New: anticopy feature / mécanisme anticopie

Joli.... toujours en avance d'un clic!!!

thank you very much! thanks also for moving the draft option on the blog page! yay Team iper!

Assuming that you're using transparent gifs you should probably add that this doesn't prevent anyone from obtaining the photo through means of the browser cache, by looking in the HTML code or by using an ad blocker.

en voilà une nouvelle qu'elle est bonne, merci pour vos efforts !

Thanks for the function, but I think this is not a very high wall!

if it works: well done, nice feature.

Oh that's a wonderful feature!
Merci!

--
Seen in gina home page (?)

How about Creative Commons licensed photos? I hope this is not implemented on those!

creative commons photos can be downloaded by any pro member and is different from the "right click copy" thing that was possible on ANY photo regardless of license.

MERCI

--
Seen in ffgoatee home page (?)

une ardeur d'avance, bravo

--
Seen in a user home page (?)

une ardeur d'avance, bravo

--
Seen in a user home page (?)

Excellent !

[IT] D'ora in poi, i vostri visitatori non potranno copiare le vostre foto usando "clic dx --> Salva come" o "clic dx --> Copia". Se vogliono copiare, otterranno un quadrato bianco! Questa caratteristica viene applicata nelle pagine in cui viene mostrato il formato Grande delle foto (e non viene applicata se il vostro intento è quello di copiare le vostre proprie foto!).
--
Seen in robertoballerini home page (?)

Merci et beau travail.
Il est toujours possible de copier une photo " Par capture d'écran..........................."

Oui c'est sur. C'est pour cela que nous n'avions pas proposé cette "relative" protection plus tôt.
Cela dit, plusieurs membres l'on réclamé et un pourcentage des personnes qui auraient tendance à "bêtement" copier des photos seront maintenant bloquées. Donc c'est pas plus mal, dira-t'on ;)

Thanks to translators / Merci aux traducteurs ;-)

Thank you!!! It`s a nice feature but I think it is not enough!! Ok let`s say it is a first step!!!

I dont see the point in showing photos on a public gallery and at the same time keeping people from downloading. If you dont want them to be downloaded, then dont show them to everyone...
In this case it just keeps my Imagezoom extension from zooming small pictures to a size that I can see on my display and that sucks.
Well, another line in my Adblock filter...

some of us still want to share but also want to make a living and not give our photos for free. you are saying that those who want to share but not give away shouldn't join the fun. that seems a bit unfair to me. i have 2 pages here.. one as a portfolio type page where comments are not allowed and another to join the sharing of photos. i want to share but i don't want you to decorate walls with my images for free. there are TONS of professional photographers over on flickr and they've disabled the "right click" function over there. yes, images can still be taken but with some precautions the frequency can be reduced.

This GIF file don’t protects anything.

If you display an image in your browser, you already downloaded it to the browser’s cache AND your computer’s RAM. You just need to get the file from there, and this is quite simple.

And flickr’s right click protection... well... Just open Firefox’s settings window, and edit the JavaScript settings, and oh, what’s there? An option saying “allow websites to disable or replace the context menu”, woops, there is no right click protection on flickr anymore...

Again: If you display (yes, display, as in “open a website in the browser and just view it and don’t do anything more”) something in your browser, you dont even NEED to download something, because you already DID.

I call this protection stuff on websites “pseudo security”. Because it isn’t any more than a “barrier“ for inexperienced users, and as i said in the comments here before: inexperienced users won’t “steal” pictures.

thank you! though, i'm not sure what you mean by "pages where large formats of photos are displayed"...

=> the main photo page

°°
You guys are on the right way!

C'est une très bonne idée mais j'ai essayé de copier une photo publiée ce soir par quelqu'un de mon réseau et j'ai réussie à l'avoir. J'ai fait un autre test avec quelqu'un hors de mon réseau et j'ai réussi aussi à avoir la photo. Alors ??? Ce ne sera fonctionnel que demain ?

C'est curieux. Je viens de copier votre photo "Lithosie mâle", et je ne reçois qu'un carré blanc (son nom est z.jpg) , comme Christian l'avait dit ...

