If you guys are members of Deviant Arts you better go check your gallerys as they just implemented a change where many images have an embed code next to them now in the description area.For those who don't know,an embed code serves only one purpose...to copy and paste the link to that image where ever you want.I am trying to find out whats going on by talking with members there and already six have found that every one of their images had embed codes. Its one thing to have someone right click and steal your image,it's quite another for the site itself to make it even easier by providing the code and making it seem as if you have granted permission for people to steal your work. Apparently the people who have found this was done to their gallerys do not have an option to change or remove the embed.To be fair,not all images have this embed code so somethings up with the profile settings there as none of these people knew the change had been made and no one gave permission for Deviant Arts to do this. Does anyone know whats going on here and does Renderosity have similar plans to do this??

Ok I figured it out.They do allow you to activate or deactivate your entire gallery so people can or can't share all or none of your images.You can even choose what images to share if you want but there is a huge problem here nonetheless as I have already spoken with twelve members there who did not know this change had gone into affect and were quite pissed to find out that their images might be all over the net with Deviant Arts permission to use as you want.The image has the Deviant Arts trademark slapped on it so that every time the image is used you're promoting their site whether you gave permission or not. Now for anyone who says this is ok,the simple truth is that they could have set this program to have all images set to inactive and let the members choose...instead they set all images by default to active so that members who don't know have their images plastered all over the internet promoting DA and artists who are not even online anymore who left their images posted on these sites to share with the members there are not even aware that DA has done this.By law Deviant Arts has to inform you if they are using your images for promotional purposes and you have to agree.If you joined when they had TOS saying they can use your images as they please then maybe they have a bit of a leg to stand on,but just because they credit the artists doesn't mean the artists granted permission to have their works on sites and phones all around the world.Tis a good way to promote your work maybe...but legally you have to give permission and they cannot just take your work to use as they please. I am concerned about this because this is a first step that could see other big sites like Renderosity do this as well.I was not informed Deviant Arts was doing this,when I joined Deviant Arts none of this had even been conceived and I am very angry that any site would officially sanction or conduct themselves in such a manner when art theft is such a huge issue today.True,anyone can steal your art by right clicking...but when the site does this and grants permission to everyone to use your images without gaining your permission first~somethings wrong with that.

I dont know what all is going on with DA as I dont frequent there, but I 'do' know that Renderosity does not embed code into members images.

Not yet...reason I mentioned that is its turning out that most members I'm asking about this at that site didn't know they did it and just as they didn't know...it could happen here at any time as well and most of us wouldn't know either if we got as much forewarning as what Deviant Arts gave its members (thats a huge community as well and has a growing 3d community now). Is this wrong for them to have done?I mean,to make every image active so it seems as if every member gave permission to snatch their images and then add the DA logo on it to promote themselves using the artists work without permission?

As far as 'Can they do that'..I dont know, you might want to read their TOS agreement...that is where you will most likely find out ;)

I can say with 99% certainty, that I do know Renderosity has no plans of doing such things like that to our members images. {And I say 99% because I dont know 'everything' *gasp!, I should slap myself for that..}

Maybe I will wander over there and take a gander Ya got me curious now...

Well, after browsing around over there...I have found that yes, they pretty much can do that as its in the TOS.....

Here's a bit of it:

3.  License To Use Artist Materials. As and when Artist Materials are uploaded to the deviantART Site(s), Artist grants to deviantART a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to do the following things during the Term:

a) to prepare and encode Artist Materials or any part of them for digital or analog transmission, manipulation and exhibition in any format and by any means now known or not yet known or invented;

f) During the Term, deviantART's licenses under this Agreement include the right to use any part of the Artist Materials in the promotion, advertising or marketing of the DeviantART Sites.

Always, always read the TOS of any site you join completely....and frequently. Also note that some sites state in their TOS that certain things can be added to it,  with or without your knowledge,{meaning they dont have to announce it} and its up to each user to keep himself/herself aware of all changes.

