Someone over at the dpreview forums kindly posted a link to this article :(:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6665723.stm

A thread is developing in the news forum of the site.

I think the upshot is, if you think you've taken that "special shot" on your travels, you need to be careful about how you publish it and assert your copyright if you wish to dissuade others from making a profit out of it.

Someone over at the dpreview forums kindly posted a link to this article :(:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6665723.stm

A thread is developing in the news forum of the site.

I think the upshot is, if you think you've taken that "special shot" on your travels, you need to be careful about how you publish it and assert your copyright if you wish to dissuade others from making a profit out of it.

Sad. Thanks for the article.

Sad. Thanks for the article.

That's why you

never post highresolution images on the web!

That's why you

never post highresolution images on the web!Agreed, and I don't, but it still sucks. Look how many websites have tiny little picutres on them. It is easy to resize a low res larger image into a very clear smaller pic. No credit given for those either.

Hrrrmmmmmm. I guess I need to do some resizing. They arent real high but I should maybe double check and cut them even more. Thanks for posting this link and information to all.

That's why every one of my images on Flickr (in the FT group or otherwise) and on my personal website is watermarked, and I never post anything larger than 800x600 at either place. Heck, even here, the only thing I'm not watermarking are contest entries and screenshots. They could clone it out, but it's a deterrent.

That's why every one of my images on Flickr (in the FT group or otherwise) and on my personal website is watermarked

Right, watermarking is the way to go. I have even started watermarking the photos I've been sending to some friends (since they've decided it's okay to e-mail it to their friends :mad: ).

Right, watermarking is the way to go. I have even started watermarking the photos I've been sending to some friends (since they've decided it's okay to e-mail it to their friends :mad: ).

Mac users - there is a nice freeware called picmark. I use it and it bath watermarks all my images that I send anywhere.

/E

That's why you

never post highresolution images on the web!

That's why I post none of my images online

Any interest in me sharing the action I use to automatically watermark my images in Photoshop?

Please do. Any hints and tips in this area must be of interest.

Please do. Any hints and tips in this area must be of interest.


We need a watermark 101 sticky.

Any interest in me sharing the action I use to automatically watermark my images in Photoshop?

Yes, please.

Any interest in me sharing the action I use to automatically watermark my images in Photoshop?

Yes! Would be great, thanks.

Ditto, please do ^

Here's a comparison of different watermark/protection methods:
http://watermarker.com/how-to-ptotect-digital-images.aspx

Always watermark your photos! That is the best protection.

If you want to sell your photographs, there are amateur photography sites where you can sell your photos.. i.e. bigstockphoto.com, dreamstime.com, canstockphoto.com, etc. Companies such as BigStock still require that you give credit to the individual who took the photo even though you are buying a license to use it.

If you're displaying the photos to others, either watermark or don't post high resolution photos.

Even if you sell a license to your photo, if a web developer uses it in high res and doesn't attempt to watermark it, then that opens a can of worms as well. I've seen cases where someone has taken a purchased, licensed photo off a site that purchased a license, and then put it into a wikipedia article and claim the photo is creative commons, use by: line -- or even go as far and say it is public domain, when it isn't.

Photography and licensing is big business, especially when you get into professional high-res photos.

Here's a link to instructions for watermarking images in different software apps.

http://search.about.com/fullsearch.htm?terms=how%20to%20add%20a%20watermar k

I haven't gone through the detailed instructions and don't know if they are the best/simplest means of creating watermarks in each of the apps listed.

In another thread, I also mentioned there are apps like picture-shark (http://www.picture-shark.com/), which is free, or ImageWell (http://xtralean.com/IWOverview.html), for Macs, which is free unless you want the upgraded version.

By request, I just posted my method - it's in a separate thread here.

Psst -- in this newfangled digital world we live in, even if somebody "steals" your photo, you still have your own copy left. In fact, the way these browser thingamajigs work, anybody who sees your pictures is actually a "thief", because the browser automatically makes a local copy.

