Why in the HELL are you guys watermarking all the images with thewolfweb.com?

Im sorry but thats just uberGay, turn it off please

10/2/2001 7:31:21 PM

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=21243

10/2/2001 7:32:06 PM

heh im a lamer, and lazy, thanks spaced

10/2/2001 7:32:34 PM

why's it ubergay?

So you're saying that TWW should just let anyone link a picture off of their website. Yoinking a picture from server space and bandwidth that they don't pay for? At least this way the people know where its coming from.

Refer to the previous thread.

10/2/2001 7:32:58 PM

no problemo

_

10/2/2001 7:33:05 PM

That's almost as gay as the new banner they've got up. I'm not paying because I appreciate. I'm paying because I want a status name.

TWW has sucked my life away, and I want it back.

10/2/2001 7:33:17 PM

insert code to where ppl can't link to the image from other websites then.....i know it's possible because some of the free providers angelfire and the such do the same thing......

10/2/2001 7:34:28 PM

^^ agreed, its not hard at all, just compare the url requesting the image, if its outside tww, deny it

10/2/2001 7:36:26 PM

except that some people... like myself... like to post links to my tww photogallery in IRC channels. Plus this gets the website name out there more.

You people are ever-so-vigilant about tww becoming sell-outs. I don't see you paying the check every month for the bandwidth, paying off the cost of the server, and the software that its running.

10/2/2001 7:38:48 PM

out of curiousity, how much does it cost to keep this site up and running?

10/2/2001 7:41:03 PM

<---hasn't a damned clue what this watermarking thing is about and why it's such a scandal


you computer boys and your frivolous worries

10/2/2001 7:41:38 PM

Not sure... back when I was more in the loop, I could have told you, but things might have changed.

Its not $5 though

10/2/2001 7:42:11 PM

Did somebody here say TWW was a sell-out? If so bitch at em.. lol... I know if I was paying for the premium account I'd rather not have the watermark just because of my reasons on the other thread. But seeing as how Im not I really don't care.. if I don't want the watermark Ill store it elsewhere.

[Edited on October 2, 2001 at 7:44 PM. Reason : roo]

10/2/2001 7:43:07 PM

I dont have ANY problem with tww "selling out". In fact I think its about damn time they managed to make something from all the time they have put into this thing. Re-encoding all the images when uploaded is bad enough, but i can understand that, to save server space. Adding watermarks is NOT okay, mainly because there is no mention of this, and unless its agreed to by a user to let tww do it, its a violation of copyright law.

As for the cost of bandwidth, agreed its not cheap, but this isnt exactly a multimedia driven site either, so banner ads / subscriptions should *hopefully* cover that.
For cost of software... yeah right
Cost of the server... umm unless its a dedicated server (in which case bandwidth cost becomes a mute point), then screw that too.

I have built and run websites that consume a HELLA lot more bandwidth and space than this one, so i know what a challenge it can be.

10/2/2001 7:43:58 PM

are you insinuating that Jake is running an illegal copy of Win2k Adv Server?

that shit aint cheap.

and thats bs on copyright laws. In the TOS it says that anything stored on tww server space is property of tww. Same applies with your posts. If tww wanted to publish something that one of the users wrote on the website, it could be done without legal stipulation.

10/2/2001 7:49:57 PM

If you need your memory refreshed, here it is.

Quote :

"The information and content posted on this site are the property of The Wolf Web and are protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws. By accessing this site, you agree to the following terms and conditions. If you do not agree, you have no right to be using this site. "

[Edited on October 2, 2001 at 7:53 PM. Reason : close quote]

10/2/2001 7:53:28 PM

hehe ive never seen that

10/2/2001 7:54:37 PM

you had to agree to it when you registered.

I think.

At any rate, its in the TOS.


[Edited on October 2, 2001 at 7:55 PM. Reason : ...]

10/2/2001 7:55:12 PM

there is still a different between redistribution of information stored here and MODIFICATION of information and then redistributing it... you need to read up my friend. And there is plenty of legal ground to stand on in this issue, since there is no specific TOS anywhere on this site, simply a small VERY vague disclaimer at the bottom and the Help section which only covers abuse issues.

10/2/2001 7:55:37 PM

noen shove it

10/2/2001 7:57:39 PM

hehe, gotta give that one a big thumbs down, sorry scud

10/2/2001 7:58:45 PM

There is no grey area Noen. Stop trying to be a self-righteous bigot about this.

Once the information resides on tww servers, its tww PROPERTY. That means tww can modify it in any way shape or form. Just like if your friend gives you a car, you can go out and get it painted a different color, change the tires, etc... If you don't want it modified, don't upload it. Simple as that.

[quote[since there is no specific TOS anywhere on this site[/quote]

You mean this? http://www.thewolfweb.com/disclaimer.aspx

And as for your "bandwidth" issues. The photogallery uses up huge amounts of bandwidth. I'm sure if you asked Jake really nicely, he might part with some bandwidth stats.

10/2/2001 8:00:06 PM

Whoo i didnt mean to tear anyone a new asshole geesh

I guess i wont be posting anymore to the photo gallery

Maugan: I DO realize the bandwidth it uses, an ASSLoAd. But i also built and ran a legal music site for an old company I worked for... think of users download 3.5megs a pop instead of 50-100k, now thats some damn bandwidth.

10/2/2001 8:03:14 PM

in regards to the legal issues....

Quote :

"We may use any contributed content in any way that we deem necessary. We reserve the right to delete, modify, reproduce, and/or distribute all content and information transmitted between the client (you) and the server (us)."

most of you guys probably agreed to this when you registered. i think it covers all of our bases

anyways, I thought about a few different ways to combat this issue. one was definetly the method that angelfire and other free sites use. if i was serving the images with a dynamic script, this would be perfect. I could check the referer header of the HTTP request and determine what the user is requesting the picture for. the problem is that this would put an unneccessary load on the server. IIS has many optimizations for the static method of serving images that we use now. I may as well serve them from a database if I am going to be doing that much processing.

I really didn't forsee an uproar over this issue. I thought it would bring traffic to our site without really pissing anyone off. I even made it semi-transparent!

BTW, if you don't want them watermarked, just don't u/l them as a JPEG. I can't seem to keep the memory in check when trying to manipulate other formats. I don't apply the watermark to them

10/2/2001 8:04:37 PM

lol thats pretty damn nice then... if you really really dont want it watermarket you can get around it

10/2/2001 8:06:33 PM

yeah i doubt anyone will *really* care. Im just a freakish bastard about things like this. I really didnt mean to piss anyone off if I have. Anyway im done now *crawls back in hole*

10/2/2001 8:08:19 PM

Well, I feel better knowing that there is somewhat of an option regarding the watermark, although it doesn't really matter to me. You're good enough to host my pics, you can have the 100 or so pixels that takes up.

10/2/2001 8:30:03 PM

good reply jake

10/2/2001 9:19:32 PM

besides even if Jake and Joe and the other moderators don't modify your pic, someone else surely will. case in point: wolfwebbers gone wild

10/2/2001 9:24:19 PM

another case in point: me and photoshop: a match made in heaven

10/2/2001 9:30:18 PM

I do believe that was a real pic before the fake boobs were added...

10/2/2001 9:36:33 PM

on a side note, I tried uploading 2 JPGs earlier, the first one upped, but I had to try again to post the second

10/2/2001 9:37:10 PM

i dont see watermarks anymore

10/3/2001 12:33:49 AM

all these porn people are gonna be pissed off about this...

10/3/2001 12:54:53 AM

I have two comments:

1) If I upload a picture I took myself, then it gets watermarked, it then appears as if TheWolfWeb is responsible for taking that picture. Thanks for hosting it, but if IM the one that takes the picture, then IM the one that should get credit for it. Not TheWolfWeb. Same thing if someone puts some of their own personal artwork up here. When you put that watermark on it, it appears as if thewolfweb is the artist behind that piece of art. I dont believe this site deserves that kind of credit when all they are doing is merely hosting it.

2) Some people upload things in the photo gallery that is already copyrighted. I know I personally have a lot of images of movie posters as well as images of the front pages of websites from the day of the terrorist attacks. Now, lets say I upload a new poster...lets say The Fellowship of the Ring. So now there is an image of that poster with thewolfweb.com pasted down in the corner. What happens if someone from New Line Cinema runs across that? All I know is that it wont be a good thing. I dont think I would want to chance someone threatening legal action because Im attempting to take credit for someone elses work. I realize that Im probably in the wrong for uploading copyrighted material, but my name isnt going to be the image...thewolfweb is.

If youre all worried about the amount of money this site costs (since that topic is brought up everytime someone bitches about what the operators are doing with the site), then get off your bum and sell some freaking advertisements. The only ones Ive ever seen on here were Ruckus and the stupid Premium Subscription one.

As far as pictures being posted on other sites, why not do this:
- Set up the photo gallery to only be viewable when a user is logged in.
- Add a public photo gallery that all wolfweb users have upload rights to. This gallery will be viewable from outside thewolfweb and pictures in it will be watermarked. It will exist for the sole purpose of hosting pictures that may also be posted on other message boards and websites, but NOT for personal use.
Does this make too much sense? Yes, I think it does.

10/4/2001 2:02:05 AM

ENDContra:

1) If you upload a picture that you took yourself, and you don't want the watermark, find somewhere ELSE to host it. Nobody's forcing you to put your material up on the photogallery.

2) If YOU put copyrighted material in the photogallery, then you are the one responsible for breaking copyright laws. (Distribution of copyrighted material)

3) As for your remark as far as advertising goes. It has been proven, several times, that the banner advertising scheme is ineffective for generating enough revenue to keep a website operating.

4) I would personally like it if ANYBODY could see photos that I put in the photogallery, not just the users. I often link to pictures off tww from IRC and other medium just because its easy, and fast. I could care less whether or not theres a watermark there or not. TWW wasn't the first to do the watermarks, nor will they be the last I'm sure. Once again, if you don't like the system, then don't use it.

Does that make to much sense? Yes, I know it does.

10/4/2001 2:23:30 AM

Quote :

"2) If YOU put copyrighted material in the photogallery, then you are the one responsible for breaking copyright laws. (Distribution of copyrighted material)"

In my days of living on campus I had an FTP site. I had NOTHING that was protected by the RIAA. However, people uploaded music that was. The RIAA found my site. They reported me to Resnet, I was reprimanded (supposedly, they never did disconnect my connection...weird). When I had my "meeting" with someone from the office of student conduct, he said that basically the RIAA had found sites at NC State that were violating copyright laws, and NC State could either take care of the individual cases or chose to do nothing and face legal action. In that case, I was held responsible for the actions of others (as well as NC State being held responsible for my actions). In this case, not only is thewolfweb the host, but they have added their name to the picture as if to say "This is our work." Im sure you will tell me how these two incidents are nothing alike, but they are, in fact, just the same. A website is responsible for its content, REGARDLESS of who puts it there.

[Edited on October 4, 2001 at 2:37 AM. Reason : grammar]

10/4/2001 2:35:07 AM

I don't think we or the wolfweb has anything to worry about as far as previously copyrighted material.

Sublime Directory, www.sublimedirectory.com, is a well-known index to free porn sites which often host images taken directly from Playboy and other published magazines, and I don't think they've ever had a problem.

10/4/2001 2:41:52 AM

why not just change the watermark to say "image hosted by thewolfweb.com" or "hosted by thewolfweb.com" ?

10/4/2001 9:12:07 AM

I WILL GIVE YOU $100 TO BAN ENDCONTRA CASH.

10/4/2001 9:15:05 AM

ENDContra: http://www.thewolfweb.com/disclaimer.aspx

Quote :

"Many parts of this site allow real-time input from parties not affiliated with The Wolf Web. These users are responsible for the content that they post."

Basically this covers our ass as far as this shit is concerned. If someone posts something on here, and somebody finds that it violates their copyright, then I'm sure Jake would remove it. Although this has nothing to do with the watermarks, so I don't even know why I'm putting up with continuing this argument.

10/4/2001 9:27:42 AM

In my case, I had a disclaimer on my FTP too, and Im sure NC State has one regarding anything on their network. The RIAA did not give a fuck about that at all.
Oh, and Myrtle dear, please dont let them ban me. That would be such a horrible thing. I would have no life at all without thewolfweb. If I didnt have thewolfweb I might be forced to go out and have a good time since I cant sit at my computer and post on thewolfweb all day like you are able to do. Not having thewolfweb would be the lowest point of my life. Oh, I dont know if I could take that...my life would be so empty.
Hell, give me $100 and Ill ban myself.

10/4/2001 10:45:03 AM

except in your case, an argument can be made that the entire point of your ftp site was to host illegally distributed materials.

Such a case can't be proven for tww.

10/4/2001 10:52:58 AM

you jackasses must not realize how much fucking money it costs to serve images over and over and over and over again

10/4/2001 10:54:54 AM

Quote :

"In my case, I had a disclaimer on my FTP too, and Im sure NC State has one regarding anything on their network. The RIAA did not give a fuck about that at all. Oh, and Myrtle dear, please dont let them ban me. That would be such a horrible thing. I would have no life at all without thewolfweb. If I didnt have thewolfweb I might be forced to go out and have a good time since I cant sit at my computer and post on thewolfweb all day like you are able to do. Not having thewolfweb would be the lowest point of my life. Oh, I dont know if I could take that...my life would be so empty. Hell, give me $100 and Ill ban myself."

I ain't real smart but I smell sarcasm in the house!
You can pick up your $100 at Ruckus tonight

10/4/2001 11:39:35 AM

i really just want to konw why one of my pictures has been greyed out - what in the hell is that about? i've sent cj an email - no reply.....

10/4/2001 1:49:19 PM

omg the scandal that was this.

1/2/2017 10:52:29 AM

It was 2001. Pictures were like 1 halfapixels then.

1/4/2017 7:45:30 AM

Yeah, we had to wait until 9/12 to Photoshop the South Tower because there wasn't enough resolution to do both in the same pic.

1/4/2017 12:32:45 PM

Quote :

"Adding watermarks is NOT okay, mainly because there is no mention of this, and unless its agreed to by a user to let tww do it, its a violation of copyright law."

what a bitch

1/4/2017 6:21:24 PM