Thieving Scumbag Facebook shoplifters- Rant follows

Very good guys..............................

BUT..........not one of you has yet managed to do what i asked....

I want you to post a modified copy of the picture of BILLY CONGO jumping at Hickstead that is available on that page.

A little clue: Using a browser other than IE won't help you....

;)
 
Rambo said:
Very good guys..............................

BUT..........not one of you has yet managed to do what i asked....

I want you to post a modified copy of the picture of BILLY CONGO jumping at Hickstead that is available on that page.

A little clue: Using a browser other than IE won't help you....

;)
Click to expand...

I've done it see my previous post ;)

Oh and did it in IE but could have done it in firefox just as easily once worked out how to do it!
 
Could you guys see that picture online though? Because if you couldn't, then what's the point? I couldn't see anything other than what I posted, and in all honesty, if I went on a pro photographer's website and it was that hard to see the pic I just would not bother. Ok so I wouldn't steal.....but I wouldn't buy either, and as I never buy at shows, the photographer would lose out surely?

I have to say, I think the whole industry is a bit back to front - where else would you get someone providing a service which people want but who have to pay to be at an event (rather than get paid!) and who then can't make any money?

It would make more sense to me if entry fees went up by £1 (lets say) per horse to pay the pro photographer, who got that money, and then the photographer paid the venue a percentage of sales. I would pay that, happily. Doesn't mean I'd buy any more pics, but it does mean pro photographers wouldn't feel so hard done by I would guess!
 
I don't run IE, so all I get is the face picture. I am sure there is another photo there and
that's great if it stops people stealing photos, but the problem with this seems to be that if you can't see your photo then you certainly wouldn't buy it..!
 
If photographers at events weren't so greedy then maybe more of us would pay to have photos. If people can download photos or copy paste, get rid of copyright watermarks , enlarge them and print them out and put in a nice frame free of charge then they will continue to do so. I just don't understand how photographers can justify a cost of £8, £9 or even £10 for a single photo, not when there are 200 people at a fun ride or 220 entries at a one day event for example. There are some brilliant photographers around, and some are more reasonable than others. You cannot surely express surprise that people infringe copywright when a) they are given the tools to do so, and b) are continually ripped off by photographers trying to make a fast buck.
 
applecart14 said:
I just don't understand how photographers can justify a cost of £8, £9 or even £10 for a single photo, not when there are 200 people at a fun ride or 220 entries at a one day event for example.
Click to expand...

That's a very naive comment. Please see my post on p11 about expenses!!

And also we generally go on a 10% purchase rate, so 200 people entering = roughly 20 people buying pics.
 
santa145 said:
took a while but did it Rambo. Tried several things

Eventually just saved web page and took root image code from source page coding.

billycongoedit.jpg
Click to expand...


Well done ! This is what i was after (rather than the sad looking faces above)...

Obviously there is never going to be a 100% surefire way of preventing copy of such an image. At the end of the day the viewable image is just a bunch of 0's and 1's which i am entrusting to you (via your PC)....if you can see it you can copy (even by taking a photo of the screen if you like)...but the point is we can make it so difficult / fiddly to do that it baffles most and becomes so long winded and fiddly to the rest as to remove the vast majority of people who are stealing the images from the equation. I could actually take things further and remove all access to the source to prevent your means of access...but that is phase 2 of my little project ;)

Anyway, well done on being the first to hack version 1 lol!
 
santa145 said:
in IE you get the billy photo, you only see the face if you click on another program but can still see the image in the background.
Click to expand...

I don't run IE and I can't see the Billy image at all in Firefox on a Mac, not even in the background. So again, how does it help? It doesn't because if I couldn't immediately see the pics I wouldn't look let alone buy. If I'm honest, the pro photographers (thankfully getting fewer in number) who lump all the pics in one 'Sat XC' folder (or whatever), are pretty unlikely to get my business as it is a complete pain trawling through 37 pages of thumbnails to find my pics.

All those who stick them in individual folders with either horse name or rider number get my vote too, and I'm way more likely to buy from them. There are a few local photographers who I rarely even look at after an event as I just can't be bothered to trawl through pages and pages of pics trying to spot a brown horse with no white on it, so no identifying features!
 
applecart14 said:
If photographers at events weren't so greedy then maybe more of us would pay to have photos. If people can download photos or copy paste, get rid of copyright watermarks , enlarge them and print them out and put in a nice frame free of charge then they will continue to do so. I just don't understand how photographers can justify a cost of £8, £9 or even £10 for a single photo, not when there are 200 people at a fun ride or 220 entries at a one day event for example. There are some brilliant photographers around, and some are more reasonable than others. You cannot surely express surprise that people infringe copywright when a) they are given the tools to do so, and b) are continually ripped off by photographers trying to make a fast buck.
Click to expand...


