I haven't uploaded this photo in such high resolution anywhere other than 1x:

https://1x.com/photo/1000117/latest:user:325764

He's posted it here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shogunwise/20446706834/

 

His 1x:

https://1x.com/member/shogunz

His flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shogunwise/

 

You can see a lot of other photos that have been published on 1x, also in high resolution.

 

 

Bobby - you can report abuse on Flickr (scroll to the bottom of the image page to find the button).

 

Also report to 1x Admin to investigate how he got hold of your hi res image.

 

Thanks for drawing this to every one's attention. I hope you can resolve matters quickly!

 

Linda

Thanks Linda

Reporting on Flickr requires too much time and personal data. The fact that he's getting the photos from here seems more worrisome.

It's always possible to make a screen grab of photos published anywhere on the internet. However, high resolution print files are kept safe and can not be downloaded from the internet from 1x. I would recommend reporting it to flickr and the photos will be taken down.

Hi Ralf, I'm aware you can do a screenshot but one of the photos from a fellow 1x user uploaded there is 2500х1666px and has a full exif. Mine also has the exif.

Even that person's profile picture has been lifted from the web...

Or is it because 1x.com is giving away high resolution photos to the so called "printing partners"? in which case 1x.com doesn't have any control over the security of the images?

This person has uploaded lots of photos which are the work of other photographers. There are many photos of members 500px too.

I have informed several members of 1X and 500PX of the illegal use of their photos by this individual. The least 1X admin can do is ban this man from the site. I have rarely seen such abuse.

He stolen also one of my pictures:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shogunwise/21483248548/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shogunwise/21480379699/

 

My original:

https://1x.com/photo/1006502/latest:user:577809

https://500px.com/photo/117157559/lights-of-the-city-by-luca-fontana?from=user_library

 

Luc Vangindertael was so kind to tell me this.

 

The point of Flikr is that to make a Copyright flag you need or a Yahoo account or a Flikr account, and I don't have both of them...I sent an email to 1X support asking for help.

 

If someone in the maintime could help me in anyway (flagging the picture on Flikr or making comments below the photo), I would be so thanksfull!

 

BTW, on his picture he lost my full exif, so I think he is only making good quality screenshoots from here or 500px...But I can't be 100% sure of this off course.

I strolled through the web and if I'm not completely wrong, this person publishes also a blog with images in HD.

 

http://scentofapassion.tumblr.com

 

In this blog he says that none of the displayed photos were made by himself. Below every photo he mentions the author and says if any author doesn't agree with the publication in his blog he will remove the photo from the blog.

 

On Facebook I found someone named Ziad De Goldenheart. This could be the same person.

 

https://www.facebook.com/ziadpassion

 

In the image-flow there it seems to be that these are also images that are not made by himself but there is no info at all about the photographers and no copyright-notice anywhere.

 

This as information for all who are involved in this issue.

 

Cheers, Hans-Martin

 

In addition to my previous post:

 

I strolled through the blog scentofapassion and found two images by Matjaz Cater ("Sunbeam Storm" and "Fall").

 

Both images are apparently screenshots from the 1x-images because in the left lower border there is the small Copyright from 1x: © Matjaz Cater. Exactly the same script in white color and with the same type of the letters.

 

I don't think that the original high res files that are given by 1x to the printers have this copyright notice.

 

It's interesting to see, when you compare both images: The copyright notice on the 1x-image is very crisp while it is less crisp on the image from the blog.

 

So I think the images (at least from the blog) are screenshots.

 

Cheers, Hans-Martin

 

 

You are most probably right, the photos are screenshots.

I strolled through the blog and found a huge amount of 1X published photos, all in screen resolution.

Nevertheless, this is not fair practice. To reproduce copyrighted material you need the consent of the author,

 

Cheers,

Luc

Another addition to my previous posts:

 

I strolled through the flickr - stream of Ziad Shogun to find out if I know any image from 1X. On page 6 I found one fine art nude image that is one of my favorites in my 1X fine art nude playlist.

