In an attempt to help decrease the sharing of gallery images without the artists permission, we have implemented a new security on the gallery. We have turned off the image toolbar and disabled the Rt Click on the thumbs and full images in the gallery. We appreciate everyone's support on this. thanks tammy

Can we as artists set such permissions? Or are we stuck with a blanket look but don't touch policy? I for one have no problem with persons viewing and downloading my images as wallpapers (that's what I make them for after all). Richard Booy Incarnadine

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

great sounding idea but it won't keep them off the pics for long, if you know where to look you can still get the pics & most of these thieves are very inventive. There's gotta be a way to stop the browsers from keeping copies of files we access, I wonder if there's a way to encrypt the pics so that only the browsers can access/display them.

Why? I mean jesus, if people want to use my image as a background, let them. If someone wants to steal my work and claim it as their own...oh well, it's not like i'm losing money or anything.

That's part of the point, some of these "persons" have been making money out of other artists work. Wouldn't you be slightly pissed if someone took a picture of yours & sold it as their own work? you'd be losing money then wouldn't you?

If this had been an option that the artist could select, then OK, I will respect their wishes and not save the picture. But otherwise, I don't like it. It will not stop a theif anyway. There are pictures I DO want to save. I do not steal artwork, but there are some pictures that are so great that I want to have them on my computer to look at when I want to. It is really great to have Windows play them as a slide show, put some music on and just sit back and go WOW. Yes I know the galleries have a favorite picture selection, but many times the galleries are so SLOW, and it is not so fun to click and wait, wait, wait... Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Peggy

LVS - Where Learning is Fun!  
http://www.lvsonline.com/index.html

Just as a sidebar, actually, if you never intended to sell your work, then your monetary loss would be zero. The fact that someone else managed to make money off your effort doesn't take money out of your pocket unless they keep you from earning money you otherwise would have made. But on to the real topic..... I don't approve of theft in any form. I think it is easy enough to contact the artist and say, "I love that graphic...would you mind sending me a copy for my personal enjoyment." I bet most artists would be delighted to do so. And those who refuse should have their rights respected. I don't think this will keep thieves from doing their dirty work, but I applaud this as a step in the right direction. Many people are very distressed to see their work stolen and then mutilated for the amusement of someone else. What can be done to discourage stealing lite should be done...the heavy duty thieves will not be so easily discouraged.

I agree, I want this to be an option. There are many easy ways to steal a picture even with this safeguard making it useless.

About stealing for profit fears. That is what watermarks, posting dates and the legal system is for. This system only slows them down a bit yet does NOTHING to protect your images. It will only give a false sense of security.

Honestly if you are afraid your picture will be stolen and profited from, it may be best not to post it online as that is the ONLY way you can be sure to keep it safe.

If people want this system, fine have it as an option. I know it really won't protect our pictures so I would want it off as I like the idea somebody may want it as wallpaper.

Doesn't work, I can still get to the images, (but I digress...) What I can't now do is add comments with my normal browser, (ifrebird) I click in the box, but it doesn't take, it works with IE of course, but since I don't use that much I guess that's me out of the comment business till it's fixed. First you take away the ability to select your own colour scheme, now this... [sigh] later jb

If you are worried about someone possibly making money off your image to the point that you must restrict access to it, you should be asking yourself why did I make this image and why share it at all?! I make my images for the purpose of the joy I experience creating them and the fact that others like them enough to use them as wallpaper (and I know that they do) is purely an added bonus to me. I would rather control this access to my works than have someone decide this for me. Richard

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

This won't stop anything. Simply go to the picture you want, turn off the browser's java and you can right click again. This doesn't stop stealing of images.

Actually now I think about it more there are times I've seen pictures that I'd love to have as wallpaper but the thought that it might be stealing has stopped me from grabbing them.

the disabling of the right mouse button is more of an annoyance to me because I open the images I wish to see in new windows. If I'm wrong for that, then I am just wrong. But as far as preventing image theft... http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=468910&Start=1&Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&WhatsNew=Yes http://www.renderosity.com/photos/GAL_200308/GalleryImage468910.jpg it only took me 10 seconds to look up the source code for the actual image location. I could have simply searched my cache as well.

Easy fix, disable javascript, that brings it all back, (it's a toolbar check box on firebird) becuase you see, I surf the galleries by open each image in a new tab via a right click. Saves having to go back and forward all the time. later jb

Oh boy... here I go again: Image stealing? Let me get this straight. If I want to save the image on my hd because I want it to be my desktop -which I think I'm entitled to for personal use under copyright law, I can't save it anymore? What if the image is too freaking big and I want it to fit on the screen? Disabling the image toolbar takes that feature away. Plus, the workaround for this silly script-kiddie-like hack is simple. Drag the image to your desktop. You can still share it and it doesn't change squat, really. This little piece of stupidity reminds me of script kiddie sites that deny access to the source and disable right clicking just because they think it's l33t. It's just as assenine. So the whole thing is useless. It has about the same effect as a denial of service attack on an unplugged computer... and it's just as idiotic, because the issue isn't image stealing, it's telling little kiddies to stop making so much Poser pr0n from their bootleg Kazaa copy and then whine when their great achievements get downloaded and traded again. So yeah. Black ball number 2. Mihnea Dumitru

oh, and just as a little add-on. As far as I know the artist maintains the rights to his images. Therefore Renderosity isn't legally responsible for pursuing someone who is stealing the artist's work. Your art is getting stolen? follow it up legally. Or even better, make it an OPTIONAL check-mark on our image upload priorities. Don't stiff us with something we don't need or want. And by we, I'm referring to the members who don't particularly care for this specific issue. If you guys don't know how to write a bit of code to make it a user's choice, and instead opted for one of the lamest things in terms of scripts on the internet, readily available from any javascript site, then ask around. someone might be willing to help. MD

It's amazing how many ways there are to justify theft, and how much trouble people will go to to steal, when the one honest thing you could do....ask the artist for permission...is just too much trouble to go to. Says it all, doesn't it? Why should you expect other people to act better than the people that are members of the community act. I'd say, if the graphic is important to you not to have taken, be sure not to post it here. You know what will happens as soon as it goes up if it is of any interest at all. The proof is above this posting.

btw the tricks you just used to disable the "stealing" of images only work for IE. those tricks still work in all the other browsers i just used: opera, netscape & a few IE based. so all you are doing is just disabling IE users. to completely disable the "stealing" of artwork.. you have to remove the caching ability of the images or use a JAVA based program that will display the images but NOT cache them. even allowing users to upload to a server folder named no_cache, under their username, will help a little more.

Even with IE and enabled JavaScript it is possible to save the images... It is a good meant try do avoid image theft, and I thank the team for the try. Jimi

erm, dialyn, I'm simply stating a couple of things: 1. the measure is useless because it's not properly coded. 2. some people like to share their work I digitally watermark all the work I do that's worth something. As far as I know there's no way to bypass that, so I'm not worried. Plus my work isn't really that top notch for anyone to steal it. I understand the concern, I think it's okay if the option is given only to those who want it, and I think otherwise it's idiotic. please don't accuse me of stealing, because that just makes you a troll. kthx Mihnea

Even the above wouldn't stop firebird, you simply hit Ctrl-I (page info) go to the media tab, selct the image from the list and click the "Save as" button, works for embeded movies, flash files, etc. If you can see it, you can save it. But given that some 80% or more of the population uses IE, I guess it'll stop enough people from doing it. It won't stop the people who have programs like thumbs plus who can then index thier caches after they've been surfing but it will deter casual copiers I guess. Just a bit annoying to find this out the hard way. later jb

Were all the artists polled regarding this decision prior to it being implemented? If not, it seems too broad of a solution (regardless of how well it might work with a specific browser) since all of the artists are impacted. Also, how big of a problem are we really addressing? How many instances of image theft from Renderosity can be identified? Does it really warrent this type of reaction or are we killing mosquitos with cannons? Just some thoughts...

Guys, Thanks for the feedback, Please keep it comming.

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

 

It is NOT theft with my images!

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

I haven't seen one positive reaction to this posted by anyone but mods. I think that speaks volumes. Personally, he who steals my art steals trash (to coin a phrase) and if more people end up looking at my art so what. If someone would be so pitiable a specimen to feel the least bit better by claiming my work as his own so be it. :^). Really, this should be a choice, like whether I choose to block nudity, can people download my images, Y or N. Please work in that direction, I think that could make everyone happy.

This is not my "second childhood". I'm not finished with the first one yet.

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

"I'd like to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather....not screaming in terror like the passengers on his bus." - Jack Handy

I am not in favor of this change. Most of my fractals are on Webshots in albums and they are open to the public. There are dozens of downloads of my images each week. I think this is wonderful and I'm pleased if others enjoy seeing and downloading my pics. If they can make some money off them, so much the better. But mainly----WHEN DID RENDEROSITY BECOME OUR CARETAKER?--- We are each of us to be responsible for ourselves and our actions. If I am worried about the theft of one of my images, then it is UP TO ME TO REFRAIN FROM POSTING IT ON THE INTERNET ANYWHERE! My two cents worth. Marion

Can you imagine how many requests someone like Rochr or Hobbit would get!

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

I agree Incarnadine, I would love to have Hobbit's entire gallery as my wallpapers.

I agree with some of the comments above - disabling the toolbar and right click menu is pretty much useless. Even more, it is also another case of 'protection' started with good intentions but ending up not protecting anything at all and being a pain for regular/legal usage. In the 3 years I have been member of this site, I can't stress enough how much I have learned by saving images I find interesting to view them later offline. It is part of the community experience. People leave, clean up their gallery. Bugs happen and could delete images (it has happened before). I am glad I could save some fantastic images before they dissapeared that way. In the end - if someone really want to copy images and sell them, they will find a work around it. The only way to protect images on the web is to not put them there in the first place. What next ? mandatory watermark across images ? java applet or plug in to display image ? This copyright issue is turning into mass hysteria and I don't like the way this is going. Please - remove this useless 'improvement'. Renderosity has made amazing improvements over the years which turned the site into one of the easiest to use in this category. Don't spoil it with crippleware. And before I get some comments - I already came across some of my images on other websites, some charging for them. I had to deal with them when I found them and I still have them online.

• agiel - www.linfa.net

Something like that doesn't really work. My suggestion would be to imbed the image in a java applet. That way the only way to "steal" the image would be to take a screenshot.

