What comes after Dropbox?

On 29/03/2017 16:17, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 March 2017 16:01:54 UTC+1, David B. wrote:
On 29/03/2017 15:41, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:40:39 +0100, "David B."
wrote:

On 29/03/2017 00:41, Davoud wrote:
David B.:
This is one of my favorite images I've saved there!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b55p0t1fio...amock.jpg?dl=0

It looks good on MY machine. What do others think of the quality?

Looks fine. Cute doggie.

Great to hear that! :-)

One of the advantages of Dropbox (and perhaps others) over Flickr is
file-name preservation. I downloaded your photo and it has the name
"Marley in hamock.jpg." Download one of my photos from Flickr and it
has a name like "33187521331_74787ac976_o.jpg," which is NOT the name I
gave it.

An interesting observation. Thanks.

Oops! Sorry about the poor spelling! (Now corrected on the original)

Have you ever been involved in discussion regarding 'Copyright' of
pictures/photographs put out on the Internet?

Do you feel that you have _stolen_ my photograph? If you now sold it to
be published on the front cover of an International magazine, could I
sue you?

Personally, I feel that if someone fails to 'watermark' a photograph,
proving without doubt that it belongs to them, then I consider it
becomes "up for grabs" by anyone wishing to download a copy.

I'd welcome YOUR views on this matter.

If you welcome other views, then I'll contribute. The presence or
absence of a watermark has nothing at all to do with another person's
ability or right to download that image.

It's what that person does with the download that matters. The idea
of a watermark is prevent other people from using that image without
either paying for the image or crediting the photographer. It doesn't
forestall downloading or even discourage it.

Your comment above about selling the photograph has nothing to do with
the watermark, either. As a photographer, you have the copyright on
that photo whether or not you watermark it, add the copyright info to
the photo or the file, or whatever. Someone appropriating that photo
and using it for their gain is in violation of your copyright.

You *can* sue them, but it's very problematical if you would be
successful from a financial point of view. You would be more likely
to be successful if you have registered your copyright even though it
is not necessary to register your copyright in order to hold it.
Your best alternative is to ask for a "take down" or acknowledgement
of your copyright.

Back in the old days, when you had photographs taken by a studio
photographer you were furnished with a set of photographs with PROOF
in a large open-face type across the photo. Those were yours to keep,
but if you wanted photographs without PROOF on them, you had to buy
them. That's the same concept as the watermark.

What is unethical is removing a watermark in Photoshop or in a similar
editing program. Still, that's not illegal if you merely retain that
image for your own use.

I admit to removing PROOF from some scans of old family photographs.
They are the only copies that were available to me, and the studios
are long out of business.

Thank you so much for your interesting comments, Tony.

I agree that folk are doing nothing wrong simply by downloading an image
from the Internet.

Views from other folk are welcome!

I'd had preferred it if the grass at the top left wasn't there.

Here was I thinking that I'd done well to capture the subject without
disturbing her! ;-)

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/p...aphy_copyright

In the UK, Other countries may vary of course.

Thanks for that. It would be more comforting if it was more recent. Much
has changed with social media since March 2005!

Btw, have you been 'away'? I've been trying to find the conversation we
had about comments on a YouTube video but without success. Could you
remind me where we'd got to with that, please?

--
The only people who make a difference are the people who believe they can.

On 2017-03-29 15:17:17 +0000, "David B." said:

On 28/03/2017 15:01, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-03-28 13:37:40 +0000, "David B."
said:

On 28/03/2017 13:57, android wrote:
In article ,
"David B." wrote:

On 28/03/2017 02:43, philo wrote:
On 03/27/2017 05:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
I've been using Dropbox quite satisfactorily, for several years, to
provide links to photographs I want to post to the Internet. Now they
have changed the way they work and I am not atll satisfied with
either
the way they work or what they seem to do to images.