 

https://1x.com/photo/772684/

 

It's by Fabrizio Micheli and called "Alessandra".

 

You find this photo in the flickr-stream on page 6 at the bottom of the page

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shogunwise/page6

 

It was published by 1X ten months ago (Dec 2014) and uploaded by Ziad Shogun to his flickr stream in April 2015.

 

Regrettably Fabrizo has not opted for including the Copyright notice on the left lower border on his 1X-images, would be interesting to see what Ziad Shogun uploads to Flickr when there is the Copyright notice on the image. Probably he makes a screenshot and cuts off the small lower part with the notice. Or he uploads only the photos without Copyright notice to the Flickr stream and the other (with Copyright notice) he uploads to his blog.

 

Cheers, Hans Martin

 

On the same page 6 there are at least 2 photos from Peter Müller for which he claims the copyright.

Sigh ...

 

Stimmt ! Die Dame im Fond kam mir doch gleich so bekannt vor !

 

Oh sorry, I'll try it in English. The lady in the fond of the car seemed familiar to me !

 

"Caught in a moment of absence" by Peter Müller

 

https://1x.com/photo/869380/

 

This photo has the Copyright notice on the left lower border.

 

And if you have a close look on the flickr - photo:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shogunwise/17161106241/

 

you see this exactly like it is seen on the 1X-image.

 

That's the proof that these flickr-photos are screenshots.

 

PS

I'm surprised that this 1X-member Ziad (with no single uploaded photo) has 35 1X-followers and 17 entries on his guestbook, primarily thanks for following. Now we know why he follows the work from other 1X-members. To make screenshots and show them on the web as his own images. Very fine !

 

Cheers, Hans-Martin

 

 

Some are screenshots. Some are bigger and have the correct exif

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shogunwise/20447022614/in/dateposted/

 

This photo from ElyzaLy has the same resolution on 1X, so it is probably a screen grab.

 

I noticed Ziad faved this photo on 1X before copying .... you need guts to do that :)

 

Don't think it's the same - if you click on the flickr download link there's also "original (2500x1666)".

 

But let's assume you're right about the resolution, how would you explain the incredibly detailed exif on the flickr photo? How would a screenshot retain all this data when in reality screenshots do what their name suggests, they are direct copy of what you see on the screen, so you can crop and mask watermarks but you certainly don't get the exif data.

 

Yes, you are right, the detailed EXIF is puzzling me too.

I will brief ElizaLy on the infringement.

Maybe she has an explanation ?

 

Cheers

Luc

 

Maybe those pictures are uploaded also on a website where you can see the full EXIF, so he grabs from 1x for the big resolution of the screenshoots but take the EXIF from 500px or something else...that's just a theory off course.

The last discussions/topic makes me want the clear 1X watermark back. Or perhaps a watermark as 500px has, that one is optional. The smal name watermark is not good enough I'm afraid.

For Everyone,

The member has been banned and this has been reported to Ralf.

 

If your photo is on Flicker or any other website, please contact the administration of that site to ask that it be removed.

 

Thanks much for letting us know.

 

My best,

Phyllis

Forum Moderator

 

With all due respect, I don't believe this issue can be dismissed so easily. According to Bobby, he uploaded a high resolution version of the photo only here, on 1x.com. It is a serious matter and I don't think 1x.com can just burry their head in the sand.

 

Hi, Mihai,

 

tell us, please, what shall 1X do in this issue ? Please specify your proposal in detail !

 

I would suggest, Bobby shall contact the person who infringes his rights and ask him from which source the high res file at Flickr comes. If he gets no answer he shall go to a lawyer to find this out.

 

I don't like it that this theme is brought up here again and again.

 

Cheers, Hans-Martin

Seriously? your solution to the problem is to ask the thief?? has 1x.com investigated the matter? was the photo send to any of the 1x.com "partners" for printing? I would believe that Bobby's allegations are quite serious and should be treated accordingly...

and the simple thing that this issue is brought up here again and again should be a question mark, not a reason to be frustrated.

 

Mihai,

 

I'm no lawyer and I don't know exactly the purpose of Flickr but as long as somebody publishes images on the web (own images and images by other authors as well) without offering them for sale to anybody else I'm not quite sure if that infringes the rights of the copyright owner.

 

Many of my images are seen on walls at Pinterest, Weheartit or any similar other image-sharing-platforms.

 

Even if the publisher conveys the impression that the images are created by himself, I don't know if that behavior is punishable.

 

Provided that the context in which the images are presented is acceptable.

 

The discussed photos shown at Flickr all bear the Copyright notice "All rights with the owner". That means that nobody may use these photos for commercial purposes without written consent of the author.

 

And I doubt that image sharing platforms without sales offers (and I think Flickr does not offer the photos for sale, other than 500px) are commercial driven for the uploader of images.

 

A procedure that is surely not allowed is the usage of third party images on a commercial homepage without written consent of the copyright owner and without mentioning his name.

 

But, as said, I'm no lawyer and I'm not familiar with Flickr.

 

What I find particularly disturbing (it really bothers me) that since a few months through deliberately spread rumors about the security of images in the database of 1X some very skilled photographers have left 1X. I spoke to some of them and they told me that the reason was the issue that is discussed here.

 

I regret it that rumors can lead to such incomprehensible reactions.

 

Cheers, Hans-Martin

 

Steeling images on the internet is - unfortunately - done everywhere

In the past resolution limitations were still an issue.

But the today's digital processing techniques have reduced these limitations a lot.

It becomes easily possible to blow up images substantially without a significant loss of quality (talk to Adobe people !)

A screen shot and blowing that up is then even the easiest way.

So don't just refer to the image resolution of the displayed images

 

The only thing we can do is to be very alert and to react immediately to these people.

Threatening with legal actions is then a further possibility; often already sufficient.

 

All the best

 

Jef

 

ohh, I'm suprised

 

have a view here and you also will suprised:

 

http://www.greatbigcanvas.com/category/1x-collection/?page=2

 

found 2 of my pics and at the moment I didn't have seen any money ...

not from 1x, not from greatbeg canvas...nice

 

since 2 month I have changed my pic and take out of selling

 

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

 

I'm not a lawyer either but I have asked sites that have used my photos without my consent or without naming me as the copyright holder to remove them. As alternative a fine could be payed. Normally reliable sites take the photos down without problem. But f.eks. certain russian sites think they can do whatever they want. So copyright problems can't be solved in a decent way.

And yes, I have asked individuals that infringe the copyright too. They normally know exactly what they are doing but don't give a sh....

However is that person using a Google site it is easy to use a DMCA form and get that person banned. How to deal with copyright ingringement depends were and how it is happening. Sometimes it is just accepting that the world is unfair.

 

That is why I would like proper watermarking on 1x, just to make it a little more difficult for thieves.

@Karl-Heinz Bitter

Information about greatbigcanvas here:

https://who.is/whois/greatbigcanvas.com

 

Does that mean that all Pinterest-activities are Copyright infringements, because it is a display of protected work?

 

Cheers

Hans-Martin

 

I would strongly recommend that 1x make watermarking and copyright notice the default for all accounts to help reduce the worries of members. I am no longer a paying member since I don't post quite as much but I do like to participate on the site from time to time and it would be nice if I can get watermarking for my images. Also maybe have an even lower resolution file (800 pixels) as default if you don't login with a 1x account.

Few days ago, I saw that this member liked my picture with the birdie. I became curious, when I saw that there are no photos in his account in 1x and found him via google in Flickr.

I realized that there are many photos of different authors. And my picture too, without giving me credit, my name or link to 1x.