J'ai réessayé aujourd'hui et maintenant je n'ai effectivement qu'un carré blanc. J'étais peut être un peu trop rapide à tester. Je suis vraiment contente que cela marche. Bravo à toute l'équipe d'Ipernity.

This is a wonderful feature... so everyone will finally learn to press the capture screen keys!
Well done!

Well, if a person wants to copy the picture, all what he needs to do, is pressing Ctrl+i in Firefox, go to the “Media” tab and select the picture.

But at least i WANT, that users can copy my images in all sizes, not only the original image. Is it possible to disable this option? Maybe as an option in my user settings.

--
Seen in dirk home page (?)

I think it doesn't have to work this way with CC licensed shots; if it do, it's clearly a bug...

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

"But at least i WANT, that users can copy my images in all sizes, not only the original image."

You should be careful with what you want to say
"not only" = "nicht nur"
"except for" = "außer"

Ich wollte sagen, und sagte auch: „Ich MÖCHTE, dass die User meine Bilder in allen Größen kopieren können, nicht nur das Originalbild“

:)

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

Ja schon, aber das geht sowieso
Das einzige was nicht geht, ist dass du bestimmte Größen verwehren kannst.

ok bien compris, sur mac j'ai pas le click droit
mais partager , si l'auteur est d'accord c'est aussi autoriser ce genre de chose

All one has to do is trawl the browser's cache.

Or just put the GIF file’s URL on the AdBlockPlus filter list.

There is no protection at all. Maybe inexperienced users are surprised at the fact, that they only get a transparent GIF file instead of the image. But inexperienced users don’t want to “steal” pictures.

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

You can't steal a pic... it's the same flawed rethorics the music industry uses to protect their mp3s from being downloaded. Stealing is taking away. When somebody copies a file he doesn't steal it, he does an illegal copy.

Absolutely wrong! With doing what you just call an illegal copy the person who does it steals! He steals a right. Well a right - in this case the copyright - isn't something physical. To say you can only steal something only buy taking a thing away is wrong.

Think of a composer that sues an other composer for stealing a theme. He just takes an idea away. Courts all over the world have to judge such cases.

Stealing means not to take something physical away... it means to take something which you are not the owner or which you are not allowed to! And so you can steal a copyright.

In ipernity a member stole photos from other - not showing that he isn't the author of the picture he gave me the same argumentation.

Once again, with an illegal copy and even more with presenting it here again as own work the copyright is stolen!

And something else if someone gets money for the copyright - and someone takes this right without permission - doesn't he steal money?

You can only steal things, that - of course - not your’s and movable. Therefore it’s theft, if you take away money, that is not your’s. Or if you take away a car, that is not your’s. The actual owner of the money can’t buy things of it, because someone stole it. Ad the actual owner of the car needs to go on foot, because the thief has his car.

That’s the base definition of theft in the German, and most other laws in the world: Taking something movable that is not yours, without permission of it’s actual owner. “Taking” means: take the movable (money on the bank account is movable, too, even, if you can’t move it physically. if you transfer the mones to another bank account, you can’t use the money any more) item, so that the owner don’t have it any more.

And what about the copyright? If someone copies a picture and affirms, that he took the picture by himself, and setting a copyright tag, can the actual potographer don’t use the copyright tag any more, because he don’t has it? Theft is “taking away”. But you can’t “take away” rights.

Therefore you can’t “steal” pictures (or music or whatsoever) in the internet. You only can copy them and use them without permission and affirm that you have the copyright.

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

No he doesn't steal the money, because it's not money the actual copyright holder made. It's money the offender made, but by using someone else's work without permission. So, yes, it's illegal, but he didn't steal the money, as it didn't exist before and the photo possibly didn't have the same value before. The situation is that the "thief" created something without taking away something, but by adding. Of course it was created unlawfully and illegally using tools that the offender didn't have the right to use.

Another example: Somebody who creates a fake Rolex (a copy) and sells it. I ask you did he steal the Rolex? Did he even steal money off Rolex - in this sense: Would those people who buy fake Rolexes buy the real ones?
Nobody would say he stole it and everybody would speak of fake copies or plagiarism, but with digital files suddenly it's stealing again.

