Some new great shots of my new neighbor and her litle one.

[Master Mason]

Actually your picture is on my computer in my temp files the minute I open it up.

And actually the use does come into play. I can use any photo I find on the net legally in a school paper, or as an editorial. The editorial use is how the paparrazi get away with taking pictures of folks without their release to their image.

Your free to do as you wish, there your photos. Many folks feel your detracting from the beauty of your photos by doing so, but that's your call. Your reasons are your own and are personal to you. But if that is your choice, then you must be prepared for people to tell you that it detracts from your pictures.

BTW, did you ask permision to quote from the above source??

 

[jesszac610]

I love the one with the Momma and baby looking at each other!!!
Very nice work!!

That's my favorite too!

 

[°O°Joe]

When you take a picture off the net for your own use or to share or sell, it is called copyright infingement! therefore illegal. If I came to your yhouse and foudn pictures on my computer that I did not send to you personall or sell to you, then I could rightfull sue you for copyright. Same as scanning in pro photo's after you ahve them done ata studio and then using them on your myspace. If you didn't take it or have permission from the person who did to save it to your computer, then you have no rights to it. Even if you just want to look at it later. bookmark it all you want since that is not the same thing at all! It is staying in the same place and not being stolen via right click. Why do you think that Disney has turned their photopass into a flash program? To make it harder for people to "steal" the photo's.

"MYTH # 5.
"If I am not making money off the photos, I am not violating copyright."

Copyright infringement is not excused if you are doing it for some reason other than profit, such as malice or the collectivist notion that an individual's creative work "should be free for all to share." These are the typical motives of some people who post thousands of Playboy photos to newsgroups. The court may fine you more or treat you more harshly if you have a profit motive. But you can still get punished-badly-if your actions are harming the commercial value of the infringed pictures. Or if you infringed "knowingly" or "willfully." Or if the judge thinks it appropriate to "send a warning" to discourage other would-be infringers.

Violating copyright is illegal whether you do it for money, love, competitive advantage, "

Quote was borrowed form link below.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/professionalphotography/discuss/72157594407399712/

interesting... I guess I'm breaking the law all the time then. Well, technically I break the law everyday when I go one mile over the posted speed limit.

I don't know - seems kind of silly to me. To me its kind of like saying you can't cut a picture out of a FREE magazine and frame it and put it on your wall. What's the difference if you're using it for your own personal use? Now if I sell that picture that's a different story.

And why post a picture on the internet that you don't want ANYBODY to have a copy of anyway?

I'm not trying to "stir the pot" so to speak... just trying to use a little common sense.

 

[jann1033]

My own Aunt managed to grab all of the pics I posted of my sister leaving for the war and save them to her computer. I would have given her full res copies if she asked me but told me how she grabbed them herself.

total curiosity on my part but....the whole watermarking thing kind of shocks me, i can understand it for someone who is a pro and sells his photos for a living and puts them online for his customers to view but doesn't want them to copy them but for a something like these or family photos i just don't understand the rational behind it. especially the family ones.. guess i am
just wondering why you posted them if you didn't want anyone to see or use them...was it more because she bragged about taking them? i doubt anyone would have an exception to someone taking a photo of their sister going to war otherwise...my sister takes my photos of my granddaughter i post all the time and I could care less,in fact that's why i post them, so she can see them and get prints if she wants.

(& since this surfaced again and will probably be the only photo thread ever that ends up locked i want to be part of history so i am asking this ??? )

 

[YEKCIM]

(& since this surfaced again and will probably be the only photo thread ever that ends up locked i want to be part of history so i am asking this ??? )

 

[pyrxtc]

total curiosity on my part but....the whole watermarking thing kind of shocks me, i can understand it for someone who is a pro and sells his photos for a living and puts them online for his customers to view but doesn't want them to copy them but for a something like these or family photos i just don't understand the rational behind it. especially the family ones.. guess i am
just wondering why you posted them if you didn't want anyone to see or use them...was it more because she bragged about taking them? i doubt anyone would have an exception to someone taking a photo of their sister going to war otherwise...my sister takes my photos of my granddaughter i post all the time and I could care less,in fact that's why i post them, so she can see them and get prints if she wants.

(& since this surfaced again and will probably be the only photo thread ever that ends up locked i want to be part of history so i am asking this ??? )

I didn't watermark the family ones. I was just using it as an example of copyright imfringement. I do sell my images and will be offering some of these bear ones up for sale on my site. I don't watermark the ones on my site either, they are right-click protected but you can get around that if you are knowledgable.

I was surprised that she took them from photobucket since I would have just e-mailed her a full-res copy if she asked me. the only reason I knew is cuz she Pm'ed me to yell at me for having fuzzy pictures online and she couldn't steal them right. Then Pm'ed me agian tom tell me it was her computer and got all the pics fine. Although she is one of those people who will take a pic that she saved off the internet and print an 8x10 of it and think it looks ok.

 

[pyrxtc]

BTW, did you ask permision to quote from the above source??

No, but I directed you to the source and in no way told you that it was mine. Nor did I copy or download it to my computer.

 

[Master Mason]

No, but I directed you to the source and in no way told you that it was mine. Nor did I copy or download it to my computer.

Actually if you visited the site it was located, it would be on your computer in your interenet cache files. So while maybe unknowingly you did.

My point is, you felt no problem using someone elses words for a purpose they didn't intend without asking their permission first. By your strict interpretation of the copyright laws, you have violated that same law giving credit does not alevate the usage of it.... just saying.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm appalled.

 

[pyrxtc]

Actually if you visited the site it was located, it would be on your computer in your interenet cache files. So while maybe unknowingly you did.

My point is, you felt no problem using someone elses words for a purpose they didn't intend without asking their permission first. By your strict interpretation of the copyright laws, you have violated that same law giving credit does not alevate the usage of it.... just saying.

Actually if you read the page, this was for the purpose those words were written.

 

[Master Mason]

Actually if you read the page, this was for the purpose those words were written.

See and I just went to the site, and looked, and no were does it say that copyright of the words has been given up, or a statement that says one is free to use the words in anyway.

I have no intention of getting into a p..ing match here, but I just find it amusing that your so adament about the copyright rules, but then violate them yourself, because they are words rather than a picture. It was still the intelectual capital of the person that wrote it.

My point is, and I have said it many times now. If you don't want someone to take your photo, the only sure way is to not put it on the web in the first place. And, your free to do with your photos whatever you want, for whatever reasoning you want to attach to it, just don't be offended when someone tells you that placing a great big watermark accross the photo detracts from it. Because it does, it compleately distroys the image. If you want to do it fine, but to me, it doesn't show your capablities as a photographer, it just shows parinioa.... My opinion only.

 

[pyrxtc]

My point is, and I have said it many times now. If you don't want someone to take your photo, the only sure way is to not put it on the web in the first place. And, your free to do with your photos whatever you want, for whatever reasoning you want to attach to it, just don't be offended when someone tells you that placing a great big watermark accross the photo detracts from it. Because it does, it compleately distroys the image. If you want to do it fine, but to me, it doesn't show your capablities as a photographer, it just shows parinioa.... My opinion only.

Can you find it in this thread that I was offended by this? I know that other people were and said I might be but I never said I was. Also, I wasn't showing off my capabilities as a photographer, just the coolness of having the wildlife so close to me that I could get so close to them for pictures. I don't need to try to show off my capabilities as a photographer on here. My clients like as do I and that's all that matters.

 

[MICKEY88]

I've never heard of anyone using a watermark to show their skills as a photographer...
it's more in the way of having some sense of control over usage, which is a right granted to artists under the law..


some people lock their cars all the time, some people never do, is one group paranoid or simply trying to protect their property..??



the wedding photos we were guided to are nice, but realistically wedding photos especially low resolution/file size such as those, are among the least likely to be taken off the net, who would want to take wedding pics of strangers...for their own personal use...

when I shoot school events such as my nieces kindergarten graduation, I upload to my website in low resolution simply for ease and speed, and although it would be silly for any parent to download these low resolution pics when they've been told they simply have to email me and I will send them the full size file, I watermark these for one simple reason I want to deter the few people who will download the low resolution pics anyway, enlarge them to 8x10s then display them, while telling people I took them, which makes me look bad because the 8x10s look bad..

 

[jann1033]

I'm appalled.

and that in itself shows just how shocking this thread is

 

[Master Mason]

Can you find it in this thread that I was offended by this? I know that other people were and said I might be but I never said I was. Also, I wasn't showing off my capabilities as a photographer, just the coolness of having the wildlife so close to me that I could get so close to them for pictures. I don't need to try to show off my capabilities as a photographer on here. My clients like as do I and that's all that matters.

Your correct, I am sorry, you never complained, that was others.

But I still find it funny that you violated the very same copyright rules your worried others will do with your photos....

Anyways, you know how I feel, and I know how you feel, and we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[cpbjgc]

BTW, this is a copyright infringement, because it is a substantial taking of the image, I don't know the source of the image, and I am not attributing the image to the holder of the copyright (since I don't know who it is). And to make it even more interesting, legally speaking, it is an international infringement! I think it sums up where we are at quite nicely, though.

 

[MICKEY88]

the watermark topic always amazes me,

I guess I see it as tv viewing or listening to the radio

if you don't like the content you are free to change the channel,

if watermarks bother someone that much, they can simply not view the pictures, there are plenty of other threads to view..

or like b&w or color pictures, I personally have never liked b&W I always figure things were made in color for a reason,

and I wonder why, people who prefer b&W photos, don't watch tv in b&w.


but I would never think of telling them they were wrong, or try to impose my preference on them

 

[jann1033]

BTW, this is a copyright infringement, because it is a substantial taking of the image, I don't know the source of the image, and I am not attributing the image to the holder of the copyright (since I don't know who it is). And to make it even more interesting, legally speaking, it is an international infringement! I think it sums up where we are at quite nicely, though.

for get the copyright stuff....what i want to know is...why is the horse standing on his head and are those xs on his eyes a watermark

 

[MICKEY88]

for get the copyright stuff....what i want to know is...why is the horse standing on his head and are those xs on his eyes a watermark

actually if you look closely I think he's standing on his tongue

 

[YEKCIM]

I find the invisible assailant very disturbing.

~YEKCIM