I think the answer to this will be - its impossible!

Now supposing you find a web site, which contains some photographs,
photographs which you are fairly certain will have been lifted from
another website - is there any way to search the internet, to find
where the phograhphs might have been stolen from?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Now supposing you find a web site, which contains some photographs,
photographs which you are fairly certain will have been lifted from
another website - is there any way to search the internet, to find
where the phograhphs might have been stolen from?

Well, TinEye and Google both have reverse image search, they won't
necessarily tell you which is the original source, but they'll tell you
which sources are similar or identical.

Andy Burns was thinking very hard :
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Now supposing you find a web site, which contains some photographs,
photographs which you are fairly certain will have been lifted from
another website - is there any way to search the internet, to find
where the phograhphs might have been stolen from?

Well, TinEye and Google both have reverse image search, they won't
necessarily tell you which is the original source, but they'll tell you which
sources are similar or identical.

Tineye seems to suggest it maybe only looks for the images name. I've
not found the Google facility yet?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Tineye seems to suggest it maybe only looks for the images name.

I'm pretty sure it analyses the actual image

I've not found the Google facility yet?

http://www.google.com/imghp

then click on the camera icon.

Andy Burns laid this down on his screen :
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Tineye seems to suggest it maybe only looks for the images name.

I'm pretty sure it analyses the actual image

I've not found the Google facility yet?

http://www.google.com/imghp

then click on the camera icon.

That worked and found an exact matches from several commercial sites
:-)

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:35:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done -

Report it to Faceache, not that I expect them to do anything about
it. Are the images on the Faceasache pages hot links back to the
orginals or are they hosted on facebroke?

If hot links tell the owners, they can then replace thos hot linked
images with something else. Maybe the same image with "stolen from
xxx" over laid. That's what I have done on occasion when I've spotted
hot links to stuff on my site. Need to have a differently named copy
and alter the sites code to the new name so that the real site
doesn't have the overlay.

You could probably get really clever and have the overlay only
visible when other than permitted sites request the image.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Harry Bloomfield scribbled...


I think the answer to this will be - its impossible!

Now supposing you find a web site, which contains some photographs,
photographs which you are fairly certain will have been lifted from
another website - is there any way to search the internet, to find
where the phograhphs might have been stolen from?


Waste of time

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04..._act_landgrab/

On 05/08/2013 21:35, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

Trading standards? (mind, they were useless last time I tried to complain)

Andy

Harry Bloomfield scribbled...


Andy Burns laid this down on his screen :
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Tineye seems to suggest it maybe only looks for the images name.

I'm pretty sure it analyses the actual image

I've not found the Google facility yet?

http://www.google.com/imghp

then click on the camera icon.

That worked and found an exact matches from several commercial sites
:-)

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.


All images on Failbook automatically become the property of Failbook.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04..._act_landgrab/

Dave Liquorice wrote:

If hot links tell the owners, they can then replace thos hot linked
images with something else. Maybe the same image with "stolen from
xxx" over laid.

if the http referer: (sic) for any image is someone else's website,
redirect to a suitable replacement ...

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:35:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:


That worked and found an exact matches from several commercial sites
:-)

Thing is, what do I do about it?

http://www.businessinsider.com/tor-a...en-2013-3?op=1

--

It happens that Dave Liquorice formulated :
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:35:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done -

Report it to Faceache, not that I expect them to do anything about
it. Are the images on the Faceasache pages hot links back to the
orginals or are they hosted on facebroke?

If hot links tell the owners, they can then replace thos hot linked
images with something else. Maybe the same image with "stolen from
xxx" over laid. That's what I have done on occasion when I've spotted
hot links to stuff on my site. Need to have a differently named copy
and alter the sites code to the new name so that the real site
doesn't have the overlay.

You could probably get really clever and have the overlay only
visible when other than permitted sites request the image.

No, they have been lifted and pasted to Facebook.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Yes, that's what I do now. I never see images hotlinked from my site
since I put this in place:

http://www.cemh.eclipse.co.uk/Test/HotLinkTest.html

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 22:19:17 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

if the http referer: (sic) for any image is someone else's website,
redirect to a suitable replacement ...

--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Notify the original coyright owners for a start ...

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:35:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 05/08/13 21:35, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Andy Burns laid this down on his screen :
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Tineye seems to suggest it maybe only looks for the images name.