Out of curiousity, how many artists do watermark their images? Do Hobbit and Rochr? Does watermarking work? Just curious. I'll never be good enough to worry about this stuff. But seeing as how Andy Simmons is a professional artist and does make money from his artwork, I'd like to know if this is a concern to him, (renderosity image theft). I would just think that he either wouldn't post his best stuff or he'd have it protected.

Oh, by the way, theres another trick to save an image: Do a screenshot (just press the "print"-key on your keyboard). Go to Photoshop or another imaging program, make a new file, paste the content, done. Gives you a screenshot including the URL to the image. I have to confess that I keep a "visual diary" of images and especially websites I like, just so that I always can see what level other people achieved.

Ang, just check in the lower left or right sides for a watermark. It's not just possible, it's actually quite easy to remove a watermark in PS, for the most part.

What I meant was imagine what this would do to Rochr's or Hobbit's e-mail accounts!! Almost worse than spam (grin). I would love to encode a watermark but you have to pay for the capability to do so. Any other process than Digimarc?

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

.

Nancy Deer With Horns
Deer With Horns Native American Indian Site

I can see the point of the change, but I feel I need to point out a couple of things. The first one, obviously, is that disabling Rt-Clk doesn't actually prevent anything, just makes image capture slightly less convenient. I know of at least 4 ways around it off-hand, and I've never even researched the subject. Also, Rt-Clk isn't just turned off on the images, it's completely disabled on gallery pages. I use Rt-Clk extensively for navigation. Especially the "Open in New Window" option. Browsing the galleries was time-consuming enough, but at least I could Rt-Clk on multiple thumbs in rapid sequence, and then view each image while the additional pages were loading. It's the only way I could reduce the time browsing the galleries or forums to a point I could justify the time. I'm on DSL, and even so, the time wasted on clicking on a thumbnail, clicking the back-button, and then clicking on the next thumbnail I found interesting wastes far more time than I can afford to spare. I hope I'm making sense with my description. My point is, if Rt-Clk were disabled ONLY ON THE ACTUAL IMAGES THEMSELVES it would accomplish the present goal of making image-capture slightly less convenient without making gallery navigation completely impractical. As it is, I can't even Rt-Clk on my shopping cart from a gallery page to open a separate window and see if I've already purchased a product used in an image I like, or open a separate window into the MP to add something to my shopping cart. To Sum up - PLEASE re-enable the Rt-Clik option to the gallery pages and thumbs and just disable it for the Images themselves (assuming most members would prefer that). note, I myself have no problem with people downloading images in my gallery either way. I've always figured that's what watermarks were for.

I wonder if we put some text on the image upload page that said something like: "Please remember to watermark your images for your protection" If that would make everyone happy? This would be a reminder that you can do only if you like.

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

 

It's upto moderator's of the site to make the call but as a member of Renderosity I'm highly against this "feature". It just make the regular visitor's life more difficult and it surely not protect images from thefts. If the moderators want less people to hang at their server this is the way to do it. Somebody above also mentioned that people should ask from the artist if one wants to download the picture. That's true but how would you like it if one day you check your mailbox and see couple of thousands messages titled "mee want tiz too" ... ? Those lamers who are stealing the pictures for their own financial use can't be stopped until the picture does not exist in the internet - and we all know this: "once x is shared for the net it forever remains in bitheaven". Artist are those who make decision about their work. If you make a piece then you don't have to share it! But what is an artist without an audience? And you can always add your "signature" to the picture as large as you like so no one can missuse the piece or shrunk resolution to 400 pixels and something .. (wallpaper freaks probably slate these few last ideas;)

Quote: Also, Rt-Clk isn't just turned off on the images, it's completely disabled on gallery pages. I use Rt-Clk extensively for navigation. Especially the "Open in New Window" option. --------------- Leather-guy: use CTRL-Shift-LeftMouseKlick to open links in a new window. J.

You can still open a link in a new window in most browsers by holding down [Shift] when clicking. In Opera you can go a step further by holding down [Ctrl]+[Shift] and clicking as it will open the new page behind the existing one and you don't have to move focus back to the first window. That's actually my preferred method as it's quicker than rt-clicking and selecting new window, especially if you're opening many gallery image pages at the same time (I do the same as you do leather-guy.)

Well..y'all have seen me happy, seen me sad, but I am hoppin' mad now..understand, folks, I've downloaded works from each and every one of you, have been, since December of '01, when I joined. I have thousands of pictures from 'rosity, and not once have I been tempted to share, sell, spindle, or even mutilate a single one of 'em. I just like nice pictures. What really steams me is that I can't even download My Own Pictures!..where's the logic in that? not that I don't backup, but sheesh..
Thanks for the Java tip, for those of us who collect good art, this is really a bridge too far..as for watermarking, if I wind up on Witt's End or Webshots, noone would be laughing louder than me..what's next, freestuff? gimme a break.

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Leather-guy hits my points. "Open in new window" is my friend. Having to stop and load a new browser window to compare a few products side by side is a bit of a pain. Ditto on the galleries. I like to be able to load one image I want to look at while loading a new page of thumbnails. But, it is a start. Nothing is foolproof for protection, not disabling clicks or saves or watermarks. A determined thief can get around all of it. The "don't post your work online if you don't want it stolen" concept is equally useless. Printed images are at just as much risk, all it takes is a scanner or camera. Visible watermarks get you complaints and whines. Embedded watermarks can be defeated, and in the end, their efficiency depends on the amount of money you have to pursue theft legally. Most digital image thieves, though, have one thing in common -- they're lazy. If they weren't utterly lazy, they could learn to do it themselves. Every step to slow them down can help. I'm just not sure this step was implemented well. I LIKE my right clicks.

derjimi That's a great tip! Nowhere near as convenient as the Rt-Clk method, but it works perfectly - New Post-it on my monitor frame - Thanks!

this is not good,I use right click all the time,so many pics here are posted so large that I save them to the HD to get a better look,the thieves I'm sure know how to look in there temp files,this is just an inconvinence,my last upload was sized at 1024,for people who want a screensaver,now how do they get it

Cg Society Portfolio

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..dang work PC has all Advanced settings locked..so there goes 80% of the fun of this place..all I can do now is look..and watch the good ones get buried by the next day's arrivals. Well, the missus is gonna luv this one, I can only do this at home now..
can we 'opt out' of this? some of us have no problems with our pics being distributed. maybe we could do that, or set up a 'non-shareable' gallery, for those in favor of this..this..nah, not gonna violate the TOS, or even the TNG..

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

I'm with leather-guy and CryptoPooka. Not only that I use right click to save my purchase promos for quick reference when browsing through my HD. I surely don't have it all installed. Please put it back the way it was.

What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

E-mail | Renderosity Homepage | Renderosity Store | RDNA Store

I use Mozilla and can have several tabs or windows open at the same time. If I run across an artist I want to see more of while continuing to browse I use the rt-clk to open as a new tab/window. This is not going to be convenient!

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

well i just joined up and recently gotten poser.. and your wonderful images is what made me buy it in the first place... with no open in new window i would never look at the gallerys again in full sized it would take me hrs. on dail up to see even a few!lol i agree if you don't want others to use it don't post it. but it is nice to ask... which i have! but artists it is nice to respond to requests either way too! there are many who never did. just my two cents worth.

www.oodlesdoodles.com

NO NO NO! A thousand times NO! What's with the workarounds for right-clicking anyway. That's just stupid. Keyboard shortcuts with two-fingers PLUS a mouse click to do what we naturally do with one? Make it less and less convenient to browse the galleries and you'll have ... tada fewer browsers. You'll also have angry browsers. Saving an image to disk IS NOT THEFT. Mass hysteria from the few who are going around hunting down stolen images and making a big stink. Why didn't you ask EVERYONE who posts to the galleries before implementing this? I cannot see ONE reason why this is a good idea. AND it would also be stupid make it an option. You know why? It will actually invite theft of the images that allow right-click. Think it through.

It's a sad day when R'osity has to go this far. I tend to keep pictures as reference material - not to try to duplicate it myself (i'm no artist) but to study the composition/light/shadow stuff. Especially Vue renders from the best artists. It helps me learn. I learned to play guitar by ear, so i'm trying to learn by sight now. BillyGoat

In the referring thread leather-guy gave the perfect reason for Rendo not to do this. Heh. How many times have I right-clicked from the Product credits to go to the MP? Never again. ;-) Hey, Rendo..if you do this you might as well remove the credits feature from the galleries. The bandwidth and server space will just have to be a total write-off.

Spit, you can still open links in a new window. Just read the postings after leather-guys post. CTRL-Shit-LeftMousButton does the trick. J.

I'm torn about this. I do like the idea of stopping Image thiefs. However if ppl want to save my images and have for their own personal enjoyment on their computer I'm only honoured. And this doesn't really stop the thiefs...they will always get what they want. The thought of this is nice.. but it hurts the wrong ppl. =/

derjimi LOL read post 49. If you're used to using right-click you forget what the shortcut is. Why should we all have to put sticky notes on our monitors just for Rendo?

Wow someone opened a can of worms here eh? It is nice to know that there are steps being attempted to keep multi ID users from stealing other artist work and calling it their own and I have seen this done many time at Renderosity recently especially. To be frank Renderosity should consider a new approach to eliminate non accountability. If you have an ISP then you more than likely have an email from that ISP and there is no need to use a 3rd person type email like...let, see YAHOO. It is possible to get Yahoo accounts from all over the globe and literally be 100's of IDs here at Rendersoity. This give an unfair advantage to voting and commenting as I watch the same spelling errors make comment after comment and then get an unusual amount of voting. It is so obvious it makes me sick. I think a verifiable email is needed and the user can choose if they would like others to view it. But if there is ever a problem with the individual it can be tracked easily and action can be taken. I think Drac made the comment that it is up to the artist to take action and that is the common attitude of thieves and cheats that use alias type IDs and emails. Sure come and get me because you don't know who I am. That makes a whole lot of sense. I find there are many software companies have forums that require you to log in using your product id number and I think that is about as tight as you can get it because the product had to downloaded to an ISP and or be sent somewhere that is traceable. Believe me I myself have been attacked by these thieves and cheats and it is not a fun thing to have to go through. When I find the kid I will prosecute to the fullest degree of the law and then some believe me. BTW I will find him or die trying. Thanks for reading, `shoop

This site wide lack of rt-clk is very inconenient! To IM someone I must exit the gallery/image or forum first. Not good IMHO!

