CEPICs love/hate relationship with Google



  • Coordination of European Picture Agencies Stock (CEPIC) files a formal complaint against Google on the grounds that they want to have their cake and eat it too. In particular,

    The complaint addresses Google’s various unauthorized uses of
    third-party images in its horizontal Web Search and its specialized
    services, in particular Google Images.

    The also spouted blatant falseness such as:

    Google does not even inform users properly about the origin of images and their copyright protection.

    When confronted with robots.txt, they provided this brilliant counterpoint:

    With Google’s web search currently being the central bottleneck between
    publishers and users of content on the Internet, opting out is not a
    sustainable business option for most rightholders. Opting out of Google effectively means opting out of the Internet.

    This is obviously Google's fault, what with being the evil overlord of the internet and all that.

    Personally I think that CEPIC opting out of the Internet would be in the best interest of everyone.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Faxmachinen said:

    When confronted with robots.txt, they provided this brilliant counterpoint:

    With Google’s web search currently being the central bottleneck between
    publishers and users of content on the Internet, opting out is not a
    sustainable business option for most rightholders. Opting out of Google effectively means opting out of the Internet.

    Erm - isn't the whole point of robots.txt that you can block off certain parts of your site - it's not the all-or-nothing situation they seem to make it out to be.



  • @PJH said:

    Erm - isn't the whole point of robots.txt that you can block off certain parts of your site - it's not the all-or-nothing situation they seem to make it out to be.

    Indeed. Assuming they're not as daft as they make themselves look, this reveals their double standard: They want their pictures to show up in search for the free advertisement, but then they don't want them to show up so well that people can see them properly without clicking through.

    The picture industry also expects to be provided with adequate tools to
    protect their images from illegal downloads via Google. As Google’s
    unauthorized use of images and online piracy increase, it is essential
    that Google accepts and implements adequate technical solutions for the
    protection of image providers.

    I can only assume they mean Right Click Blocking™.



  • @Faxmachinen said:

    Indeed. Assuming they're not as daft as they make themselves look, this reveals their double standard: They want their pictures to show up in search for the free advertisement, but then they don't want them to show up so well that people can see them properly without clicking through.

    It's also not unlikely that they just smell a way to leech some money from a big company...

     



  • @Faxmachinen said:

    They want their pictures to show up in search for the free advertisement, but then they don't want them to show up so well that people can see them properly without clicking through.
     

    So... Just serve thumbnails for google, and block the real images in robots.txt.



  • @Faxmachinen said:

    I can only assume they mean Right Click Blocking™.
    Classic Stackoverflow.

    Question: How do I disable right click on my web page without using Javascript?

    Number One answer:  Use this bit of Javascript.



  • Things like invisible divs on top or using a background image instead of an <img> tag used to work, but ever since all browsers come with HTML debuggers it's just too easy to get to the original image. The best way to prevent people from stealing your content is to render everything server-side, then send it to the client as an image encoded as millions of colored 1-pixel <div>s. No javascript required, no pesky right-clicking users!



  • @anonymous234 said:

    The best way to prevent people from stealing your content is to render everything server-side, then send it to the client as an image encoded as millions of colored 1-pixel <div>s. No javascript required, no pesky right-clicking users!

    Now all you need is a way to block all software that can make a screenshot from working?



  • @Gurth said:

    @anonymous234 said:

    The best way to prevent people from stealing your content is to render everything server-side, then send it to the client as an image encoded as millions of colored 1-pixel <div>s. No javascript required, no pesky right-clicking users!

    Now all you need is a way to block all software that can make a screenshot from working?

     

    EASY!  You use a234's technique, but randomly upshift the pixel's red value.  Then each user who signs up gets mailed a specially crafted pair of glasses where the lenses are made of red cellophane.  You can only see the image proper through the glasses; screenshots will still be obfuscated (which is buzzword for unstealable, right?)

    You might even be able to parlay that invention into copyright protection for the video game industry!



