|
Forums >
General Industry >
someone splain to me why bigass watermarks??
when did this start? why? does anything think this is attractive? shows the work well? worse still totally opaque logos... why not eliminate the image portion altogether and just publish the logo. is this an internet thing? Jul 16 06 12:41 am Link It's an internet thing. I can't get anyone at MySpace to do anything about this: www.myspace.com/kmsmodeling Jul 16 06 12:44 am Link god bless the internet... lol jaysus i'm bloody old Jul 16 06 12:47 am Link It is an internet thing, with the advent of digital photography and widespread image theft, photographers have to try to protect their images and reputations. Small watermarks are just photoshopped out and so they are getting larger and larger. I have known a number of photographers who did not used to watermark images until they started gettng stolen and used without permission. Jul 16 06 12:50 am Link Because people have been known to do a right-click "save as" & then pass them as their own, minus the copyright. Jul 16 06 12:50 am Link  /incriminating evidence Jul 16 06 12:56 am Link theda wrote: gotcha... guess that's why i don't bother. Jul 16 06 12:57 am Link Remember back in the day, when prints from portrait labs used to have their copyright and logo on the back of every single print that left their store? Sometimes even on the front too? It was done so people couldn't legally make copies without the photographer's permission. Welcome to the internet. Now if you post anything online, it is child's play to copy it. Thus, bigass watermarks. It is the internet equivalent of stamping the backs of prints. No, it won't prevent someone from stealing your images if they are determined (nor will stamping the back of prints, if someone is determined). But they can't claim they didn't know they were violating copyright, and it makes it really easy to prove they stole it if you manage to catch them. As a compromise, I try to make mine as unobtrusive as possible, yet really hard to Photoshop out without f*cking up my photo. And I never post anything on line that is hi-res enough to print. If you want a better copy, I'm happy to sell you a print. :-) Jul 16 06 02:50 am Link Even with the watermark, what are you going to do when someone with a P.O. box in Bangkok Thailand steals your image? You will spend more money getting anything to happen than you will ever get out of someone like that. Let's just all take the absolute ugliest images we can and put them out of business!!! Jul 16 06 03:04 am Link uggggh!! I totally understand the need for protection and the desire to safe guard ones own work, but is it really worth destroying it in the process? I don't know, maybe I'm not cautious enough, but I'd rather my work be stolen then make it ugly on my own. Jul 16 06 03:40 am Link Andrew Kaiser wrote: I wouldn't call it destuction. It's not like they are putting huge watermarks on the Hi Res files or the RAW's. Just ont he web based images which routinely get stolen and re-branded. Jul 16 06 03:44 am Link I believe Tommy Hilfiger is to blame for this phenomena. I think he was afraid of someone stealing his shirts and hence put his name on his shirt to protect it lol! Truth is you know who he is now dont you? Then their is that little Polo guy and alligator and DKNY and...... When I look at a models port one of the first things I notice is who she has worked with, if it is a girl I am thinking of working with, there is a reference for me if I know of the photographer. In an age of theives and models who dont give copyright credit to the photographer on their ports, it is understandable that photographers want to protect their work. So yes the internet is to blame for this, oh and Tommy Hilfiger! Jul 16 06 05:15 am Link big ass watermarks (and big ass SUVs) = insecure and small you know whats... No watermarks and small sporty cars = secure and big you know what:)) and yep...I have no watermarks on my images.... Jul 16 06 05:28 am Link The ironic thing is that many of the big ass watermarks are made using pirated software. This irony will be missed by many here though. Too funny. Regards, Art. Jul 16 06 05:48 am Link BUT I MUST ADMIT SOME WATERMARKS LOOK SOOOOOOOO FLIPPING GOOD AND WE HAVE GREAT EXAMPLES RIGHT HERE ON MM... I D LOVE TO SEE SOMEONE TRYING TO TAKE THEM OUT Jul 16 06 05:56 am Link having found my images on 4 websites , I say watermark, logo, booby trap your shit! Jul 16 06 09:42 am Link Too funny Uno... Jul 16 06 09:48 am Link Apparently my stuff is either not good enough, or not big enough to steal, so I haven't been forced to watermark everything yet. Jul 16 06 10:17 am Link Could someone show me an example of a "big ass watermark".. Considering glamour stuff is most of what gets stolen.. A big, hard to remove watermark tattooing the model's keister would be a very GOOD way to thwart would-be thieves.. The models might not like it.. But talk about instant name recognition.. EDIT: Ooh, and it just dawned on me.. What about the guys who eschew photoshop? Or can't afford MUA's (as often comes up in the stylist forums..) Then that branding could take on a whole new angle for the sake of authenticity.. What's that sizzling? Do I smell bacon, or lawsuit? Of course there was already a thread about male photogs who act like they own their models.. I suppose branding them might give the wrong idea... Jul 16 06 10:22 am Link INever wrote: I thought it was conventional wisdom that those small, sporty cars were driven by men with tiny penises. Hence the phrase "your car is a fiber glass penis extension." Jul 16 06 12:23 pm Link theda wrote: Jul 16 06 12:31 pm Link This seems like such a common sense thing,I've been told by some people they are happy for my logo's on stuff it gives immediate recogintion.While I dont buy into brand names that are splashed across clothing, others are right here it's a way to protect ones labor and product it's that simple. Jul 16 06 12:48 pm Link Iona Lynn wrote: Perfect explanation. Jul 16 06 01:28 pm Link INever wrote: lol funny Jul 16 06 01:29 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: Have you tried to go after him for copyright theft or so? Jul 16 06 01:41 pm Link oldguysrule wrote: Just an idea: Jul 16 06 01:46 pm Link GW Burns wrote: touché Jul 16 06 01:48 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: Wow, that guy takes TERRIFFIC photos! Jul 16 06 01:48 pm Link oldguysrule wrote: A view of the issues in a different context. Jul 16 06 01:49 pm Link I'd like to mention again this's why I use Digimarc It's an invisible (with visible option) watermark that's encoded in to the photo & is virtually impossible to remove and is easily readable with most software They also offer a premium service where they have bots "crawl" the web looking for your digimarced work to see if it's stolen Jul 16 06 01:52 pm Link Studio Yeah-Yeah wrote: Feel free. My work is recognizably mine. were you actually able to sell such a low resolution image as stock, i'd say bless you. just don't let me see it used. Jul 16 06 01:59 pm Link WG Rowland wrote: I actually don't mind it for the web stuff. I don't want the pics stolen anymore than anyone else. But if all I recieved was a cd of low res, watermarked pics, I'd be a bit unhappy...unless of course there wasn't anything I wanted to print. Then it wouldn't much matter... Jul 16 06 02:04 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: I just wrote a message that might help let me know if the picture comes down ok? Jul 16 06 02:26 pm Link I do take precautions. I WILL BE REMEMBERED.  Cartoon by the philosopher Bill Waterson.  I have now started to tatoo the models I work with. The ink lasts for a month. What do you think?  (Image edited by model except for my tatoos.) And by the way. Model also did her hair and makeup and helped with styling for the makeup artist was a last minute cancellation. I was more than pleased. Now let me get back to tatooing, I mean editing before she hates me.)  And above all put fear of the bear into them.  Jul 16 06 02:32 pm Link Marksora wrote: Be careful boss.. Mosely (my bear) is on the other side of the country and I STILL had to put him in the witness protection program.. Jul 16 06 02:57 pm Link WG Rowland wrote: Ha, Jul 16 06 03:14 pm Link Okay, I admit it. IT is all my Dad's fault.  Jul 16 06 03:19 pm Link Itâs definitely been made a necessary evil by the anonymity & ease of pilfering images from the internet. I donât like it either & was essentially forced to add them to my work as well about three years ago. I feel the same way about it you do. Jul 16 06 03:29 pm Link Hey OldguyzRule!!! Yes, it is an internet thing. It is so easy to remove watermarks so I don't bother. It is a shame... Hey Brian, post your concern on the stylist board and that sh*t will be down in NO time. No prisoners taken there! :-) Jul 16 06 04:26 pm Link Studio Yeah-Yeah wrote: Yeah, please let me know when you find a stock agency that buys web-sized jpgs. Stoeln web-sized work is more often used by creepy guys posing as photographers and ugly people for misleading personal ads. Jul 16 06 06:39 pm Link |
