Yet another "stolen" photo

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
wrote:

On 19 Jun 2009 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Eric Miller wrote:

I tried to do that as well, again with .htaccess, but it didn't work.

I may play with it some tonight when I get a chance.

Your hosting provider may have .htaccess disabled. The simple way is to
rename your picture, then substitute something ("I am a bandwidth thief"
in huge bright pink letters works for me...) under the file's original
name.

That works if the person is linking to the image where Eric has it up
online, but does absolutely nothing if the woman has downloaded and
saved the image. If she's downloaded and saved it, or uploaded it to
her host, she can continue to send it anywhere she wants.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:07:29 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:



For editorial use like this, a model release isn't required.

1 out of 4 isn't bad. Further, it's not required of people in a clearly
public venue where being photographed can be reasonably expected.

Didn't a women in Montreal sue a newspaper for publishing her picture, sitting
on the steps of a university, and win?

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
wrote:

On 19 Jun 2009 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Eric Miller wrote:

I tried to do that as well, again with .htaccess, but it didn't work.

I may play with it some tonight when I get a chance.

Your hosting provider may have .htaccess disabled. The simple way is to
rename your picture, then substitute something ("I am a bandwidth thief"
in huge bright pink letters works for me...) under the file's original
name.

That works if the person is linking to the image where Eric has it up
online, but does absolutely nothing if the woman has downloaded and
saved the image. If she's downloaded and saved it, or uploaded it to
her host, she can continue to send it anywhere she wants.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

unless someone sends her a nicely worded email requesting that she stop
sending out something that is clearly not hers a copy of Douggies DMCA post
C&P'd might convince her to stop.
That's just something I would consider doing, its no use whining about a
magazine publishing a photo of yours without attribution and then when you
find out that some self promoter is sending them out all over cyber space
you do nothing, find out the name and email of the person doing the posting
and politely ask her to stop.

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:12:38 +1000, "Atheist Chaplain"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
wrote:

On 19 Jun 2009 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Eric Miller wrote:

I tried to do that as well, again with .htaccess, but it didn't work.

I may play with it some tonight when I get a chance.

Your hosting provider may have .htaccess disabled. The simple way is to
rename your picture, then substitute something ("I am a bandwidth thief"
in huge bright pink letters works for me...) under the file's original
name.

That works if the person is linking to the image where Eric has it up
online, but does absolutely nothing if the woman has downloaded and
saved the image. If she's downloaded and saved it, or uploaded it to
her host, she can continue to send it anywhere she wants.


unless someone sends her a nicely worded email requesting that she stop
sending out something that is clearly not hers

I don't know what Eric wants done. He can ask her to stop or he can
send her a duplicate of the image with his watermark discreetly placed
on the image and ask if she would send out that instead. I don't get
the impression that Eric wants paid; just that he wants the proper
recognition.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:37:32 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:07:29 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:



For editorial use like this, a model release isn't required.

1 out of 4 isn't bad. Further, it's not required of people in a clearly
public venue where being photographed can be reasonably expected.

Didn't a women in Montreal sue a newspaper for publishing her picture, sitting
on the steps of a university, and win?

If it's the case I'm thinking of, there was no claim made that the
photographer did anything wrong in taking the photograph. The suit
was against the newspaper for publishing the photograph.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:37:32 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:07:29 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:



For editorial use like this, a model release isn't required.

1 out of 4 isn't bad. Further, it's not required of people in a clearly
public venue where being photographed can be reasonably expected.

Didn't a women in Montreal sue a newspaper for publishing her picture,
sitting
on the steps of a university, and win?

If it's the case I'm thinking of, there was no claim made that the
photographer did anything wrong in taking the photograph. The suit
was against the newspaper for publishing the photograph.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

And besides that, sitting on university steps is not a public sporting
event....

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:12:38 +1000, "Atheist Chaplain"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
wrote:

On 19 Jun 2009 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Eric Miller wrote:

I tried to do that as well, again with .htaccess, but it didn't work.

I may play with it some tonight when I get a chance.

Your hosting provider may have .htaccess disabled. The simple way is to
rename your picture, then substitute something ("I am a bandwidth thief"
in huge bright pink letters works for me...) under the file's original
name.