Shakes head in disbelief and trudges off to find out if I am still capable of holding down a proper job. Do you refuse to buy the tea or bacon butty at an event based on the same bizarre reasoning?
 
Rambo said:
Well done ! This is what i was after (rather than the sad looking faces above)...

Obviously there is never going to be a 100% surefire way of preventing copy of such an image. At the end of the day the viewable image is just a bunch of 0's and 1's which i am entrusting to you (via your PC)....if you can see it you can copy (even by taking a photo of the screen if you like)...but the point is we can make it so difficult / fiddly to do that it baffles most and becomes so long winded and fiddly to the rest as to remove the vast majority of people who are stealing the images from the equation. I could actually take things further and remove all access to the source to prevent your means of access...but that is phase 2 of my little project ;)

Anyway, well done on being the first to hack version 1 lol!
Click to expand...

You can also make it so long-winded and fiddly for honest people to view their photos that they are 'baffled' and they give up before they buy any! As I said before, I am an honest person and if I want a photo I buy it - I really could not be bothered to faff about downloading a new web browser (which sounds like it still wouldn't work if I was running my Mac at home).
 
Isn't the whole point though that the majority of people lifting photos are kids, and therefore wouldn't buy your images anyway.....??

I've only ever lifted photos that i have either also purchased, or that aren't good enough to buy....
 
Last edited:
SC it will be because some of the css coding that Rambo has used is not compatible with FF, some tweaking should be able to remedy that though so the images could be seen in all browsers.

Rambo, I will be more than happy to test run your version 2 ;) :D
 
SpottedCat said:
I don't run IE and I can't see the Billy image at all in Firefox on a Mac, not even in the background. So again, how does it help? It doesn't because if I couldn't immediately see the pics I wouldn't look let alone buy. If I'm honest, the pro photographers (thankfully getting fewer in number) who lump all the pics in one 'Sat XC' folder (or whatever), are pretty unlikely to get my business as it is a complete pain trawling through 37 pages of thumbnails to find my pics.

All those who stick them in individual folders with either horse name or rider number get my vote too, and I'm way more likely to buy from them. There are a few local photographers who I rarely even look at after an event as I just can't be bothered to trawl through pages and pages of pics trying to spot a brown horse with no white on it, so no identifying features!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, IE is the only browser that allows the developer enough control over the cut'n'paste type controls to make my sort of system workable. It is easy enough to throw up an alert to any non-IE users saying that they will need to use IE to view the preview pictures. As i mentioned above, there is no reason why the thumbnails can't remain visible to all....so long as they are of a low enough quality to make it pointless trying to pinch them.

I'm afraid, as a MAC user you are massively in the minority (despite it being an eminently better tool for this sort of thing than a PC)....so as with all marketing, you tend to target the majority.
 
I am personally always put off by cost of purchasing photos, and it has to be a really good one before i do!

But i often think if the price was lower, i would purchase as would many other people, then surely the volume of photos would increase giving you a better profit? If photos were around a £5 each i would certainly buy more.
 
bogpony said:
Isn't the whole point though that the majority of people lifting photos are kids, and therefore wouldn't buy your images anyway.....??

I've only ever lifted photos that i have either also purchased, or that aren't good enough to buy....
Click to expand...


Sorry falwed logic there, if you have the photo through purchase why waste your time with the watermarked one. If it wasn't good enough to buy, why would you want it anyway?
 
I think thats the thing though, many arnt really good enough to warrent buying, but they are nice as a keep sake!

Showjumping pics in my opinion are the worst to buy, at one particular venue i go too, same old photographer every time and you can guarantee he always takes the pic just as horse is taking off, i like good mid air shots tbh.
 
spidge said:
Sorry falwed logic there, if you have the photo through purchase why waste your time with the watermarked one. If it wasn't good enough to buy, why would you want it anyway?
Click to expand...

because the ones i've purchased arrive as prints, which can take several weeks to arrive, and the whole impetus which often prompts a photo purchase is the euphoria immediately after an event, that you've managed to complete it....therefore, i might lift the watermarked one as an interim pic to show people.

the other ones are merely good to put on facebook to mark the fact that you were at an event, not that the photo was good enough to spend money on.

you have to realise as a photographer you are going to take photographs that aren't as good as other of your own photos, or indeed other photographers...and whilst it is a nice wee reminder of a competition to put a poop-picture on my facebook, these photos are simply not worth shelling out money on.
basically, these photos have no worth....if i couldn't put them on my facebook, i'd forget they even existed in the first place
 
bogpony said:
Isn't the whole point though that the majority of people lifting photos are kids, and therefore wouldn't buy your images anyway.....??
Click to expand...