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Faxmachinen said:
    I can only assume they mean Right Click Blocking™.
    Classic Stackoverflow.

    Question: How do I disable right click on my web page without using Javascript?

    Number One answer:  Use this bit of Javascript.

     

    That is classic StackOverflow.

    Q: How do I do <impossible thing here>

    A: That's not actually possible, but you can do <thing like it> if you just <instructions here>

     

    Those are actually some of the best entries: educating people and getting stupid impossible things out of their heads.  My personal favorite is when someone asks how to make it impossible for someone to pirate their software.  I've gotten tons of rep over the years off of explaining why that can't be done and they'd be better off just not trying and using that time, money and effort to just make a better product that people would be willing to buy.

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @Faxmachinen said:
    I can only assume they mean Right Click Blocking™.
    Classic Stackoverflow.

    Question: How do I disable right click on my web page without using Javascript?

    Number One answer:  Use this bit of Javascript.

     

    That is classic StackOverflow.

    Q: How do I do <impossible thing here>

    A: That's not actually possible, but you can do <thing like it> if you just <instructions here>

     

    Those are actually some of the best entries: educating people and getting stupid impossible things out of their heads.  My personal favorite is when someone asks how to make it impossible for someone to pirate their software.  I've gotten tons of rep over the years off of explaining why that can't be done and they'd be better off just not trying and using that time, money and effort to just make a better product that people would be willing to buy.

     


    Pounding A Nail: Old Shoe or Glass Bottle?



  • @anonymous234 said:

    send it to the client as an image encoded as millions of colored 1-pixel <div>s.

     

    Let's just hope you remembered to enable deflate and gzip at your web server.

     



  • @anonymous234 said:

    Things like invisible divs on top or using a background image instead of an <img> tag used to work, but ever since all browsers come with HTML debuggers it's just too easy to get to the original image. The best way to prevent people from stealing your content is to render everything server-side, then send it to the client as an image encoded as millions of colored 1-pixel <div>s. No javascript required, no pesky right-clicking users!

    Excel



  • @Mcoder said:

    @anonymous234 said:

    send it to the client as an image encoded as millions of colored 1-pixel <div>s.

     

    Let's just hope you remembered to enable deflate and gzip at your web server.

     


    Why not render the page to a PNG serverside, then render the <div>s clientside?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Gurth said:

    Now all you need is a way to block all software that can make a screenshot from working?
    And a way to stop people from taking a picture of the screen on their phone.



  • @dkf said:

    @Gurth said:
    Now all you need is a way to block all software that can make a screenshot from working?
    And a way to stop people from taking a picture of the screen on their phone.
    You people are all missing the point. The problem isn't people taking screen caps or photographing screens. The problem is un-authorized people seeing those screen caps and pics. There is already technology out there now that can do this, and if you wait a few months I'm sure you can pic up SnapChat for a song.

    Either that or just blind everyone.



  • @OzPeter said:

    You people are all missing the point. The problem isn't people taking screen caps or photographing screens. The problem is un-authorized people seeing those screen caps and pics.

    Easy. Provide a USB-to-wetware dongle with encryption to authorized users, then chop off their limbs so they can't use drawing utensils.



  •  I want a device that erases viewers' memories of my photographs so that they won't illegally fondly think about the image.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @dkf said:

    @Gurth said:
    Now all you need is a way to block all software that can make a screenshot from working?
    And a way to stop people from taking a picture of the screen on their phone.

    How about a different random subset of half the pixels is shown each frame. With a high enough frame rate it should not be much more noticeable than an interlaced video signal, but a screenshot would only capture half of the image.

    Also, each frame has some slight HSV variation, to prevent stitching together multiple screenshots.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @dhromed said:

     I want a device that erases viewers' memories of my photographs so that they won't illegally fondly think about the image.


    MSPATFY



  • @joe.edwards said:

    MSPATFY
     

    SEPULCHRITUDE



  • @dhromed said:

     I want a device that erases viewers' memories of my photographs so that they won't illegally fondly think about fondle the image.