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

So what do you guys/gals suggest the mods do to keep your art from being stolen? They come up with something and get attacked for it. They are trying to deal with the problem, so instead of jumping on them why don't you figure out a foolproof way, (other than not putting your pics up), or quit complaining when they are stolen. I hate theives, don't care if it's software or art so please don't think I advocate the theft of your art. But I also think that if you don't like an idea, come up with a better solution. Sorry, just my opinion. Marque

I give my work away. It is my pleasure to see it enjoyed. BTW Marque, I agree with the don't jump on them, if you can't propose... that's why I asked for the ability to set the permissions for my works back at the first reply to the original post. I know it is not a perfect solution but it fits my philosophy.

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

I sometimes keep peoples images for reference, especially in the photos section, as I want to know how they did stuff, or if its a good picture of a particular kind of animal or plant, or scenery, furniture, etc, I like keeping them around as reference for when I model my own. Not theft as I never use any part of their images in the creation of my work, it is only for reference and inspiration. at least I can still save the webpage and get the image that way g I understand about image theft, it sucks, but I'm not very concerned about it happening to me. Its mostly idiots that do it, and if someone is stupid enough to buy what I give away for free as simply examples of my work... dunno... caveat emptor on them I guess. Its the skills that matter to me, you can't steal them, and you can't duplicate my art style if you don't have similar skills. People with similar skills are going to do their own thing... why bother ripping off someone else when you don't have to... I like having the right click menu, as I often open new browser windows via right click. It cripples the browser software and so I don't much like it turned off. Besides, I doubt Mac users are much affected by the situation, they don't have rightclick menus. And printscreen always works. I'm far more concerned about the theft that goes on in the freestuff and marketplace with warez items, not too concerned about the galleries.

I appreciate the efforts to protect us but aren't we cutting off our nose to spite our face? I think that downloading of my images for personal use by someone else is a complement to my ability. Art hack that I am, I would be thrilled that someone would think my work good enough to steal. I assume that downloading going to happen any time I put an image up. Changing the galleries would make it harder for this type of casual personal use to occur. It will have a far greater impact on our casual users and do nothing to stop art thieves. Anyone with enough brains to set up their own website and even set up paypal or a merchant account to sell art knows enough code to bypass this barrier. I can come up with at least two ways to get jpg, mpg, mov content off an active browser. Here is one of the latest posted. I shrank it 50% and watermarked it out of difference to what you are trying to accomplish. I remember going to a website and thinking wow this guy's poser work is really great. That was until I recognized a piece by Michael Whelan. I do think this is a problem. But it's a problem that needs to be addressed on the other end. Prosecution and closing of offending sites will eliminate these people while leaving the galleries open for the enjoyment of our own members. We live in a society afraid to take risks. We might get robbed; therefore lets make the gallery images inaccessible. We could prosecute the thief or complain to the web host. What if we loose or the Rosity member decides not to press charges? We leave ourselves open to countersuits and damages. Lets just slap a band-aid on the problem. Lets just build higher walls while the thief runs around outside unchecked. Why don't you just close the galleries? That will make it 100% sure pictures can never be taken from Renderosity again. I'm sorry I don't agree with this philosophy. My wife can't get the drugs she needs for MS because they can be used to get high or cause birth defects and can't be risked. My kids and 50,000,000 others can't use metal protractors in math or wear army or camos because 2kids went nuts three states away four years ago. Everyone is guilty therefore lets take the opportunity away from all.

Honestly, if you want to display your works, there is NOTHING you can do that is 100% foolproof to stop "image theft". No matter what you may try to do with java and controlling a user's cache, there are always non-standard browsers that will be able to get around this (especially open-source browsers that can be modified as needed by anyone who knows basic coding). Even if java script is used for calling up images and not just blocking them (say, to call up images via some encrypted naming convention instead of the current sequential names), I guarantee you I could write a script to harvest the images from Renderosity's site, if I was so inclined, just by perusing the java code. Trust me, there are little hackerz out there that could do that and more, if so inclined or challenged. Additionally, there is ALWAYS the "print screen". Even if the image is larger than the screeen or broken into pieces, someone with time/Photoshop can always cut/paste back together. Embedded/encoded watermarks are useless, as printscreen takes care of these. On-iamge watermarks are partially effective, but mostly only if they cover up significant portions of the image itself. And even this can be gotten around by someone who knows what they are doing with image editing. Using a sample of the basic watermark colors and a histogram of the image, along with filtering software that many iamge professionals have access to (also assuming the warex-kiddies), a talented person can modify the inherent image and remove most of the watermark in a manner similar to post-editing with relatively little work. The simple solution, especially for people like Marque and Dialyn, is DON'T POST. Instant, permanent, ABSOLUTE solution. There is nothing you can do that cannot be worked around. Since you (pointing to Dialyn only because he/she was the only one with a distinct voice against the right-lick (this is not meant as a personal attack, just a statement of fact)) consider people even keeping a copy for personal enjoyment (e.g., to look at, to learn from etc, and not resell or use in any commercial manner) STEALING, then that is your one and only solution. Keep your art to yourself and any direct customers. That is the only way you will ever be happy. You do realize that the VAST majority of people who may keep an image are doing so because it provides them with some sort of emotional resonance - joy/humour/fear/revulsion/melancholy... I hate to break it to you, but in the US, current law pretty much will support this as NOT stealing, in a similar manner as people taping TV shows for later viewing/keeping, as long as they do not sell them or rebroadcast them for commercial purposes. Remember, it is only a very small group of imdividuals (as a percentage) that are taking the images and doing anything comercial with them. If you do not want to risk any specific image being "stolen" - do not post it. End of story. And FYI, The right-click is a method some of us use to open multiple browsers windows to cut down on load times so that many iamges can be loaded/viewed at once. With the vast quantity of images uploaded each day, this is one of the few ways to queue up images to view without spending an hour trying to keep up. - Ray

Okay, just read what I posted, and the spelling errors are rather embarassing... But I still stand by the content!!!!

It's pretty amusing, all in all. Everyone has been upset about graphic theft for a long time. So Renderosity tries to do something to discourage it (okay, it won't work for the dedicated thieves but at least it is a step). So then all the people who have been happily downloading without asking permission of the artists are upset because it is inconvenient for them. So is it true than that everyone only wants their own graphics protected against theft, but they want nothing to stop themselves from lifting any graphic they like? That's the feeling I'm getting. What a double standard that is. Don't even bother to tell me how upset you are about someone stealing your graphics if you are downloading without permission. Be hypocrites on your own time from now on. "Oh, no, it's not the same thing...because it is special me that's doing it and not some low life stationary maker." No, my dears. It is the same thing. No permission. You've no right to what someone else created. Be as convulted as you like in your protests but it is all the same. And it would take only courtesy and respect for your fellow artists to gain permission...which would probably be happily given in most cases. What does it tell you that you can't be bothered to do that little bit to show that you're an honorable human being. I'm sorry, that was asking a lot wasn't it. I'm gone from this thread. The bull being thrown around here is too much for me.

anyone may have my pictures and do what they want with them

There is a way to encrypt your images and I think there is a company that does it for fee. It would be interesting to see where your work goes if nothing else. Gee, I got a ton in the US, or Japan or where ever. It would be nice if it sent you message that the image has been altered and from where. This all I am sure MUST be possible dont you think? Thanks, shoop

I think it's an honor to have people use my images as backgrounds if they so choose. I stamp each image w/ my signature (lately I have been), although that can be overcome by simply using the rubber stamp tool. Either way, if they ask for permission that's awfully nice of them, but at the same time, if they want to use it personally, it's all good. And hell, if they're selling my stuff w/o me knowing, then it's not really gonna hurt me much because I won't know a darn thing. If I DO find out, well, that's when trouble happens...but until that happens, download away. I like Spike's suggestion of maybe putting up an extra disclaimer or something, or have the artist check something saying they waive their right or understand the fact that their work will be downloaded, etc. How about if they don't check it, they won't be able to upload? Hell, it's not Renderosity's fault people may "steal work"...ya know? MD

I agree with Dialyn!!! Sheesh, what's WRONG with you people... you clog the forum with your complaints that art is being stolen (and you have a right to be pissed), and now something gets done and you get even louder???

L'ultima fòrza è nella morte.

This is not really protection. I think the ones smart enough to make money from other people's work are smart enough to work around this simple "protection". For example, I'm using Apple's browser Safari and I don't need to right-click - I just drag the image to my desktop. But, if I try and do the right-click, I still get my context menu as usual. This is about as useless as copy-protection on CDs.

I never said the artists do not have a legitimate beef/issue/whatever. They do. I just pointed out the FACT there there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is foolproof, or even remotely so, in regards to this issue. To believe anything else is to delude yourself. If an artist does not want to risk an image being used for any purpose at any place other than the embedded web page served up from Rendersity, then DO NOT POST the image. It is as simple as that. Anyone wanting to make a moral argument about "saving" the images for PERSONAL use needs to read my previous message. In the USA, the LAW supports keeping a "broadcasted" image for personal use as long as the image is not redistributed or used in any commercial way. You may not agree with this, but that is irrelevant to the current issue of actually protecting images. There are and always will be ways around image protection as long as the unerlying functions of a PC are programmable and not locked down. - Ray (who does work for a company that develops digital media and software, and is very concerned about piracy of our applications/content, so knows what he is talking about)

You get me wrong. I'm for protecting other people's work if they desire it. I'm just saying this solution will not work. I've already circumvented it and posted evidence in message 61. I also have not been spouting how I did it. Figure that out on your own time if you're a thief. Let me say again; There is no possible way to keep people from downloading an image from a public server. There are ways to prosecute people who take such images and sell them for profit. It will require Renderosity allowing each artist to post a copyright statement on their gallery page to the effect that: 1. I allow download of my artwork to the browser cache only. No saving on the computer or printing to other media real or electronic. 2. I allow personal download and storage or printing. Resale is prohibited. Free distribution may or may not be allowed with or without the attached copyright statement. 3. I don't care. rob me blind. If a statement of your intent for your work accompanies your artwork and the only source or sources contain that copyright statement then you can take legal action against people who steal and sell your work. I'm sure Renderosity does not want to get into the legal hassles or cost involved. You would be acting on your own since it is your complaint against the person who stole from you, not renderosity against hostX. Renderosity can code this statement to float along with your work in the galleries just like they keep your name with your pictures.

I think the mods mean well with this and congrats to them for trying to do something about the problem.