FWIW, I've got around 5000 high-res travel pictures on my home page (http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/). I take pictures because it's fun, and I share my pictures because I like to show off the ones I think are good. All my pictures are available under the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) by-sa license, as well as GFDL. I ask people to credit me by name and/or drop me a line if they use my pictures somewhere interesting, and many if not most people do. My pictures can be found all over the net, in a biology textbook for Indian children, in a calendar put out by a Russian Muslim group and in a doctoral dissertation on bridge engineering. My pictures can be found (with permission) in several magazines and once, out of the blue, I had a picture bought by an ad agency at such an outrageous price that it paid for every cent I've ever spent on camera equipment and then some.

Would I be any happier or richer if I obsessively watermarked everything, used Javascript hacks to prevent people from saving to disk and pulled out my hair over grievous violations of my intellectual property? You tell me. :p

Well........... speaking for myself, I find the idea of taking someone else's work, claiming it as my own and then making profit out of it is a bit wrong. Is it really that different to breaking and entering into someone's house, taking the DVD player and selling it for your next crack fix?

Psst -- in this newfangled digital world we live in, even if somebody "steals" your photo, you still have your own copy left. In fact, the way these browser thingamajigs work, anybody who sees your pictures is actually a "thief", because the browser automatically makes a local copy.

FWIW, I've got around 5000 high-res travel pictures on my home page (http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/). I take pictures because it's fun, and I share my pictures because I like to show off the ones I think are good. All my pictures are available under the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) by-sa license, as well as GFDL. I ask people to credit me by name and/or drop me a line if they use my pictures somewhere interesting, and many if not most people do. My pictures can be found all over the net, in a biology textbook for Indian children, in a calendar put out by a Russian Muslim group and in a doctoral dissertation on bridge engineering. My pictures can be found (with permission) in several magazines and once, out of the blue, I had a picture bought by an ad agency at such an outrageous price that it paid for every cent I've ever spent on camera equipment and then some.

Would I be any happier or richer if I obsessively watermarked everything, used Javascript hacks to prevent people from saving to disk and pulled out my hair over grievous violations of my intellectual property? You tell me. :pYou might not be happy, but I'm not sure what point you're making. The whole reason for copyright is as an incentive to creation and it is for that reason that the U.S. Constitution gives exclusive rights to authors in their works of authorship. Because you have exclusive rights, you're more than free to license your works under the Creative Commons license (which is not, by the way, an exception or alternative to copyright law -- it's merely a license). For others and, particularly, professionals like bdjohns, ensuring that others don't profit illegally from their work is a concern. Why does it matter to you what others do with rights in which they are vested as a matter of law?

I'm not a pro, but I'm rather picky about who gets to use my travel videos and who doesn't. There are a couple of sites that have picked some of them up of which I approve, e.g. they are amateur sites dedicated to travel and use my videos to illustrate a particular destination. There are others, however, that are commercial and simply harvest videos so that they have some content to attract visitors. When these are in the U.S. or a Berne Convention country, they get a cease-and-desist letter from me. That's been enough, up 'til now. However, particularly in the U.S., if anyone fails to comply with the cease-and-desist, I just might file a suit. Statutory damages of up to $250,000 can go a long way towards making pursuit of the infringement worthwhile. :)

For me the real issue is not about the usage of the pictures but rather the feeling that my pictures has been used without my consent, in other words decency to ask for the usage. I have been requested a few times for the right to use my pictures for personal and commercial reasons and I always said yes. The reason is that the person is decent enough to ask for my permission and I think that is all I needed. These pictures as they are my personal travel pictures and a reminder of the places that have touched my life. If they ring a bell with other people than it is great, hopefully it will entice them to visit a place that they have not thought about.

Hey, that's how my wife and I met. She asked for my permission. ;)

As I actually sell my photos as part of my small-but-growing art business, this is of great import to me. I do use a watermark with my copyright notice on it - and limit the size of my online files, as well. They look fine at 72ppi, but printed out would be yucky. Here is an example of my stuff:


http://www.greendragonartist.com/gallery_photoIreland.htm

I create my watermark with Photoshop. I create a text layer, write what I want ((C) www.greendragonartist.com), and then decrease the opacity a bit. How much depends on the colors of the photo. I don't want it TOO distracting, but also not easily clipped. I use my website name, as that also tells anyone who sees it elsewhere where they can go to legitimately purchase the photo.

