The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Hi-jacking PhotosGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Hi-jacking Photos | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
I know it is endemic and systematic in the cyber world, But when I see photos of someone's personal firearms creation that have been posted here without any acknowledgement of who made the gun, it really pisses me off. I try to post pix of rifles you fellows would not ordinarily have the opportunity to see and I always identify whose work we have the privilage of viewing. I shoot a LOT of photos of some truly special guns, but I ask myself why I post them when they are routinely hijacked without any recogition of the fellow that sweated blood to make the damn gun. I would appeal to the individuals sense of goodheartedness-- PLEASE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO HIJACK PHOTOS OF CUSTOM GUNS, IDENTIFY THE MAKER. He is proud of his work and it would simply be NICE if you thought about that. I just finished photographing a Steve Heilmann Kurz (GMA) Mauser actioned fullstocked .250-3000 Imp. Do I dare present a pic? Here's one of a Low Wall I made with engraving by Michael Dubber, a .25-20.  Note, the 24kt SDH in the barrel will always identify this work. SDH ACGG Life Member, since 1985 | ||
|
| One of Us |
"Dare I present a pic?" Yes please, SDH. Because I am still a neophyte, there are gaping holes in my knowledge. A very few questions to the exhibitors at Reno gave me some idea of the great esteem in which Steve Heilmann is held among his peers. flaco | |||
|
one of us |
HIJACK..... 1. To stop and rob 2. To steal 3. To seize control of 2. To swindle or subject to extortion The Internet is a repository of information subject to multiple interpretations and misinterpretations. Certainly multiple uses and misuses. I'm perhaps a bit sensitive to the use of the word "Hijack" in this case. And I would guarantee I'm not on the top of your hit-list, Steve. I buy the books and magazines pertaining to the subject of custom guns. I've recently been taken to task for not photocopying magazine data on this very subject. I recognize your background and personal interest (and investment) in the subject. Beyond the guns themselves, there is also the infringement upon the product of the photographer.........an issue that you also have intimate involvement in. For example, I wouldn't take a digital of your book and throw it up on the Internet. However, photos in the public domain, on public portions of the Internet, are fair game. You can protect them, and prohibit copies as much as possible, but there are ways around that. I agree with your premise that attribution should be stated for the artist or craftsman.......and the photographer. But failing that, the only recourse is not to display the photo at all. I question whether "criminalizing" those who do copy and display these pictures is the best course of action. I'd be happy to further discuss the issue. Mike(GV) | |||
|
one of us |
SDH and GV, both make very good points. A simple acknowledgement isn't too much to ask. Isn't there a way to post pics so that when somebody right click's the image they get a "you don't have permission" message? Terry -------------------------------------------- Well, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? | |||
|
One of Us |
I'm not a Photoshop expert but is it not possible to insert into a digital image some text that would then become part of the image? At the least, a simple cut and paste approach to copying the image would still have the printed information, such as the gunmaker's name, on the picture itself. _________________________________ AR, where the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history become the nattering nabobs of negativisim. | |||
|
Moderator |
I am somewhat sympathtic on this.. and somewhat not.. I fully undrstand not getting credit for your work... i am a technologist and don't get 15% of the "credit" I should get, as I don't push for it most of the time... and that's also why I am NOT sympathtic... if I pushed for it, I would get it...  and if people would RTFM on their TECHNOLOGY they would find that all webpage tools have a simple feature that disallows "right click and save", which stops more than 95% of the people from copying your work. of course, this requires that they use a hosted website, rather than a free site to host pics... after all, you are giving the right to use the pics to photobucket/sony when you use a "Free" sight or, simply, you get what you pay for... in this case, you can pay with a little technology knowledge jeffe opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
one of us |
I think a picture is worth a thousand words, especially on these forums. I love seeing pics of fine firearms, gunsmithing, hunting trips, ballistics and reloading tables, etc. I really appreciate the time folks take to post their pics and feel they add immensely to the threads. I know folks have copied some of my photos. I don't care, I wouldn't post them otherwise. NRA Life Member, Band of Bubbas Charter Member, PGCA, DRSS. Shoot & hunt with vintage classics. | |||
|
one of us |
It is certainly proper to do so when it is known but in so many cases the originator is lost. I agree with Grand view in that regard. Another good example of why is is important: I'm sure if you had known that the two rifles with the raked fore end tip were crafted by a poster on this site as a gift to a close friend who also is a poster, you might have refrained from saying they "looked like shit". Or at least expressed youself in a more respectful manner. Then again maybe not. "Experience" is the only class you take where the exam comes before the lesson. | |||
