How to strip pesky copyright watermarks from photos ... says a FACEBOOK photo bod A Facebook software engineer who published a detailed guide to stealing photographs online – by explaining how to remove watermarks and ignore any copyright restrictions – has been shamed into removing the blog post. It's unclear if Jesse Chen still has a future at Facebook. The company, when quizzed by The Register, declined …
No what he has shown is that there is a need for employees of companies like Facebook, Google, the BBC, newspapers, magazines, etc to take classes on copyright, how to use copyright correctly and why they shouldn't be screwing over small businesses by stealing their copyright material just because they can.
from each and every internet location that held them.
This was after a Japanese Publication lifted a picture of mine and published it with their own copyright. I was able to show them that certain pixels had been editied by myself before posting on the internet.
I really didn't want to do this but in the end, I was forced into doing it. It is not as if I make a living from taking pictures, I don't but the principle remains the same, I took the Image so I have the Copyright.
I took 818 pictures on an all day shoot today. Some of them are probably worthy of publication but sadly they will never ever see the light of day on the internet. The sequence I got of the Osprey taking a Salmon is fantastic.
Everyone thinks their work is just up for grabs by anyone and everyone. Even those who should know better and are the often among the first and loudest to complain about copyright "theft" of their work, i.e music artists often don't think twice about using someone else's images without permission or recompense. Now we have the ultimate land grab of orphan works images.... try that with music and see where it gets you, they even try to make a claim and routinely issue takedowns on CC music.
"People jump through hoops to avoid paying a dollar for a game on Android..."
Not only android, I remember from the BBS days, people would create keygens for software that was still fully functional except for a subtle occasional nag, or a "buy me" button somewhere on the main window.
Heck, I've seen hacked versions of "postcardware" software. (send me a postcard to be registered...)
"People jump through hoops to avoid paying a dollar for a game on Android..."
I see this as not dissimilar to those arguments we see from time to time that X game was pirated 1,000,000 times ergo 1,000,000 lost sales. It may be that some of those pirate copies were potential sales but certainly not all of them or anywhere close. And in the case of someone shopping a lo-res watermarked picture of themselves isn't even getting a comparable product so I think the argument is even less valid.
So you graduated college - after paying for your education and probably owe maybe $200k - and the college wants you to pay for your graduation picture? I'm not surprised someone's posted this and let's face it, it's not rocket science. So why all the fake outrage? Do you really think that nobody knew how to do this before he posted the instructions?
I don't care if it pisses you DRMtards off but I'd +1 Jesse for posting this - I don't think it does a bit of harm and I don't think it changes the issues of copyright at all. It's not "theft" because anyone who's going to do this is probably either too cheap or too poor/in debt to buy the photographs anyway.
It's not theft if you wouldn't ever have paid money for it? Does that even make sense?
I know the argument is that you don't lose anything if your photo is taken because they never would have paid you anyway, but this doesn't work for non-digital things, e.g. a bottle of booze swiped from a supermarket or a watch from a shop: 'oh, let him have it -- he'd never have paid for it anyway.'
This post has been deleted by its author
"Copyright infringement is not theft"
The person taking what doesn't belong to him is stealing. For the copyright holder, his work is of value and hence a price is placed on it for revenues expected in payment for his equipment and time. His work is obviously of value to the person who infringes on his copyright and if no money was paid in appropriation of the work, the amount in question is then stolen from the copyright holder. The use of words should always strive to clarify issues, not to obfuscate.
A photo is made up not only of the photographers work, but also (and arguably much more so) of whatever he is photographing.
In this case, the graduates themselves -- so, by claiming sole copyright to pictures of them, it is just as much *the photographer* who is "stealing" their likeness.
Good thing for him that it isn't theft, eh?
'Copyright infringement is not theft'
I see this moronic statement a lot, invariably from thieves who create nothing and want to feel it's a victimless crime. It's a zenith of entitlement: not only entitled to take without paying, but entitled to feel no guilt or responsibility toward the victim, with no awareness of consequences.
You big stupid child. Do you not realise that you harm independent creators the most, and you play right into the hands of corporate aggregators and publishers, whose product is you, Soylent Green.
Do you not realise that the selfish culture you espouse is spreading off the web into wider society, as untenably low wages, workfare, unpaid internships, elective slavery?
No small gallery or shop can survive where 9 out of 10 customers are looters and shoplifters. We don't have the DRM, the legal teams, the ability to buy government and shape law. And no, I didn't make that number up. My own sample audit showed 92% of repros of my work are infringements. This is consistent with ASMP statements in the US, and Picscout's findings. Please grow up. and quick.
> I see this moronic statement a lot, invariably from thieves who create nothing and want to feel it's a victimless crime [blah blah]
Now calm down mate. Under English law copyright infringement is not theft because it does not fall within the basic definition of theft as per the Theft Act 1968 section 1, paragraph 1, which says:
« (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. »
The courts of England and Wales have determined that when copying digital media no "permanent deprivation" occurs, and therefore it cannot be punishable under the aforementioned act. Which is why prosecutions, when they occur at all, are under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This of course does not stop public relations departments from interested parties (and subsequently journos) from publishing press releases calling these things theft, terrorism, pederasty, and what have you, but that's just a PR exercise, most effectively targeting unsophisticated and emotional people who then go all frothy mouthed repeating the bollocks they hear through the media.
Yes, we all need to make a living, but misrepresenting things to the public does not strike me as the best way to win the public's (your customers') hearts and minds.
I'm assuming Version 1.0 is some kind of common troll.
I rather think the photographer who's livelihood depends on selling his images is less of a DRMtard than you think. Or clearly, don't think. Or perhaps you feel he ought to make up for lost revenue by flogging torrented BluRays and CDs from the back of his van?
Hell NO Cthonus!
I'm not trolling this - who set up the photographer to take the pictures? Think about this ... chances are the graduates had no choice in having their pictures taken, the photographer paid the college for the "right" to be the photographer there and excluded all other photographers - that's an economic gamble, a business choice on the assumption that enough graduates will buy the product and you can bet that they would not be taking the pictures if they didn't think that they could make good money out of this.
And those unused photographs that don't sell? They will be indexed by name and chances are that some of those graduates will end up in court and the photographer - who "owns" the picture will then sell the picture to the news agencies and media. The graduate has no say in the matter at all.
If you are going to publish pictures on the Internet like this then you have to expect that this will happen unless you are completely naive - same as if you tie your bike to a lamp-post with a piece of wet string and then come back and wonder where your bike has gone.
By the way, those pictures of your house on Google Street view, who you you think owns those? Because under current law, it's not you.
"So you graduated college - after paying for your education and probably owe maybe $200k - and the college wants you to pay for your graduation picture?"
It's a question of today's economics. It's not the college that's asking to pay for photos, it's a third party that got the contract to take the photos - even if they are operating in conjuction with the college.
At least they're not "forcing" you to buy them.
We had a fundraiser bicycle ride here some time back, and they had photographers snap everyone who passed the finish line. Ride rules dictacted that you must have your registered ride number bib somewhere clearly visible on the FRONT (their emphasis) of the bike. So what you say? Turns out the contracted photo people used the rider bib numbers to cross reference the owner from the registration lists, and posted all photos, along with an invoice. If you didn't want to pay for the photo, YOU had to post it back.
Some paid, some posted it back, most kept the photos hostage and ignored the payment nagging.
What changed drastically the following year, is only a very small percentage of riders complied with the forward facing bib numbers, effectively killing their sole source of income.
If you behave like an arsehole, people will respond in like.
I'm not saying this college and their photographers are like this, but when you're bombarded with "screw you we're getting our cut whether you like it or not", it's easy to understand reactions like this. Wondered why most people nowadays demand negatives of their wedding photos? What changed? 20 years later, if you don't hate your spouse yet, you might want more, but aren't willing to pay, or worse still, the photographer has gone out of business and doesn't have the negatives or photos anymore.
I don't know about other countries, but here in the US I'm 99% sure that if a company sends you unsolicited merchandise, you are under NO obligation to return the item or send it back. Otherwise you'd be forced to bear the burden of paying to return something you never requested in the first place.
> the contracted photo people used the rider bib numbers to cross reference the owner from the registration lists, and posted all photos, along with an invoice. If you didn't want to pay for the photo, YOU had to post it back.
No, you didn't.
See the
The college doesn't give a shit if you get your graduation pictures at all. They have absolutely zero to do with the process. But the photographer cares. That's his job and he would prefer to get paid for doing it. Here in the States they get the bulk of their money from their cut of the photo orders. If they're private photographers then they're fronting the investment for the shoot and the proofs out of pocket. If they're working for a company they do so as private contractors and they're paid a pittance for the shoot and the company covers the proofs. But the actual money to pay their bills with comes from photo orders.
Besides, jackass, the photos aren't for the students anyway. They're for the family to buy so they can be reminded of why they drove shitty cars and had a smaller house until they could get the kid through college.
Just a question, since I'm not American (and we didn't even have graduation ceremonies, just a letter in the post to say your degree had been awarded), but are those ceremonies open to the public? If so, is it not possible for family, friends, neighbours, lovers, drinking mates from the pub, or fellow students to take pictures?
The college doesn't give a shit if you get your graduation pictures at all. They have absolutely zero to do with the process. But the photographer cares. That's his job and he would prefer to get paid for doing it. Here in the States they get the bulk of their money from their cut of the photo orders. If they're private photographers then they're fronting the investment for the shoot and the proofs out of pocket. If they're working for a company they do so as private contractors and they're paid a pittance for the shoot and the company covers the proofs. But the actual money to pay their bills with comes from photo orders.
Besides, jackass, the photos aren't for the students anyway. They're for the family to buy so they can be reminded of why they drove shitty cars and had a smaller house until they could get the kid through college. So this isn't stealing from the college at all, it's stealing from a person just like you, with presumably more upright moral standards.
I think the college could care less whether you buy it. Don't. That's your choice.
But if you choose to steal someone else's work (they call it plagiarism sometimes in academia) don't be surprised if you get a short, sharp lesson in civics.
Besides, this tw*t works for Facebook, and you'd think that alone would have made him careful even if, as is so clearly evident by his actions, four years of expensive schooling failed to install a moral compass in his tiny brain.
Stick to tech Mr Chen. You aren't smart enough for a life of crime.
This post has been deleted by its author
"I don't think it does a bit of harm and I don't think it changes the issues of copyright at all. It's not "theft" because anyone who's going to do this is probably either too cheap or too poor/in debt to buy the photographs anyway."
No, it's not theft. It's counterfeiting and it's wrong for exactly the same f*cking reason you're not allowed to just print off your own banknotes or mint your own coins. You are devaluing the product. THAT is why there IS a victim here: the copyright owner. Every time a photographer, or artist, or some other creator, produces something protected by copyright, that work has value. (If it didn't, why would you even want to copy it to begin with?)
You copy that work and suddenly, the original creator is faced with having to compete with hundreds of freeloaders offering that copyrighted work for free.
You are devaluing the work. Claiming that a counterfeiter wouldn't have paid anyway is irrelevance: they're still devaluing that work by making more copies of it available for free, thus undermining the creator's right to the fruits of their own labour.
Without decent copyright protection, not even the FOSS community would survive, because you can't have copyleft without copyright.
The correct term for this crime—and it is a crime—is counterfeiting. Not "piracy". Not "theft". Counterfeiting. There is no escaping from that definition. It's very well defined in law.
Check the date people.Yes it was a silly post, but why all the faux outrage *now* over a post from 2012?
That's what I'm wondering, too. I mean, geez, the article has been out there for two years and folks are only just now raising hell about it? GMAFB, eh mate?
"Perhaps also, the claim that these pictures "belong" to the students, instead of the guy who took them."
I did not say anything remotely like that.
"...statements implying that copying pictures from the web without permission was a proper thing to do."
I was not offering any opinion on the propriety of saving the pictures, only on giving technical advice on how to do that... However, since you've asked:
Yes, I do believe that anything you show on the *free* part of your website can be saved by the viewers. There is nothing immoral about that as long as they don't exploit the pictures commercially or don't pass themselves out as the authors/rights holders.
I believe that deliberately making free pictures difficult to save is a discourtesy to your site's visitors and will in the end cost you.
As for the stuff that you want to be paid for - keep it behind the paywall and show only thumbs or low res images of it.
So, back to the blogger and his advice on how to save a watermarked low res picture from a free part of a website - not immoral, not unethical. Commercial value of the watermarked picture = 0.00
The advice on masking/hiding the watermark on the image - nothing to do with morality. It could have just as easily used removing the face of one's ex-mother-in-law from a family snap as an example.