For me the real issue is not about the usage of the pictures but rather the feeling that my pictures has been used without my consent, in other words decency to ask for the usage. I have been requested a few times for the right to use my pictures for personal and commercial reasons and I always said yes. The reason is that the person is decent enough to ask for my permission and I think that is all I needed. These pictures as they are my personal travel pictures and a reminder of the places that have touched my life. If they ring a bell with other people than it is great, hopefully it will entice them to visit a place that they have not thought about.


That's basically the approach I take - on my personal website, I have a copyright tab that basically says "All my pictures are copyrighted, but if you want to use it, just ask." That URL is also in the metadata I apply to every picture I take as I import it onto my computer, so anyone who's trying to "do the right thing" will go to that link to contact me.

I'll say yes to any reasonable request - if they want to make money off my picture, I'll just price a license accordingly.

On Flickr I allow only my contacts to get the full versions of pictures (because I actually know most of them personally).

I am all for watermarks but a decent way to apply them is needed as well as a better way to remove them when they are unneeded.

I don't post anything exceptionally high quality on my website, and I watermark everything that I do post.

http://www.mkt3000.com/pics/

I am all for watermarks but a decent way to apply them is needed as well as a better way to remove them when they are unneeded.You don't remove them. You maintain a backup .tif copy of the photo and work fresh from that.

You don't remove them. You maintain a backup .tif copy of the photo and work fresh from that.

True, but I am talking about password enforced or license enforced. Say you give out high-res images with watermarks and you'd like people to pay, so they pay and you send them a unique password that removes the watermark.

Sorry, it's the programmer in me coming out ;)

Well........... speaking for myself, I find the idea of taking someone else's work, claiming it as my own and then making profit out of it is a bit wrong.
It's not very nice, I'll admit, but does it represent an actual loss? Is the money the "thief" receives out of my pocket, if I would never have had the opportunity to sell it to the same place?

Again, it all boils down to your motivation. If you're taking pictures with the intention of making money, then no, it's not good if others are making money instead. But if you're taking them as a hobby, then the more widely they get distributed, the better, no?

Is it really that different to breaking and entering into someone's house, taking the DVD player and selling it for your next crack fix?
Why yes, it is different. If a crackhead steals your DVD player, you don't have it anymore. If a crackhead makes a digital copy of your picture, you haven't lost anything.

It's not very nice, I'll admit, but does it represent an actual loss? Is the money the "thief" receives out of my pocket, if I would never have had the opportunity to sell it to the same place?

Again, it all boils down to your motivation. If you're taking pictures with the intention of making money, then no, it's not good if others are making money instead. But if you're taking them as a hobby, then the more widely they get distributed, the better, no?


Why yes, it is different. If a crackhead steals your DVD player, you don't have it anymore. If a crackhead makes a digital copy of your picture, you haven't lost anything.

If it is my picture it is mine, and choosing to use it commercially is my choice, not someone elses. If someone else takes my picture and uses it it denies me the choice and possibility of using it.

It's not very nice, I'll admit, but does it represent an actual loss? Is the money the "thief" receives out of my pocket, if I would never have had the opportunity to sell it to the same place?

Again, it all boils down to your motivation. If you're taking pictures with the intention of making money, then no, it's not good if others are making money instead. But if you're taking them as a hobby, then the more widely they get distributed, the better, no?


Sure, it represents an actual loss - take the _rebekka case on Flickr - someone stole her photos and resold them to a firm in the UK. Said firm paid something like 4000GBP to the image thiefs. The firm could have come to her directly. (For example, she got a paid assignment from Toyota based on her Flickr shots). I'd say that's a legitimate loss.

I take photos as a hobby (despite PTravel's compliment, I'm not a pro shooter by any means!), but I don't want to deny myself the opportunity to make a buck should a situation present itself. If Flickr made it easy to say "sure, I'll CC-license by default up to 640 pixels but strongly protect anything larger", I'd be fine with posting larger images - I think that a lot of my images look much better when they're bigger than 800px. That capability doesn't exist though - if it can be displayed, it can be taken, whether by right-click, by screengrab, etc. So, watermarking is the logical protection. If someone wants to make use of an image, my contact info is in the metadata, on my webpage, and on Flickr. All I want people to do is to ask, so I can maintain some level of control over where the image is used (ie, I don't want my picture of a US flag waving over the USS Arizona Memorial used on a KKK flyer), and, if the usage warrants, make a little $ on the side.