Bogpony, yes perhaps the majority are, depends how you define kids. Are we talking under 18? But to be honest I see it happening through a wide variety of ages from teens through to forty somethings. Age has nothing to do with it, mentality does.
 
spidge said:
Bogpony, yes perhaps the majority are, depends how you define kids. Are we talking under 18? But to be honest I see it happening through a wide variety of ages from teens through to forty somethings. Age has nothing to do with it, mentality does.
Click to expand...

If you think the mentality of your customers is questionable....perhaps you should give up on equestrianism altogether...??!! :D :D

.......ever considered being a wedding photographer?? Now they really rake it in.....
 
Bog-pony, if these photos are so worthless why not take your own rather than stealing them if you want a reminder of the day for facebook. If you can't/don't then I'm sure you can run to the £3 spidge charges for a facebook image.

If other photographers are slow to deliver then that is their issue, but to avoid stealing you could ask them when you order for permission to use a digital copy on FB. If you are buying the photo they will probably be happy to oblige.
 
bogpony said:
basically, these photos have no worth....if i couldn't put them on my facebook, i'd forget they even existed in the first place
Click to expand...

If you went into a shop and didn't like any of the goods and thought they were worthless to you and probably to other people too, would you then feel it is OK to steal them?!
 
been linked into this thread from a photography site and thought id chuck in my 2p as an equestrian event photograher..

excuse the massive quote-fest!

applecart14 said:
If photographers at events weren't so greedy then maybe more of us would pay to have photos. If people can download photos or copy paste, get rid of copyright watermarks , enlarge them and print them out and put in a nice frame free of charge then they will continue to do so. I just don't understand how photographers can justify a cost of £8, £9 or even £10 for a single photo, not when there are 200 people at a fun ride or 220 entries at a one day event for example. There are some brilliant photographers around, and some are more reasonable than others. You cannot surely express surprise that people infringe copywright when a) they are given the tools to do so, and b) are continually ripped off by photographers trying to make a fast buck.
Click to expand...

as a lowly event photographer i cant afford a very nice car, does that mean i can go out and steal one?

what you seem to be ignoring is the following:
* cost of equipment (it does wear out, camera shutters have a lifespan for example) and possible upgrades to cover specific events.
* cost of travel to event and transport maintenance.
* refreshments at event (have you seen the cost of food at an event??! maybe i should steal a burger as theyre too expensive..).
* our time. now i wont put a price on this but until youve spent an entire day in the winter stood around in what was -7c this year taking photos id say you dont really know what youre missing. not forgetting the time it takes in our case to weed through 1000 or so images and upload them all to a website most events will see me up past 1am doing this.
* the cost of webspace and traffic to the site, not forgetting the cost of e-commerce platforms/transaction fees.
* the cost of insurance (equipment and public liability).

im sure theres things i've missed off but hopefully some of you might see that we're not ripping anyone off or "making a fast buck".

spidge said:
Last night I was pointed in the direction of the Facebook account of a your rider who we photograph fairly regularly. Mum only very occasionally buys a picture, maybe twice a year?

But the rider has over 100 shoplifted images in her "Ponies" photo album on FB?

Advertising for me or blatant theft?

Do I:

A: Report it for Facebook and get them removed

B: Invoice the parents for the full amount of £312 for the 104 images at £3 each

c: Be nice and offer a volume discount for prompt settlement as they are such discerning customers

Your answers please audience.
Click to expand...

ask politely for the images to be removed or purchased then A.

realistically where do you draw the line? it only takes people to see those nicked images and think "oh thats a good idea, i can get them for free" so act quick.

bogpony said:
Anyone who has the equipment can stand in front of a fence and take good photographs
Click to expand...

so if i go out and buy top of the range pots and pans i can make gormet meals?

id like to see your average "joe bloggs" handle a canon 1dmk3 with 300mm+ lens attached for example (approx 4kg all in) all day and nail good photos for EVERY rider.

Mike007 said:
There is another side to all this too,since photographers are effectively placing images taken of people,without their prior consent on the internet for the entire world to see,and for third parties also to copy.
Click to expand...

going off topic a little so what about the thousands of CCTV cameras in the country?

as its been said taking photos of people is perfectly legal. including minors. the only exceptions are minors in indecent situations. legally i can even take a photo of you on private land if i am standing on public land.

however that said, if a competitor asks for me not to take their photo i respect that. not because of any legal reasons but for sheer politeness plus they wouldnt be buying any photos anyway..

lizzie_liz said:
I also do not think they should charge someone to view photo on their website, they do need to be low quality with a large watermark.
Click to expand...

unfortunately that doesnt stop some people. ive found a couple of my images on facebook (baring in mind we sell facebook images for ONE pound) complete with fuzzy edges and massive watermarking. some people seem intent with stealing the images no matter how many obsticles you put in place.