And yet similar TOS have been overturned in a court of law if change were made in the TOS after the member joins and no attempt is made to contact them or such attempts do not result in permission being given by the copyright owner or their legal representation.I joined in 2003 before they started this,they did not inform me when the TOS rules were changed and they activated the images I posted.Also if TOS are contradicted by existing copyright laws then the TOS is invalidated.For instance,are the TOS written in every known language that the members of their site may understand?If not,their TOS won't stand up in court if they do not inform the member that their art will be used for promotional purposes or freely distributed. A sites TOS are not legally binding,they are a guideline by which the site operates and the rules they apply for behavior.You may legally say you may use the images in regard to previous contests for which if the winners pulled their images it might do harm to the site in some fashion and thus they have a legal right to retain and use the images.However,if I were to say that you post your image on my site I have the right to sell it or use it in any fashion I decide...you would be incorrect.TOS do not invalidate the law and although there are arguments and misunderstandings about copyright law...the site TOS must still be in line with the law. But beyond this,the key reason for the post was to alert people here who might be members there not knowing that your images are being used anywhere and everywhere.If you were to find images of your children posted on a site frequented by pedophiles you'd be mad...but the fact that Deviant Arts itself made it seem like you gave permission for that could make their actions criminal.The sticking point here is making the links active as it can legally be argued that alone violates the law as its not their legal right to use the images anyway they choose just because they were posted on their site...and if they simply allowed the members to make them active there would be no question about the legality because the members actions provide the site the permission it needs.

Another thing I just was told by a nightowl attourney...he could overturn this in a court of law in a hertbeat because the site TOS here relates to the sites "controlled usage" of the artists materials which does not apply to placing a code on the image allowing anybody to have free usage of the images.He said that is the key legal argument here because their site TOS relates to their usage and does not extend to providing the artists materials to third parties or free usage to everybody. I also mentioned how people right click and copy.He stated that such is beyond the sites control as they could argue anything from software designed to capture screense to even a camera being used to steal images from a screen.But...if the site itself knowingly and with intent encourages such usage or provides the means by which the third party aquires the image...then that site is in violation of the law because their actions not only violate the law,they extend beyond the contractual agreement stated in their own TOS which may not be extended to third partys. Catch 22 and don't ya just love lawyers this early in the morning lol.

Well, I agree with ya on most points..I dont like the terms either..and I most certainly dont like the encoding..the rest I cant say anything about as Im not a lawyer. Thanks for bringing it to everyones attention tho..Im sure alot of people would like to know more about this situation..

You might even want to post this over in the Copyright Forum, and have JenyK take a look at it, seeing as how it deals with copyrights of images ;)

i see no way of disabling the embed field...

where was it at?

i see no need to get your panties in a bunch.
yes, its an embed. but its not just a jpeg embed but rather a pretty slick deviantart embed with a direct link to your gallery, a copyright notice, etc. whats the problem? worst case, youll get more exposure.

anyone who knows kindergarten HTML could embed your images from anywhere anyways - anything that is ever posted on the net is up for grabs. this controls embedding. if someone wants to make a 'best of' deviantart gallery or embed  their favorite DA images, great - more exposure for my gallery.

again, i see nothing to complain about. be happy. life is too short man.

i can see this thread being a goody lol

bring out the cats mrspanky hehe

billy

Billy -Gabes right. it's not a major thing, so no need for a cat pic. 

The HTML syntax will show this image.

Issues over the TOS for a site are different matter, personally I'd be happy to let a site like DA or Roisty (which we use for free) use my material to promote themslves. It promotes both you and the site.

However an unfair TOS which removes any of your rights is a big no-no. And I agree with Armourbeast you should fight back then.   

