paulfish4570
Veteran
i'd like to know how to watermark photos ...
A Funny Thing Happened to two Photos of mine
- Thread starter SolaresLarrave
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 46
- Views 4K
Jamie123
Veteran
Is that all you're advocating? You said you'd "periodically hassle him/his ISP until something happens" (And why his ISP? Why would they care? Or did you mean blogspot.com?). The OP has already contacted the guy in numerous ways and he just doesn't seem to react. So at this point it begs the question who all this is really a hassle for.
To keep with the greengrocer's analogy, continuing to hassle the blogger would be akin to the greengrocer following the person out on the streets and to his home and continually requesting that he return a grape. At some point that might happen but the greengrocer will have lost a lot of time, energy and money in the process.
The reason why the number of grape-stealers does not increase is that the possiblity of being told off is enough of a determent for most people who'd consider doing it. Some still do it because they don't care. Equally, most bloggers will take an image down if prompted by the photographer. Some don't because they are a**holes. No use losing sleep over it.
Matus
Well-known
I have so far seen 2 kinds of watermarking. One that easy to remove and thus (nearly) useless and one that does work perfectly and at the same time completely destroys the image as it is all over it .. 😱
semordnilap
Well-known
1st case: I would just ask him to link back to me, and give credit for the photo.
2nd case: Do what you feel comfortable with, whether a nominal fee or just giving permission.
And Paul, a watermark in a digital photo is nothing more than text on top of the picture... you can add it in whatever image editing program you use. Some of the images on my flickr have what I hope is a relatively unobtrusive one, which I added in the lightroom export dialog.
2nd case: Do what you feel comfortable with, whether a nominal fee or just giving permission.
And Paul, a watermark in a digital photo is nothing more than text on top of the picture... you can add it in whatever image editing program you use. Some of the images on my flickr have what I hope is a relatively unobtrusive one, which I added in the lightroom export dialog.
Jamie123
Veteran
By the way, it's easy to see that the greengrocer's analogy is lacking. Copyright infringement and theft are simply not the same thing and preaching this to the public hasn't improved the situation at all.
sdotkling
Sent through the ether
I sent him an email on your behalf, too. Maybe if he gets 1,000 emails he'll take it down. Nibbled to death by ducks, eh?
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
I'm just curious, are most members here in denial of fair use laws, against them in principle, or unaware of them? Surely if you place your work in a public place--you can't get much more public than the Internet--you should expect to be co-opted a bit.
I think it would have been gentlemanly for the guy to give you a heads-up and to respond to your emails, but are you against it simply because he is using it? because you are making tons of cash off that photo and you don't want him getting free lunch? because you don't want him lessening your brand?
If a bear craps in the woods, should he copyright it?
I think it would have been gentlemanly for the guy to give you a heads-up and to respond to your emails, but are you against it simply because he is using it? because you are making tons of cash off that photo and you don't want him getting free lunch? because you don't want him lessening your brand?
If a bear craps in the woods, should he copyright it?
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Let's put it this way.
If I shrug it, I'm allowing the guy to pilfer work from professional photographers who make a living with their images. That's the grape-eating analogy. Only in this case, I simply have a vine in my yard.
Hence, I'll keep requesting him to remove the photograph periodically.
As for the second case, I'll allow permission for use, as long as it's properly attributed. Again, I am not a pro, but won't do anything to undermine the work done by pros.
Thanks for the suggestions! 🙂 And also, have a very merry Christmas!! 🙂
If I shrug it, I'm allowing the guy to pilfer work from professional photographers who make a living with their images. That's the grape-eating analogy. Only in this case, I simply have a vine in my yard.
Hence, I'll keep requesting him to remove the photograph periodically.
As for the second case, I'll allow permission for use, as long as it's properly attributed. Again, I am not a pro, but won't do anything to undermine the work done by pros.
Thanks for the suggestions! 🙂 And also, have a very merry Christmas!! 🙂
gb hill
Veteran
If you do please don't do like some that put the watermark over the middle of the image, the kind that you barly see but know it's there! Thats stupid looking & I don't like watermarks at all. But then my photo's rarely qualify for a watermark.😉
gb hill
Veteran
I think you made the right decisions in both cases. Especially in the second situation. You honor them by them having the decency to contact you. & yes keep hammering the 1st guy. Merry Christmas!
T
tedwhite
Guest
1. Ask for a photo credit. 2. a) Ask for a photo credit, or b) ask for a fee, especially if it's a for-profit site.
I'm a writer and I usually sell First North American rights (short stories or articles) which means I'm granting permission to publish it one time and then all rights revert to me. If you don't do this then the purchaser theoretically owns it and can resell it. I'm not sure if that's the case with photographs.
I'm a writer and I usually sell First North American rights (short stories or articles) which means I'm granting permission to publish it one time and then all rights revert to me. If you don't do this then the purchaser theoretically owns it and can resell it. I'm not sure if that's the case with photographs.
Jamie123
Veteran
Most people here do indeed seem to be unaware of them as they think a fee can be charged whenever an image appears somewhere else regardless of the context.
That being said, this particular blogger would be hard pressed to claim fair use as he is not crediting the photographer of the original work. Also, it seems to me that it would be difficult to establish that his use constitutes some kind of commentary or criticism of the used work. I'm no lawyer, though, so I may be wrong.
