Watermark

[Master Mason]

so I upgraded to the pro account at Smugmug, which allows me to add watermarks.

Question is when I saved the simple one I made, that has a transparent background in Photoshop, it saves as white on the JPG which looks not so good when laid over the picture,

Any one know what I am doing wrong?

[Master Mason]

solved it myself.

have to save as a gif instead of a jpg

[MarkBarbieri]

That's because GIF supports transparency and JPG does not.

BTW, I understand why people use them, but I detest watermarks. I guess it's like any other form of DRM - an evil that some people think is necessary.

[Dan Murphy]

I just mentioned this on the smugmug thread here. There is one smugmug poster in particular that posts pictures on the Theme park board, pictures themselves look pretty nice but the huge smugmug watermark destroys them and makes them irritating to look at.

[ukcatfan]

I am pretty sure that you can also use PNG for transparency.

I understand that some people want to protect their images, but I just do not understand when I see an overly watermarked image and it is only 800x600. It is not near the quality to be able to sell, so why worry about it. I also never understand watermarking WDW pics as anything obviously of their property is not sellable without their permission.

Kevin

[Master Mason]

This is what I did, I don't think it takes away from the photo very much

http://gregg-and-gina.smugmug.com/photos/140031940-M-1.jpg

[MarkBarbieri]

That's not bad at all...more like a signature. It's the ones that blast the watermark completely across the picture that I hate. Oddly, those are often the ones who's pictures I would be embarrased to post in the first place.

[Master Mason]

That's not bad at all...more like a signature. It's the ones that blast the watermark completely across the picture that I hate. Oddly, those are often the ones who's pictures I would be embarrased to post in the first place.

I know the ones your talking about.... Where you can't even see the picture for the watermark...

That was never my intent, as you said more of a signature than anything else. Also if you order any prints, the watermark isn't there...

[ukcatfan]

That's not bad at all...more like a signature.

I agree. It is not bad and most importantly does not take away from the image.

It's the ones that blast the watermark completely across the picture that I hate. Oddly, those are often the ones who's pictures I would be embarrased to post in the first place.

:rotfl2:

Kevin

[Dan Murphy]

This is what I did, I don't think it takes away from the photo very much

http://gregg-and-gina.smugmug.com/photos/140031940-M-1.jpgThat looks nice, subdued, understated.

That's not bad at all...more like a signature. It's the ones that blast the watermark completely across the picture that I hate...That's the way the ones are I spoke of earlier.

[Groucho]

Color me as a full-pic watermark hater too. What's the point in having the picture there? Usually that just means that they're trying to sell you something.

I tried to make sure the one I chose is pretty unobtrusive...

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/7917-4/LotusElan-012.jpg

It's applied by the Gallery software I use, so I can turn it off at any time. It was a bit of a pain getting it just right, and the recommendations were to use PNG to create it. The downside to GIF is that it's only 256 colors, which is probably OK for a watermark. It's also uncompressed, unlike PNG, despite both being lossless. The GIF standard is ooooooooooooooooold............... much older than JPG, I have no idea why transparency was never supported with JPGs.

[MICKEY88]

Oddly, those are often the ones who's pictures I would be embarrased to post in the first place.

wow that's a rather harsh statement, that's why a lot of amateur/beginners are afraid to post their pics, fear of being ridiculed by others..:confused3 :confused3

[MICKEY88]

. I also never understand watermarking WDW pics as anything obviously of their property is not sellable without their permission.

Kevin

although WDW pics can't be legally sold, that doesn't stop people from taking them online and using them for their own personal use, scrapbooking etc...
I've seen people blatantly admit to that on this site and defend their right to do so..

[Master Mason]

wow that's a rather harsh statement, that's why a lot of amateur/beginners are afraid to post their pics, fear of being ridiculed by others..:confused3 :confused3


I think that anyone that is taking the time to watermark their pictures should have moved on from the beginner catagory, So I don't think that it was aimed at them in anyway. I have never seen anyone here be mean or bash anyones picture specifically, even critisism only comes when it is asked for, and is never mean.

I know I am not the most technically skilled, but 8000 pictures later after coming back to SLR's I am starting to remember the things I used to know and am learning some new things along the way.... and it is fun. And that's whats important regardless of the skill level.

[photo_chick]

Count me as one who has images that would probably embarras some! But I don't shot to impress people. I am not a beginner having had an SLR in my hand since junior high after my first darkroom encounter (trust me, it was a long time ago). But I am fairly new to the world of DSLR's. I shoot what I like. Mostly my kids these days! And what little stock photography I do.

As far as watermarks... I see the need, having seen my DH's graphics work ripped of many times. Oddly that infuriates me but does not seem to phase him! But I don't worry about it for my images. Then again, I don't think a lot of people are out there going "I think I'll steal photo_chick's images today!"

[MICKEY88]

I think that anyone that is taking the time to watermark their pictures should have moved on from the beginner catagory, So I don't think that it was aimed at them in anyway. I have never seen anyone here be mean or bash anyones picture specifically, even critisism only comes when it is asked for, and is never mean.

I know I am not the most technically skilled, but 8000 pictures later after coming back to SLR's I am starting to remember the things I used to know and am learning some new things along the way.... and it is fun. And that's whats important regardless of the skill level.

I agree with paragraph 2 I just mentioned that to my stepson earlier today that after 2 years away frommy slrs I'm getting back to remembering the little things..

but amateur or advanced/even semi pro or pro....I still think it's harsh to criticize someone elses work and say you'd be embarrassed to post it.

in 30 years of playing with cameras/photography I've never encountered that in person , all pros I've met have gone above and beyond to help and encourage other photographers of any level, it's only online that I've encountered people who will criticize and make fun of others... and that is a shame..

[MICKEY88]

I think some people forget the proofs of film days, quite often when you got wedding or portrait proofs from a pro. they had the big old black proof printed or stamped across the center of the pic..

[photo_chick]

I get what you guys are saying. I was working on my BFA in photgraphy when I had baby #1, then went back some more after baby #2 but I had to take a financially required hiatus. So I got my 4mp digital p&S to shot my kids and could finally make decent prints from my photos. Soon it was 2 years later and my Rebel G was collecting dust. I am so ticked off at my self for stepping away form my SLR.


Now back on topic, who else watermarks? I do size what I post down to 600 x400 at 72 dpi.

[Dan Murphy]

I think some people forget the proofs of film days, quite often when you got wedding or portrait proofs from a pro. they had the big old black proof printed or stamped across the center of the pic..But remember, Mick, those pictures are being taken specifically with the intent of selling to a specific person or group of people, not posted on a casual, non-photography directed web site (the DIS here) which has, as part of its guidelines, strict notice of non-commercial linking, etc. Pictures posted here should be for the enjoyment of others, or maybe additionally, on this specific board (Photography board), either learning for oneself or educating others. JMO.

[ukcatfan]

I also never understand watermarking WDW pics as anything obviously of their property is not sellable without their permission.

Kevin

although WDW pics can't be legally sold, that doesn't stop people from taking them online and using them for their own personal use, scrapbooking etc...
I've seen people blatantly admit to that on this site and defend their right to do so..

I guess some people feel the need to protect their stuff, but I am not one. I will not be critical of those that do. Mark is pointing to those that think their stuff is soo good that they must ruin it with 75% watermark coverage. A signature like the ones displayed earlier in this thread serve the same purpose.

If someone wants to take my image and save it or print it to put in their scrapbook, I would consider it an honor. Like I said, there is no harm done as they cannot profit from it anyway. I would like them to let me know if they do, but that is just so I can have some bragging rights. :woohoo: Plus, if they let me know, I will send them the full size image. Let's not forget the main reason we are all on this particular site. We all love Disney and want to share that with other people that feel the same way. It makes me feel good if I can provide that one shot someone else forgot or missed so they can have a scrapbook that they are happy with. :goodvibes

Kevin

[Miss Kelly]

I don't watermark my photographs but I may start in the future. I take people portraits and I've run into a few instances where other photographers copy photographs and try to pass them off on their own. I guess they want to make their website gallery look better? :confused3 I don't understand it but it is a hot topic on the 2 other photography boards that I subscribe to. For customers, I use a website for proofing in which the right clicker is disabled and an automatic Copyright sign is placed in the middle of the image. Works for me (for now). Interesting discussion though. :)

[MICKEY88]

But remember, Mick, those pictures are being taken specifically with the intent of selling to a specific person or group of people, not posted on a casual, non-photography directed web site (the DIS here) which has, as part of its guidelines, strict notice of non-commercial linking, etc. Pictures posted here should be for the enjoyment of others, or maybe additionally, on this specific board (Photography board), either learning for oneself or educating others. JMO.

but you must also remember this is the age of the net, and anyone who doesn't want their pics stolen must protect them from the people online who feel that anything online belongs to everyone, in the ole days, personal pics weren't put out there where anyone who chose could take them.

just because a pic is watermarked doesn't mean it's for sale, I store my photos on 2 different sites, some are watermarked, but although both sites allow the sale of photos, you will not find any of my stuff for sale, that feature is specifically turned off.

I guess I'm confused as to why if it's all about sharing and being friendly, what gives one group the right to decide another group is wrong for the way theyhandle their own photos....


in another perspective.....

I know some homeowners who don't care if neighborhod children use their backyards as a thruway to get across the neighborhood, while some homeowners, are very opposed to such actions..does that make those who believe in property rights and property boundaries...wrong, or people to be criticized,,,

[MICKEY88]

:confused3 I guess some people feel the need to protect their stuff, but I am not one. I will not be critical of those that do. Mark is pointing to those that think their stuff is soo good that they must ruin it with 75% watermark coverage. A signature like the ones displayed earlier in this thread serve the same purpose.the signature like the one showed earlier doesn't come close to serving the same purpose, anyone with decent editing software and minimal skills can clone that signature out in seconds

If someone wants to take my image and save it or print it to put in their scrapbook, I would consider it an honor. Like I said, there is no harm done as they cannot profit from it anyway. I would like them to let me know if they do, but that is just so I can have some bragging rights. :woohoo: Plus, if they let me know, I will send them the full size image.I agree with this to a point, I have given copies of my pics in the past, but I like to control my images, I don't agree with the practice of just taking without asking, whether people choose to agree, or whether or not they like the wording it is {stealing} a violation of copyright law Let's not forget the main reason we are all on this particular site. We all love Disney and want to share that with other people that feel the same way.I agree 100% that is why I don't agree with the criticism and belittling of other photogs of any level of experience..:confused3 It makes me feel good if I can provide that one shot someone else forgot or missed so they can have a scrapbook that they are happy with. :goodvibes ..:confused3





Kevin

[fitzperry]

but you must also remember this is the age of the net, and anyone who doesn't want their pics stolen must protect them from the people online who feel that anything online belongs to everyone, in the ole days, personal pics weren't put out there where anyone who chose could take them.

just because a pic is watermarked doesn't mean it's for sale, I store my photos on 2 different sites, some are watermarked, but although both sites allow the sale of photos, you will not find any of my stuff for sale, that feature is specifically turned off.

I guess I'm confused as to why if it's all about sharing and being friendly, what gives one group the right to decide another group is wrong for the way theyhandle their own photos....


in another perspective.....

I know some homeowners who don't care if neighborhod children use their backyards as a thruway to get across the neighborhood, while some homeowners, are very opposed to such actions..does that make those who believe in property rights and property boundaries...wrong, or people to be criticized,,,

I agree with you for the most part, but I have seen a few posters on the DIS whose clearly high quality images have such ridiculously obtrusive watermarks that they are impossible to "enjoy" as is. This of course leaves me wondering why they bothered to post them at all, and it seems likely that (copyright issues notwithstanding) they are hoping to be contacted by other members who wish to purchase the images. Which is just plain obnoxious on many levels.

[ukcatfan]

True, someone can remove a watermark or signature if they wanted to, but remember we are talking about 800x600 (i.e. >0.5MP) so it will not look very good and would not be printable. The only way to completely protect your images is to not put them on the net.

I have to defend Mark one last time b/c he is not identifying anyone in particular. Also, he is talking about the people that portray themselves as pros, but you can tell that it is not a pro level shot. If you make yourself off as a pro, you had better be able to back it up IMO. I have only seen Mark encourage people and never seen him criticize anyone on photography skills. (Equipment choice is another story ;) )

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

I agree with you for the most part, but I have seen a few posters on the DIS whose clearly high quality images have such ridiculously obtrusive watermarks that they are impossible to "enjoy" as is. This of course leaves me wondering why they bothered to post them at all, and it seems likely that (copyright issues notwithstanding) they are hoping to be contacted by other members who wish to purchase the images. Which is just plain obnoxious on many levels.

I'm guilty of posting one such pic..I did it after several weeks of posts where more than a few people were defending the so called right to take any picture that is posted online....

this is the image..




never any intent of trying to sell pics on my part...

I won't disagree that trying to sell pics is wrong, what I'm disagreeing with is the belittling or harsh criticism of anyone who posts a pic on this friendly site of ours, from my perspective it is wrong for anyone to do

[MarkBarbieri]

I don't want to stop anyone from graffitiing their own images any way that they want to. I just don't like looking at them with watermarks splayed across them. They have a right to be tacky; I have a right to consider it tacky.

For privacy protection, I use Smugmug's password protection feature. I think it's a lot better suited to the purpose than watermarking. I've done this with groups of kids that expressed sensitivity about their photos. I personally have not heard of people using photos of kids on photo sites for nefarious purposes, but if a parent (or anyone for that matter) is concerned about it, I'm happy to oblige by password protecting or removing the photos.

Disabling right-click saving is nothing more than a band-aid. It is a defense that relies on the compliance of the client software used to view the photo. It doesn't take any significant level of expertise to get around the limitation. I guess there is some advantage in protecting against copyright infringement by people with sufficient computer skills to see the image but insufficient computer skills to work around the right-click limitation.

I have to admit that I find the notion of someone watermarking a WDW photo to protect their ability to sell it from people that might steal it amusing. I would hazard a guess that most people doing so have not secured the rights from Disney to sell the photo. What they are demanding is the ability to profit from the sale of their intellectual property while ripping off Disney's. My sympathies are rather limited.

Again, I chose to post my WDW photos in full resolution for people to download and use. I respect other people's rights to control their photos as they see fit. We all get to play the game as we see fit. find garish watermarks destable, but that's just my opinion. I'm unlikely to be one of your customers, so making me happy is probably not a high priority for you. Good taste is a matter of opinion and circumstances, not ethics or the law.

I'll throw in another plug for the scrapbooker's forum (http://www.disboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=123). For those of you that want to share, you'll find lots of people there that are happy to borrow.

[MarkBarbieri]

Just out of curiousity, what is about people using copies of your WDW photos for their personal use that some of you object to? If you aren't selling it (which you can't legally do anyway), what harm are they doing to you?

I understand that you have a perfectly good legal right to prevent them from doing so. I also believe that you stand on perfectly sound ethical ground. I'm not questioning anyone's right to control their intellectual property. I'm just curious about why it bothers you.

I'm not talking about cases where people represent your image as theirs, particularly on sites that you may visit. I'm not talking about people putting pictures of you or your family to some twisted use. I'm just talking about things like people printing off a copy of your castle fireworks shot to fill a hole in their scrapbook.

[MarkBarbieri]

(Equipment choice is another story )

Incidentally, it appears that I am somewhat on the Pentax bandwagon. I noticed this morning that my polarizer is a Hoya (now Hoya Pentax) and I like it much better than my old Canon polarizer.:scared1: :eek: :scared1:

[MICKEY88]

I have to defend Mark one last time b/c he is not identifying anyone in particular. Also, he is talking about the people that portray themselves as pros, but you can tell that it is not a pro level shot. If you make yourself off as a pro, you had better be able to back it up IMO. I have only seen Mark encourage people and never seen him criticize anyone on photography skills. (Equipment choice is another story ;) )

Kevin


even pros aren't perfect with every picture, I've seen portrait and wedding photographers that couldn't take a great vacation photo if their life depended on it, because they are so used to controlling lighting so tightly, similar for sports photogs that couldn't take a great portrait, because they are used to shooting outdoors and not having to set up lighting..so again who are we to judge...

I've seen pros post pics that made me wonder, I've also seen pros post pics that have left me in awe,

I've also seen people post info as fact or as the only way to accomplish something, and the info although accurate is FAR from the only way of doing things, but I've refrained from questioning it,

I respect the knowledge that is shared here, but I never see the justification in putting someone down, or making fun of them, just not my style

[MICKEY88]

Just out of curiousity, what is about people using copies of your WDW photos for their personal use that some of you object to? If you aren't selling it (which you can't legally do anyway), what harm are they doing to you?

.

for me personally it's a matter of principle, I've freely shared pics with people who have asked
, I've even taken the time to paint shop people into one of my pics of the castle.

I just get annoyed by people who feel it is their right to take any pics posted on this site



if a friend is short on cash and asks to borrow lunch money I will give it,,,,but don't go into my wallet and take it without asking..

[MarkBarbieri]

I just get annoyed by people who feel it is their right to take any pics posted on this site

I can understand that.

if a friend is short on cash and asks to borrow lunch money I will give it,,,,but don't go into my wallet and take it without asking..

I don't see that as a fitting analogy because in that case, you lose something tangible (your money). In the case of picture purloining, your losses are intangible.

[Groucho]

For customers, I use a website for proofing in which the right clicker is disabled and an automatic Copyright sign is placed in the middle of the image. Works for me (for now). Interesting discussion though. :)
For the record, the right-click disable is virtually no protection whatsoever. Not only can anyone easily look at the source, and not only can any download tool grab it, and not only can any site mirroring tool grab it, and not only can go you into Page Info with Firefox and see any the images displayed there (including backgrounds) complete with a "save as" button, but you can go into the Javascript properties in Firefox and disable the ability for them to disable or replace context menus. Of course, you can always disable Javascript entirely in Firefox and IE.

I have this option set, not only because I find the little pop-ups that say "image copyrighted!" incredibly annoying, but because I use mouse gestures - to go back and forth, I draw a horizontal line with the right button held down. If there's Javascript to disable context menus, that means that it interrupts the gesture, so I don't go back and I have to dismiss a dialog box that pops up.