I have no explanation for the Exif. This is my camera and settings.

Thanks for banning him. I will report in Flickr.

Regards!

 

They are listed here

https://1x.com/blog/permalink/7489

 

Seems to be okay

Same could be asked about FaceBook, G+ etc are the pictures taken and published as if they were their own work or is a link shared with mentioning source and copyright holder. There is a difference and I react to the first.

I just had a look at this fellow's Flickr portfolio and have recognized a LOT from 1x photographers!!

 

I have had several images "Favourited" by 1x members who have no profile pic, no personal information, no published images and NO images uploaded to his/her portfolio. This has always made me uneasy, that a 1x member who has nothing in their portfolio, is "favouriting" my images.

 

I belong to Flickr and when Flickr members favourite an image of mine (especially my young female models) and they do not have any images in their portfolio, I immediately block them. Blocking a member in Flickr, removes all of my images from their favourited list and stops them from seeing my work in the future.

 

Perhaps we can implement a feature like that in 1x - where we can at any time, block members and delete images from members whom we do not wish to see or favourite our work?

@harry,

 

maybe they are listet, and at this point I don't talk about "stolen" and greatbigcanvas.

Maybe, this is not the right thread for my point...

 

but for me it's not ok, because I have changed all photos which had the option "for sale" and I don't whish that 1x sell my picture to anyone.

Why:

there are two of my pictures sold this year, and my earning is 1,57€ each, and nobody asked me, if I want sell my pictures for this price. NO, I wouldn't!

That's not the price, which I will see for selling my pictures, because that's same to give them away for nothing. It's a question of respect for the artist, my meaning

I don't understand, why 1x gives right away for such small money. They will be an fineart gallery and sell pictures like a discounter.

And the point for payout is 90 $/€. I have to sell a lot of pcitures for this small money to get real money. This is not mine, sorry!

 

 

Hi Darlene,

I have the same feeling about "zero photo/zero identity" members, and now and then I go out checking if I can find "similar images" of my work on the internet. So far no hits, ... but I am not in the young models photography, probably that helps :)

 

Thanks for your hint on how to manage a Fick'r account. A very good idea that can inspire the 1X management too. But let's not become too suspicious. New members need some time to present their work here, and the work of others is inspiration, that's how photographers grow.

 

 

Thanks Phyllis, that was the right thing to do :)

 

Hi Luc......

 

Yes, you are right that we should not become too suspicious. Unfortunately, I'm sure it makes many people uneasy when a new member with no images, no name, no country, no personal info - favourites a photo.

 

Perhaps if we made it a little harder and time consuming for the members with ill-intentions? I think it is very reasonable to require new members to upload an ID icon, state where they are from and a little bit about themselves.

I realize that in the case we are discussing right now, "Ziad GoldenHeart" has uploaded an ID Photo. The comments in his guest book are quite interesting. Some members are referring to seeing his portraits on Facebook??

 

Again, perhaps give the members the opportunity to remove favourited images from other members at our discretion?

If anyone has found their work on this guy's Flickr site and does not have a Flickr account, drop me a line with the image link and I will attach a message on your behalf under your photo on his account.

 

*Darlene*

Hello,

 

As everyone here I'm very sad to read this story about stolen photos. I can't bear this kind of behavior.

I'm sad but not surprised, because as everyone should know it, internet is like a huge open space. where almost every thing is possible.The best and the worst.

I do not want to scare everyone but I think everyone has the right to know the truth.

I trust in Raf when he writes "However, high resolution print files are kept safe and can not be downloaded from the internet from 1x", I'm sure that the 1x team does its best to protect the photos database of its members, but the weakness is in the way that internet works.

I'm aware about the technical posibilities available with the computer technologies, and I discussed with a friend who shown me how to get a full copy of a picture on the web with the EXIF information included.

