This is not an advert for the site far from it .It would appear a number of images are being lifted from here and a few other nature sites and reposted .
Some , but in the main not all, are credited to the photographer .Some may consider this acceptable and allow the exposure.However out of courtesy I think people should be allowed the choice .
Photographers there unknowing of the reposts are Me, Jim Erhardt,Miguel Lasa , Danny Green the list goes on ....
the site purports to be a nature image bookmarking site , so far I find virtually none are , further selecting random image button reveals more naturist than naturalist .
I have been suspended/prevented from commenting on the site because most probably I'm a pain in the ass suggesting copyright infringement to the posters.
Thought you should know....
Posted by Mark Davies on January 15, 2010 at 6:00 AM
Just as an update on uncredited images .
http://www.pixdaus.com/single.php?id=219192
Its one of mine .
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 15, 2010 at 9:05 AM
Unfortunately this is "old news" and there have been several posts about this in the past. I've found 2 of my photos on the site (through a google search) but personally I don't really care. They're not profiting from it and I am given credit. Plus, the photos they took aren't even that good but I know it can be quite upsetting to others.
- Luke
Posted by David Bostedo on January 15, 2010 at 9:53 AM
They're not profiting from it...
That's not really true. They are hosting advertising on the site, and are certainly picking up some money from that.
What I find interesting is this statement from the site :
Help Us
If copyrighted or offensive photos occasionally slip through our nets, please click the flag-it button underneath the photo and we will remove it as soon as possible.
I don't believe there ARE any nets. It's likely the same as YouTube or lots of other sites with user posted content. Basically, they don't filter up front, but do respond to take-down notices (supposedly).
Posted by Paul Inglis on January 18, 2010 at 11:25 AM
This is precisely why I have started adding my name and website address to images uploaded to the internet. That way people know who owns that image and where to find more. People who pinch images from other sites to put up else where don't tend to edit the image and leave the name and website address intact. Also ensure you have all your information in the meta data.
Rather than ask for it to be taken down I use it to help drive traffic to my website! Plus I think trying to police image theft is simply too time consuming and time is money!
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 19, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Also ensure you have all your information in the meta data.
I agree completely with this and have been advising people to include it with all images on the web. It is one more way to keep track of your images that shgow up outside of your control.
Posted by Fred Stearns on January 20, 2010 at 12:30 AM
Unless Photoshop has changed the way they do "Save for the WEB", when you use that function, the files is stripped down to minimize the size. This includes stripping off the meta data. If I remember correctly, it also strips jpg down to 256 colors as well.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 20, 2010 at 10:34 AM
...it also strips jpg down to 256 colors as well.
Any JPG can have a lot more than 256 colors, save-for-web or not. If you meant that it's 256 colors per channel, you're correct. That's what an 8-bit color file is - 8-bits for each of the RGB channels - which is what JPGs always are. (In other words, it saves with standard JPG colors.) The actual number of possible colors is 256 x 256 x 256 = 1.67 million.
Posted by Fred Stearns on January 21, 2010 at 10:14 PM
Actually, I was talking about the original VGA color palette that it was my impression that the save for web used as a means of minimizing the files size in addition to stripping the meta data from the file. Actually, the original CGA only had 16 colors and this was expanded to the VGA color palette of 256 colors, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Graphics_Array#The_VGA_color_palette. As I recall, this was the limitation of GIF, and may still be for all I know as no one seems to use GIF any more. In the short bit of Googling I just did, I did not find any confirmation, nor denial, that the "Save for Web" function reduced the color palette to VGA color, as I recall having read earlier. This may have been a much earlier version of Photoshop too. Things do progress and we all tends to forget the earlier limitations thta have been overcome. I include myself in that.
You are right, JPG files can use 24 bit color (8 bits per channel) and that is what I use on my web site. But that does not mean that 24 bit color is used in all cases. That is also only the current maximum.
Discussion
8 repliesas suggested at UKNPN I thought you guys aught to be made aware of the following thread reference a particular site called Pixdaus.com
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=51446&CGISESSID=326f6d67b987bcc2bc2eb6b7e46037b9&u=27896
This is not an advert for the site far from it .It would appear a number of images are being lifted from here and a few other nature sites and reposted .
Some , but in the main not all, are credited to the photographer .Some may consider this acceptable and allow the exposure.However out of courtesy I think people should be allowed the choice .
Photographers there unknowing of the reposts are Me, Jim Erhardt,Miguel Lasa , Danny Green the list goes on ....
the site purports to be a nature image bookmarking site , so far I find virtually none are , further selecting random image button reveals more naturist than naturalist .
I have been suspended/prevented from commenting on the site because most probably I'm a pain in the ass suggesting copyright infringement to the posters.
Thought you should know....
http://www.pixdaus.com/single.php?id=219192
Its one of mine .
- Luke
That's not really true. They are hosting advertising on the site, and are certainly picking up some money from that.
What I find interesting is this statement from the site :
I don't believe there ARE any nets. It's likely the same as YouTube or lots of other sites with user posted content. Basically, they don't filter up front, but do respond to take-down notices (supposedly).
Rather than ask for it to be taken down I use it to help drive traffic to my website! Plus I think trying to police image theft is simply too time consuming and time is money!
I agree completely with this and have been advising people to include it with all images on the web. It is one more way to keep track of your images that shgow up outside of your control.
I agree with the previous comments to fill in the meta data and to add ©your name to every picture before posting it. As with everything, what man can protect, man can get around. But every little bit helps.
Any JPG can have a lot more than 256 colors, save-for-web or not. If you meant that it's 256 colors per channel, you're correct. That's what an 8-bit color file is - 8-bits for each of the RGB channels - which is what JPGs always are. (In other words, it saves with standard JPG colors.) The actual number of possible colors is 256 x 256 x 256 = 1.67 million.
You are right, JPG files can use 24 bit color (8 bits per channel) and that is what I use on my web site. But that does not mean that 24 bit color is used in all cases. That is also only the current maximum.