Is URL not simply changed by almost any alteration? Right I know you can get past google image search by simply resizing the image depending. I don’t see how those sites are effective with how easy it is to change.
How can buyers be protected from sellers selling copywritten property that they don't have the rights to themselves on this site?
The URL you paste into Google image search is the image you want to check. It doesn’t matter what the URL is that you want to check normally. Just copy the current URL that you see the image on (or use the option in Chrome to directly search for it on Google without having to copy/paste the URL - you’d just right-click on the image and select to search for it on Google).
Google image search tries to find images on the web even if it’s a different size. eg. it can say “No other sizes of this image found.” - so if it is able to find the image in other sizes it should show them. But yes the image could be changed a lot from how it was originally and so not get shown by a google image search.
Sometimes Google image search finds a source image even when it was only one of the things used for a new image (eg. if an image was used somewhere in the making of a logo but other things were added to it - and it can still (at least sometimes) find the original source image).
That’s really good info again. But i’m still confused because you’re making this sound full-proof which is not safe for other viewers who can potentially be victim of this. From what i’m seeing, reverse image searching commonly doesn’t pick up images that have had free transform used, contrast changed, text added over, etc. As it changes the metadata which those engines use to find related images. Can you please site something which shows that getting past reverse images is as hard as you’re suggesting? Because from what i’m searching, there’s only sources showing it can easily be gotten past.
If you are so sure that so many sellers are doing this, why aren’t you reporting them to Fiverr?
More to the point, why is Fiverr some kind of boogeyman here? I can go to Shutterstock, screenshot an image, and sell it on any one of almost a hundred other freelance sites. Alternatively, I could print designs on t-shirts.
You are describing a problem that stems with image sites not watermarking their images. That is their problem. There is nothing stopping them from adding watermarks to images people view in full screen mode on a desktop PC or tablet.
You seem to have never used Fiverr to buy images, but have gone to great lengths to figure out how you would sell images here fraudulently yourself. Now you are arguing that the way you could grab and sell images illegally online is an exclusive to Fiverr problem and this so very bad…
To be honest, you just seem to be trolling.
I don’t think those image search engines only use metadata otherwise they wouldn’t be able to find other sizes of the same image (which they can do - or at least Google image search can) or have a “visually similar images” section (which obviously just look similar but image meta data can/will be different).
Fiverr checks things like gig images as far as I know (that it’s not a copy of one somewhere else on the web) so I assume they could do the same for delivery images. If you wanted to change how the system worked (eg. to check for copied images/plagiarised text in deliveries) you could put your suggestion/how you think it could work in the “Fiverr Site Suggestions” section of the forum, or maybe in the redesigned section if the forum gets changed soon (and which may have more participation from Fiverr staff). Or maybe you could contact Fiverr support with your suggestion for how the system could be changed.
Though any delivery checking system would need to take into account that the seller could have obtained all necessary rights (where needed), so it couldn’t just flag the delivery as infringement if a similar enough image/element was found (ie. they’d need to check with the seller to confirm any necessary rights had been obtained I assume, eg. ask them for proof of rights info where necessary).
Again, gig images are one completely different thing than the images you pay for which are sent privately. Those aren’t monitored…to my knowledge as well. Those are also what you payed for, which is a bigger thing. This post is to warn others and possibly arise concern. If they somehow figured a way to change this function…yes they would need to figure out whether or not they had the rights like any other site that you use image work on like printing. Even then sometimes that will get past.
Can you source where you’re seeing that reverse image can detect these changes efficiently none the less with more than one done? And of new images that people created? That you can’t get past it? Again every single source i’m seeing is stating that it’s easy to get past reverse image through free transform/contrast change, etc. I’m sure if that’s something reverse image has it helps and that’s good. Source something that states you can’t though please.
Cyaxrex, I do not know each and every individual doing this. I only echoed that I have seen numerous threads about people who have been cheated by others on here due to pirated/photos that were made with copywritten content. Ask others that are complaining about this individually. I to my knowledge have not experience this, I haven’t purchased much photos from here in the first place.
Because fiverr is not monitoring the photos for quality checks on copyrights. I explained this near the beginning. Your seller is sending you the image privately. Either way, if images were posted as a pre-viewed image before purchase, i’m sure they wouldn’t have too much manpower due to the saturation of different content on this site. This post is only intended to help users if they see this post by clearing the risks and things you can do. Copyright strikes are an issue everywhere.
