On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 21:23:50 -0400 Larry Berman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Some of you may have heard about Google's new search engine for images.
Google say they respect robots.txt, so if you don't want material indexed,
preventing it is easy enough.
Regards
Tony Sleep
Austin writes:
That is completely wrong. There were no 2400
baud modems in 1971.
Dataphone modems date from the early 1960s, and as far as I know, they always
supported up to 2400 bps.
So what? Actually, that's now a change of
story...but none the less, there weren't
2400 baud modems in
Laurie writes:
Average versus maximum for whom.
For Web surfers at large. I keep statistics for visitors to my site, and they
correlate well with statistics I have seen for other sites. Right now, 800x600
is the most common resolution.
The 1024 X 768 being the resolution that
has the
Tom writes:
There were not 2400 baud modems in 1971.
The Bell System leased Dataphone modems with speeds up to 2400 bps from the
early 1960s, almost a decade earlier, if my distant memory serves. I found a
reference to Multics systems using such modems, presumably in that decade. So
there
Tom writes:
There were not 2400 baud modems in 1971.
The Bell System leased Dataphone modems with speeds up to 2400
bps from the
early 1960s, almost a decade earlier, if my distant memory
serves.
I do not believe that.
So
there were 2400-bps modems by 1971,
No, you have not shown
Average versus maximum for whom.
For Web surfers at large. I keep statistics for visitors to my
site, and they
correlate well with statistics I have seen for other sites.
Right now, 800x600
is the most common resolution.
I believe that says more about the visitors to YOUR web site, than
Laurie writes:
What you would be licensing or renting in
those cases is the bricklayer's or mechanic's
services (skilled labor) and not the product
(e.g., the house he along with a bunch of other
tradesmen built or repair to your vehicle that
the mechanic made).
So why are the rules for
As I've stated, you just don't know what you're talking about, and arguing
with you is nothing more than a waste of time.
So stop wasting it Austin. Do the killfile thing. We're all getting worried
about your blood pressure.
The reason you aggravate me, and have done so to near everyone on
Austin writes:
I believe that says more about the visitors
to YOUR web site, than it does about any average.
As I've said, my figures agree with figures I've seen from other sites.
Additionally, I get quite a broad cross-section of visitors, from students to
homemakers to office workers to
Austin writes:
I do not believe that.
OK.
No, you have not shown that to be true. Provide
proper substantiation to this claim.
What is proper substantiation?
You want to claim that current modem
technology is only 33k, when in fact,
it is 48/50k.
It is difficult to achieve speeds
Harvey wrote:
Rob Geraghty wrote:
snip Want to bet that it wasn't
any individual musician who chased Napster?
Actually it was a band called Metallica.
And they paid for the WHOLE court case? I'm prepared to be educated here -
if they did pay for the whole thing out of their own money
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
However, it just might be the case that the images on a given site are not
privately owned images but images in the public domain or that even if
copyrighted they are royalty free images ( sort of like freeware) that
anyone can use in any manner or for any purpose
As I've stated, you just don't know what you're talking about,
and arguing
with you is nothing more than a waste of time.
So stop wasting it Austin. Do the killfile thing. We're all
getting worried
about your blood pressure.
I appreciate your concern. My blood pressure is actually
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Harvey wrote:
Rob Geraghty wrote:
snip Want to bet that it wasn't
any individual musician who chased Napster?
Actually it was a band called Metallica.
And they paid for the WHOLE court case? I'm prepared to be educated here -
if they did pay for the whole
Pat Perez wrote:
Plenty of groups do work once and get paid forever. For example: inventors
who license their patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters, authors. I
think anyone in a creative field basically has that benefit.
As an example, Phillips, to this day gets a fee on every
I would definitely pursue the Encarta infringement. Mr. Bill deep
pockets Gates needs a few lessons in etiquette, it would appear.
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Harvey wrote:
musical (intellectual) property is now a *very* hot legal
item.
Only because it's worth billions to some very big
it at.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes:
What you would be licensing or renting in
those cases
of it.
BUT ONLY if the creative rights are protected.
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Johnny writes:
I am interested in how you would
Harvey wrote:
musical (intellectual) property is now a *very* hot legal
item.