I have one image which I have been trying to post in response to an
article by Savageduck in which we were discussing a collection of
landscape photographs. All I can manage with Dropbox is coarse
fine-detail and obvious color banding in the sky.

I know there are various ways in which I can replace Dropbox but it
will take me a long time to explore them all. I would be grateful for
any suggestions as to the best way I can go about replacing Dropbox.




Dropbox works fine for me but some folks say it takes a while for the
images to load

This is one of my favorite images I've saved there!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b55p0t1fio...amock.jpg?dl=0

It looks good on MY machine. What do others think of the quality?

As expected. Marley looks fine and, well the colors of the hammock is
your choice...

That's good to learn ..... yet Marley is my son's dog, as is the
hammock! I suspect the latter was bought in the USA when my son was
serving there!

How would DB change the pictures appearance without
parsing and altering the file?

I might have a play with GIMP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP

Is there a better way?

It looks as though you are using a Mac, so my suggestion is to take a
look at either Luminar or Affinity Photo. Either one is less of a
headache than GIMP and both work very well on a Mac without going to the
Adobe subscription model. There is also Pixelmator to consider.

I do, indeed, use a 24" iMac, albeit it's getting a bit
long-in-the-tooth nowadays! I was rather disappointed when I discovered
that I could not upgrade to Sierra because my hardware is now "too old"!

I am using a mid-2010 21" iMac running OSX 10.11.6 "El Capitan". I
believe Luminar & Pixelmator require OSX 10.10.5 "Yosemite" or later,
and Affinity Photo requires (for now) OSX 10.7.5 "Lion" or later.


https://macphun.com/luminar
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/
http://www.pixelmator.com

I really appreciate this information, Savageduck. I shall explore at
each link as and when time allows.

Thank you! :-)

I don't understand why 'android' now says his question was rhetorical.
Do YOU have any idea what he was getting at?

Android was just doing what he does, sometimes informative, sometimes
provocative, but mostly a little twisted.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


I agree that folk are doing nothing wrong simply by downloading an image
from the Internet.

the internet wouldn't work if they couldn't.

keeping what they download is entirely another story.

One of those "no help" comments again. What is the other story?

one of those attacks again.

There is nothing wrong with retaining a downloaded image.

there can be, which is why many web sites and services go to great
lengths to prevent people from doing that.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I agree that folk are doing nothing wrong simply by downloading an
image
from the Internet.

the internet wouldn't work if they couldn't.

keeping what they download is entirely another story.

One of those "no help" comments again. What is the other story?

one of those attacks again.

There is nothing wrong with retaining a downloaded image.

there can be, which is why many web sites and services go to great
lengths to prevent people from doing that.

Typical of your "no help", no useful content, responses. You allude
to a problem, but don't explain what it is.

there's no need to explain the obvious.

What the web sites do - which you don't explain - is not germane here.

that's why i didn't go into details on the various techniques used to
block people like yourself.

What you need to explain,

i don't need to explain anything, certainly not to you, particularly
when it's obvious.

to back up your statement, is how it could
be wrong or a problem to retain a downloaded image with or without a
watermark.

because the owner of the content doesn't want you to keep a copy. very
simple. they get to decide, not you.

the fact you even need to ask shows just how clueless you are.

snapchat, for example, became incredibly popular mainly because users
*couldn't* download and keep an image. if someone took a screen shot,
the sender was alerted.

What happens? Does it curdle like old milk? Does it breed mutant
pixels that invade other files? Does it attempt to grope Suri?

as usual, you're not interested in an intelligent discussion.

David B.:
This is one of my favorite images I've saved there!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b55p0t1fio...amock.jpg?dl=0

It looks good on MY machine. What do others think of the quality?

Davoud:
Looks fine. Cute doggie.

David B.:
Great to hear that! :-)

One of the advantages of Dropbox (and perhaps others) over Flickr is
file-name preservation. I downloaded your photo and it has the name
"Marley in hamock.jpg." Download one of my photos from Flickr and it
has a name like "33187521331_74787ac976_o.jpg," which is NOT the name I
gave it.