That is a problem they can control. I’m just saying it’s a problem. Again from my understanding the biggest issue would be people CREATING content, actually drawing the content without needing to source it, when they do not have the rights to that intellectual design property.
Since it’s likely that Google image search (and others) have changed over time and may not have always had things like the “visually similar” search (or maybe have been able to detect multiple sizes of the same image) you could check the date of any article that states how it works to see if it’s recent enough (eg. last couple of years). eg. if the article says it only works by things like metadata/things on the web page, that will be out of date.
I’m not saying it’s impossible for someone to avoid detection by things like that but saying exactly how would probably help those who wanted to commit copyright infringement so specifying exactly how it might/could be bypassed probably isn’t a good idea. In images (eg. real life ones) there’s a limit to how much an image can normally be transformed while still looking natural. Also many of the changes that might be done to it to try to avoid being detected could be reversed and checked.
Again, gig images are one completely different thing than the images you pay for which are sent privately. Those aren’t monitored…to my knowledge as well.
That’s why I suggested you could make the suggestion for the system to be changed (eg. in the suggestion section of the forum or to Fiverr themselves eg. through the helpdesk/support email) so it did check those delivered images, since they already have the technology since they are using it to check gig images. But like I said, they’d need to check with the seller as they may (and probably will) have the necessary rights for anything used, even if it was similar to something existing. If Fiverr did the checks they could also make the system do more checking for variations (like the different transforms if necessary). Though it might be a lot of work for them to manually check with the seller that they have the rights to anything used in every delivery if it found some similar element on the web.
Also where I’ve seen a seller or buyer give images without making sure they had the necessary rights they were detected by the image search engines/sites.
In summary, be careful when you buy on the internet. And offline. Basically everywhere.
In terms of the many threads and discussions about this, the vast majority of the time when you dig a little deeper into those claiming copyright infringement etc, you find that they paid $5-10 for something that should cost $100-10,000. Any right minded person who looks at that should understand something is wrong and not just assume that they found the best deal ever. Those who don’t query it are just asking for trouble and deserve what they get.
For example, those expecting a logo they are paying $5 for to be a totally original piece comparable to the great logo designers rather than being a customized template are simply deluded and need to educate themselves.
There are occasional exceptions but if you want the luxury of Fiverr vetting every seller you buy from then I suggest you look at the Verified Sellers in the Pro section - you might see the prices are significantly higher though. You can also look at going and buying images from the paid sites that guarantee rights to their images and also pay the premium that entails.
Maybe there’s an idea for a gig here - “I will check your image for copyright infringement/uniqueness”
Though maybe really they’d need to show the existing images that it was most similar too - maybe that could be problem - unless only links were given.
Attempting to assume that it cannot be done and giving others a false sense of security is equally if not more dangerous than what you’re suggesting, which is why it’s good we clarify, as it seems that copyright issues on this site are more of an issue than you’re crediting and fiverr being so popular is what brought me here. Again, cite me something that claims it is hard to get past reverse image, etc. Any slight transformation changes data that’s used to search it. If what you’re saying at the ending statement were efficiently true here, watermarks would not be an effective means for stopping these things. Users could simply reverse the image as you are stating. Which is partially true. That’s a big issue.
I am not sure how they could change this to being secure. The nature of sending a private image innately isn’t going to protect users from fraud virtually at all unless they somehow have enough manpower/system to systematically do so effectively. The amount of content they have and the quality checking they already do, I don’t believe they have that manpower/capabilities. This post was just to warn people not to use this site for photography, since they can’t monitor photos in that sense for the user’s safety.
Probably because they were not altered. But i’m not here suggesting that can’t be picked up at all either.
What you are attempting to do is trying to stifle users who are a victim of something illegal because you claim the price should have alarmed them, when that isn’t true in any nature. There are people making legit work at low prices so they can get fast traffic and/or if it is easy to design, that’s not an issue. The issue are people using illicit means and this is on both the expensive/affordable spectrum. Users cannot be blamed for the lack of security on a platform, with little to no protection involved. Say weeks/months pass and your design gets removed because the system on the platform you hosted them on detected it as duplication, would Fiverr refund you after that timespan? Likely not, and it’s immaculate you would blame the victim, only abhorrent people do something like that.
Incorrect, I would like you to educate yourself on Fiverr’s Teespring gig’s for example, where people are hosting simple typography designs at inexpensive rates which avoid copyrights. The problem I am proposing are the shady people in the background. There are people who are falling victim. Again, you seem to be clueless about the fact that there is legit inexpensive work out there. Illicit/illegal work that’s inexpensive is something that should be punished and blamed on the user who output said illicit/illegal work. The by-standards that were clueless are not to blame and that’s a simple concept you don’t seem to get. Like someone who does something illegal intentionally is the one to blame. It’s really that simple. If cheap work is that expectedly illicit, why does Fiverr allow low priced work to be posted? When Fiverr gets fraud activity reported, and they confirm, they will take action would you not assume? Fiverr doesn’t agree with you, but you’re right. They do have a breach from what I understand.
At this point read everything I wrote before this.
There is no need to. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over.
The basic points of your thread are:
- I have never bought copyright infringed content on Fiverr, but I think lots of people sell stolen work.
- It is Fiverr’s job to do what no stock image site, social media platform, or web company has ever managed to do, and create a system for meticulously checking the rights of all images delivered over the platform.
- If Fiverr doesn’t pull this digital miracle out of its tech department ASAP, Fiverr will go down in history as the worst thing that ever happened to mankind.
I’m not sure what you mean. I’ve never said it was impossible to change an image in a way that won’t be detected. I already said “I’m not saying it’s impossible for someone to avoid detection…”. I just said it’s probably not a good idea to say (whether by me or others) exactly how to do it in case that helps people commit copyright infringement without getting detected.
I don’t think most of those who will infringe will go to great lengths to avoid detection (eg. they will most likely be easily found if they’re copies I think).
watermarks would not be an effective means for stopping these things
What I was saying wasn’t a method to remove watermarks but I would say that a normal watermark is unlikely to stop Google Reverse Image Search from finding an image (but it won’t give anyone access to an un-watermarked original high res image behind a secure site).
Pro sellers (who are verified and hand-picked by Fiverr) would be unlikely to risk their account by delivering copyright infringing content I think. I’d assume that they’d spend more time checking things like logos are not too similar to existing ones. I think price of gigs does come into it but also whether they have enough existing reviews. You could also check their existing images info the reviews/portfolio to see how unique they were if necessary (as well as if you think the designs were what you want).
They buyer can check their deliveries using the methods specified (including checking variations of it). The user has the option to report any issues with a delivery if necessary and also to ask for revisions (eg. if it was slightly similar to something existing but not copied/infringing).
Putting this in this section is less likely I think to get the system changed than asking for changes to the system if that’s what you think needs to be done. Though like I said and you agreed it would take a lot of work re: rights but there might be less work involved depending on the type of service. Maybe the auto-checker or manual checks could be done only on the more expensive gigs due to the resources required. Maybe the higher the gig price, the more thorough the checks (auto & manual or just manual) - just due to the gig price paying towards the checks.
But whatever the price of the gig, that doesn’t stop the buyer spending time checking the delivery. Though I think you’re more likely to get CS to refund (if it was found to be infringing) if you do all checks at least within a couple of weeks (though preferably before the order is complete really I think).
Also specifying in the order requirements (and revisions) as precisely as possible what is required may also help (eg. if your idea/requirements were unique).
Do you have evidence of this? You haven’t been a victim and haven’t reported anyone so where are your claims coming from?
I have come across a number of claims like you are talking about and yes, the seller involved is in the wrong but buyers need to be realistic. I’m sure you can get cheap prices sometimes but there is a limit to how cheap anyone would go. What I was referring to are those that aren’t 50 or 70% less than they should be, they are 95-99% less than they should be. Those are the gigs that should be kept away from and that any buyer buying them needs to take responsibility for their own misfortune in that case, while also reporting the seller.
I felt that was pretty clear from what I said.
I did read what you wrote and pointed out various issues with it. You don’t like the idea that people buying on the internet should check and understand what they are buying and whether it is too good to be true. There are issues like this across all types of platforms offering both services and goods and why you decided that Fiverr is the one that needs to change the world is beyond me. Sure, punish the people selling illegally or whatever but a large proportion of issues would be solved if people buying the services used a little common sense.
The principle of caveat emptor - let the buyer beware is something that many western countries have moved away from as they look to protect consumers more than was done previously. However, on the internet and in a global marketplace where there is a wide variety of countries, jurisdictions and cultures, any buyer should absolutely beware as their options for recourse (as you point out) are simply not as easy.
That is all I am suggesting. I don’t believe this makes me an abhorrent person, just someone who hasn’t fallen victim to scams, copyright infringement, shoddy goods etc. Each to their own though, I prefer taking responsibility for my actions than howling at the moon and wishing that someone would hold my hand in the world of shopping.
Other people’s complaints. Simply put I don’t have to have any experiences myself to speak on account of others. My sourcing are individual threads. Just keyword search relevant titles. You’re stating you heard claims which explains just that. I don’t think you understand as well, let me echo something I have already said. A buyer can not be to blame for something illegal someone else did. Fiverr’s rules do not work that way, what you are suggesting goes against their TOS which precisely regards scamming. In no context are buyers to blame or does it ever describe what you’re mentioning. When it comes to the regards of your false-pretense of what should be expected, again no. There is work everywhere for as low as $5 which is legit. Again, typography is extremely cheap, there isn’t a limit. Are you buying projects for pennies or something? Again, what you’re describing as 50-70% - 95-99%(Be realistic now), there is legit work everywhere for cheaper prices at the rates you’re vaguely talking about. Do you understand how many people are on Fiverr? Do you get what competition means? You understand what lowering prices is for, right?
I am very clear in what I am saying as well. You’re simply wrong.
What issues? I pointed out how what you were proposing to me was flawed. For example, I like the idea of buying things on the internet. All I did was point out one single flaw/breach in a specific website. You perceived this as me saying all purchasing is bad. First, let us take a step back with something very simple I stated. The art that you purchase here is sent privately - it is not monitored for quality or copyright infringement. The art on a site which limits photos being sold in the form of something open and pre-viewed before purchase reviews these images - usually thoroughly. Can you understand the differences in security there and that it isn’t as simple as ‘There’s issues everywhere’, or do I have to make that more simple than I already have? “Sure, punish the people selling illegally or whatever”…wow dude. You lack common sense. You don’t understand that cheap work doesn’t mean illicit. Illicit is both expensive and cheap. It’s not allowed in either.
? No I never pointed out that your options for recourse are limited by users in proxy of different countries. I pointed out that your options for recourse are limited when you purchase something and find out weeks/months later it doesn’t work out. Are you serious here?
No, you suggested that sellers should be to blame for illegal actions and cherrycoated it in a 4 paragraph defensive comment to THEN lead up to stating you aren’t an abhorrent person because clearly it got to you when I explained how blaming a victim isn’t good - like any normal person should understand.
It said in forum rules that you should speak only FROM YOUR OWN experience.
You didn’t explain that it couldn’t to begin with, you lead up to admitting you can get past reverse image when I kept this debate going. To begin with your argument was simply how you can use reverse image to show something was copywritten, but it isn’t that simple. It isn’t just not impossible to avoid reverse image detection, it’s extremely easy. Unless it’s somehow advanced since
I last checked. That response was because you stated it was dangerous to suggest you can get past it; that isn’t necessarily true. It is necessary for people to know about security breaches just as much as how to avoid them, and it’s equally important to know how big of an issue they are, this helps solve the issue. People need to know what to look out for. Look at any source showing you a breach like malware and they will explain how the malware infects your computer. It is a process to deduct an issue properly - and also I explained how you’re able to get past reverse image because you explained how reverse image can be used to restrict copyright infringement, if left there it would create a false sense that reverse image is enough, when I proved to you it isn’t by explaining how it can be easily thwarted. Otherwise the problem won’t be acknowledged as it needs to be - as an actual issue. Because it isn’t enough. There are people facing this issue due to that.
In my opinion if it means money they would but I have no clue I just hear that people are doing it.
I wasn’t suggesting a method to remove watermarks either, that sentence follows the sentence that states if you can remove a design over another you can do it with watermarks as well which would devalue watermarks.
I’m not talking about Pro sellers. Different people are also often not likely to go to them because their prices are unnecessarily inflated often, but I understand they can be popular. That’s something you can do but not very useful in the longrun.
Yes that’s something you can do. Again if something isn’t found by reverse image you have no pretensive judgement to report it for, and then you’re left with a removed product notification. And just as sad as it is to say most people aren’t going to use it. There needs to be some quality control to even suggest a site like that for photography.
Again this isn’t a suggestion for change it was just a warning for people not to use this site for photography as is. To my knowledge coming here they don’t have the capabilities. Those sound like good ideas though, maybe I can construct a post suggesting something.
True, you listed good ways to check as well. You can be as thorough as sites that review their selves.
Second that. In addition always come up with very specific design ideas that you created yourself that include specific positions, etc.