Welcome to the Travel Forums


Why join TravelBlog?

  • Membership is Free and Easy
  • Your travel questions answered in minutes!
  • Become part of the friendliest online travel community.
Join Now! Join TravelBlog* today and meet thousands of friendly travelers. Don't wait! Join today and make your adventures even more enjoyable.

* Blogging is not required to participate in the forums
Advertisement


Taking photos, blogs and comments of others on the internet and passing them off as ones own.

Advertisement
Why do people do this, in your opinion? Are there any benefits to doing it? Has anyone to your knowledge passed off something of yours as their own?
14 years ago, May 26th 2009 No: 41 Msg: #74023  
Jason - Of course this conversation has happened repeatedly across cyberspace - as copyright infringement happens to new individuals, they will inevitably have the same complaints and feelings of violation as those who have already been met with the same experiences.

Just because it's a theft of words and thoughts, not sweaters and shoes, does not make it any less of a crime, and the only reason it continues to occur is because there are so many individuals out there who continue to accept it, tacitly and/or openly.

Telling someone not to publish online because it makes it vulnerable to theft is like telling a street vendor not to complain if someone steals his/her goods because "It's out there on the street, publicly for the taking!"

As explained in the Basic Guide to Copyright which Ali posted earlier, the blogs posted on Travelblog, are in fact not public domain, but very much remain the property of the author. Reply to this

14 years ago, May 26th 2009 No: 42 Msg: #74027  
OK Chocolatemonkee, Here is a little clap of thunder in the S#@* storm as you said, It's doesn't have any thing to do with EGO's it is a matter of what is right and what is wrong. In my humble opinion, dishonesty is wrong, and saying something is your creation is when it is not is dishonest and therefore wrong. Those who are doing this as a scam are petty criminals (emphasis on Petty) Those who do this so someone will say something nice about there creative skills know that they are not worthy,but are so desperate for praise that they will take what ever they get even if they don't deserve it. I think they have a blemish on their soul or at least their moral compass needs to be re calibrated. Reply to this

14 years ago, May 27th 2009 No: 43 Msg: #74043  
B Posts: 151
What really irks me are people who are so quick on passing judgement.

There’s always a grey area between right and wrong. Some considerations have to be taken into account such as: what is harmless, fair use and most of all - human compassion.

Would you honestly cut off a starving child’s hand for stealing a loaf of bread ?

Or charge a person for using your photo of a tropical beach as a screensaver, hoping to get away from his/her boring desk job dreaming to go to that wonderful place someday ?

Speaking of moral calibration: would you rather be selfish or giving ?

Seriously, what kind of a world we live in if everyone would only think for themselves ?
Reply to this

14 years ago, May 27th 2009 No: 44 Msg: #74048  
B Posts: 5,200
Friendly moderator reminder: (not that anyone has done this yet!)

Even if you disagree with an opinion - keep your tone civil - language clean - and argue against the idea/opinion expressed not the person expressing it. Reply to this

14 years ago, May 27th 2009 No: 45 Msg: #74094  
B Posts: 580
My previous tongue-in-cheek post on this topic was an attempt to highlight the ´innocent´ casual use of other peoples ideas to express an opinion.

And attempt to difuse some of the heat building in this issue...

Now I´ll explain, in 'mostly' my own words, my opinion:

One time in Copenhagen, at a tourism fair, the 'Georgia stand' used one of my photographs from their country in a brochure, without my prior knowledge. Another time, I was in Amman Jordan, and a guy I had known for all of two days was showing me his new website; he'd used one my photgraphs from Burma, on his main banner, without my prior knowledge. In both situations they were extremely embarrased, and in both situations I explained, it was no problem.

This brought to my mind, the common use of other peoples pictures on the net; and I can only ponder as to how many other people have used pictures from mine and others travelblogs.

When people have asked me to use my pictures or text I have always agreed, and as a result my pictures have appeared on more than one book cover. Various organisations have requested the use of photos and text for various causes and I have never requested payment.

In one instance 'intellectual property' has hindered the use of my photos in a cause. Earlier this year when Israel murdered over 1500 people, against all international law, in Gaza. Some on the internet were attempting to use some of my photos to highlight the attrocities perpetuated in the occupied territories on a daily basis. But apparantely, I hadn't 'released the rights', protagonists said. Luckily someone contacted me via wikipedia and after legally releasing them they could be used.

The reason I have never requested payment is because I believe a blog (including the pictures) is something I produce for friends, family and the travelblog community for free. By selling any of this 'work' I believe it moves from the sacred to the profane - One is located in the temple, the other in the market (Latin: profanus, 'before or outside the temple').

Adam Smith distinguished between a natural value and a market value (which veering from the natural, is by implication 'unnatural' and hence inauthentic'). Marx believed, that once labour is objectified through the rhetoric of the market, workers are estranged from the objects produced with this labour.

This alienation is a direct result of a commodity exchange, since without such exchange a given commodity would be fully utilized by its producers, presumably for a fixed purpose. So for example within the 'travelblog community' (a free service, that doesn't pays its contributors) community producers are not alienated from their labour because the objects they produce with this labour are held and used in common rather than exchanged as individual forms of private property.

The main issue for me, is whether the blogs I produce are used for propoganda purposes (all writers are propagandists) in unethical or evil ways (my text has appeared on both far-right and far-left websites). But of course, this can happen whether or not the material is 'stolen', or sold to the highest bidder.

Think of all the philisophical, biological, historical and biological arguments that have been distorted and perverted to justify Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism etal... Or indeed the 'news' produced by the capitalist media on a daily basis.

As a final note on the issue of intellectual property, In the US (and other countires) it is possible to be imprisoned for 'stealing' music and from the internet ( “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone...” ). But in China, in an effort to increase its market market share, Google™ allows its Chinese users to download music from its website for free (99 percent of all music files distributed in China are pirated)

"Lee Kai-Fu, president of Google in greater China, said one reason Google lagged in the mainland search market was because it did not offer music downloads, the missing piece to its strategy in a market where it trails leader Baidu.com."

Reply to this

14 years ago, May 28th 2009 No: 46 Msg: #74121  
Mike C,
I could not agree more with the idea that it's morally wrong to use w/o someone's permission but find that Johanna sum's it up quite nicely with

... would you rather be selfish or giving ?

.

Being bred for capitalism (or is consumerism!?! :P), it appears that many have an issue with giving away something freely. It seems to me that when we blog and place it in a situation where others may view it, with or without our consent, we are sharing this information. Information that can be used as is or modified to suit the needs of others... No permissions required. Sucks when we don't get the credit but it's really quite selfish to want to be given credit for such trivial things in life.

Steph and Andras,
Telling someone to not publish online is not like telling a street vendor to not complain. Telling a street vendor to not sell in the crime ridden area would be the same. Although I hear your argument, I tend to think that it's still based on a person's greed and not their willingness to share.

Imagine if a dollar figure or sense of pride were not attached to these things. Would it really matter then? Reply to this

14 years ago, May 28th 2009 No: 47 Msg: #74126  
I think we have two discussions going here - 1) how does copyright and online theft pertain to blogs and 2) how does it pertain to the web at large. At least I hope we do.

Even if there wasn't money or pride involved, I would still take objection to someone copying and/or taking credit the work of someone else. That I think comes down to integrity, but I have issues with many citizens of the world trying to "get ahead" by using others. It's cheating. I don't like it. It goes against my cultural values. Reciprocity is necessary for balance to be achieved in any community - whether it's an exchange of money, the exchange of permission, the exchange of appreciation with a "Thanks so much!" or the exchange of a similar act of giving (ie: Travelblog - I publish blogs and photos for you to enjoy, you publish blogs and photos for me to enjoy). You can't get something for nothing, and it irritates me when individuals see the internet was a one-way street of giving/receiving.

I don't plan to ever make money off what I publish here nor have I acquired a mass of devoted fans to feed my ego. That's not why I do it - I do it mainly for myself, so when I have those days when it seems like I'm just stuck I can look back and see all the things I've done. And I don't make money answering questions on the forums but I still do it . You can say that it's because I "like having the answers" or "get an ego boost by helping" and we can get into a discussion of pride/altruism but that's not the issue here. Are all actions self-serving in some way?

My main issue is that there are people who use the internet as a medium for capital and personal gains, and they should be allowed to, without having their work stolen and having others turn a blind eye, or without being called stupid for not using an alternative method - perhaps all professional writers should be resigned to the dying world of print media and only disseminate information to those within 100 miles of them? For those who want to share their work freely - well the internet serves that function too. It doesn't have to be one or the other, but the rights of those who do wish to use the internet for personal gains should still be respected, and upheld.