Of course there IS the possiblity to steal a photo and that is by copying it and deleting the original. A very unlikely act (would require physical access to all your backup sources), but still possible. In such a situation the thief has the photo just for himself. He did steal it and you don't have it anymore and I assume you're a million times more, forgive me the word, pissed of than you'd be if he had just copied it. That's a whole difference, wouldn't you agree? Or would you say these two situations are the same offence?
To me deleting something is a much bigger offence than copying and while deleting is more of an equivalence to stealing, copying is not. It's just that deleting is virtually impossible and so people try to rank copying up to the same level as deleting and that's wrong.
We have to come to this conclusion that stealing = deleting and copying = plagiarism.

I don't want to sound like I think it's okay for people to copy pictures (I hope I don't) and do stuff with it, because I really don't! I just can't accept that this act is called stealing, which is wrong as I hope to have shown.

“I just can't accept that this act is called stealing” - So i do. If you steal something, you take it away from it’s actual owner. This “Rolex for $79.99” spammers don’t steal anything, they fake something.

There are a lot of court hearings about this topic. And the question “Is copying digital media stealing or is it no stealing?” is discussed by a lot of lawyers. One time the conviction is “it’s stealing”, one time it’s “it is ‘just’ an illegal copy”. And the RIAA contributes it’s part to the discussion by launching FUD campaigns.

Here in Germany a lot of people use the term “Raubkopie” (robbery copy) for copying without permission (bootleg, pirate copying, whatsoever). “Raub” (robbery) in the German law is defined as “taking something movable away from another person by the act - or the threat of violence”. Robbery is a crime (whereas copying is “just” a tort).

But is creating an illegal copy of something “taking something movable away from another person by the act - or the threat of violence”? NO it’s a term created by the music industry to criminalize people creating digital copies of music CDs. The music industry also says “theft” to creating digital copies. But a theft has another definition as i told you above...

The terms are devolved to the habitual language use, although the words are not corect comparing to the law.

This is why I (and a lot of other people here at ipernity - and in Germany *g*) so pissed about the statement “copying images is thievery”. Because in fact nothing is to be stolen (taken away from it’s actual owner), and according to the law copying isn’t stealing.

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

Thanks, that help to prevent to get photos stolen!

--
Seen on Ipernity home page (?)

"Once again, with an illegal copy and even more with presenting it here again as own work the copyright is stolen!" I think that the situation could be explained in more complicated ways but in substance you told the naked truth. Who copies a photo steals a right.

as old as the internet is
there are ways for professional computer freaks to steal photos
if you post a photo on the www than computer freak peoples can steal it
if you find a way that s works
and help peoples to protect here photos
than you are have in short time more money as bill gates
thats the nacked true
photos is simple computer code ;)))

if you not want that peoples steal your photos

than DO NOT post on WWW

sorry but...

I believe there are different degrees of thievery. I think it's not right to say they are all the same. Neither it's right to say that the smaller degrees aren't a real thievery. They DO are a thievery, thought not like the worst cases. If I decorate my walls with your pictures I'm thief, but if I sell your pictures as mines I'm a really worse thief. And there are also other cases/degrees.That's how I see it.

"It’s a term created by the music industry to criminalize people creating digital copies of music": I can also produce my own music, cutting out the music industry, selling it at 2 euros instead of 20, but if someone copies my music without permission instead of buying it, well it's a thievery, thought I'm against the "music industry". In Italy, the third mafia business (after drug and prostitution) it's the sale of illegal copies of CDs and DVDs. Billions of euros stolen every year, not only for the music industry but also for the artist, especially the new and little ones!
And even if something is not for sell, if you copy it without permission, without neither asking it, it's a thievery, for me.

Told that, it's a joke copy pictures on the web, even with the "right click protection". I don't think you should be so experienced or such a "computer freak" to do that. BUT IT'S STEALING. Just like Radiohead said: "It's up to you!"