|
One of Us |
It takes very little time to sign your work and if you feel strongly about it you should do so instead of whining. Here is the same photo that I put initials on and it don't take long at all. BTW that's a beautiful low wall.....you are truly an artist.  /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
SDH I note that you yourself did not identify Winchester as the maker of the rifle. You were the "upgrader" | |||
|
One of Us |
SDH and I had a discussion on this issue with another thread in the past, so I looked into it, and you are right Jeff. The posting of unsigned, or un-watermarked pictures, and or without locking of the photos on the website, is considered consent as long as they are used in the same intent as presented on the original page. I stopped doing it myself after I got the angry responses to my post on one of the other threads, but legally it appears to be up to the owner of the photos to make sure the pictures will be used as he/she intends by placing the appropriate protections before posting them on their, or another person's site. I have a web site that I use for a business and all photos and even the written documentation is locked from copying. | |||
|
one of us |
Steve, I don't think that most people do it on purpose. I think that they are simply uninitiated. Your post should rectify that. Like most people I like to get the credit for work I've done, but don't get too burnt by it. I do get pissed when somebody should know better. Double Guns Journal published a photo of my work on a Westley Richards and didn't print a word about who did the work. That did piss me off! Roger Kehr Kehr Engraving Company (360)456-0831 | |||
|
| One of Us |
I believe it is not legal to use anothers photos or work if there is economic gain to be had. What they did is a violation. | |||
|
| one of us |
It was a little more complicated than that. The photographer called and asked if he could use it in the article. He didn't even have to do that, I suppose. But, just did it because it was the right thing to do. He submitted several photos at the same time. But, the mag didn't give me any credit and they should have because he sent in all the info with each photo. Water under the bridge now. But, it still rankles me a bit. Roger Kehr Kehr Engraving Company (360)456-0831 | |||
|
One of Us |
That doesnt work well. Sure its easy to insert a javasript that disallows right clicking but that will just annoy people, there is lots of usefull contextual info that can be had by right clicking, and does nothing to stop people from taking pic and text off your site. Highlight and hit Ctrl-C, or just do a print screen. Its too much work and pisses too many people off for something that has no value. | |||
|
| One of Us |
My original statement was that of a request. Grandview, I was immensely impressed when you declined to copy the Rifle Mag story when asked to. That particular story had a huge influence on my work when it originally appeared. I know you to be respectful of this issue. FL3006, out of respect for the maker, I'd like to see your photos reproduced with credit, I'll bet the maker's would as well. Besides, to me knowing the maker puts the work in a different context that is important, to me at least. Tigger, I didn't bad-mouth the rifles, nor the makers, but certainly did state my opinion on the shape of the forend tips. If it makes you feel any better, I thought the rifles looked very nicely done, except for the tips. I still don't know who made them? I'm not worried about hurt feelings, simply credit where do which is what Roger is talking about. DGJ plays it very loosly and always has, a product of the publisher's attitude. I don't buy the magazine for that and other reasons. Obviously I need to learn more about labeling my own photos, I have a lot to learn about a lot of things. It is good that some of you are sensitive to this issue. I have experienced almost every kind of misuse of photography possible in the publishing world. I've had stories directly plagerized as well as cutely disguised as rewritten. Legality isn't the issue here simply because we know no one on this site is going to push it into a law suit. I don't worry about getting photo credit, nor about reuse of pix of my own work because it is usually very recognizable by style. But I have a huge stock of pix of other craftsman's work and could post photos on almost any custom rifle subject. I don't, and guess I won't, until I learn how to label them. Labeling is probably just enough hassle to prevent me from posting them. My request still stands. Thanks for your understanding! SDH ACGG Life Member, since 1985 | |||
|
| One of Us |