It's not very nice, I'll admit, but does it represent an actual loss? Is the money the "thief" receives out of my pocket, if I would never have had the opportunity to sell it to the same place?
<snip>
If a crackhead makes a digital copy of your picture, you haven't lost anything.Tell that to Microsoft, Sony, the RIA, any small software developer, graphic designer, photographer, etc....

It's called intellectual property.

Deleted due to total brain hiccup.

Not to be crazy picky, but for the record, there is nothing about rights of authorship in the US Constitution. Such is not constitutional law; it would fall under statutory law. Just FYI. :)You might want to dust off your copy of the Constitution and take a look at Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

Just FYI. ;)

Also FYI, statutory law, i.e. law passed by Congress, must be an expression of the exercise of a specific power identified by the Constitution. As I indicated, copyright and patent find their authorization in this provision of Article I, Section 8. Trademark comes within the Commerce Clause. Congress can enact no law that isn't authorized by the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court can determine the constitutionality, hence the validity, of all Congressional enactments.

Sure, it represents an actual loss - take the _rebekka case on Flickr - someone stole her photos and resold them to a firm in the UK. Said firm paid something like 4000GBP to the image thiefs. The firm could have come to her directly. (For example, she got a paid assignment from Toyota based on her Flickr shots). I'd say that's a legitimate loss.
But would that company in the UK ever have found her pictures without the middleman "stealing" them? In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that the company in question would not have purchased the pics directly from Rebekka based on her Flickr site -- because if you're paying that kind of money, you want total exclusivity. Toyota didn't throw money at her because of her existing pictures, they hired her to take new ones for Toyota alone.

I take photos as a hobby (despite PTravel's compliment, I'm not a pro shooter by any means!), but I don't want to deny myself the opportunity to make a buck should a situation present itself.
A very natural instinct. Unfortunately pixels are very, very cheap these days: punch in any place in the world with "Commercial use allowed" into Flickr search or Wikimedia Commons, and you'll find lots of pictures that anybody can perfectly legally use for any purporse. I was once asked by the LA Times if they could use a picture of mine for free for their Travel section, because they supposedly had no budget :eek:. You need an extraordinarily good photographer (like _rebekka) and an extraordinarily rich customer (like this UK firm) to get paid 4000 pounds for an "arty" pic.

So, watermarking is the logical protection. If someone wants to make use of an image, my contact info is in the metadata, on my webpage, and on Flickr.
There's only one problem -- watermarking looks like .... How would the Mona Lisa look with a big embossed "COPYRIGHT LEONARDO@DAVINCI.COM ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" smack over her face?

But would that company in the UK ever have found her pictures without the middleman "stealing" them? In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that the company in question would not have purchased the pics directly from Rebekka based on her Flickr site -- because if you're paying that kind of money, you want total exclusivity. Toyota didn't throw money at her because of her existing pictures, they hired her to take new ones for Toyota alone.


Suggest all you want - but the fact remains that someone profited from her images, and it wasn't her. That's why we have intellectual property laws - to ensure that the creator of the work has the first right to profit from their labor.


A very natural instinct. Unfortunately pixels are very, very cheap these days: punch in any place in the world with "Commercial use allowed" into Flickr search or Wikimedia Commons, and you'll find lots of pictures that anybody can perfectly legally use for any purporse. I was once asked by the LA Times if they could use a picture of mine for free for their Travel section, because they supposedly had no budget :eek:. You need an extraordinarily good photographer (like _rebekka) and an extraordinarily rich customer (like this UK firm) to get paid 4000 pounds for an "arty" pic.


"A very natural instinct"? That reads an awful lot like you're trying to say that my perspective is inherently wrong.

By your argument, once there's a free version of a photo out there, there's no point in taking a picture of it again for commercial purposes. If that's the case, why would anyone ever again spent one penny on a print from Ansel Adams? Surely, there's a CC-licensed version of his famous shot of the moon over Half Dome? Hell, maybe there's even a CC-licensed version taken during that one time recently when the moon conditions were supposed to be identical? I just took a look on Flickr, and there are in excess of 1000 pictures of Delicate Arch up there. Some of them, I only wish I could have taken. Some are kind of crappy. Mine happens to be the only one taken on 4/2/07. If you weren't taking a picture during the same 10-minute window, there's not that one solitary little cloud over the arch. Some things, you can reproduce the same over and over again. Some things, you can't.

