Anjel Britt wrote:
i was just hosting images when i saw your question and though i often agree with you i thought id see if it took more than 2 minutes to do this
and it didn't

makes me want to cover mine with copyrights now!



(Click it)

GW Burns wrote:
When you find your work on another site under a different name or people using your images on paysites to make money and they simply stole your work cause you didnt protect it perhaps you will understand.   Using imbedded watermarks to track is wonderful but what happens when it is on a site in a foreign country that doesnt have the same copyright laws as we do?  Good luck trying to hunt them down as well.  Yes you can pay sites to look for your images ( a cost that is not necessary if you simply protect them with a large logo)  Or you can spend your days looking for them yourself (I have better things to do with my time). So while it may not be visably stimulating to you to view images with logos on them, it really isnt that hard to understand why they are there!
GW

Anjel Britt wrote:
i was just hosting images when i saw your question and though i often agree with you i thought id see if it took more than 2 minutes to do this
and it didn't

makes me want to cover mine with copyrights now!



(Click it)

Action I have taken as of this time...email sent to the stock agency licensing the image:

In reference to Image AGFR2A I was made aware of this today: 

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=81442  Post reads as follows:



Please take appropriate action.

Thanks


i was just hosting images when i saw your question and though i often agree with you i thought id see if it took more than 2 minutes to do this
and it didn't

makes me want to cover mine with copyrights now!





And here is a link to the person responsible.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=1552

Please take appropriate action.

Thanks




Skip Nall
http://www.skipnallphoto.com

Alan W Bean wrote:

Perfectly stated.

Skip Nall Photography wrote:

Action I have taken as of this time...email sent to the stock agency licensing the image:

In reference to Image AGFR2A I was made aware of this today: 

https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=81442  Post reads as follows:



Please take appropriate action.

Thanks


i was just hosting images when i saw your question and though i often agree with you i thought id see if it took more than 2 minutes to do this
and it didn't

makes me want to cover mine with copyrights now!





And here is a link to the person responsible.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=1552

Please take appropriate action.

Thanks




Skip Nall
http://www.skipnallphoto.com

Wow someone makes a good example as to why we logo our work and this guy turns into Super Prick over an example to why.

Skip Nall Photography wrote:

Just to check a quick right click and then a left I had the 591.5k photo of yours shot of a guy in torn jeans from below b/w on my desktop...taook a look at the metadata and there was none there...I think embedded metadata is far better than logos...

BTW...nice shot and I have deleted it from my computer...

lol yes yes, thanks and thanks. I just started putting a copyright on all my images I host on myspace now. I plan to start making the transition on here as well just haven't decided when I will take the time

Skip Nall Photography wrote:
If someone wants to make an example use his or her own image...not one of mine and not one licensed by an agency...that is just f__cking stupid.

You are way over reacting.
Get a grip.
You have made yourself look like a total idiot doing what you have done to the model and for no other reason than you got an ego the size of manhatten!

The model violated no laws, did not infringe your copyright, and answered your question.

Now, try to be a man, Apologize to her, and go back and delete all the nasty crap you wrote.

Otherwise, I would be tempted to start a "Boycott Skippy" thread directed at you in the Models section.

Immature.

One word to describe it all.

Skip Nall Photography wrote:
If someone wants to make an example use his or her own image...not one of mine and not one licensed by an agency...that is just f__cking stupid.

No it's actually a 100% effective way to make a point. Your going nuts because someone used YOUR image. Which is exactly why some of us put up logo's on our web work.

To bad your ego is so big to realize it's just an example and not out there for personal gain. GET OVER IT

Ty Simone wrote:

You are way over reacting.
Get a grip.
You have made yourself look like a total idiot doing what you have done to the model and for no other reason than you got an ego the size of manhatten!

The model violated no laws, did not infringe your copyright, and answered your question.

Now, try to be a man, Apologize to her, and go back and delete all the nasty crap you wrote.

Otherwise, I would be tempted to start a "Boycott Skippy" thread directed at you in the Models section.

Immature.

One word to describe it all.

Sorry if you and others think I am being a prick about this but I am quite aware of how the stock business works and how easy it is to loose a sale for a myriad of reasons.  An example in the thread and it would have been a good laugh for all and a GREAT example.  Posting the image on a "vote what you think of this image" crossed a boundry for me.