That works if the person is linking to the image where Eric has it up
online, but does absolutely nothing if the woman has downloaded and
saved the image. If she's downloaded and saved it, or uploaded it to
her host, she can continue to send it anywhere she wants.


unless someone sends her a nicely worded email requesting that she stop
sending out something that is clearly not hers

I don't know what Eric wants done. He can ask her to stop or he can
send her a duplicate of the image with his watermark discreetly placed
on the image and ask if she would send out that instead. I don't get
the impression that Eric wants paid; just that he wants the proper
recognition.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I agree but he is NOT going to get any recognition while ever she is sending
out HIS photograph to all who will publish it, the first move is to find her
contact details and politely ask her to either stop it or as you say send
out a watermarked photo, the next step, if she refuses is to call in a DMCA
order. As I said, whining about it on Usenet is about as fulfilling as
making love while in bed next to Douggie( or daveFaktor or whatever name he
is using the week), It's ****ing close to useless !!

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

Joe Makowiec wrote:
On 19 Jun 2009 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Eric Miller wrote:

I tried to do that as well, again with .htaccess, but it didn't work.

I may play with it some tonight when I get a chance.

Your hosting provider may have .htaccess disabled. The simple way is to
rename your picture, then substitute something ("I am a bandwidth thief"
in huge bright pink letters works for me...) under the file's original
name.


My hosting provider has .htaccess enabled. I know this because I am my
own hosting provider. I discovered the problem and do not know how to
resolve it without disabling all links to the page which I do not want
to do. The hotlinking site is hotlinking to the .php file and not the
image itself. If I redirect all links to .php in that directory, no one
will be able to link to the image. I'll just live with the hotlinking
for now because the traffic has started to wane.

Replacing the image creates its own problems because I still want the
original image to be available and renaming it would undermine that to a
certain extent. I'll just live with it for now.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Eric Miller wrote:
Joe Makowiec wrote:
On 19 Jun 2009 in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, Eric Miller wrote:

I tried to do that as well, again with .htaccess, but it didn't work.

I may play with it some tonight when I get a chance.

Your hosting provider may have .htaccess disabled. The simple way is
to rename your picture, then substitute something ("I am a bandwidth
thief" in huge bright pink letters works for me...) under the file's
original name.


My hosting provider has .htaccess enabled. I know this because I am my
own hosting provider. I discovered the problem and do not know how to
resolve it without disabling all links to the page which I do not want
to do. The hotlinking site is hotlinking to the .php file and not the
image itself. If I redirect all links to .php in that directory, no one
will be able to link to the image. I'll just live with the hotlinking
for now because the traffic has started to wane.

Replacing the image creates its own problems because I still want the
original image to be available and renaming it would undermine that to a
certain extent. I'll just live with it for now.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Eric...
A link to a .php file is not hot linking. The only difference between a
..php file and a .html file is the script it contains and a single word
at the start of the header.

Hot links are links directly to images that display on a web site as if
they were that site owner's images.

I think you'll find what you think is a hot link is actually increased
site traffic due to the exposure of your site's name on Runners world's
Blog.

Your image: (_mg_8890.JPG) is not being linked to. It has been
downloaded to a blog site and renamed to: *-800wi.jpg. The photo on
runner world is hot-linked to; http://rodale.typepad.com, Runner's
world's "real" web site.

The blog is a separate identity. I suspect they've set it up this way to
avoid getting involved in waste-of-time copyright issues when they use
images taken by ametures they have no intention of paying for.

Seriously Eric...
You are using free software to publish your site
Free software for your statistics counter
and you are ****ed off someone took your photo for free and gave you
free publicity that most commercial site owners would crawl over broken
glass to get. What *IS* your problem?


--
You don't stop laughing because you grow old,
You grow old because you stop laughing!

Robert Coe wrote:


I'm sorry to still be so clueless when I've been in these newsgroups so long.
But the names keep changing, and it's devilish hard to keep up.

Bob


That's half the fun Bob. Focus man... Keep your eye on the ball or
you'll miss all the fun.

--
You don't stop laughing because you grow old,
You grow old because you stop laughing!