Groundspeak Portal

I know the big topic now is about having your photos stolen from this site. Let me point out that we have some house cleaning to do too.

I first noticed it happening when we received two submissions to the "1,000 places to see…" category that had fantastic photos. A peer category manager brought it to my attention and after a very quick Google image search, the photos were found within 2-3 clicks. Needless to say we declined the waymarks and the waymarks were never resubmitted!

But it made me curious about the submitters and I started watching their submissions. Sure enough, this behavior continues. Submissions from their local area all look legitimate and the photo EXIF info indicates they are taken with the same kind of camera. Photos submitted from outside of their area shows that they are taken with a different kind of camera and the photos can usually be found within 2-3 click in Google Images. I notified some other category managers when I saw it happen and waymarks have been declined after acceptance. Other managers have continued to let waymarks stand approved after I notified them of where the photos came from.

If you want a recent example, check out today's submission from Iraq! If you want other examples of waymarks with "borrowed" photos, you can find them yourself or I could provide example waymarks and show you where the photos came from, if you're unable to do it yourself.

Poaching of photos in either direction is very disappointing.

DK

How do you view the EXIF info on a waymarking photo?

I know on Flickr there is a place to click.

You can drag out a copy of the photo from the waymark gallery to your local hard drive, (just like the poachers). On a Mac I can then display the EXIF info, if present, using iPhoto or the Preview application by Getting Info in either application. There must be apps on Windows to do the same.

DK

I have denied submissions in the past when they used a photo that I could identify as stolen.

This was part of a long discussion some time back. I tried to find it but didn't have any luck.

This one touches on it but its not the one I was thinking of it deals with plagiarism more than theft of photos.

Would you mind sending me a private note regarding the user so I could be on the lookout for possible occurrences in my categories?

Edit to add:

Ahh it was in the old forum....and a topic that I started.

It is an issue that we need to keep in mind though.

One last thought. We do need to be careful how we approach users. I declined one that was text and photo identical only to find that the user was the web mistress for the location waymarked. I am glad I was polite.

gt.us:

How do you view the EXIF info on a waymarking photo? I know on Flickr there is a place to click.

There's a Firefox add-on that allows you to view the EXIF info on web based images.

Exif Viewer

I agree on being careful. It's understandable if you find the pictures on google, but just because a different camera takes a picture doesn't mean it's not original. Goodness, our family probably has five cameras that we use, especially on trips.

Probably using photos from all over the place is pretty common on the web.  Just use Google for images, and you'll see the same image showing up on multiple sites.  The same is true of text, though.  A dozen tourism sites will have the same photos, same descriptions down to the typos sometimes. 

So, I begin to understand more those in the waymarking community who are clamoring for more original writing!  I've certainly done my share of copy and paste, and in the beginning was careless about attribution.  I'm becoming a stickler for it though.  It is not just a matter of ethics, but also of good writing and research.  Unattributed descriptions don't really help anyone.  How can one possibly follow up on it, judge its reliability, or appreciate it?

I don't think it is reasonable to check the photos of each waymark in detail, but it is good to have an index of suspicion so that if something really looks out of place then some triggers are hit. 

But, one does have to be careful.  The copyrighted photo may be the waymarker's own work.  That nice piece of writing may be original.  I got called to task recently for requesting sources for someone's orignial writing, and I don't think I've been forgiven yet, despite apologies. 

I think copy and paste has a place.  Let's face it, not everyone likes to write, and they shouldn't be penalized or made to feel like their waymarks are not welcome.  But, proper credit is certainly a reasonable requirement.  This should include URL's for web material.

Catching copied photos is trickier and more time consuming.  I've declined a few, and check photos if I have any doubt, but probably there have been a few that have slipped through.

cache_test_dummies:

gt.us:

How do you view the EXIF info on a waymarking photo? I know on Flickr there is a place to click.

There's a Firefox add-on that allows you to view the EXIF info on web based images.

Exif Viewer

w00t!  Thanks!

let us also make it clear that the inclusion of one pic from another [legit] source is ok.....as long as most of the gallery is your own.....

if not for using public domain pics we might not have any:
postcard waymarks
stamp waymarks
photo then and now......

but as SQ said, i let you know that that is not my pic....

I ran across a blog today and recognized a photo.

From a waymark I posted in Roseburg Oregon.

TheBeanTeam:

I ran across a blog today and recognized a photo.

From a waymark I posted in Roseburg Oregon.

Thes repeated uses of our photos tell me that Groundspeak should make it a high priority to watermark our photos on upload and display.

Everything we put up in Waymarking goes to google for indexing, the photos go into google images.

...hmmm, I am strictly against visible watermark across my photos. It looks horrible and completely profanes the photographer's idea about presenting of well-looking and aesthetic photographies. This watermarking makes sense only in that case, that you want to sell your pictures (and in that case you will not present them in waymarking.com).

Dorcadion Team:

...hmmm, I am strictly against visible watermark across my photos. It looks horrible and completely profanes the photographer's idea about presenting of well-looking and aesthetic photographies. This watermarking makes sense only in that case, that you want to sell your pictures (and in that case you will not present them in waymarking.com).

