Selling other peoples pics

What do you think of this link

Jeff

These peoples are simply thieves

I think "appropriation" artist is a contradiction in terms. As you say, he's a thief.

When I started computer programming (as part of a psychology degree, would you believe) I was taught to always add a copywrite statement at the end of the source code.
About the same time I can remember somebody advertising (this is before the days of ebay) prints made from someone else's images: like "a reprint by Jeff from an original image by Ansel Adams".
Academics tend to get rather excited at the slightest hint of plagiarism - which is exactly what this is all about.
A friend who sells clothing on ebay has had her images "reused" by others. this stopped when I showed her how to insert a copywrite statement into each image.
Probably, we should all keep this in mind every time we let an image go out of our own hands - as for the guy in the link, he deserves all the bad press he can get - as a thief, not as an artist.
Geoff

"always add a copywrite statement at the end of the source code"
Care to elaborate on how this is done DoctorJeff?

I have the basic copyright statement in my EXIFs. It isn't visible however unless you look.
What are the feelings of others about how best to protect one's work?

And easily edited or stripped. It's meaningless.

Don't upload it - anywhere.

Like it or not the intended use for most photos is to display on a computer, or other device, screen at a resolution of up to 2MP (1920x1080).
One can grab a photo so easily these days, via a screen grab, and then reuse it elsewhere. There is literally nothing that be done to prevent this and no EXIF data or prohibiting the right click etc is going to protect against this.

If you want to protect your work, then I'd suggest only ever uploading quite low res images.
Watermarks can protect your work, but they are easily cloned out, and otherwise overly invasive if not.

If you want to check if your images are being used, use a reverse search engine such as TinEye.

Otherwise, enjoy the internet and don't worry about it, or don't. Those are the only real choices IMHO. If I ever find a major infringement I will act accordingly, but otherwise I don't fret about my 1000 pixel wide uploads.

As an example, in C you add a line, before compiling, that looks like:
/* Copywrite 2015 DoctorJeff */
This gets included in the compiled code, but is not executed. It will appear if someone prints out the compiled code. Something like this is in most languages: it might be as simple as
*rem Copyw .... " or it could be more complicated.

The easy way to get rid of exif data is to import the image into Excell, size it down, save it as a jpeg, and then open, and take the big white border, off in Photoshop.
The only thing you can say about including a small copywrite item in a corner of the image is that if you keep a copy you have some evidence in the form of the file date (and it is easy to cheat on that one as well).

Geoff

If it was one of mine I would got to the gallery and cut the image out of to with a knife...

Is the fact that they would have to have cloned out, cropped out watermarks, or stripping excif data not show an intent to commit theft, when most of us use a combination of watermarks and copyright in the excif ???

I don't think EXIF is retained with Instagram processing. Besides, there's definately no EXIF in prints

That is stealing other people's work or play. How is anyone allowing him to exhibit this?

Well that's true enough.
Personally I don't use instagram, but I do use f/b and there's a chance that images from there could be copied and end up on instagram. Maybe be not mine
(EXIF )

Have to agree I don't know how this is being allowed, is it the type of people whose images are being ripped off, that they aren't following up with a claim or some kind of legal action, or are there cases filed and awaiting, or is it because there were no copyright, watermarks to be removed, as Steve pointed out, instagram may strip the EXIF out ?