|
Yep, mine are there. Of course, none were taken with a Nikon...
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
OK, ...Steve. Refrain from uploading your images to the internet if you are concerned about what others might do with them.
Can you stop spamming now?
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Axel Rietschin edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
They have several of mine as well, none of which were taken with a Nikon or in Britain. Interestingly, a search for my Flickr user name also pulls up photos I commented on that are not mine. I don't think much of their search engine!
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
... Microsoft are? ...
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
axelr wrote Refrain from uploading your images to the internet if you are concerned about what others might do with them.
This is such a bullshit statement and I am getting very tired of hearing it. There's got to be a better way.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The results you've got when you type your flickr name are the same results than you get when you use Live search". I don't see anything wrong. Live search is a search engine just like google, yahoo ...
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
No, try using the search bar about halfway down the page. The results from that second search don't provide any info about the photos or owners.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Patrick Mayon
No. when you use the searchbox next to the Nikon, it just displays (locally stored) thumbnails. No link, no information, nothing. Thus making it impossible for any "entrant" (haha) to see whether they would infringe any rights
And, wow, what an overall shit competition. Note to the designers: Flipping an object does *not* give a reflection. f*kers
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
.Purf edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
Patrick, the problem is that they are storing the files on their servers, with no attribution, no link back to Flickr, and without permission.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think it's perfectly reasonable for this thread to appear in multiple groups. The more people that see it, the more that complain and the more likely it is that Nikon and MS rethink this ill-conceived marketing ploy.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There are two ways of checking the search box.
If you click 'Join in now' you then get another box that says 'start your search here'. Put your flickr user name in there and then have a look and see if you recognise any of your images.
I recognised 12 of mine at the last count - none of which have a link back to my flickr, nor do they name me as the photographer. All of my images are licensed ARR, yet their search mechanism cannot even recognise that. Microsoft have used the Windows Live Search vehicle but have, in the process, stripped the metadata from the thumbnails. It is a competition designed to raise the profile of their search engine and heavily sponsored by Nikon - hell, a random person could even win a camera by entering your image into the competition and you would never know about it. That same random person could be taking part in a third party copyright breach without even realising it, and Microsoft cover themselves by saying it is the responsibility of the person entering to check the copyright status - but the metadata has been stripped. Nuts!!!
The usual search engines employ fair use, by using thumbnails and always having a link back to the originator of the image. No problems - 'the Iconic Britian' site does not. Technically, they could try and claim that those images are 'orphaned works' in the fullness of time... The whole site is poorly designed and poorly thought through.
@ axelr - frankly I find your 'yawn' comment more spammy, but I can't be bothered to follow you around all the groups you've gone to, to write it. You may not be that bothered, but there are others who are.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Trapac edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
On the other hand, I am very tired of hearing all this copyright whining which tends to start with a long diatribe, followed by never ending back and forths. Trying to stay away from this discussions it's impossible. They mushroom everywhere.
There's got to be a better way? As long as you put your images in the public domain (on the web, no less!), the best possible option to keep your art/"art" yours while also sharing it is to *post lower res images*. There is no viable way to enforce your qualms about people touching your stuff. Jesus, even I have found some of my photos in places where I rather not see them and/or without any kind of attribution.
... I'm staying away from this now, so annoyingly boring.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ok i have seen the problem ; when i saw my images, i didn't realiee they didn't link back to their original place and that people could win something by dragging someone else photos !
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I actually found a ridiculous photo of myself that I took one night at a bar :)
I submitted that, and in the, "Why is this Iconic?" box, here was my message.
"Because this is a picture of me that I took you copyright infringing motherfuckers"
I am sure that will teach them.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
lol i saw some of my shots in there...but they have nothing to do with Britain.....looks like i'm not helping someone win a camera..dangit!
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hehehe, I searched for "Uppsala" and got a Star Trek NG picture :D
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
dvaires, placing your pictures on the internet does not place them in the public domain. They are still covered under copyright.
If you are going to be bored about something, at least understand what you are talking about.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I just got this email from Nikon regarding the email I sent this morning:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 1:52 PM, wrote:
Dear Mr alohadave,
Thank you for your email.
