Watermark

[photo_chick]

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

Kevin

While I think this actually has been pretty civil i have to speak up 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..

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 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 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."

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. 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."

Yeah, thats it, I am holding back those prize winning shots!

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? 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.

 

[jann1033]

How is this going today? 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.

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[MICKEY88]

How is this going today? 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.

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



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. 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.)