You say, it’s stealing, i say its an illegal copy, another person say “it’s okay, because it’s in the internet” there are (and there will always be) as many opinions as there are people, who discuss this topic :)

But we all agree that transparent GIF files, right-click-protections, and crap like that don’t bar someone who absolutely wants it from getting the pictures, do we?

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

Luckily there are different opinions, but I think it's also a matter of respect of the other people work!

Yeah, we do, we do, but I still see an enormous difference between those who absolutely wants something and go buy it and those who absolutely wants something and go STEAL it. You don't?

There's an italian beautiful song (one of my all time favourites) that says: "it's a crime not to steal the bread when you're hungry" and I'm absolutely AGREE. But we aren't talking about bread, are we? I don't need pictures to survive!

Gif files and other things... yes, I don't think it's a good idea too, I think it's quite stupid. When you have to protect something from thievery, or you find a really working solution, or it's better not to do anything, or make aware the public. These things are the shortest way to appeal the thieves. I'm agree with you for that.

The thing I mentioned above is that there's a difference between plagiarism (copying) and stealing (deleting). What is called theft on the internet, is much less a crime than theft in the real world.
If somebody uses your picture and sells it for $50,000 you still aren't harmed. On the other hand if someone steals your car, you're without a car. That's not saying, just because you aren't harmed doesn't mean it's not a crime, but it's a lot less grave. Plagiarism is also a lot less severe crime. If somebody builds a Ferrari exactly like the original (in digital this is cheaper!) and sells it, that's different than when somebody steals a Ferrari and sells it. In the first case Ferrari just missed a money opportunity, in the second case they lost real money.

I disagree with your position, Don Andre. I'm agree with Gerhard. I do am harmed if someone sell a pictures of mine!

I think there's a misunderstanding. If someone copies my picture, I'm not without the picture for the simple reason he doesn't steal a picture, he steals the uniqueness of my intellectual property of the picture!
You can't touch the uniqueness of an intellectual property in the same way you can touch a car. But it does exist in the same way, believe me. so:
1)if someone steals my car, I'm without a car.
2)if someone steals the uniqueness of my intellectual property of the picture, i'm without that uniqueness.
I don't see differences. Try this way also. Go steal a Ferrari, and then go steal the uniqueness of the intellectual property, the trade mark, of the Ferrari: you'll go to prison in both cases, I suppose. In the second case you'll stay in prison for more time, probably. And also: money opportunity is money. But probably any stockbroker could explain that better than me.
You can call these two kind of thievery in different forms but they are crimes in the same way. And I don't think it's true that the second kind is lighter than the first one. In a lot of situations it's just the contrary. Go steal a McChicken and then go steal the uniqueness of McDonald trade mark......

"I do am harmed if someone sell a pictures of mine!"

At least not directly you'll have to admit. Compared to a real theft where you're harmed in the most direct way possible. If someone copies your picture you don't have less or more than before. You still own the rights that someone violated and that you can (successfully) fight for in court. You haven't even lost your rights.

The whole thing about uniqueness of intellectual property sounds like twisting and turning things to make it fit your view. Come on, we're not lawyers and we don't need to make things more complex than they are. The situation is clear: With real theft you lose what you have. If I copy your picture and put it up my wall you've not lost anything. The illegal thing is that you haven't gained anything from this act, which is what you could have done. However that's a different thing.

But go deep down the basics and imagine this: If you put your stuff on the web for people to view, even when it's marked (c) every request by my browser will create a new copy of the image. If I view your images in my browser I've made hundreds of copies of your work and they're downloaded to my computer (otherwise I couldn't have viewed).

Your position (and that of RIAA and MPAA) is very dangerous, because you want ultimate control of what you place in this world, which is what you cannot get without having ultimate control on everybody who gets in touch with it. Sounds logical, doesn't it?
So in the end if you'd continuing your line of argument I start to wonder why you want to place anything on the internet if you don't want it to get copied. It will get copied already the first time it is viewed. As soon as you put stuff online, you'll have to accept that there will be copies and lots of it. I mean the whole point of ipernity is to get a lot of copies of your work. You want a lot of people to view it and comment on it, vote for it and show it to a big audience. You want a lot of copies in people's mind and on people's harddrives. What you cannot have is ultimate control of how the copies are being used. This is what you'll have to accept: When you show something to other people, you don't have control over what they'll do with that information. You have some rights that others must acknowledge, but not all will do and you can only fight them in court.
It comes down to as basic as that.