SDH: There is merit to your statements. We all want recognition for our work. (well, maybe not for our earliest work... <g>  Howsomever, the internet is a new and unique thing. I believe ultimately the only way one can keep credits attached to images is to make the credits part of the image. I do not fully understand the copy write laws but it seems plain that it is socially acceptable to copy an image (or a page from a book, for that matter) for one's personal use. Using someones intellectual property for profit is not acceptable. That seems to be the line. How the displaying to the public, as on the internet, fits into this I do not know. I will say that when I see a rifle of the type I am interested in with the grace and beauty of this Low Wall you posted, I will copy the image into my personal files for future reference. I purchased your B&W book for the same reasons, this being to enjoy the images and to learn from them to improve my own work. Something does come to mind here. I build single shot rifles, and I now have an image of this rifle you built. If I were to show this picture of to a prospective client purporting it to be my work it most certainly be both illegal and immoral. Showing it with out claiming or crediting the image would certainly be immoral but I don't know about illegal. What if I were to present this image to a client with full accreditation, as an example of what could be done? I am inclined to believe that would be wrong without your permission. On the other hand, there would be no issues in telling a client to look at the rifle on page 127 in his copy of SDH's book. So is it different to say "look at the image SDH posted on the internet."? In any event,it is a beautiful, graceful rifle. The hammer and block appear to be color cased and the lever blued. What was done to the frame to get that beautiful soft silver gray? Respectfully, Glenn Fewless | |||
|
one of us |
I have mixed thoughts on this subject also. SDH took me to task a bit for this and I replied I would not do it in the future if he felt that strong about it. I have since to my knowledge not done so again with one exception. That is with the firearms I personally own and as far as I am concerned once I paid to have the work done they are mine to do as I see fit. If someone wishes to ask me who did the work I will be more than happy to tell them, but I don't feel that I need to tell who did what on every photo I post of my own private firearms. I further don't have a problem with anyone else copying or posting the photos elsewhere. I do have another thought on this subject and it will no doubt rankle some folks but I mean no malice whatsoever with the statement. I am of the opinion that if each photo had to be identified, many will never be submitted. The biggest reason is that a lot of people don't know who did the work, but they do like what they see and want to share it with others. To me what SDH wishes might make some sense for this reason. I am interested in the ENTIRE history of custom gunmakers, especially those who first started the trade in the 20th century. Today there are many more craftsman than in the earlier years and much of their work, to me anyway, looks alike. For this reason perhaps some of it needs identifying to really know who did the work. I can look at many of the folks who started building custom rifles in the early years and I know who did the work. It is hard to mix up a Griffin & Howe with a rifle stocked by Alvin Linden or Bob Owen. A Harvey Rodgers stock does not usually resemble one made by Tom Shelhamer. The gunmakers in the early years often had their own unique style that made their work identifiable. I agree this was not always the case but it was the rule much more than it is today for me. This is not a knock on any of todays gunmakers but it is often difficult for me to determine who really did the work. BUT, if I want to really know bad enough I will ask. I'll step of my soapbox now!!! ****************************** "We do not exaggerate when we state positively that the remodelled Springfield is the best and most suitable "all 'round" rifle".......Seymour Griffin, GRIFFIN & HOWE, Inc. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Again, I'm not worried one whit about photo credit or reproducing pix of my own guns! In the past two weeks I have photographed the Boddington leopard (Miller SS) rifle, three Dakota M-76's, a gorgeous 1909 from Lee Helgeland's shop, the above mentioned Heilmann and I have an Italian break-open single shot brld action ready for pix. I can't show you the Dakota work, you'll see it in June/July Sports Afield. But I could show some of the other stuff and I am certain there are many who would love to see it. Those of you who have been aware of my career know that I have been using photography to promote custom gunmaking, my own and the trade as a whole, since I did the Custom Corner column in Rifle Magazine in the late 1980's. Cyberland is a wonderful avenue to continue the promotion of the trade. I struggle with how to do this. Want to know about forend tips? Whose, Fisher's, Tucker's, Simillion's, Ed Webber's #2 Rolling Block, Heilmann's integral steel tip and front sight base for a Mannlicher stock? I don't dare share any of these out of consern for the makers. To me gun pix are important in the context of the maker 'cause each of these guys has put a lifetime into learning how to do it just so. Everytime I think about showing some of this stuff I log on and see another photo of some super-quality work THAT DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE MAKER. Sorry, I just can't go there. When I figure out a way, I'll post photos again. Enough for now, I've checkering to do. Thanks, SDH By the way, the lever was charcoal blued by Doug Turnbull who also did the case colors and the graying is done by case hardening then removing the colors with toilet bowl cleaner, no shit! ACGG Life Member, since 1985 | |||
|
| One of Us |
