How is this different from PicScout?

[Moe Hacken]

Thanks everybody for your insights. Lucia, especially your great summary of options we have to protect our server data from unwelcome intrusions.

I'm trying to think of reasonable ways for a website developer to be able to continue a useful workflow without exposing themselves to the trolls. We have seen, for example, that even commercially licensed Wordpress templates can get a body in trouble.

I guess one practical way to protect oneself during the development stage of a website project is to completely password-protect the directory that the website is in so that only a select group of people, e.g. the clients and designers, can view the project online. In theory the bots won't be able to break into an .htaccess-protected directory. This gives the developer time to research the images well and make the best effort to clear all images (and other content, for that matter) before actually "publishing" the page. That would work, wouldn't it, Lucia?

A lot of the people getting caught in this were in the development stage or had employees or designers make an innocent infringement during development. The question of what constitutes "publishing" is also a gray area, but one can drown in that gray sea. The best protection is, of course, to only use images that are under full licensing and legal control of the responsible parties.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm trying to think of reasonable ways for a website developer to be able to continue a useful workflow without exposing themselves to the trolls.

I guess one practical way to protect oneself during the development stage of a website project is to completely password-protect the directory that the website is in so that only a select group of people, e.g. the clients and designers, can view the project online.

This gives the developer time to research the images well and make the best effort to clear all images (and other content, for that matter) before actually "publishing" the page.

The best protection is, of course, to only use images that are under full licensing and legal control of the responsible parties.

Fully agree with password protecting directories for projects that are under developement.

The only time a developer should have to research any images is if the developer is supplying the images, which doesn't always work, we have seen examples of images being properly licensed by the developer, but the trolls still go after the end user.

What I have done in this regards is to educate my clients on the issues at hand, and I require my clients to supply me with images and content, knowing full well what the issues are. If they then choose to grab images from google, it's not my problem. This is clearly stated in my contract, as well as my hosting policy I also go so far as to include in my contract a "hold harmless" clause, so my clients cannot come back at me for something they supplied to me AFTER it has been explained to them how they should acquire images /content.

You'd be shocked to hear how many of them say "I'll take my chances" or "what are the odds of getting nabbed"...after hearing this a few times is when I added the clause in my contract. Just like here on ELI we can't help everybody, especially those that are thick headed and don't "get it". I always do what in the best interest of my clients, but sometimes you just have to raise your arms in surrender..

[SoylentGreen]

Save your time and worry.
Just don't use any products from Getty, Masterfile, or anyone else that uses Picscout.
Saved everyone some time... you're welcome!!

S.G.

[Moe Hacken]

You'd be shocked to hear how many of them say "I'll take my chances" or "what are the odds of getting nabbed"...after hearing this a few times is when I added the clause in my contract. Just like here on ELI we can't help everybody, especially those that are thick headed and don't "get it". I always do what in the best interest of my clients, but sometimes you just have to raise your arms in surrender..

Buddhapi, I wouldn't be shocked at all. I knew a hippie silkscreen artist in San Diego, CA, who was the ultimate Dead Head and a very talented graphic artist and silkscreener. He made these beautiful tie-dye shirts with the famous Grateful Dead "Steal Your Face" skull on the front, but his shirts had an interesting twist: He had one version with the San Diego Padres script overlapping the top of the skull, and another one with the Chargers Bolts on the skull, kind of like they wear it on the helmets. They were very cool. He approached me at a bar in Ocean Beach and offered to sell me one. I asked him why they didn't have his shirts at the ballpark. He laughed and said they don't want him using the logo, but he felt he had a constitutional right to free commerce, and the MLB is too big to go after a little silkscreener, yada yada. He also said "if the Dead don't care, why should the Padres."

Long story short, I later heard he was arrested inside the concourse of Qualcomm stadium while shamelessly hawking those shirts.

I don't know if it's true that he was arrested, but I can guarantee you I personally saw on the OUTSIDE of the concourse at Qualcomm stadium, right outside the gate and in plain view of security personnel, totally hawking his shirts like a carnival barker.

My point is that I do believe there is a serious cultural problem with copyright-related issues. There are all kinds of misconceptions, misinformation and outright myths out there, and no shortage of outright defiance of copyright law.

I very much understand the frustration of people whose property is being taken. No one likes to have their stuff stolen and it's just not fair or just or right in anyway. Taking an image that belongs to someone else is tantamount to shoplifting with your right-click button.

[lucia]

<blockquote>In theory the bots won't be able to break into an .htaccess-protected directory. This gives the developer time to research the images well and make the best effort to clear all images (and other content, for that matter) before actually "publishing" the page. That would work, wouldn't it, Lucia?</blockquote>
It should. Make sure the images are in the same protected directory as the web page. This minimizes the potential for screwups.  The default for wordpress is to store the images in their own directory-- and blog posts and pages are protected differently.  But you can protect the images-- you just need to remember to do so.

It's best to protect stuff during development for all sorts of reasons.  Even aside from copyright-- you probably don't want competitors snooping around. (Ok... I know for lots of sites this is a silly idea. But really, it's best to protect during development.)