An interesting observation. Thanks.

Oops! Sorry about the poor spelling! (Now corrected on the original)

I wasn't commenting on your spelling error, which I did not notice, but
about the preservation of the file name.

Have you ever been involved in discussion regarding 'Copyright' of
pictures/photographs put out on the Internet?

Of course.

Do you feel that you have _stolen_ my photograph?

No.

If you now sold it to
be published on the front cover of an International magazine, could I
sue you?

It wouldn't matter where I sold it. You could sue and I think that you
would have a good chance of winning. We know that in U.S. copyright
law, personal use is fair use, but commercial use, with or without
profit, is restricted.

Personally, I feel that if someone fails to 'watermark' a photograph,
proving without doubt that it belongs to them, then I consider it
becomes "up for grabs" by anyone wishing to download a copy.

It really has nothing to do with watermark. The creator of the work
owns the work unless they transfer all rights. It doesn't even need to
have a copyright notice displayed.

I have, for my own purposes, found a way around this. All of the
photographs that I post on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval are published under the
Creative Commons "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC
BY-NC-SA 2.0)" license,
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en, which
essentially means that the public has wide latitude in using my
photographs. This is necessary for my nature photos because the
Encyclopedia of Life and the Maryland Biodiversity Project harvest
photos from my Flickr account and they cannot be copyrighted. In
addition, I hear from educators around the world that they have found
my arthropod photos useful.

I'd welcome YOUR views on this matter.

You just had 'em.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:42:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I agree that folk are doing nothing wrong simply by downloading an
image
from the Internet.

the internet wouldn't work if they couldn't.

keeping what they download is entirely another story.

One of those "no help" comments again. What is the other story?

one of those attacks again.

There is nothing wrong with retaining a downloaded image.

there can be, which is why many web sites and services go to great
lengths to prevent people from doing that.

Typical of your "no help", no useful content, responses. You allude
to a problem, but don't explain what it is.

there's no need to explain the obvious.

What the web sites do - which you don't explain - is not germane here.

that's why i didn't go into details on the various techniques used to
block people like yourself.

What you need to explain,

i don't need to explain anything, certainly not to you, particularly
when it's obvious.

to back up your statement, is how it could
be wrong or a problem to retain a downloaded image with or without a
watermark.

because the owner of the content doesn't want you to keep a copy. very
simple. they get to decide, not you.

Goal post movement detected.

fix your detector. it's clearly broken.

Your original statement was about
"keeping" the image. Retaining it. Now you are talking about steps
to prevent downloading.

in other words, you're confused about the terminology.

The question remains open of "If an image is downloaded, what harm or
problem can it cause if the downloader retains it?"

This is another example of your inability to express yourself clearly,
and then refusing to admit that you didn't mean what you said, but
meant something different.

nope. it's yet another example of your inability to understand basic
concepts and then blame it on me.

Evidently, what you meant was something along the lines of "some
people don't want you downloading their images".

nope, that's *not* what i meant.

the fact you even need to ask shows just how clueless you are.

snapchat, for example, became incredibly popular mainly because users
*couldn't* download and keep an image. if someone took a screen shot,
the sender was alerted.

What happens? Does it curdle like old milk? Does it breed mutant
pixels that invade other files? Does it attempt to grope Suri?

as usual, you're not interested in an intelligent discussion.

There is nothing intelligent about discussion where you keep ducking
the answer and weaseling about. You have to do your end.

i'm not the one weaseling.

as usual, you're trying to twist and lie about what i said and what i
meant.

On 2017-03-28 06:48:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:26:33 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-03-27 22:49:48 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I've been using Dropbox quite satisfactorily, for several years, to
provide links to photographs I want to post to the Internet. Now they
have changed the way they work and I am not atll satisfied with either
the way they work or what they seem to do to images.

Dropbox has changed quite a number of things lately. It seems they are
trying to get rid of us freeloaders.

I have one image which I have been trying to post in response to an
article by Savageduck in which we were discussing a collection of
landscape photographs. All I can manage with Dropbox is coarse
fine-detail and obvious color banding in the sky.

Are you refering to how your shots are rendered or how the images of
other posters appear to you?

How my shots are rendered via Dropbox. I always check before posting.

I still find it workable, but it is not what it once was.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7388dxil5rray8w/_DSF4233.jpg

That one looks OK.

That is what I thought.

I know there are various ways in which I can replace Dropbox but it
will take me a long time to explore them all. I would be grateful for
any suggestions as to the best way I can go about replacing Dropbox.

I have tried Box which seems like a bit of a kludge, and I haven't used
it that much.
Then there is Google Drive and/or Amazon Prime.
https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/xcuNA8L8Hy0ObKQzrHUyGMXLY4i3KhEeEQEa56v9mi8

I

would consider the one which you are already paying for, the 20GB
provided in Adobe CC.
Folder:
https://adobe.ly/1AUzQAS
...or individual pix:
https://adobe.ly/1BZbwvX

I'm aware of those but I thought you had tried them and found them
slow.

Amazon Prime is not in the Dropbox league, but it works. Adobe CC works
quite well and fast, and has the added benefit of cross platform Adobe
app, including mobile apps integration. So I can take a file from the
Adobe CC into a mobile app such as Adobe Fix or Adobe Mix, make
edits/adjustments on an iOS/Android device and have it available for my
desktop PS. The same applies to using Mobile LR and syncing to LR CC.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 29/03/2017 22:00, Davoud wrote:
David B.:
This is one of my favorite images I've saved there!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b55p0t1fio...amock.jpg?dl=0

It looks good on MY machine. What do others think of the quality?

Davoud:
Looks fine. Cute doggie.

David B.:
Great to hear that! :-)

One of the advantages of Dropbox (and perhaps others) over Flickr is
file-name preservation. I downloaded your photo and it has the name
"Marley in hamock.jpg." Download one of my photos from Flickr and it
has a name like "33187521331_74787ac976_o.jpg," which is NOT the name I
gave it.

An interesting observation. Thanks.

Oops! Sorry about the poor spelling! (Now corrected on the original)

I wasn't commenting on your spelling error, which I did not notice, but
about the preservation of the file name.

Have you ever been involved in discussion regarding 'Copyright' of
pictures/photographs put out on the Internet?

Of course.

Do you feel that you have _stolen_ my photograph?

No.

If you now sold it to
be published on the front cover of an International magazine, could I
sue you?

It wouldn't matter where I sold it. You could sue and I think that you
would have a good chance of winning. We know that in U.S. copyright
law, personal use is fair use, but commercial use, with or without
profit, is restricted.

Personally, I feel that if someone fails to 'watermark' a photograph,
proving without doubt that it belongs to them, then I consider it
becomes "up for grabs" by anyone wishing to download a copy.

It really has nothing to do with watermark. The creator of the work
owns the work unless they transfer all rights. It doesn't even need to
have a copyright notice displayed.

I have, for my own purposes, found a way around this. All of the
photographs that I post on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval are published under the
Creative Commons "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC
BY-NC-SA 2.0)" license,
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en, which
essentially means that the public has wide latitude in using my
photographs. This is necessary for my nature photos because the
Encyclopedia of Life and the Maryland Biodiversity Project harvest
photos from my Flickr account and they cannot be copyrighted. In
addition, I hear from educators around the world that they have found
my arthropod photos useful.

I'd welcome YOUR views on this matter.

You just had 'em.

David,

Thank you so much for being open and honest with me. I REALLY appreciate
your comments. Thank you! :-)

I am now one of your 'Followers' on Flickr!

--
The only people who make a difference are the people who believe they can.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:30:48 +0200 (CEST), android
wrote:

Eric Stevens Wrote in message:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:29:51 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:03:04 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
"David B." wrote:

On 28/03/2017 13:57, android wrote:
In article ,
"David B." wrote:

On 28/03/2017 02:43, philo wrote:
On 03/27/2017 05:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
I've been using Dropbox quite satisfactorily, for several years, to
provide links to photographs I want to post to the Internet. Now they
have changed the way they work and I am not atll satisfied with either
the way they work or what they seem to do to images.

I have one image which I have been trying to post in response to an
article by Savageduck in which we were discussing a collection of
landscape photographs. All I can manage with Dropbox is coarse
fine-detail and obvious color banding in the sky.

I know there are various ways in which I can replace Dropbox but it
will take me a long time to explore them all. I would be grateful for
any suggestions as to the best way I can go about replacing Dropbox.




Dropbox works fine for me but some folks say it takes a while for the
images to load

This is one of my favorite images I've saved there!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b55p0t1fio...amock.jpg?dl=0

It looks good on MY machine. What do others think of the quality?

As expected. Marley looks fine and, well the colors of the hammock is
your choice...

That's good to learn ..... yet Marley is my son's dog, as is the
hammock! I suspect the latter was bought in the USA when my son was
serving there!

How would DB change the pictures appearance without
parsing and altering the file?

^^^Retorical question!^^^

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rhetorical


I might have a play with GIMP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP

Is there a better way?

Why are you asking for a bitmap editor recommendation? Dropbox won't
alter your files.

That's exactly what I am complaining about. Of recent days it does
seem to be altering my image files. I suspect they will remain intact
on the Dropbox server for downloading as a file but they are
definitely downgraded when they open in the Dropbox application which
displays them to you.

What colorspace do you use? Other then sRGB can cause confusion for
internet users without colorspace aware browsers. Some, like Firefox
need to have that enabled.

http://cameratico.com/guides/firefox-color-management/

This is not a color space problem (all my posts for the Internet use
sRGB). It's a problem of smooth surfaces showing as having a texture
of a gravel road. Also the appreance of color-banding appearing in
what were smoothly graduated skys. Everything points to Dropbox using
less than satisfactory techniques to compress images for viewing.

Have you draged the file directly from the browser to the desktop
and opened it a viewer app, like Preview on the Mac?

What I get is the image for viewing in the Dropbox supplied viewer app
(which runs in my Internet viewer of choice - in this case Firefox).
I'm not sure that I can just download an image file.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:42:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I agree that folk are doing nothing wrong simply by downloading an
image
from the Internet.

the internet wouldn't work if they couldn't.

keeping what they download is entirely another story.

One of those "no help" comments again. What is the other story?

one of those attacks again.

There is nothing wrong with retaining a downloaded image.

there can be, which is why many web sites and services go to great
lengths to prevent people from doing that.

Typical of your "no help", no useful content, responses. You allude
to a problem, but don't explain what it is.

there's no need to explain the obvious.

It's not at all obvious to me. What is wrong with keeping a copy of a
downloaded image?

What the web sites do - which you don't explain - is not germane here.

that's why i didn't go into details on the various techniques used to
block people like yourself.

What you need to explain,

i don't need to explain anything, certainly not to you, particularly
when it's obvious.

to back up your statement, is how it could
be wrong or a problem to retain a downloaded image with or without a
watermark.

because the owner of the content doesn't want you to keep a copy. very
simple. they get to decide, not you.

the fact you even need to ask shows just how clueless you are.

snapchat, for example, became incredibly popular mainly because users
*couldn't* download and keep an image. if someone took a screen shot,
the sender was alerted.

What happens? Does it curdle like old milk? Does it breed mutant
pixels that invade other files? Does it attempt to grope Suri?

as usual, you're not interested in an intelligent discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens