|
Forums >
General Industry >
someone splain to me why bigass watermarks??
Do whatever you want, it's your work. If someone wants to get off by swiping a 400x600 pixel photo that would make a lousy print, and the best thing you could do is repost it somewhere else, whatever. There's bigger things to worry about. I watermark most of my stuff, I've gone from the huge ass one down to a small corner mark. Some of my more pride-filled shots I embed the watermark physically in the photo by layer properties, make it part of the backround or something. If you want to stream OMGCOPYRITE BY ME across your photos, that's your call. Just remember it usually has a negative side to the viewers, either it's obstructing proper viewing of your work or it's showing your insecurity. Jul 16 06 06:46 pm Link Before I started being obnoxious with the watermarking, my photos ended up in ALL KINDS of weird ass places online. Tons of fake singles profiles and that sort of thing, too. Watermarks (and DMCA compliant copyright infringement notices faxed to webhosts) have nipped that in the bud. I almost NEVER get that sort of thing these days. It's nice. Magazines and books can have the non-watermarked versions. But for web use, they've gotta be marked. Jul 16 06 07:08 pm Link SLE Photography wrote: Except sites that remove EXIF data (such as MM) likely also remove Digimarc watermarks. Jul 17 06 12:02 am Link gr82bart wrote: hehehehehehehehe Jul 17 06 12:09 am Link Brian Diaz wrote: I believe the Digimarc watermarks are embedded as imperceptible noise in the image data, not in an easily removed header. Thus they are more difficult to remove, although I bet there is software out there that will remove it, just haven't seen it myself. Jul 17 06 12:28 am Link starphotography wrote: Someone posted a list recently on how to get around it. Jul 17 06 12:33 am Link Marksora wrote: Are those your dogs? They are sooo cute! Jul 17 06 12:40 am Link Yeah, with digital, it's really about raising the barrier to theft - there's generally no absolute way to stop it. Digimarc, though, is kind of like Lojack, where you don't prevent the theft, but you can track it. (assuming you don't ALSO put a visible one in) Hey you could make some pretty good coin, by sending threatening lawsuit letters to infringers, offering to settle for $3k instead, just like the RIAA! Jul 17 06 12:42 am Link starphotography wrote: How about sites (like MM) that apply additional jpg compression? That would muck up noise in the image, no? Jul 17 06 12:42 am Link WG Rowland wrote: Many people find my watermarks intrusive Jul 17 06 12:52 am Link I also place my images with my logo for web use. Of course for print it is another issue, and they are clean as they should be. You can see my old images in my port with my bigger logos, but my newer ones have a smaller frame. Sure now it is easier to steal, but I figure if they are good enough and desperate enough to photoshop it out, then there is not much else to do then not post it wich is really not help me. I find it sick that there are those who would steal anybody else's work knowing full well what they are doing and then just casually claim be the photographer or even the model. Mark Jul 17 06 12:53 am Link thanks all for the replies Jul 17 06 12:59 am Link for me its not insecurity, i guess i don't mind if people copy the photo on their computer but hey atleast people know who took the photo. coz i have seen some of my photos get around people's computer and yeah i guess i take it as a compliment if someone uses my photo. haha Jul 17 06 01:00 am Link Don't know the algorithm exactly, but I know it's dispersed throughout the photo, and guess that it's repeated all over, so some instances would survive the additional compression, if they were smart in designing it. Jul 17 06 01:02 am Link Here is my copyright agent.  He is very protective of my copyrights Jul 17 06 10:19 am Link ramir wrote: There have been several threads and CAM threads where members have taken photos and want to know later on who is the model in the shot or some other information. Jul 17 06 10:26 am Link I just play "Where's Waldo" with text. A regular mark in the corner - but if it is stolen and recropped - then there are several copyright marks hidden as text within the image. They are set at a transparency that is not obvious viewed on the web - but can be seen if you know where to look. I just figure that they would be lazy and only remove the one easy-to-find mark and not mess with the three hidden texts. If my images are only recropped - then it would be an easy matter of proving who's images they are. But, none of my images have showed up anywhere else so far - So I'm one that's in the catagory of "Not worth stealing his work" VintageV Jul 17 06 10:44 am Link To be a BIGass pain in the ass to remove for people who steal them........................Oh and for blind people too Jul 17 06 10:48 am Link Well, I used to put a small watermarked logo along an edge of my photos. Then I realized that it could easily be cropped off without the photo being affected in any noticeable way... Then it occurred to me that nobody was stealing my low-rez online photos anyway. Too heavy on the preppy stuff, not enough T&A I suppose. So why bother...? Jul 17 06 10:50 am Link I have decided to only put the watermark on the back of the picture.  Jul 17 06 11:05 am Link It's because the Internet made the theft and resale of images even easier. I know 3 models in Ohio that have found their photo on an advertisement for a company that they never talked to on another continent. MM, Myspace, personal websites, they are all great places to steal images and use them for your own profit. People just took advantage of it. Jul 18 06 04:48 pm Link I'm amazed that no one has mentioned the "orphan works" concept yet, and how it relates to images on the internet, which have no logo or watermark. The US congress is considering amending copyright law, to make it fair game to copy and use the images of others, if you don't know who the original author is. Putting your copyright notice and maybe some contact info on the images would be one way to combat this potential problem. If this proposed "copyright reform" is enacted, expect to see a lot more logos and watermarking being used, because no one will want their work to be considered "orphaned". take care, Glen Jul 18 06 05:15 pm Link oldguysrule wrote: Amen. Jul 18 06 08:13 pm Link #@$%$#%$ Jul 18 06 08:14 pm Link |
