I find copyright signs on images every bit as obtrusive as commercials on televison. If you must stake your claim, please do it outside the frame. Perhaps I am stupid, but it seems to me, that at NPN posting resolution, your image can't be stolen for print applications. If you're worried about it being stolen, put it in a shoe box under your bed, or sell it on the market (whatever that is.)
{c} PETE D. feelin' ticked, sorry. I'm glad I quit looking at TV over a year ago though!
If you're feelin' 'ticked', grab the little bugger and flush 'em down the pot. Works every time!
On one hand I agree with you, because some 'ownership' signatures are simply too large and detract greatly from the image, in my opinion. On the other hand, I think a 'signature' on the image itself is a good idea, for a couple of reasons.
Given the sophistication of some of the up-rez algorithms out there (this assumes that there are those who will go to great lengths to steal an image that doesn't belong to them) anything we can do to discourage theft is a good idea. Second, some of us use the same images on our websites, which reduces the amount of work we have to do.
-PB
Posted by Rod Barbee on November 13, 2006 at 12:26 AM
And having the copyright symbol and name right on the image makes it harder for people to steal for web usage
I had my eyes opened on the uprezzing question last week. Before now I had been feeling pretty confident that "NPN" size images couldn't be enlarged meaningfully or well. I provided this image at 72 dpi and 640 pixels on the long axis to the local paper to accompany an article on the project depicted. It was subsequently picked up by the AP and has been published in newspapers all over the country. I don't know about any others, but the Anchorage Daily News uprezzed it sufficiently to run it half page, and I know they work at 200 dpi. And it looked pretty darned good.
Posted by chickadee on November 13, 2006 at 9:03 AM
My weakness in photography is anything technical and I was shocked to read a post several weeks ago (I tried but failed to find sorry) that linked to a website a member had found that had stolen photographs from several members from this site. The link had been removed by the time I read the post so I dont know if they were just taking credit or trying to sell the pictures but it shocked me that they were even capable of doing this and although it does affect the veiwing of an image I would never blame anyone for protecting themselves from people like this. How many more websites could be out there?
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 13, 2006 at 10:44 AM
hey Pete
Relax.
To me, if someone wants to put their copyright signature right across the middle of their image, that's up to them.
On the other hand, if someone wants to put no copyright signature on their posted image at all, that's up to them.
I think my TV just went out last night, so I may not be watching TV anymore either.
Pete,
to be honest I don't like it either! I view photos for the joy of it, especially on the net and all too often the copyright singn hurts the impression. I do understand the point to protect the photos but all those who post their pictures in hope someone might pay for them, should know there are people who are distracted by the copyright sign and move over to other photos. I would not like to see a (c) in a coffe table book either and , trust me, you can make fine repros out of photos printed in books or magazines... (actually much better ones than from net postings)
Hank: If newspapers all over the country printed your shot, well good, send all of them an invoice! that's what I would do!
Sure it's a matter of principles, but very, very rarely do you actually loose money if somebody copies a 700 pixel image from the net, because those people would not buy it anyway... If I ever find my images used somewhere, I just send out an invoice, if necessary along with a letter from our lawyer... We "sold" a few photos like that already.
Georg
I'd love to Georg, but that's not the way editorial photography works once they're distributed by the AP. You get inintial payment from your local paper or the AP, but none after that unless you do all the distribution and licensing yourself. With EP being driven by "what's news now," by the time you got your forces marshalled the photo and event would be old history. I certainly wouldn't concent to enter my other photography into that frey, but it's acceptable to me for EP.
Posted by Richard Wong on November 13, 2006 at 3:38 PM
To spin this in a positive light, when you put the watermark on and someone decides to copy and paste it onto their own site then your URL is advertised on the 3rd party site. As long as there is no monetary gain or for that purpose, then it's not the end of the world. Once I figured that out, then I started watermarking almost everything.
you are right Michael, but usually you can make a copyright and non reproduction statement on your website somewhere. It's basically the same, just a different media. but, yes, on a web posting it might not be so clear for everyone. legally it's the same , though. Also, I think, what Pete meant wasn't so much a small (c) but rather the big signatures or watermark so often seen on homepages.
georg
Posted by David Senesac on November 13, 2006 at 4:46 PM
Looking at copyright notices on other's web images doesn't really bother me although such does impact the aesthetic of the little pics. In fact I'm not much a fan of looking at little web pics except that they serve useful purposes among the community of web users and photographers for communicating at least some level of visual information. Now what I do enjoy is looking at large images and even more so large prints.