It's very simple just by using the browers' functionalities.

when you access on a web site like 1x your browser needs to get every information necessary to display the internet page. Even on 1x where you get the message "this photo is copyrighted" when you click with the right button, somewhere with your browser you can access to the raw information about the photo. In our case we just need the URL to access to it directly without the javascript protection of 1x.

A copy & paste of this URL in a new tab of your browser, you just have to click on it with the right button to acces to the menu where you can select the "save the picture as..." option, and you get a copy of the picture on your computer with the full EXIF informations.

I am not competent enough to provide the solution. I think it may be tough, but I hope that the 1x team will find a solution to improve the protection of the display version of the photos of its members.

For now I can only suggest two things :

Don't upload a picture (for the display version) with a too high resolution ( my pictures never exceed 1500 pixel).

Erase the EXIF informations from your your picture before upload it.

 

Regards, JAC

I'm not a layer but in my economy for art and communication degree I gave an exam about this kind of things. So take what I'm saying like 80% sure, but with the possibility of fail.

 

In the modern communication system a person can re-post a publish picture in it's original size that we published, but need always to say the copyright attribution, if the link to see the picture is public.

 

If picture is private (i.e. only in your hard disk), nobody can publish it without our written authorization.

 

If you see also on newspaper or serious news website, you always have the source written, with name of the website and artist/photographer name.

 

For example a facebook page started to use my pictures of mountains, but they had to put "photo by Luca Fontana"+link.

 

On this particular thing, I think 1X need to do something to help us for 2 reasons:

1) to make us feel safe using this professional website. We are customers (we pay for) so would be a good thing to give us the full assistance and not just tell us to make a report to Flikr.

2) to make Flikr report you need or Flikr account or Yahoo account. I personally don't have both of them. Do we really need to make an account there to make a report? I choosen 1X to get the best and to give my best, so please help us.

 

I would like to add a personal opinion in prevention of this things: today is very easy to grab pictures from websites, so I think that to "armor" our photos here is not the right way to go on (it will be difficult to enjoy the pictures then), but I think that a PRO website like 1X need to be quick to solve this kind of problems.

I have to agree with J-A Chazal. We had the same discussion in the Panoramio forum. It took someone 5 minutes to get an original file from 500px. Therefore I only upload downsized and watermarked images on the web. As I use 1x for a slightly different purpose I reluctantly upload original files.

As comment to Luca Fontana I would like to add that it is never allowed to use the images for commercial purposes without authorization.

I would like to add that I think it is strange that this issue is not dicussed more. There are so many good photographers/artists here who have more at stake as I with my ordinairy photos.

Questions concerning screen capture: Is the view resolution (2500 ) to good?

Is the name watermark too smal?

 

 

If you are very handy it is possible to download web sized photos from 1x (which means up to maximum 2500 pixels on the long side depending on how big you uploaded them from the start). However it is by no means possible to steal the original files or print files from 1x as they are stored in a different secure location and not displayed on the web.

 

If you are really worried about someone copying your images (which is impossible to avoid when you share images on the internet, you can never protect yourself from a simple screen grab) you should upload them in smaller size like 1200 pixels on the long side (again print files are always kept safe, so you can upload print files in any size).

 

About the Flickr account, please report any abuse to Flickr and they are obliged to remove the photos. This must be done by the copyright holder.

 

Good light, Ralf

Thanks for replying Ralf.

My point exactly. Is the resolution (2500) that is shown on 1x too good or should that be lower. What about the former 1x watermark? I never understood why it was abandoned. My suggestion to make that watermark optional seems reasonable.

 

The watermark was removed because a lot of users complained about altered colors because the color profiles were stripped when the watermark was added, but these are good points which we will take into consideration! Thanks Peter!

Small irritation.

It's not theft, but infringement. As photographers, we need to start using the correct language. Theft is a always criminal whereas most infringement cases are civil in their dispute.