If you think posting a "Boycott Skippy" thread should be done then who is overreacting?  Suggesting models not work with me becuase I choose to protect my images is a bit weird but I am fine with that if you think it is needed.

What confuses me is that photographers that use the logos to protect their images are now upset because I am upset that one of mine is now on a web site without my consent. 

And as to my ego?  Yes it is big...hell I'm a photographer!

Skip Nall Photography wrote:

Sorry if you and others think I am being a prick about this but I am quite aware of how the stock business works and how easy it is to loose a sale for a myriad of reasons.  An example in the thread and it would have been a good laugh for all and a GREAT example.  Posting the image on a "vote what you think of this image" crossed a boundry for me.

If you think posting a "Boycott Skippy" thread should be done then who is overreacting?  Suggesting models not work with me becuase I choose to protect my images is a bit weird but I am fine with that if you think it is needed.

What confuses me is that photographers that use the logos to protect their images are now upset because I am upset that one of mine is now on a web site without my consent. 

And as to my ego?  Yes it is big...hell I'm a photographer!

Skippy Buddy, you miss the point.
You were upset about it, fine, that is actually understandable. HOWEVER, your actions are what I dislike.

Instead of trying to resolve this in a polite and professional manner, you act like my 8 year old daughter screaming at the top of her lungs because she thinks her older brothers are being mean.

You should have messaged the model directly first and asked her to remove the image.
You might have been even more politic and told her you got the point and you understand but that you found how she made the point to be a little over the line because the image is stock etc..etc..

It is all about presentation.
It is no different than a photog coming on here calling a model a flake etc...
It is fine to say "models are flaky." but not fine to say "Model XXXXX is a flake."

It may seem like a subtle difference, but it is a big one in appearence, and like all service related businesses, appearence is everything.

Skip Nall Photography wrote:
What confuses me is that photographers that use the logos to protect their images are now upset because I am upset that one of mine is now on a web site without my consent.

No we are upset at the fact that your going after a model for using your work as an EXAMPLE when a simple "hey, thanks for your example but would you kindly remove that. thanks have a nice day" would have worked. This is not myspace where work is stolen on a min by min basis. This is a simple discussion of why people logo their product. Someone gave and example, big f'in deal. Ask them politly to remove it, I'm sure they will, thank them and MOVE THE F ON!

Skip Nall Photography wrote:
Sorry if you and others think I am being a prick about this but I am quite aware of how the stock business works and how easy it is to loose a sale for a myriad of reasons.  An example in the thread and it would have been a good laugh for all and a GREAT example.  Posting the image on a "vote what you think of this image" crossed a boundry for me.

If you think posting a "Boycott Skippy" thread should be done then who is overreacting?  Suggesting models not work with me becuase I choose to protect my images is a bit weird but I am fine with that if you think it is needed.

What confuses me is that photographers that use the logos to protect their images are now upset because I am upset that one of mine is now on a web site without my consent. 

And as to my ego?  Yes it is big...hell I'm a photographer!

a> I don't think anyone thinks you're a prick
b> looking at the "big picture" do you really think you've lost any integrity because you had an image posted on this thread?
c> In regards to "Boycotting Skippy... I would never... I love that peanut butter!
d> If posting the image on a "vote what you think of this image" and all the replies were positive would this be a problem?
5> Everyone has an ego... it's just when the ego outweighs the talent (this isn't directed at you per say) is when things fall awry

LiliOPhoto wrote:

That's because you were probably putting your logo on the high-res images you were giving to the agencies to print for their models. That's not the same as putting a name on the images meant to go on the internet.

no, i wasn't.  she was refering to any and all logo/foreign objects on pics for display anywhere.

Skip Nall Photography wrote:

Sorry if you and others think I am being a prick about this but I am quite aware of how the stock business works and how easy it is to loose a sale for a myriad of reasons.  An example in the thread and it would have been a good laugh for all and a GREAT example.  Posting the image on a "vote what you think of this image" crossed a boundry for me.

If you think posting a "Boycott Skippy" thread should be done then who is overreacting?  Suggesting models not work with me becuase I choose to protect my images is a bit weird but I am fine with that if you think it is needed.