If the image is of me and I am alone in that image I am the copyright owner. If the image is of me and other people... Why wasn't my permission for the photograph to be taken asked?
My partner is a photographer and I do respect copyright. I know she has visited certain places many times, waiting for hours for the light and cloud cover to be just right to take that awesome landscape photograph. That kind of dedication deserves reward.
Thank you for allowing me to think what I like, I am fully aware of the law in this respect, as I mentioned my partner is a photographer. She will ask permission before taking a photograph of any person... Out of respect for their privacy.
There is a difference between opinion and a statement of fact, I presume those that down voted my post disagree with my opinion... And feel it is perfectly acceptable for someone to take a photograph of them wherever they are and whatever they are doing to be displayed where ever and when ever the photographer wishes.
Just because it is law don't make it right.
I would like to point out that these pictures are taken, effectively, with the permission of the subject. They stop at the bottom of the stairs leading from the stage on which the graduation ceremony took place, stand in front of a screen and have their picture taken by the official photographer. One would think that they would be able to say "No thanks, don't want my picture taken, it's against my Flying Spagetti Monster faith." but they don't so they are, by allowing their picture be taken acquiescing to the eventual sales pitch. I would also like to point out that parents/grandparents and lots of others also tend to have lots of opportunities to take pictures with the graduate as the subject, silly hat and all.
Do they get an opportunity to negotiate the split with the photographer -- "60% to me for my likeness; 40% to you for snapping the shot" -- or is it presented as a take-it-or-leave-it deal[*]? Is this particular photo framed (heh) as "_the_ graduation picture", or are all the various snapshots by grannies and siblings generally regarded as equally "fancy"? My guesses are no negotiation, take it or leave it, to the former; and oh yes, this is the one that counts to the latter.
Of course you want "the" picture, just like all your buddies. But the only way for you to get "a graduation picture" like all your classmates is to get it from this particular photographer. By exploiting that shot set-up -- basically, being granted a monopoly on the pretty background by the college -- the photographer arrogates your right to your own likeness into his right to his work.
If copyright infringement is theft, then this is blackmail.
[*]: Or probably not even that -- the very idea that a deal could or should be negotiated here probably never occurs to the overwhelming majority of participants.
So Adnim, if I set up a small background set and some lamps, and get your missus to come round and take a few snaps of me with a guitar - you know, just so I can get some different angles without having to move a tripod and repeatedly set the timer (hey, I'm lazy), nothing more really from a competent snappers perspective - and she then finds out six months later that it was for an album cover that's just gone platinum, or an illustration for a best selling book, or a still to be used in a film, etc - and that has made oodles of cash.
I assume in your world, it's fine for me to tell your better half to go take a running jump when she asks for her tens of thousands of pounds in royaltes she would otherwise earn because she'd have the copyright and would have been able to negotiate a fee for the images?
Because that's what you're saying. After all, she did nothing special, she just took the photos....
Also, your assumption that you shouldn't have your picture taken without permission - one assumes you're going to the courts about all the CCTV where you live/work?
Honestly, I've never heard such a poorly thought out argument. I suppose you expect all studio photographers who do work for magazines, profile shots etc, to work for free when there is only one person in shot?
Mind-boggling.
"Thank you for allowing me to think what I like"
Well, there are things where personal interpretation has no place. You stated an opinion which is, simply said, wrong. You might as well have said "as far as I am concerned, 2+2=5".
Note also that asking permission to take a picture of you is respecting your privacy (and is indeed required, even in public places, in some countries); but the picture still belongs to the photographer.
> I am fully aware of the law in this respect,
Not having a go at you, but I sincerely doubt that you are "fully aware of the law", as you state. Purely because it's just bloody confusing and complicated and there are a lot of nuances to each case.
As another poster mentioned above, as well as copy rights (benefiting the creator or the work, i.e., the photographer) there are a number of other rights involved (benefiting persons other than the photographer) when taking a picture of almost anything or anyone. In the case of people, both privacy and publicity rights are almost certain to have some bearing, as well as often copyright (when a copyrighted work, e.g., a brand logo, appears in the photo. This is why in some films they remove car badges or strategically place a product as to not show the label--this is the opposite of product placement).
There is a decent, if necessarily generic, summary of the legal aspects concerned at the WIPO site here: www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_photography.pdf. It's a PDF.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