Nikon acknowledges your concerns with regards to the 'Iconic Britain' competition. We would like to assure you that we are in direct discussion with Microsoft (as the responsible promoter) to address the reported issues, and will request that Microsoft formally respond to you with more detail on the outcome of these discussions ASAP.
Whilst we recognise that Nikon UK Ltd is associated with Iconic Britain by providing prizes and a nominated judge via a third party agency, we would like you to understand that we are not the promoter and have at no time been involved in the development of the terms and conditions or the running of Iconic Britain. Therefore, we would recommend that in the first instance communication should be directed to msncompetitions@thin-martian.com.
Nikon takes copyright very seriously, and endeavours to ensure that photographers’ rights are protected at all times. To that end we are continuing to put weight behind your comments to ensure that solutions are in place post the competition closing on the 31.07.08
In the meantime, Microsoft has been informed of your request to remove the images from the competiton - please rest assured this is being actioned.
We appreciate your patience and understanding.
Yours faithfully,
Simon Coleman
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I got a similar reply. Read the Microsoft public statement here... it appears that they cannot see what they are doing wrong.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Heh. Well, that does clear a few things up about their intent. Sadly, they're not terribly good at communicating that to the people entering.
They also seem a little unclear as to the meaning of "public domain".
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yolise, absolutely, Microsnot post their software on the net, does that make it public domain, if so, let's all go and get some.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have a lot of mine on there too, all with a Nikon. This sucks.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
skinjester [deleted] says:
>>it appears that they cannot see what they are doing wrong.
Neither can I. Any search engine pulls up copyrighted images & text..
Search != Publish
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
They're asking people to submit other people's images into a competition. Or at least, encouraging them to. The images that come up in the competition part of the search engine does not link to the original image, so people that do find the image do not know who it belongs to.
That said, according to their official statement, it appears that the image that is submitted is supposedly simply representative of a concept. This is only obvious from their statement in reply to Pro-Imaging, however - not from their rules.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
skinjester, please, please, please read this carefully...
It is NOT the live search that is the problem, it is the competition search... it IS stripping out metadata, NOT attributing, NOT linking back, NOT giving copyright information and IS encouraging others to breach copyright... THAT IS NOT WHAT A SEARCH ENGINE DOES.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
...Steve edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
Put simply, it means that someone can use my work to win themselves a camera, without acknowledging me at all. Which is a bit naughty.
More basically, though, it shows how rubbish Microsoft Search is, if it can only find 8 of my images...
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
skinjester [deleted] says:
I stand corrected and am trying to be outraged.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
skinjester edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
good old Microsoft.......
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It's not really so much about outrage, it's more about it being totally weird and ill-conceived.
I imagine that Lucasfilm, Warner, et al, would be a little annoyed to be honest. From the Terms:
6. To be eligible to win a prize, Entrants must visit www.iconicbritain.co.uk (the "Website") and either:
a)submit a vote by selecting one of the five emoticons ("Voting Entry); or
b)submit an image. To submit an image, perform a Live Search to find an image which represents Britain. Drag the image into the competition toolbar and click "Next". Entrants must then give the image a name, select the appropriate category, give an explanation why the image represents Britain and click "Submit" ("Submission Entry");
(together, an "Entry", and persons making such Entries, an "Entrant").
7. Entrants acknowledge that some images generated by Live Search may be subject to the intellectual property rights (including copyright) of a third party. Microsoft does not encourage or condone Entrants submitting images to the Competition that infringe the rights of a third party. In the event Microsoft is notified that an image infringes the intellectual property rights, or any other right, of a third party it shall promptly remove the image from the Competition.
It really does give the impression it's the image and not the concept that's being judged and that they'd pull it if someone complained. Not that anyone would know, of course, until the images were posted later on and the winners had already collected their prizes?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Reply received from Nikon:
Thank you for your email.
Nikon acknowledges your concerns with regards to the 'Iconic Britain' competition. We would like to assure you that we are in direct discussion with Microsoft (as the responsible promoter) to address the reported issues, and will request that Microsoft formally respond to you with more detail on the outcome of these discussions ASAP.