What confuses me is that photographers that use the logos to protect their images are now upset because I am upset that one of mine is now on a web site without my consent. 

And as to my ego?  Yes it is big...hell I'm a photographer!

The fact that you don't see the Irony here is hysterical.  I'm laughing my ass off.

Skip Nall Photography wrote:
Why the f__ck a model would take a photo and post it on another site and tell me about is really f__cking nuts seems to me.  How  the f__ck old are you anyway?  Perfect example of how immature so many people are on websites like this and apparently have no lives of their own.

Umm...relax dude.  She did it to illustrate a point.  Apparently it worked because you sure got pissed off.

Oh yeah did I mention you just happened to use a photo of my wife who is pregnant?

How is THIS important?  Congrants on the baby and all, but being that the subject in the photo is your pregnant wife is important and valuable only to you and no one else.

Anyway just so you kow Anji or whatever the f__ck your name is I have sent the link to the stock agency who licenses that image and I am sure they will be in touch with you soon.

Good luck with embarrassing yourself with them.  They'll either do...

1)  Ignore the e-mail
2)  Pay lipservice to you and say thank you while they research the matter followed by the delete button.
3)  Explain to you there is little they can do about it and maybe tell you why.

Skip Nall Photography wrote:
Action I have taken as of this time...email sent to the stock agency licensing the image:

Posting your action in this thread?  Now who is being a child? Be sure to let us know what how this all works out.

Skip Nall Photography wrote:
Why do so many photographers ruin great shots by putting a huge or even small logo somewhere across it?  I saw one awesome shot today and the guy had plastered hi logo right across the middle of the shot and it took up at least 30% of the frame.

Why?  Okay I know why but geeae get over it and stop screwing up the beautiful work you are doing people!

Well I hate having to do it but when you're positing online and in particular when you have a site that allows a right click to save someone else's work, it has to be done. The "other" o-m-p site doesn't allow this and you receive a command that "for security purposes this feature has been disabled..." or something of that nature. My logo and copyright info is on all online photos...but certainly not embedded when submitted to a client. It's unfortunate but a necessary evil.

GW Burns wrote:
When you find your work on another site under a different name or people using your images on paysites to make money and they simply stole your work cause you didnt protect it perhaps you will understand.   Using imbedded watermarks to track is wonderful but what happens when it is on a site in a foreign country that doesnt have the same copyright laws as we do?  Good luck trying to hunt them down as well.  Yes you can pay sites to look for your images ( a cost that is not necessary if you simply protect them with a large logo)  Or you can spend your days looking for them yourself (I have better things to do with my time). So while it may not be visably stimulating to you to view images with logos on them, it really isnt that hard to understand why they are there!
GW

'Nuff said I think. GW's logo is large, yes...but also quite tasteful. And with work like that I'd never question the simple act of embedding a logo to protect valuable work from the dreaded right-clickers. Certainly more cost-effective to take that route than having to track down those who've already infringed on the artist's rights.

DigitalSwede wrote:
Who cares what other photographer really do in all honesty... Soon I am going to photograph my logo and ruin it with a model in the middle of a shot... Im just saying.

I took it one step further....

http://www.x-pose.net/models/jordan/xposelogo.jpg

18+ nakedness above, and a subtle logo-placement
Jeff

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
particular when you have a site that allows a right click to save someone else's work, it has to be done.

and right click matters why? It doesn't disabling right click is just a way to calm people who are computer stupid down and making them think that their image is safe.

A: point me to any image on the net and I will download it and put it up right here in a matter of mins. With out the use of any right click. If it's on the net it's open season hense put your logo on it now to be safe.

B: If you have a Mac there is no right click option see above.

Don't be fooled into thinking because a site has disabled right clicking that your work is safe. If it's on the net it can be taken.

Im'age NY (INY) wrote:
Skippy skipped out... MM #191005 is not a current member.

Ego couldn't handle the pressure lol.

Skip Nall Photography wrote:

I thnk you are exactly right!  I don't thinnk Helmut Newton, Savullo, or a host of other photogs put logos on their photos...check this sight for some of Annie Leibowitz work...NO logos.  http://www.art-forum.org/z_Leibowitz/Gallery.htm

Take your book to a big agency or magazine with logos all over and see the reception you get!  A big fast thank you won't see you later is what will happen...