However, I think the current solution hurts the majority (who are honest users) and does little if anything to stop image piracy.

Anyone in the business of stealing images probably knows all the tricks and a few besides. And if they did not they will learn them in this thread and elsewhere.

The only net result of this measure will be the vast majority of Renderosity gallery browsers and the artists posting annoyed at the new measures because of the inconvenience.

Unless of course this measure is really about reducing bandwidth costs to Renderosity by disabling people from opening multiple windows....but then that is another story.

Regards
STORM

I only consider it theft of my work when someone else tries to claim that they have made it (as I stated previously - attribution!). If someone does this and it is brought to my attention then I am all for tearing them a new aperature. In this regard I do not in any way hold renderosity, renderotica, gay poser art or compuserve's graphics forum responsible other than to assist me upon proof and if the offender is a member of such organisation. My works are all intended for download and personal viewing or wallpaper (that's what I make them for for my use!). Commercial distribution is not acceptable without my permission which I am more than willing to discuss. I was more than pleased to grant such for the renderosity DVD!! Richard

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/polls.ez

There were discussions regarding image theft and what Renderosity could do to protect images in the copyright forum. We knew that this move would not stop people if they really wanted the image but we thought this would help decrease it some. We did not expect the outcome of this change to be viewed as negative. So what we would like to do is put this to a poll. Please place your vote. This poll with end Monday. We will remove the features until we have all the results from the poll. thanks for providing your feedback. tammy

I'll post the same thing I did in the Bryce gallery where this thread was cross posted... heheh... If someone thinks one of my pics is good enough to be their screen background, then I'm all for it. It's likely they're not making a profit from it, and they get to enjoy my art work. Now if they were to try and put my images on various items for sale and hawk them as their own - then we have issues. (But considering the vastness of the physical world spanned by the net, it's unlikely that I could really go after someone on that.) But that right click disabled thing while seemingly clever, isn't all that great an idea. Any schmoe worth their 2 that knows how to use a program with a screen capture capability can snag an image. So the point of this is?

---

Barbequed Pixels?

Your friendly neighborhood Wings3D nut.
Also feel free to browse my freebies at ShareCG.
There might be something worth downloading.

Tammymc, I really hate to say this, but I would like to add one caveat to my vote. If we do go with this, can we as individual artists set this permission. I ask this as the poll is a yes/no/don't care issue. Regardless, thanks for listening.

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

Remember folks, this is a free and open site. Anyone in the world can sign up for a username and password. Renderosity does not charge a member fee, or charge a viewing fee per picture for the galleries. Renderosity cannot act on its own against an art thief unless it can show loss of income. This means they would have to show income from the viewing of your work in order to protect it and sue. Are you willing to pay a monthly membership, or fees per view in the galleries? If not, it's up to you to police and protect your own interests. Renderosity cannot act in your interests if it does not even know what your interests are (ie a statement of your copyright wishes in writing). Renderosity also would be insane to act to protect your interests to it's own loss by paying lawyer and filing fees on your behalf or even long distance to an offending IP. What's in it for Renderosity if they can't even recover expenses? Are you willing to sign over publishing rights to all pictures posted in the galleries in exchange for this protection? You have here a free site with a large bandwidth where you can be seen by hundreds of viewers without taking a hit on your own IP and paying a monthly fee. You seem to think they are Michael Ovitz and you are Tom Clancy. They are not visibly making any money from your work and any actions they can take cut into their overhead. If you want protection get picked up by a real publisher or post on a pay only site.

Excuse a possibly ignorant question, to what do you refer when you talk of the image toolbar?

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

It would be difficult for us to to set this up where it was decided by the artists. Either we do this as a group or not. We only want to help and are not trying to create obstacles. So everyone that wants to have a voice should vote. tammy

Well a poll is nice and will not be correct as you have hundreds of ids that can sway the results. I bet now you will see a rise in members signing up under third person emails like yahoo ect. This poll will not reflect anything but the real issue you have of multi IDs and non accountability. Third party emails should be not allowed. Thank you.

Hey, electroglyph@yahoo is the account I set up just for renderosity. It's the only account I use and the only name I log in under. I've switched from bellsouth to comcast to knowlogy at home. I wanted an email for my products that could stay static so customers could reach me and I could log into when I went out of state. My home ISP is tied to my phone or cable and at least one was not set up for remote dialup. I also got tired of netcom folding into mindspring folding into earthlink and having to change. Yahoo has stayed put for years, and people do pay for yahoo accounts too.

1. Downloading an imaghe onto your computer hard drive is NOT STEALING. People posted the image for the purpose of it being viewed by other people, what difference does it make if i view it on a web page or on my desk top? 2. From a viewer persepective, this system hurts the viewer. They must locate the image on renderosity anytime they want to view it, then wait for it to load, or else they must work around it by finding the image source file, in which case they would be marked stealing. If they would like to request the image, they must ask abnd wait for a a reply from EVERY artist whom has an image they want to save. 3. From an artist's perspective, this system hurts the artist. They must reply to requests for people who want to use there images. In turn, they also must find a place to host their images elsewhere, or else they would have to hack into there images in the same way a "theif" would just to be able to give a direct link to people who requested it! If people are concered about stealing, they may take their own steps to prevent it. They make a choice to post their images here, and they agreed to the TOS here: "Renderosity provides a variety of communication services to members. These include: forums, gallaries, chat rooms, message boards, and instant messaging. Any information provided by members using these services is considered public information and is logged. Renderosity has access to these communications and will review them if needed. Renderosity will not be held responsible and/or liable for information that members choose to share via these services. We strongly recommend that members exercise forethought and caution prior to disclosing any personal information while using these services."

i made a suggestion in post #18 "to completely disable the "stealing" of artwork.. you have to remove the caching ability of the images or use a JAVA based program that will display the images but NOT cache them. even allowing users to upload to a server folder named no_cache, under their username, will help a little more. " embed a watermark in the java based program so U will see the pic but wording that goes across the middle of the pic.

I can still right click and sve image as..... I actually like this feature as I have several works here that are here and no where elose so I like being able to grab them from here with the save as.

♠Ω Poser eZine Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠

www.3rddimensiongraphics.net

 

the only (alsmost fool proof) is to create a table and use the image as a background and put an invisible gif over bg image ( doesn't solve the cahe of course but if they drag it to their desktop they only get a blank gif)

♠Ω Poser eZine Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠

www.3rddimensiongraphics.net

 

Aye, it seems ridiculous, but all and every and any security measures become useless on a long enough timeline. This one's usefulness lasted about 4 seconds, the time it takes my computer to load up Hypersnap DX-4. I don't steal images, I like to look at them and show them to people. I'm not going to steal any images, but if it's on my screen, I'll look at it whenever I want. If you don't want me or other people around me to view your stuff, don't post it on the internet, period. And if you're worried about someone "stealing" your art, just post it in an appropriate size so it can't be printed. 'Nuff said.

I didn't realize this had just come up today, had been gone for a week or so and thought it had hit somewhere in between.

I would have to vote No given the current options, though I can certainly see how some artists would want this protection. I'm not against artists having the option to do this (even though, honestly, it provides no protection from the thieves that would steal their artwork for money anyway), but I am against forcing it on everyone.

I DO NOT consider people who use my artwork for desktops, learning or anything else, as thieves as I've stated in other threads. I am actually quite honored that they would like it enough to keep it and have offered wallpaper in my gallery at times or made sure the size was right for such paper. I put up artwork to share. As long as my signature stays on it, I'm pretty happy, but if it doesn't, then it's my responsibility and decision on how I would deal with that. If I was truly worried, I wouldn't post at all. I would print them and have a private gallery or website that I could control the distribution via a java solution or some other watermarking system.

Tammy, I have the greatest respect for the administration of Rosity, but I just can't buy the "It's too hard" argument. Having been a programmer practically all my teen and adult life, and a professional internet developer for many years including quite a bit of use of mySQL and HTML, I can't understand how it would be too difficult to offer this as an artist option (or better yet, a picture by picture option). Obviously the pages are served by databases and coding which can make branching decisions, so I'm unclear how adding a flag, like the nudity flag, would be so difficult. True, it's harder then just sticking some HTML in the code template, but really, is it worth alienating lots of folks to save a bit of programming? I wouldn't think so, but then I'm not a mod...

As I said, in lieu of a Yes, and Optional, I'd have to vote No. It's not that I don't support the theory or the artist's right to protection if they so desire it, just the method on which it is thrust upon all of us.

Interestingly enough, Epilogue, which is filled with high quality artwork, has not had to take this approach, either because it was deemed to offer no protection, or they don't feel that it's a necessary step. I don't think cgtalk does this either.

I'd much rather have it an option from now on. Maybe even for individual images. Say you have a really really great image you don't want stolen, you can apply the block. If you have lower quality images you don't mind if people save them or whatever, then leave it off for those. Is it possible to change it so that people who aren't members of 'Rosity can still right-click? That would force minor theives to register, or leave. And once they register, it would be easier to indentify them if theft because (probably) their IP would be on file in the 'Rosity databases. Or am i just being an idiot? I find it horrifying that the 'Rosity community is being punished because there are slimeballs out there.

Though the coding itself might not be so bad, you also have to think of the other end...anything extra added to the sometimes sluggish execution really isn't desirable.

My understanding from our programmers is that it would be too difficult to implement the restrictions on permissions only. We are finding that we are currently having some problems with different browsers on this now. I am sorry I can't speak to the details since I am not a programmer. tammy

electroglyph:Hey, electroglyph@yahoo is the account I set up just for renderosity. It's the only account I use and the only name I log in under. I've switched from bellsouth to comcast to knowlogy at home. I wanted an email for my products that could stay static so customers could reach me and I could log into when I went out of state. My home ISP is tied to my phone or cable and at least one was not set up for remote dialup. I also got tired of netcom folding into mindspring folding into earthlink and having to change. Yahoo has stayed put for years, and people do pay for yahoo accounts too. Well I am sure you can see the problem with yahoo and other third party emails. You can stay completely anonymous if that is what you choose to do and use what ever excuse you want to justify it. However, this is the base of the problem if a cheat and a thieve can go into your house and steal under an alias ID the threat of being caught is totally eliminated. So, although your response may sound justifiable it only adds to this increasing problem.