Jamie123
Veteran
Sorry, but I think you're wrong in both cases. In the first case you think you're doing the professional community any kind of favor by pestering an unknown non-commercial blogger who would hardly ever be any photographer's client. And then in the second case you go ahead and undermine the market by offering your work for free to clients who would actually pay for it. How does that help anyone? The photography industry is in such a dire state not because people are lifting copyrighted images left and right but because people are voluntarily giving images away for free in exchange for 'exposure'.
DNG
Film Friendly
When I lived in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, I had a friend who was the Chief Sports (Golf) photographer for the Ft. Lauderdale News... He owned the rights to any photo he took after the 1st publication of an image... That is just how they did it. SO, after an image was used by the Newspaper, my friend could could lease it or sell it outright at his discretion.
SO, Yes, a Photograph can have a "1 time" publication contract attached to it... with a fee reflecting the # issues of the periodical made for the next printing
But, for WWW use, this is a different type of usage, since each time the page is accessed, a copy is made for the requesting ISP...
A Credit should be Minimum IMO...
There is a service that can track ISPs from your posted photo's. But, it has a monthly fee, and many Pro's who publish on the Web would use it, but, for the rest of us, maybe an Owner/CR text in the lower right corner of the Image might detract from Bloggers :nicking: it..
I like the term "Nick" 😉
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Fair use is VERY narrowly defined in the USA and this is not a case where it applies. It ONLY applies:
1) Where the image is used academically in certain situations (a student can use it in a class project, or a professor can use it in a class presentation but it cannot be published in a textbook).
2) As part of criticism of the work itself. So a newspaper writing about the artist's work can publish a reproduction of it.
That is IT. Nothing else. Just because its non-commercial does NOT, repeat NOT mean you can use it without permission.
When a photo is stolen and used on the web, its there forever and creates an impression that the work is public domain and encourages more unauthorized use. This is my sole source of income. I'm not a doctor, lawyer, engineer or stockbroker like so many of you here. Professional photography is a legitimate occupation and the workers in that occupation deserve a good income, just like everyone else. I know most of the non-professioal photographers here just don't give a damn about professionals and many of them have stated in previous discussions that they don't think we deserve to earn money doing what you people think is a hobby. Too bad. I care. I have to. I have a family to feed. So, yes, I aggressively look for unauthorized use of my work online and work to get it removed.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Go after the offender through blogspot.com, as Chris suggests.
But, also, don't let it spoil your day. Happy holidays to all !
But, also, don't let it spoil your day. Happy holidays to all !
Brian Legge
Veteran
To be clear, I think most of us agree the blogger is in the wrong on this. So are 95% of the people on blogger (and any other sight like it) who include photos in their posts as most grab photos from where ever they want without looking at license info.
Same thing with Tumblr and most other sites of this nature.
You may be able to get something done through blogger, DCMA, etc but its going to be like playing wack-a-mole.
Same thing with Tumblr and most other sites of this nature.
You may be able to get something done through blogger, DCMA, etc but its going to be like playing wack-a-mole.
celluloidprop
Well-known
The blogger could have avoided this by simply linking to the Flickr page using the code they provide. The downloading, then uploading to his own server, without attribution is where it goes wrong.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Then again, look at many of the avatars here. How many belong to the person posting them, or are posted with permission?
In one way, I completely agree with Chris. Go after the buggers.
In another, how does stealing a low-res image and putting it on their site REALLY affect most of us? Usually, it's as much pique at not being credited, as any financial loss. Yes, it's theft, but de minimus non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifling matters). Mere repeated theft does NOT place a picture in the public domain, so if one of our pics becomes well enough known we can always go after the money AND we should be able to parlay it into good publicity.
Sometimes I'll go after people, but often I can't be arsed. People have sometimes told me that they've chosen one of my pictures as a background on their screen. What do I do? Ask them for a fee and make an enemy?
Anyone, in any creative endeavour, gets ripped off in various ways. Remember that if you buy one of my books second-hand, or read and enjoy one of my articles is a magazine in a library, the only advantage is to my reputation -- and you can't eat reputations.
Cheers,
R.
In one way, I completely agree with Chris. Go after the buggers.
In another, how does stealing a low-res image and putting it on their site REALLY affect most of us? Usually, it's as much pique at not being credited, as any financial loss. Yes, it's theft, but de minimus non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifling matters). Mere repeated theft does NOT place a picture in the public domain, so if one of our pics becomes well enough known we can always go after the money AND we should be able to parlay it into good publicity.
Sometimes I'll go after people, but often I can't be arsed. People have sometimes told me that they've chosen one of my pictures as a background on their screen. What do I do? Ask them for a fee and make an enemy?
Anyone, in any creative endeavour, gets ripped off in various ways. Remember that if you buy one of my books second-hand, or read and enjoy one of my articles is a magazine in a library, the only advantage is to my reputation -- and you can't eat reputations.
Cheers,
R.
ScottAlexander
Street Photographer
I'd kindly ask him to credit me with a name and a link to my website or portfolio, since as at least one other person suggested, it looks like a non-commercial blog. It is unfortunate, but once something is on the internet, its on there forever, so the only true way to never get ripped... is to not post.
If he is making money off the image, then you have every right to find a lawyer and sue for damages.
Btw, if you keep a running tally of receipts for how much your photography is worth in real life, it will help you get awarded with a fair settlement.
If he is making money off the image, then you have every right to find a lawyer and sue for damages.
Btw, if you keep a running tally of receipts for how much your photography is worth in real life, it will help you get awarded with a fair settlement.