I can google myself and come up with a good number of images out there that sold through my stock agency but don't have my name on them.

How do you do that? I didn't know you could Google yourself to find your images out there. How does that work? I mean, who writes the name of the image that they stole? Who would post your name with the image? I don't think you have any idea.

Anyway, images are being "stolen" all the time. It's flattering. Coca Cola logos are in photos all over the place. The art work of many people is "stolen" all the time. How about when someone takes a photo of someone's thing, whether it be a car or a building, and doesn't credit the owner or the artist who created it? Isn't that a form of "stealing" the image? This is the Internet. If you don't sell your image, someone else will. As far as I'm concerned, if someone uses one of my photos in an advertising campaign, and they don't pay me or give me credit for the photo, I'm happy about it. They've just given me the right to sue them for compensation that will probably pay better than if they had just bought the rights from me in the first place.

If someone uses one of your image in some obscure place, who really cares? It doesn't really affect your income, because the person stealing it would just steal a different image if they can't steal yours. It might give you a little free advertising, but the probablility that it will make any difference at all is miniscule.

If someone brands one of your stolen photos with their own logo and calls it his/hers, wow! That's real flattery. That means that person thinks your work is so good that it's one of the best photos they can find. That's great! An now they've marked the photo with their own logo, you have more evidence for the court case against them. If they're in a foreign country you can still attack them. You're unlikely to get money out of them, but that isn't really a big deal, since you're not looooosing any money anyway, right? After all, they really wouldn't have bought the image in the first place if they're doing what I'm talking about.

So people steal images. Shame on them. If your work is worth stealing, then great. I wish I saw people stealing my images. That would mean I'm really getting somewhere. I guess it might get annoying after a while, but if you're jwork is so awesome that it happens all the time, I guess you'd be making a bunch of money anyway, so who really cares?

I know this flys in the face of the argument, "Who cares that people are stealing from us? Who wouldn't?" That's the point. It's all in how you look at it. Here's an example of how someone stole a bunch of IP from someone else, and the one (company) who it was stolen from ended up getting very very rich because of the theft. The victim company's name is Rambus, and the perpetrators are many. Rambus designed some very interesting technology, and everyone stole it. When Rambus finally got into court with a solid case against those who stole their technology, the technology was worth way, way, way more than it was originally. The RAM manufacturers all paid. The main reason they paid was because they didn't want to be prevented from selling their product in the US while the court case was playing out, so they settled out of court for undisclosed millions of dollars - each company settled for huge money.

I wish a bunch of companies stole my photos and used them to make a bunch of money. I could be set for life.

Scott


..

eric krumm wrote:
logos are lame.  have you ever seen "Steven Meisel" stamped across an image?  no.  what about "Testino"??   nope.

i used to put my name on mine but an agency lady told me it was "hokey" and i noticed that none of the photogs i admire do it so i stopped.  it's nice to just put the image out there and let it stand on its own.

i hope friends would tell me if they see a theft...i even emailed google for a stranger from another thread on this site!  worth noting is that many of the stolen images had big tacky stamps on them. 

exactly

Robb Radford wrote:

and right click matters why? It doesn't disabling right click is just a way to calm people who are computer stupid down and making them think that their image is safe.

A: point me to any image on the net and I will download it and put it up right here in a matter of mins. With out the use of any right click. If it's on the net it's open season hense put your logo on it now to be safe.

B: If you have a Mac there is no right click option see above.

Don't be fooled into thinking because a site has disabled right clicking that your work is safe. If it's on the net it can be taken.

Tell these people about screen capture software. Anybody: go check it out yourself at Download.com - search for screen capture.

Anyway, putting a logo on an image doesn't make it safe either. I know you have all heard of Photoshop. Didn't you know it's easier to photoshop out a logo than to make an image that's so good the photographer decided to put a logo on it?

Some people put hidden logos in images. Who cares if it's hidden!? If someone is going to steal your image that you posted on the Web, let them. They'll do it no matter how hard you try to stop them. It's not difficult. A baby can do it.

Scott


..

Skip Nall Photography wrote:
If someone wants to make an example use his or her own image...not one of mine and not one licensed by an agency...that is just f__cking stupid.

She answers your question by showing you a perfect example of why people write
on their images.  She was kind to you.

