Join for FREE | Take the Tour Lost Password?

deviantART

 
:iconbodyartist:

=Bodyartist

Bodyartist
ProfileGalleryPrintsFavesJournal
Sign up to follow this artist's work

Don't Uncheck the "Allow Download"

Journal Entry: Sat Feb 23, 2008, 9:58 AM
  • Mood: Sadness
==============================================
= Muse wanted, Pittsburgh area. For details, check here: [link]
==============================================

You can see the flag-draped coffins [HERE]

==============================================
==============================================
Journal Entry Begins Below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You *might* think that by unchecking it you are offering some protection, or preventing people from "downloading" your images.

YOU ARE NOT!

BUT!!! You *ARE* running at least a 50/50 chance that if someone right-clicks, views the cache, or anything else, that your image has a filename of a09fb291cd3.jpg rather than a nice file name of : Art_nude_03_by_daUsername.jpg

Back in around October/November, DA changed how files were stored, and it seems *most* people got put in the "hash" name group rather than the "nice-name" group. But, it seems, if you allow downloads, all your files get nice-names.

Allowing downloads DOES NOT! offer any less protection -- it's the *SAME* image that is shown in the full-view (in most cases, except for really large images).

Also, if you upload stock, allowing downloads lets you put a screen sized image on the full-view page so people can see the whole thing, and allowing downloads allows their browser to format the image to fit the screen, which putting it on the full-view page does not.

So, there are a *LOT* of benefits -- and NO DRAWBACKS -- to keeping the "Allow Download" box checked!

It's actually more of a problem to uncheck it. Your images don't have nice names, viewers have to scroll to view the larger images, *AND* it makes your files look like they were downloaded from a public-domain site since they have a garbage (hashed) name like a usenet file.

If the file has your title and the "_by_USERNAME" extension, *most* good people are going to realize that file BELONGED TO SOMEONE!! The bad people don't care one way or another.

So protect YOUR IMAGES by allowing downloads!!

And let DA know you want *ALL* the images stored with the "nice names" again like they used to be!

The technology is also there to insert your copyright (maybe even make it subscriber feature) into the JPG file when it's uploaded WITHOUT ALTERING THE IMAGE DATA! The JPG format allows for this, which is where the camera EXIF data is stored. Ask them to allow a "Copyright Block" that is inserted into each file when uploaded. This would work for JPG files, but most image files are jpg's.

There *ARE* things you can do to help protect your images from INNOCENT copyright infringement. Criminal or malicious infringements will always happen, and need to handled on a case by case basis -- not by watermarking or defacing your art for everyone!

"Nice" filenames are a start... and a *BIG* stand against infringement! They really are. Having DA put them back for EVERYONE would be a HUGE step in artists rights.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:.


:iconkaraliz416




======================================================
Deviants I've Worked with:
:icontiatormen: :iconbriz1e: :iconmercirae: :iconkaraliz416:
7 Comments

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0
:iconcleverconveyence:
=CleverConveyence Feb 26, 2008, 4:15:39 PM
That was...

...actually pretty compelling.

--
Black the sky, weapons fly
Lay them waste for your race
\"i hate music.\" - ~-kron
\"I listen to Guns N Roses. Nothing is too hardcore for me.\" - ~LordBlaze
:iconbodyartist:
=Bodyartist Feb 27, 2008, 7:31:40 AM
Thank you.

Scott
aka Bodyartist
:iconseattleslough:
=seattleslough Jun 23, 2008, 11:03:57 AM
One of the points you bring up is what I believe to be people's biggest mistake in not allowing downloads: their images can end up on someone's computer with NO ID attached to it. How stupid and counterproductive is that? [uh, and that was a rhetorical question]

--
"You must give some time to your fellow men. Even if it's a little thing, do something for others - something for which you get no pay but the privilege of doing it."
:iconbodyartist:
=Bodyartist Jun 23, 2008, 2:44:17 PM
I agree :) But they hear "download" and freak out. They don't realize that *everything* is already downloaded to the computer's harddrive. And, by not allowing the download function here, they give their files really bad names, rather than "work_of_art_by_deviantID.jpg" It's _FLAW_ in the DeviantArt upload system, but still, you can't download anything that hasn't been uploaded first... so if you are only uploading a 400x600 image, that's all that can be downloaded.

I've actually contacted a few photographers who upload a lot of work (some without a copyright on the image) and they just ignored me. Out of about 20 or so, only one started to allow downloads.

I saw a thread on another system today about someone posting in a panic about a new "rip off" software -- just a screen capture! Don't they know that prtScrn will do that? Or that disabling javascript like with firefox will allow image saves on virtually any site? Funny thing is the software they were in a panic over was half a decade old, and similar programs go back to the DOS days.

At least some of those who replied pointed out my other oft-made point "If you don't understand the nature of the Internet, you shouldn't be here." :)

And, several also pointed out that due to the nature of the ever changing internet, people *do* save images and whole pages (or even websites) they like to their harddrives so they don't disappear. There is no way to stop that -- except by not uploading it (or setting up a website) in the first place.