Which is what I addressed when I mentioned how I asked about the right click option where people steal your art.The difference here Gabe is that yes anyone with basic html knowledge can do this to you however this isn't just anybody doing it to you...its the site itself. You make your money selling 3d characters and seems I remember an incident where someone recently took one of your 3D characters,slapped a new coat of paint on it with zbrush and began redistributing it as their own.Now would it have mattered if they gave you credit with creating the original character or even if they gave it away for free?No because it was your creation,she took it as her own and then redistributed it making profit from your hard work. The same is true for people who make images as there are many artists on Deviant Arts who make money from the images they post there.They share the images on that site because it is their choice to do so and yes,they do understand that the site has usage rights at the site...but those usage rights do not extend to third partys.They may be selling their artwork as lithographs or whatever and because the site is doing this,people who would seek legal right to use the art on their site or pay for it just snag the DA embed code instead.The artist has the inherent right to control their art and their ownership of the art cannot be extended to third partys by the site...even their own TOS do not state they have such rights.This is why when you post here or anywhere else you won't see the sites freely just snatching your images and posting them anywhere they please to promote this site...because its illegal to do so. This is why people get angry about clipart and so on.But I digress and need to make one more point I don't think Gabe caught...he just gave permission for anyone to steal his art and use as they want so long as they do it in a cool fashion and put his name on it...his right to do so lol,but he cannot extend that to every artist here nor can the site arbitrarily do it.I know Gabe will say he didn't do that but once you say you see no problem with someone doing that...you in effect give them a legal right to say you did.This is why rosity doesn't want you to post music lyrics here without proving the artist has provided legal statements offering permission to do so (so people would just refer back to Gabes statement here and sites would take that as permission so long as it meets the requirements he says are ok~interpretations a bitch lol). The issue isn't that they offer this Gabe...the issue is that they activated everyones images over there without fully informing everyone which makes it illegal.The law would look very harshly on this since all they had to do to make it legal was leave it as an option where members could activate it if they chose to do so.Its the site sanctioning the widespread distribution of every image posted on their site to anyone for any reason.Whats the difference between me right clicking through peoples gallerys,posting them on a site and saying this artist (adding your name for proper credit) grants unconditional usage of their art because thats what an embed code is...official sanction by the site to use the image.You may say the situation is different because you didn't post the image...but see thats the bad thing about embed codes,once someone snags the code they tend to post the embed code on their site as well and just change the site name in the code. If you wish to understand this,just go to MySpace and check out all the sites taking music,images,videos and even products to redistribute without permission using embed codes...and the end user is not legally at fault in these cases due to good faith extending to them.Theres no way they can verify that the site doesn't have the legal right to distribute the materials so trust they have that right (how does anyone know Rosity has the right to distribute the freebies here~good faith protects the end user and Rosity). You don't need an embed code for an image...you need an embed code for free distribution of the image including promotions and links that profit the site using the embed code.Embed codes also inherently are percieved by end users as granting permission when in fact these items are uploaded to the site by other members and the site makes no effort to authenticate ownership...yet freely distribute the item anyway.DA says the item must be of your own creation...they seem intent to protect you should someone falsely posting your work on their site yet then use embed codes so they can freely distribute your works across the entire internet for usage that goes far beyond anything the law would consider that you have any possible control over.If you give them that right by actually activating images you want to share then great as its a tremendous idea to promote your work...but you alone have the right to make that decision which is the reason this is important for people to know as if you aren't aware Deviant Arts is doing this with your art,then they have violated your legal rights to provide permission to use and distribution of your art.

if anybody checks the copyright forum, would y'all do a search of the threads there for occurrences of "deviantart"? I've heard rumours that it's common for deviantart members to steal images from our artists here, then claim they (the deviantart members) created the images. if true, perhaps deviantart's action is somehow related to such activitites.

ehh, its a private site. they can do what they want... hell, they are doing me a favor by hosting my images.

its not like theyre printing them on t-shirts and selling them. i still dont see what there is to get so worked up about. if its so bad, why not move your gallery elsewhere?

deviantart has its problems, but the exposure you get there is massive.

Quote - if anybody checks the copyright forum, would y'all do a search of the threads there for occurrences of "deviantart"? I've heard rumours that it's common for deviantart members to steal images from our artists here, then claim they (the deviantart members) created the images. if true, perhaps deviantart's action is somehow related to such activitites.

It's not more common at deviantArt than it is from any other site. Shouldn't listen to rumors (or spread them).

One of my members there raised a complaint about someone stealing their art and Deviant Arts turned a deaf ear.They demanded proof the image was hers...the thief left her artist siggie on the image yet claimed it was her work.The member spoke openly about it on Deviant Arts and they threatened to ban her.I went there and personally spoke with the staff telling them this was a member of my site,she uses the same username on all sites,she provided them with links to where she posted the image originally and I told them I would raise such hell their eyes would be bleeding orange juice for the next three years...the image was subsequently removed. And I hate to say this Gabe...you don't sell your art,you sell 3d products so obviously this means nothing to you.But lets say after your last departure from rosity you came back to find they turned all the products you left behind into freebies and thanks to embed codes,your products were now being circulated on five hundred sites and everyone thinks you granted Rosity permission to do this.Rosity is a private site and by your argument they have the right to do this and because the exposure this gives you is massive...well its ok then. Some artists share their images here and no where do they say its psoted free to use unless the artist chooses to say that.Until they do,they have the legal right to retain all commercial usage and distribution of that image...even sell it if they like. Besides...I don't think we are talking to Blackhearted here as he is a champion of protecting copyrights belonging to artists and product makers and has raised hell in here countless times regarding copyright infringements...maybe somebody at Deviant Arts has used an embed code to steal Gabes site access here but is creditting him by leaving his name under the av there;P

Psst Gabe...the reason I am raising such a fuss is cause many members of Deviant Arts don't know they've done this and I'm trying to inform them so they "can" decide if they want to delete their gallerys or at least get over there and deactivate the images but was trying not to say go delete them since thats not nice;P There are many members here who have DA accounts but haven't been over there in a while,never knew what an embed code was or maybe haven't been there in years.

been a member for a few months, but never posted anything. The way I stumbled into 'rosity years ago was from a link site, that had about 1,100 links to art. I saw many sites that were done by professional artists (one site had a pic for $30,000..if that ain't professional..;). There's a variety of ways to slow such folks down; like making only slightly larger thumbnails, sometimes you can disable the right-click etc (which would kinda fly in the face of the whole thread, tho..;). Or just don't post anything you want to sell on the site...

