Question about Watermarks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan marchant

But you missed the real world solution from your list. People don't need to go to the expense of suing or need to confront a Scotsman waving a Claymore. They just send a DMCA take down notice to the web host and the image will be removed. Even hosts outside USA are (in most countries) subject to similar safe harbour laws and all have infringing copyright as a breach of their terms of service.

---

Very true, but then the dirty rotten scoundrel still gets away "Scot free" (excuse the pun!). Honestly - perhaps things are a little more relaxed over here in kiwi land - but the attitude I sense from many is that "if they put something on the internet bigger than 600px long side - and without a big watermark - then "somebody", "somewhere", might use it for "something" without their permission - and then "the sun just wouldn't rise the next day" if that were to happen.

I agree. Like anything you have to weight the value of your time. An image pinched from facebook and put on pinterest probably isn't worth the time or effort to do anything about. Any time spent could be better spent taking more pictures. An image used on a commercial site? Owners are often too dumb or too stupid to remove your image so it is quicker and easier all round to just send their host a take down notice.

I am just a little curious; Is it not possible to embed the copyright information in the Exif of the photo? If so, would it be possible for the individual to alter that Exif data?

Donald- You proudly made mention of your heritage dating to "those who perfected the Highland charge", I might mention that I am descended from those whom then dismembered he whom perfected same :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rtbaum

Donald- You proudly made mention of your heritage dating to "those who perfected the Highland charge", I might mention that I am descended from those whom then dismembered he whom perfected same :eek:

---

It's okay, I'll forgive you!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rtbaum

I am just a little curious; Is it not possible to embed the copyright information in the Exif of the photo? If so, would it be possible for the individual to alter that Exif data?

---

Yes - that's exactly what we do.

And yes - it is possible to remove it (quite easily actually) - that in itself becomes another offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wlou

And the photographer is held responsable!!!

Wow, what one can do with a bit of knowledge.

---

It is not the photographer that is responsible for the publishing of the photograph but the publisher. In your extreme example, not only would the publisher be held responsible for the way he used the photo but also for theft. The father would also be held responsible for his actions. Not only ending up with an assault charge and possible jail time, which also means he will most likely lose his job, but maybe even some hospital bills that he no longer can pay if he is in jail.

Colin: it is written in either North Island or South Island New Zealand which this poor Canadian can not translate. Do give it a good try though.

Cheers:

Allan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Very true, but then the dirty rotten scoundrel still gets away "Scot free" (excuse the pun!). Honestly - perhaps things are a little more relaxed over here in kiwi land - but the attitude I sense from many is that "if they put something on the internet bigger than 600px long side - and without a big watermark - then "somebody", "somewhere", might use it for "something" without their permission - and then "the sun just wouldn't rise the next day" if that were to happen.

---

Perhaps relaxed because we appreciate the pointlessness of getting upset so we ignore the possible problem ... easy to say when one is not trying to survive and put bread on the table from photography.

I hope I didn't miss it but one of the things that an artist does when they sign their art is to apply a signature (or mark), which in itself has value, to their creation as there was no other way to clearly identify the author.

In today's images, the watermark is not an 'original' signature and can be added (or removed) after the fact by anyone with no trace left that the image had been altered. The author, date, and a host of other information can be incorporated in the metadata of the image and can be used for identification purposes but even here it can be changed. If you want to give folks the ability to contact you about the image you can put your contact information in the metadata.

In short, if you want to be certain that your car can't be stolen, don't own a car.

Interesting read… after all has been said and done, what does the 73.08% suggest are acceptable forms of "signatures" or the like? Ive been asked to add my signature to a pic by a customer. Im in the no watermark camp, so Im not sure what is best? Ive seen pics posted here with a small white frame with the title and photographers name in the bottom part of the print, which makes sense for internet use, or if making a poster print. But for a framed image???

As the customer asks for a handwritten signature on (presumably) a large print, why not?
That's (for me) quite a different situation from the baked-in watermarks on small web images (and compared to a print, 1200×800 pixels is small)
One big difference is in what Frank said above: a watermark is not an 'original signature', if you sign a print by hand, the signature is original.
(cf. etchings and such: the signature isn't in the plate, but added afterwards with the sequence number)

I see at least 2 to sign a print:
- on the image in the traditional lower right corner
- on the back of the image (allowing some more info to be added, but careful that it doesn't show at the front)
You also could put a title and signature on the matte, but that allows picture and signature to be dissociated, probably not what the customer wants.

Being an artist before I got into photography, I've always seen it as an artist signing his work. It really doesn't bother me, because I half expect to see if there, which causes my eye to not really notice it. If it drives you nuts, of course your eye will be drawn to it and nothing else. For those of us who it doesn't bother though...it blends in fine with the photograph.