I'm pretty sure it analyses the actual image

I've not found the Google facility yet?

http://www.google.com/imghp

then click on the camera icon.

That worked and found an exact matches from several commercial sites :-)

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

If they were in the public domain with zero actual copyrighting or
anything then arguable tough ****.

They haven't been stolen because no ownership was ever asserted.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 05/08/13 22:25, The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:35:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

That worked and found an exact matches from several commercial sites
:-)

Thing is, what do I do about it?
http://www.businessinsider.com/tor-a...en-2013-3?op=1

I guess our polliticians are too busty USING this service to worry about
the fact its actually available.

Of course, its a magic scam. Take the $10,000 and disappear. I mean, who
do you complain to?

"I paid $10,000 up front to get my missus topped, and I've been had"
wont go down too well with trading standards.

And if it were that cheap and it were real how come Tony Blair is still
alive?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

I found out someone had used pics of my work. I told them it was OK if
they sent me £50 and made it clear it wasn't their work, which they did.

Bill

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/08/13 21:35, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Thing is, what do I do about it?
There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

Just wondering why it's a concern to you? It doesn't sound like the
images are yours ...

If they were in the public domain with zero actual copyrighting or
anything then arguable tough ****.

They haven't been stolen because no ownership was ever asserted.

In the UK you don't have to assert copyright, it's automatic.

Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/08/13 21:35, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Thing is, what do I do about it?
There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

Just wondering why it's a concern to you? It doesn't sound like the
images are yours ...

I took it that he was cheesed off that a company was advertising
fraudulently saying that they had done work that they had not (were
using photos of others work).



If they were in the public domain with zero actual copyrighting or
anything then arguable tough ****.

They haven't been stolen because no ownership was ever asserted.

In the UK you don't have to assert copyright, it's automatic.

A solicitors letter to the site and the carrier of it perhaps?
Its been going on for years. In some instances people do not care but if
they are being used fragilantly to mislead people to gain business, then it
could be worth doing.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Andy Burns laid this down on his screen :
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Tineye seems to suggest it maybe only looks for the images name.

I'm pretty sure it analyses the actual image

I've not found the Google facility yet?

http://www.google.com/imghp

then click on the camera icon.

That worked and found an exact matches from several commercial sites :-)

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

F Murtz expressed precisely :
I took it that he was cheesed off that a company was advertising fraudulently
saying that they had done work that they had not (were using photos of others
work).

Precisly - it is a local rogue 'company' touting for work via a web
site. The point is, no one with any sense would trust them to do any of
the jobs they suggest they can do on the website, but its possible
someone might be taken in by the photos. Anything beyond digging a hole
in the ground, is completely beyond their technical ability.

They have completely misrepresented their limited abilities on their
site and that is my main concern.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:44:29 AM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If they were in the public domain with zero actual copyrighting or
anything then arguable tough ****.

They haven't been stolen because no ownership was ever asserted.


Surely in the UK you do not have to assert copyright; it is automatic isn't it?

In nay case just because it is in the public domain, it doesn't mean it has no copyright.

Robert

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 22:17:52 +0100, Artic wrote:

Harry Bloomfield scribbled...


Andy Burns laid this down on his screen :
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Tineye seems to suggest it maybe only looks for the images name.

I'm pretty sure it analyses the actual image

I've not found the Google facility yet?

http://www.google.com/imghp

then click on the camera icon.

That worked and found an exact matches from several commercial sites
:-)

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.


All images on Failbook automatically become the property of Failbook.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04..._act_landgrab/

Not if the poster is not the copyright holder. i.e. if they were
posted illegally then they have no rights.


--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Andy Burns laid this down on his screen :
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Tineye seems to suggest it maybe only looks for the images name.

I'm pretty sure it analyses the actual image

I've not found the Google facility yet?

http://www.google.com/imghp

then click on the camera icon.

That worked and found an exact matches from several commercial sites :-)

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

Report it to the owner of the image.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 05/08/2013 21:35, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Andy Burns laid this down on his screen :
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Tineye seems to suggest it maybe only looks for the images name.

I'm pretty sure it analyses the actual image

I've not found the Google facility yet?

http://www.google.com/imghp

then click on the camera icon.

That worked and found an exact matches from several commercial sites :-)

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

If you feel strongly enough about it then tell the original copyright
owner(s) about it. They are the ones who will have to act.

Be careful though the images might be boring standard stock material
offered for end users to use by one of the website building toolkits.

I have had a few reports of my rarer images being misused online usually
from someone who recognised one of my images being passed off as someone
else's work. Someone once tried to sell one of my cacti on eBay - that
is the picture they used was obviously of my plant!!!

Usually it just isn't worth the effort to enforce copyright on the
internet unless real money is involved. The simplest method is to keep
the valuable images below the quality needed for print publication.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 05/08/2013 21:01, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I think the answer to this will be - its impossible!

Now supposing you find a web site, which contains some photographs,
photographs which you are fairly certain will have been lifted from
another website - is there any way to search the internet, to find where
the phograhphs might have been stolen from?

probably why many people now put a watermark on photo's

To be honest if you post a pic on a public place ... you have to accept
it can be lifted, you might not like it, but once out you lose control of it

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 03:41:02 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they have
done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

I found out someone had used pics of my work. I told them it was OK if
they sent me £50 and made it clear it wasn't their work, which they did.

Bill


Remember the Carpy vs Promax debacle Bill?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.t...w/eZInid5druQJ

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 06/08/13 10:48, Rick Hughes wrote:
On 05/08/2013 21:01, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I think the answer to this will be - its impossible!

Now supposing you find a web site, which contains some photographs,
photographs which you are fairly certain will have been lifted from
another website - is there any way to search the internet, to find where
the phograhphs might have been stolen from?

probably why many people now put a watermark on photo's

which takes a few minutes to airbrush out :-)


To be honest if you post a pic on a public place ... you have to
accept it can be lifted, you might not like it, but once out you lose
control of it

exactamundo.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 06/08/13 10:20, RobertL wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:44:29 AM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If they were in the public domain with zero actual copyrighting or
anything then arguable tough ****.

They haven't been stolen because no ownership was ever asserted.

Surely in the UK you do not have to assert copyright; it is automatic isn't it?

In nay case just because it is in the public domain, it doesn't mean it has no copyright.

the law is not actually that clear on that point.

Robert



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:
I think the answer to this will be - its impossible!

Now supposing you find a web site, which contains some photographs,
photographs which you are fairly certain will have been lifted from
another website - is there any way to search the internet, to find
where the phograhphs might have been stolen from?

I uploaded some of my photos to wikipedia for an article.
Within a day, they were flagged as stolen, so I investigated, and
they had found them on a website (albeit a different size/resolution).
I had to explain that was my website, and then they were OK with them.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 14:27:57 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:
I think the answer to this will be - its impossible!

Now supposing you find a web site, which contains some photographs,
photographs which you are fairly certain will have been lifted from
another website - is there any way to search the internet, to find
where the phograhphs might have been stolen from?

I uploaded some of my photos to wikipedia for an article.
Within a day, they were flagged as stolen, so I investigated, and they
had found them on a website (albeit a different size/resolution).
I had to explain that was my website, and then they were OK with them.

I had a similar problem when I expanded a stub on Wikipedia.

They removed my edits due to 'plagiarism'. Same wording and stuff on
another website. Mine!



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 06/08/2013 14:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/08/13 10:20, RobertL wrote:
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:44:29 AM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

If they were in the public domain with zero actual copyrighting or
anything then arguable tough ****.

They haven't been stolen because no ownership was ever asserted.

Surely in the UK you do not have to assert copyright; it is automatic
isn't it?

In nay case just because it is in the public domain, it doesn't mean
it has no copyright.

the law is not actually that clear on that point.

Robert



I have been under the impression that "in the public domain" is not a
concept used in the law of England and Wales.

--
Rod

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 14:00:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

probably why many people now put a watermark on photo's

which takes a few minutes to airbrush out :-)

Not a proper water mark that is embedded into the image data by
slightly altering pixel values in a known way.

These are mostly paid for services though.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Bill Wright wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Thing is, what do I do about it? The stolen images are on someones
Facebook business web site, showing work they are suggesting they
have done - but they obviously have just lifted the images from other
commercial websites.

There are about 30 images in total all obviuously stolen.

I found out someone had used pics of my work. I told them it was OK if
they sent me £50 and made it clear it wasn't their work, which they
did.

If I am correct then that was then the 1972 June/July editon of Escort
Magazine and your wife was in the Readers Wives section.

AICMFP

--
Adam

On 06/08/2013 15:27, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I uploaded some of my photos to wikipedia for an article.

I stuck one of mine up - it's long enough ago that you get a better view
of the object in question as the trees are smaller. I cropped it - the
uncropped original (a 35mm slide) is proof I own it.

When this came up I googled for copies. I found some - with my wiki name
credited!

Andy

On 06/08/2013 22:02, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 06/08/2013 15:27, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I uploaded some of my photos to wikipedia for an article.

I stuck one of mine up - it's long enough ago that you get a better view
of the object in question as the trees are smaller. I cropped it - the
uncropped original (a 35mm slide) is proof I own it.

When this came up I googled for copies. I found some - with my wiki name
credited!

Andy
I have found 5 websites in the last week using copies of my images, 2
after emailing them have taken them down,another 1 was a youngster with
a blog which I have ignored, 1 other is going through the motions with
the web host company and the other I await a response before going further.

In article ,
ss writes:
On 06/08/2013 22:02, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 06/08/2013 15:27, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I uploaded some of my photos to wikipedia for an article.

I stuck one of mine up - it's long enough ago that you get a better view
of the object in question as the trees are smaller. I cropped it - the
uncropped original (a 35mm slide) is proof I own it.

When this came up I googled for copies. I found some - with my wiki name
credited!

Andy
I have found 5 websites in the last week using copies of my images, 2
after emailing them have taken them down,another 1 was a youngster with
a blog which I have ignored, 1 other is going through the motions with
the web host company and the other I await a response before going further.

The UK self-build forum (or whatever it's called) ripped off a load
of stuff which Andrew Marks and I wrote for the original uk.diy FAQ.
It took us quite a while to write that, checking up on all the details.
They just passed it off as their own, and have subsequently dumped
it into their wiki, which they obviously had no right to do.

I think that's the only one of my stolen web contributions which cheesed
me off. As for pictures I upload, I kind of expect them to get reused.
When I had a blog at Sun Microsystems, I did find that copied all over
the place with click revenue adverts added in, but that seems to be
normal nowadays.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

As for pictures I upload, I kind of expect them to get reused.

I emailed you some photos of a pair of GEC4310s a couple of months back,
not sure if you didn't reply because you've already got plenty, or
because they didn't reach you?

For some reason that doesn't come up in one version of FF, but does in
another. I've just spend (wasted?) an interesting afternoon seeing
what from my site is 'out there'.

I suppose it's about what is to be expected, but I've found my
satellite alignment diagrams as far afield as an Egyptian site in
Arabic, and the waveform of a repaired vinyl click being used to sell
something, wasn't quite sure what, but it looked expensive, on a
Russian site. I've found my picture of the digitised waveform of
complete side of a vinyl being used as someone's ID photo in blog
posts, and as tag photos for 'compositions' by DJs - ironic quotes
as doubtless the music samples were ripped off as well.

Also, it's quite extraordinary JUST how lazy website owners can be. By
definition, you'd expect someone hotlinking from your website to be
lazy - after all they are too lazy to produce their own pics - but
so lazy as to be apparently unaware that it is the Copyright Violation
Attempt image that's actually coming up, not the one they intended to
link? Serves 'em bloody well right!

However, it seems that Google have a daily quota on that sort of image
search, which I have now exhausted for today, so a return to normal
life is enforced ...

But I bet there's a Sociology thesis in there somewhere ...

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 21:25:35 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

http://www.google.com/imghp
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article ,
Andy Burns writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

As for pictures I upload, I kind of expect them to get reused.

I emailed you some photos of a pair of GEC4310s a couple of months back,
not sure if you didn't reply because you've already got plenty, or
because they didn't reach you?

Yes, I got them and I mentioned it on facebook, where several of my
friends have worked on OS4000 some decades back, same as me.

Really sorry - I forgot to thank you for them. It was the uptime
of over 14 years which was actually the most impressive bit.
We knew how to build robust operating systems back then!

I have written a GEC4000 series emulator, which will boot and run
the operating system (OS4000). It doesn't have emulators for the
GEC4310 peripherals, but it will emulate the GEC4090, GEC41XX,
and GEC42XX systems (and possibly the original GEC4080).
I could add GEC4310 support, but I don't have the hardware/peripheral
manuals for it.

When GEC (now Telent) stop supporting the systems, I will release
the emulator for the nostalgia value. (It's no use without a copy
of OS4000, which I can't distribute without their permission.)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]