Logos...

[revi]

Christina's example would indeed be a good reason (for me) to put a small signature in any photo published on a web site.

Also, there are some ways to complicate copying from a web site, like disabling right-click menus, and/or putting a transparant
image over the other images (anyone trying to copy will get the transparant image ). Note that this makes grabbing the
interesting images more difficult, not impossible.

[Manfred M]

Remco - Anyone with even the most basic computer skills can easily figure out how to get a copy of the image from a website. Anyone with a reasonable level of PP skills can remove the watermark or signature.

The only foolproof solution I know of is to not post your images....

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

Did your images that were used without permission include a watermark, signature or any thing of that sort? If so, that proves the point that they aren't effective. If not, it doesn't prove anything other than that you make images that appeal to others.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,
No because I think they detract from the beauty of the photo... but it has left me wondering that if at least signing the photos discretely with a copyright sign might deter at least professional publications such a magazine to at least ask for permission (and of course I would have said yes)...

[orlcam88]

humm, so I'm getting punished for putting a logo on the bottom of my photo? I Feel like I'm being punished. I put my logo on it because I allow people to share and to at least give me credit when they do. I understand that it can be removed but it is there because there is an extra punitive damage if someone did so and used it for profit. You guys can continue to ignore my photo's in the contest if you wish. But I find that spiteful.

edit:
Was looking for the original post why I put one on but this one says the same.
http://rising.blackstar.com/heres-wh...-photos-o.html

[Colin Southern]

humm, so I'm getting punished for putting a logo on the bottom of my photo? I Feel like I'm being punished. I put my logo on it because I allow people to share and to at least give me credit when they do. I understand that it can be removed but it is there because there is an extra punitive damage if someone did so and used it for profit. You guys can continue to ignore my photo's in the contest if you wish. But I find that spiteful.

You're not "being punished" - you're making the conscious choice to add something to your images that most people (myself included) feel significantly degrades the image; and they're voting accordingly.

The "steal images - copyright - punitive damages" thought is a common reaction but honestly, in the real world it just doesn't hold any water. There are a zillion images out there -- it doesn't stop people copying them - or removing the watermark - you'll find that nobody is really that interested in stealing your work anyway (nor mine) - and even if they did, it doesn't take any $$$ out of our pockets. Essentially all putting a watermark on an image does is ruin the image for most people.

We ran a poll on a similar thread a while ago -- you might be surprised to see how your peers feel about them ...

Question about Watermarks

[orlcam88]

Interesting Colin. The polls show a high percentage of people disliking the watermark but very few people voted. Then there's a lot of comments about using it and why in between ones that don't. It never bothered me even before I started doing myself unless it covers the image right smack in the middle. But what I found interesting that many paintings have a signature yet no one goes around saying it's an unworthy painting or go ballistic about it. Why is it acceptable to see a signature on a painting yet get all bent out shape if someone signs their photo? And I'm not going off the wall by saying bent out of shape when many of the comments are saying hate (one more than once).
The one thing I did see is that what can be legal in the US would probably not apply to many other countries. So doing it for legal reasons, you need to hope that the thief resides in your country! And made some money off of it cause you'll probably waste more money trying to recover it.

I still feel that if you share a photo, that you would like to get some recognition of it. I've seen some sites that have these beautiful landscapes from around the world yet you have no idea who took them as there's no credit given. I guess you can look into the source and find where they link to but that just a pain in the a$$.

I'll probably stop posting photo's in competition now since I see that it's a handicap doing so. I never realized how a signature can cause so much anger.

[Colin Southern]

Why is it acceptable to see a signature on a painting yet get all bent out shape if someone signs their photo?

I think because most art work is large and the signatures are small but with photos generally the photos are small and the "signatures"/watermarks are correspondingly much larger.

So doing it for legal reasons, you need to hope that the thief resides in your country! And made some money off of it cause you'll probably waste more money trying to recover it.

Without wishing to cause offence, I think we'd be suffering from dillusions of grandeur if we think that people copying our images is going to ever be a serious problem.

I still feel that if you share a photo, that you would like to get some recognition of it. I've seen some sites that have these beautiful landscapes from around the world yet you have no idea who took them as there's no credit given. I guess you can look into the source and find where they link to but that just a pain in the a$$.

Well I guess if they're on your website then people know who took it ... and if it's stolen then they probably wouldn't know who John Smith was anyway.

[John Morton]

I agree that the logos are distracting from the beautiful photos posted on this forum, and sometimes the signatures, too. (unless small) However, I understand why people mark their work... even if the logo or the signature can be removed by someone with the technical skill. If they have to put forth the effort to remove the logo they may realize that copying the photo to use elsewhere is not right.

