# REPOSTING IMAGES ON DUBIZZLE / AGENT WEBSITES IS NOT ALLOWED



## 234sale

^^ Not true

We post a link to the source.....

PLUS SSC everything is free... not for commercial gain..


----------



## High Times

234sale said:


> ^^ Not true
> 
> We post a link to the source.....
> 
> PLUS SSC everything is free... not for commercial gain..


 
Really ?

I think there are some double standards being applied here (again). There are ads for various companies all over this site ranging from singlemuslims.com to British Gas to various real estate companies. Are you telling me SSC makes not 1 cent of income from these various advertisements?

Of course it does. It is paid on net traffic and clicks. The more traffic coming through SSC the more saleable the advertising space is.

What increases the traffic. Information and pictures donated from users. Many pics are posted and copied from other sources on the net, flickr et al.

All very well trying to be protective of your pics but i think your both getting your panties in bunch about this personaly. If you dont want your work used dont post it on a public forum. Copyright it legally and act like a proffessional, not a whining child in the playground upset because someone stole his toy.

Imre has the best attitude. Once again prooving that he is a pure Gentleman.

Just my opinion - On with the bitching.


----------



## gerald.d

High Times said:


> Really ?
> 
> I think there are some double standards being applied here (again). There are ads for various companies all over this site ranging from singlemuslims.com to British Gas to various real estate companies. Are you telling me SSC makes not 1 cent of income from these various advertisements?
> 
> Of course it does. It is paid on net traffic and clicks. The more traffic coming through SSC the more saleable the advertising space is.
> 
> What increases the traffic. Information and pictures donated from users. Many pics are posted and copied from other sources on the net, flickr et al.


You're missing the point though, and indeed rather spectacularly.

If someone chooses to post their image here, that's entirely their prerogative.

I don't think you'll find anyone here complaining that photos they've taken and chosen to embed in posts here in some way contribute to the running of this site.

That would be rather daft, wouldn't it - making a post, including a link to your own picture, and then complaining that there's advertising on this site?


> All very well trying to be protective of your pics but i think your both getting your panties in bunch about this personaly. If you dont want your work used dont post it on a public forum. Copyright it legally and act like a proffessional, not a whining child in the playground upset because someone stole his toy.


You're showing a distinct lack of knowledge regarding intellectual property.

If I take a photo, I don't have to do _anything_ to copyright it. By the very fact that I created it, it's mine. No further action necessary. No argument. End of story.

I may then choose to share that image with an individual, or a company, and unless I explicitly grant them the rights to do whatever they want with it (as in the example of the Noor Bank photography competition), all they can do is look at it. That's it. Nothing more.

No-one here has a problem with SSC hosting their images. Many people spend a great deal of time and effort helping out (directly or indirectly) individuals such as yourself by taking photographs in the region.

You can bet your arse though that if you accuse those individuals of being "a whining child in the playground" because they make an attempt to protect their property, next time you ask them to take a few minutes out of their lives to take a picture of something you're interested in, the answer is probably not going to be very polite.


----------



## High Times

gerald.d said:


> You're missing the point though, and indeed rather spectacularly.





gerald.d said:


> If someone chooses to post their image here, that's entirely their prerogative.
> 
> I don't think you'll find anyone here complaining that photos they've taken and chosen to embed in posts here in some way contribute to the running of this site.
> 
> That would be rather daft, wouldn't it - making a post, including a link to your own picture, and then complaining that there's advertising on this site?


No I totally see your point. I just think you are being selective with how you apply your morals, which of course is entirely your prerogative. 

On one hand you are happy to allow your “intellectual property” to contribute to the success of a site that in turn profits from advertising revenues, 

On the other hand you are getting upset that another organisation uses your “intellectual property” to contribute to it’s own revenue streams, from which you also do not benefit.



gerald.d said:


> You're showing a distinct lack of knowledge regarding intellectual property.
> 
> If I take a photo, I don't have to do _anything_ to copyright it. By the very fact that I created it, it's mine. No further action necessary. No argument. End of story.
> 
> I may then choose to share that image with an individual, or a company, and unless I explicitly grant them the rights to do whatever they want with it (as in the example of the Noor Bank photography competition), all they can do is look at it. That's it. Nothing more.


Correct, I have no knowledge of intellectual property in the context of photography. I do however have some degree of understanding of corporate law, and I would be quite confident that you would not win a legal case against any organisation for copyright infringement in the case where you have wilfully placed your “intellectual property” in the public domain without restricting it’s use. The very nature of a public forum such as SSC, by using ‘tinypic’ or ‘imageshack’ would severely restrict any legal action you could take in my view.





gerald.d said:


> No-one here has a problem with SSC hosting their images. Many people spend a great deal of time and effort helping out (directly or indirectly) individuals such as yourself by taking photographs in the region.


I agree, I have posted many images myself in various threads in the UAE section. Once posted the pics are public property as far as I am concerned. I guess that’s my point really. If you as an individual value your “intellectual property” so highly it seems a bit silly to me that you give it out freely to the public, only to then want to restrict it’s use.

That’s the bit I’m not understanding. Perhaps you could care to explain your morals from a rational point of view rather than simply trying to tell me that I’m wrong.


----------



## High Times

Wannaberich said:


> *HT once again you have shown yourself to be the fucking scumbag prick that you are*.
> What has been taking place here is a discussion regarding the legalities,morally or whatever of using/stealing photos from this website or from others to use here.There has been no bitching other than what was contained in your moronic post.You can't but help sticking your nose in with your little bitchy insults and trying to rock the boat.
> *Why dont u **** off and go back to perving SSC for female members which is what you're all about.*
> Ciao.


Moderators. I have not previously mentioned or attempted a discussion with this individual, and in no way deserve to be addressed in this manor. I believe this member has previously been banned for abusive behaviour. I have been asked privately by you not to engage with this member, to which I have agreed, and honoured. 

Everytime you allow this member to act in this way it only allows his behaviour to continue and deteriorate. If I, or any other member had delivered an unprovoked attack in this way I know exactly what the outcome would be. 

I can only wonder why this member has special privileges?


----------



## Guest89

Back on Topic: 

When I post pictures which I have taken, should I add a watermark to my images or just post them as they are and hope somebody asks me for permission?


----------



## gerald.d

High Times said:


> Correct, I have no knowledge of intellectual property in the context of photography. I do however have some degree of understanding of corporate law, and I would be quite confident that you would not win a legal case against any organisation for copyright infringement in the case where you have wilfully placed your “intellectual property” in the public domain without restricting it’s use. The very nature of a public forum such as SSC, by using ‘tinypic’ or ‘imageshack’ would severely restrict any legal action you could take in my view.


And I have some (considerable, actually) degree of understanding of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. But, as with your degree of understanding of corporate law, it's totally irrelevant in this matter.

You may well believe that I wouldn't stand a chance in court, but if this is the case, perhaps you could explain why I got the following reactions from three different companies this week when I challenged them on breaching my copyright? -

1. Biggest publisher in the region: An immediate verbal apology, which will be followed up by an apology in print in the magazine concerned.

2. Tin-pot local estate agency: An immediate verbal apology, and an immediate offer of financial compensation (which I actually declined, because they were so decent about the whole situation).

3. Microsoft. Removal of an embedded video, hosted on a 3rd party's website, that had been ripped from a video I'd submitted to YouTube (yes - that's right - a video that I had quite willingly uploaded to YouTube to share with the world), within 72 hours of notifying them of the breach of copyright.



> That’s the bit I’m not understanding. Perhaps you could care to explain your morals from a rational point of view rather than simply trying to tell me that I’m wrong.


Morals don't come into it. The only rational point of view that matters is the legal one.

Having said that though, if you can't understand why someone is happy to freely contribute to a community (be it a profit making enterprise or not) that they're a member of, yet is not happy for their work to be used for commercial gain elsewhere, then your brain is wired in a very strange way indeed.


----------



## gerald.d

Guest89 said:


> Back on Topic:
> 
> When I post pictures which I have taken, should I add a watermark to my images or just post them as they are and hope somebody asks me for permission?


You don't have to add a watermark to protect your rights.

Unfortunately, adding a watermark doesn't seem to deter people from ripping off your work anyway (just look at Imre's examples).


----------



## Guest89

^^ You are right I guess.  Why don't people just move their lazy behinds and snap a few photos of it and post it on their website, but steal other's work. It is unfortunate and there must be a more comprehensive law and consequences for offenders.


----------



## Imre

That Better Homes watermark looks bad , we could use the same but the pic looks rubbish after.

Watermark is good idea because if someone wants to contact you its easy , I had few businesses with companies, newspapers,magazines etc.. they asked the original pic for using their website,brochure etc.. 

Not a big money but better than nothing.

I would say again , the problem is just in UAE , these companies, newspapers can do anything because the law is still rubbish here.


----------



## High Times

gerald.d said:


> And I have some (considerable, actually) degree of understanding of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. But, as with your degree of understanding of corporate law, it's totally irrelevant in this matter.
> 
> You may well believe that I wouldn't stand a chance in court, but if this is the case, perhaps you could explain why I got the following reactions from three different companies this week when I challenged them on breaching my copyright? -
> 
> 1. Biggest publisher in the region: An immediate verbal apology, which will be followed up by an apology in print in the magazine concerned.
> 
> 2. Tin-pot local estate agency: An immediate verbal apology, and an immediate offer of financial compensation (which I actually declined, because they were so decent about the whole situation).
> 
> 3. Microsoft. Removal of an embedded video, hosted on a 3rd party's website, that had been ripped from a video I'd submitted to YouTube (yes - that's right - a video that I had quite willingly uploaded to YouTube to share with the world), within 72 hours of notifying them of the breach of copyright.
> 
> Morals don't come into it. The only rational point of view that matters is the legal one.
> 
> Having said that though, if you can't understand why someone is happy to freely contribute to a community (be it a profit making enterprise or not) that they're a member of, yet is not happy for their work to be used for commercial gain elsewhere, then your brain is wired in a very strange way indeed.


Genuinely well done to you. :cheers: 

I still hold the view (rightly or wrongly), that if you ever went as far as a legal challange any decent lawyer would wipe the floor with you. Do be sure to post the printed apology from the regions biggest publisher when it is forthcoming.


I sort of understand where your coming from on the double standard issue (as I see it) issue. Are you a proffessional photographer.

Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself, it's a shame you couldn’t do it without veiled insults but ney bother. I'm a big boy i can take it.


----------



## AltinD

Wannaberich said:


> Sorry HT,there are two reasons why I wont be banned.
> The first is because you insulted one of the mods,and that wont go down too well.
> The second is because as they didnt ban agod for the following post,then they can't ban me for my post either:


----------



## gerald.d

High Times said:


> Do be sure to post the printed apology from the regions biggest publisher when it is forthcoming


You can read it yourself in the next issue of Construction Week.


----------



## High Times

gerald.d said:


> You can read it yourself in the next issue of Construction Week.


Please post a link anyway if you have the time, as it's not my read, and i would like to see them fess up.

Just to clarify my point. I wasn't being deliberately obtuse, to either you or Sale, I just could understand your collective thinking with regards to the comments made below.



gerald.d said:


> ^^ If there's a single advert on any webpage where an image is hosted, then as far as I'm concerned, it's being used commercially.





234sale said:


> PLUS SSC everything is free... not for commercial gain..





234sale said:


> The real point is commercial gain, the problem we have with Dubizzle is they charge for the advert.


----------



## 234sale

This just about pays for vbulletin and hosting

The only time you get money from it is when you click it. 
Also I think the software itself chooses one of those advert, money to vbulletin.
SSC is not for commercial gain, your posts are not charged for, just those adds pay to keep the system running.


----------



## 234sale

One question,,










Why is your PM box 98% full?


----------



## Imre

Those adverts (exept the CTBUH) just Google Adds which are visible almost every sites now, even small blogs, forums etc.. its not a big money, just few people clicking there.


----------



## 234sale

I'm moving to watermark everything new I post.


----------



## Bikes

234sale said:


> This just about pays for vbulletin and hosting
> 
> The only time you get money from it is when you click it.
> Also I think the software itself chooses one of those advert, money to vbulletin.
> SSC is not for commercial gain, your posts are not charged for, just those adds pay to keep the system running.


SSC is one of the largest websites in the world. Alexa rank of 1990. If SSC was not for commercial gain, then Jan would be out of his mind: http://websiteoutlook.com/www.skyscrapercity.com .


----------



## 234sale

http://www.valuatemysite.com/www.dubizzle.com

$1,25 Million USD


skyscrapercity.com 

$1.22 Million USD


So your right Bikes, HT..


As soon as this website starts charging for images or info I would not post info. 

My issue is Dubizzle is charging for those adds, thus they are charging for hosting.


----------



## 234sale

Dubizzle owner emailed with list of offences.


----------



## gerald.d

234sale said:


> Dubizzle owner emailed with list of offences.


I'm just going to go straight to his hosting company.

Hosting companies HATE having to deal with this kind of stuff. Costs them a lot of time and effort, and their lawyers get paid loads. So it costs them a lot of money too.


----------



## 234sale

-- edit ^^ will take action

I called smith and ken, I spoke to someone I knew and suggested they took their own images, if not Imre would be happy to sell a year license.. 

Think they will stop.


----------



## Imre

gerald.d said:


> I'm just going to go straight to his hosting company.
> 
> Hosting companies HATE having to deal with this kind of stuff. Costs them a lot of time and effort, and their lawyers get paid loads. So it costs them a lot of money too.


Hosting company will remove the website?


----------



## Imre

234sale said:


> Dubizzle owner emailed with list of offences.


Good job, some pics already removed or changed


----------



## Imre

New adverts

ENGEL & VOELKERS ( they are lazy to find the latest pics  )

http://dubai.dubizzle.com/property-...rious-3-bed-maid-in-goldcrest-views-2-jlt-sp/

http://dubai.dubizzle.com/property-...rious-2-bed-in-goldcrest-views-2-jlt-0501026/


----------



## gerald.d

Imre said:


> Hosting company will remove the website?


If necessary, yes.

They're obliged to act within a "reasonable" timeframe, which is generally accepted to be 72 hours.

If the website owner doesn't do it, the hosting company will.


----------



## gerald.d

Imre said:


> This pic is yours?
> 
> http://dubai.dubizzle.com/property-for-sale/apartment/2010/2/3/2-bed-in-burj-khalifa/


Note - removed within 12 hours of your post. 10 hours of my submitting a DMCA take-down notice to Dubizzle's hosting company.


----------



## Bikes

Gerald, hosting can be extremely expensive, I don't think they will take down a website just like this - I've never seen an example with a relatively large website. Taking down minisites is one thing, taking down a whole business is another. I see absolutely no chance Dubizzle being suspended from its current host.


----------



## gerald.d

Bikes said:


> Gerald, hosting can be extremely expensive, I don't think they will take down a website just like this - I've never seen an example with a relatively large website. Taking down minisites is one thing, taking down a whole business is another. I see absolutely no chance Dubizzle being suspended from its current host.


The takedown refers to the copyright infringement. Basically, if the owner of the website doesn't remove the image within a reasonable timeframe, their hosting company is obliged to.

What do you think the reaction of a hosting company is going to be, if it starts getting 10-20 takedown notices directed towards a single website every single day of the week?

They're going to get really, really, pissed with the hassle, and tell the website to get its house in order, otherwise, take their business elsewhere.

Dubizzle will get its house in order. It has no choice.


----------



## gerald.d

And as if right on cue, here's another one.

http://dubai.dubizzle.com/property-...usive-penthouse-in-the-burj-khalifa-availabl/

Start the clock.


----------



## Bikes

gerald.d said:


> The takedown refers to the copyright infringement. Basically, if the owner of the website doesn't remove the image within a reasonable timeframe, their hosting company is obliged to.
> 
> What do you think the reaction of a hosting company is going to be, if it starts getting 10-20 takedown notices directed towards a single website every single day of the week?
> 
> They're going to get really, really, pissed with the hassle, and tell the website to get its house in order, otherwise, take their business elsewhere.
> 
> Dubizzle will get its house in order. It has no choice.


At least 60-70% of the websites on the Internet infringing on copyrights. You will never be able to take down a million dollar business, except if they host child porn.


----------



## gerald.d

Bikes said:


> At least 60-70% of the websites on the Internet infringing on copyrights. You will never be able to take down a million dollar business, except if they host child porn.


Whatever.


----------



## luv2bebrown

one would think its easier to just stop the problem at the source...


----------



## 234sale

luv2bebrown said:


> one would think its easier to just stop the problem at the source...


That is being done as well..


----------



## Chakazoolu

Heres another one of Imres

http://dubai.dubizzle.com/property-...214-jumeirah-lake-towers-large-one-bed-apart/


----------



## Guest89

I would be surprised if there are none of Imre's or Sale's pictures on there. This is a total dubizzle!


----------



## Imre

This is rubbish again, they are responsible all materials in their website.


----------



## Imre

new advert:

The Torch 

http://dubai.dubizzle.com/property-...selling-op-full-marina-view-1-br-apt-the-tor/


----------



## gerald.d

another one -

http://dubai.dubizzle.com/property-for-sale/apartment/2010/2/7/burj-khalifa-3-bed-sea-and-burj-arb/

Took me all of 5 seconds to copy and paste previous email to ThePlanet and change the offedning link.


----------

