That is why professional photographers are having fits and going to a fee just to view photos on the web, because it’s quit easy to take photos off of websites, even with right-clicking disabled. There isn’t a program made that can stop it as of yet.
[QUOTE=Cartier;6496518]
YES, you certainly did.:yes: (I didn’t check to see the res or pixels, but it looked large enough to do something with.
Don’t know what to say. IF I were a professional photographer who made my living selling my photos, I’d probably be very discouraged about this sort of thing. Ever notice that creative productive people are the first who are willing to give/share, and pond scum users who accomplish nothing of value on planet earth are the first who are willing to take.
I will send this on to the folks at Photocrati… and Word Press… maybe they will tweak something… :([/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, this is a common issue and there is nothing Word Press can do it fix it. There are several ways to get pictures if one tries hard enough, disabling right-click will only prevent someone who doesn’t know much about computers to get the photo. Any beginner-level web designer (most of these kids in cyber/simulated games are nowadays) can easily get photos off any website.
Which reminds me… since my daughter said, “NO, mom, I can’t,” we need to hire one of these fabulous kids for some web projects we have. Where do you find one with a good work ethic? 
Right-click disabling is one of the most annoying things a website owner can do. I often right-click to open certain pages in new tabs. Disabling right-clicking for me means I will immediately leave the site.
There is no way to prevent people from stealing photos. Anyone who wants to do so can either take a screengrab or use a browser plugin or view the source code of the website and find the direct link to the image.
Also using someone else’s photo without permission online isn’t necessarily illegal is you use a small version of it for editorial purposes and reference where the photo came from. You can try to sue for it but it would not end in your favor most likely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_doctrine
Photographer’s are shooting themselves in the foot by putting their photos behind password protection. They absolutely should allow people to share and copy their photos. All they need to do it is only put up low-resolution versions that also have a prominent watermark on the image. When people repost the photos everyone will see the great photo with the watermark (if they’re smart the watermark will have a URL) and look up the photographer.
This is free advertising. Anyone who is seriously interested in purchasing a photo will do so. Those that just want to have a small copy of the photo on their facebook page aren’t going to order anyways. Might as well let them advertise for you.
In the world of the internet giving away a certain amount of free content is the path to making money.
I’m as much a fan of Fair Use as anyone, but using stallion photos on SIM sites would tred a very grey line there. As people have noted on this thread, it has the potential to confuse market value on the stallion and/or to dilute his reputation with false/made up info about progeny/etc. And as soon as money enters into the equation, trying to claim Fair Use gets very, very complicated.
[QUOTE=HappyVagrant;6497310]
I’m as much a fan of Fair Use as anyone, but using stallion photos on SIM sites would tred a very grey line there. As people have noted on this thread, it has the potential to confuse market value on the stallion and/or to dilute his reputation with false/made up info about progeny/etc. And as soon as money enters into the equation, trying to claim Fair Use gets very, very complicated.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, that does not fall under the fair use doctrine. I was just speaking about using photos in general.
I don’t really agree with any of your conclusions about using photos, but the question of what the photography industry should do has been hashed to death in lots of threads without any obvious solution that will keep everyone happy.
FWIW, Google lost a court case based on very low resolution images in image search because it infringed on the image copyright holder’s ability to sell the images/subscriptions. It was something specific to caching and mobile technology… it’s been a while since I read the documents.
The point is, just because an image is low resolution and being used in a manner most people would consider Fair Use (e.g. image search results) doesn’t mean it really is Fair Use.
But a lot of people like to assume that they can do or should be able to do X or Y with other peoples’ products because that makes life easy for them. And the people creating the products ought to be grateful for whatever bone (e.g. free advertising) that gets thrown their way.
It’s a good way to convince people to drop out of the photography industry entirely, if you ask me.
[QUOTE=HappyVagrant;6497534]
I don’t really agree with any of your conclusions about using photos, but the question of what the photography industry should do has been hashed to death in lots of threads without any obvious solution that will keep everyone happy.
FWIW, Google lost a court case based on very low resolution images in image search because it infringed on the image copyright holder’s ability to sell the images/subscriptions. It was something specific to caching and mobile technology… it’s been a while since I read the documents.
The point is, just because an image is low resolution and being used in a manner most people would consider Fair Use (e.g. image search results) doesn’t mean it really is Fair Use.
But a lot of people like to assume that they can do or should be able to do X or Y with other peoples’ products because that makes life easy for them. And the people creating the products ought to be grateful for whatever bone (e.g. free advertising) that gets thrown their way.
It’s a good way to convince people to drop out of the photography industry entirely, if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Fair use is not as easy as it sounds to claim and MANY people have lost legal battles while trying to claim what they thought was a clear cut case of fair use. If you are not a copywright lawyer, I would contact one before I grabbed anything off of the web thinking I could just say “oh, it’s covered under fair use”.
[QUOTE=TrueColours;6493179]
99% of all SIM game requests do come from Finland for some strange reason
What I find the most irritating is that someone will email me and say “I didnt know you had your stallion up for sale! And why is his price $2500.00?!”
Some SIM games “sell” their horses and sure as shooting, someone will recognize your horse, assume its you selling it and wonder at the low price
Or … “Fluffy” in the SIM game who happens to be your stallion, will be sold because of unrideability issues and its “out there” that “Fluffy” (using your picture of your stallion) is unrideable and has “issues”
Not worth it to be nice IMO …[/QUOTE]
Seriously??
Someone that is not 11 years would believe a Sims game? How does the average person even get exposed to this without being on the site? It seems to me you wouldn’t even want this type of person for a client.
[QUOTE=stoicfish;6498561]
Seriously??
Someone that is not 11 years would believe a Sims game? How does the average person even get exposed to this without being on the site? It seems to me you wouldn’t even want this type of person for a client.[/QUOTE]
The sim sites will come up in a Google search if they use the horse’s real name. If the sim site is done well enough, it won’t necessarily be immediately evident that it’s a sim site and not a real farm site.
And people do. not. read for comprehension. Proof positive: I have people email me every few weeks asking how to join the TAHAR registry in my sig line. As in, where to send a check. They don’t get past the “here’s a place to register anything with four legs” to realize it’s a great big joke. They just assume that it must be real/legit. After all, it has a website…
[QUOTE=HappyVagrant;6498840]
The sim sites will come up in a Google search if they use the horse’s real name. If the sim site is done well enough, it won’t necessarily be immediately evident that it’s a sim site and not a real farm site.
And people do. not. read for comprehension. Proof positive: I have people email me every few weeks asking how to join the TAHAR registry in my sig line. As in, where to send a check. They don’t get past the “here’s a place to register anything with four legs” to realize it’s a great big joke. They just assume that it must be real/legit. After all, it has a website…[/QUOTE]
So if I get a life time membership is that cheaper than year by year? I have this horse…
Yes, and a bigger discount if you pay by gold or platinum.