At first blush I would answer on the same tone of my previous comments. But I think that in that way we'll hardly arrive at a common point. I'm convinced of the importance of having different opinions but I also believe that it would be good if we can come to set some basic common principles on this important matter, though these principles need to be argued again and again on the practical plane for not ending in stupidly dogmatic positions.
Btw, this of yours made me reflect: “Your position (and that of RIAA and MPAA) is very dangerous, because you want ultimate control of what you place in this world, which is what you cannot get without having ultimate control on everybody who gets in touch with it. Sounds logical, doesn't it?” It does sounds REALLY logical and I would NEVER come to support this kind of position. I'm pleased that you took the discussion at this point: for me the principles plane is higher than rules one. My attempt of simplify the breach of the property right of intellectual goods likening it to the thievery could bring to misunderstandings and, since is a simplification, even to dangerous positions like the one you well showed me. About this you are right and I'm sorry for the time you spent for explain it again and again. So I will try to ri-edit my position in the shortest way I can, and sorry for my bad english. We are not lawiers, as you told, and so I will explain my position as I see it. I'm conscious that it can't be a definitive point but I hope it could be a better grounds on which we can discuss.

I consider that “breach of the property right of intellectual goods”, as digital photography, (I sincerely hope could be found a shorter way to say it, and not ambiguous as “coping” and “stealing”, that don't seem to work) like my photos here in Ipernity, it's a kind of offence which gravity should be defined not only by itself but also looking at the outcomes. Granted that for me it's always an offence, the consequences could be really different depending on how this offence is completed. I show you three palpable cases (I know that could be more):
1. Someone decorates its walls with copies of my photos, though not pretending to have took them itself. In the same way, I decorated my Ipernity homepage with some copies of songs obviously not mines. I think I committed an offence, or at least a not totally good thing, but I also believe that it's the less serious offence of this kind and to not have seriously harmed Radiohead and Pink Floyd.
2. Someone fills its site with copies of my photos pretending they are its own property. This is a more serious offence and harms me though only indirectly. If the site it's not Ipernity or it's abroad of Italy it could be difficult for me to be proved right. Someone could obtain from that some not quantifiable goods, but tangible ones, as artistic recognition or reputation (well, if he would obtain that with my photos, it's a magician!).
3. Someone sells copies of my photos, pretending or not he himself took them (in the first case must add also the harms of point 2). I believe that this seriously would harm me even if it is true that it's NOT a real thievery as I supposed it was (I was wrong). If I'm myself available in selling my photos I would be harmed economically by unfair competition and/or devaluation, even if the offencer sells copies at a very lower price. If I'm not avalaible, for exemple if I'm against the art market, the illegal sale harms me morally, cause I see the free-wanted art ending in the market, and (who knows?) maybe at the end even economically, 'cause in our deregulated capitalist society too often the richness of someone means the poverty of someone else.

Told that, it's all an other issue how to and how not to try to prevent these offences or bad behaviours. I think that the presumptive-technical-way doesn't work today and won't work tomorrow, and also that it's potentially dangerous and counterproductive going on this way 'cause behind there's the “ultimate control” desire that you explained. I suggest again a making-aware campaign as one of the possibles ways. It could seem just naif, but I believe that if you look it historically it's the only solution that brought good outcomes for everybody.


I hope that you'll answer this, and keep helping me to improve my position, that you will say what you are disagree and what you agree also , and if you think I forgot something of important. I really enjoyed this discussion. Thank you!:)

Sounds good, I like how you broke it down into situations, because that's exactly what I think there needs to be. The industry is keen to get a generalized rule so that they can sweep over everything with just that like the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) only stricter. Cases need to be judged by situation, there are more severe and less severe ones. I'm happy that I could convince you.