You certainly have the right to give your work away for free, and that's your choice. Don't tell me that my pixels are cheap because you chose to give yours away. I had a coworker offer to buy matted prints of a couple of my pictures yesterday after seeing them on Flickr. My pixels have value. Coincidentally, one of them was my shot of Delicate Arch. You gave your own pixels zero value (or, the value of a photo credit). What about the wedding photographers who can pull in $5K+ for a wedding? (and there is a decent market for them) - the $500 weekend warriors on Craigslist aren't hurting their business any. Just because you're letting people use your work for free doesn't mean that their work has no value as a result.


There's only one problem -- watermarking looks like .... How would the Mona Lisa look with a big embossed "COPYRIGHT LEONARDO@DAVINCI.COM ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" smack over her face?

Congrats, you managed to mix media types. Previously, you made the argument that digital theft is harmless, because you still have a copy of the image. Slight problem here - there's only one Mona Lisa out there.

Watermarking would look ridiculous on an actual print. I'd never watermark a real print.

"A very natural instinct"? That reads an awful lot like you're trying to say that my perspective is inherently wrong.
Well, yes, that would be why we're having this little debate. :p

By your argument, once there's a free version of a photo out there, there's no point in taking a picture of it again for commercial purposes.
You're entirely misreading my post above. I'm saying that, once a single photo is published in any way, shape or form, low-res watermarked or otherwise, the value of that photo goes down because you've broken your own natural monopoly on the image. The _rebekka photo was worth 4000 quid to somebody because they thought they would have the sole right to distribute it. Again, I'm not saying that the sale was legal, defensible, or had no effect on _rebekka -- but her loss certainly wasn't 4000 pounds.

So you've got a stark choice: you can put up your photos for free and get maximal exposure but minimal money, or you can hold 'em tight to your chest and hope somebody forks out big bucks someday and people actually get to see it splashed across the cover of Time or something. Which is more likely?

Consider this pic (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=111056). As it happens, I don't think it's particularly spectacular, but it's been viewed 1.7 million times. And that would never have happened if it was a low-res watermarked pic locked away on my home page or, worse yet, hard drive.

You certainly have the right to give your work away for free, and that's your choice. Don't tell me that my pixels are cheap because you chose to give yours away. I had a coworker offer to buy matted prints of a couple of my pictures yesterday after seeing them on Flickr. My pixels have value. Coincidentally, one of them was my shot of Delicate Arch.
As you yourself said, there are over a thousand pictures of Delicate Arch on Flickr, some of them better than yours. So yes, that makes any old picture of Delicate Arch pretty cheap.

But the value of a photograph is not absolute. Your coworker values your pixels more highly, because they know you personally. People willingly pay out big bucks to a wedding photographer who can take great pictures and (more importantly) not screw up, because that moment is meaningful to them -- they wouldn't accept somebody else's wedding pictures instead.

Just because you're letting people use your work for free doesn't mean that their work has no value as a result.
Of course not. That's the whole idea of Creative Commons: when the building blocks are free, they can be assembled into greater wholes.

Watermarking would look ridiculous on an actual print. I'd never watermark a real print.
So does it suddenly stop looking ridiculous on a monitor?

Some things, you can reproduce the same over and over again. Some things, you can't.
An infinit number of monkeys with camera over an infinit amount of time will recreate a full replicas of my pictures. ;)

But the value of a photograph is not absolute
The value is in the beholder eyes, if I have a Picasso on hand, it will go immediately on Ebay as I do not have any emotional attachment to it. Marilyn Monroe photos however.... ;)

The Internet is the greatest free gallery to many professional photographers. Some of the work from professionals are as not as good as some pictures that a hobbyist took on his vacation but the hobbyist does not have to deal with the grinding of day-to-day work and it is too easy to jump into conclusion. Since my old semi-professional photographer job, I have come to respect the work of the pros knowing that they have to deliver consistently day in and day out.

You're entirely misreading my post above. I'm saying that, once a single photo is published in any way, shape or form, low-res watermarked or otherwise, the value of that photo goes down because you've broken your own natural monopoly on the image. The _rebekka photo was worth 4000 quid to somebody because they thought they would have the sole right to distribute it. Again, I'm not saying that the sale was legal, defensible, or had no effect on _rebekka -- but her loss certainly wasn't 4000 pounds.


