Comments on: Artists Express Concern Over PhotoBucket

By: Solomon

Solomon — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:19:00 +0000

What concerns me about Photobucket, less than the issues with plagiarism, is that they tend to remove images without notice. Plus they remove all information on that image so you never know what or why they removed an image. They just randomly remove stuff and leave an ugly Photobucket icon to let you know what kind of bastards they are. Their censorship rules are very large and too rigid.

By: Monica Handy

Monica Handy — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:07:52 +0000

How do you get permission from the artist, in order to use their work?

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:10:23 +0000

Regarding the printing issue, I agree that any decent home printer or even Walgreens can do a respectable job, the difference though is that, by using Qoop and Photobucket, those sites are profiting from the infringement. You can't stop local printing, that is very true, but there is no reason for Qoop and Photobucket to turn a direct profit selling infringing prints, where at least printer makers earn their money selling printers.The fingerprinting issue has been licked elsewhere. When a company like Tineye, which is a tiny fraction the size of PhotoBucket and Fox can do very good fingerpriting, even when images are editied, it defeats that argument. See also PicScout for this one.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:46:23 +0000

I'd like to comment about the technical measures you are proposing. Firstly the printing issue, while I feel your pain I would note that a modern colour laser eg:http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/product/home/108.....is very cheap and able to produce prints that an untrained eye will not be able to distinguish from professional prints. And a print that is "good enough" can often be produced from almost any inkjet printer.Because of this I would say a better solution to this issue would be notification, so the uploader is notified if the image is passed (directly) to the printing option. They can obviously do nothing about indirect or local printing.As for fingerprinting, Marcus said it a year ago, it's silly, just because something exists for video does not mean that the same technique will be effective for a still image. The simplest reason is that it's a lot easier to do a minor edit to an image than it is to a video.

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:03:52 +0000

It's even more annoying when one factors in the PB sells prints and so forth of images in their galleries. Scary stuff…

By: Cara

Cara — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:06:30 +0000

okay, first deviantArt is NOT connected to Photobucked. what they upload is not put on Photobucket right away. not until an art thief comes along and illegally puts it up on Photobucket. also, if you buy something with a watermark, the print wouldn't have it (I think)that clear things up?

By: Cara

Cara — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:58:08 +0000

i agree completely. people constantly steal art from real art sites and post it without permission. it's really annoying.

By: Facebook RPG in Art Controversy | PlagiarismToday

Facebook RPG in Art Controversy | PlagiarismToday — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:32:12 +0000

[...] However, this controversy seems poised to only become increasingly ugly as the situation has become much more heated in the past 24 hours. To make matters worse, it involves another old foe of the dA community, Photobucket. [...]

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:55:00 +0000

dA is not related to PB in any way. What happens is that PB users seem to routinely put up dA images without permission. That is where the problem begins.

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:55:00 +0000

dA is not related to PB in any way. What happens is that PB users seem to routinely put up dA images without permission. That is where the problem begins.