images from being dragged/dropped/clicked/copied/printed ... but someone can always do a print screen and capture the 72dpi version of it. Watermarking it is about the only way to really keep someone from getting a usable copy.
Haha, if you file this, Id like you to send me a check to cover the tax money ive had to pay, that you've wasted on this nonsense. Im writing a letter to the RIAA to the same extent.
A woman here is sueing U-Haul. A guy rented an open trailer, loaded it up, didn't tie it down (or didn't tie it down well) something fell out, she hit it. The guy has no insurance and no money, so she's sueing U-Haul, because they have money. Apparently U-Haul is responsible for how their equipment is used?
Another family here tried to sue Catipillar (construction equip company) because their daughter was run over by a bull dozer while protesting in another country! Apparently Catipillar is suppose to make bull dozers that can tear down a building but not hurt a protestor trying to save it? Thankfully that case was thrown out.