The moral is, you simply cannot protect stuff that's free to view on the internet. Unfortunately, that leads back to those big ugly watermarks that we all dislike... :)

In a vaguely related note, when we had our wedding shot, we got all the negatives as part of the deal. I am pretty happy with that arrangement.

[MICKEY88]

I can understand that.



I don't see that as a fitting analogy because in that case, you lose something tangible (your money). In the case of picture purloining, your losses are intangible.


the bottom line is either way it's my property, I should be able to choose who to share it with

[photo_chick]

True, someone can remove a watermark or signature if they wanted to, but remember we are talking about 800x600 (i.e. >0.5MP) so it will not look very good and would not be printable. The only way to completely protect your images is to not put them on the net.

I have to defend Mark one last time b/c he is not identifying anyone in particular. Also, he is talking about the people that portray themselves as pros, but you can tell that it is not a pro level shot. If you make yourself off as a pro, you had better be able to back it up IMO. I have only seen Mark encourage people and never seen him criticize anyone on photography skills. (Equipment choice is another story ;) )

Kevin

But who is to say what constitutes a pro? I know a few people who make their living taking pictures of kids. NOt even really making memorable images, but just turning the camera on and shooting on auto. They are considered pros because they make money at it. Being a pro does not necessarily mean one has skills. I am constantly amazed at the low quality work that people make a living off of.

Me, I don't represent myself as a pro, but I sell stock photography and do shoot kids portraits for money when asked. I make money at it and some consider me a pro because of that alone (though I don't) I have education in photography to back me up (not just one class, but 3 years of work on my BFA in photography). Though my education was pre-digital (and pre kids mostly!). The closest I would come is semi-pro, only because I do occasionally make a litle money at it.


So what then makes a pro level shot, and what makes someone a pro? What makes that shot more worthy of a big honkin watermark than another? Photography is art, and art is subjective.

This is not intended to start an argument, bash anyone, or anything else, merely to point out that what one person considers pro level work, others may laugh at.


Case and point in this... My daughter used to do gymnastics. They had a pro company come in and shot the kids. On every single image the kids faces were out of focus slightly because they used auto focus and did not bother to learn how to actually use the auto focus. The couple had bought a DSLR, a few lights and a back drop and appeared to know what they were doing to most people and produced shots that the average person considered good. Again, it is all subjective!

[jann1033]

i guess i'm a bad bad persons cause i can't say how many times i've had to laugh when i see those picture filling watermarks...probably naive on my part but i just can't image some giant evil empire wants to scan the DIS for photos to steal and sell for one million dollars ( flashback to austin powers)
it isn't the quality of the photo that makes me laugh it's the somewhat less than modest assumption that their work is that great .. and certainly not everyone is like that (or even most) here but i have to say i have seen just a couple comments along with some of those plastered photos that lead me to believe a few have a pretty hot air balloon-like inflated opinion of their own talent:snooty: :rotfl: . i could very well be missing something( what are the chances i'm not) but i don't think the point is if they are a pro or not, it's the assumption their photos are so magnificent they are going to be stolen and used for someone else's great gain that Mark was referring to when in reality they are just photos of average quality( not that i am speaking for him, just how i took his comment)

but i think master mason's is fine, it might give a little protection if needed, is more like a painting that is signed than the assumption of everyone else being a thief.

and while i do think it's only polite to ask permission before you use something of some else's, that's just common courtesy , i don't see the harm if it's not to resell something( and disney pics are not sellable anyway)

[MICKEY88]

Case and point in this... My daughter used to do gymnastics. They had a pro company come in and shot the kids. On every single image the kids faces were out of focus slightly because they used auto focus and did not bother to learn how to actually use the auto focus. The couple had bought a DSLR, a few lights and a back drop and appeared to know what they were doing to most people and produced shots that the average person considered good. Again, it is all subjective!



I agree with this 100% plus it goes with my earlier post about pros not neccessarily being masters of all types of photography,

there is a local studio that does incredible portrait work, they also do a lot of the local sports team photos, I've yet to see the sports photos being in focus or porperly lit, they alos tried doing sports action work, again a far cry from their portrait work..

does that mean they aren't pros..???

it just means they specialize in one type of photography and have mastered it

[MICKEY88]

i guess i'm a bad bad persons cause i can't say how many times i've had to laugh when i see those picture filling watermarks...probably naive on my part but i just can't image some giant evil empire wants to scan the DIS for photos to steal and sell for one million dollars ( flashback to austin powers)
it isn't the quality of the photo that makes me laugh it's the somewhat less than modest assumption that their work is that great ( and certainly not everyone is like that (or even most) here but i have to say i have seen just a couple comments along with some of those plastered photos that lead me to believe a few have a pretty hot air balloon-like inflated opinion of their own talent:snooty: :rotfl: )

but i think master mason's is fine, it might give a little protection, is more like a painting that is signed than the assumption of everyone else being a thief.

and while i do think it's only polite to ask permission before you use something of some else's, that's just common courtesy , i don't see the harm if it's not to resell something( and disney pics are not sellable anyway)


you wouldn't see the harm in someone taking your pics of your family members...???

but I suppose what really matters is, it is up to each individual, to decide how their pics should be used

I don't believe in letting the whole world use my pictures, but I have never thought it was up to me to tell anyone else that they shouldn't do so with their pictures, so I am confused at the way of thinking that leads others who freely share their pics, to tell anyone else that they should also..???:confused3

[jann1033]

you wouldn't see the harm in someone taking your pics of your family members...???

but I suppose what really matters is, it is up to each individual, to decide how their pics should be used

I don't believe in letting the whole world use my pictures, but I have never thought it was up to me to tell anyone else that they shouldn't do so with their pictures, so I am confused at the way of thinking that leads others who freely share their pics, to tell anyone else that they should also..???:confused3

any photos i wouldn't want being used i wouldn't put on a public site. (which is why my stuff online isn't open to the public and i don't put anything there unless i plan on posting it, not cause i think anyone is out to steal them but i am paranoid about some freak using photos of my granddaughter inappropriately.) but that does lead to another ? did anyone who took those watermarked filled photos that have strangers in them get permission to sell or post them from who ever they have in their photo? didn't they just take photos of those stranger's families and use them with out their permission ;) ?
personally i feel an ethical dilemma ( sp?) anytime i take photos that have someone in them since they may not want their photo taken and used so usually i avoid it or ask if it's ok but you can't really do that with a crowd.( not talking legalities, just courtesy)

if you are directing the last paragraph at me, i don't see where i ever said that since i specifically said i thought Master mason's was fine so:confused3 :confused3 :confused3 i think you are reading between some lines that don't exist if you are. if you aren't I'm being neurotic again:) but just for the record i never even noticed you putting watermarks so none of my comments were personally directed at you, just my random thoughts after reading the thread

[ukcatfan]

photo_chick,

You misunderstood what I mean. I am talking about people that are arrogant about their work, but have no right to be.

Kevin

[jann1033]

photo_chick,

You misunderstood what I mean. I am talking about people that are arrogant about their work, but have no right to be.

Kevin
ditto, it's the arrogance that frosts my potatoes:)

[photo_chick]

photo_chick,

You misunderstood what I mean. I am talking about people that are arrogant about their work, but have no right to be.

Kevin

My point was actually that photography is art, art is subjective. While there is a technicality and a craft to it, largely it is art. You can intentionally underexpose, overexpose, over process, cross process, etc. an image and that truly be the intent of the artist. But another person might not see that, they might just see that it is not technically a perfect shot and dismiss it as bad. JUst becasue one person sees it as bad, does not mean it is. It does not mean that the artist does not have the right to think that their piece of art is good. Who is to say who has the right to be arrogant and who does not? I did not miss the point I don't think. I was trying to get at the fact that it is all subjective.

[AndrewWG]

My point was actually that photography is art, art is subjective.

I was trying to get at the fact that it is all subjective.

I fully agree with this, but wouldn't have if I hadn't visited these boards. I used to say "Man that S**ks!" in some cases, but I have seen people say "I love this shot" or "What a great use of lighting" or "What a nicely composed picture" or things to that extent. This has led me to look at things differently. I would never personally express to the photographer my feelings if they were negative as it is his or her idea of what they like or do not like, not mine.

Personally, all my shots are masterpieces and noone should be able to see anything but a big honking watermark, but that is just my opinion! :rolleyes1

just kidding

Andy

[photo_chick]

I fully agree with this, but wouldn't have if I hadn't visited these boards. I used to say "Man that S**ks!" in some cases, but I have seen people say "I love this shot" or "What a great use of lighting" or "What a nicely composed picture" or things to that extent. This has led me to look at things differently. I would never personally express to the photographer my feelings if they were negative as it is his or her idea of what they like or do not like, not mine.

Personally, all my shots are masterpieces and noone should be able to see anything but a big honking watermark, but that is just my opinion! :rolleyes1

just kidding

Andy

Years of art classes and having my work graded taught me that I could love a piece that I worked very hard on, but an instructor can dislike it and fail me. Not that I ever had anything less than an A...:rolleyes1

Bottom line is some people are protective of their work. Some are not. Some have ego's, some don't. It is all subjective.

[AndrewWG]

Yes it is. I tend to like to get low to my subject. I don't know why, but I find that being low to the ground makes a pretty cool looking photo. Of course I don't always do it but when I do, sometimes my DW likes it and sometimes she says it's junk, but I always like it, so beauty is in the eye of the photographer in most cases I suppose.

[Michele]

Just out of curiousity, what is about people using copies of your WDW photos for their personal use that some of you object to? If you aren't selling it (which you can't legally do anyway), what harm are they doing to you?

I understand that you have a perfectly good legal right to prevent them from doing so. I also believe that you stand on perfectly sound ethical ground. I'm not questioning anyone's right to control their intellectual property. I'm just curious about why it bothers you.

I'm not talking about cases where people represent your image as theirs, particularly on sites that you may visit. I'm not talking about people putting pictures of you or your family to some twisted use. I'm just talking about things like people printing off a copy of your castle fireworks shot to fill a hole in their scrapbook.

Noone has answered this question yet.

I am watching this thread with curiosity as I frequent the scrapbook forum and although I haven't yet used anyone else pictures for scrapbooking, I really appreciated Mark's offer of his pictures there recently. One of these days I may need to use one to fill in a shot that I missed.

[ukcatfan]

My point was actually that photography is art, art is subjective. While there is a technicality and a craft to it, largely it is art. You can intentionally underexpose, overexpose, over process, cross process, etc. an image and that truly be the intent of the artist. But another person might not see that, they might just see that it is not technically a perfect shot and dismiss it as bad. JUst becasue one person sees it as bad, does not mean it is. It does not mean that the artist does not have the right to think that their piece of art is good. Who is to say who has the right to be arrogant and who does not? I did not miss the point I don't think. I was trying to get at the fact that it is all subjective.

I agree that the exposure is totally up to the artist, but there are some things that are truly mistakes and make for a bad image. If it is completely blurry, then I am sorry, but that is a missed shot, not intended art. To be clear, I mean the entire thing, as sometimes blur is intentional. Another thing that gets me is bad framing. For example, a shot of the castle that has the entire castle framed, but just the very top of it is chopped off. :scared1: That kind of thing just bothers me. Possibly it is intentional, but I do not like it.

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

any photos i wouldn't want being used i wouldn't put on a public site. (which is why my stuff online isn't open to the public and i don't put anything there unless i plan on posting it, not cause i think anyone is out to steal them but i am paranoid about some freak using photos of my granddaughter inappropriately.) but that does lead to another ? did anyone who took those watermarked filled photos that have strangers in them get permission to sell or post them from who ever they have in their photo? didn't they just take photos of those stranger's families and use them with out their permission ;) ?permission is not needed to take the photo in a public place, a model release is ony required to sell the photos, again, watermark does not mean intent to sell, only intent to keep others from swiping the image...taking the photo in public is legal, taking someone elses phot from the web is not legal...
personally i feel an ethical dilemma ( sp?) anytime i take photos that have someone in them since they may not want their photo taken and used so usually i avoid it or ask if it's ok but you can't really do that with a crowd.( not talking legalities, just courtesy)

if you are directing the last paragraph at me, i don't see where i ever said that since i specifically said i thought Master mason's was fine so:confused3 :confused3 :confused3 i think you are reading between some lines that don't exist if you are. if you aren't I'm being neurotic again:) but just for the record i never even noticed you putting watermarks so none of my comments were personally directed at you, just my random thoughts after reading the thread


my comments are not aimed at you, they are referring to those people on this board who try to tell people how they should handle their photos, one item which is sharing them with everyone...

[MarkBarbieri]

If someone posts a photo on this site and says nothing about how they expect it to be used, is it OK to print it and put it in your scrapbook? Obviously, it would be polite to ask, but is it necessary from a legal or ethical standpoint? Should the onus be on the poster to include use restrictions with their posting? Is their a presumption that the photo can be printed or a presumption that it cannot?

[MICKEY88]

photo_chick,

You misunderstood what I mean. I am talking about people that are arrogant about their work, but have no right to be.

Kevin

please define arrogant, I might have missed something but I've never seen anyone bragging that their work is superior,etc..

if using watermarks is interpreted as arrogance I disagree, watermarks simply imply the desire to maintain control or rights to a photo,

no different than adding a car alarm to my car, it doesn't mean I think my car is better than anyone elses, just that I value it and want to protect it..

[MICKEY88]

If someone posts a photo on this site and says nothing about how they expect it to be used, is it OK to print it and put it in your scrapbook? Obviously, it would be polite to ask, but is it necessary from a legal or ethical standpoint? Should the onus be on the poster to include use restrictions with their posting? Is their a presumption that the photo can be printed or a presumption that it cannot?

it would not be Ok to just use itlegally and ethically asking would be required, otherwise it quite bluntly is stealing..

the presumption would be that it could not be printed. copyright starts at the moment of shutter release.

[photo_chick]

That kind of thing just bothers me. Possibly it is intentional, but I do not like it.

Kevin

Again, back to my point that it is subjective. Just because you think it is bad does not make it bad. Take this shot.....

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w232/the_real_photo_chick/-17.jpg

I posted this scan of a 35mm slide from school on another board where I participate in a critique group. Almost everyone commented on the bunny's ears, how they are cut off. How it was a mistake and I should reshoot it. The fact is I framed it exactly like this on purpose. This is the shot that I wanted. But it is not the normal framing everyone else might do. I respect their opinions. But I intended it to be this way. Again, it is all subjective.

This all goes back to the question of who is to say what image is "good enough" to be worth watermarking and whose is not?

[MICKEY88]

another thing that has been mentioned is proper exposure, that to a degree is also subjective I used to work in a photo lab, the manager and I never agreed on exposure when printing, I thought he printed to light, he thought I printed too dark...yet we both had customers who would ask for us to print their photos because they liked the way we printed best

[Master Mason]

To answer Marks question. If someone wants to use a picture of mine, all they need to do is ask. I will be happy to send them the full size version, without watermark. I do this for fun, at some point in time I might want to try and make a few bucks at it, which is why I am setting the watermark like I did. All what I am doing is to slow down the honest people. It would be very easy to remove, or crop it out if someone really wanted to, and at this time I really don't care to be honest. If I was selling them, then I would probably think differnently.

And I take a lot of my pictures at my kids games, if I did start trying to make something that is where I would be headed, and if folks are seeing my name on pictures they like already, then they won't mind paying a few bucks for a copy if/when I start on that path.

[MarkBarbieri]

it would not be Ok to just use itlegally and ethically asking would be required, otherwise it quite bluntly is stealing..

I'm not so sure that the law is quite that straightforward. You certainly own the copyright, but I'm not sure what impact the concept of fair use has in this situation. The law on fair use is horribly vague. The Copyright Act of 1976 gave four guidelines for assessing fair use:

(From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976#Fair_use))

1) the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive);
The personal scrapbook use would clearly not be commercial

2) the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity);
I suppose this would depend on the picture

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and
I'm not really sure how this would apply

4) the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.
This is the most significant part of a fair use claim (from what I understand) and in this case it would favor the concept of fair use.

From what I could gather looking at sites on fair use, it would almost certainly be OK to use a non-commercial photograph in a non-commercail education presentation without permission. However, every school made it clear that a good faith effort should be made to secure permission and provide some attribution.

The concept gets even more confusing if we switch from a physical scrapbook to a virtual one. What if in stead of printing the photo the user simply embedded it in the page via a link? The effect is the almost the same. Does that affect the situation? What if instead of putting the photo in an <IMG> tag, they just used an <HREF> and required you to jump to it?

What if the person got permission from Werner Technologies (our gracious hosts)? When we post photos here, how much control over how they are used to do we give to Werner Technologies?

Personally, I like the idea of asking permission. Still, I think saying that someone that prints a photo from the web is stealing is quite excessive. I remember cutting pictures from magazines and glueing them into stories when I was a kid. I harbor no feelings of guilt.

[MICKEY88]

I'm not so sure that the law is quite that straightforward. You certainly own the copyright, but I'm not sure what impact the concept of fair use has in this situation. The law on fair use is horribly vague. The Copyright Act of 1976 gave four guidelines for assessing fair use:
the copyright act of 1976 has been altered greatly especially the coverage of photos.. are you referencing the section on photos or on printed literary works, the factual or fictional leadss me to belief it's written works not photos...
(From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976#Fair_use))

1) the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive);
The personal scrapbook use would clearly not be commercial

2) the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity);
I suppose this would depend on the picture

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and
I'm not really sure how this would apply

4) the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.
This is the most significant part of a fair use claim (from what I understand) and in this case it would favor the concept of fair use.

From what I could gather looking at sites on fair use, it would almost certainly be OK to use a non-commercial photograph in a non-commercail education presentation without permission. However, every school made it clear that a good faith effort should be made to secure permission and provide some attribution.there is a big difference between an educational setting and a message board...

The concept gets even more confusing if we switch from a physical scrapbook to a virtual one. What if in stead of printing the photo the user simply embedded it in the page via a link? The effect is the almost the same. Does that affect the situation? What if instead of putting the photo in an <IMG> tag, they just used an <HREF> and required you to jump to it?
people have already been prosecuted for the use of copyrighted photos on the internet...

What if the person got permission from Werner Technologies (our gracious hosts)? When we post photos here, how much control over how they are used to do we give to Werner Technologies?that isn't really part of the discussion, if we give werner full usage rights, that doesn't give any usage rights to members of the boards...

Personally, I like the idea of asking permission. Still, I think saying that someone that prints a photo from the web is stealing is quite excessive. the law fairly defines stealing as the taking of someone elses property without their permission, so no matter how someone chooses to sugarcoat it, it is in fact stealing I remember cutting pictures from magazines and glueing them into stories when I was a kid. I harbor no feelings of guilt.whether you harbor guilt or not, does not determine whether something was right or not...

[photo_chick]

Along these lines, my photos are not technically posted on this site. They are posted on photobucket, then linked to from this site.

I just talked with DH (former web guru, now game guru) and he said that works are protected the instant they are created, by the artist who created them first. Meaning it is not legal for anyone to use it without that artists express permission for any reason regardless of where it is posted or if it has a visible copyright mark. I asked him because he deals with a lot of online copyright related stuff in his work.

[MICKEY88]

taken from a website dealing with photography copyright....

By the way, putting photos on the Internet may make them publicly available but does not (in the legal sense) put them in the public domain.



Note that "fair use" is an "affirmative defense", where the infringer has the burden of proof to show that the use was indeed fair.

[MICKEY88]

http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html

[ukcatfan]

I personally feel that this has gone too far. Is anyone else with me? How about we agree to disagree and have that be an end to it.

For example, I was questioned about defining arrogance. I am not saying that anyone posts their picture saying how great they are, but some people give a general vibe of knowing everything but do not deliver on the goods. We are about to cross into the territory of pointing fingers to actual people and then we would be no better than some of the other photog boards. This is not a team sport and sometimes it shows its ugly face.

I will even point the finger at myself. I know a decent amount of the theory stuff, like having a general idea of what settings are likely the best for a situation, etc. Given that, I have not had one of my images make it to the final round of the weekly contest.

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

Don't Copy, Modify or Display Images You Find
The Copyright act gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce or modify their work, and to exclude others from doing so. Copying includes copying or saving their image to your hard drive, or copying to other mediums, like scanning a photo from a book and turning it into a JPEG file.

Modifying a work, say by cropping, coloring, distorting, enlarging, etc. is not a way around this law. Creating a derivative work "or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted" is an infringement.

If you take a copyrighted image without permission, and put it on a web page, you are violating the exclusive right of the copyright owner to display his work. (See 17 U.S.C.A. § 106).


taken from....http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm

[MICKEY88]

For example, I was questioned about defining arrogance. I am not saying that anyone posts their picture saying how great they are, but some people give a general vibe of knowing everything but do not deliver on the goods.
.

Kevin

sorry I thought it was a fair question...

as for people giving the vibe they know everything, but don't deliver, that's very well possible,

there are many fields where people know how to do something, but don't neccessarily pull it off themselves, \\


some of the best sports coaches, of all time, never played the sport they coach, but they know the sport inside and out, and are good at teaching others..

[MarkBarbieri]

whether you harbor guilt or not, does not determine whether something was right or not...

I was thinking more of the inverse...I don't harbor guilt because I think what I did was right rather than wrong.

the copyright act of 1976 has been altered greatly especially the coverage of photos.. are you referencing the section on photos or on printed literary works, the factual or fictional leadss me to belief it's written works not photos...
I'd love to see the relevant sections.

there is a big difference between an educational setting and a message board...
The scenario I was discussing was printing for personal scrapbooking purposes, not using on a message board. I'm not sure how close the analogy betwen using a photo in a teachers slideshow is with using a photo in a scrapbook. Both share the qualities of being non-commercial and unlikely to diminish the commercial value of the original work.

The concept gets even more confusing if we switch from a physical scrapbook to a virtual one. What if in stead of printing the photo the user simply embedded it in the page via a link? The effect is the almost the same. Does that affect the situation? What if instead of putting the photo in an <IMG> tag, they just used an <HREF> and required you to jump to it?people have already been prosecuted for the use of copyrighted photos on the internet...
Yes, they have, but just because some uses are considered copyright infringement doesn't mean that all uses are copyright infringement.

What if the person got permission from Werner Technologies (our gracious hosts)? When we post photos here, how much control over how they are used to do we give to Werner Technologies?that isn't really part of the discussion, if we give werner full usage rights, that doesn't give any usage rights to members of the boards...
I'm not sure about that. I really don't know what rights I am giving Werner. For all I know, they have the right to reproduce anything we say or display here (assuming that we had the right to do so in the first place). If that's the case, they could authorize the reproduction of this thread or pictures that appear in it.

the law fairly defines stealing as the taking of someone elses property without their permission, so no matter how someone chooses to sugarcoat it, it is in fact stealing
You may want the law to be that simple, but it isn't. Fair use isn't just a phrase, it's a right. It's a darn vague right, but, despite the best efforts of media companies, it still exists.

I'm certainly not going to call you a thief for quoting my prior comments in your reply. I'm well aware of the fact that you took my words without my permission, but your use almost certainly falls under fair use.

I read through the article that you sited and here is the part that seemed most relevant to the question of whether printing a photo online for use in a scrapbook is legal. Please note that I am reprinting it based on my understanding of fair use and that I am not doing so with the intent to steal.

"Q: I make collages. Are there any problems that I might encounter?

A. Yes. If a collage artist incorporates any copyrighted material into the collage, there is a risk of infringement. In making a collage, it is fine to use your own work or work that is in the public domain. However, when collage artists take work from other artists, there is a risk of copyright infringement. As with fair use of copyrighted materials, one must inquire as to how much of the copyrighted work is used and the impact this use will have on the potential market for the copyrighted work. This is another instance where common sense and good judgment should rule."

It doesn't say that it's infringement (let alone the more pejorative "stealing"). It says that there is a risk of copyright infringement. I'm not sure how to assess the "how much of the copyrighted work" part applies. Is it more likely to be fair use if I use part of a posted photo rather than the whole thing? The latter part "the impact this use will have on the potential market for the copyrighted work" clearly seems to imply. Obviously, it will have no measurable impact, so that implies that it is likely fair use.

I think the use of the term "stealing" in a situation like the scrapbook example is way over the top. After spending a good thirty minutes trying to determine if it is legal, I'm still completely unsure (though leaning towards saying that it is). The word stealing implies harm to the victim and I just don't see the harm here. I'd be about as inclined to believe that publicly declaiming that someone exercising their fair use rights is "stealing" is itself defamation as I would be to believe that printing a single photo for a personal scrapbook amounts to copyright infringement.

Again, I think it's polite to ask permission, but I remain unconvinced by any of the arguments put forth so far or by anything I've been able to find online that it is actually a crime. I also think that it is impolite to use pejorative terms like "stealing" against people with innocent intent when less inflammatory and more accurate terms like "infringement" apply.

[MICKEY88]

I will even point the finger at myself. I know a decent amount of the theory stuff, like having a general idea of what settings are likely the best for a situation, etc. Given that, I have not had one of my images make it to the final round of the weekly contest.

Kevin

that doesn't mean your photos aren't good or great, just that the people voting chose another pic for whatever reason, I've seen some photos that have left me in awe, that never made it to the finals, and wondered how that was possible..

in the end, unless you're selling your photos or taking them for a client, the person that you must satisfy with your work, is you, because you are the one who will view it most..

[photo_chick]

When someone uses a copyrighted work without express permission for any purpose, it is against the law. If someone posts somethign and says "you may use this image for blah blah blah..." then you can use it. But if they did not you can't without first getting their permission. The law also says it is up to the accused infringer to prove they have the right to use the work.

This is why you can link to the artists posting of the image, but you cannot copy it and upload it to your own site, account, whatever. I have seen people use others images (including my own) and give credit to the image, that is not enough. You have to have permission. DH works for a large media company and they are meticulous on copyright stuff. That is one of the things he has to deal with when he gets or creates art for games. They have lawyers who are paid to tell them all this stuff!

All that said, just ask before using someone elses image should the need ever arise. Then we can all get along!:goodvibes

[MarkBarbieri]

I personally feel that this has gone too far. Is anyone else with me?
If you don't mind, I'd still like to continue with the discussion on the legality of using images posted here for person works. While I can't say that I have any personal need for the information, I find the subject interesting and hope to learn more about it.



I read the pdimages site that MICKEY88 so helpfully posted and I still remain unconvinced.

First, the site sells public domain images. They obviously have a financial interest in convincing people that their use of copyrighted material (which competes with their public domain material) is illegal. I'm not saying that makes them wrong, but it does make their advise suspect.

Here's a quote that also damages their creditibility for me:
The Copyright act gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce or modify their work, and to exclude others from doing so. Copying includes copying or saving their image to your hard drive, or copying to other mediums, like scanning a photo from a book and turning it into a JPEG file.
It this is the way the law is written, it's a bad law that will never withstand being reviewed by, what was Gore's phrase, "a controlling legal authority." I say that because I don't think I can look at a photo on the web without it being saved to my hard drive. My cache is littered with copyrighted materials.

The page also trivializes the notion of fair use. They list off possible fair use scenarios (teaching, scholarship, etc) giving the implication that those are the only possible fair use scenarios. I don't believe that is the case. The stuff I read earlier made it clear that those were common cases of fair use but never implied that they were exclusive.

Even if you take those to be exclusive uses available for fair use, the term "scholarship" is vague enough to allow for the scrapbooking example. I merely have to refer to my theoretical scrapbook as a "History of the Excursions of the Barbieri Family in 2007."

My guess (it would be nice to get a lawyer in on this) is that the use is so trivial that it just doesn't rise to level of copyright infringement. It's like cutting pictures out of magazine, building a CD of your favorite tunes for your other CDs, or any of a bunch of other similar activities that media owners portray as illegal but which often turn out not to be.

[photo_chick]

I will even point the finger at myself. I know a decent amount of the theory stuff, like having a general idea of what settings are likely the best for a situation, etc. Given that, I have not had one of my images make it to the final round of the weekly contest.

Kevin

That goes back to what I said, photography is art and art is subjective. Just because they were not picked does not mean they are not good work. It just means whoever was judging did not think it was as good. It is all subjective.

[MarkBarbieri]

When someone uses a copyrighted work without express permission for any purpose, it is against the law.
That's just not true. Search on the term "Fair Use" and you will see that there many exceptions to that rule. Unfortunately, fair use appears to be a poorly defined legal concept, so it is not exactly clear when it applies.

[MICKEY88]

If you don't mind, I'd still like to continue with the discussion on the legality of using images posted here for person works. While I can't say that I have any personal need for the information, I find the subject interesting and hope to learn more about it.



I read the pdimages site that MICKEY88 so helpfully posted and I still remain unconvinced.

First, the site sells public domain images. They obviously have a financial interest in convincing people that their use of copyrighted material (which competes with their public domain material) is illegal. I'm not saying that makes them wrong, but it does make their advise suspect.

Here's a quote that also damages their creditibility for me:

It this is the way the law is written, it's a bad law that will never withstand being reviewed by, what was Gore's phrase, "a controlling legal authority." I say that because I don't think I can look at a photo on the web without it being saved to my hard drive. My cache is littered with copyrighted materials.

The page also trivializes the notion of fair use. They list off possible fair use scenarios (teaching, scholarship, etc) giving the implication that those are the only possible fair use scenarios. I don't believe that is the case. The stuff I read earlier made it clear that those were common cases of fair use but never implied that they were exclusive.

Even if you take those to be exclusive uses available for fair use, the term "scholarship" is vague enough to allow for the scrapbooking example. I merely have to refer to my theoretical scrapbook as a "History of the Excursions of the Barbieri Family in 2007."

My guess (it would be nice to get a lawyer in on this) is that the use is so trivial that it just doesn't rise to level of copyright infringement. It's like cutting pictures out of magazine, building a CD of your favorite tunes for your other CDs, or any of a bunch of other similar activities that media owners portray as illegal but which often turn out not to be.

as I stated before fair use, for photos is much more limited than for written works... and when the law references educational use, you can call your scrapbook whatever you want but it will not meet the letter of the law.. there is no section of the fair use law for photos that covers personal use...

[photo_chick]

It this is the way the law is written, it's a bad law that will never withstand being reviewed by, what was Gore's phrase, "a controlling legal authority." I say that because I don't think I can look at a photo on the web without it being saved to my hard drive. My cache is littered with copyrighted materials.



While your computer downloads the images to the hard drive for viewing in your temp files, they are still the property of the copyright owner and you are still not allowed to access or modify them in any way, except for deletion. Yes, I am saying there are files on your computer that you do not won and cannot do anything with except erase.

This is similar to when you install software on your computer. You have the license to the software, but you cannot do with it as you please. You have to use it within the confines of the license. Only with the copyrighted images the only license you are being given is to view them in the context the artist intened (like the posting or web site)

[photo_chick]

That's just not true. Search on the term "Fair Use" and you will see that there many exceptions to that rule. Unfortunately, fair use appears to be a poorly defined legal concept, so it is not exactly clear when it applies.


ok. my wording was too broad, you got me there. having searched here...

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

It seems to support that what is fair use is unclear and that some uses MAY be exceptions but not necessarily so. It also tells you to ask permission.

Geez, can the government vague that up a little for us?

[MarkBarbieri]

as I stated before fair use, for photos is much more limited than for written works

You've stated it, but that isn't a particularly satisfying answer. I've stated I think it's fair use; you've stated that it isn't. No one has sited a law, case, or even a reputable and impartial website that gives clarity to the issue.

... and when the law references educational use, you can call your scrapbook whatever you want but it will not meet the letter of the law..
The legal process still has to determine what is scholarship in this case. You may trivialize my theoretical scrapbook, but that doesn't make it any less scholarly. Scholarship is, according to Merriam-Webster (quoted under my fair use rights) "a fund of knowledge and learning." I'd argue that a scrapbook could certainly fall into that category, particularly if the scrapbook took the form of a family history.

[Master Mason]

Here is the big question.

You posted a picture to the web for others to view. Someone without your permision copies the picture, prints it out and puts it in a scrap book that only they will ever see.

Are you really injured in anyway?

I think not.

[MICKEY88]

Here is the big question.

You posted a picture to the web for others to view. Someone without your permision copies the picture, prints it out and puts it in a scrap book that only they will ever see.

Are you really injured in anyway?

I think not.

that doesn't matter, how does that make it right or legal..:confused3

[ukcatfan]

that doesn't matter, how does that make it right or legal..:confused3

OK, fine then, stop posting your work on the Internet so it is safe. There are plenty of people that have no problem printing a pic for their scrapbook even if it has a watermark, so it is still not safe with that. This whole entire site is about cooperation due to our love for Disney. To me it sort of implies that you do not mind someone using your image if you post it, therefore do not post if you do not want to share.

To me, this thread is getting very old and souring my taste of our community we have going on this board. Go over to the Resort board and post something about refillable mugs or pool hopping and you will realize how well we typically get along on the photog board. IMO there is not going to be a happy resolution on this.

At least this has a Canon fan and a Pentax fan joining forces, which is rare. ;) :goodvibes

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

If you don't mind, I'd still like to continue with the discussion on the legality of using images posted here for person works. While I can't say that I have any personal need for the information, I find the subject interesting and hope to learn more about it.



I read the pdimages site that MICKEY88 so helpfully posted and I still remain unconvinced.

First, the site sells public domain images. They obviously have a financial interest in convincing people that their use of copyrighted material (which competes with their public domain material) is illegal. I'm not saying that makes them wrong, but it does make their advise suspect.



how can they SELL free public domain photos....

they offer them but they do not sell them, so where is the financial interest:confused3

[MICKEY88]

OK, fine then, stop posting your work on the Internet so it is safe. There are plenty of people that have no problem printing a pic for their scrapbook even if it has a watermark, so it is still not safe with that. This whole entire site is about cooperation due to our love for Disney. To me it sort of implies that you do not mind someone using your image if you post it, therefore do not post if you do not want to share.

To me, this thread is getting very old and souring my taste of our community we have going on this board. Go over to the Resort board and post something about refillable mugs or pool hopping and you will realize how well we typically get along on the photog board. IMO there is not going to be a happy resolution on this.

At least this has a Canon fan and a Pentax fan joining forces, which is rare. ;) :goodvibes

Kevin


WOW... no need to get spun...

the site is about sharing a love of disney, the photo board is about sharing photography knowledge, posting photo implies nothing except you want others to see the photo, not take it... if this thread is upsetting you , you have the option of not reading it, so now it has gone from people telling others that they shouldn't watermark photos and they are obliged to share them....to telling people to go post elsewhere...

this is a civil discussion, anyone who doesn't like it can turn to another thread, just like you can change channels on your radio or tv if youdon't like what's on..:thumbsup2

[ukcatfan]

this is a civil discussion, anyone who doesn't like it can turn to another thread, just like you can change channels on your radio or tv if youdon't like what's on..:thumbsup2

It does not seem very civil at all to me, but that is my opinion. I really do not see where you and Mark are ever going to agree, but feel free to burn out your keyboards.

Kevin

[MICKEY88]

It does not seem very civil at all to me, but that is my opinion. I really do not see where you and Mark are ever going to agree, but feel free to burn out your keyboards.

Kevin

there's no name calling nor hostility that I've seen...

if I say anything to offend Mark or cross the line I hope he will tell me....

I have the utmost respect for Mark, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him on this issue..

[photo_chick]

Here is the big question.

You posted a picture to the web for others to view. Someone without your permision copies the picture, prints it out and puts it in a scrap book that only they will ever see.

Are you really injured in anyway?

I think not.

While I would probably be flattered, I still would like to be asked permission first. To me all legalities aside that is still the right thing to do. But then the "right" thing is also subjective.

[photo_chick]

At least this has a Canon fan and a Pentax fan joining forces, which is rare. ;) :goodvibes

Kevin

While I think this actually has been pretty civil i have to speak up :offtopic: and say I love both Canon and Pentax. Does that make me special? While I have a Canon DSLR and 35mm, I have a very fun Pentax 110 SLR (it is so tiny and cool, I feel like a spy with it) and an old Pentax 35mm SLR that I still use and love.

[Master Mason]

that doesn't matter, how does that make it right or legal..:confused3

In order for there to be any repercussions, someone must be injured. Since no one is injured, there is not issue.

You will never even know that someone else used your picture. As Kevin says, the only way to "protect" yourself if you feel you need it is to not post pictures on the net.