I'm happy too, thanks again :) if you have any idea about the making-aware campaign or other possible ways please let me know.

Viewing a picture creates at least three copies. One copy is created by the webserver itself, because it don send’s the actual files for a few reasons. The second copy will be done by my browser, it receives the data stream and creates a file at my harddisk (the browser’s cache). The third copy will be done by loading the picture in the computer’s RAM.

I guess, there are a lot more copies done in the line webserver->computer->display :)

Yeah I know, i'm agree, indeed I don't think no more that coping in itself is a crime, neither a tort, neither an offence neither a bad behaviour. Violating the intellectual property is not just coping, it's really all another thing.

Please note, that copyright violating isn’t a CRIME in most laws in the world (neither in der US law, nor the German law, nor the French law), it’s a “just” tort.

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

I'm agree about that; Dirk. I know it's NOT a crime, i ri-edited my position in my last comment, in which i didn't use the word "crime". I've understood it's "just a tort". And I also told that I'm not discussing about law but only about what I myself consider a bad behaviour or an "offence", and when I say "offence" I don't mean "crime". And that I'm not agree with techincal solutions, even law-supported ones; at the contrary, I suggest a making-aware campaign. What do you think about?

Campaigns are good, if they’re are no FUD campaigns. But how to tell people, who copy stuff and republish it, not to copy and republish it? :)

You’ll only get the people who don’t know, that is not legal to copy images and using them without permission.

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

That's the matter, I think. I think it's not impossible to explain to people. Take my case: previously I had a wrong opinions about this issue and now I've understood some mistakes. I know that you can't discuss this question with everybody, but I believe that it's not impossible to find a "no FUD" and at the same time "brief and easy to share" way to explain it. I'm thinking about, I'd like to find it and then publish it as advise on my homepage. I know it's quite difficult, but I don't think it's impossible. I think would be better interrelate it with some principles and not with law.

What do you think about radiohead message "it's up to you"?

It’s not only up to me, or you, or whoever, it’s up to US, because WE are the community!

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

Agree. I was thinking about using "it's up to you" as catchphrasee for the making-aware campaign. But now I think that "it's up to us" is even better. Obviously this need to be explained also, a campaign made only with slogans is just too similar to FUD ones. But I think it could be a "first step".
I'm also reading about the CC licenses, I don't know them well and I'm tryng to know something more.

Whatever the campaign will be, we should avoid the word “stealing” or “thievery” and use a more neutral phrase like “copying without permission” or something like that.

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

That's for sure for me but I think we still have to find the right words. As you told, "copying without permission" is just what every kind of server/browser/display/cache does...
I don't know. Maybe we don't need to describe perfectly the "tort" for this campaign. Maybe it's better describe the good behaviour. Or maybe it could be something like: don't sell it and don't pretend it's yours. Well, I still have to think about.
Thanks for your interest, keep on say if you find some ideas!

Because we do not want to burst the bonds of this comments thread (do we? *g*), i created a group Copyright for discussing the copyright related topics there. It would be nice, if you (and all others reading this and are interested in the copyright topic) could join the group, and tell your contacts of it.

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

"We have to come to this conclusion that stealing = deleting and copying = plagiarism." I think it's not true.
When you steal a ferrari you don't destroy it, and it could be back to its owner, though he is harmed because he couldn't use the ferrari during the time you took it. In the same way, when you steal the uniqueness of an intellectual property, you don't destroy it (even if you destroy all the other copies of the pictures!) and it could be back to its owner, though he's harmed because he didn't received the benefits that you received in the place of him.
When you plagiarize you do more than coping: you copy and change something without permission, or for hide the fact that you have copied or for other reasons, without authorization.

Copy:


Plagiarized copy:


That's even worse than coping because, besides the harm of the copy (depreciation), there's also the harm of the debasement: the object could come to have a lower value just because has been plagiarized.

photo "courtesy" of Lea d'Ipernity - sorry, Lea, it's just a joke. P.s.: Nice bully!! :)

Great ;)

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

;D

LOL mr.driver!
btw, bully is snoring very loud while I'm replying, he does not seem to care at all... ;)