Whilst we recognise that Nikon UK Ltd is associated with Iconic Britain by providing prizes and a nominated judge via a third party agency, we would like you to understand that we are not the promoter and have at no time been involved in the development of the terms and conditions or the running of Iconic Britain. Therefore, we would recommend that in the first instance communication should be directed to msncompetitions@thin-martian.com.
Nikon takes copyright very seriously, and endeavours to ensure that photographers’ rights are protected at all times. To that end we are continuing to put weight behind your comments to ensure that solutions are in place post the competition closing on the 31.07.08
In the meantime, Microsoft has been informed of your request to remove the images from the competiton - please rest assured this is being actioned.
We appreciate your patience and understanding.
Yours faithfully,
Simon Coleman
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>tabhastal wrote
>
>>axelr wrote
>>
>>Refrain from uploading your images to the internet if you are
>>concerned about what others might do with them.
>
>This is such a bullshit statement and I am getting very tired of
>hearing it. There's got to be a better way.
Like? (please elaborate)
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Axel Rietschin edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
@axelr: By making the statement, "Refrain from uploading your images", you and others who say this are advising people to avoid use of the Internet as if trying to protect intellectual property rights was a useless effort. It is the same as telling people to not have children as their children may be molested, stolen or brainwashed. It is giving up. That is bullshit.
You should instead be encouraging people to find a solution. There is a solution and we will achieve it with enough thought and effort. It will take a lot of public comment, consumer action, legislative action, technical invention to fix this; but we will fix it. If you are not part of the solution then you are passively part of the problem. It is okay to let people know that there is a problem with no solution, yet, but don't encourage people to give up.
:)
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
tabhastal edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
Michael J Photography [deleted] says:
wow...complain much people, read what its about and how the images are gathered, then realize you posed images on the internet and thus everyone who wants to can see them, you don't want that then take them off or make them private, but really stop over reacting
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@tabhastal: It's difficult to set rules when there is no way to enforce them.
Besides that all I see here is one outraged poster spamming Flickr with his Microsoft hatred, and a bunch of folks getting all emotional because some of their pictures turned up on an image search engine...
On a related note, it kind of make me smile that the same people vociferously complain about DRM systems, and Microsoft's attempts at them in particular, systems who's very purpose is to try to protect intellectual property.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Axel Rietschin edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
The whole competition is kind of stupid.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I can't believe in all this that no-one's pointed out that Joanna Lumley is a judge!
And the photo of her is the same one on my SatNav!!!
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Why Did Microsoft Launch Iconic Britain?
Microsoft have ambitions of competing with Google Image Search, and to do that they must promote Microsoft's Live Search and increase the number of users of that product. They decided to launch a campaign to promote Live Search, and the vehicle for the campaign was to be a photo contest in which Live Search was to play a major part. They also needed another high profile partner, someone with a big name in the imaging world, Nikon would do just fine. Two big names will make a big splash and should get lots of new users for Live search.
The competition website, to be called Iconic Britain, needed images to promote the contest, and of course, by default, the product, Live Search. Instead of obtaining images in the public domain free of copyright to place on the website, or simply buying a bunch of RF images, Microsoft decided to populate their website with other peoples imagery, using these images to promote the contest and by default their product, Live Search.
Why Microsoft thought it was correct to use other peoples imagery to promote their product, Live Search, to use the imagery freely and without permission, boggles the imagination. If you would like to read extensive detail about this scam, and a statement from Microsoft read this article -
www.pro-imaging.org/content/view/401/154/
Scroll down to the Microsoft Headlines.
Here you will find that Nikon have withdrawn their judge, Simon Coleman, from the contest. Not only that but Nikon have withdrawn from the contest, the Nikon logo has been removed from the Microsoft website. Now Microsoft is only left with one partner, Rex. When looking at the Iconic Britain website refresh your browser cache to see the changes.
I hope this explanation of the reason for the contest helps in understanding Microsoft's motives and business practices.
Gordon C Harrison
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
gordonc.harrison edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
Make alot of sensse Gordonc.
My personal feeling has always been that I place my pics here as a hobby, if I was a pro I would not post the things I intend to sell. How many of us have dll a MP3 or a DVD or even a OS for our computers and thought nothing of it. Seems now the table are turned.
Also think about all the countries that have no copyright law you can just imagine how many pictures they are dll.