Well, I just placed my vote, and am glad to see that commonsesne is prevailing by a large majority! I hate sites that play around with my browser and change its normal functionality, however laudable the excuse. This change is a pointless minor inconvenience - and not just to the "thieves" (and if you consider downloading an image to my hard disk for further study or use as a wallpaper you can count me among them - though I don't consider that in any way theft and am perfectly happy for anyone to do likewise with any of my images without seeking my permission). All this measure will achieve is to irritate a large number of members while preventing no-one with an ounce of computer knowledge from continuing to take what they wish for whatever purpose. And sorry, odeathoflife, but your "almost foolpoof" method hardly needs rocket science to subvert - it is just as vulnerable to any screen capture utility as any other method of "protection". This is simplicity itself for anyone to implement, needing no knowledge of Java, caching or any other arcana. Anyone with an editor like Paint Shop Pro will already have the necessary tool, and those without can easily download one for free. I seriously believe there are only two effective methods of protection: One is to place a damn big visible watermark across the image, of such size and boldness that it would be very tedious and difficult to edit out with a graphics program. (And the day that form of grafitti becomes common practice will be the day I stop visiting the forum!) The other method is don't post.

Madmax Br5 said it all in #82 where he stated: "If people are concered about stealing, they may take their own steps to prevent it. They make a choice to post their images here, and they agreed to the TOS here: "Renderosity provides a variety of communication services to members. These include: forums, gallaries, chat rooms, message boards, and instant messaging. Any information provided by members using these services is considered public information and is logged. Renderosity has access to these communications and will review them if needed. Renderosity will not be held responsible and/or liable for information that members choose to share via these services. We strongly recommend that members exercise forethought and caution prior to disclosing any personal information while using these services." " Incarnadine in #59 said..."I give my work away. It is my pleasure to see it enjoyed." and in #10 he said "I make my images for the purpose of the joy I experience creating them and the fact that others like them enough to use them as wallpaper (and I know that they do) is purely an added bonus to me. " By our own free choice we post our work here. We know what chances we take when we do post our work. I am no Picasso by any means. I do this for fun and because I love art. I would be flattered if someone wanted something I did for their wallpaper. But I think that there is no need to do this disabling of the rt click. Renderosity is not responsible if one of our images shows up somewhere else and has someone else claiming to be the artist. That is our own responsibility. It is up to us to persue it ourselves. If a thief steals my neighbors car, am I responsible to get it back for my neighbor because I live on the same block as he does? I think not. I also think that we cannot hold Renderosity responsible for stolen art work if that is what you choose to call it. You posted it. You took the chances. You suffer the consequences, and persue the theif. Personally, I don't care if someone wants to download an image I did. It just says that someone likes what I have done. That is satisfaction enough for me. 8)

There are 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary, and those who don't. 

A whiner is about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest.

I guess to stop theft, if that is what one chooses to call it, then the only sure fire way to stop it is to not post your images here at Renderosity.

There are 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary, and those who don't. 

A whiner is about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest.

rds, You're a merchant just like me. Rosity has your name address, phone, SSN when you gave them the information to sell your product and mail you the checks. How am I anonymous user?

I think this is one of the most customer-unfriendly things you could possibly do! All you are going to achieve is REDUCING the viewings of people's images.

Consider MY case:
_ I'm home recovering from an injury, so I have LOTS of time;

• I have a notebook by my bed, so I have constant access;
• I have broadband, so my connection is always fast.

So I should be the PERFECT Renderosity-gallery-surfer. Yet, even -I- don't have time to review all the postings in the galleries; so I skim the thumbnails, right-clicking on the ones that look interesting, then continuing on to subsequent thumbnail pages while I wait for the full-sized ones to load. Then, like leatherguy and others, I'll go back and review the full-sized images. I find that, by this method, I can keep on top of daily gallery postings - barely! (which is also why I almost never hang out here in the forums!)

But today, when I realized that right-clicking had been disabled, and sitting through just a few "click-wait-wait-wait-view-clickBACK-wait-wait-ReturnToGallery" cycles, I thought "to HELL with this!", and became even more selective in the images I chose to view. I probably looked at about 25% of the images I would normally view. Might well have missed some real gems, but...

So, if this continues, I simply won't bother to look at as many images. Is that really what you were trying to accomplish? A determined thief will find a way to get the image... but by alienating the majority of viewers, you're using a shotgun to shoot the mosquito among the butterflies!

Congrats to the Mods for trying this. not an effective option but thanks you for thinking of us! My suggestion is to those posting. Save your images to no more quality than is absolutely needed to show your talant. Keep size to a minimum. Make your image small enough on screen so that its not practical for someone to steal it. That will go farther than anything the mods can do. They can impliment tons of coding protocals and if someone REALLY wants it, they will get it. Making it inconvienent is only going to stop the lazy theives. No matter how much we complain or explain how this may or may not work, the mods are working FOR US and trying to help resolve the issue. For that they should be applauded. Thank you. Magick Michael

Wellllll... Using my stuff for profit without kick backs(90%)I call that stealing and giving me less is definitely stealing,So I am all divided on this...I feel that as a community it needs to be the Artists choice if they want to disable this function(Set the default to enable right click)so be it I know I more then likely wont on most but on some I might because of issues with a client or such,But I didnt think of the right click option to view the Galleries and have been going thru upto fifteen pages nightly and boy I just seem to not have the time to head to the forums...Just a question tho and this is to the higher ups in renderosity.... Would RENDEROSITY back the Artists on a full blown lawsuit...Say we nail a site for stealing Hundreds of Pictures and Have made some serious cash from our Hard work we find oot and start raising a Ruckus and say we decided action needed to be taken woul Renderositys Lawyers stand up and take the Offending Site to court....???

Wow...I need to slow dowwwwwnnnnn when typing...Wool=would oot=out and>they

I would not expect renderosity to provide any assistance except to back me up in terms of posting dates and general corroboration. The only time they would have a responsibilty would be when the offenderis a member and the offence is here in another gallery. (Std IANAL disclaimer here!)

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

I like this very much but everyone who know Micrcosoft and Windows know there is a Folder called Temporary Internet Files and every site I visit will be stored there. To disable the right mouse cklick doesn't help alot

Strength Is Life, Weakness Is Death

I forgot to mention that you have to write a script in php that allows you to see the images online but it disabled the download to the Temporary Internet files. Only this way can help for image thiefs

Strength Is Life, Weakness Is Death

I want my MTV...Ooops, wrong forum. I want my right click back! As an artist I frequently save other artist's images as a way to study their technique in the hopes of improving mine. I have gained many hours of enjoyment and pleasure from viewing their work at my convenience. Art is meant to be shared. I certainly hope folks right click on my work.

this whole thing is lame, disabling right click does nothin, all you have to do is check your cache, its not freakin rocket science. I really dont see how people can profit from stealing images anyway, i mean there all low res anyway not much good for print work... anyway my 2 cents.

Well then i will add my 2 Eurocents as well, there is not much needed to get the pictures on your harddisk if you really want to.

Either look in your Cache, a bit of fiddeling in the URL-line, all to easy. Maybe it should be turned into a optional thing wich turn on while uploading a picture, like "Disable right-click-save", but it still won't stop those who are really after the pictures for a more evil purpose.

I do have substantial directory on my HD with pictures downloaded from Renderosity or other 3d-sites, but they are for my own research or just to drool at their quality, no harm is intended other than trying to improve myself and become better than everyone else ^_^;

Robert van der Veeke Basugasubasubasu Basugasubakuhaku Gasubakuhakuhaku!! "Better is the enemy of good enough." Dr. Mikoyan of the Mikoyan Gurevich Design Bureau.

Uhm... I tend to find this funny. You know, saving a picture that you found on the internet for personal viewing is absolutely legal in the whole EU. I have no idea how it is in America, but it is perfectly legal over here. But I guess, some of our copyright-overconscious-people here at Renderosity just started to call everything theft that doesn't fit into their own view of how laws should work. I am currently trying to get my fingers on a book about US-copyright, but I guess it is perfectly legal in the USA, too. As for your "anti-right-click"-measures: They are pathetic. If I wish to save the picture, it is no problem at all. If I just wish to view a picture, they are a nuisance. If I wish to scan the gallery, they are a veritable pain i.t.a. I also have to admit something: I have a almost complete gallery of hobbit saved to my disk. I do nothing with those pictures but look at them and wonder, how anyone can be so damn good with Poser. If this is illegal, I really wish to see the paragraph that this is based upon.

This is getting a bit like excessive post-Sept-11th airport security where a woman can't take harmless blunt plastic knitting needles on board to pass the flight by catching up with some knitting. Copyright was made for man, not man for copyright. Lawyers were made for man, not man for lawyers. You could disable and block this and that until the system is useless, but people will still find ways to keep downloads of images, even if they must resort to the "Print Screen" button to save a copy of the screen to the clipboard. Many people are on slow dialup lines causing expensive phone bills, and often they must quickly download a copy of something and look at it offline later.

Well i don't think it will work. So many above have mentioned it how to pass the security. What i would like to know is how often does something like this happen? Is it a serious problem or are we doing a "hot air debate" here? My point is, that if people feel the need to protect their work they should do it - by watermarks, signature etc etc. There are enough individual security options available. For all others things should stay as easy as possible. This garantees the success of a place like this. A simple solution with other extra benefits could be to restrict image sizes to 800x600 for example. This would make me as a laptop user happy and would make the images useless for 90% of print work - where money is made. Not for illegal Internet usage i know, but...

One day your ship comes in - but you're at the airport.

I object to this! I was not asked and I have been here a long time! I actually think this is a community not a gulag! If a member wants their stuff protected post it on a private Web not here!

Disabling the right click will dissuade only those that browse the galleries and find something they really like, in other words, the average member. Anyone looking to take down images for commercial use or to build up their own site will not be deterred by this. The membership should really have been consulted first. Its our art, after all. I personally have no problems with anyone downloading any of my pics, but I can understand there are those that do. Even those that remove the sig or replace it with their own are only hurting our pride as long as they dont actually sell the work or charge subscriptions to their site. And for those that do seek to profit from the work of others there are the copyright laws. Ideally I would like to see a short notice on every gallery header stating that the artist has/hasnt given their permission that images can be downloaded for personal use but Im not sure how difficult this would be to implement.

It's not gonna work. You can still view source and look for the image. Other artists splice up their images to prevent it from being stolen but you can still use Print Screen and paste it on a bitmap program, even flash files can be screen captured, same goes for java applets. To try it out Windows Users: "Print Screen" button on your keyboard, Open MSPaint "Ctrl+V" to paste. Sigh! wabe's solution of restricting to 800x600 will help but...

