Simple. People have ways of getting around filters and security.

If you’ve ever watched a crime scene investigation show you can see how police can even track a photo back to it’s original source.

Hackers can do this as well.

Simply put, uploading photos on the internet is like leaving your purse or credit card in the middle of a busy sidewalk. You never know who will find it, the good samaritan who returns it or the local pickpocket who keeps it.

It all sums up to don’t upload anything you wouldn’t want to loose or have stolen.

why would you search for it if it upsets you?!

Go troll somewhere else!

What you’re doing is stealing an artists work,
there is no other way of saying it.

I love how the people who like to hide behind copyright laws don’t actually have a clue how they work.

To begin with, it immediately shows that you don’t understand the concept of ‘intellectual property’ when you refer to the act of copyright infringement as ‘theft’. If you think of IPs as rivalrous goods, then you need to look that term up somewhere. The act of somebody copying a file over a computer in no way deprives you of that file; it is not in any meaningful sense ‘stolen’. It may be misapproprion, if malicious, but it’s not theft. It’s not as if I’m taking an analog photograph away from you, so that you no longer have it.

By publicly posting your photos on Flickr, you are essentially suspending your exclusive right to copy the image (at least temporarily), as the file needs to be copied to the end-user’s machine for them to see it. This isn’t even like it’s just being stored in RAM; it is (in most cases) copied as an actual file sitting in a cache directory on your hard drive. Images aren’t displayed over the internet through gypsy magic – they are copied, and transmitted. If you don’t clear the cache directory, just viewing a photo on Flickr could cause the file to sit on your hard drive for years.

Most jurisdictions permit the private copying of an protected work for personal use, particularly in the case of ‘fair use’ and ‘fair dealing’ doctrines anyway; saving images published on the web to your computer for private personal use isn’t insidious at all, and it’s virtually never viewed as an actionable offense by a court.

In a fairly strict formal view, saving the .jpg to a hard drive, rather than returning to view it on Flickr each time will result in fewer instances of copying it overall. Once it’s on your hard-drive, the only copying is into RAM when it’s displayed on the screen; every time you reload the image from Flickr, it’s copied between several servers before reaching you, then again to your computer’s cache, then again into RAM to view it as loaded in the browser.

Considering that Flickr gives access to anybody, and it’s policy prohibits using the site for commercial purposes, it’s not as if somebody saving your images is interfering with your ability to sell them (at least not any more than posting them for free on Flickr yourself does).

This is not to say that people who violate your other exclusive or moral rights under copyright law should be free to do so; if someone republishes your work for example, you are well within reason to be irritated. Completely preventing these occurances is impossible; content publishers are lazy, and easy to fool, while the people who do the fooling are often sneaky.

Now, typically, anyone who plans to exploit your photos for commercial or derivative usage will know how to bypass the type of technical restrictions Flickr might put into place, so the primary people who will be stopped are the ignorant, and the innocent, not the malicious.

I don’t even have a problem with the hackjob ‘spaceball.gif’ method of hiding the image. If you want to make it irritating to save via standard browser commands, that’s fine. But don’t expect that noone will be able to access the image; as said above, it’s already been copied and saved by the time it’s visible on the screen.

Most browsers even have a ‘save page’ function which will dump the html and any connected images into a directory for you. Take that, DRM!

If you don’t want your images to be digitally copyable, then stop trying to pretend that they are being published in a book, and just publish them in a book. Or sell them. Or keep them to yourself. That’s the only way to prevent people from copying them, illegaly or not.

tl;dr: You can’t, and shouldn’t stop people from saving web images for private use.

Jerks.

thanks again

If you have a program that numbers the lines when you view the page source(Something like notepad++), the real address of the picture you want is on line 539.