As for the usefulness of applying a copyright notice or watermark, I started a thread something over a year ago on a view camera photography forum with fair numbers of pros about displaying larger image sizes in personal galleries than the status quo of tiny 480 or so pixel width images. Fine art images I market on my web site are between 0.7 and 1k size. And note I don't sell nor have been interested in selling stock. Several people immediately whined about getting ripped off. I related that even an XVGA sized image of about 1k width really can't be used for printing anything more sizeable than would fit on a coffee mug. Big deal! Some were afraid they might be used for screen savers...big business. In all no one posted any convincing reason why one ought to worry about posting images this small. Well I guess those making a living off small stock stuff would. There are upsizing applications that supposedly will increase the size of an already sharp image that has strong graphic lines, but my fine art files are way way more huge than any of those. And it is those really large images I'm concerned about. The only real concern I have is someone with a graphics art camera or scanning back taking an image of one of my large prints and then trying to use that for some downsized purpose. Otherwise these small files are pitifully small. ..David
The big risk in the US is the ongoing discussion about orphan works. The most recent proposed change (which I believe was defeated) was that anyone who finds an unmarked work only has to make a "reasonable attempt" to identify its owner before being allowed to do with it as they please.
Sure, you may not be able to make mural prints from a little web image but they are well suited for TV ad campaigns and other uses. If the legislation is successful there may be situations when you will not be able to claim any right to it.
Someone scanning an image from a book and using it is committing a crime. Someone who finds an unmarked JPG and makes a "reasonable attempt" (whatever that is) to find the owner unsuccessfully may potentially be in the clear to use it as they please.
David: I totally agree. My point is also, if you are (and we are also) trying to make an impression on your personal gallery with a large image, maybe even trying to get somebody to order a print, you will hurt your chances when putting a too big watermark or (C) on it. it just hurts the photo. We could care less about use of our images on pc screens or in japanese tv-programms or else. We care about peaople making a print out of it but i think this is not possible.
Guy: This sounds strange, it should be easy to reach the copyright owner, once you are on his homepage. In nearly all cases there is a contact link or even phone numbers. how could you not find the owner? or at least send him a message?
georg
Posted by Brent Murphy on November 13, 2006 at 5:56 PM
Georg - Sure, it's easy to find the owner of an image if you see the image on the photographer's web page. However, if someone else steals the image and sticks it on their blog, or on a site like Claudia mentioned above, there would be no way for a viewer to know where that stolen image originally came from.
I've seen images from my site posted on people's blogs in the past, with no information about where they got the image. Usually nothing too harmful, just locals showing off some local scenery for their friends back home or something. But someone reading that blog might see the image, download and use it for something else, without knowing it was mine. Of course, like other have said above, the images are so small, I'm not too worried about it. I've got better things to do.
Georg, I think the problem is that JPG images can be used on random wen sites, saved to random drives and get around in all sorts of ways that someone might stumble on them without knowing their origin, and if the proposed law would pass then anyone who accidentally finds a good image with no indication of its origin may be able to use it as if it were their own.
I think you should believe that everything ever posted to the web will live on somewhere forever. Putting a jpeg on the internet makes it wild. You have released control. To display a photograph on a monitor, you have to send bits. Sent bits are lost bits. Putting a copyright reminder IN your photograph might give you some sense of protection, but my gripe is that it mars the very thing you are trying to share. Apparently I came off as a lot more tightly wound than I was/am. I post with unconcerned abandon because, as Brent says, "I'm not worried. I have better things to do." People who are trying to sell images probably should set as many free possible, because someone who knows a good thing when they see an abbreviation of it will come looking for the real thing.
Pete D. it's going to be sad in 2100 when half the images are from unknown, long gone, uncredited, jpeg masters from the 21st century.....
Discussion
17 replies{c} PETE D. feelin' ticked, sorry. I'm glad I quit looking at TV over a year ago though!
If you're feelin' 'ticked', grab the little bugger and flush 'em down the pot. Works every time!
On one hand I agree with you, because some 'ownership' signatures are simply too large and detract greatly from the image, in my opinion. On the other hand, I think a 'signature' on the image itself is a good idea, for a couple of reasons.
Given the sophistication of some of the up-rez algorithms out there (this assumes that there are those who will go to great lengths to steal an image that doesn't belong to them) anything we can do to discourage theft is a good idea. Second, some of us use the same images on our websites, which reduces the amount of work we have to do.
-PB
Relax.
To me, if someone wants to put their copyright signature right across the middle of their image, that's up to them.
On the other hand, if someone wants to put no copyright signature on their posted image at all, that's up to them.
I think my TV just went out last night, so I may not be watching TV anymore either.
Cheers
Carl
BTW, Pete, this post is © 2006 Michael E. Gordon
to be honest I don't like it either! I view photos for the joy of it, especially on the net and all too often the copyright singn hurts the impression. I do understand the point to protect the photos but all those who post their pictures in hope someone might pay for them, should know there are people who are distracted by the copyright sign and move over to other photos. I would not like to see a (c) in a coffe table book either and , trust me, you can make fine repros out of photos printed in books or magazines... (actually much better ones than from net postings)
Hank: If newspapers all over the country printed your shot, well good, send all of them an invoice! that's what I would do!
Sure it's a matter of principles, but very, very rarely do you actually loose money if somebody copies a 700 pixel image from the net, because those people would not buy it anyway... If I ever find my images used somewhere, I just send out an invoice, if necessary along with a letter from our lawyer... We "sold" a few photos like that already.
Georg
Georg: bound books are always accompanied by a copyright and non-reproduction statement. An unaccompanied jpeg has no such attached clause, and perhaps this is why so many feel that jpegs are free for the taking. A small © not only serves as a reminder of this clause but also as a marketing tool.
georg
As for the usefulness of applying a copyright notice or watermark, I started a thread something over a year ago on a view camera photography forum with fair numbers of pros about displaying larger image sizes in personal galleries than the status quo of tiny 480 or so pixel width images. Fine art images I market on my web site are between 0.7 and 1k size. And note I don't sell nor have been interested in selling stock. Several people immediately whined about getting ripped off. I related that even an XVGA sized image of about 1k width really can't be used for printing anything more sizeable than would fit on a coffee mug. Big deal! Some were afraid they might be used for screen savers...big business. In all no one posted any convincing reason why one ought to worry about posting images this small. Well I guess those making a living off small stock stuff would. There are upsizing applications that supposedly will increase the size of an already sharp image that has strong graphic lines, but my fine art files are way way more huge than any of those. And it is those really large images I'm concerned about. The only real concern I have is someone with a graphics art camera or scanning back taking an image of one of my large prints and then trying to use that for some downsized purpose. Otherwise these small files are pitifully small. ..David
Sure, you may not be able to make mural prints from a little web image but they are well suited for TV ad campaigns and other uses. If the legislation is successful there may be situations when you will not be able to claim any right to it.
Someone scanning an image from a book and using it is committing a crime. Someone who finds an unmarked JPG and makes a "reasonable attempt" (whatever that is) to find the owner unsuccessfully may potentially be in the clear to use it as they please.
Guy
Guy: This sounds strange, it should be easy to reach the copyright owner, once you are on his homepage. In nearly all cases there is a contact link or even phone numbers. how could you not find the owner? or at least send him a message?
georg
I've seen images from my site posted on people's blogs in the past, with no information about where they got the image. Usually nothing too harmful, just locals showing off some local scenery for their friends back home or something. But someone reading that blog might see the image, download and use it for something else, without knowing it was mine. Of course, like other have said above, the images are so small, I'm not too worried about it. I've got better things to do.
Guy
Pete D. it's going to be sad in 2100 when half the images are from unknown, long gone, uncredited, jpeg masters from the 21st century.....