So, if you *know* images and pages will be saved for future reference (not to be "ripped off") wouldn't it be better if they were saved with *GOOD* file names that pointed to the source, and reminded the person where they got it?

Probably too, a file named 60598c35e47709852782399bf5b7f503.jpg on a hard drive is more likely to be considered "public domain" than a file that was called "my_great_animal_shot_by_AnimalPhotographer.jpg"

but, such "logic" seems to fall on closed minds.

Thanks for commenting.

Scott
:iconseattleslough:
=seattleslough Jun 23, 2008, 5:00:32 PM
your preaching to the choir here :)

So right you are

--
"You must give some time to your fellow men. Even if it's a little thing, do something for others - something for which you get no pay but the privilege of doing it."
:iconpynipple:
~pynipple Aug 1, 2008, 7:58:06 AM
I've been really irritated by the watermarks too, and over the years I've mentioned it to the artists several times only to hear the exact same excuse as they use now:

"I don't want to be ripped off - or - I don't want other people to save my photos"

and even after I explain that just about anyone with Photoshop, GIMP or even PSP can remove that watermark in about 2 minutes with very little effort they just still don't get the picture that it really ruins the photos for those that honestly enjoy them

it's like pouring sand into your car engine so nobody will want to steal it ...

another things that really bothers me is when you see an obviously amazing deviation that's just FULL of incredible detail, only to find that the largest size you are able to view it is 300x200 ... how can you create such an amazing piece of work or take such a beautiful photo and then post it at a size about the same as an Ipod screen? ... this also just ruins the deviation for me

there are SO many other ways of protecting your work from being ripped off and redistributed without ruining the appearance of the work ... there are several very good 'invisible watermarks' that will embed a watermark code into the digital file and the original owner will always be able to prove it is theirs

I'm an active member of :iconriplist: and some of the other 'rip watchout' clubs and I fully support the people that have gotten ripped off, but ruining all of these photos and other deviations obviously isn't helping much, because the ones with the dA watermark are just as ripped-off as the ones without it - like I said, about 2 minutes worth of Photoshop

I currently have over 30,500 :+fav:'s in my Favorite folder (255 pages x 120 per page), and starting today I will be retroactively un:+fav:ing the ones with the dA watermarks

I have no idea what effect this will have on the community, if any - if it's just me doing it alone then it will almost certainly have ZERO effect, even if I un:+fav: THOUSANDS of deviations, which I'm sure I will ... it will take a lot of like-minded people to make some kind of change happen ... but I'll be doing it starting now

great point about the downloading button and the naming glitch ... I couldn't agree more

I'm also going to start using your stamps here in my profile - thanks for that

--
And for that name which is no part of thee, take all of myself
:iconbodyartist:
=Bodyartist Aug 1, 2008, 8:39:01 AM
well, thanks for the reply :) But I need to say right off they aren't my stamps :) They are linked (or should be) to the original creator. Please do help spread the "no watermarks" concept, though.

The sand in the gas tank is really kind of apropos. Watermarks do ruin the image in about the same way. If you are looking for porn, or T&A, you will look past the watermark. If you are looking for "art" -- you *can't*. So, the people who watermark to stop the "porno" collectors are actually just alienating the art lovers, and actually making the situation worse -- perhaps *that* is why they only get faved by people with huge "porn" collections ;)

I've deleted a few people I watch because of subsequent watermarks, and I've never fav'd a watermarked image -- but at least one I know of was watermarked after the fact. I know it was ripped off a lot, but there should have been another decision made. It was one of the most beautiful "alt" love images I'd ever seen, and it's been copied/stolen since. I don't have the heart to un-fav it -- yet.

If DA would do more on the automated end -- "nice" file names, inserting the copyright/description into the file (sure, make it an option so that people can opt out), and other things, inadvertant and "random" copyright infringement will be curtailed. People "cleaning out" their harddrive won't be able to randomly dump images -- and if they do, the images will still have a trail to the source.
Previous PageNext Page

Sponsored By Ninja Assassin

When you got your piercings/mods did it change your feelings about your body, especially in how you felt about showing it/them off. 

29%
12 deviants said Yes, I felt less self concious and more confident showing it off.
17%
7 deviants said Yes, I found I liked my body more, more comfortable in my own skin, but not showing it off to others (much).
15%
6 deviants said No, I stayed about the same.
12%
5 deviants said Yes, I felt like showing it off to everyone, anywhere.
12%
5 deviants said All of the above, and none of the above.
10%
4 deviants said Yes, I found myself exposing my parts at the weirdest times.
2%
1 deviant said Yes, I got more self concious and less willing to show it off.
2%
1 deviant said I haven't made up my mind yet, or thought about it much.
0%
No deviants said I went a little wild at first, and somewhat regret doing so.
0%
No deviants said I got a breast job, and just had to show them off, at least once.
No comments, Previous Polls

Site Map