What makes the Internet so great is also what makes it easy to bypass Copyright.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
axelr On a related note, it kind of make me smile that the same people vociferously complain about DRM systems, and Microsoft's attempts at them in particular, systems who's very purpose is to try to protect intellectual property.
Sweeping generalisations really support your argument. Well done.
If you don't care about your images that is your affair. You have no right to condemn those who do.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
...Steve edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
Here's an in-depth article about the competition:
copyrightaction.com/forum/iconic-brtain
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
axelr> a bunch of folks getting all emotional because some of their pictures turned up on an image search engine...
It's not just pictures turning up on a search engine. Let me show an example: I search for my own userid ( www.iconicbritain.co.uk/search.aspx?q=gustavog ) and I'm presented with 23 thumbnails in a single page. Many of the thumbnails are of my own photos, some others are photos I commented on, and yet some more belonging to other people that call themselves gustavog. Clearly, this is either a very weak search engine that finds only a tiny fraction of my photos (and of any other gustavog out there), or it is searching a very restricted set of images.
Then I look at the actual URL of one of the images:
ts3.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1654321250978...
Can you please link me to the flickr page of that photo?
(Here's the answer - if you can show me how to get from one to the other, I'll very much appreciate it.)
So I don't know what exactly that thumbnail.aspx script is doing, whether it's retrieving the image from a local database at live.com or sourcing from flickr.com. In any case, it certainly doesn't provide the tools to identify the source of the image.
No matter where the image sits, the tool isn't functioning as a web search engine. It is helping the viewer retrieve an image in the context of that website, unattributed and untraceable.
I hope that clarifies what the problem is.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
GustavoG edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
axelr wrote @tabhastal: It's difficult to set rules when there is no way to enforce them.
Agreed. But, if everyone behaved themselves, if they used common courtesy to follow a photographer's wishes, there would not be any need for rules. It is the people who disregard our wishes that need the rules.
folks getting all emotional because some of their pictures turned up on an image search engine...
Wrong. It's folks getting upset because their pictures are subject to misuse because of the way the website provides access (without attribution) to their pictures.
On a related note, it kind of make me smile that the same people vociferously complain about DRM systems...
I'm not one of those.
Edit: Added middle statement and response.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
tabhastal edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
jakerome, the copyright action article is completely wrong in every respect. The author used the wrong search on the website for the purposes of doing his article. No one has a problem with a search engine doing what it is supposed to do but the search engine in the middle of the page, the one used for the competition is that one that is causing the problems.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
skinjester [deleted] says:
>> if everyone behaved themselves, if they used common courtesy to follow a photographer's wishes, there would not be any need for rules.
sigh. By placing an image on a large & public network that rewards anonymity, maybe the photographer's wish is to share, or give the product away?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
skinjester, why is the assumption that the photographer's wish is to share. I park my car on the public road but my intention is definitely NOT to share that.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wow, that's a pretty lousy browser. Just the same, my knickers are twisted. Has Flickr officially responded to this? Is there something they can do? This is clearly against the TOS of Flickr.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Shari DeAngelo edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
@skinjester: The photographer's wishes are plainly stated in their copyright choice. If the Iconic Britain website worked correctly there would be no need to guess.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
tabhastal edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
@GustavoG: other people that call themselves gustavog. WTF? Let's hunt them down and expose them for the impostors they are! ;)
Or do you have an evil twin?
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
tabhastal edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
Read the Microsoft public statement here... it appears that they cannot see what they are doing wrong.
I read that and saw this:
All images that feature on www.iconicbritain.co.uk are images from the internet that are already in the public domain.
Amusingly on the front page of that site down bottom right is a link Respect Copyright which has this to say:
Just because a work is freely available, does not mean it is in the “public domain.”
...
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Walwyn, they don't know their arse from their elbow.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
So Microsoft is running some half-assed competition, whereby you get a chance to win a camera by nominating any image in the Microsoft Live Image database. Microsoft says they'll contact the photographers of the final 100 photos to get permission to have their photos in the 2nd half of the contest.
So is the problem:
1) Microsoft copying & resizing those images on their search servers in the first place;
or
2) Microsoft displaying those images without linking back to the original page where the images were found?
or
3) Letting people drag the images into the dotted rectangle in order to nominate them?
