Do you feel ownership of your photographs?

[Gdad]

I can definately see why you would be upset- particularly after that reaction from SIL. I know with some of the sites you can restrict the downloading of hi-res and/or print ordering across the board or in certain galleries, etc. I would get my own site and protect the content accordingly.

And then get over it- after all it is your family and the holidays! Life's too short for too much bs.

 

[Groucho]

Well...you gotta look at it from the SIL's perspective. It's her site and the photos were put on her site with full knowledge that they could be printed out, made into calendars, t-shirts, cards, photo albums, etc.

Good point, I had overlooked that and just re-read the original message a little closer. If the assumption is that the photos are free to printing, etc, then I could see how the SIL could make a calendar, with a "malice-free heart".

As always, there are two sides to every story - but it still probably would have been nice to have at least mentioned that plan.

no matter how much I champion copyright on photos that you take, if you put it on a site that allows people to make anything they want with your photos, you've pretty much given up your rights to that photo to whomever has access.

That's a very important point, too. I love finding nice, high-quality, high-resolution photos online. On my new site (where I don't have the upstream bandwidth restrictions that I had on my old, cable-modem-hosted site), all the photos are available in large versions - usually up to 1600x1200. I'm still wrestling with the idea of watermarking - part of my thinks it's a good idea, but I don't really care for the look of a watermark (or other "hey this is my photo" type message), plus it can be a pain. (Although the photo gallery software I'm using will do automatic watermarking - I may have to play with that a little.) I don't mind someone saving my photos to their hard drive but I'd prefer that they don't use them on another site without my permission - but what can you do? At the end of the day, it's not important enough to me to lose sleep over. I'll do what I can do and not try to fight an unwinnable battle.

 

[pxlbarrel]

Most of the images I put on my website are 72 dpi...very low resolution. If you were to try to print it, I'm not sure what you'd get. I've only put high res photos available on the internet once. I had taken photos of some people in costume at a Anime convention and offered to let them download it themselves rather than be inundated with a gazillion emails. They were the object of my lens so I wanted them to have the photos.

My other photos though...to quote some sea gulls from Nemo... mine mine mine!

 

[Groucho]

The only thing I'd add is that dpi is meaningless when you're talking about digital photos - 72 dpi can mean anything.

 

[pxlbarrel]

The only thing I'd add is that dpi is meaningless when you're talking about digital photos - 72 dpi can mean anything.

I believe I also said..."very low resolution." At 72 dpi (and a pixel by pixel size that is considered too low for even a 4x6), it might look ok on the screen but if they try to print it, it'll look like crap. Not much I can do about people using it on their websites but I can prevent them from printing it.

 

[jann1033]

you know i keep thinking about this...ok obsessing i know.... but it reminds of the time my mil( who has won lots of contests for her baking) made a cake for someone who turned around & took it to someone's house and claimed she made (not my mil)... isn't that kind of the same thing? tacky tacky tacky. what do you say when you give it to them..."here's a calender i had someone else make for you from someone else's pictures".... awww family can't live with em can't live without em

 

[Groucho]

I believe I also said..."very low resolution." At 72 dpi (and a pixel by pixel size that is considered too low for even a 4x6), it might look ok on the screen but if they try to print it, it'll look like crap. Not much I can do about people using it on their websites but I can prevent them from printing it.

Not to belabor the point, but dpi is a measure of density, not a measure of size. A 72dpi 4x6 is one size, a 72dpi 8x12 is another. (I think I have this on the brain after dealing with a few photo labs who spoke only in print terms!) Very low resolution is really all that's needed to be said. When they're in digital format, the DPI can be anything you tell it to be and it doesn't affect the size or quality of the jpg - a jpg can be 72dpi and 640x480 or 3000x2000.

Sorry, this is just me coming from a more digital-focused point of view and less print-focused. I don't mean to start a debate or anything.

 

[SplshMtn99]

My other photos though...to quote some sea gulls from Nemo... mine mine mine!

That's DH's & my favorite line from Nemo.

 

[kmp1191]

I was hired to take some photos for a company.(Skyline at night) I took the photos, they picked the one's they wanted enlarged and framed. I got them enlarged, and took them to the framers. The person framing one of the photos damaged it...very slightly, but damaged it nonetheless. I had to get another enlargement of the same print. I go back to the framers and there is my print, double matted and framed on their wall for sale. $299.99!! I reminded them that I owned the copyright of that print and they could not sell it, unless they wanted to pay me for the print, and commission. They took it down and I paid cost for the frame...$70.00. It now hangs over my sofa.

Stand up for your work....snapshot or professional portrait, it's still yours!