Fine Art America - Art - Prints - Canvas Prints - Framed Prints - Metal Prints - Acrylic Prints

Every purchase includes a money-back guarantee.








Fine Art Discussions

Keyword Search  | Main Menu

Search Discussions


New Google Image Search Makes Image Theft Too Easy!

Posted by: Crista Forest on 01/29/2013 - 6:21 PM

I am concerned about image copyright safety with the new Google image search feature. It now makes it easy for someone to download a high-res copy of images on FAA. They don't even have to visit FAA to do it now. They can just click the image in the search results and have access to enlarged version they can download. I tested one of my images and was able to download a 900x750 image at 200dpi right from the Google search results! Way too easy for image theft now. Is there some way to prevent the downloading of high dpi images from FAA?


Oldest Reply

Posted by: Mike Savad on 01/29/2013 - 7:13 PM

you don't need google, you can do that right here. the image will always be a small version, while you can do things with the small version, you can't make a large print. they can't get to the large version. but you can get the image without having to go through google. pinterest takes the full size as well and keeps it locked in their own servers just so you know. it's one of the things you just have to leave be in order to sell.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Crista Forest on 01/29/2013 - 7:41 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "you can do that right here." If you mean download the image, no. I can't go to my FAA page, right-click and select "save image as..." It does not allow right-clicking. Not for me anyway. Maybe a different browser does?
The way Google image search worked just yesterday you could not get a high res image from the search results. This just changed last night. Now in the Google image search results you can click to get a full sized view and then right-click on that image to download it. I tried it out and was able to save a 200dpi image to my HD. It was linked to the FAA site so FAA does not lock it the way Pinterest does, apparently. No, this is not THE full size 4000px+ image used for actual prints. But it's larger than I'd let loose on the internet. I don't keep anything larger than 500px at 72dpi on my own websites. I don't consider 900px at 200dpi too small to steal and use. That makes a decent quality smaller print and is certainly good enough to use on small products coffee mugs, coasters, calendars, etc.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 01/29/2013 - 7:48 PM

the image is already here. you can right click in the first few seconds, or go to the buy page and it's there also. google can only get a 900px image, it's the only thing they can get here.

in either case, if you sell here, the sample size is 900px. they can't get your large image so don't worry about that. they can't get pieces either because the loupe doesn't allow for that. there are many arguments here about the 900px size, and yes you can do a lot with it. but i also know i sell better here than other places and i think its in part that they can see a larger version than other sites.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Jeffery Johnson on 01/29/2013 - 7:58 PM

I won't go into details on how one can go about snagging images off this site or any site for that matter but even before the newest Google image update you could get the image.

The only sure fire way is not to place ones work online. I don't agree with image thieves but not going to worry over them either.


Posted by: Crista Forest on 01/29/2013 - 8:10 PM

Yes, the determined thieves could always find a way. But Google just made it way easier. So now we're not limited to determined thieves. Now even the casual viewer who thinks it's harmless to d/l and print your images just for themselves instead of paying for a small print can find it easy to do.


Posted by: JC Findley on 01/29/2013 - 8:16 PM

And my son runs his finger across his smart phone and gets a screen capture. It is easy to get low res images online. Simply a fact of the digital age.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 01/29/2013 - 8:19 PM

google has had the image search for like 2 years now. it's not really new. this is the internet, it people already think the images can be taken. if you see your image on another site, you complain to that site or fill a DMCA to remove it.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Crista Forest on 01/29/2013 - 8:31 PM

I'm sorry but I don't think people are thoroughly reading what I wrote. Yes, Google has had an image search for a long time. I know that's nothing new. But before yesterday you could NOT d/l a full sized image from there. Yes, it's always been easy to d/l low res images. But now you can d/l a decent quality 900pixel 200dpi version instead of the crappy highly compressed 180px thumbnail you used to get in the image search results.