You're right about not posting something you might want to sell but the trick there is you have to post what you sell sometimes to show the exact quality the buyer may expect or to actually show the image to people who might buy it.Then there are the occassions when you post something you didn't intend to sell but someone writes to ask how much you want for it...many times they want exclusive rights to it which you can't offer if its embed on 50,000 websites.Thats what actually led me to Deviant Arts and to discover this as one of my members asked me to check an image because someone wrote inquiring how much she wanted for it...needless to say she was shocked as was I to find the embed code there. In truth,this may have been there for some time without my knowing because their site is rather slow and I never really got attached to it like rosity and others.But it appears many of their members were unaware of it and so I came here to make sure that people who may be members over there knew about it so they could either deactivate their gallerys or remove them if they don't want people to take their images...but I didn't want to say it that way because they do have a great site and the owners are trying to clean it up.

Quote - Besides...I don't think we are talking to Blackhearted here as he is a champion of protecting copyrights belonging to artists and product makers and has raised hell in here countless times regarding copyright infringements...maybe somebody at Deviant Arts has used an embed code to steal Gabes site access here but is creditting him by leaving his name under the av there;P

nothing so dramatic :)
i just choose my battles.
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.

As far DA using your stuff for promotions without asking, not true. They asked me for permission. imho, If the embed thing bothers you, take your stuff off DA. You might want to do the same thing at YouTube. bB

You don't need the deviantArt code to embed your images. If you save the whole web page as a file, the images are saved with it onto your hard drive. You can then extract the image and stick it on your website if you were so inclined and had no scruples. You could also save it to .pdf and do the same thing. You can right click and save the image, and there are ways to get around the disable right click on a site. Someone that wants to steal your image can do it just as easily without the embed code as they can with it.

Have you even made an attempt to discuss this with dA? While it's thoughtful of you to want to warn people and spread the word, it would also be polite to at least contact the dA site and let us know the result of that discussion.

my take on this is - people will steal no matter if there is an embedded code or not...i have a gallery there, it doesn't bother me. i have found some of my work stolen already before they even did the code. infact, i'm not even sure whether they stole it here or in DA. thieves will steal no matter what.

I agree with Rainfeathers here - folks will steal and yes adding tools like this does make it easier.

However I can also see why companies like DA will add tools like this, to ride the the you-tube effect and social networking bandwagons. It's all about business and making money not protecting artists, unless you have a commerical interest in that artist. So you'll see more of it, and image theft, as sites like DA add tools aimed at Bloggers. 

I think it's fair to say that most bloggers are not malcious, they just want a 'pretty picture' on their page. Many folks are unaware of copyright so maybe a gentle educational approach is required by the likes of DA. For example an interstatial page explaining copyright if you try to download a large image.

But if someone is genuinely naughty we'll set Gabe on to them :)
Just kidding there.

Quote - my take on this is - people will steal no matter if there is an embedded code or not...i have a gallery there, it doesn't bother me. i have found some of my work stolen already before they even did the code. infact, i'm not even sure whether they stole it here or in DA. thieves will steal no matter what.

But I suppose the problem is that if the embed code is there they are not stealing the art because they have the sites authority to download it.

I would have said it was OK for DA to do this so long as it was switched off and you yourself had to decide to switch it on.

I agree with all sides. It's good to know, it would be better if it were a free choice to switch it on and indeed images can be found all over the net and no one cares.

Every image can be downloaded. Every flash file can be downloaded. No javascript, no whatever can fully protect. Certainly not that silly rightclicking "protected" scriptie.

You can protect against direct linking, but even that is limited.

You can protect against your site opening as a subsite of someone else's.

And most of all: you can get so paranoid that you grow a miser's mentality, feel bitter because they steal your work and forget to have fun.

You know the master of all thieves, the most ruthless criminal of them all? Publicity. Because publicity steals your heart.

Blackhearted: I love that saying "I just choose my own battles."

Theres no real protection against image theft - for example this app will save a whole page as an image....

http://www.guangmingsoft.net/htmltoimage/help.htm

No right click scripts annoy the hell out of me, so on my site I don't have anything like that. If someone wants to use an image as wallpaper they are welcome. And my my freebies licences are slowly changing to encourage folks to modify things (as long as they don't sell them).