Or is is something else completely?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Harvesting random ARR & CC licensed images from various sites/blogs (not just flickr), stripping them of the metadata and putting them on their servers. Then, using them as a resource in a competition to promote their commercial enterprise without any link back to the origin of the image; whilst stating in their terms and conditions, that the poor random sods dragging one of the said images into a godforsaken dotted rectangle, will be responsible for checking the copyright of the image before submitting it. (Quite tricky with the meta data removed...) Thus disclaiming any responsibility for a potential third party copyright breach as well.
It's quite clever in the level of crapness to be fair....
.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Trapac edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
So is it any one thing, or just that they've mashed all these bits together? Would it be OK if they linked back? Would it be OK of they didn't have the daft statement about checking copyright? Is it OK when images are cataloged by search engines in the first place?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It's a kind of mashup of a load of really daft things - made much worse by the lack of a link back...
Thumbnails used by search engines, with a link back to the image/photographer, and where you can identify the license terms, are considered OK within the notion of fair use. That's why there's no issue here with the main Windows Live Search (I still think it's rubbish but that's not enough to get it banned sadly...;). In that sense, there is no difference between it and Google search, Yahoo search etc.....
However, on the little search thingy they use halfway down the main page of the competition, you are led to an endless supply of thumbnails without a link back - not good at all.
Thumbnails with their original metadata removed and then replaced with random jpeg files numbers, indicating storage somewhere else? Somewhat questionable.
Thumbnails being used to support and promote a commercially driven competition, without any recognition of the origins of the image; under a basis that there's no need to bother about informing/requesting or even recognising the owner (or perhaps more importantly - the license terms) unless, wait for it - their image is required for a 'final stage'. Only then will MS ask them then if it's OK to use that image. That's deeply dodgy... Especially given that they seem to hold the random Joe voting for the image responsible for establishing the copyright status before submitting it....
Also a little fly in the ointment is the Orphaned Works Legislation - technically if MS have stuff on their servers without a link back, and the owner doesn't know about it, such images really could get swept up....
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Trapac edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
the images that they have stored in the "live search -- look for an image to enter" search must have been harvested a long time ago...
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Brenda Anderson edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
Wow. This is pretty blatant copyright infringement. And it's not like it's comign from an anonymous little startup in the middle of nowhere. This is Microsoft, harvesting results from their search engine for promotional purposes. Pretty appalling.
Are mages that are excluded from search results showing up here?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Okay, this topic is also being discussed in the Help Forum, where I would expect that any "official" response would be directed...
So perhaps this discussion should continue there.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
When I searched for "aheram" it turned up results that were mostly my work, but also other ones related to me (like a thumbnail from a Vimeo video that is about me, but I did not make) and definitely not me (but still a legitimate "aheram" result).
It seems to be independent of the Flickr API and not at all Flickr-related. Unless you consider every single instance where your photographs show up to be Flickr-related. :)
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
It's really laughable. It's a terrible promotion, the pages can't even load properly, and it seems that not all of the images from the search are visible.
And I did mention really small thumbnails.
And that maps show up in these searches.
It's a joke site. I wouldn't get too riled up about it. Even if Microsoft is involved.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Lisanne! wins the thread.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Too bad we're not giving out Nikon DSLRs.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I found two of my images in their stored collection of un-attributed images of ‘iconic’ Britain. One of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the other of the train station at the Olympic site in Sydney.
So, if that is an example of the search engine they are trying to promote, I’m staying with Google!
I thought I might get into the swing of things, and I entered my Sydney Harbour Bridge photo, and in the comments field (where you explain why this is an iconic image) I advised that this particular piece of ironwork is the prettiest bridge across the Thames River …
BTW, another irritating part of this is that when you submit an image from this pool of images selected for you, you can re title the image to what ever you want. Now I know some people spend a LOT of time considering the image / title combination… another example of the poor execution of this whole concept.
And I did not even win a camera....
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
bruce-p edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
Well, I got a response from Microsoft:
Dear Mr. Cooper,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to this matter.
