ripping webarchives with historic or art photos

On 14 sep, 12:56, Notes4theClueless wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:53:16 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

sobriquet wrote:
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

In most museums (at least where I live, in the Netherlands), you can
take your camera into a musuem and take pictures fo the artworks they
have on display (without a flash though).

If you do this, can I have a copy of the photo you take please?

I want to make a CD to sell on eBay.

If he posts it on the internet I bet he wouldn't mind in the least, but you
wouldn't have any rights to sell it. That is exactly what all the photos on the
internet are for, for everyone in the world to view them. Only an idiot would
think that they have a way to keep the low-resolution image from being
duplicated or that they somehow still have any distribution control over that
downsized copy that they posted. It's duplicated through a dozen servers and
routes every time anyone views it, and a copy is saved to anyone's cache that
views it. You lost the control to the smaller image the very moment you posted
it to the net. Now if you wanted the original full resolution copy you'd
probably have to ask him. Then you'd have to work out a deal for distribution
rights. Having the original full resolution copy is often used to prove when
someone else is trying to financially benefit off of your work.

Compile all the CDs that you want of images from the net. Guess how many buyers
you're going to get -- NONE. Since those images are already free to anyone. The
only person you could sell it to would be another idiot like yourself.

Get a clue, idiot.

I swear the average IQ and common-sense level of the internet drops hourly.

By the way, sobriquet, if the images that you want to archive for yourself are
contained in SWF files, there are many flash decompilers available that do just
that. They take apart the data in an SWF file and save it as their original
components. You need only retrieve the SWF file from your browser's cache then
run it through a flash decompiler.

I do this often to see how some things are done.

There are also "save flash" utilities that save flash animations and movies from
web pages so you don't even have to look in your cache for the respective files.
Do searches for "flash decompiler" or "save flash utility".

It seems they have the fullsize pics stored on the site cut up in
fragments like this:

http://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/cgi-bi...5000011.tjp&35

(same as http://tinyurl.com/2edpv9 )

I'm now using webreaper on the site and perhaps I can figure out to
create a photoshop macro or something to re-assemble the fragments...
if I'm lucky enough that webreaper will be able to download the
content of the site.


Any non-ignorant web-page builder knows that Flash is not a copy-protection
method. It's only an alternate, and sometimes more "cutesy", display method for
sharing their images and movies. People that wrongly believe, or were lead to
believe, that putting their images into SWF files is some kind of copyright
protection have been sorely lied to and taken advantage of. Just as those who
once believed that invisible watermarking was an effective method. As soon as
everyone found out that you only needed to do a slight rotation and back on any
watermarked image that it would disappear, then the scam became known. Digimarc
scammed everyone really good, and they still try to, and fools still fall for
it. Then we have companies like Adobe that just love perpetuating that scam and
myth for their own financial gain.

FoundAnotherIdiot! wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:39:50 GMT, Marvin wrote:

Are you asking me to abet a felony? Museums are publicly
accessible, but you aren't supposed to walk out with one of
the paintings under your arm.

Museums do not own the copyright to old paintings and art.

For a related example check out Project Gutenburg's archives of thousands and
thousands of historically important literature, perfectly legal and free to
distribute to anyone anywhere across the whole world.

Get your head out of your control-freak-induced-paranoia ass.

Just because you are so easily manipulated by today's self-appointed net-cops
and would love to be just like them doesn't mean everyone falls for their
juvenile crap.

Gee, I didn't think you even knew me. Or do you just think
folks will call you clever because you insult others at random?

Many museums will let you photograph the art works. I do it
myself quite often. A photo of the art is subject to
copyright; I own the copyright to a photo I take of an art
object. You do not have the right to steal my photograph.

On 14 sep, 18:40, sobriquet wrote:
On 14 sep, 12:56, Notes4theClueless wrote:





On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:53:16 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

sobriquet wrote:
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

In most museums (at least where I live, in the Netherlands), you can
take your camera into a musuem and take pictures fo the artworks they
have on display (without a flash though).

If you do this, can I have a copy of the photo you take please?

I want to make a CD to sell on eBay.

If he posts it on the internet I bet he wouldn't mind in the least, but you
wouldn't have any rights to sell it. That is exactly what all the photos on the
internet are for, for everyone in the world to view them. Only an idiot would
think that they have a way to keep the low-resolution image from being
duplicated or that they somehow still have any distribution control over that
downsized copy that they posted. It's duplicated through a dozen servers and
routes every time anyone views it, and a copy is saved to anyone's cache that
views it. You lost the control to the smaller image the very moment you posted
it to the net. Now if you wanted the original full resolution copy you'd
probably have to ask him. Then you'd have to work out a deal for distribution
rights. Having the original full resolution copy is often used to prove when
someone else is trying to financially benefit off of your work.

Compile all the CDs that you want of images from the net. Guess how many buyers
you're going to get -- NONE. Since those images are already free to anyone. The
only person you could sell it to would be another idiot like yourself.

Get a clue, idiot.

I swear the average IQ and common-sense level of the internet drops hourly.

By the way, sobriquet, if the images that you want to archive for yourself are
contained in SWF files, there are many flash decompilers available that do just
that. They take apart the data in an SWF file and save it as their original
components. You need only retrieve the SWF file from your browser's cache then
run it through a flash decompiler.

I do this often to see how some things are done.

There are also "save flash" utilities that save flash animations and movies from
web pages so you don't even have to look in your cache for the respective files.
Do searches for "flash decompiler" or "save flash utility".

It seems they have the fullsize pics stored on the site cut up in
fragments like this:

http://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/cgi-bi...view/01/ams/07...

(same ashttp://tinyurl.com/2edpv9)

I'm now using webreaper on the site and perhaps I can figure out to
create a photoshop macro or something to re-assemble the fragments...
if I'm lucky enough that webreaper will be able to download the
content of the site.





Perhaps this project to rip beeldbank.amsterdam.nl is a bit too
ambitious, because I see it contains 227153 images (prolly most are
over 1 MP).

Marvin writes:
Many museums will let you photograph the art works. I do it myself
quite often. A photo of the art is subject to copyright; I own the
copyright to a photo I take of an art object. You do not have the
right to steal my photograph.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corel_v._Bridgeman:

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191
(S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact
photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by
copyright because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate
reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort,
the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that
copyrighted material must show sufficient originality.

the photo is copyrightable if it contains original material of your
own. If it's just a straight copy of a pre-existing work
(specifically a photo of an old painting, in the case at hand), you
don't gain copyright interest by just taking the picture. HTH, IANAL,
etc.

A lot of these images are available at Wikimedia Commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org