But it was a loss nonetheless, and I think that's unacceptable.

I don't buy your "natural monopoly" argument for one very simple reason - my photo has *zero* value (monetary or otherwise) to anyone but me if no one can see it and enjoy it. It's basically proof of its own existence. Ansel Adams's photographs would have zero value if no one ever saw them - he'd just be some guy wandering around Yosemite with a big view camera and talking about something called Zone V. If people enjoy my pictures, then the pictures have some value to them and to me. They have to be able to see them though. Even the one guy on flickr who didn't like that my image was watermarked still liked the picture.


So you've got a stark choice: you can put up your photos for free and get maximal exposure but minimal money, or you can hold 'em tight to your chest and hope somebody forks out big bucks someday and people actually get to see it splashed across the cover of Time or something. Which is more likely?


BS. It's not an either/or proposition and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Nothing is black and white except for (0,0,0) and (255,255,255), assuming your monitor is calibrated properly and you haven't blown your highlights. :)

Here's another alternative - I post the images on Flickr, on my personal website, and on FT sometimes. I post in a size that people can reasonably appreciate on-screen, a watermark to deter casual image theft, and make it easy to contact me if you do want to make use of the image beyond how I've provided it. Oh, hey, I already do that, I get plenty of exposure, and periodically make a few bucks.


Consider this pic (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=111056). As it happens, I don't think it's particularly spectacular, but it's been viewed 1.7 million times. And that would never have happened if it was a low-res watermarked pic locked away on my home page or, worse yet, hard drive.


Unless photo.net has a rule explicitly prohibiting the use of watermarked images or you have password protection on your website, what's your point, or is this just a you-know-what measuring contest? For what it's worth, I don't enter watermarked stuff in contests.


That's the whole idea of Creative Commons: when the building blocks are free, they can be assembled into greater wholes.


The only CC license that even comes close to the protection I want is by-nc-nd. That still doesn't cover me if someone decides to use one of my images in a non-commercial way that I don't like. Would I like to see one of my pics get a million hits? Sure. Do I want those million hits to come from a Rush Limbaugh fan site, for example? Hell no.

I don't have a problem with CC and people who license their content under it. I think it's a great idea, and I'm glad it's got people like Larry Lessig behind it to give it some credibility in the legal community. It's great to have a structure and legal verbiage supporting the right of a person to give away some of their rights in terms that people without legal training can wrap their heads around.

What you've failed to address is the question that PTravel asked a while back in this thread - what's the point you're trying to make here?


You might not be happy, but I'm not sure what point you're making. The whole reason for copyright is as an incentive to creation and it is for that reason that the U.S. Constitution gives exclusive rights to authors in their works of authorship. Because you have exclusive rights, you're more than free to license your works under the Creative Commons license (which is not, by the way, an exception or alternative to copyright law -- it's merely a license). For others and, particularly, professionals like bdjohns, ensuring that others don't profit illegally from their work is a concern. Why does it matter to you what others do with rights in which they are vested as a matter of law?


Here's the point I'm making, in a nutshell, to distill all this rhetoric into one paragraph - All I'm trying to do is strike a balance between protecting my images from commercial or inappropriate use and letting people enjoy them. CC doesn't provide the level of protection I want, and aside from you and one other guy, the watermarks don't seem to detract from people's enjoyment.

Unfortunately, none of that "copyrighting" and/or "watermarking" helps and can be easily removed in PS.

The ONLY way to stop people from using your photos is to NEVER post them online.

I don't buy your "natural monopoly" argument for one very simple reason - my photo has *zero* value (monetary or otherwise) to anyone but me if no one can see it and enjoy it. It's basically proof of its own existence. Ansel Adams's photographs would have zero value if no one ever saw them - he'd just be some guy wandering around Yosemite with a big view camera and talking about something called Zone V. If people enjoy my pictures, then the pictures have some value to them and to me. They have to be able to see them though.
You sound like you're arguing on my side. :D As you say, the pictures have to be out there and visible, otherwise there's no demand for them and their price is zero. However, if they are out there in the digital world, supply soon becomes infinite (because the cost of copying a picture is essentially zero) and price again trends down to zero.