Sometimes I put my signature on one of my photographs; most of the time, I don't. When I do, I sample colors from the image to use for the text so that my signature doesn't clash with the image; I use fairly small text, pick an unobtrusive bottom corner, and then fade/blend my signature into the image so that it is legible enough that someone who wants to read it can but nobody has their eye grabbed by it.

If someone removes my signature from an image I've created, that tells me that there is an INTENT to steal the image - a conscious effort made, a course of action undertaken, an active positing within consciousness of the intention to steal.

Does that make a difference? It does to me. I can act accordingly.

I've experienced having a few of my photos copied and published elsewhere, including on the inside cover of a major magazine promoting the Riviera Nayarit in Mexico, with no photo credit given. While part of me was mighty pleased to see my photo published (it was a pelican ) the other part was mighty miffed!

I created a community web site to promote the small town I live in, and naturally I included tons of photos of the area, community events, business photos, editorial photos, monthly newsletter etc... These types of web sites are a lot of work, and when your photos are copied and presented on other touristic web sites who can't be bothered to make the effort to take their own photos.... it's maddening!

As a writer, who frequently writes touristic articles and includes photos with her articles. (I visit the places I write about) it is exasperating to see that your photos have been copied for presentation on other touristic websites.

I do a lot of photography, but I am also active in the field of philosophy. The work of a philosopher has been described as "producing concepts"; and as it so happens, a concept is something that is not protected by copyright. Really, that would be impossible and could only happen under the auspices of some kind of 'thought police' who were responsible for deciding who thought of what, first.

That's not the kind of world anyone wants to live in; so concepts are as free for common use as words in any language must be for communication to be possible.

Anyway, my point (I do have one) is that it has always been a 'given' (for the last 4,000 years or so) in philosophy that concepts, once produced, are going to end up being used by anyone and everyone. That's just the way things are; but that doesn't mean it is always "okay." Christina's description of being "miffed" by the "maddening" theft of her photos is a fairly mild description of what the average philosopher feels when a concept they have produced ends up being used by some ad agency in a major campaign for a multi-national company; because someone has been paid a lot of money for something that someone else created.

Oh too bad, most people say; but it is too bad, because the funny thing about a concept is that the only person who really understands what went into its creation is the person who produced it. Now, that person is always free to adjust and alter the components of any concept they have created; and if this ends up also altering the public perception of the ad campaign that the original version of the concept in question had been pirated to promote: well that is just too bad if the ad campaign has to be scrapped and a new one put in its place because that costs the companies involved a whole lot more in terms of time, trouble, and money than it would have had they just used their own ideas to begin with.

So my point is that, even when an image is taken and used without permission, the original owner is still free to use THEIR image in any way that they want to and there isn't anything the thieves can do about that except wish they had used their own material to begin with (should that new use make the thieve's use appear otherwise than they had intended).

That approach is much cheaper than hiring a lawyer, a lot more fun than an endless string of court dates, and can often end up costing the thieves a lot more than any legal settlement would. I don't think that such thieves would find this approach 'maddening'; "sickening" would probably be closer to the truth, in the sense of "OH MY GOD WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!!!"

[revi]

Remco - Anyone with even the most basic computer skills can easily figure out how to get a copy of the image from a website. Anyone with a reasonable level of PP skills can remove the watermark or signature.

The only foolproof solution I know of is to not post your images....

Well, I didn't say my suggestions were full proof, I know as well as you do that there is no such solution.
However, I think you over-estimate the computer skills of a lot of the bloggers out there (not to mention the PP skills of same).
My kids have had lessons in computer use for several years now, but they have no idea about how the stuff works under the hood.
They can use the internet, but wouldn't recognise an HTML tag if it bit them...

It's the same as protecting you house against thieves in this respect: a knowledgeable and determined thief will get in, whatever
you do, but that's not a reason to leave doors and windows unlocked so every ***** can come in and help himself...

Also, in Christina's case, those photos were used for commercial purposes (publicity). Normally, such use does bring in some money
for the photographer, so in this case someone is being hurt financially (not saying Christina's photos would have been chosen if
they had to be paid for, but someone would have been paid for their work).

[John Morton]

Also, in Christina's case, those photos were used for commercial purposes (publicity). Normally, such use does bring in some money for the photographer, so in this case someone is being hurt financially (not saying Christina's photos would have been chosen if they had to be paid for, but someone would have been paid for their work).

Someone WAS paid for the use of Christina's photos: but, it wasn't Christina. ANY publication is dead in the water without content, because people do not pick up printed material to look at ads. Roughly 1/3 or more (1/2 might be more accurate in most cases) of any publication will be ads, and all of that material is paid for; so somebody pocketed money from that publication, and some of that money was due to Christina's photo being used as part of the content which brought readers in to where they would see the ads that paid for the publication's printing.

[Colin Southern]

However, I think you over-estimate the computer skills of a lot of the bloggers out there (not to mention the PP skills of same).
My kids have had lessons in computer use for several years now, but they have no idea about how the stuff works under the hood.

All they need to do is start the Microsoft snipping tool - drag it over the displayed image - and choose save.

Images aren't safe off the internet either though - pretty easy for anyone with a smart phone to grab a respectable copy. Best folks just keep them encrypted and under lock and key I think ... or just say "what the heck" and stop worrying.

If anyone lifts one of my commercial images then ... I hope it brings them as much pleasure as it did for me. And of course I always have the DCMA takedown option or a law suit if I really really really really wanted to take it further.

[Colin Southern]

As a writer, who frequently writes touristic articles and includes photos with her articles. (I visit the places I write about) it is exasperating to see that your photos have been copied for presentation on other touristic websites.

Why not just serve them with a DCMA takedown notice, or send them an invoice?

[wmoore]

I believe if you truly want to copyright your work then the photo need to be registered with the Copyright office in your country.
I did mark/logo my work for a while then I stopped. All my copyright /email contact is in the metadata(?) of the photo.

[Mike Buckley]

you guys can continue to ignore my photo's in the contest if you wish. But I find that spiteful.

When I am voting in a contest, I'm reviewing images corner to corner to determine which image moves me the most. If I decide that something in an image causes me to be less moved by that image than another image, I don't vote for it. That may be a signature, depending on the situation such as its location, prominence, amount of distraction and the like.

Taking those factors into consideration when voting is not out of spite, maliciousness, vindictiveness or anything similar. It's voting for the image that moves me the most and only I can decide that.

[Ady]

I don't include any visible markers in my images. However there is one circumstance I've found which will cause me to change my behaviour, but only for images that will be used by national print media. I have found that some national newspapers can be a bit hit and miss with attribution, so in those cases a logo of some sort will be included in future.

Cheers,
A

[revi]

(...)

I'll probably stop posting photo's in competition now since I see that it's a handicap doing so. I never realized how a signature can cause so much anger.

For me, anger doesn't come into it. But, a rather large logo or text in a picture attracts my eye strongly. If the text is important to the picture, that's good,
otherwise, that's bad.

And with two+ mini competitions per day, I usually go through them rather quickly on a first pass, seeing which images hold my attention. Then those get looked at closer.
And sorry, but logos and such don't really grab my attention in a way that makes me want to look at them again. Extreme example: an image titled "The post card shot"
in a recent competition, although I suspect the author of wanting to make a point (what point? no idea...).

Colin's remark wrt relative sizes of the image and signature for a picture on a wall and a photo on a screen is very relevant on this point...

Remco

PS. on looking up some of your participations in the mini competitions I noticed you did get votes, and didn't do all that badly.
And there are certain subjects that get more votes than others.

As for me personally, I did vote for some of yours (not going to say which), and if not, it was not due to the signature. Example: I liked the "renaissance harp" entry,
but found that I got drawn all the time to the lower left corner (the light spot at the foot of the standing harp), meaning I had to fight the natural tendency in the image
to see the subject. Others there were more accessible.

[Brownbear]

Thank you, John... very well stated... and I will try out your signature suggestion one day....

[Brownbear]

Hi Colin,

I called several times to try to speak to the publisher/editor in person but no one returned my calls, and I also sent several emails to say that I while I was delighted to see my photos (the pelican on the inside cover/and a few others in the publication) in their magazine but that I was very disappointed that they were taken without my permission and no credit given...

I should've sent them an invoice. DCMA notice? just curious...

I am living in a small town in Mexico where most things, even common daily tasks that take a few minutes to do in Canada sometimes take a day or two to accomplish here, so I expect that something as formal sounding as a DCMA notice would take a couple of years to do...

However, I did send the photo to a couple of other publications who published the photo with the statement... By Christina Stobbs as published on the inside cover of ******* the 2012 edition.

With respect to the website I once operated, I did manage to get a hold of one individual who copied both photos and text from my website and when I asked this person about it, he advised that he did not see anything wrong with it, that they too promoting the community and that I could copy any material from his site that I wished. I told him to get his lazy butt down here to speak to the people and take his own photos...

Perhaps copying website material is more common in Mexico... A good friend of mine runs an excellent community website and she works 60 hour+ weeks to deliver a first class product... and she has also experienced a great deal of frustration with other websites copying material and to date she has not had any luck putting a stop to it.. I guess one just has to stay a step ahead of the game.

[Brownbear]

Orlando, I too have voted for a few of your beautiful photos and I hope you keep posting them.