*I admit I haven't read every post here, ignore this, if it has already been suggested. ------- Not sure of it's viability, but a member (catlin_mc) said something that spurred the idea; What if the ability to enable or disable right click saving of my own artwork (to others), in my gallery was an option in my Member Profile? I could turn it on or off as I pleased. This would put the power of protecting each members artwork into the hands of those who wanted it. It would give all the members the ability to take more of a control over their artwork, one way or another. Now, I have NO idea how realistic this idea is to Renderosity's site programmer. It may be do-able, it may be a giant headache, I'm not sure. Just an idea. AgentSmith

Contact Me | Gallery | Freestuff | IMDB Credits | Personal Site
"I want to be what I was when I wanted to be what I am now"

Help what? Help sooth the hysteria of some people that their artwork is being stolen? I do not want to restrict my pictures to 800x600 just because some people are paranoid. If those people wish to protect their pictures, they should use watermarks and resize to 800x600 - but I will leave Renderosity the moment that such matters are forced on all of us, because some of us can't live with the thought of someone saving their files and taking a look at them on their harddisk or can't live with the problem, that some people steal artwork for their pages. This whole thing is a hot-air-debate, blown up by a few people. Renderosity always makes a big fuzz about their 144.000 or more customer base. Well, how many made a fuzz about stolen pictures? 100? That's less than 1% of the community. For those of us, who wish protection, there are possibilities: Watermarking or reducing the size. Those methods must be enough. I have no such paranoia and I wish to be able to upload my pictures any goddamn size that was possible up to now, with or without watermarking, the way I WISH THEM TO BE. Not the way that those very few people wish them to be.

Disabling right click doesn't stop anyone who's determined. It might momentarily deter some of the "bored mommy tube makers" out there, or some really clueless sorts, but other than that its no more effective than clearing your throat at them. I think it's good to have as an OPTION. Let the artist choose if they want it or not. Maybe it could be something that's added like allowing comments or ratings. Tick the box, the server writes in the NRC code...? I do realize that it impedes right-click navigation (this is something I use a LOT, so it definitely affects me), but it's possible to find/write JavaScript that will only cause the NRC to work when an image is clicked, but nothing else (In fact, I've got some JavaScript that does precisely that and works in as many browsers as any NRC script does). Using it in the gallery where the thumbnails is... That's overkill. For pity's sake, they steal a thumbnail, big deal. I'm not at all soft on art thieves, particularly when they sell the stuff or claim they made it for some kind of false praise elsewhere, but how much damage can someone do to any artist by stealing a thumbnail? The best they could do with it would be use it as an avatar or something, and if you're THAT concerned, you can fancy up the thumbnail with a border and a logo and all that stuff that some folks do. So I'd say take it OFF the main gallery pages where the images are thumbnailed. That's just annoying and it's useless. For the individual pages, let the artist choose if they want it or not, and look into a script that only disables right clicks when the actual image is clicked. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Wow long arg... I think that disalig right click will only stop the casual theif and people who might have liked to grab an image for personal use, a serious theif will know the ways round it and will not be perturbed. The serious methods to get round imge theft are watermarks or copyright text spattered everywhere. Anyone who seriously wants to protect their copytright should also make a copy of the source files on CD and either post it to themselves registered (the date stamp will prove tim of production) or lodge it with solicitor, these actions will aid if it ends up in court. but you won't stop a good hacker being able to get the images. Personally I miss the right click menu... (and I'm not ragging on anyone, the mods here do a great job and it is appreciated)

----------

Toolset: Blender, GIMP, Indigo Render, LuxRender, TopMod, Knotplot, Ivy Gen, Plant Studio.

Disabling Right-Click is only a major inconvenience for regular users and wont prevent people from saving the images nevertheless. I respect attempts to protect images, but object to implementing this rather feeble and very inconvenient feature. (If, then only as an additional member-option please, with "rt-clk enabled" as default setting). Hubert

"All that we see or fear, is but a Sphere inside a Sphere."     (E. A. Pryce -- Tuesday afternoon, 1845)

Oh, I noticed on the Poll that disabling the IE popup box thingy is apparently part of this. Look, that thing is ANNOYING. There's no reason NOT to disable it. It's an extremely simple matter to disable it so that it won't pop up (you can do it on a "by image" basis or for whole pages) and disabling it won't interefere with anyone's ability to navigate. So on that matter, I say by all means, disable the IE toolbar. It's irritating and annoying and it's so simple to disable, plus it shouldn't impede anyone's ability to browse anything. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

I think the biggest thing is : All of this hysteria could have been avoided by a simple member vote. "Holy shit", you say... "A VOTE?!?!?!?" <----Fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy.

I'm not going to read all these 118 posts, I've got better things to do, but I'd say it would be a lot better if each artist had a button on their upload form to disable right-clicking if they want to. I like to be able to copy very nice images from the galleries to use them as background on my windows desktop. I don't mind if people copy my gallery images at all and I think a lot of other artists wouldn't mind too. I wouldn't like it if someone would sell the images that I provide here for free without asking permission, but that's a completely different thing. If there are artists who don't want to have their images copied to someones HD they should be able to disable right-clicking, but that doesn't mean every image should have right-clicking disabled per definition. It should be to the artist to make that choice.

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

It should be relatively simple to put the "anti-right click" script as a wrap around for any image selected.

If the user selects "Yes, protect me", wrap the picture with the JavaScript code. If the user selects "No, do not bother", then leave the code out. Simple, elegant, and it should not cause any undue server load - and both sides are happy, life is good, and you can concentrate on more pressing matters.

Thank You! You have disabled this function! Im a harnlees user looking at this site from zime to time to save a few pics to make my desktop more beautiful. I was very annoyed yesterday experiencing that I couldnt download the pics anymore. I think the critics have caused what they should cause: the reaktivation of the rightclick-function. Please dont`t disable it again. It would make this site much less popular.

I like the idea. If you want people to download your images for wallpaper, direct them to a personal website that serves that purpose!

..As a dialup who uses Rt.mouse extensively, I hope that if CyberStretch's suggestion to let uploaders shrink-wrap their image via checkbox is doable that you will do it. ..Unless you've stuck a watermark on it (or in it), an unsigned work is difficult to prosecute - more work and expense than its worth. It's implicit in the action that uploading a personal work to 'osity with no physical identifier is to give it away. ..When I want to sell something, the prospect only gets watermarked proof sheets until he contracts to buy. Phusical watermarks are removable, but if placed where cropping spoils the composition, all other editing tools leave a trace.

For my two cents: If rt. clicking is to be disabled, it should be set by the individual artist. I will admit to a rather extensive collection of saved pics from many, many artists here. Sometimes when I am in a slump, I just browse my collection and it can fire me up to feel like creating something. If there are people here who feel their work is being stolen for profit, then they need to put a pretty severe watermark on thier images, and if someone would like a clear copy, they can always ask for one or pay for a print. I just recently found a rather juvenile chat-board site (where most of the comments were "wazzup homies"), linking to my own personal web page for background images. The bastards didn't even have the decency to just steal my images - they were stealing my bandwidth too! So I don't like thieves anymore than anyone else.

Disabling rt-click has been rejected as a total solution every time. Tammy's title to this thread indicates clearly that this was intended to be a small step toward protection, not a total solution. We all know that total protection is not feasible, just as it's not possible to prevent the determined burglar from breaking in to your house. But we all take simple steps to protect our belongings; window locks, alarms etc. in the knowledge that it will deter the casual thief but not the pro, and that's what this was supposed to be; something to deter the casual grabber and tuber. Whilst I'm using such words as 'thief', I want to address a point that's come up a lot in this thread, and that is that we DO NOT regard everyone who saves an image as a thief. When we refer to image theft/thief we're referring to the people who were the source of so many threads like "Do you recognise any of your work here", "Tubers stealing my work!" etc. This change wasn't done with the intent to piss people off. We thought we were taking a small but valid first step to stop the misuse of people's work in response to the amount of 'Why doesn't Renderosity do something about it' posts in the type of thread I alluded to in the previous paragraph. Damned if you do, damned if you dont huh?

No, only damned because you didn't think through the consequences of your actions. And that's well-deserved.

Anytime your actions alienate more legitimate users than the few bad eggs you're aiming for, you need to re-think those actions...

Tossing my $0.02, I also extensively use the Right Click Option to navigate the galleries, makes it less time consuming than the back and forth nature of the current system. I have also in the past Right Clicked images to an inspiration folder I have that allows me to go and study images for techniques and styles I wish to pursue. It was my impression that this wasn't a bad thing, but now I'm being made to feel like it is. I've only had one of my images stolen to my knowledge and I do feel bad for the spectacular artists that have their work taken and sold without compensation, but since this method does more to hamper legimate uses and since it is so easy for the thieves to continue stealing images, I feel this decision should be recinded. Thanks.

Colin, we did think it through. A lot. We realised that it would cause some navigation difficulties, but it's clear that we totally underestimated the impact. If we deserve a slap for that mistake, fair enough.

My goodness! I thought there was a glitch in MY IE... until I found this post. I went and voted... to keep the old way.. Many know my feelings on illegal use of models, and I feel the same way about art. It is sickening to see a Michael Whalen Dragon image posted without permission, etc.. BUT I do a save as for images of good friends who are wonderful artists, JUST to put on my desktop to enjoy every time I sit here... AND it is a very convenient way to save an image I DO have permission for, to add to our own store gallery, instead of jamming up my mail box with jpg attachments from those artist who make submissions to our gallery. 7 years ago, as an artist, I had to come face to face with the reality of posting my art in public. It WILL be stolen. So I did three things - I came to the state of mind to accept this rather than not to post my art, and 2) I make my images the default 72 dpi.. then people would get a really messy thing by trying to enlarge and/or print anything they could use to sell and 3) I have a note on my own web site to just ASK, and found that the majority of the folks do ask..then I say yes, thanking them for asking! This way I do have some sort of way of keeping track of where they are. In this age of fancy stationery programs the theft of art and bits of an image is really getting out of hand... but again, posting publicly I have to accept this. I do not water mark (my art is not THAT good) anyway. I am sure that someone doing art commercially would not post a high res final image on the web.. those that sell art and photographs usually post low res, small size images. Well that's my 3 cents worth.

Life Requires Assembly and we all know how THAT goes!