Unless photo.net has a rule explicitly prohibiting the use of watermarked images or you have password protection on your website, what's your point, or is this just a you-know-what measuring contest? For what it's worth, I don't enter watermarked stuff in contests.
The Photo of the Week isn't a contest as such, it's a picture more or less randomly picked by admins -- but watermarked pictures aren't eligible.

What you've failed to address is the question that PTravel asked a while back in this thread - what's the point you're trying to make here?
My point is that, instead of insisting on retaining full control ("no prints! no modifications! and definitely no Rush Limbaugh!"), why not just let go and free the pictures? The cost of doing so is zero or negative (less time spent watermarking, chasing "violations", etc); the potential loss for not selling pictures etc is, realistically speaking, tiny for most of us; and the upside for people who can enjoy and make use of your work freely and in unexpected ways is considerable. Sure, it's an idealistic viewpoint, but it's cheap and practical idealism.

Unfortunately, none of that "copyrighting" and/or "watermarking" helps and can be easily removed in PS.


Since it's so easy, do it. Here's a picture, 800x533 pixels:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/221/498125385_997ac0637a_o.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bdjohnson79/498125385/in/set-72157600187447205/)

For purposes of this test, consider it to be under a CreativeCommons by-nc license and not "all rights reserved" like the Flickr page indicates.

And here's what you've got to do with that image to restore it back to the "original" I started from.
1) Remove the watermark without cropping.
2) Increase the resolution to give enough pixels that I can print an image with the shortest dimension being 8" at 300 dpi. That means you've got to stretch 533 pixels to 2400.
3) The sharpening halos on this file would look ridiculous if you tried to make a print, so go ahead and undo that, while you're at it.

You sound like you're arguing on my side. :D As you say, the pictures have to be out there and visible, otherwise there's no demand for them and their price is zero. However, if they are out there in the digital world, supply soon becomes infinite (because the cost of copying a picture is essentially zero) and price again trends down to zero.


Your argument only holds water if you violate my intellectual property rights. Like PTravel mentioned, statutory damages of up to $250,000 (per infringement?). That $20 print just got more expensive.


My point is that, instead of insisting on retaining full control ("no prints! no modifications! and definitely no Rush Limbaugh!"), why not just let go and free the pictures? The cost of doing so is zero or negative (less time spent watermarking, chasing "violations", etc); the potential loss for not selling pictures etc is, realistically speaking, tiny for most of us; and the upside for people who can enjoy and make use of your work freely and in unexpected ways is considerable. Sure, it's an idealistic viewpoint, but it's cheap and practical idealism.

Watermarking is a zero effort thing on my part, aside from the initial ~10 minutes to record an action in Photoshop. It adds ~1 second to the total processing time for an image. Fortunately, I haven't had to pursue an enforcement action, but I'd only do so if it was worth my time/effort. PTravel's the expert, so he can correct me, but unlike trademarks, I'm pretty sure I don't *have* to go after all copyright violations.

But, I do understand where you're coming from - I just don't agree. The reason I want to maintain control over my work is simple. I'm particular. I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm a control freak, but I've chosen to maintain a certain level of control over my photographic work. (On the flip side, I have written some bits of code for Wordpress that are GPL'd)

My PS skills are close to non-existent, I assure you, so imagine what could be done by someone who REALLY knows what s/he's doing :-).

I proved my point regarding putting copyrights/watermakrs on the image. As far as "increasing" the image, :::shrug:::, some people will be happy with the size you've posted, whatever their purposes may be. So, like I said initially, don't want your images stolen, don't post them online. If you do come across someone displaying your image as theirs, your only proof is the image in original size.

P.S. Photoshopping took all of 3 minutes.

http://www.pbase.com/image/79331148/original.jpg

My PS skills are close to non-existent, I assure you, so imagine what could be done with someone who REALLY knows what s/he's doing :-).

I proved my point regarding putting copyrights/watermakrs on the image. As far as "increasing" the image, :::shrug:::, some people will be happy with the size you've posted, whatever their purposes may be. So, like I said initially, don't want your images stolen, don't post them online.


Not bad. I can still see a little artifacting from the top of the h, and there's a lot of blurring in the rock there, plus what looks like some cloning artifacts. Good enough for online use, maybe, but like I said, try and make a print of it.