How many people have taken that exact same image that you now identify as your
pregnant wife without you ever knowing about it? 

Skip why the cuss words to a woman?
Maybe get some rest and you will feel better tomorrow.

And congradulations on being a new daddy

Just look at all the threads on pictures being stolen and used on other sites....
Plus it is good promotion to show who took the picture since some models don't bother to give us credit for the pictures either...

I 2nd that emotion! I've had model agree to give me photo credit and then once they got their photos did nothing of the sort.  I do wanna ask photographers out there. I once photographed a model and gave the model a photoCD of the images from the shoot.  Before I could back up the images from my computer, it crashed.  Literally, just before I was about to do it.  So I contacted the model to get copies.  Anway, he emailed me a few in jpg which to make a long story short I was not able to post in my portfolio.  The file size wasn't too large but every time I uploaded the pic I would get a small red x instead of the pic.  When I tried other pics to upload that weren't his, it worked fine.  So my question then, is there a program out there that stops pics from being uploaded to sites?  I mean I could download the pic from his email and view it fine but it was when I uploaded it that I could not view it.

Robb Radford wrote:
B: If you have a Mac there is no right click option see above.

Really??  So what have I been doing all this time with my mighty mouse?  And before that with my Logitec mouse?  LOL....

StudioSeventeen wrote:

She answers your question by showing you a perfect example of why people write
on their images.  She was kind to you.

How many people have taken that exact same image that you now identify as your
pregnant wife without you ever knowing about it? 

Skip why the cuss words to a woman?
Maybe get some rest and you will feel better tomorrow.

And congradulations on being a new daddy

Who are you? I don't mean to be mean, but what's your name? It isn't on your profile, and you don't have a link to your Web site there. You also say the following:

"Recently one of the girls I discovered while on a trip, who had never been photographed, sent in some photos that we did to Ford and they called her back and signed her
www.FordModels.com black one piece

update
wow another girl I saw on the beach one day, had never been
photographed,we did a photoshoot with her and her parents, she sent in some of those photos we shot to an agency in her home town of Paris. She emailed me today saying she just got signed
www.viva-paris.com (white bikini top)"

Go to those two sites and try to find the models you mention. Oh, you didn't put their names. Where are the "black on piece" and the "white bikini top" on those sites? I bet there are photos with a model wearing such garments, but how many? Why can't you name the models if you could identify them by their photos? The models' names are with their photos aren't they?

Sorry if you're legitimate, but I actually wonder (by your profile and lack of a name) if you're one of the people this thread is all about.

Scott


..

Photos By Deej wrote:

I 2nd that emotion! I've had model agree to give me photo credit and then once they got their photos did nothing of the sort.  I do wanna ask photographers out there. I once photographed a model and gave the model a photoCD of the images from the shoot.  Before I could back up the images from my computer, it crashed.  Literally, just before I was about to do it.  So I contacted the model to get copies.  Anway, he emailed me a few in jpg which to make a long story short I was not able to post in my portfolio.  The file size wasn't too large but every time I uploaded the pic I would get a small red x instead of the pic.  When I tried other pics to upload that weren't his, it worked fine.  So my question then, is there a program out there that stops pics from being uploaded to sites?  I mean I could download the pic from his email and view it fine but it was when I uploaded it that I could not view it.

Maybe there is such a program Deej, but you can probably get around it by displaying the photo and screen-capturing it. It probably just needs to be saved in a different format or with no extra information from a good program like Photoshop or the GIMP.

There are all sorts of weird things out there. I have a CD that I can't copy. I don't know why it won't copy, but it plays in my computer. It plays fine in my car too. It won't copy, and I can't make MP3 files from it either, so I can't put the music on my iPod. Very very weird. It's a Meatbeat Manifesto album.

Good luck.

Scott


..

Scott Kennelly wrote:
Tell these people about screen capture software. Anybody: go check it out yourself at Download.com - search for screen capture.

Screen Capture software? who needs that it's simple pull up image on screen, push the Prt Scr button on keyboard, open photoshop click File then New then Open a new image the size of your desktop. hold the shift key down and hit Insert crop as needed

Paramour Productions wrote:

Really??  So what have I been doing all this time with my mighty mouse?  And before that with my Logitec mouse?  LOL....

on a Mac computer there is no right mouse button