And on another point, no, I don't think you can alter information you're given to suit your needs and just because you have access to it for free. By publishing blogs online I am, yes, sharing information with a wider audience than I would if I just typed these up and saved them on my hard-drive. It's like public art. There are lots of wonderful sculpture parks in Seattle that are free to be enjoyed by anyone, but I can't go and take one to my living room and try to sell it, or go and paint one a different color and slap my name on it. That would, again, be wrong. I really do fail to understand (and I don't intend this to sound derogatory - I really cannot grasp this concept) how it sounds reprehensible in real world situations, but then seems okay to do that type of "modification" with someones work online. Reply to this

14 years ago, May 28th 2009 No: 48 Msg: #74127  
B Posts: 151
I think we can all probably agree that stealing is wrong and I do not condone it either.

It really comes down to one's personality on how they go tough on crimes.

I must admit that I didn't make to the final jury selection four times in a row maybe because I'm more likely to vote for the "Not Guilty" verdict. 😊. Though I must add that I'll convict hardcore criminals in a heartbeat !.

As what Jason quoted -

He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone...



Sometimes, all what's needed is a slap on the wrist. Reply to this

14 years ago, May 28th 2009 No: 49 Msg: #74131  
Steph and Andras,
I agree with your stand on integrity but feel that reciprocity need not be present as you suggest unless one of the people giving feels the need to take. If information were truly free for the taking, imagine how much further advanced we could be! Instead, we're worried someone may make a dollar off of us or we might not get credit when it's rightfully due. Its when we worry about this continual need of ownership that we miss out on opportunities to further ourselves.
Whether the information is gotten w/ integrity or not and the end result is for the better, I see this as a necessary evil. Its always easier to apologize than to ask for permission. Does it mean that I agree w/ how the world seems to work due to greed, nope, but being realistic, that's how it works.

Musicians have the same argument about illegal downloads as do movie studios yet how many tunes and movies are downloaded everyday w/o proper monies/accreditation going to the right people? Is it right. No. Check your Ipods people.

Once again, we'll agree to disagree on the idea that one can not manipulate information to suit their needs. I think it depends on how you define the manipulation of an object. Taking a sculpture from the park home and painting it is, for both of us down right theft. Making a copy of the original sculpture and reproducing it would not be in my mind. This would be the same for pictures in my opinion.

Regardless of our differences on this subject, Johanna rightfully points out what Jason stated.

And my glass house can't take the beating.

Reply to this

14 years ago, May 28th 2009 No: 50 Msg: #74137  
B Posts: 5,200
One major difference between downloading music (in China or otherwise) and copying blogs/photos and claiming credit for them; the music isn't then claimed to be the work of the person uploading it to their MP3 player.

A number of separate issues are being discussed;

Attribution - the right to be acknowledged as the originator of work.

Stealing/Theft - is copying stealing? - In my understanding of theft and stealing is - I steal something from you - you no longer have it. Very different from copying - the law is out of step with this - and so is the propaganda by the RIAA.

Damages/Loss of earnings - this is where copying does have an impact - if I copy something - I no longer will pay for it - a loss of earnings for the owner of the copyright of a work. This misses the obvious point that - just because I would copy something wouldn't mean I'd pay for it. It also misses the point that the same guy who downloads tens of thousands of songs will purchase more CD's than some one who only listens to the radio.


My moral stand point on the issues here is that if someone asks and attributes my work - then in nearly all situations I am happy for my photos, text to be used - like Jason - photos I've taken have appeared on books, adverts, websites, kids homework etc - if the photo/text is to be used commercially - then I ask what is their standard rate - it's usually $100 per a photo - this is an almost industry standard rate.

I always ask for attribution on the non-commercial uses - on the commercial ones - depends on the context - in a book - yes, advertising - no.

Then there are people who copy my photos upload them to their blogs etc etc - without asking without attributing - there is no loss to me - but - when asking and attributing is so little work - it is very bad manners morally (legally it's copyright infringement) - I don't usually do anything about this though - but they deserve a slap on the wrist.

Additionally there are people that use my photos for personal use such as screensavers etc - I think this should be considered fairuse - they're not claiming ownership, distributing, making money from etc etc - I'm more than happy for this to happen.

But where I do get very annoyed is in one specific area;



Scraper Sites - the dark side of the web...