 

Theft is when you take an item away from someone and they no longer have that item. Infringement is when someone uses a song, movie, photo without your permission.

 

 

Correct we are talking about:

Intellectual property infringement, violating an owner's exclusive rights to intangible assets such as musical, literary, or artistic works

Copyright infringement, the use of works under copyright, including reproducing, distributing, displaying, or performing the copyrighted work without permission

Source: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infringement

 

Hello all!

 

I just saw a 1x member 'Rebel Walls' who has no photos in his portfolio and I think it is someone from rebelwalls.com. He adds photos of 1x members as favorites.

 

Kind regards,

 

Stefan

 

I noticed the same yesterday when "Rebel Walls" and "rebel walls" (note, this are 2 different accounts with no photos) faved one of my photos. I have sent him following OE mail

 

Hello,

 

I noticed you faved my photo Cobweb Cathedral 2 times (once as "rebel walls" and a second time today as "Rebel Walls".

 

I also noticed that you have no photos in your portfolio and (maybe a coïncidence) there is a site REBEL WALLS selling canvas in the style of my photo.

 

If so, and if you have the intention to offer this photo for sale, please note that this work is copyrighted.

 

To my knowledge Rebel Walls is not a selling partner of 1X. You may contact 1X management for further information on partnership.

 

Sincerely,

 

Luc Vangindertael

 

No reply so far ...

Rebelwalls.com, Rebel Walls and rebel walls are being looked into.

Thank you Stefan and Luc!

 

Leigh

1x Forum Moderator

I am afraid to me is not good enough and I am pulling out of 1x.com. 1x.com doesn't have any control over what happens with our high resolution once they are sent to the " printing partners" and is not willing to take any responsibility over that.

Bye.

 

PS: you can keep the 46.46$ you owe me from selling my photos.

 

Why would 1x be responsible for the actions of the printing partners? In my opinion, It is up to the printing partners themselves to keep your file safe from copyright infringement. I believe this would also be in their interest as they intend to make money of printing your photographs ?

 

Regards

Vegar

 

Rebelwalls is one of our partners. All partners are responsible under contract for keeping any high res files safe, which means that if they wouldn't they would be sued big time. We only co-operate with trusted serious partners, which we have investigated thoroughly. All print files are kept safe and no print files have been leaked.

 

It's unfortunately possible to download or screen grab web files from all photo web sites if you are handy, it's the same no matter where you share your photos on the internet.

 

We are going to lower the web resolution on 1x to maximum 1800 pixels on the long side.

If you have any doubts whether someone offering prints is a partner of 1x or not please contact us directly ([email protected]) to get a quick reply and avoid a lot of trouble. Thanks!

@Ralf

Thanks for the information and taking our concerns seriously.

What about the optional watermark? Yes, I know that I am nagging.

 

Have a nice day.

I've written previously that 1x must publish lists of available partners as soon as they enter into an agreement. Why not put it under "more"? in a previous thread as someone mentioned that they were reviewing a company, but then I knew it was one of 1x their partners. Do not think it would hav linearly necessary to send mail and inquire about this every time we find some of our pictures......

 

 

Thanks Ralph, Rebel Walls was not listed as a partner in the blog list. That made me suspicious.

 

I agree it is impossible to avoid screen grabs, therefore the decision to lower the screen resolution on 1X is a good measure.

 

Cheers,

Luc

Hello Luc,

 

As Ralf mentioned, Rebel walls is a legitimate 1x partner. They are however not selling any photos yet and that's why they were not added to the list of active partner.

 

Thanks Thomas, case closed :) I have notified Rebel Walls that my mail is obsolete.

 

Meanwhile, Ziad GoldenHeart has changed his Flck'r account in De GoldenHeart.

Number of 1X photos have disappeared, but there are still some, guess some members have not taken action. He also disabled the comment function, makes it harder to nail him.

Thanks Leigh...

Hi Antje,

 

Please see Ralf's response in this thread.