It seems to me that your original (strong) reaction to the lifted images betrays the fact that your primary loyalty is to gunbuilding, SDH, rather than photography. For this I applaud you. Were it up to me, and in the case of the Heilmann images--which I really want to see-I'd first consider whether an internet post would jeopardize an eventual print use of the images. Perhaps post "out-takes"? In this specific case, I'd then consider possible risk/reward issues for Mr. Heilmann. Because he is a businessman--and by all reports a good one--as well as a gunmaker and wood vendor, I'll suggest that exposure on this forum might be of benefit. Part of this has to do with what I learnt at Reno. Much of my opinion of the heirarchy of gunmakers, and in this case metalsmiths specifically, came from opinions posted here. And seeing work elsewhere, I guess. I thought, and perhaps still think, that Tom Burgess is the best of the metalsmiths. At Reno, more than one exhibitor, when asked, opined that Steve Heilmann is the best metalsmith. The reasoning (and I heard this from more than one Guild member) goes like this: "There are a few great technicians, but not many artists. Steve Heilmann is an artist." (I post this advisedly, as there are many great metalsmiths on this board. You, obviously, among them.) While this argument is (perhaps) a little forced, it is true that there are those on this board in a position to commission Mr. Heilmann. It's also sad that in the not-so-distant-past, forum sentiments towards smiths have definitely shown favorites. (Some of whom I really like, too.) Mainly, though, I just want to see Mr. Heilmann's work. And any work, really, that transcends technique. And is Art. flaco | |||
|
one of us |
Personally, I think "hi-jack" is the wrong word for what we are discussing. It's one thing to grab a pic and intentionally misrepresent it's origin in order to gain some benefit. It's something else altogether to copy and paste a pic and say, "Hey, isn't this interesting?" or, "This is nice work, but I don't know who did it." If someone is cutting and pasting from the web they should give credit to the photographer and craftsmen (if known) . Once a picture enters the cyber world though, there is no telling where it will end up or how it will be used. If the thought of that bothers you, you probably shouldn't post a pic in the first place. ______________________________ "Truth is the daughter of time." Francis Bacon | |||
|
| one of us |
Forrest I'd say that statement pretty well nails it. Thanks for those plain, simple words of explanation. You said it better than most. ****************************** "We do not exaggerate when we state positively that the remodelled Springfield is the best and most suitable "all 'round" rifle".......Seymour Griffin, GRIFFIN & HOWE, Inc. | |||
|
One of Us |
Sounds like SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many articles I've read about a company I used to work for. I can't count how many times I've seen a stock I shaped, or I know who shaped, or action somebody I know designed in a magazine article with credit intentionally given to someone else. I never expected my name in an article, just thought it was pretty sh!tty to give credit to someone else. This I can only say about the owners I worked for. Not the current owners. SDH If you are interested in protecting your pic work you might check with Anton Pozzbone. gunmaker | |||
|
| one of us |
I will be more scrupulous about attribution in the future. I like to know who did a particular bit of work. When my ship comes in, I'll know who to hire. If the maker is deceased, I'll know whose memory to honor. Believe it or not, I respect Grandview's decision not to share the article. I am becoming the same way about tools and especially reamers. I don't mind other people benefiting by use of a reamer that won't wear out anytime soon, but I want them to take the work to a gunsmith I know and trust. I will try and pick up some software so I can put an artists name on a particular image. lawndart PS It was fun digging up a copy of that article.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
You probably have it now....I use Paint and it's standard in most 'puters. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill | |||
|
| one of us |
http://irfanview.com/ The above is a link to a software package that many of us use. It's FREEWARE (non-commercial use) with an encouraged nominal donation for its continued development. It is a useful tool for cropping and sizing pictures, as well as inserting text into the image. It has a variety of other uses, but these are most germain to this thread. For purposes of uploading your picture to an Internet site for public viewing, you merely draw a box with your left mouse click and use the (Edit - Insert text into selection) function. You can select the font for your text. Before saving, you can (Edit - undo) to start over. The text will now be part of the image, and will display when you've uploaded.  When linking to someone else's picture.....please give credit independently of the picture you're linking. GV | |||
|
| one of us |
I feel a little guilty. I've posted pictures of a Clayton Nelson Stock that I put another barreled action into. Several people have asked me to identify the person who did the metalwork on the octogan barrel with a 1/4 rib. The only problem is that I have no idea whatsoever who did the metalwork!  It came off another custom rifle bought at a gun show. It shot well in the other stock and my buddy wanted to pair it up with the Clayton Nelson stock. Oh well at least I plugged Clayton...  .I have some mixed feelings on the issue in general. SDH has been extremely helpful to me and others and I love all of his pictures that I've seen. I've bought his books and all of the others on custom rifles that I can. Out of sheer respect and appreciation for SDH and others I'll try to follow his suggestions on crediting as closely as possible. My mixed feelings come from the fact that I've seen some other great books on guns and custom rifles that a collector friend of mine has that I will never be able to own or buy. Many of the books on subjects like this are quickly in and out of print and you're lucky if you catch them for sale. I hate that some of the Art, Beauty and Inspiration that these authors created will be enjoyed by only the few people who were lucky enough to grab them when they came out. I wish there was a moral and ethical way to reproduce them...................DJ ....Remember that this is all supposed to be for fun!.................. | |||
|
| one of us |
Even the last picture of the low wall still does not say Winchester anywhere on the picture. It lists SDH as the gunmaker which is really not accurate. He did not make the gun, I assume, but he did do a beutifull job of customising it. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'd say Winchester roughed it out, but SDH made it. ______________________________ "Truth is the daughter of time." Francis Bacon | |||
|
one of us |
I'm in the camp that if you don't want the photo copied don't post it, at least in public gathering sites. If it's on a persons business site that's different and it's up to them to protect them from being copied which isn't difficult. ______________________ Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else. | |||
|
| one of us |
And, an under thirty person to show me how to use the software. LD | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, I should hope not! <g> Thank you. I have heard of the method but have yet to have the courage to take the pretty off a freshly hardened action. Howsomever, it sure looks elegant in this application. I will give it a go. Nice rifle, nice picture. Glenn | |||
|
| one of us |
SDH, What you call hijacking I call sharing. If you don't want to share and let others share alike don't post. It is you privlidge not your right. You sound unusually grouchy with this post. Where does it end, no credit to Winchester for making the rifle or the man that grew the tree or the guy that taught SDH how to do what he did, etc.?????????If you want to be recognized, buy an ad and copyright you pictures. I have over 70 customs. Many bought at gun shows and don't know whom made them. I think the only immoral use is to take someone elses work and representing it as your own. square shooter | |||
|
| one of us |
NRA Life Member, Band of Bubbas Charter Member, PGCA, DRSS. Shoot & hunt with vintage classics. | |||
|
| one of us |
lb404, that has got to be the best post on here and right on target.  | |||
|
| one of us |
I maybe could agree with the above statement if it's not one's own personal rifle. That said, if I paid some one to build me a firearm, then it's mine, my decision to decide if I want to recognize who made it. Unless the builder wanted to pay me for his "free advertizement". | |||
|
One of Us |
Well, if one posted the details which accompany a picture, including quoting the original poster, is that giving adequate credit? I hope so..... (BTW, beautiful Low-Wall!!) "Bitte, trinks du nicht das Wasser. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen." | |||
|
| one of us |
Agree with Jimmy Ib404, Exactly how I see it , You didnt even use the terms, Arrogant and Jerk, very good!! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I design and host websites (mostly for people I know) on the side. There is absolutely no technology out there than can stop someone who is determined to copy a picture of the internet. That said the best way to be assured of anything you'd like to be seen with the pictures is to include it in the photo. Add the test you want close to the main focus of the picture so it is less likely to be trimmed away by inclusion at the photo edge. Also people seem a lot less likely to trim things if it is presented in a nice manner and not in the type of bright red text above. I've included and example.  As far as whether it's right or not. There is primarily the copyright laws on the pics themselves. But beyond that is probably most important of whether or not the gun is yours. As someone said if I paid for the work it's my gun. Not that I'm trying to take credit for others work but by no means do I feel a need to post all the details every time. However if I'm posting a pic of someone else's gun (with permission of course) then I'd try to include as much information as possible. I imagine if you ask a 100 guys there thought on this you will get a 100 answers. That's the way things goes any time ethics are involved. Bill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, at least some of you understand, and I thank you for that. GV & Banzia I especially thank you for trying to help me with labeling. I'll take a stab at it sometime. "Once a picture enters the cyber world though, there is no telling where it will end up or how it will be used. If the thought of that bothers you, you probably shouldn't post a pic in the first place." It does bother me so I guess that pretty well sums it up. SDH ACGG Life Member, since 1985 | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia