Watermark

[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? 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]

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. 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.. 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. ..





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. 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.

 

[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 . 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 )

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..???

 

[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..???

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 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