Aug 17, 2009: Surprised Model

[xoxoxoBruce]

I was cleaning out my computer, and over in the corner under some pizza boxes and a dead hooker, I found this item I'd stashed 3 months ago.
I think it was even posted in the Cellar somewhere, but it's not moldy, and doesn't stink too bad, so here goes.

Danielle has a blog called, "Extraordinary Mommy", and as Mommies are wont to do, posted a picture of her kids... along with Hubby and herself.

I am thrilled to have reconnected with so many friends on Facebook. One of them sent me this message yesterday:

Alright, so how’s this for random: I’m in the car, taking my wife for a check up, pass by a new grocery store and notice that they have a picture of you, your husband and two kids on the store front window. Life size. I kid you not. Will take a photo of it later today and send….

What you don’t know from this message: this college friend lives in the CZECH REPUBLIC.

And this is the picture he sent.

Clearly, my family did NOT take a picture for any advertisements - either here or abroad. And, clearly, whoever hijacked the picture assumed no one would recognize us so far away. Hmmmm…wrong.

I’ll admit, there is an element of flattery (I think) to the whole thing. But still, there is something creepy about knowing our family picture was stolen from one of my sites. This picture has been on my blog, used as a Christmas card and put on a few Ning Networking sites. It is also on my Facebook page (which is one of the reasons Justin recognized us) but my FB page is open only to friends.

The printing under the picture translates, “We will prepare and deliver your requests in two business days.”

So if your mug's on the net, like one of the myriad of photo hosting sites, you might end up selling sampans in Siam, or condoms in the Congo.

[JuancoRocks]

Facebook sez, "Don't mind us, we're just whoring out your photos"

See, according to Facebook it's all part of the acceptable use policy you agreed to.......

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/07...t-your-photos/

[TheMercenary]

Not at all surprised.

[capnhowdy]

Yet another reason I have avoided that site.

[Clodfobble]

Come on, she posted the photo on her own blog, and you guys are blaming Facebook?

Here's a fun game. Go to User CP, and under the Miscellaneous heading on the left, click on Attachments. Here you will see a list of every photo you've attached to the Cellar. And underneath each one you will see a statistic like, "52.9 KB, 46 Downloads." That's the number of times people have right-clicked to save your image to their hard drive. 114 people have saved my kid's Halloween photo. 415 people have downloaded a copy of my bruised foot. It's the fucking internet, people, and it's not Facebook's job to save you from it.

[monster]

I don't think it's all the people who have saved a copy of your pic. In mine, pics in the same thread usually have a similar number of "downloads", so I suspect that some people's browsers download the pics to simply view them. Doesn't mean they've saved a copy. But you're right, it's your own responsibility to post your pics carefully. Trusting the interwebs is not the smartest thing.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

...415 people have downloaded a copy of my bruised foot...

Not true. I downloaded the picture of your foot 415 times. All by myself.

[monster]

[Cloud]

are you sure that's accurate, and not just how many times people have clicked on the picture to get a better look or something?

[Clodfobble]

Hmm... I think monster may be right--different pictures that I've posted in the same thread do seem to have very similar download numbers. Maybe it just speaks to the popularity of the thread.

Well, ah... it's still not Facebook's fault.

[janet]

I hang out on a kitchen remodeling forum, and 3-4 people there have found pictures of their kitchens in ads for companies they've never heard of. The pictures came from a variety of online sites like photobucket as well as the forum itself.

One of the thieving companies used a picture that clearly showed a kitchen with a competitor's products instead of their own.

[ZenGum]

Heya Janet, nice to see a hardcore lurker posting.

I think there is something very wrong about using pictures for advertising purposes without the permission of the people in the pictures, or the taker of the pictures.

For the people in the pictures, the ad constitutes an implicit endorsement of the product, which is probably fraudulent. For the photo store, it suggests that this is what your photos come out like if you use them; again, deceitful.

For the photographer; that is how professional photographers make their living, and while there is some "fair use" for research, teaching and criticism (and IotD, which consists of all three ), comercial use like the sign is breach of copyright.

But still, as was said before, if you put your picture on the net, you never know where it will end up, and you should expect some weird shit will happen eventually. That is why I am a faceless dwellar - there are no pics of me here. I regret not being in the collage, but that is the price I pay for my invisibility.

[Undertoad]

It's funny we are talking about this on IotD where most of the images are kinda-sorta stolen. IotD is part of the problem, if you regard it as a problem.

[Cloud]

Being in the collage would have been nice, and it's not the same as a photo.

I am pretty careful about the images I use--if I need an image for my blog, for example, I'll use an image which I can get permission for, or can credit enough for my conscience. It's not a perfect solution, but it gets me by. I'm sure people use images I put up, but not much we can really do about it except to put a watermark or copyright notice right on the image.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's funny we are talking about this on IotD where most of the images are kinda-sorta stolen. IotD is part of the problem, if you regard it as a problem.

Big difference between moving a photo from place to place on the net, giving credit, (that's what most of the net is, moving original material around), and removing from the net to use as a print medium store window ad.