A scraper website is a site solely or largely consisting of copied content and advertising. Unique content is something very useful on a website - it brings in visitors from search engines - increasing traffic.

A scraper site has a program that mimics a web browser - downloads all/many of the pages - puts copies onto a website - reformats them and stuffs them with advertising. No attribution - no value - all the attribution stripped. Usually run by semi-skilled programmers - who know what they are doing and cynically exploit the internet in order to make money from others effort.

There are thousands and thousands of them.

The DMCA digital millennium copyright act is supposed to protect copyright holders - it works to a point. So after identifying a scraper site this is the work I then have to do;

1) Identify the ISP hosting the site, Identify the advertising company (usually google), identify the person responsible for the site (if possible - usually they use privacy settings on there domain registrations)

2) List the infringing URL's and the original URL's - no small task with thousands of entries - usually I make an example of 10-20 to get the point across.

3) Document all of this in accordance to the DMCA

4) Fax this to the ISP and advertising company

This takes hours - that could more usefully be spent doing anything else - about once a month I have this task.

I'm unfortunately working on one right now - ISPs etc hide behind the DMCA - in order to reduce their liability - even when they receive a complaint - where it's obvious that it's a scraper site that they host - until they receive a DMCA request they will do nothing. Reply to this

14 years ago, May 28th 2009 No: 51 Msg: #74138  
Wow Ali, this is a clear explanation. Thanks a lot for it...I've learn something! and I do agree with your points! Reply to this

14 years ago, May 28th 2009 No: 52 Msg: #74245  
Johnna, I don't belive I am a selfish person or that saying dishonesty is wrong can be construed to mean I would mutilate a starving urchin for stealing my sandwich. If someone boosted my photos or blog and claimed it was their own would I lose any sleep over it? No. I just think it is kind of weird. Reply to this

14 years ago, May 28th 2009 No: 53 Msg: #74248  
Mell I am always willing to take somone's photo for them if asked . I have only been asked if somone could take my picture one time and I declined. Because he wanted to take my picture with my camera! I'm no genius but I am not going to hand a total stranger wearing tennis shoes my $400. camera! Reply to this

14 years ago, May 31st 2009 No: 54 Msg: #74525  
I dont see how those scraper sites attact interest even with stolen blogs. When I browse for travel sites with Google I look for ones with live genuine members on them, chatting and exchanging information. A scraper site wouldnt be able to fake that and surely no traveller would be bothered with joining a dead site so the site advertising wouldnt work anyway.

I'm no genius but I am not going to hand a total stranger wearing tennis shoes my $400. camera!


Wise decision. One time somebody in the toilets of a cafe in the former Yugoslavia wanted to see my passport. I sure as hell wasnt going to take it out and put it in the hands of some curious stranger. Reply to this

14 years ago, June 1st 2009 No: 55 Msg: #74553  
B Posts: 5,200

A scraper site wouldnt be able to fake that and surely no traveller would be bothered with joining a dead site so the site advertising wouldnt work anyway.



Totally - no genuine person will have interest in joining the site - but scraper sites don't even want people to join. The just want them to click the ads - which are slap bang in your face. (not like here - a place that cares about it's members)

So if you ever see a site like that - hit the back button and move on to the next result... they get their traffic from Google and the other search engines. Because there is no information there - they have to "steal/copy" it from somewhere - somewhere like here. This then affects the place that it was stolen from - because - the search engines then send less visitors to the genuine site...

Reply to this

14 years ago, June 1st 2009 No: 56 Msg: #74565  

People, get over yourselves. If someone "steals" your words or pictures and wins prizes or accolades for them and on the off chance that you learn of this, why weren't you smart enough to be publishing them to win yourself?


Not everybody wants to put a price tag on everything they own.

I read a few years ago about a chamber maid who found Brittney Spears pregnancy test in a garbage can in the bathroom of a hotel and sold it. I think Brittney Spears would have realised that she could sell it, but not everything is for sale.

Reply to this

14 years ago, June 1st 2009 No: 57 Msg: #74632  
Thanks for the info Ali 😊 Reply to this

14 years ago, October 6th 2009 No: 58 Msg: #88552  

Tot: 0.205s; Tpl: 0.009s; cc: 12; qc: 49; dbt: 0.1368s; 1; m:domysql w:travelblog (10.17.0.13); sld: 1; ; mem: 1.1mb