Only because it's worth billions to some very big corporations like Sony
and HMV. If it was only the artists screaming, the care factor would be
very small.
I maintain that the same will be true of imagery on web
Laurie writes:
I doubt it, the people who are stealing your
images are probably the young teenagers and
people on the street who are not using them
commercially anyway and who you will not educate
or stop.
I'm not so sure. My impression is that stealing images is the rule on the Web,
Todd writes:
It's called licensing.
I know what it is called. However, having a name for it doesn't make it
ethical.
The music industry, film industry, and software
industry, are based upon it, to name just
a few.
Yes, but that does not make their activity ethical. And, just
Laurie writes:
... but that it is practically nil is at best
an overstatement ...
Do a search on images, then count the number that are probably _not_
copyrighted. Very often the number is zero.
True enough under current copyright laws and
conventions; but that has not always been the
Johnny writes:
If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net,
I get it forever.
Why should you be paid forever for something you did only once? Do you pay your
mechanic forever for a repair on your car that he completed only once?
Not if royalties are abolished entirely. Everyone would be paid just once
for
the work he does, at the time he does the work.
The car mechanic charges the same for each car he fixes because he has the
same work to do on each car. The lawyer is much the same as each contract is
just like one
It has taken many years just for the
average screen
size to advance from 640x480 to 800x600...
High resolution, such as 1280x1024 and higher has been around for 20 years.
The reason it wasn't prevalent in low end consumer computers (as it was
prevalent in Sun, SGI, DEC and other high end
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
We collected $10,000 from a tv 'news' show for
lifting our images from the NY Times, using them
out of context and without our consent or permission.
How much would you have charged them if they had asked to license the images for
that use?
If they had asked,
Modems are only about 10 times faster than they were thirty years
ago.
Please show proof of a common (or any for that matter) 5k+ modem from 30
years ago.
30 years ago, modems were barely 110 baud, and they were not modems, they
were acoustic couplers. 30 years ago is 1971.
on 9/10/01 5:54 AM, Anthony Atkielski squawked from the Olympia of Ignorance
If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net,
I get it forever.
Why should you be paid forever for something you did only once? Do you pay
your
mechanic forever for a repair on your car that he completed only
Todd writes:
It's called licensing.
I know what it is called. However, having a name for it doesn't make it
ethical.
Here's a fortune cookie for ya, Anthony:
You have great energy, put it to good use.
Todd
, September 10, 2001 3:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners:
Importance of Copyright on Images
Rob Geraghty wrote:
snip Want to bet that it wasn't
any individual musician who chased Napster?
Actually it was a band called Metallica.
Harvey
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes:
I doubt it, the people who are stealing your
images are probably the young teenagers
courts and
would vary from state to state.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 5:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey writes
Harvey writes:
Actually it was a band called Metallica.
If it had been only them, they would have lost very early in the game.
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes:
... but that it is practically nil is at best
an overstatement ...
Do
as might be
the case if you purchased annually an annual service contract.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright
Austin writes:
High resolution, such as 1280x1024 and higher
has been around for 20 years.
I said _average_ resolution, not _maximum_ resolution.
Harvey writes:
If they had asked, and if we had allowed the use,
we would have charged $1000.
And if you had refused to allow the use, they would have been faced with a
certain lawsuit if they ran the images. By not asking, they took a calculated
risk that you would not see or sue them, and
Austin writes:
High resolution, such as 1280x1024 and higher
has been around for 20 years.
I said _average_ resolution, not _maximum_ resolution.
Yes, I was talking average resolution, that's why what you said was wrong.
The average resolution of Sun and SGI etc. workstations has easily
Harvey writes:
If they had asked, and if we had allowed the use,
we would have charged $1000.
And if you had refused to allow the use, they would have been faced with a
certain lawsuit if they ran the images. By not asking, they took
a calculated
risk that you would not see or sue
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Harvey writes:
Actually it was a band called Metallica.
If it had been only them, they would have lost very early in the game.
Since this is your opinion vs my opinion, I'm not going to debate with youBut I
will point out that they
felt that their losses were
Laurie Solomon wrote:
While I generally agree with you on several points in your response to
Harvey, I have to say that screen resolutions right now are way beyond 800 X
600. I am able to get screen resolutions as high as 1600 x 1200 using some
video cards and a little higher using other
John wrote:
on 9/10/01 1:57 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message
if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture.
It's
relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of
Johnny writes:
I am interested in how you would go about
'abolishing' royalties.
By dramatically limiting the scope of copyright protection, and/or by greatly
reducing its duration, perhaps to the same duration as patent protection.
If it seems unfair to you, that's your problem.
Not
Laurie writes:
While the res[ponse will not satisfy you,
the answer is that the creator is not selling
the rights but only renting them ...
So why can't a bricklayer rent the fruit of his labor instead of selling it?
You want him to build a house? Just pay him each month for the time you
Austin writes:
The average resolution of Sun and SGI etc.
workstations has easily been in the neighborhood
of 1280x1024.
Over 95% of Web surfers are using PCs running under Windows, and the most
typical resolution settings for them are 800x600 and (to a lesser extent)
1024x768.
The
Austin writes:
Please show proof of a common (or any for
that matter) 5k+ modem from 30 years ago.
The usual practical achievable speed today is about 33K bps. Thirty years ago,
it was about 2400 bps over slightly conditioned lines, and 1200 bps over
unconditioned lines, a difference of
Laurie writes:
... I have to say that screen resolutions right
now are way beyond 800 X 600. I am able to get
screen resolutions as high as 1600 x 1200 using
some video cards and a little higher using other
video cards.
You're welcome to say that, but since I was speaking of average
Austin writes:
My, what a brilliant deduction!
Thank you.
You obviously have a low regard for others
intelligence.
No, but it doesn't hurt to illustrate the point for those who may not have had
occasion to reflect upon such things. A person motivated only by ethics might
never consider
on 9/10/01 5:54 AM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johnny writes:
If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net,
I get it forever.
Why should you be paid forever for something you did only once? Do you pay
your
mechanic forever for a repair on your car that he
I'm not a pro by any means -- just a rank amateur having fun, but if you
believe $200 less expenses is a good wage for a photographer, I'm sure never
entering the business. Best case, that's $25 an hour, if there were no
expenses and it was an eight hour day. Worst case it is a 16 hour day with
offlist.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes:
Please show proof of a common (or any for
that matter) 5k+ modem from 30
, September 10, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Austin writes:
Please show proof of a common (or any for
that matter) 5k+ modem from 30 years ago.
The usual practical achievable speed today is about 33K bps.
Thirty years
ago,
it was about 2400 bps over
You missed nothing. ;-)
Todd
I'm not a pro by any means -- just a rank amateur having fun, but if you
believe $200 less expenses is a good wage for a photographer, I'm sure never
entering the business. Best case, that's $25 an hour, if there were no
expenses and it was an eight hour day.
: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes:
... I have to say that screen resolutions right
now are way beyond 800 X 600. I am able to get
screen resolutions as high as 1600 x 1200 using
some video cards and a little higher using other
video cards.
You're welcome to say that, but since I
Rob writes:
AFAIK it's java since it's client side code.
Javascript is usually client-side, too, although it can be used on either side.
You'll know it's Java if it takes half an hour to execute; if it executes
instantly, it's Javascript.
Anyway, all you have to do is turn off Java or
Atkielski
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes:
While the res[ponse will not satisfy you,
the answer is that the creator is not selling
the rights but only renting them ...
So why can't
Tom writes:
I'm not a pro by any means -- just a rank
amateur having fun, but if you believe $200
less expenses is a good wage for a
photographer, I'm sure never entering the
business.
Well, $200 a day is $50,000 per year. Removing, say, half for expenses, that's
still $25,000 a year,
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 3:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Alan Womack wrote:
I took a look at the engine, if you don't use
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 3:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Harvey writes:
The possibility of losses is scary,
What sort of losses
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Harvey writes:
In a word, yes.to both questions.
Interesting. I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a thumbnail
image. Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a
source of revenue, why would putting them in a
Since we shoot mostly famous rock roll personalities and sell a lot of stock
imagery, we find that our
images have a relatively short shelf life, and a propensity to be lifted by those who
would rather not pay us
our rightful fees.
However, whenever such unapproved usages are found out by us,
Laurie writes:
However, it just might be the case that the
images on a given site are not privately
owned images but images in the public
domain ...
Virtually nothing is in the public domain, and I agree with those who object to
the phrasing of the search engine's warning. Saying that an
Harvey writes:
I cannot/will not get into a discussion of business
practices, but suffice it to say, that the fees
generated from licensing web images are more than
worth our time and effort.
Then you are most likely a fortunate exception to the rule.
Again, I maintain that saying that an
Harvey writes:
I, for one, do not think it's in our best interest
to revert to the old way of doing business, with
lower fees.
Of course not, if you make more money with the new system. But is it really
ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever? Nobody
else
Plenty of groups do work once and get paid forever. For example: inventors
who license their patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters, authors. I
think anyone in a creative field basically has that benefit.
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvey
Pat writes:
Plenty of groups do work once and get paid
forever. For example: inventors who license their
patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters,
authors. I think anyone in a creative field
basically has that benefit.
Yes ... but why?
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Pat writes:
Plenty of groups do work once and get paid
forever. For example: inventors who license their
patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters,
authors. I think anyone in a creative field
basically has that benefit.
Yes ... but why?
Because
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 5:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Laurie writes:
However, it just might be the case that the
images on a given site are not privately
owned images but images in the public
domain ...
Virtually nothing
: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Since we shoot mostly famous rock roll personalities and sell a lot of
stock imagery, we find that our
images have a relatively short shelf life, and a propensity to be lifted by
those who would rather not pay us
our rightful fees.
However, whenever
place.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Harvey writes:
In a word, yes
But is it really
ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever?
Nobody
else has that privilege.
It's called licensing. The music industry, film industry, and software
industry, are based upon it, to name just a few.
Todd
on 9/9/01 1:51 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
If there
are other reasons why someone would want to license a thumbnail image or a
web resolution image in contrast to a high resolution and/or larger sized
image, I would be interested in increasing my awareness.
Banner ads.
Todd
on 9/9/01 7:42 PM, Todd Flashner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But is it really
ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever?
Nobody
else has that privilege.
I sure do! If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net, I get it
forever. Of course 5% of producer's net
After reading what seems like a million posts on the copyright issue, *and* a
prestigious amount of typing,
I'm just going to try to give my opinion and (hopefully) leave it at that. :- )
I fear everyone is thinking in the very short term here (regarding search engines and
the web). Web
Harvey writes:
The possibility of losses is scary,
What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images
or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less
frequently from your own site than from any other site?
I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't be indexed
in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at image0001.jpg files and
decide that was a cake and note it in the index.
alan
Harvey writes:
The possibility of losses is scary,
What sort
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Majordomo leben.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Date: Saturday, September 08, 2001 7:16 AM
I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you
won't be indexed in a usable manner. No on at google is doing
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Harvey writes:
The possibility of losses is scary,
What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images
or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less
frequently from your own site than from any other
Harvey writes:
In a word, yes.to both questions.
Interesting. I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a thumbnail
image. Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a
source of revenue, why would putting them in a search engine make them any more
on 9/8/01 4:35 PM, SKID Photography at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Womack wrote:
I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't be
indexed in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at
image0001.jpg files and decide that was a cake and note it in the
on 9/8/01 12:28 PM, Dana Trout at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also looked at the images.google.com engine and noted that the
indexing is based on the text near to the image, not the name of the
image. So even if your image is named image0001.jpg, you will still
find it if the word cake
If you're an artist or photographer and have images on your web site..
Some of you may have heard about Google's new search engine for images. As
they've been indexing the web for content, they have also been indexing the
web for image files.
http://images.google.com is the new search
There was an article on the subject of copyright, artists' rights and picture search
engines in the NY Times
on Thursday, Sept. 6, 2001, on Page 1 of the 'Circuits' section.
So far, the courts have ruled against the photographers, but we are still early on in
the appeals process. It
is
83 matches
Mail list logo