Nothing's going to stop an *amoral*, determined person. Look at the whole HD-DVD AACS blowup a few weeks back, or the DeCSS mess a few years back (although I think that reverse-engineering for interoperability's sake is fine, I don't condone using it to pirate movies). Even "bulletproof" measures can be circumvented, but that doesn't mean I'm going to fold and just rely on the Internet version of a tip jar.

Watermarking to me says, "I'm choosing to protect my rights, and making sure you're aware of it." If you choose not to respect my rights, you may get a C&D out of it, and if you're unlucky enough, you'll write me a check with several zeroes following a positive integer.

It's like having a "This house is protected by a security system" sign. It's a deterrent. Saying "don't want your images stolen, don't post them online" is like saying "don't want your house broken into, then don't furnish it and leave the doors unlocked". Either way, it's theft.

Not bad. I can still see a little artifacting from the top of the h, and there's a lot of blurring in the rock there, plus what looks like some cloning artifacts. Good enough for online use, maybe, but like I said, try and make a print of it.

Watermarking to me says, "I'm choosing to protect my rights, and making sure you're aware of it." If you choose not to respect my rights, you may get a C&D out of it, and if you're unlucky enough, you'll write me a check with several zeroes following a positive integer.


I can see the artifacting & a cloning train myself, but like I said, 3 minutes and I didn't care to really spend time perfecting it, but those who really know their way around PS would do a marvelous job.

As far as printing. There are plenty of people who'll use that photo for online purposes w/o the need to print.

As far as "choosing to protect my rights" .... Whether it's on your photo or not, people do realize that they're stealing the photo anyway, so an extra couple of letters won't change anything. You could sue & win WITHOUT having that copyright on your images, as long as you have that image in original size.

I'm saying that watermarking & copyrighting images is useless. If it's posted online, it will be stolen. Unfortunately.

I'm saying that watermarking & copyrighting images is useless. If it's posted online, it will be stolen. Unfortunately.

The copyright registration process isn't useless:


If you have a copyright infringement case and your images are registered, you are entitled to sue for attorneys fees as well as punitive damages, not simply compensation for the usage.


That's where all those zeros in that check come from.

Back to my previous point - watermarking isn't about stopping image theft. It's a deterrent. Even if it's only a speed bump. If I've made you take more time than a right-click/save-as, then it's done it's job.

My point is that, instead of insisting on retaining full control ("no prints! no modifications! and definitely no Rush Limbaugh!"), why not just let go and free the pictures? The cost of doing so is zero or negative (less time spent watermarking, chasing "violations", etc); the potential loss for not selling pictures etc is, realistically speaking, tiny for most of us; and the upside for people who can enjoy and make use of your work freely and in unexpected ways is considerable. Sure, it's an idealistic viewpoint, but it's cheap and practical idealism.Perhaps, for amateur photographers who are not trying to earn money for their work, it would be okay to do so. However, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the purpose of copyright is as an incentive to creation, ensuring that authors will have the ability to exploit their work. I don't want a world where the only creative expression around is that which amateurs do for the love of it; good as some of it may be, it will never be a substitute for art produced by professional artists.

I will continue to prosecute infringements of my videos. And, no, I don't ever intend to sell them. I do, however, make them available for viewing on my website and, if I start generating enough traffic, I can swap the exposure for commercial advertising (or maybe a free camera from Sony).

Nothing's going to stop an *amoral*, determined person. Look at the whole HD-DVD AACS blowup a few weeks back, or the DeCSS mess a few years back (although I think that reverse-engineering for interoperability's sake is fine, I don't condone using it to pirate movies). Even "bulletproof" measures can be circumvented, but that doesn't mean I'm going to fold and just rely on the Internet version of a tip jar.Exactly. I think, though, that people are missing the point. A clear copyright notice, such as the one you applied, ensures that anyone who steals your picture will be deprived of the mitigation defense of non-intentional infringement. Statutory damages for intentional infringement can be quite high and also provide a basis for attorneys fee recovery. With the right defendant, even a firm like mine would take a case like that on contingency.

You might want to dust off your copy of the Constitution and take a look at Article I, Section 8:
...
:o :o :o
Uhh... Duh. Sorry, PTravel! Wasn't thinking at all about the enumerated legislative powers. Duh again. Mea culpa! :o
Offending post deleted.