At Microsoft we take copyright very seriously and endeavour to provide all users of our products with guidance on respecting copyright. However you have informed us that you object to certain of your images being submitted by users and displayed through the competition mechanism and that you do not wish these images to be included in the competition. Please be reassured that we will take steps to ensure that each image you have reported to us will not be used again within the competition.
The initial stage of the Iconic Britain competition, in which users submit entries, closes at 1pm on Thursday 31st July, after which we will be compiling all submissions ready for voting prior to the Final 100 reveal at the end of August. Naturally, we will exclude those images you have notified to us from this voting. Microsoft will obtain the consent of the copyright owner in relation to all images that will be featured on www.iconicbritain.co.uk during the Voting and Reveal stages of the competition.
Sincerely,
J.K. Weston
Legal and Corporate Affairs
Microsoft Corporation USA
Seems they're still trying to turn it onto the people who submit the images, and don't regognise there's a general problem, but at least it's a reasonable response.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Ben Cooper edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
I've blogged about this here and here. In particular it's significant that Microsoft's presentation of images indexed using the live.com search engine fails to comply with fair use provisions. This is commercial use of images for the purpose of promoting Microsoft and Nikon. I've also posted the text of the reply I got from Microsoft. Weasels to the last... ;-)
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The Iconic Britain site is so confusing. Anyway, I tried clicking the "Vote Now" button, entered my flickr name in the Live Search bar, and the same results show up, but this time with links to the sources.
None of my photos that came up in the search results link back to my flickr account, but some link back to my deviantart and JPG accounts. Meanwhile, most of them link back to other people's MySpaces, blogs, etc. Who knows who stole my photos in the first place... I even found one picture with my watermark removed! Argh.
So it's possible that the Icon Britain site did not really harvest photos from flickr, but other sites... Well, in my case anyway.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@Ben Cooper - that's a standard response. I got exactly the same one, but have responded to say that I still expect payment for their re-publishing of my photos.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Intermanaut edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm putting their Vista operating system on P2P.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
GabrielR [deleted] says:
This is very nice, flickr.
Im seeing there a few of my pictures...it doesnt gets me that bad...
...BUT:
....I can se also one that i uploaded to flickr for just one day and then deleted it, and im talking weeks ago.
How can be that possible? If i deleted it from flickr? WHO THE F*CK HAS IT NOW????
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nobody. They cached the image as a thumbnail weeks ago, when it was on Flickr.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
Lisanne! edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
|
Microsoft, they are using their thumbnail database, that the images no longer link anywhere is besides the point. What this is doing is allowing people to submit images for consideration to some tawdry promotional competition. A submitters may win a $10 disposable camera, but that has nothing to do with the competition per se.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
GabrielR [deleted] says:
well...unless somebody is sending a mental recording of my image to the livesearch engines...i guess that NOBODY doesnt apply here.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
There's no image, just a thumbnail,
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
hmm, i think i'll carry on using google images and ideé when its working fully.
Microsoft have never made a great piece of software, let alone webapp, so don't really see everyone flocking to use their engine.
What gets my back up is if you pirate a copy of any ms stuff, they will winge as much as possible, but its perfectly acceptable for them to do what they are in the comp.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
GabrielR [deleted] says:
Ohh gosh.....thats some new point of view.
¿¿Does it has to be a 10000000 x 1000000000 image to qualify as a copyright infringement?? Does it has to be "usable"??
Of course not.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
GabrielR [deleted] says:
Maybe now all of you working on those Win UE v.7 can feel good about it.
Yup....right.....thats not WINDOWS...its just a "lighter version".
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was quite miffed.
I had to get to page seven before I found one of my shots - is my photosnapping really that crap?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Perhaps we should all vote for our own photos? That would put a spanner in the works - or would it ?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As I license most of my photos with a CC:Attribuition license, I think they are technically violating my copyright by not naming the author (me). Would it be reasonable to send them a bill, of say 1 Euro or 1 Pound (it's only a thumbnail after all)?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just a thought.....by not linking back to the original photo, aren't they in breach of flickr's T&C? So, would it not be possible for Flickr/Yahoo to demand all ARR and relevant CC images from here be taken down. As they have a lot more 'clout' than even everyone who has posted in any of the group discussion threads on this matter (and there are a LOT of them), might it not be the case that where all 'we' seem to get is the shrugging of shoulders from Microsoft, Yahoo/Flickr might actually succeed in getting the competition stopped. Failing that there's always the Press?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just a thought.....by not linking back to the original photo, aren't they in breach of flickr's T&C
????