I would slap you, kb, but that would violate the TOS - unless you liked it, I guess; in which case I would have to object. ;0)

So, did anyone bring any marshmallows to the roasting? :0)

There will be NO smacking of ANYONE that doesn't involve me, on either end. And I for one think that "Big Brother" theories aside, the Renderosity staff really was just trying to look out for our best interests. I don't think they meant any harm in this. Therefore I will be the one being slapped, and no one will like it but MEEEE!!!!

It seems to me that there is far too much negative flak regarding Renderositys attempt to protect their members artwork. Whether you agree or disagree with the move at least give them credit for a well intentioned move, and save the flak for those that steal others work for financial gain. I know of a case on another forum I am a member of, where a packaging design company had taken an image without the artists knowledge and it was used as packaging for a well known hardware companies item, without their knowledge either. I am sure that even the most generous artist would find it unacceptable for a commercial enterprise to be using their work in that way. Lets try to be grateful for Renderositys efforts, not resort to deriding good intentions, even if there are many ways to circumvent it. Dave

The picture only serves to reinforce this point.

---

Barbequed Pixels?

Your friendly neighborhood Wings3D nut.
Also feel free to browse my freebies at ShareCG.
There might be something worth downloading.

I do not believe there is a partial solution to that problem anyway. What you are trying to prevent is about what people will do AFTER they saved an image to their desktop... and there is no solution to that. At least, not on a website. If you allow regular users to save images for study or personal use, then there is no way you can prevent someone from misusing that same image. Just like you can't prevent someone to use a fork as a weapon and not just for eating. It is a good thing renderosity's staff is concerned about this issue, but I just don't think there is a solution at all.

• agiel - www.linfa.net

guess that'as a big ol' NO for this feature so far... http://www.renderosity.com/polls.ez

That's allvery nice. I have nothign against this decision of RR Adms. _But it would be a very different thing if I was told that thanks to the famous Copyrights Laws, NOBODY today make their fortunes on the back of some precoce Mozarts or some unknown Beethoven-like 's dead bodies. How can I know if your or my artworks are not sold fortune sin Tai-Wan ? Where is the evidence THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY DONE ? _You can do or tell anything, you will never answer this. _It's just simply what I think of most of what I hear and see about some great "Gesticulating Enforcement for showing my Honesty". The honesty would be that the artists, WHO mainly, with some merchants too who act for Art, make this Commercial Company exist and win money, DECIDE of what is good or not for them and their hosts in total reciprocity. But I must be dreaming. Forget it. I love you. Anyway, we'll see...

I do indeed give them credit for their concerns and attempt to do something about them. I just was not happy with this control being applied to me and my works without consulting with me. For that I will fault them. This is why I initially asked first the capability to set such permissions myself for my works. And I must say that given some of the BYOF(lamethrower) discussions I have seen here in the past I am pleased by the adult level of discussion and admin response. Thank you to all for your decorum, it is appreciated! Richard "Incarnadine"

Pass no temptation lightly by, for one never knows when it may pass again!

This is stupid. Since a few people are stealing images, you are punishing every single person who visits the galleries? Since a few thieves are stealing images, I can no longer download an image to my hard drive to look at it later? And you call this place an art gallery?? Yet people can't keep copies of the art for themselves? People can't download an image to use on their own computer, as wallpaper?? Stupid, stupid, stupid. But, here I go again, getting fired up about something that doesn't affect me personally... I always use "Ad Subtract" to browse the web. I went to the galleries to see if this new procedure was in place... and guess what? Both the IE "image toolbar" AND the right-click menu appear perfectly fine for me. Heck, I can even save the thumbnail images if I want. But, for anyone else who doesn't run a JavaScript blocking-program, this could be an problem. So, what issue was this supposed to solve- the fact that people are saving images or that it's time for the site to piss people off again? As the poster said above, "The picture only serves to reinforce this point. "

"We will remove the features until we have all the results from the poll." - tammyc, Post#73

Which is probably why both methods are still working. :0)

The general rule is: If you can see a picture in your computer then you can always save it to the disk! The only way to protect from saving to disk is not to send it to the computer, but in this case, you also won't be able to see the picture. I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIONS FOR DOWNLOADING ANY OF MY PICTURES!

Stupidity also evolves!

no offense but i think this is silly. if someone is making money off of stealing my images, then rest assured that they posess the skill to take them even with the rightclick/image toolbar disabled. there are many EASY workarounds that no code will ever be able to stop. hell, even disabling javascript works. even people that go to elaborate lengths and use the most efficient method - dividing their images into little cubes - are thwarted by the almighty 'print screen' key. i really dont mind if someone uses my images from either this gallery or my Blackhearted one. if someone likes my art, why shouldnt they be able to save it to a folder on their harddrive? hell, i do it all the time. if i really like something in the gallery i will save it to a rosity gallery folder i store all the truly excellent images that i see here in. all (or most) of my images carry a copyright notice. again, if someone really wants to they can remove it in photoshop. other solutions? digimarc -- the 'professional' watermarking solution that costs a fortune? its useless. they neglect to tell you that the lowest level of noise applied to an image (0.01%) will permanently wipe their watermark off with no noticeable quality degredation in the image. so much for their expensive tracking system and protection measures. and no, i didnt read this somewhere - it took me an entire 2 minutes to figure it out when i was contemplating buying a digimarc key and testing it. so where am i going with this? theres nothing you can do to stop image theft, because the thieves are always one step ahead and there are ways to circumvent every protection measure. these new measures will not discourage thieves, theyll hardly slow them down a few seconds. but as a side effect it will be a huge nuisance and possible deterrant to honest folk that just like to browse the galleries and save images they like from time to time. theyre not going to post them on their websites, try to sell them or make money off them - they just want to store them for later viewing or use as a wallpaper. im actually flattered when people comment and say theyve saved the image/photo. but, on the other hand, i applaud renderosity for trying to take measures to protect the artists... its definitely the right attitude, yet this particular implementation i feel will be counterproductive. cheers, -gabriel (Blackhearted)

I almost always put my name on an image. That'll keep most people from using it and saying it's theirs. I don't mind if someone copy's my images to his/her HD or even prints them for personal use. If my name is on it that's enough. If someone sees one of my images and likes it and sees my name he/she might even go search for more of my work. That's also a benefit of marking images.

(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

Strictly speaking, taking an image without asking permission is not theft, but it is copyright violation. Theft would be taking the original article without the intent to give back, which does not apply to digital art. But legally, regardless of whether the artist has given some generic permission, image taking without explicit authorisation is infringement of copyright. Your image has copyright whether you like it or not. That aside, this is a step in the right direction. It's relatively simple to prevent all image theft (I'm using the term loosely) except for grabbing by screen capture and cache trawling (all without the use of scripting). So this is what I'd be in favour of. Just because it would only stop 90% of image theft is no reason to simply not do anything. (Just for the record I don't care whether someone downloads my stuff as long as I get credit if it's redisplayed, but I am aware many people do care, so we should all respect this.) BTW, the argument that it's not possible to exclude 100% of image theft is nonsense. Do the people who argue this way leave their doors unlocked when they leave the house, on the premise that a locked door doesn't prevent 100% of home burglaries? Anything that reduces the liklihood of image theft should be considered. The fact that we'll never stop 100% of it is irrelevant.

And apologies for repeating some of what kbennett's said - it's a long thread!

No, it's not even a copyright violation. That only comes in if you DO something with the image.

" It's relatively simple to prevent all image theft " i think you mean its relatively simple to deter some image theft. stopping it is a joke. even 90% is being very hopeful. there are at least a dozen ways around it. and besides - 'no right click' javascripts dont work in all browsers, and especially dont work if you simply disable scripts in your browser. punishing everyone for a few isolated cases of image theft is only going to serve to alienate the rosity memberbase, and the real thieves will laugh at these changes and go on doing what they have been. in fact these 'no-rightclick scripts' are most often a huge inconvenience to legitimate users since they disable honest right-clicking (not just innocent saving of images but also copy and pasting text and URLs from the comments, etc). i think that a simple auto-generated copyright notice underneath the image would do much more than this no right-click script - like the one on deviantart. -gabriel

"But legally, regardless of whether the artist has given some generic permission, image taking without explicit authorisation is infringement of copyright."

Wrong Answer. :0) If the copyright owner has given permission - even on a "generic" basis - then all is well and good from a copyright standpoint. Copyright is enforced at the behest of the copyright owner.

I don't know if you cancelled the "NoSave" already, but it's still easy to download images by clicking on them in Netscape. To be honest, the only way to protect artists' images is to keep them off the Internet - don't upload them. Whatever method you try to use (watermarks, NoSave, NoCache, background image, javascripts, copyright notice, encryption, etc.), some thief will find a way to steal your image if he wants it.

Right. And disabling caching is not a good idea either. Remember there is a REASON caching was implemented on the 'net in the first place. Both bandwidth and time are saved.

No, it's not even a copyright violation. That only comes in if you DO something with the image. Wrong! A copyright is in place the minute a piece is created. Like it or not. Read the Digital Copyright Act. Taking an image without permission from the creator is copyright infringment!! I see alot of people here that are p'od because they aren't allowed to take images from here as they please..whats wrong with just 'ASKING' the artist if its ok? Just because this is an artists community doesn't mean its a free-for-all. Some artists dont mind their images being taken, and feel its a compliment...others regard it as theft. Some people here are trying to earn an extra income, some depend on the money they make for thier images..Put yourselves in those artists shoes for awhile..say someone comes along and takes your image that you are making money with..and you need this money desperatley..they say, "well I was only using it for a desktop, so I could see it all the time" Later on down the road, they see this artist is making x amount of money for this image, and decides he/she will sell this image too..just a change here, and a change there...sign their name and start making money..Who's to say this wont ever happen?? You people that dont mind your images being taken, fine! But cut some slack on those who do not wish their images taken. Not everyone here is you, nor do they feel as you do towards their artwork being taken. They shouldn't have to be told 'Well ya can't do anything about image theft, so either take your art down off the net, or learn to live with theft. I dont mind mine being taken, so neither should you" That is total BS! Not until we take a step in 'trying' to stop image theft, will it ever be stopped. Im with you Kev, damned if ya do, and damned if ya dont. >:( I cannot believe the artists here who refuse to see the good in this move.. its not perfect, but what is in this day and age? Come up with other soulutions instead of say "Dont change anything, leave it like it is so I can have my freedom to take what I want" We are all artists, and members of a community, and as such we should be looking for ways to keep each others art safe {as some members want}..not biting the hand that feeds.Also remember, not everyone in this community speaks up here..so saying the majority has spoken is an understatement.