This approach seems to work better than trying to restrict, and I find folks are more likely to ask or say thanks.

i think your's is a good attitude mrsparky.  whether we try and restrict or not people will steal images.  if we encourage people to use our images, at least for personal use such as wallpapers etc. we or should i say you have more chance of your work at least being attributed to you by the person using it. often it's the restrictive practice that stops people giving an attribution. it makes people more aware that they're being given something and as such they tend to show a little more respect. things like asking if they can use an image on a personal web page if they say or link back who it belongs too. and as you say you get more thanks and also more feedback.

personally i feel allowing someone too use one of your images on a personel web page that doesn't sell anything pretty much the same as putting it in a gallery...as long as it does say who the creator is and possibly have a link back to the persons site or store. of course only if the creator gives their permission........you know my feelings about people saying you can't use stuff for wallpapers lmao.....but allowing images personel websites can create income if they're linked back to a store. jmo

billy

To remove the embed code from your images at dA all you need to do is go into you profile, under the Deviation Management tab and deactivate your gallery. This doesn't prevent anyone from viewing your images, it just stops them from from being available to deviant Mobile.

As to letting people use images, I'm not so eager to look the other way as people disregard copyright. While you can't prevent people from using posted images as backgrounds on their computers, you can certainly require people to ask permission before using an image on a website or in any other fashion. Just because something is posted on the net doesn't mean it's free for the taking, regardless of whether or not they give credit to the artist.

Quote -  Just because something is posted on the net doesn't mean it's free for the taking, regardless of whether or not they give credit to the artist.

is that what i said? i thought i actually said ....of course only if the owner gives their permisson.

i was trying to point out that often, giving permission to those who ask for personal website use can have it's benifits.  i didn't mention anything about looking the other way over copyrite infringement either.....and for some, the fact it is posted on the net does indeed mean it''s free for the taking as far as they're concerned.

billy

Billys right - It's not a case of looking the other way, or disrergarding copyright. it's a question of trying to find a fair balance.

Thats where a creative commons copyright licence is a really good idea. For example it would allow an invidual to enjoy one of your images as their wallpaper, and at the same time provide a level of protection against a ringtone company selling it without your permission.

Many of these sites purchase large collection of images from companies that provides a 'ringtone/wallpaper site in a box'. and often assume that the copyright was cleared.  

By showing such a  dated licence you'll find most reputable ringtone compnaies will comply with your DMCA without any hassles.  

Quote - is that what i said? i thought i actually said ....of course only if the owner gives their permisson.

I wasn't inferring that's what you said billy423uk, I was merely stating my point of view.

Interesting thoughts mrsparky, but we already have a level of protection against some ringtone company selling an image without permission, it's called copyright and that's a fair enough balance to me. Creative Commons is all well and good, but I don't put my images up for the general public to use without permission and I grant permission on an individual basis only. Creative Commons is certainly an option for someone that wants to freely distribute their images with certain restrictions, but that's not me. I post images for people to enjoy viewing them and to see the quality of my work. If I were to ever consider putting together a compilation of my work for distribution I might then consider a creative commons license.

well in that case tainted i dare say that no one would be eager to look the other way when people disregard their copyrite protection. unless the meds have kicked in.

often i see images on the net in galleries and on websites etc.....i know that use an image for anything other than a personal wallpaper (in my opinon) is wrong unless permission is asked for.  others, especially kids may not. or  they may think it's just something to ignore.  some of the images and sites say nothing about surfdom asking for permission to use images. they .don't say  don't use these images unless you get my permission.....how hard would it be to just write a little something to try and educate people. ....please don't use these images unless you contact me through e.mail and get my permission first. these images are my property and are coyrited as such. to use them without my permission is stealing. if you ask and permission is granted. you won't be forced at a lter date to remove them from your site. it doesn't have to be that long but something to let them know....often all thats there is just a circled c or the word copyrited with a date in text.

there's also another way...watermark each piece and leave a note under it's description letting them know that your work is available for personal and non-commercial use. all they need to do is send you a message asking for permission and you can in turn send them the non-watermarked version. like i said 9 times out of 10 we all are more than willing to share our work provided courtesy is given and copyright is respected.

Physical Watermarking can work, though if it's too obvious it can distract from the image and can be cloned out.   

Commerical photo librarys like Image Ready and Corbis often place low-res (640*480) images on their sites with a very subtle watermark across the image, so subtle it's difficult to clone out. The low res image isn't much use to a crook yet you can see what it is.