Posted by: Jeff Kolker on 01/29/2013 - 8:42 PM

And I think what you are not understanding is that anyone could come here and get the 900 pixel version, google not needed. So, while maybe this is new to google, it isn't new. And that is perhaps why no one is that excited. It might make it easier for a blogger to get a picture for their site, but a determined thief would have long figured out how to get the higher res image.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 01/29/2013 - 8:42 PM

so they took one step out of the process. they still led people here, and i think they did have full size before and let them download. in either case anyone just has to look at their own cache to find the large image. it's on everyone's machine. and i am telling you i can get that image just as easily without google.

if you are worried, then erase everything. but its hard to sell without being here. otherwise don't worry about it. or get it watermarked.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Robert Kernodle on 01/29/2013 - 8:44 PM

Here we go again.


Posted by: JC Findley on 01/29/2013 - 8:44 PM

Crista, I am thoroughly reading it, and it is exactly the same thread that comes up on here every few weeks and has for a long time now so it didn't just happen yesterday.

The thing is, you are getting upset at the level of ease here but the reality is that 900 pixel images have been liftable off FAA since they changed to that size image on here and it does not and has not taken a determined thief. My 12 year old can do it as can anyone under 30 that has grown up with computers. They teach it in school, and I am not kidding here.

Yes, someone can print a card or an 8x10 but that is life on the net. I do not agree with the thievery but I don't worry about it either. I am not here to sell 8x10s though they do sell, even if people can "lift the image for free, people still buy them. On the other hand, if people want a 48 inch print that looks good, they will pay for it.


Posted by: Mark Tisdale on 01/29/2013 - 10:33 PM

Not personally concerned that Google has made it any easier to get to the image. As others have said in the thread above, if they want it and can see it, they can already get it. I do however think Google has gone a long way towards blurring where the line is between their site and the net. People already refer to Google images as if they are Google's images rather than the creative work of others. Essentially they are hotlinking the image. Go search for an image on Google now, and you can watch a virtual slideshow using the bandwidth of a lot of people at once. The thumbnails are still cached on Google's server, but as soon as you click to enlarge it, you're eating up the other person's bandwidth without the viewer actually visiting their site. And then I can click the left/right arrows to scroll through all the results, hence my slideshow comment. Little by little, it feels like Google is turning into one big scraper site in its own way. People can go to Google, and never leave...

So, maybe the bigger concern is that Google is using your resources without sending you any visitors in return? I have mixed feelings. Do those people who never go to the site really matter? Would they have purchased anything at all or were they just looky-loos to begin with? Hard to guess, but we shall see! I've read some webmasters already reporting drops in visitors to their sites in a short time.


Posted by: Crista Forest on 01/29/2013 - 10:42 PM

"So, maybe the bigger concern is that Google is using your resources without sending you any visitors in return? I have mixed feelings. Do those people who never go to the site really matter? Would they have purchased anything at all or were they just looky-loos to begin with?"

Yes, that's also a concern. It's always possible someone was browsing images of seascapes, followed it to your site, then came across a lovely floral painting they thought would be perfect for Aunt Rose's birthday! But if they never have to go to your site, and can browse all your seascapes from Google, they'll never discover the floral. Probably not a frequent issue but who wants to lose even one sale?


Posted by: John Crothers on 01/29/2013 - 10:46 PM

I wish one of the computer nerds with no life would create a virus that is launched when you hit "paste" on certain items you hit "copy" for.


Posted by: Mark Tisdale on 01/29/2013 - 10:52 PM

Christa, without visiting the site, that casual viewer might not even realize they *could* buy a print. They could see the theoretical seascape, like it, and never take the extra step to realize they could buy it. It has a potential to impact the sale of the image they looked at as well,as you point out, any other images they might have encountered if they had clicked through.

I still leave it in the potential category, though. Maybe the people who aren't motivated to go to the site aren't the ones who make purchases. So, FAA could see a visitor drop but it might not impact sales...

But it's all guesses until we see what plays out in the real world.


Posted by: Dan Turner on 01/29/2013 - 11:08 PM

John Crothers, no matter which side of the issue people are on, yours is truly the most hateful, despicable comment I've seen on the subject.


Posted by: John Ayo on 01/30/2013 - 7:29 AM

Also "full size" (900px here) has been available via google image search for as long as I can remember. And not that hidden a feature either.


Posted by: Curtis Neeley on 01/30/2013 - 12:39 PM

This is now before the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas! Google Inc spend about half-a-million there thus far in legal fees to have the United States HOAX called copy[rite] ruled to no longer protect artists "moral" right online.

Google Inc has profited off the intellectual or artistic property of others since the first day they made a profit based on the United States HOAX called copy[rite] or section fair-use found in 17 USC 107.

Trouble is that artists who do not purchase copy[rites] and join in on the United States HOAX called copy[rite] by registering a license to sue are not subject to the exceptions to the HOAX license to sue called copy[rite].

Google Inc will very soon no longer be allowed to steal or display art not specifically authorized. POOF.

Why? Neeley Jr v FCC, et al, (5:12-cv-5208) Complaint as HTML Free docket mirror


Posted by: Robert Kernodle on 01/30/2013 - 8:22 PM

"I wish one of the computer nerds with no life would create a virus that is launched when you hit "paste" on certain items you hit "copy" for."

Why not rig the next generation of computers with built-in guns, ... you know ..., like where camera lenses are, and then when somebody right-clicks to "save image as", an automated voice is activated that says, "Do you feel lucky punk, ... well, do you?" ... BAM!

This looks about as reasonable as John's proposal.


Posted by: Curtis Neeley on 01/30/2013 - 8:35 PM

Saving images is not the trouble. Printing them out is. Google Inc image search is violation of human rights to exclusively control creations and Google Inc images and ALL search engine image searches are fundamentally EVIL. Somebody else should sue them.
Neeley Jr v FCC, et al, (5:12-cv-5208)


Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/30/2013 - 8:53 PM

Hello Curtis, since the conception of inner-net laws, isn't it a fact though, once you download anything to the host site, regardless if you have a copyright or not, your work is indeed protected by world wide copyright laws. There site is copyrighted to the fullest and all content there of. If you look at a sites information, it plainly states this. So by the host allowing anything as in the case with Google they are at fault allowing something to be extracted, certainly if someone were to download or lift something related to there site and you use it publicly you would be sued by the courts. So if an individual were to sue Google as someone mentioned you would win the case in court because Google has broken there own contractual laws, unless they are not even Copyright to begin with.....


Posted by: Dan Carmichael on 01/31/2013 - 8:03 AM

"I wish one of the computer nerds with no life would create a virus that is launched when you hit "paste" on certain items you hit "copy" for. "

"John Crothers, no matter which side of the issue people are on, yours is truly the most hateful, despicable comment I've seen on the subject."

And yet, if you carefully analyze the statement you see that while casting a disparaging remark about 'computer nerds' ("with no life") he nonetheless admits his need for them (creating a virus). Quite an interesting combo; sort of "jekyldy and hydeish" (yeh - I made that up. LOL)


Posted by: Charles Kozierok on 01/31/2013 - 8:07 AM

"I wish one of the computer nerds with no life would create a virus that is launched when you hit "paste" on certain items you hit "copy" for."

Yeah, that would solve a lot.

Not to mention, it would affect 99.9% people who had no idea what they were doing. You don't need to copy/paste to get an image. As soon as you see it in your browser, it's already in your web cache.

Unless FAA has IP-tracking defences, I could probably devise a bot to mass-download the images of anyone on this site in an hour or so.


Posted by: Edward Fielding on 02/04/2013 - 11:01 AM

If you host an image on your website you are now basically paying for bandwidth so Google can sell ads using your work. You get nothing out of the deal. No traffic to your website, no payment for your image, no ad revenue. You just get the pleasure of Google stripping your copyright from the image and making it easier for people to use it for whatever. Try going to court and saying that you own the copyright on versions of 900+ pixels when smaller copies are in common use.


Posted by: JC Findley on 02/04/2013 - 11:20 AM

So, what is the comment about no way to get to the original image and site?

Art Prints


Posted by: Roy Erickson on 02/04/2013 - 11:24 AM

Write your congressman/woman/person and complain to the FCC and don't forget the U.S. Attorney General (wishing you good luck there). Me thinks you will have to show that Google has used, or that someone has used Google to appropriate your copyrighted image.


Posted by: Jeff Kolker on 02/04/2013 - 12:08 PM

Not sure, but it seems like Google is making it easier to find me. I typed "Venice Art Prints" in Google, clicked on images. About the 6th row, there was one of mine. I clicked it, and it gave me a link right to FAA. I like that :)


Posted by: Dan Turner on 02/04/2013 - 1:10 PM

"If you host an image on your website you are now basically paying for bandwidth so Google can sell ads using your work."

If you have your own site, you're paying for bandwidth anyway. If your bandwidth charges go up based on people searching for your images (an incredibly remote possibility) than Google has just alerted you to a colossal marketing opportunity you've been missing.

"You get nothing out of the deal."

You get Google to index your site into the most powerful and popular search engine on the planet. For free. Would you like Google to ignore you?


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/04/2013 - 2:01 PM

You have ALWAYS hosted the image, that Google has got, on your own domain. It's always been that way.

Nothing has changed but the look on Google The images are the same images they had before

In fact, now you can see the link also


Posted by: Greg Jackson on 02/04/2013 - 2:22 PM

As Jeff stated, " seems like Google is making it easier to find me..."

Concur with that! As a test, I typed-in (w/o quote marks) "Kentucky Barns", then tried "barn images by greg jackson". Both tries yielded my name plus the link directly to FAA, and I also found a link to another photography site (non-pod that I'm a member of) with some of my barn shots.


Posted by: Dave Gordon on 02/04/2013 - 2:41 PM

You do have the option to password protect all of your galleries - which I have considered doing.

I have my own website with low res images with my copyright on the front of them. If they get stolen, not too much can be done with them - except maybe on someone's blog.


Posted by: Dave Gordon on 02/04/2013 - 2:42 PM


Posted by: Mukta Gupta on 02/04/2013 - 7:42 PM

How is this website selling my original art prints? It has other artists images as well and I can not log into this site with my FAA login and password!


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/04/2013 - 7:45 PM

This is a fake shop set up by FAA and you would get all moneys if a print sold. It is a trial of a new shop for galleries. Just a tester


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/04/2013 - 7:45 PM

stoneart is a variant of this site, designed as a private site for private galleries. it's one of sean's pet projects.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/04/2013 - 7:45 PM

boy this is like the 3rd or 4th time we answered together beth, it's a weird link...

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Mukta Gupta on 02/04/2013 - 7:47 PM

But the prices are not the same that are showing on the FAA site, the ones I added! for example a greeting card of my blue elephant on FAA site is $5.95 and this site is selling it for $6.55. Why is there a discripancy? Are they making more money than they are showing us?


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/04/2013 - 7:50 PM

I do not know why. I am sure I can find out though


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/04/2013 - 8:00 PM

i wonder if his prices are less. or maybe his extra markup is less. because he said it's for a framer, maybe that's where they fill in their extra profit?

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Jeff Kolker on 02/04/2013 - 8:02 PM

I think that if it is a "gallery" storefront (even as a test) the extra charge is for the gallery to make a little money. We still make our asked for share, but the gallery gets something too. However, as they said, it is a test at the moment.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/04/2013 - 8:06 PM

that's interesting

my cards there are $17.95, and on this site $15.95

and there are no metal prints

my small prints are $35 there, $32 here. yeah, it's more expensive on the stone site, by like i guess 5-10%. the largest size has a $53 difference more on that side.

as long as i get my cut, i don't care, but it is interesting that it's different like that.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Sean McDunn on 02/04/2013 - 8:07 PM

That is a test site. FAA owns it. We're just testing there.

The prices are higher because we would allow the website owner to add a markup to each order. That's what we do on Amazon. Amazon prices are higher because Amazon puts a markup on each order.

Again - that site is just a test. I haven't touched it in well over a year.



Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/04/2013 - 8:10 PM

Yes, of course, Jeff, that will be it.

Like Amazon getting more.

Good point.....I must be tired lol

Edit.....thanks Sean. We were posting at the same time


Posted by: Susan Wiedmann on 02/04/2013 - 8:29 PM

Does anyone buy the higher-priced FAA canvas prints on Amazon instead of paying less here???


Posted by: Mukta Gupta on 02/04/2013 - 9:00 PM

Also I am still below is still an extension of FAA as artistswebsite is, then why are the artists not told about it and why is it charging more than the prices listed on the FAA site, (amazon is a completely different site) and the images to this site are loading automatically as I loaded the images to my site! Then why markup?

quote from
stoneart is a variant of this site, designed as a private site for private galleries. it's one of sean's pet projects.
---Mike Savad


Posted by: Jeff Kolker on 02/04/2013 - 11:02 PM

Read the post from Sean (FAA owner) three posts up. He was working on something, but it never came to fruition.

It would appear he was working on something where a brick and mortar store could have a website of sorts and offer prints for sale where WE as artists got our share and the store itself could make a little money for bringing their own customers to the site.

However, that never got off the ground, and that stoneart site is just a remnant of the work. I think you are worrying too much over this....


Posted by: Mukta Gupta on 02/05/2013 - 2:37 AM

Well it is confusing because it is still updating our images, it has even the image that I added last night. How am I supposed to know that this is an inactive site when I just came to know about it today in the first place? I am just asking questions to understand ... Sean's message says this site is owned by FAA and then it says the owner would put a markup. If FAA is the owner, they already have a markup unless that website is meant to be bought and run by someone else other than FAA.

I haven't been here long but thanks for explaining anyway! Aloha, mukta


Posted by: Darren Wilders on 02/05/2013 - 2:52 AM

as a photographer we run in to this allot there is a guy called James Beltz who made a free site just for this reason there is lots of info and what to do and to links here is the site


Posted by: Isabella F Abbie Shores on 02/05/2013 - 7:33 AM

It is a TEST gallery

The gallery would add on prices if FAA start to do this. So the test gallery is also adding on prices as part of the test

As long as you get the money you are asking for then there is nothing to worry about


Posted by: JC Findley on 02/05/2013 - 7:41 AM

I ask for X dollars. Site Y sells my work for Y which is greater than X.

Frankly, I don't care if you buy a 100 of my pieces and resell them on Ebay so long as I get X or more for a given piece regardless if it is a gallery, Amazon or private retailer.

Unless you are truly worried about people stealing a 900 pixel wide/tall image then google or in this case Stone something gallery having your image that can lead to money in your pocket is a GOOD thing. If you are that worried about the 900 pixel image theft, then take your work offline now and only show people that come to your house as even selling live leads to people scanning your work.


Posted by: Dave Gordon on 02/05/2013 - 8:07 AM

Sometimes confusion is caused a lack of communication. People find their work on other sites and don't know if its a scam site or an affiliate because they were not informed.

Even though the tagline claims "Museum quality prints from the world's greatest living artists", I doubt a real gallery would want to represent all of the artwork on FAA. I would think they would be much more selective than that. There may be a few of the world's greatest living artists on FAA but I've not seen them yet. I certainly don't consider myself to be one by any stretch of the imagination. If a gallery selected even 10% of my work that's on FAA, I'd be amazed. Just my opinion and I'm sure there will be some that disagree with this posting.


Posted by: Mukta Gupta on 02/05/2013 - 1:25 PM

I had not put in my work online for the longest time knowing it is very original, however, deciding to add it online, I am already aware that some of it will be stolen and I decided to do that because it wasn't doing anything sitting around and I felt now I was doing stamp collection and its better to be out there than not, otherwise it kills my spirit to create sometimes. Actually, I do give away a lot of my artwork to friends and people i like, I have never care about selling my work until now when I am finding hard to make a living otherwise through my regular job thinking that it might give me more time to create. But now I am not sure and I feel maybe I should go back and look for work again and just do my art as a hobby on the side...


Posted by: Dave Gordon on 02/06/2013 - 4:14 PM

Does anyone know how to get images removed from google?



Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/06/2013 - 4:28 PM

i suppose you can serve them a dmca notice to have them removed, but why in the world would you want that? it's still another way for people to get you, even if it works a bit more backwards now.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: JC Findley on 02/06/2013 - 4:32 PM

I don't think it is more backwards now Mike; I find it easier.

And yes, you can remove ALL artwork from ANY online source you have them on and they will eventually be gone from google too.


Posted by: Dan Turner on 02/06/2013 - 4:47 PM

Right, JC. Google doesn't have any images. They just point to where the images are. If the images aren't there, Google doesn't see them, and neither does anyone else.


Posted by: Dave Gordon on 02/06/2013 - 4:52 PM

@Mike I agree with you Mike except that I've been on FAA a year and only sold one postcard. I have spent extensive time and efforts updating keywords and descriptions and using social media like G+, FB, Tw, Li, FAA groups and discussions too. I don't like the 900px images up on google. They used to use smaller ones and link directly to the image page. Now people can steal the 900px image right off of google. If I sold a lot like you do, then I could say "its the cost of doing business" but since I'm not selling at all, I'd rather not give them away in that size as freebees.

@JC thanks - I checked out google's help info and yeah if the image is not on the site, their crawlers will detect it and eventually remove images.I have my own website with much smaller low res images on it. They also have my copyright on the front. I decided that I will no longer drive traffic directly to my FAA or AW site but to my personal site instead. I'll have info on my personal site so if someone wants to buy something, I can direct them to FAA/AW sites. Right now I have all of my FAA galleries PW protected. Eventually they should disappear from google's image search. I may open it back up if I can find the time to put watermarks on them (almost 300) - although I'd prefer not to have the FAA watermark on them, right now the choice is that or nothing.


Posted by: Roz Abellera on 02/06/2013 - 4:53 PM

I noticed that too. I clicked on one of my paintings on Google images and there it was clear as day. But all my work is copyrighted so I'm not too worried about it.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/06/2013 - 4:53 PM

when i clicked on an image, it said, would you like to see the website, then it loaded up that blank gray screen. now i know there is more than that, but other people may not. at least in the old version there was a transparent box that showed there was something underneath.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/06/2013 - 4:59 PM

@dave - i can tell you that i sell often and there doesn't seem to be a dent in sales as far as that 900px image goes, if anything seeing more of the image helps the sale. but there will always be theft. it's not just adverting though, they still have to like your work. and if your showing it to people that aren't interested, they won't get it. the hard part is finding the parties that your images do fit into. oh and be careful with google plus, they banned me doing just that - advertising. i can't even comment on you tube because of it.

if you password protect your galleries, you will never sell anything - at any point. and if people can't find you in the search, your shooting the other foot. you want google to find you. i get many people finding me by picture - and buying. so as it stands, you'll never get a sale if you lock your gallery. you might as well erase the stuff. the moment it's open, google will re-index it.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Dave Gordon on 02/06/2013 - 4:59 PM


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/06/2013 - 5:07 PM

still don't know why anyone would want to be removed from a search. it's just another place to find you - well the place to find you. and there are more than just google. bing, and many others also do the same, you would have to get them all to do it.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Dave Gordon on 02/06/2013 - 5:12 PM

@Mike I thought I would use my personal site to serve the 0.000001% of my visitors that may want to buy something. I can give them a PW and send them to my AW site in the unlikely event they want to make a purchase. In an ideal world, for me, my personal website would be the only portal to my AW site. All of my marketing efforts so far have only made the bots go crazy with maybe a few random visitors, most likely other artists. Its way different for you - you already have a large following and a reputation.


Posted by: Dave Gordon on 02/06/2013 - 5:12 PM

Google indexes my personal site as does bing and yahoo and others.


Posted by: Mike Savad on 02/06/2013 - 5:22 PM

the likely hood that someone will go out of their way to ask for a password for work that couldn't see here, is so low, it will never happen. like if you had the choice of going to a store, one with a locked door, one with an open door, which would you go into? the open one. even though you could ask someone if they had the key, there is little point since there is an open store near by and because i can't even look into the windows of the locked one, why ask for a key?

people know me because they see my images on other sites. you really can't build a rep unless they see your work, especially since it's the work your trying to sell.

---Mike Savad


Posted by: Dave Gordon on 02/06/2013 - 5:45 PM

Perhaps you are right Mike. And thanks very much for all of your inputs and advice. But a year is long enough to know that I'm not likely going to sell much here anyway. I'd rather spend my time making more art, learning and growing as an artist.

The other reason I'm keeping my FAA account is that I may want to get prints made for myself. I have an archival printer at home. I can do archival matte and WC paper. But I may want to make metal or acrylic prints of my work either to hang at home, exhibit, sell or give as gifts which is another reason why I'm keeping the membership going for another year.

Things are always changing here, new features and improvements. Perhaps in the future new features, technologies or court rulings will emerge to better protect artists and their work from theft and infringement - or at least make it safer. Right now Google does what it damn well pleases and answers to no one.


Posted by: Mukta Gupta on 02/07/2013 - 5:12 AM



This discussion is closed.