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

Some points: 1) Remember that the Copyright laws are not the same in all countries,was is illegal in one is legal in other. 2) If you add some "protection???" disabling right clicking, this only can be done as an option for the artist, so he can enable or disable this feature, if not, you are against the will and copyrights of artists that don't want downloading restrictions! My images are free for downloading, so any limitation of my will is a copyright violation.

Stupidity also evolves!

"No, it's not even a copyright violation. That only comes in if you DO something with the image. Wrong! A copyright is in place the minute a piece is created. Like it or not. Read the Digital Copyright Act. Taking an image without permission from the creator is copyright infringment!!" he didnt say there was no copyright on the image. but by simply saving it to your harddrive you have not violated their copyright - a copyright violation has not taken place.

"Taking an image without permission from the creator is copyright infringment!!"" not if they upload it to a public gallery like this. if it were, wed all be in violation of their copyright since every single one of our computers downloads the image to the hdd (via caching) when we view it.

"No, it's not even a copyright violation. That only comes in if you DO something with the image. " Not at all. Where did you get this idea from? Downloading an image for personal pleasure doesn't even give you a "fair use" defense. It's like saying that stealing 1,000 is OK as long as you don't spend it. "...not if they upload it to a public gallery like this " Completely Wrong. The location of the image has nothing to do with it. "...if it were, wed all be in violation of their copyright since every single one of our computers downloads the image to the hdd (via caching) when we view it." Wrong. Default transmission over the net is exempt, a clause included to prevent ISPs from being sued for copyright. Another thing. Permission = Written permission. There is no such thing as someone saying to themselves, "It's OK for people to download my images." That's not permission. At the very least, it would be something beneath the image stating explicity that downloading for personal use was OK.

With the same argument: There are no copyright of pictures unless it is written explicitly below the image......., etc,etc, etc

Stupidity also evolves!

"Another thing. Permission = Written permission. There is no such thing as someone saying to themselves, 'It's OK for people to download my images.' That's not permission."

Section 106:

** 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works**
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

There is no copyright law definition for "authorize" nor for "permission" stipulating that permission must always be "written"; therefore it is up to the discretion of the copyright owner as to what form the authorization takes place. Just because the majority of time permissions are set in written form - usually for contractual purposes as evidence against willful infringement - it does not mean that this is the case 100% of the time.

Besides, if they wrote in a thread that they authorize such use, then it is, in fact, "written permission"; further dismissing your objection. :0P

Also there is a stipulation under Fair Use (Section 107) for "nonprofit educational purposes". Therefore, if someone is using a copyrighted work to educate themselves without profitting from the act, it is viable Fair Use according to the law.

My point about permission didn't reference copyright law. What I'm saying that just because a person doesn't mind if someone grabs their image, this doesn't make those who then take that image immune to violating copyright, in the same way as the theft of an object is no less theft just because the owner doesn't want it any more. They have to explicity make this known, hence written permission, which is the only feasible solution when dealing with web copyright. And yes, if it's written in a thread then of course that's OK. I never said otherwise. "Therefore, if someone is using a copyrighted work to educate themselves without profitting from the act, it is viable Fair Use according to the law." lol! I know that. But are you trying to tell me that people are downloading images in order to educate themselves about artwork! I wouldn't like to tell that to the judge! :D

Among all this arguing, please notice that "de minimis non curat lex", "the law does not concern itself with trifles".

"My point about permission didn't reference copyright law."

Which is why I did quote it, since it is the law to go by when dealing with copyright issues. :0)

"What I'm saying that just because a person doesn't mind if someone grabs their image, this doesn't make those who then take that image immune to violating copyright..."

... as long as the use does not exceed the rights allowed. Theft is only considered theft if the owner says it is.

"But are you trying to tell me that people are downloading images in order to educate themselves about artwork!"

Read the previous responses. Many people do download images to try to learn from them and figure out how to do certain effects, etc.

===

"Among all this arguing..."

No arguing involved. Just a discussion about what is and what is not applicable under copyright law.

"...the law does not concern itself with trifles"

How about truffles? Surely they would have something to say about truffles! :0)

"Not at all. Where did you get this idea from? Downloading an image for personal pleasure doesn't even give you a "fair use" defense. It's like saying that stealing 1,000 is OK as long as you don't spend it." um, no. what a horrible example. stealing $1,000 would deprive someone - wether an individual or company - of that money, since currency is finite. downloading an image does not deprive the owner of the image, it merely makes a copy. if you insist on using the money argument, then use it properly: counterfeiting $1,000 would be somewhat of a better example, although still inaccurate. so what youre saying is, that during my last visit to an art gallery when i photographed a variety of sculptures and paintings, ive committed a copyright infringement? and ive also somehow 'deprived' those artists of their work? when an artist creates a work and submits it to a gallery - wether digital or traditional - they are not simply 'contributing' to their viewers, its a give & take situation. they provide the art, the viewers provide the feedback, recognition, fame, money, etc etc for it. to treat them like unruly children and remove their ability to save the work for non-profit, later personal viewing is disrespectful and ungrateful. if someone is so against it, then they should refrain from posting their art in public galleries and just paint it and keep it locked up in a safe at home where noone can ever see it. (ack had to wait 9 hrs to post this, damn power outages)

I was not talking about food. Look up "trifle" in a good big dictionary. De minimis non curat lex. The law does not concern itself with very small matters.

"Look up "trifle" in a good big dictionary" I think even a bad small dictionary would have "trifle" in it. ;) "so what youre saying is, that during my last visit to an art gallery when i photographed a variety of sculptures and paintings, ive committed a copyright infringement?" Very possibly, yes, depending on the nature of the art. Help me out here - I'm not getting snotty, but what is about the concept of "just LOOK" that people don't get? :) It's not your right to take away anything at all from a viewing experience except for a memory. Hey, I'm not saying I'm whiter than white here. I have dozens of Vallejo and Bell images on my HD for my viewing only, but I'm not trying to convince myself that I have a right to have them there. I know it's wrong. My point being that taking steps to safeguard the artwork of the few should not be vetoed by the masses who are doing things they really should not do. Personally, people I'm bothered about are not those who just download images for themselves, but those who pass them off as their own, or use them without permission on their sites. As for the argument that these people know how to get around image grabbing security - why should this be true? They're so talentless they can't even product their own art, so why should anyone believe they're fully familiar with the intricacies of browser technology? "...if someone is so against it, then they should refrain from posting their art in public galleries and just paint it and keep it locked up in a safe at home where noone can ever see it." As in, "Don't post your art unless you mind it being stolen?" I don't think that's much of a solution. One option would simply to have an checkbox on everyone's Rendo home page, saying whether they wanted security on their images or not. Security could mean anything from right-click disable to image server request validation, overlay GIFs, etc. I don't know how Rendo is organised - perhaps heavy security would be too much of a task - but deterred security as an option would be simple to put in place.

Here is the poll results. Yes, make the changes. 12.3% No, keep it as is. 79.3% Don't care. 8.4% Keeping it as is. thanks tammy

should complain that Renderosity is doing nothing to help safeguard their graphics. They voted that they wanted freedom to download anybody's graphics without restrictions. They should not complain now that Renderosity is not doing anything to protect their own graphics. We all knew the right click wouldn't solve the problem....but it was an attempt to do something. You voted to do nothing. So don't complain. You just lost your right to whine. And don't bother emailing me that I missed the point. I understand the point all too well.

Im with ya on that one Dialyn...Not sure how much longer I want to be affilated with this site either...The very few here that spoke up in favor of this change {however small} were in fact acting as a community, the others I fear were acting out of greed and self interest. The ones who would like for their images to be at least watched for image theft here should post it in another thread...for the ones who could care less if your images are lifted and used for whatever purpose need not respond..we already know who you are, and the way you feel :|

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

Disabling right click and turning off the tool bar are not effective. Personally, on my site I have script that does turn off the tool bar but neither one of those will stop people from stealing images. It may stop people from using images as wallpaper. It will also keep people from using the right click to make images show up that perhaps don't fully download. It will affect those who use right click to navigate and open links in new windows, etc. But it will not stop theft.

To hold this site responsible is ridiculous. The change proposed is not a solution.

Plaster the word copyright all over the image, watch for theft and report it. Have an admin contact sites that use Renderosity images. I agree with watching out for theft but not agreeing with the proposed solution does not indicate anything suggested.

And for what it's worth, I missed the vote completely while on vacation.

...... Kendra

Skimming through this thread.. maybe something as simple as adding a statement when you upload your pics allowing or not allowing people to download your works or use them in anyway.

Where'd ya get to go for vacation Kendra? Hope ya had a blast :) Stormrage: Thats a very good first step IMO..One could always return here and point out to the theif "See what that says? It says LOOK, BUT DO NOT TOUCH!" or something like that ~lol~

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

Vegas! But it was half business. We go to a trade show there every August so it's a heck of a lot of walking. :)

...... Kendra

Oooooooooo Nevada..way kewl ;)

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

No thankyou. Nevada is mostly hot desert and next to no places to scuba dive. Las Vegas does not interest me, and I don't gsmble and I don't want to gamble; for the reason why, see Gamblers Anonymous, or read the Rigveda book 10 hymn 34.

:|

I don't blame anyone for avoiding Vegas but it's all how you look at it. I enjoy taking my kids there. There are a lot of shows for kids if you look around, my son enjoyed Blue Man and Lord of the Dance. The roller coasters, the water park at one, the Star Trek experience, Sigfreid and Roy's secret garden, not to mention the Treasure Island sidwalk pirate show, the Mirage's volcano and Bellagio's water show. This year I'm taking them just to see Caesars Magical Empire.

Summer is their slow time because of the heat but we only ventured out to the stip at night as the trade shows take up the days. And on gambling, if you have a gambling problem, definitely avoid it but if you're the casual gambler like me here's what you do. Never drop money in a casino that isn't going to give you something back. Track what you drop and get it back in comps. Even the little gambler can receive comps. We had our show tickets paid for, a few meals paid for and a bit of cash back and all because we kept our gambling to the casinos we were staying at at tracked everything. If you track, the casinos will send you offers. We stayed there during a convention for less that you'd imagine and we don't gamble much at all. It's all how you do it. It's like adult disneyland :)

...... Kendra

Oh! Lord of the Dance! Now, Im not much into tap dancing, but those people are awesome! {hope those are the ones you are talking about hehe}

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------