|
Forums >
General Industry >
Images showing up on Google search despite privacy
A Model of mine is concerned that images of her have shown up on Google search despite her privacy setting of Members only. It seems that if her images are listed, then the Google search engine can find them. Is there a solution for this besides removing the lists in question, or turning off listing altogether? Mar 31 14 11:21 am Link Keep them off the internet entirely. Lists or no lists, members only or not, if they can be seen on the internet they have a way of showing up where you don't want them to. It sucks, but that's reality. Personally, I think it's not very wise to be in any photo that you wouldn't be comfortable with ANYONE seeing in the first place. Mar 31 14 01:15 pm Link When the images are listed...they are brought onto the listers page im thinking. Maybe if the lister of the images does not have privacy set up also...then her pictures are now in the clear. Just a supposition. Mar 31 14 02:07 pm Link Keith Allen Phillips wrote: +1 Mar 31 14 03:07 pm Link I've seen Google even indexing comments on facebook pages..i'd be surprised if much can hide completely from their robots. I'd keep it offline completely. Mar 31 14 03:11 pm Link PT Imaging wrote: She should not be using her real name on MM. Sometimes I see that photographers have posted images using the model's real names. This is difficult to control. Mar 31 14 03:38 pm Link Privacy+Internet=Oxymoron Mar 31 14 03:44 pm Link RacerXPhoto wrote: +1 Mar 31 14 03:48 pm Link It's on the internet, people are going to see it. The next best step to *try* and limit the exposure is not using her real name, then opting out of lists. Still, if she doesn't want the picture seen, she shouldn't be posing for it... there is no privacy on the internet. Mar 31 14 03:58 pm Link PT Imaging wrote: No solution that I am aware of. Mar 31 14 04:03 pm Link I'm guessing that the OP was referring to MM's private only setting, but just in case we're talking about someone's private website (with a "member only" section), Google WILL recognize files (or entire folders) defined as "do not index" in a "robots.txt" file. Google (and other major search engines) will recognize these files as being "off limits" to what Google will publicly show in it's search results. Mar 31 14 04:06 pm Link Unless you know anyone at Google that can "undo" the images in the search, I'm afraid you're Out of luck. Taking photos down on your end is futile. I have tagged images in Google search listing that have been long ago deleted off my page or other web presence. Like they say, don't post if you don't want it out in cyberspace forever. Mar 31 14 04:18 pm Link Don't want your pictures to show up on the Internet? Then don't post them on the Internet. Simple as that! Mar 31 14 04:21 pm Link PT Imaging wrote: Just shows you how badly this site has been designed! Mar 31 14 04:25 pm Link Darren Brade wrote: Yes and no. Mar 31 14 07:20 pm Link Andrew Thomas Evans wrote: I don't dispute that but I think we are talking about privacy from different perspectives. Apr 01 14 03:34 pm Link I have an additional concern. It appears that anyone who can see an image on any MM profile can download it using the usual 'right-click' and 'save as' procedure. I know that many will say that it is a consequence of the images being on the internet, but I do know that this procedure is disabled on a number of other photo-hosting sites. So, can I protect my MM profile so that none of my images can be downloaded? Apr 04 14 04:22 pm Link Astra Pure wrote: Disabling right-clicking does absolutely nothing to stop people from stealing your photos. Apr 04 14 04:25 pm Link Thanks for the comment. I understand about disabling 'right-click' but that would deter most casual viewers. Also, some other sites do seem to achieve the protection I was looking for by one means or another. So, is there an easy solution for MM? Apr 05 14 03:17 am Link I've already reported this is Site Related and it's the reason I've opted out of lists. Images marked "M" are not visible in lists to non-members if you set the option to show "M" images to members only, but setting your profile to "Private" does not do the same thing for non-M images. Just my $0.02 etc. etc. Apr 05 14 03:26 am Link Astra Pure wrote: The next level would involve HTML 5, and some CSS3 in order to create images in layers. Make the top layer of an image in the stack (stacking) a simple white box with 0% opacity, and then it will be what they download, unless they have enough technical knowledge to be able to remove layers and copy/save the other layers in the displayed content. Apr 05 14 03:27 am Link Thanks again for the feedback. I checked with a friend who is more IT-literate than me and the layers solution is a common approach. Do we need to suggest this to the MM team, or has it already been included in the wish-list for future developments? Apr 05 14 03:42 am Link Astra Pure wrote: Please, don't bother. Apr 05 14 03:51 am Link lol wut  Apr 05 14 04:47 am Link Thanks again for the feedback. I know that the issue has been discussed a lot on here. I have read so many threads talking about privacy concerns. Surely this has to be a priority. Apr 05 14 07:05 am Link Astra Pure wrote: The number one priority for the dev team at the moment is fixing the bug whereby people find themselves randomly logged into somebody else's account, with full access to all their private messages and everything! Apr 05 14 07:14 am Link Astra Pure wrote: Why would saving people from themselves be a priority? You've been told, it doesn't matter what you do, if it shows up on a screen it's as easy as pushing a button to copy. The simple, smart and ONLY reliable solution for your photos not to find their way all over the internet is to not post them online to begin with. Apr 05 14 09:20 am Link Thank you again for your feedback - I do understand the opposite point of view. It is just such a shame that there is a general assumption that anything shown on the internet is there for anyone to do as they please with it. I know that is a philosophical point, but we should provide basic protection to those who are not fully aware of the dangers. I will stop posting on this now - thank you for all the feedback. Apr 05 14 09:33 am Link PT Imaging wrote: Opt out of lists. Both you and the models you work with have that option. Apr 05 14 09:35 am Link Yeah... Anything you don't want on the Internet, should not be posted on the Internet. Anything I shoot I assume it will be on the Internet eventually, even if people say it is for portfolio only, private collection, or whatever else. I don't use my legal name, but it's still pretty easy for someone from my "real life" to find me naked on the Internet, but I don't see that as too much of an issue (yes, even if it happens to be friends/family/possible employers). If a model can't say the same, then it's time to think about how wise it is to model, especially when signing a model release at a shoot. I do know quite a few art models who are purely non-photo models and do not even pose for reference photos, but even then if an artist makes a hyper realistic portrait of you, you can be recognized. Apr 05 14 09:40 am Link Astra Pure wrote: Please don't put words in my mouth. I would never say that just because something is on the internet that it "is there for anyone to do as they please with it". People need to be smart about what they put online and giving them some false sense of security with various approaches to image protection isn't doing them any favors. Apr 05 14 09:49 am Link Keith Allen Phillips wrote: I was not meaning you - it was a general comment. Enough of this - enjoy your photography. Apr 05 14 09:55 am Link There is no such thing as privacy online. Apr 05 14 10:11 am Link RacerXPhoto wrote: How about "Internet privacy" and do away with the + sign Apr 05 14 10:23 am Link For your own web site, you can do the following to keep images "under the radar": In the robots.txt file, include the "Disallow" parameter for any directory that you don't want search engines to catalog, for example: Disallow: /secret_directory/ In the .htaccess file, include the "- Indexes" parameter to prevent directory browsing, for example Options Indexes FollowSymLinks Includes ALL -Indexes However, you normally don't have this control over images on other domains. For example, I've had issues with models finding images on deviantART but never on my own site. Your first line of defense is to only use the model's first name if they model under their real first and last names unless you know them very well. If you aren't certain if a first and last name is an alias or not, use just the first to be safe. Apr 05 14 12:31 pm Link Sal W Hanna wrote: Only acceptable relative privacy. Apr 05 14 12:35 pm Link Astra Pure wrote: I vote no, jut more overhead that slow MM down. Apr 07 14 04:09 am Link |