There was a previous forum post that said you could copy/paste copyright info into the dexcription when you upload, and it would display with the picture.

Personally, I have no problems with people using my photos, but I do ask to be credited. I'm not a professional photographer, and that anyone would want to use my picture is flattering.

But, I respect that there are people on this site who wish to excercise their right to complete control of their creative output. I would support whatever solution were selected, but I think that there should be a site wide solution.

gt.us:

But, I respect that there are people on this site who wish to excercise their right to complete control of their creative output. I would support whatever solution were selected, but I think that there should be a site wide solution.

For those that desire there is nothing to prevent them from putting their own copy mark on each photo they upload.  I would not want the site to automatically imprint each uploaded photo with a mark though. 

i wouldnt mind seeing a 'W' in the corner of all pics.
i would like for there to be some choice in the placement--so it doesnt ruin pics.

how about disallowing anyone to save a pic from WM? then they would have to ask me for the file anyway....

If more categories required that the waymarker's GPS be visible in the primary photo, we wouldn't have this problem.

Like GT.US I don't really care if mine are used but would like attribution, a link, something.


GPS  as a watermark in the photos. A good idea gone stale. Worked for locationless but not so well here.

chapterhouseinc:

how about disallowing anyone to save a pic from WM? then they would have to ask me for the file anyway....

I think it's somthing simple in the scripting to do that. I was trying to get an IMDB photo for the Movie Filming location, and it wouldn't let me right click.

gt.us:

chapterhouseinc:

how about disallowing anyone to save a pic from WM? then they would have to ask me for the file anyway....

I think it's somthing simple in the scripting to do that. I was trying to get an IMDB photo for the Movie Filming location, and it wouldn't let me right click.

While this would discourage some it is not foolproof. It is almost as easy to use screen capture software to get photos as it is to right click.

the leprechauns:

If more categories required that the waymarker's GPS be visible in the primary photo, we wouldn't have this problem.

Please no GPS photos... I think those are the most wasted and ugly photos there are.

TheBeanTeam:

While this would discourage some it is not foolproof. It is almost as easy to use screen capture software to get photos as it is to right click.

I think it would minimize innocent mistakes, where people think a photo is a public pool of copyable photos.

Perhaps Groundspeak could add a standard line to each waymark (as part of the waymark display 'tempalte' that protects the photographers rights. For instance:

The photographs below are fully protected by Phtotgraphers Rights (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm), blah, blah, blah... These photgraphs are NOT released to the public without specific consent from the photographer.

OK, I am not a 'gud wordsmith;' but I think you, get the idea.

Take care,
Outspoken1

Inspired by a good friend of mine from California, I'm going to take the middle road and offer a different suggestion.

During the upload process there could be a checkbox that says "Apply Waymarking.com Watermark?"

This would give people "choice". Disabling the right click would stop me for ohhhhh 2 seconds while I screen capture... not that I would ever do this.

BQ

BruceS:

For those that desire there is nothing to prevent them from putting their own copy mark on each photo they upload.  I would not want the site to automatically imprint each uploaded photo with a mark though. 

I tried playing with the addition of a watermark, but couldn't settle on anything that looked alright. I finally came up with the thought that if I watermarked a photograph how many categories would deny the submission? I as I continue to go into more and more categories, I am amazed at some of the requirements and stipulations people place on the categories. For Example, No HTML to embelish except to add photographs within the text. If this is a requirement, why would these categories accept augmented photographs?

BQ has perhaps the neatest symbol added to each photograph, and could easily be made into a symbol and watermarked into one of the corners of each photographs. I had a friend point out that my name lends itself to a brand as well... GParkeS or just shorten it to GPs.

To the OP,

I just happen to come across this thread and am fairly certain that the two waymarks discussed in the original posting were mine. Therefore I feel I reserve the right to explain the situation.

First off - yes, I submitted photos found on the internet for these waymarks that were not mine. The reason being that while I have visited both these locations (Grand Canyon and Teton National Park) prior to my exposure to waymarking, I had no photos.

Second - yes, both waymarks were denied and I was given a full explaination of why, and what I could do to correct the problem.

Third - because I did not have my own original photos, I chose not to resubmit the waymarks.

Fourth - a VERY valuable lesson was learned from the situation. Either provide your own photos or seek permission and give credit to the original photographer in the waymark listing. The worst case scenario is that the photos cannot be used and you have to submit a waymark without any images; or the waymark just doesn't get submitted.

It has been a very embarassing situation, and one that has almost made me quit waymarking. But in the end, I figured I should take the lessons learned and apply them; to which I have. To those waymarkers reading this thread thinking "Why would someone do that?", and to the reviwers of that category, you have my sincerest apology. In an attempt to have some "really cool" waymarks that I figured people would want to visit, I just submitted what I could. In the end, the waymarks were never submitted and I gave myself a waymarking black-eye.

I don't know that this posting will change how people think of me, but I hope that it explains what happen, why, what I've learned from it and hopefully others will learn from my mistake.