Hello everyone,



I am very happy to announce that an idea we've had in the back of our minds for a good while has finally been brought to life! Today we're officially unveiling the PentaxForums Exclusive Gallery, which is conceptually similar to Pentax's PPG. At first, we wanted this gallery to also appear fancy and have cool effects, but we found that other solutions wouldn't offer the level of integration that this one did. So, let's jump right in to what we're looking at here.

Our Exclusive Gallery will become a collection of only the best photos taken by our users. Only PentaxForums.com users will be able to submit to this gallery. We will also be imposing certain quality standards to make sure the photos are at their very best.

To submit a photo to the gallery, simply click the 'upload' link in the upper gallery toolbar, or click here. The submission form is the same as that in our other gallery categories, so you should already be familiar with the controls. The following will be required of each photo:

• JPEG format and compression at 90%-100% (9-12).
• A resolution of at least 1024x700 (WxH or HxW) pixels; preferably around 1500 or 2000px on one edge
  
• Full EXIF left intact in the file, if digital
• Manual addition of EXIF metadata, if film
  
• A photo description and complete camera/lens fields
• If you choose to place copyright text in your photo, please do so in the lower-right or lower-left corner only
• No added frames, borders, or drawings
  
• Taken with a Pentax camera (no exceptions)
• Limit 2 submissions per user day (to be fair to our judges)
  

If your photo conforms to these regulations, it will then be evaluated by the site staff. If the photo is good enough, it'll be approved into the gallery; if not, we'll simply move it to a regular category. You will be able to submit as many photos as you'd like until 10 have been approved in the gallery. This limit is currently going to be in place so that every photographer gets about equal exposure, but may increase in the future.

Why this is going to be better than the PPG:

• Not a slow flash-based gallery
• Large resolutions will be available for your viewing pleasure
  
• Comments can be made
• More great photos will be posted!
• Feedback on your photo will be e-mailed to you once a decision has been made
• The approval decision will be made within 1 week at most (apply to be a judge)
  
• Status tracking at https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/galleryapprove.php?do=status and updates on status via e-mail
• It's integrated with your favorite photo forum
  

And, best of all:

• If 5 or your photos get approved into the gallery, you will be invited to become an Exclusive Gallery judge

So, why wait? Upload your best now!

A note to newbies: the gallery is accessible through the 'photos' button in the navbar. Simply click it and then select 'User Photo Gallery' from the menu.

Enjoy, guys! I'm very excited to be bringing you this.

Photos accepted into the gallery will also be tagged as "exclusive" in gallery searches and listings, and within the exclusive category, supersized thumbnails will be shown!

[falconeye]

I imagine that the general public probably doesn't know how to circumvent right-click protection, as you do.

Cindy,

what you describe is known as "security by obfuscation". It has never worked.

As for right-click protection, almost everybody knows how to circumvent it. Firefox allows to disable right-click protection (disable to replace the context menu) without the need to switch off Javascript. It's right there in the options menu. I know many using this as their default setting...

The problem is that if the user worked around a protection mechanism, he feels entitled to use that to his advantage. If there is no protection except a clear copyright notice, the user knows we trust him not to become a thief. So, if he steals a photo nevertheless, he knows that this wasn't an honourable hacking achievement but simple theft.

[HypnoCin67]

Cindy,

what you describe is known as "security by obfuscation". It has never worked.

As for right-click protection, almost everybody knows how to circumvent it. Firefox allows to disable right-click protection (disable to replace the context menu) without the need to switch off Javascript. It's right there in the options menu. I know many using this as their default setting...

The problem is that if the user worked around a protection mechanism, he feels entitled to use that to his advantage. If there is no protection except a clear copyright notice, the user knows we trust him not to become a thief. So, if he steals a photo nevertheless, he knows that this wasn't an honourable hacking achievement but simple theft.

So, I guess I have my answer. . . I have to say that I am unimpressed that DTR took one of my images and then didn't bother to assure me that he or she had deleted it, despite my asking him/her to do so.

It sounds as if there will be no attempt at right-click protection (I still happen to believe that 90% of computer users and internet users DON'T even know how to do screen-shots (and what kind of size could one blow up a photo to if they were to steal it that way anyhow? It would be pathetic, printed out IMHO. . . Have fun making postcards with your stolen image, DTR. . .)

But I won't be posting any images to the exclusive photo gallery, especially with the reception I've gotten that has done everything to dissuade me from believing in the inherent goodness of the "other 10%.)

Cindy

[yeatzee]

So, I guess I have my answer. . . I have to say that I am unimpressed that DTR took one of my images and then didn't bother to assure me that he or she had deleted it, despite my asking him/her to do so.

It sounds as if there will be no attempt at right-click protection (I still happen to believe that 90% of computer users and internet users DON'T even know how to do screen-shots (and what kind of size could one blow up a photo to if they were to steal it that way anyhow? It would be pathetic, printed out IMHO. . . Have fun making postcards with your stolen image, DTR. . .)

But I won't be posting any images to the exclusive photo gallery, especially with the reception I've gotten that has done everything to dissuade me from believing in the inherent goodness of the "other 10%.)

Cindy

Relax! Im sure he hasn't seen your response to this thread yet..... he was making a point for the thread, Im sure he's not just out to steal that image . Paranoia will make you miserable :ugh:

[MRRiley]

So, I guess I have my answer. . . I have to say that I am unimpressed that DTR took one of my images and then didn't bother to assure me that he or she had deleted it, despite my asking him/her to do so.

It sounds as if there will be no attempt at right-click protection (I still happen to believe that 90% of computer users and internet users DON'T even know how to do screen-shots (and what kind of size could one blow up a photo to if they were to steal it that way anyhow? It would be pathetic, printed out IMHO. . . Have fun making postcards with your stolen image, DTR. . .)

But I won't be posting any images to the exclusive photo gallery, especially with the reception I've gotten that has done everything to dissuade me from believing in the inherent goodness of the "other 10%.)

Cindy

Cindy... This problem is not exclusive to Pentax Forums. Any image you place on the internet ANYWHERE can be stolen. And there is nothing you can do to prevent it. However, you can mitigate the risks by limiting the size/scale/resolution of the posted image to something that will not print well. It's simply a risk you need to accept if you want to share your images with anyone online. And if you are not willing to accept that risk you better not ever post anything.

Mike

p.s. even going out today and deleting every image you have online will not positively prevent future thefts. It may lessen them but the are numerous services that archive all kinds of content on the web and it's likely that your images are included in those archives.

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 08-12-2010 at 10:58 AM.

[falconeye]

Cindy

Cindy,

why not "Cindy " ?

Nothing I've said should upset you. I feel your pain. I just wanted to make sure you understand you cannot rely on technical means to protect your work. Heck, your images may even show up in Google image search and be downloaded right there (right-click protection wouldn't work there either...).

So, watermark and downsize for the web. I think the size accepted by PPG is small enough and I like the fact that PPG watermarks the images in a consistent way.

BTW, may I propose such scripted watermarking here as well? It would allow to rate an image without knowing who posted it.

[Adam]

Cindy,

why not "Cindy " ?

Nothing I've said should upset you. I feel your pain. I just wanted to make sure you understand you cannot rely on technical means to protect your work. Heck, your images may even show up in Google image search and be downloaded right there (right-click protection wouldn't work there either...).

So, watermark and downsize for the web. I think the size accepted by PPG is small enough and I like the fact that PPG watermarks the images in a consistent way.

BTW, may I propose such scripted watermarking here as well? It would allow to rate an image without knowing who posted it.

We can start watermarking gallery photos here (just like lens database shots), but I don't think that would go over well for those that use PF to host their images.

[falconeye]

We can start watermarking gallery photos here (just like lens database shots), but I don't think that would go over well for those that use PF to host their images.

I rather thought about a PPG style copyright notice.

Like "© Artist Name" in the lower left or lower right corner. But with more margin to the image's edges and with white text and black shadow. The blue pentaxforums.com stamp is ugly. And where the artist name would be chosen in the user control panel and may differ from the avatar name (like in "Falk Lumo" vs. "falconeye"). Leaving the "artist name" field blank would result in no watermarking of the image.

I know it would be work. It's just a proposition. If it cannot be done along the lines I described above, I withdraw my proposition and I'm fine with that too

[Adam]

Programming a watermark script (with a custom branding at that) isn't very hard, but I don't have the time right now. I'll add this as a future feature.

[Ash]

Cindy et al.

It's disheartening work cannot be shared without the assurance it won't be pilfered, but there must be at least some acceptance that a good proportion of people who have access to the images (everyone on the net) will take advantage of the immoral liberty to use someone else's photographic work. An even greater proportion of net users DO know how to capture screens and download 'protected' images. As I mentioned before, save from annoying watermarks (not just corner ones, as they too are easily cropped off), there's no effective means of image protection.

The alternative of not showing any of your work is personal prerogative but means no-one on the net sees your work at all. I can appreciate pros choosing this, since intellectual property is highly valuable and should be protected for the sake of their career and income, but for a lot of us here where this isn't a major concern, sharing downsized images at 90dpi is sufficient to share results without the potential of significant abuse as with access to hi-res images.

Creating an exclusive gallery branded watermark is good - going down the lines of PPG, but then should be standardised for the gallery, suggesting submissions not to have their own watermarks on the images.

[GregK8]

So, I guess I have my answer. . . I have to say that I am unimpressed that DTR took one of my images and then didn't bother to assure me that he or she had deleted it, despite my asking him/her to do so.

It sounds as if there will be no attempt at right-click protection (I still happen to believe that 90% of computer users and internet users DON'T even know how to do screen-shots (and what kind of size could one blow up a photo to if they were to steal it that way anyhow? It would be pathetic, printed out IMHO. . . Have fun making postcards with your stolen image, DTR. . .)

But I won't be posting any images to the exclusive photo gallery, especially with the reception I've gotten that has done everything to dissuade me from believing in the inherent goodness of the "other 10%.)

Cindy

I think this is getting blown way out of proportion. Copying an image that was made public on the Internet to your local computer for the purpose of viewing it is not an infringement of copyright. Whether I explicitly right-click it or my browser saves it in my cache, it is still copied to my computer. Why is one okay and the other isn't? What is the difference between the right-click => save and using finder to pick it out of the browser cache folder?

I think the purpose of copyright law is to prevent the commercial exploitation of work without permission. You have actually addressed your own concern in your second paragraph, that is, most images posted and downloaded are of insufficient resolution to exploit anyway.

[HypnoCin67]

Well, thanks for explaining what you guys all meant. It originally came across from a couple of people as sounding a bit snide and jaded. An eventual watermark would be good I think. It's why I do post with PPG, and why I've stopped posting a lot on dPreview (I've had "helpful" members download my images and "fix them" the way they think they ought to be, which is just thoughtless and uncool without asking first, IMO.) If you send out a notice when you put the auto-copyrighting watermark on the gallery photos, Adam, I'd love to post. Thanks again everyone, Cindy

[HypnoCin67]

I think this is getting blown way out of proportion. Copying an image that was made public on the Internet to your local computer for the purpose of viewing it is not an infringement of copyright. Whether I explicitly right-click it or my browser saves it in my cache, it is still copied to my computer. Why is one okay and the other isn't? What is the difference between the right-click => save and using finder to pick it out of the browser cache folder?

I think the purpose of copyright law is to prevent the commercial exploitation of work without permission. You have actually addressed your own concern in your second paragraph, that is, most images posted and downloaded are of insufficient resolution to exploit anyway.

True (about the fact that most small images are of inferior quality for printing or exploitation,) but I find it absolutely appalling to believe that someone would actually download someone else's image to their computer "for the purpose of viewing it" and believe that that behavior was not stealing just as much as trying to sell it to someone else or pawn it off as your own work.

I have never downloaded someone else's image. I find it just as easy to go back to that website and re-view it over and over, rather than steal it so I can look at it at my leisure on my hard-drive. If you like someone else's photo that much, either buy it or send yourself a link and visit it whenever you like.

I sell my work to pay my bills, mortgage and put food on the table each week. If people are stealing said images to keep on their own hard drives, they're taking money away from me. I work hard at what I do and hope that none of my acquaintances and friends on flickr, Pentax Forums and dPreview are doing what you described.

[falconeye]

If you send out a notice when you put the auto-copyrighting watermark on the gallery photos, Adam, I'd love to post. Thanks again everyone, Cindy

Cindy,

you have some outstanding photography in both PPG and on SmugMug.

E.g., your award-winning photo "Dawn on Portland Headlight" in your SmugMug "Maine Landscapes" gallery is right-click protected. But the gallery leaves the "Share" button enabled which officially allows me to crosslink your image (even copies its url into the clipboard) and so I can show it here:


© Cynthia Farr-Weinfeld

Also, your image carries no copyright watermark. And you offer it at a rather large size too (1280x960).

Note that the above display of your photo is no copyright infringement because I didn't copy (its a link into your SmugMug gallery) and because you allowed sharing on other sites for your gallery.

Because it is such a sensible subject for you, may I recommend you disable the "Share" feature for your sensible galleries, add a copyright watermark and limit the max. SmugMug viewing size to 800x600? (It's all easily done in the gallery properties page)

I hope you understand I try to hel you here to maintain a healthy business. If you feel offended by crosslinking your photo, I'll remove the above link. However, other's wouldn't know you would not approve crosslinking.

[Adam]

If you guys would like to continue discussing image protection, could you please start a new thread and post a link here? Let's stay on the topic of the gallery in this thread.

(BTW that's an amazing photo!)

[HypnoCin67]

Cindy,

you have some outstanding photography in both PPG and on SmugMug.

E.g., your award-winning photo "Dawn on Portland Headlight" in your SmugMug "Maine Landscapes" gallery is right-click protected. But the gallery leaves the "Share" button enabled which officially allows me to crosslink your image (even copies its url into the clipboard) and so I can show it here:


© Cynthia Farr-Weinfeld

Also, your image carries no copyright watermark. And you offer it at a rather large size too (1280x960).

Note that the above display of your photo is no copyright infringement because I didn't copy (its a link into your SmugMug gallery) and because you allowed sharing on other sites for your gallery.

Because it is such a sensible subject for you, may I recommend you disable the "Share" feature for your sensible galleries, add a copyright watermark and limit the max. SmugMug viewing size to 800x600? (It's all easily done in the gallery properties page)

I hope you understand I try to hel you here to maintain a healthy business. If you feel offended by crosslinking your photo, I'll remove the above link. However, other's wouldn't know you would not approve crosslinking.

Thanks Falconeye--I just changed my galleries to remove the Share option. I had kept it in many of my galleries so I could post a photo occasionally on dPreview, but apparently, that isn't even wise. . .

It makes me very sad to think that there are people out there who don't care about intellectual property. . .

Cindy