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
it's a scam, if you ask me
look at the whois info for the registrant of the website:
iconicbritain.co.uk = [ 85.13.244.61 ]
(Asked whois.nic.uk:43 about iconicbritain.co.uk)
Domain name:
iconicbritain.co.uk
Registrant:
Domain Contact At Thin Martian
Trading as:
Thin Martian Ltd
Registrant type:
UK Individual
Registrant's address:
1st Floor Studio
32 to 37 Cowper Street
LONDON
LONDON
EC2A 4AW
GB
Registrar:
Fasthosts Internet Ltd [Tag = FASTHOSTS]
URL: www.fasthosts.co.uk
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 10-Apr-2008
Renewal date: 10-Apr-2010
Last updated: 10-Apr-2008
Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.
Name servers:
ns1.tdmweb.com
ns2.tdmweb.com
WHOIS lookup made at 18: 18: 04 31-Jul-2008
--
PLUS, the site is hosted on an IP associated with RIPE
OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre
OrgID: RIPE
Address: P.O. Box 10096
City: Amsterdam
StateProv:
PostalCode: 1001EB
Country: NL
Which is notorious for hosting scam artists, phishing attack specialist and spammers from across the globe.
It reminds me of those emails you get saying that your photo won a contest, all you have to do is buy a copy of the book the winners will be published in to get your prize and such.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
IMO, MS is far too big a company to be lazy in the intellectual property/ copyright infringement department. I have no reason to publicly bash MS (except for being ignorant) but, I applaud all of you that have twisted "knickers" over this. I also think that Nikon needs to steer clear of these non-photographer entered contests. Find a picture on the internet that you like? Give me a break. I have never heard of a contest like this, and I hope to never hear of it again. We get "harvested" enough just submitting our own images to contests.
The internet is not always reality but, it is the future. As long as there is a right-click, save-as left in this world, our images are at risk of theft. Some of us shoot for hire, some of us sell prints. Every piece of equipment cost money. RAW processing takes time. I will not knowingly let anyone use my images without my permission. It may contribute to keeping my lively hood more "lively".
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
OK I just googled Thin Martian's address and got their website with their phone number www.thinmartian.com/ateam001.php
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Isn't the A-TEAM copyrighted? (see link above)
I pity the fool! (Mr. T:)
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
This has just come up on the Pro-Imaging Website:
Statement From Nikon
Today, 31st July 2008 the following statement was issued by Nikon;
STATEMENT:
Nikon would like to confirm that it has withdrawn its support from Microsoft’s Iconic Britain competition. This is due to the feedback and concerns raised by photographers and entrants surrounding the competition mechanic that was developed and promoted by Microsoft.
Nikon will fulfil its prize commitment to the winners, however it will not be associated with the competition going forward
We appreciate your feedback, understanding and continued support.
Pro-Imaging Response To Nikon Statement
Pro-Imaging would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the decision taken by Nikon. We know that photographers everywhere will appreciate Nikon's concern for photographers rights.
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I too have had two images taken without consent and have sent an email to MS and Nikon. I have just received the same reply as Ben Cooper. I think it is a good idea for us all (photographers) to challenge individuals as well as companies who do this.
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
StudioCB edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
GabrielR [deleted] says:
who said flood rampage?
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"The submission period is now over."
Posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I found about 10 of mine, amusingly not my best, on there yesterday, sent a notice of infringement email, cc'd to my solicitor, yesterday but not heard anything back yet?
I do find Microsoft's Service Agreement, help.live.com/help.aspx?project=tou&mkt=en-gb, particularly amusing, especially the penultimate sentance;
"Respect Copyright
Please respect the rights of artists and creators. Content such as music, photos and video may be protected by copyright. People appearing in content may have a right to control use of their image. You may not share other people's content unless you own the rights or have permission from the owner."
Originally posted 47 months ago.
(permalink)
richie hall edited this topic 47 months ago.
|
|
www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/_nikon_exits_microsoft...
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
lol. Look at the cameras at the page now...
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads