According to his bio, Jesse Chen is a software engineer at Facebook and recent graduate of UC Berkeley. Jesse has a personal blog which we recently stumbled across that includes a blog post from 2012 that detailed how to go about stealing copyrighted images and removing watermarks.
The post (UPDATE: The blog post has since been removed.) starts off by congratulating recent college grads and expressing frustration about not being able to right click proofs of grad pictures (in order to avoid paying for them). But never fear, Jesse Chen and Jonathan Tien have come to the rescue with a tutorial to show you how to rip off the photographer who took them for you by bypassing the blocked right click and removing that "ugly copyright overlay" in Photoshop.
Jesse links to his own graduation images, here which he uses in the tutorial.
The article continues by detailing the steps involved to get to a high-res copy of the image (still watermarked at this point) in three different browsers. [UPDATE] in respect to Grad Images we have taken down the original screencaps and have replaced them.
Click to view larger.
Click to view larger.
And just like that you're a master Photoshop-wielding image thief. Congrats.
This attitude towards photography is toxic and seems like it's becoming more and more pervasive. What Jesse fails to realize is that the photographer who took those images owns them- there's a copyright notice for a reason. As a software engineer, I'm sure Jesse wouldn't be cool with someone stealing some of his code for use in their own website, even though it can be done just as easily. This tutorial is not about "[taking] back what's yours to begin with," it's stealing what someone would kindly sell you (as low as $10). If you want free pictures have your family take them.
Even if Jesse is posting as himself and not as a representative of Facebook, when you work for a company and explicitly show that in your profile, your words are associated with that brand. Disappointing, to say the least.
If you'd like to see the original post for yourself you can check it out here. UPDATE: The blog post has since been removed.
But they're picking up traffic by building a headline for impact. That's the job of a headline from newspapers to now. My point is, why would they deliberately leave out factual elements of a headline if it can gain viewers? They didn't lie. I can't fault them for running a site based on traffic and then doing smart things to build traffic.
I can't fault them either, it's business. Just hate seeing one of my favorite sites give in to the "buzzfeediness" syndrome that has taken swept across the internet. Guess it's the world we live in now
So you really don't see anything wrong with what Jesse Chen has posted? You must not be a working photographer.
I don't give a rats ass about how many clicks they generate or what their motive is. FStoppers is all about photography and in the world of digital photography that we live in today, this kind of theft is very common and it needs to be brought to the forefront. If for nothing else than to educate some of the people commenting on this post right now who don't have a clue about CI or IP.
Yeah! So we should all just shut up and let this guy steal from a commercial photography company and say nothing of the legalities of such actions.
That "Facebook Software Engineer" is in the title is very relevant because not only is he representing the company he is working for, he is advocating theft on behalf of his employer who happens to have a huge world-wide presence. And wouldn't you know, he's on the Facebook Photo team. How ironic.
If you have a photography business this post will resonate with you in to the core and we should "rally pitchforks" for this kind of theft because it is against the law and our work is supposed to be protected under the law.
Per his LinkedIn, "Currently on the Photos team at Facebook" makes his position and influence relevant.
Here's the original post: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.jesseche...
Just wanted to put it out there that searching for "How to steal copyrighted images" on google. Which is half of the headline for this post leads here, a detailed tutorial to do just so.
I'm not knocking the article or anything just that if someone were interested in actually knowing how to remove watermarks has just found a perfect location for that information. Perhaps you don't need to include all the steps?
How much do you all want to bet that isn't a legal copy of Photoshop either ;-)
That's exactly what I suggested before Chen dropped his blog. You can see my comment on the web archive cache.
Haha, I swear people have no common sense. Let's break several laws and post it online along with a tutorial on how to do it!
Not really surprising coming from a FB employee. The entire company was founded on sketchy ethics. Check in to what happens to your photos when you post them and read their TOS. Makes me never want to post any decent photos on FB ever again.
would have change something if the post teach the same BUT with his own photo ( taken by him), NO people who really want to steal they know how to do it
He did mention being the student that university, you would have access to a legit copy of Photoshop (in school perhaps). Which makes it worst, using the school's property to perform crime.
I think the point of this article is *not* to show the fstopper readers how to remove watermarks - any digital photographer worth his salt should know this already. Or know somebody who does.
The point is that a guy with a college degree - an engineer and an adult by most standards- has no scruples taking what is not his.
The point of the issue here is bigger than this sorry guy - he just tags off with the other scape goats of the moment. The point is the uneducated public concerning copyright, intellectual property and what is allowed and what not.
If you point your finger at someone, at least 3 fingers point back at you. If you have a standard issue hand.
So how does the creative industry go about educating their clients about this sort of stuff? For one thing, a transparent billing would help. Get it across that the photographers need the 10 bucks per image sold to put bread on the table, that the cost of the session usually just covers expenses. Get it across that taking photographs is more than just 3 seconds of "smile" and "click".
Just sharpening the pitchforks doesn't do the trick, imho. Point in case: the music industry. They took a nose dive when they tried everything to copy protect their CD's until even genuine products sometimes refused to play on every player.
Until they learned and hooked up on the internet as a sales vehicle instead of an enemy.
Just my $0,02
Mike
Well, $0,02 is a lot more than most musicians get from their music being played on the internet. Here's one musician's take on it: https://www.facebook.com/OfficialFrankGambale/posts/775667115797011 How do you educate people about the value of your work if they can get it for free?
So the internet as a sales vehicle isn't a panacea for most creatives. Yet it's even less so if ways of circumventing their copyright are disseminated widely, as this article has done. I'm sure they've given the techniques used a much wider audience than the original blog post (which has now been removed), and the article will show up more prominently in search results when people try to find instructions for stealing images and removing watermarks. I don't see any justification for including detailed instructions for circumventing people's copyright and hope to see them removed from the article.
Why not create a better watermark? Surely there are ways to make it so difficult to remove it that the price becomes more attractive.
Why not, NOT steal?
Good luck with that.
So its our fault that we have watermarks that are not bulletproof?
Oh yeah, sure. We can just watermark the heck out of all of our work beyond recognition and be completely safe. The point of a watermark is to let you know that if you snag the photo, you are snagging copyrighted material that is the intellectual property of the photographer/artist who created it. It's not intended to be hacker proof, it never has been. Otherwise, if such thing existed, don't you think we'd all be using it by now?
So sorry for making the suggestion!
Well, how about a more thoughtful one than, hey you photogs, you need to do more on your end to protect yourselves. Like there's already something else just waiting for us to discover or something.
Using simple text to water mark an image obviously doesn't work that well and there's not a lot of skill displayed in this tutorial. I would think it would be harder to remove if there were nonlinear lines and not a standard font with gradients and transparencies. I know it's not perfect but if it makes it too hard for most people then they might just pay the fee. You can't eliminate theft but you can make it harder to do. I'm amazed that I have started such an offensive thread! I have learned my lesson...no more discussions from me.
The problem is, the photography industry does not have a lobby with the technical sector. For images that are stamped with copyrighted metadata, it is way to easy for say the Windows or Mac operating systems to detect this when you mouse-over an image whether it be an image on your computer or an image inside of a web browser. Is Microsoft, Sun, or Apple going to develop a device and software to support this? I'd say not. But if the tech industry wanted to, they could protect images against theft if they really wanted to. So it comes down the photography industry not having enough pull in the tech sector for the operating systems manufacturers to make this happen. It can be done.
Well like most computer engineers, I believe in open source code. So it makes sense that most others believe in open source photography ;P
The "open" in "open source" does not equate to free nor without rights. Open Source can even be commercially produced software. In fact, Open Source code is typically licensed for usage and those that use open source code from others in their own projects must oblige by the terms of that license. Open merely reflects that the source of the code is not proprietarily controlled, even though it is still licensed.
I meant it in sarcastic humor. Don't be such a prude. Who doesn't know that already?
Yes, I got the sarcasm. I intended the comment for other readers since this is a common misconception.
... i think its cultural...
if You think it`s bad to show the tricks about removing the proofs... then... WHY ARE YOU SHOWING IT HERE? why do you make it more popular? http://goo.gl/gpKS7D
Great Tut, I'll have to try that when I get home, thanks FSTOPPERS!
Figuratively speaking, the guy should be shot.
Glad I deleted Facebook over a year ago... Cant believe anyone uses that site anymore. Its over a decade old. Isn't it time you moved on as well?
May his crotch forever itch!
Oh jeez. I just checked his FB and my girlfriend's cousin works with him @ FB. smh
Jesse can be sued for giving bad legal advice. It is totally possible to strip visual watermarks and copyright metadata, however neither he or any of his techno friends can strip the LEGAL PROTECTIONS about copyrighted images. By intentionally removing visual and metadata copyrights, Jesse is giving the original copyright holder irrefutable evidence that there was intentional malice in the violation of copyright. This puts the offender in more legal peril and liable for greater monetary damages.
If someone is going to steal copyright I hope they do make it easier for the person they are stealing from to win in court and receive more money.
Living by the FB code, whats a surprise?
Would it be wise to down res (from 300 dpi to 240dpi or 72 dpi) on the buying website to help deter theft?
While the image exists only in the digital world, dpi (ppi actually) is irrelevant. Only resolution matters.
I find it very ironic that Jesse Chen is copyrighting his webpage (c2010) at the bottom while ripping off copyrighted material from honest businessmen....
Every time someone confuses stealing with unauthorized copy a happy cat dies
Keep using the wrong terms and then keep asking yourself why people dont understand what they are doing (even if this example is not the case).
The problem is that there is also a cached version http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:e42hUS4OyLAJ:www.je...
Layer up, sue Jesse Chen. But, it's funny that he his a copyright © symbol on his website. Or maybe someone should invent a new software call "Vins Image " as soon as they drag the copyright image on to there desktop the image infects the hard drive. The last thing they see is a warning. "We have taking over your computer. We see you we hear your intimate thoughts be afraid". Is that too much? I could never tell. And why is my font bold?
Somebody needs to take this guy "behind the wood shed" and use a bamboo cane on his narrow behind.
Wow, the photography community is worse than this kid ever was. What a bunch of nasty hateful people. My tripod and SLR take pictures just fine, remind me not to use a photographer ever again.
If you're going to watermark and post low res images online then just don't have a problem with people who are smart enough to take what you freely give them and improve on it. If all they want is a rubbish screen snap then they didn't need you to take it in the first place. People who are going to use that obviously weren't ever going to buy a print anyways so I don't know what you lost. I've never found the photography studio business model to be consumer friendly so now that consumers have been forced to upgrade to professional cameras, I guess photographers are getting what they asked for. And your attitude doesn't help.
PS. This text is copyrighted so don't quote it or I will be forced to do all of the horrible things you just suggested to YOU. I know you know how to copy and paste and have taught your children how to "copy", but know that it's an unholy crime! WTF, seriously people, this is how you sound. If you want to be a Picasso then paint something, your bits and bytes may not be created for free but they copy for free.
Went onto Grad images website. They shoot 1.8 million graduates each year. My sympathy for the company has went out the door. The photographer they sent got paid for their time, I don't really care at this point, its not exactly rocket surgery to remove watermarks.
I think you mean "rocket science" or "brain surgery". LOL Rockets do not have surgery and just because a business does well does not mean that it is now OK for others to steal their work. Stealing is stealing regardless of the success of the victim.
No, I meant Rocket Surgery. Well, I guess i'm a robber. 99% of people pay for their graduation photos, but obviously, some people can't do it. I don't see this as being that bad.
The best fix is to give watermarked printed proofs.
He's proud of it, too. It's referenced in the stuff he was proud of doing in 2012.
http://www.jessechen.net/blog/year-2012-in-review/