    Ive been working too much, because the above is what I read at first glance



  • @OzPeter said:

    Ive been working too much, because the above is what I read at first glance
     

    It's okay.

    I still read TRapeLoadingError at first glance.



  • They came to the conclusion that everyone has always known about the internet: if you don't want other people to see it, don't put it on the internet. If your photos weren't on the internet Google would have nothing of yours to index, so following your own stupid logic to it's stupid conclusion you might as well sue yourselves for gross incompetence in protecting the rights of European stock photographers (or whatever you do). To claim that the issue is Google's to solve is utterly childish.



  • @dhromed said:

    It's okay.

    I still read TRapeLoadingError at first glance.

    :o(



  • @TRapeLoadingError said:

    @clhromed said:

    It's okay.

    I still read RTapeLoadingError at first glance.

    :o(

    Look, I'm sorry, okay?



  • @aapis said:

    They came to the conclusion that everyone has always known about the internet: if you don't want other people to see it, don't put it on the internet.
    A while back, there was a story about a photographer who took some pictures and put them on his website. They were a bunch of photos of buildings and bridges. One day, he finds one of his pictures on another website and fires off an angry cease and desist letter to the owner of the offending website. Unfortunately (for him) the owner of that website was a woman who is (a) a lawyer and (b) nuts. She respondied with various legal threats of her own. I don't know how it all turned out, but I suspect he learned an important lesson about posting stuff on the Internet.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @dkf said:
    @Gurth said:
    Now all you need is a way to block all software that can make a screenshot from working?
    And a way to stop people from taking a picture of the screen on their phone.

    How about a different random subset of half the pixels is shown each frame. With a high enough frame rate it should not be much more noticeable than an interlaced video signal, but a screenshot would only capture half of the image.

    Also, each frame has some slight HSV variation, to prevent stitching together multiple screenshots.

    tripod+long exposure ^^

     



  • @dkf said:

    @Gurth said:
    Now all you need is a way to block all software that can make a screenshot from working?
    And a way to stop people from taking a picture of the screen on their phone.
    And wooden tables need to be prohibited.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @aapis said:

    They came to the conclusion that everyone has always known about the internet: if you don't want other people to see it, don't put it on the internet.
    A while back, there was a story about a photographer who took some pictures and put them on his website. They were a bunch of photos of buildings and bridges. One day, he finds one of his pictures on another website and fires off an angry cease and desist letter to the owner of the offending website. Unfortunately (for him) the owner of that website was a woman who is (a) a lawyer and (b) nuts. She respondied with various legal threats of her own. I don't know how it all turned out, but I suspect he learned an important lesson about posting stuff on the Internet.

    My Google-fu has not failed me this time



  • @El_Heffe said:

    I suspect he learned an important lesson about posting stuff on the Internet.
     

    Probably that the internet is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and nobody's inclined to change that.



  • @Zemm said:

    My Google-fu has not failed me this time

    If you like reading stuff about overreactions in the legal system, I recommend Popehat. The focus is not exactly what this is about, but you get a lot of lawyers behaving badly. The main blogger there is an attorney who specializes in Free Speech cases and getting people pro bono help to defend against ridiculous lawsuits. There's also a co-blogger there who makes me sound like a pinko.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @aapis said:

    They came to the conclusion that everyone has always known about the internet: if you don't want other people to see it, don't put it on the internet.
    A while back, there was a story about a photographer who took some pictures and put them on his website. They were a bunch of photos of buildings and bridges. One day, he finds one of his pictures on another website and fires off an angry cease and desist letter to the owner of the offending website. Unfortunately (for him) the owner of that website was a woman who is (a) a lawyer and (b) nuts. She respondied with various legal threats of her own. I don't know how it all turned out, but I suspect he learned an important lesson about posting stuff on the Internet.

    Can't believe there are people out there who don't understand the internet in 2013. Or whenever that story took place.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.