Spyderco Forums

http://cpfitalia.forumup.it/ptopic1756-cpfitalia.html

Marion

at least a few of those are stolen. And at least one being mine. But I see quite a few of Ray's and Potterma's, a Tom Krein, Wouters photo. That guys for sure snagging photos. Anyone know what he is saying?

I wouldnt describe that as stolen, that would be if he would claim he is the author. He just used them and forgot to mention credits.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with one of my photo's popping up in an informative thread like that (which is I assume showing all kinds of mule handles).

I do have a problem with sites claiming to be the author of the pics or sites that are just stealing work.

http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/spyderco/index.html

http://spydercosource.com/

if you dont want photos stolen, dont put them on the internet

There's a big difference between putting an image on your page and giving credit and original source and outright stealing. Like Wouter, many folks are flattered when credit is given. But most people just get pissed about theft.

anthonyc wrote:if you dont want photos stolen, dont put them on the internet

If you don't want your car stolen, use public transport. If you don't want your designs stolen, don't design anything :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter if it is about a design, a picture, text or anything. If an individual uses something that was created by someone else without saying so and/or make you believe he is the creator, it is theft or to use a more polite term: plagiarism. If you do this at the university (at least here) you can say goodbye to your degree if they find out and I bet that if you produced something commercially and someone was copying you, you'd sue them too.

Putting pictures online for everyone to see is in no way an invitation to take them and use them however you like and without the need to give credit. No matter if you made them yourself, had them made for you to use them for your business, or if it's just a hobby for you.

Most people put a lot of time and effort into the pictures they make, so I can understand anyone who is pissed because someone is using their pictures without asking and/or mentioning where they were taken from.

IMO this is a lot more complex than just "If you dont want your photos stolen, dont put them on the internet."

Ted wrote:I personally wouldn't have a problem with one of my photo's popping up in an informative thread like that (which is I assume showing all kinds of mule handles).

100% agree.

Cheers,

Rob

those images aren't stolen, they are just backed up

anthonyc wrote:if you dont want photos stolen, dont put them on the internet

rob wrote: If you don't want your car stolen, use public transport. If you don't want your designs stolen, don't design anything

I agree with Rob on this. Copyright has a purpose in our world. Anthony, with your analogy, copying of anything is no problem (books? just don't print them - music? just don't publish it, movies?, don't show them ... if you don't want them copied)

Ted wrote:I agree with Rob on this. Copyright has a purpose in our world. Anthony, with your analogy, copying of anything is no problem (books? just don't print them - music? just don't publish it, movies?, don't show them ... if you don't want them copied)

+1 Just because stealing images, music, and software is easier and less risky than stealing books or cars does not make it acceptable.

If the gentleman whose post on the Italian site Marion David Poff questioned had given proper credit to the photographers then, at least here in the USA, his post would have fallen under the doctrine of fair use, since his intent appears to be merely to illustrate a number of different handles for the Mule. But without attribution, it's not.

I'm really not all that worried about it. I just have no idea what he wrote or said. So if he is trying to pass it off as his work... I have a problem. If he is just showing off a collection of mule photos. Great! I wish he has said who did what, but Im cool with that.

Here is a rough translation of what he typed I got from a free online translator

" Acquired from Thomas with other articles… I still line in Kydex to realize…. A fast and temporary manicatura in paracord style To squeak… They could be used guancette in micarta, other noble materials or linings in leather… Spyderco Mule Team… a plan to define… as soon as begun….

In reality the Spyderco Mule Team constitutes a handicraft arena where everyone could be approached little ones passes to the realization of a personalized Spy

Detail blade: Flat thread Length blade: 8.40cm/3.31in Thickness blade: 3.00mm/0.125in Material blade: 9Cr18Mo, cpm s90v, zdp-189 Satinata Sistema of port: Manico material: Type of construction: Full Tang Total length: 19.40cm/7.625in Made in: Japan Weight: 76gr/2.7oz "

Reading some of the other posts it looks like he is selling knives.

How do y'all feel about patents on your DNA?

Guys, now seriously, if THOSE ARE JUST PICTURES!!!

Seems like none of you speaks that language, pls. forget any web translators that always give different meanings. If someone has a problem, then email the guy if those are your pics to get credit or put them off his web, if they are hyperlinked, do that yourself, just pls. STOP this witch burning hunt.

I have experienced that on a different forum years ago, and I dont wanna see that ever again, its pointless.

Marion, if you have a problem with those pics, email the re-poster to put them down, make action, dont just point your finger.
I dont mean that to offend you, I mention that so we can avoid another of those pointless and negative threads.

You know how the world runs, you know its far from being an ideal one, so if this is your only problem, put watermark or copyright on your images, its simple to be done.

Thanks for understanding.

bluemist wrote:How do y'all feel about patents on your DNA?

I'd be seriously annoyed if someone cloned me without my consent. I'd also pity the clone.

dang i didnt make the cut
i have had many of my pics of my work loaded on over seas forums
do i liek that use without asking not really but on the other hand it has got me soem sales

How exactly become the pictures "stolen"?

The pictures on the aforementioned site are linked from various other sites (like photobucket, imageshack and others).
I doubt that someone would bother to create multiple accounts on multiple servers to upload his "stolen" pictures.
Linking to an image is like providing directions. If original author posted them on the internet, and someone else just says "he posted pictures on that and that place" what different is it? It is more specific, but basically identical.

If you do not want your pictures "stolen", do not post them.
If you are so worried about someone pretending to be their author, you can always use watermarks.

It's simple huugh, if someone posts a picture and does not specifically mention who took it, they are implicitly taking credit for it. That's considered wrong, at least where some of us come from. People viewing a series of pictures should not be expected to check where each of them is stored and assume that, if they're stored in a number of places, the person posting them just "borrowed" them. Posting a link to someone else's work, like this link to Wouter's Delica Lego article, is fine. That's what most would consider "providing directions". Posting the work itself, whether written or photographic, without at least having the decency to acknowledge the source is not.

huugh wrote:How exactly become the pictures "stolen"? The pictures on the aforementioned site are linked from various other sites...

Simply posting pictures by hotlinking them causes problems like increased traffic on the server where the pictures are stored. For more information about the traffic and copyright problems, Wikipedia provides a quite good summary of what hotlinking is about. Although I think that sites like photobucket can handle additional traffic, it simply is bad form to hotlink to pictures that are not yours. Copying them to your own webspace and then linking to them plus mentioning the origin or placing a direct link to the site where the pictures reside ("providing directions" as Paul described) should not be a problem.

huugh wrote:Linking to an image is like providing directions.

Not quite. You may also take a look at this paragraph that explains why hotlinking images might be considered as copyright infringement.

Cheers, Rob

The Deacon wrote:I'd be seriously annoyed if someone cloned me without my consent. I'd also pity the clone.

Haha, this is why he's The DEACON.