Mike007 said:
No thats not quite what I said.No its not a statute offence at the moment, to take pictures without someones permision and post them on the internet.It is however In my opinion an invasion of privacy.This is the area I refered to,where I believe the law is behind the times and will ultimately change.
Click to expand...

unfortunately its that kind of attitude that has/will stop people being able to take photos for personal use. hell its already started in schools for kids plays etc.

It is the element of ,lack of control of the image once it is displayed which concerns me most. It is clear to me from some of the posts,that various photographers have not taken sufficient care to protect and retain control of these images.Yet they seek to use copyright law to protect their profits.The whole concept of "duty of care" arises and I do wonder exactly how legal these photo,s are in common law.
Click to expand...

lack of control? these people are STEALING images. theyre knowingly bypassing the limited methods we can use to stop it from happening. why should the photographer be persecuted for this?? give the photographer more support in chasing these theives.

as for the legality of photos, as said its perfectly legal and the day it becomes illegal would be a very grim day for everyone.
 
Katt said:
Bog-pony, if these photos are so worthless why not take your own rather than stealing them if you want a reminder of the day for facebook. If you can't/don't then I'm sure you can run to the £3 spidge charges for a facebook image.
Click to expand...

Spidge has never taken a photograph of my horse, i was attempting to give her an example...
 
Bogpony, we could go round and round with this. Here's a scenario.

You open up a sweetie shop. The best in your village, for miles around even. It's always clean and tidy with the very best sweets available in gorgeous racks of colour, smell and taste. You keep your prices reasonable to encourage lots of customers, after you still have to pay business rates, rent, wages, utilities, accountancy fees, insurance, Income tax, NI, the list goes on. So you need to keep an eye on your profits. You soon have lots of lovely customers buying things so business seems really good. But some of the jars always seem empty sooner than you expect. It couldn't be could it? Customers wouldn't really shoplift, would they? So you install CCTV (more expense) and then you watch it happening. Your shocked, disbelieving even still. Some kids yes which you'd expect. Ok and the mum from the local estate whose boyfriend left her with 3 kids. OK, well things are a bit tough for her. Ooh look and there's the immaculately dressed woman who bought the manor house last year, the one with those 3 lovely girls at the private school.

Shall I go on?
 
bogpony said:
Spidge has never taken a photograph of my horse, i was attempting to give her an example...
Click to expand...

So? Doesn't change my point.

Spidge is one of a great many that have cheap facebook images available for £5 or less. The chap above only charges £1.

If they are so worthless that you won't pay for them at all then why bother taking them, the fact that you go to the trouble of stealing it suggests you attribute some worth to the image.

And if it is all so easy to take event photos why not get your own rather than stealing someone elses? Surely your groom/helper/mum/friend could just snap something suitable with their mobile phone????? Or would that poop-photo not be as good as the poop photos taken by the pros who have invested time and money into their business??
 
Katt said:
And if it is all so easy to take event photos why not get your own rather than stealing someone elses? Surely your groom/helper/mum/friend could just snap something suitable with their mobile phone????? Or would that poop-photo not be as good as the poop photos taken by the pros who have invested time and money into their business??
Click to expand...

^^^ this, I thank you :)
 
alwaysbroke said:
This is a genuine question that has puzzled and confused me over the years, if my children's school wants to put images of my kids on their Internet website they have to ask for parental permission, how come I can find pics of all my kids on equine photographers websites without my permission being asked?
Click to expand...

Schools working to Council guidelines I'd suspect. They don't have to.

Mike007 said:
No thats not quite what I said.No its not a statute offence at the moment, to take pictures without someones permision and post them on the internet.It is however In my opinion an invasion of privacy.This is the area I refered to,where I believe the law is behind the times and will ultimately change.It is the element of ,lack of control of the image once it is displayed which concerns me most. It is clear to me from some of the posts,that various photographers have not taken sufficient care to protect and retain control of these images.Yet they seek to use copyright law to protect their profits.The whole concept of "duty of care" arises and I do wonder exactly how legal these photo,s are in common law.
Click to expand...

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at here.

1. Why is a lack of control of the online image an issue to anyone but the photographer?
2. Given that images are watermarked and right click disabled on a site what other steps would you recommend to protect and retain control of those images?
3. I'm well aware of "duty of care" concept. Why do you feel it is an issue in the situation we're discussing? i.e. people taking images without paying.


Minxie said:
I haven't read all through the replies so apologies if this has been asked and answered. I'd also like to say that the only thing I've ever envied in another person is their ability to take a great photo :D.

May I ask a question ?

If you take a photo of a horse and rider and somebody NOT affiliated to the horse or rider buys it (cause they like the picture) - do you have to pay the rider and / or horses owner commission for using their image?

I was asked that years ago and I've never got my head around the answer :D
Click to expand...

Short answer, no :p There's a long answer I'll maybe get to later on :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top