This whole discussion has really gotten silly at this point...

[MarkBarbieri]

if I say anything to offend Mark or cross the line I hope he will tell me....

I've not been offended and have certainly not intended to give offense. If I didn't value your opinion, I would have dropped out of the thread long ago.

If I may sum up, we (MICKEY88 and I) both agree that it is ethically wrong for someone to print off someone's photo without permission. I have chosen to give that permission on all of my Disney photos and MICKEY88 has not. So if you're content with my photos, print away. If you want one of MICKEY88's the proper thing to do is to ask.

Where we disagree is on the legality. MICKEY88 is quite convinced that it is illegal. I'm not really convinced either way. I've tried very hard to research the issue and I can't find anything that convinces me one way or another. I did find an arcitle (http://www.samspublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=384906&seqNum=5&rl=1) that said it was OK for non-commercial use, but I really don't think they know what they are talking about.

The question hinges on "fair use" and the legal definition is obviously more suited for written works rather than photographs. The whole notion of using a portion of a photograph just seems silly in this context.

I did find that scrapbooking sites talk a lot about the copyrights of scrapbook designs and layouts and not much about the copyrights of the stuff used in the scrapbooks. I also found that there appears to be a completely different set of rules for music.

I think, barring any new sources that convince me otherwise, that I'm going to have to conclude that the only way to know with any certainty is for someone to print a picture, stick it in their scrapbook, let the copyright owner sue, and see who wins in court. In fact, it appears from my reading that this is a common process for determining what is fair use and what is not. I even came across a few bills (none of which passed) that attempted to clean up and expand on fair use, which apparently has taken quite a beating under the DMCA.


how can they SELL free public domain photos....

they offer them but they do not sell them, so where is the financial interest

They do sell them. Check out their home page and you'll see a big banner showing the credit cards they accept. You can do what you want with stuff in the public domain, including selling it. If you think about it, that's why publishers were allowed to sell me the assorted 19th century novels on the shelf behind me.

I did learn tonight that you have to be careful even with public domain stuff. It looks like you are always safe if you copy the original public domain work, but you can't necessarily make a copy of a copy. It seems like so many angels on the head of a pin stuff to me, but someone apparently got sued and lost for copying someone's copy of something in the public domain.

[MarkBarbieri]

In order for there to be any repercussions, someone must be injured. Since no one is injured, there is not issue.

That was what I originally thought, but from a legal perspective, that isn't enough. It's a strongly weighed factor, but you can still lose a lawsuit on copyright infringement grounds even if you didn't profit and the copyright holder wasn't financially harmed.


You will never even know that someone else used your picture. As Kevin says, the only way to "protect" yourself if you feel you need it is to not post pictures on the net.

This whole discussion has really gotten silly at this point...

I agree that the discussion doesn't serve any practical value. In fact, the usage under debate can easily be summed under the phrase "what you don't know won't hurt you." Nonethelss, the argument prompted me to learn more about copyright law and just how screwed up it is.

[MICKEY88]

In order for there to be any repercussions, someone must be injured. Since no one is injured, there is not issue.

You will never even know that someone else used your picture. As Kevin says, the only way to "protect" yourself if you feel you need it is to not post pictures on the net.

This whole discussion has really gotten silly at this point...

first statement is not entirely true.


and another way of protecting pictures is to educate people so they are aware of copyright laws, unfortunately whenever anyone on this board attempts to do so they are, told they are wrong..or silly etc.... I have yet to see anyone back up the argument for taking others work, with fact or law..

the argument for taking others works is simply made by saying. it's OK..I don't think it's wrong etc.,

as for this original subject...photography as an art is subjective, there is no right or wrong as to watermarking, if you chose not to, I respect your choice, if I choose to watermark my prints, why should I have to defend my choice...???

[MICKEY88]

I've not been offended and have certainly not intended to give offense. If I didn't value your opinion, I would have dropped out of the thread long ago.

If I may sum up, we (MICKEY88 and I) both agree that it is ethically wrong for someone to print off someone's photo without permission. I have chosen to give that permission on all of my Disney photos and MICKEY88 has not. So if you're content with my photos, print away. If you want one of MICKEY88's the proper thing to do is to ask.

Where we disagree is on the legality. MICKEY88 is quite convinced that it is illegal. I'm not really convinced either way. I've tried very hard to research the issue and I can't find anything that convinces me one way or another. I did find an arcitle (http://www.samspublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=384906&seqNum=5&rl=1) that said it was OK for non-commercial use, but I really don't think they know what they are talking about.

The question hinges on "fair use" and the legal definition is obviously more suited for written works rather than photographs. The whole notion of using a portion of a photograph just seems silly in this context.

I did find that scrapbooking sites talk a lot about the copyrights of scrapbook designs and layouts and not much about the copyrights of the stuff used in the scrapbooks. I also found that there appears to be a completely different set of rules for music.

I think, barring any new sources that convince me otherwise, that I'm going to have to conclude that the only way to know with any certainty is for someone to print a picture, stick it in their scrapbook, let the copyright owner sue, and see who wins in court. In fact, it appears from my reading that this is a common process for determining what is fair use and what is not. I even came across a few bills (none of which passed) that attempted to clean up and expand on fair use, which apparently has taken quite a beating under the DMCA.




They do sell them. Check out their home page and you'll see a big banner showing the credit cards they accept. You can do what you want with stuff in the public domain, including selling it. If you think about it, that's why publishers were allowed to sell me the assorted 19th century novels on the shelf behind me.

I did learn tonight that you have to be careful even with public domain stuff. It looks like you are always safe if you copy the original public domain work, but you can't necessarily make a copy of a copy. It seems like so many angels on the head of a pin stuff to me, but someone apparently got sued and lost for copying someone's copy of something in the public domain.

I stand corrected, the part I went to led me to believe they were free to download, I didn't see the credit card section///

[Master Mason]

unfortunately whenever anyone on this board attempts to do so they are, told they are wrong..or silly etc....


Please note, I never called anyone silly, I said the discussion had gotten silly, meaning it was going round and round in circles with people saying the same thing over and over...

Bottom line, taking someone elses photo is wrong, but if you post your photos on the web, someone is going to download it if it is any good. Call it an attractive nuicence if you will.

[MICKEY88]

Please note, I never called anyone silly, I said the discussion had gotten silly, meaning it was going round and round in circles with people saying the same thing over and over...

Bottom line, taking someone elses photo is wrong, but if you post your photos on the web, someone is going to download it if it is any good. Call it an attractive nuicence if you will.


and again that's where education comes in,,,

if I leave my car unlocked with the keys in it,,most people won't take it because they know it's wrong.


sure if everyone knew it was wrong to take a pic without asking, some would still do it, but the numbers would be lower..

[MICKEY88]

interesting info..


Tracking violators -- new tactics

Technologies such as "watermarking" software also are making it easier to track down copyright pirates on the Internet. Digital watermarking places a subtle yet visible mark on an image that carries telltale information about its source. Watermarking can be integrated into Photoshop and other graphics programs to allow creators to save images with embedded copyright information without visibly altering the image. That identifying information is visible to a special reader program when a watermarked image is downloaded and opened. Other programs can then scan the entire Web for watermarks and report unauthorized uses of copyrighted content.

[photo_chick]

The subject of scrapbooking keeps being brought up. This is an area I actually do know quite a bit about! Perhaps more than you photo gurus! Been scrapping since shaped scissors were cool! (they became uncool about 10 years ago) I was also working with a scrapbooking magazine on some stuff at one time. IT opened my eyes to some things!

Scrappers, especially scrapbooking magazines and sites are notorious for violating copyright laws. Look in any scrapping magazine and you see pictures of layouts. Those layouts contain copyrighted papers, embellishments, stickers, fonts (scrappers will steal any font that is not nailed to the floor!) and so on. Right down to imagaes of copyrighted landmarks and buildings (even if the image belongs to the scrapper, submitting it when it has copyrighted buildings really is an infringement.) In this case it is not when the scrapper creates a page using the papers and supplies that is the violation, it is photographing or scanning it. Then on top of that reprinting it in a magazine. Most paper manufacturers are ok with you reproducing their stuff in this way as long as you give them credit, a few are not. Then there are the scrappers who sell hand made paper piecings or who sell their scrapping services that use copyrighted papers and materials. Some of the manufacturers frown on using their products for this, some see it as free advertising. Most scrappers are oblivious to the fact that they are in any danger of violating any copyright laws. They think simply purchasing the product gives you the right to use it any way you want. Some even buy one sheet of paper, then scan it and reprint it. Or they scan paper patterns from magazines and reprint them. Most scrapper never consider that the patterns on the paper are copyrighted artwork. I know many who would not hesitate to lift someone's photo and use it as their own and not see anything wrong with it. Also, scraplifting, meaning using someone elses unique page design and applying your choice of papers and photos to it, is common place in the scrapping world. Many scrappers have no respect fo rothers work. THere are some that do though. They are not all evil copyright violators. But the bad ones seem to stand out.

Ok, I am very passionate that scrappers need to be taught a lesson in copyright laws. But seriously, to say that no one will get hurt if a scrapper uses an image of yours without permission.. well what if that person enters that page into a contest and wins $10,000? Or gets published and your image is reprinted in a magazine and they also get compensation for that page? Are all scrappers going to do that? NO. But many do submit work for publication and how is one to know who is doing it for strictly personal use and who is doing it with the intent of publication? In the end the statement made that if you don't want your images used, then don't post them is probably the only way to really protect yourself. Me, I am just glad I s$%* enough that no one wants my stuff! Well, at least I appear to anyhow!;)


Now, that said... It makes me wonder if some of us who might post an image of our kid with Mickey or something might actually be in copyright or trademark violation. Those characters are protected, we are posting them for a public audience.... I'd be interested to know the legality of that.

[Groucho]

Ah, it's been a month or two since the last time this came up, I guess it was time again. :)

I strongly feel that the copyright laws are completely out of touch with reality, as part of the large company's attempt to make sure that no one even owns anything and merely has a temporary license to view/listen/etc that can be revoked at any time. DRM, etc. This makes it easier for them to continue to crowbar you from your money. The music industry is easily the worst offender - how is it that most CDs still cost about the same as they did 10-15 years ago, yet popular DVDs are often available for less, despite costing more to produce, being in more expensive packaging, and the actual content cost vastly more to create than 12-song album (especially one that was created before CDs came along)?

But that's just background. Relating to the specific topic here, my understanding is that every photo is automatically copyrighted unless you specifically release it into the public domain.

Anyone putting photos on the internet has to expect that they may be taken and used for other things. There's no point getting all worked up about it, this is unavoidable. If you really care, then you have no choice but to put up a low-rez, heavily watermarked version.

I've been putting my pictures on my newer site in about 2mp resolution. I have no problem if anyone saves any to their hard drive, and by and large, I don't care if they want to scrapbook with them - as long as, of course, they're not making any money on them or representing them as anything but someone else's work.

I also see no problem with saving JPGs that I like to my hard drive. I have many photos by some of my favorite photographers from here on my hard drive. I'm not doing anything, but viewing them is much easier and faster from my drive than via the web. I'm not modifying them or printing them. And I see no problem with that. If someone thinks that's wrong - well, I'm very sorry, but that's tough. That's unrealistic.

[MarkBarbieri]

In the end the statement made that if you don't want your images used, then don't post them is probably the only way to really protect yourself. Me, I am just glad I s$%* enough that no one wants my stuff! Well, at least I appear to anyhow!

You're inspiring me. I might change my sig to say "I'm not nearly as a bad of a photographer as I appear; I'm just holding back my good shots to protect them from thieves." :stir: :lmao:

how is it that most CDs still cost about the same as they did 10-15 years ago, yet popular DVDs are often available for less, despite costing more to produce, being in more expensive packaging, and the actual content cost vastly more to create than 12-song album (especially one that was created before CDs came along)

The price of CDs and DVDs is partially determined by the demand for them. While it costs much more to make a movie, people tend to watch a movie only once. The listen to a CD many times. As such, the demand for CDs for purchase is higher than it is for DVDs.

That said, I harbor little sympathy for the music or movie industry. In fact, I reached a boiling frustration point several years ago when I added a DVD player to our van. The industry angered me in two ways

First, there was no reasonable means for me to backup my DVD. They talked a big game about how I was buying a license and not a physical disk when they were telling me how I could use my disk. When the disk got scratched, their tune changed quickly.

Second, they made the interfaces a nightmare. Ever try to start a Disney movie when you can't see the screen? My 4 year old could read and I could see the screen. I just wanted the @#$% movie to start.

Thankfully, I found a band of enterprising individuals that weren't interested in the strict legalities and they taught me how to back up my DVDs and strip them of everything except the movie. Now I backup just about every DVD that I own and I only use these stripped down backups in the car. I even edit some movies to remove parts that I find offensive or boring. I'd be surprised if I'm not breaking all sorts of copyright law, but my thought is that I bought the @#$% movie and I'm going to watch it as I see fit. pirate: Arrgh!

[photo_chick]

You're inspiring me. I might change my sig to say "I'm not nearly as a bad of a photographer as I appear; I'm just holding back my good shots to protect them from thieves." :stir: :lmao:
Yeah, thats it, I am holding back those prize winning shots! :rotfl:



Second, they made the interfaces a nightmare. Ever try to start a Disney movie when you can't see the screen? My 4 year old could read and I could see the screen. I just wanted the @#$% movie to start.


OH YEAH! The kid wants you to skip the twenty minutes of previews and start the movie. Then you finally get to the menu and it has text and animation before you can do anything? One of those times I was glad I had a 4 door sedan and only had to turn around to fix it, though that was not easy either! I am so glad my kids now know how to operatie the remote!

If ripping DVD's to a hard drive is illegal, then why do they sell projectors with hard drives to store your movies on?

[Dan Murphy]

How is this going today? :surfweb: Any consensus yet? Hope everyone has a good day today.

I did look again at the poster with the huge watermark on the theme park board. It directs you to the website, and pictures for sale. I guess there is reason for having it there. :rolleyes1

[jann1033]

How is this going today? :surfweb: Any consensus yet? Hope everyone has a good day today.

I did look again at the poster with the huge watermark on the theme park board. It directs you to the website, and pictures for sale. I guess there is reason for having it there. :rolleyes1

hmm i thought it was "illegal" to sell things on the dis?:rolleyes1 :rolleyes1

[DebºoºS]

I did look again at the poster with the huge watermark on the theme park board. It directs you to the website, and pictures for sale. I guess there is reason for having it there. :rolleyes1
popcorn:: I've found this topic very interesting everytime the board has coughed it up for DIScusion.
The watermark the OP used is more of a sig. I put a sig on some of my pics. Depnds on the mood really. Not because I'm soooo proud of it or it's that great.
IM lawyered up O, using anyones pic is illegal. What can you do? You can have your lawyer send a cease and desist letter to the offender. If it's a company that is sponsoring a contest they could send them one too. If the offender doesn't cease and desist you can sue for damages. The courts in all their statutory wisdom realize there has to be a threat of $$ damages to give the law any teeth. What's it worth? If you can prove damages it could be as much as $30,000.
IMH personal O, it's just not nice w/o permission. Flatter the pic taker and ask for a copy. More than likely if they're on this board they'd give it in full res. I'd be flattered. :cloud9:

[MICKEY88]

How is this going today? :surfweb: Any consensus yet? Hope everyone has a good day today.

I did look again at the poster with the huge watermark on the theme park board. It directs you to the website, and pictures for sale. I guess there is reason for having it there. :rolleyes1

yes,,MArk and I agreed that we respect each other....:thumbsup2



care to share the thread for the mentioned pic ???

[Groucho]

Thankfully, I found a band of enterprising individuals that weren't interested in the strict legalities and they taught me how to back up my DVDs and strip them of everything except the movie. Now I backup just about every DVD that I own and I only use these stripped down backups in the car. I even edit some movies to remove parts that I find offensive or boring. I'd be surprised if I'm not breaking all sorts of copyright law, but my thought is that I bought the @#$% movie and I'm going to watch it as I see fit. pirate: Arrgh!
As a CM said at Disneyland as we boarded PotC... "Keep your ARRRRRms and legs inside the boat!" :)

I believe that what you're doing is legal, despite the protestations of the industry. The only potential part of that that isn't legal is the decrypting of the original data on the DVD. Other than that, the law has determined that you can do whatever you want with your own copy, including making a backup of it. That's the killer, the law says that you can back up your stuff, yet the industry desperately wants you not to be able to. How about those "music" black CDs that have an extra surcharge on them that goes straight to the RIAA since they assume that you'll be pirating music with them?

Of course, the industry will continue to try to find ways to limit your options but probably never will completely succeed. Heck, pirate HD-DVD and BluRay movies have been floating around the internet for a few months now, despite the best efforts of the industry to make sure that they were uncopyable.

As for what you're saying about stripping out the gunk, I totally agree. Fortunately most Disney DVDs do let you jump to the menu, but it's still a pain sometimes. The worst is the Baby Einstein DVDs - there are several promo videos before you get to the menu, and at least three more unnecessary videos before the darn thing actually starts.

Here's an ethical dilemma for y'all. My sister owns a Cinderella DVD. I own the identical Cinderella DVD. My sister's DVD becomes unplayably scratched through a combination of not enough care (the DVD not always going right back in the case) and her daughters watching it incessantly.

Let's say I make a backup of my own Cinderella DVD (so that this doesn't happen to me.) Let's say I give it to her, or even just "long-term loan" her my backup. Is it fair? And is it legal? She's paid her money to have a DVD of it. Actually, this is the kind of situation that the industry loves... this is actually a point in favor of having a license, rather than the physical media.

If ripping DVD's to a hard drive is illegal, then why do they sell projectors with hard drives to store your movies on?
I haven't seen a projector with a hard drive for ripping your DVDs (that'd be awfully inconvenient for a typical ceiling-mounted projector!) but I understand your point... the usual answer is "we're not responsible for any infringing use".

Not all DVDs have CSS encryption. Those that don't can be backed up 100% legally. The ones that do... well... it's a little fuzzy but I doubt you'd ever get in trouble for backing your stuff up. However, you'll note that no "reputable" commercial product includes CSS decryption (at least, none that I'm aware of.)