Is it pretentious to watermark images for copyright protection?
zorro
My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
one's heard of her in the art world.
We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
images have no watermark.
And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
want to show.
Any thoughts or advice about that?
sig
Mike Coon
Not really my thoughts, but you could refer to David Jones' illustrated
web-log at http://www.mybitoftheplanet.com/. Because the photos there are
meant for web viewing they are not of publication resolution. However when
he discovered that he could sell his more interesting pictures he started
including a simple copyright statement on them. I think that he may have
mentioned this in his narrative.
Mike.
--
If reply address is invalid, remove spurious "@" and substitute "plus"
where needed.
Paul Furman
One reason to watermark is people will download, rename & pass the files
around... eventually someone might want a bigger copy, or at least
wonder who did it & where they can see more. My approach is to apply a
very small watermark with the most subtle transparency I can get away
with. Think of it like a signature on a painting, just a little thing
down in the corner. The big ones are annoying and detract from
appreciating the photo. If it's on a stock photo site, that's
understandable but not if people are supposed to visit the gallery for
pleasure. In that case, if it's the sort of image people might steal for
commercial use on the web, I'd rather see a faint 'X' across the image
than a big logo & copyright. Also, with a small watermark in the corner,
people will just crop that out.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Alan Browne
1. First off, web phots are relatively small, so have limited
reproduction value (except in other web pages...). Many photo sites
intentionally keep their photos pretty small for this reason. (no
larger than 500 - 600 pixels).
2. Watermarks can be quite discrete, but I prefer none at all.
3. Copyright does not require a watermark, or even a notice on the webpage.
4. It is, however, prudent to put a general copyright notice on the
webpages referring to the images. A reminder to those who don't pay
much attention to rights. (Eg: the younger generation who freely
exchange music/video/software without much care for copyright).
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
John McWilliams
> zorro wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
>> watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
>> think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
>> one's heard of her in the art world.
>>
>> We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
>> really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
>> images have no watermark.
>>
>> And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
>> want to show.
>
> 1. First off, web phots are relatively small, so have limited
> reproduction value (except in other web pages...). Many photo sites
> intentionally keep their photos pretty small for this reason. (no
> larger than 500 - 600 pixels).
>
> 2. Watermarks can be quite discrete, but I prefer none at all.
They can also often be discreet, and even artistic!
>
> 3. Copyright does not require a watermark, or even a notice on the webpage.
>
> 4. It is, however, prudent to put a general copyright notice on the
> webpages referring to the images. A reminder to those who don't pay
> much attention to rights. (Eg: the younger generation who freely
> exchange music/video/software without much care for copyright).
Why not post the URL and then you can get even more 'real' opinions!
--
John McWilliams
Trev
<jp...@comcast.net> John McWilliams bashed on keyboard and typed:
And nick the pics !
OG
"zorro" <mya...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:f0a4defa-9fee-4ca7...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hello there,
>
> My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
> watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
> think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
> one's heard of her in the art world.
>
> We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
> really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
> images have no watermark.
>
Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents
direct downloading of images.
On the other hand, some people don't like hanging around waiting for
Flash-heavy sites to stop showing off.
John J
> Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents
> direct downloading of images.
It keeps the honest (and lazy) honest.
IMHO, a small watermark can even be attractive, and for people who do
download them, a way to quickly distinguish them by source.
Frank ess
Including a discreet watermark also establishes the fact that the
water-marker values the image; absence of such a mark, it could be
argued, constitutes an invitation, or a declaration of disinterest in
the image's progress through the world.
--
Frank ess
Dave
wrote:
The simple truth is the fact the image-thieves do not care a fuck how
much value (or disinterest) the copyright-holder feel towards the
image. Posting it on Internet is to declare it 'free to everybody'.
If it can be stolen it will be stolen. It is a pity but you have to
mess it up with a copyright sign. Not only to say it's yours
but even more making it unusable.
Dave
Frank ess
The question had to do with "pretentious", didn't it?
"Declare" may be the wrong word. Beyond that, everyone knows your
"simple truth", don't they?
--
Frank ess
Dave
wrote:
>
>
>The question had to do with "pretentious", didn't it?
>
>"Declare" may be the wrong word. Beyond that, everyone knows your
>"simple truth", don't they?
True - had to use a dictionary to confirm the meaning of the word
(although it is obviously an auxiliary derived from pretend).
Is it pretentious to reply to something in another language than your
home language when not being100% sure of the meaning of a specific
word?
I am not a regular reader of this group (in fact 1st time here:-)
Only a passer-by.
There is of course the possibility your answer impressed the rest of
the contributors, but over here it only evoked a smile.
Keep well
Dave
http://kuns.fotopic.net/p53776192.html
tin...@isbd.co.uk
>
> "zorro" <mya...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:f0a4defa-9fee-4ca7...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > Hello there,
> >
> > My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
> > watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
> > think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
> > one's heard of her in the art world.
> >
> > We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
> > really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
> > images have no watermark.
> >
>
> Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents
> direct downloading of images.
>
> On the other hand, some people don't like hanging around waiting for
> Flash-heavy sites to stop showing off.
>
Quite, flash is definitely a negative pointer as far as I'm concerned.
--
Chris Green
R. Mark Clayton
"zorro" <mya...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:f0a4defa-9fee-4ca7...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Just make sure it is not that visible.
.
wrote:
Though I have not sold a photo for publication I've wondered if
potential publishers consider photos that have been shown on web pages
as still being qualified as available as "first time published"
photos. It seems that this may compromise a photos acceptance as not
before published.
Charlie
C J Campbell <christophercampbell
It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
worry about.
A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist.
Nothing more nor less.
I sign my prints in pencil. And I number them. Is that pretentious? Or
is it marketing?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
tony cooper
<christophercampbell<removethis>@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro <mya...@yahoo.ca> said:
>
>> Hello there,
>>
>> My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
>> watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
>> think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
>> one's heard of her in the art world.
>>
>> We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
>> really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
>> images have no watermark.
>>
>> And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
>> want to show.
>>
>> Any thoughts or advice about that?
>>
>> sig
>
>It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
>worry about.
It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with
links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge
watermark across the face.
The photographs she links to are - at best - mundane and without
interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would
steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional"
is the better word.
A watermark that identifies the photographer is not pretentious. It
is the size and placement that can make it pretentious.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Alan Browne
Just looking at the very high quality photography at
http://photo.net/gallery/photocritique/filter?rank_by=photog_avg&period=90&store_prefs_p=0
might answer your question. And one fellow there had his photo.net phot
of an eagle grabbing a fish published in Nat Geo as a "write in".
There are many categories of publishing such as news ("scoop", then
freshness [on top of relevant]) counts most. So if it's been published
as scoop, it still has life as fresh [embargoed for a time before
publishing by rivals], then background and archive).
Catalog/stock photos used for advertising and editorial use can have
limitless life and re-usability (depending on terms). (This covers so
wide a range of photography as to defy writing about here).
Fashion photography is a bizarre world of advertising and editorial -
freshness counts, but print-print-print counts even more. Short shelf
life other than rare and exceptional shots/series.
Art may be exclusive, eg: the web version is to advertise it and print
runs guaranteed to be limited to a certain number of copies by the
publisher/artist - or not.
And more, and more, and variations on all.
Alan Browne
> On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro <mya...@yahoo.ca> said:
>
>> Hello there,
>>
>> My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
>> watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
>> think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
>> one's heard of her in the art world.
>>
>> We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
>> really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
>> images have no watermark.
>>
>> And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
>> want to show.
>>
>> Any thoughts or advice about that?
>>
>> sig
>
> It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
> worry about.
>
> A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist.
> Nothing more nor less.
There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary
snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly
pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.
I really don't care if phots are marked - as long as it doesn't detract.
C J Campbell
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> C J Campbell <christophercampbell wrote:
>> On 2009-02-06 03:17:35 -0800, zorro <mya...@yahoo.ca> said:
>>
>>> Hello there,
>>>
>>> My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
>>> watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
>>> think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
>>> one's heard of her in the art world.
>>>
>>> We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
>>> really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
>>> images have no watermark.
>>>
>>> And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
>>> want to show.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts or advice about that?
>>>
>>> sig
>>
>> It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
>> worry about.
>>
>> A watermark is a matter of the personal preference of the artist.
>> Nothing more nor less.
>
> There was recently (on alt.photo) a woman posting really ordinary
> snapshots with a huge watermark through the middle. It was certainly
> pretentious not even accounting for the crappy photos.
>
> I really don't care if phots are marked - as long as it doesn't detract.
Which I think is precisely the point. All kinds of photographers
watermark their photos. So how can it be pretentious to imitate a bad
photographer?
tony cooper
To be pretentious is to make an extravagant outward show or to claim
distinction where none is justified. So it's what you do, and the way
you do it, and not who you copy. The poster being mentioned (Judy?)
is pretentious because of what she does: she places a large,
intrusive, watermark that obscures her photos based on some
unjustified thought that people will steal her photographs. It is not
that she watermarks her photos, but that she watermarks her photos
pretentiously.
Dave
>
>It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.
if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be
http://images4.fotopic.net/?iid=ytfw6v&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1
Dave
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave <da...@durbs.koza> scribbled:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod <V...@vod.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.
>>
>> if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it be
>
>If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self confidence
>then worrying about the pretentiousness of said watermark is the least
>of the problem.
so, the watermark cause the poster to have at least one fan.
Frank ess
Voivod wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave <da...@durbs.koza>
> scribbled:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:28:22 -0500, Voivod <V...@vod.con> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.
>>
>> if it contribute to the self confidence of the watermarker, so it
>> be
>
> If a watermark on an image posted to the web increases self
> confidence then worrying about the pretentiousness of said
> watermark is the least of the problem.
Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible
for drawing so many pompous remarkers?
When you catch an adjective, kill it.
-Mark Twain
--
Frank ess
Dave
wrote:
>
>
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:17:54 +0200, Dave <da...@durbs.koza>
>Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible
>for drawing so many pompous remarkers?
>
>When you catch an adjective, kill it.
>-Mark Twain
Yep, don't worry twit,
It's done.
You won't irritate me anymore
Alex Singleton
> And beside the pretention issue, a watermark also spoils the image you
> want to show.
The truth is that, in an age of ubiquitous supply (and royalty free web
sites like iStockPhoto), most photography has a market value of zero or
thereabouts (unless it's a particularly exclusive picture that people
are desperate for, such as of a celebrity doing something of note).
If, as you say, she's an amateur, then she might as well just make the
images available and let people enjoy them at in their full beauty.
--
Alex Singleton
http://www.alexsingleton.co.uk/
Frank ess
Voivod wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com>
> scribbled:
> I'm sure it's what drug you out of the woodwork.
QED
OG
<tin...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
news:498d75b0$0$506$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
> In uk.rec.photo.misc OG <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "zorro" <mya...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> news:f0a4defa-9fee-4ca7...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hello there,
>> >
>> > My girlfriend set up a little web gallery of her art work. She has a
>> > watermark on all her images but now she's wondering if people will
>> > think she's being pretentious. After all, she is an amateur and no
>> > one's heard of her in the art world.
>> >
>> > We agreed it's legitimate to protect her work, but does a watermark
>> > really make a difference? I saw a lot of web galleries and often
>> > images have no watermark.
>> >
>>
>> Web galleries often use a Macromedia Flash application as that prevents
>> direct downloading of images.
>>
> But it's trivial to simply screen scrape the image so that's pointless.
right click | Save Picture As ...
compared to
Alt + Prt Scr, Win, All Programs, Accessories, Paint, click . . . . Ctrl+V,
File | Save |*#*|<enter picture name> |tab| 'J' |tab| Save
Not difficult; but not necessarily 'trivial' either.
*#* represents a navigation to My Documents | My Pictures
Dave
>On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:47:26 -0800, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com>
>scribbled:
>>
>>Do you think the word "pretentious" in the thread title is responsible
>>for drawing so many pompous remarkers?
>
>I'm sure it's what drug you out of the woodwork.
LOL
John J
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:17:06 -0800, C J Campbell
>> It is not pretentious. Honestly, what a silly, self-conscious thing to
>> worry about.
>
> It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with
> links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge
> watermark across the face.
>
> The photographs she links to are - at best - mundane and without
> interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would
> steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional"
> is the better word.
Yes, and we have a guy who visits this group who thinks he's the judge
of all. He feels rather free to criticize everyone/anyone. That's not a
bad thing, except he's delusional. His name is Tony Cooper.
John J
> It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.
Show us your stuff!
John McWilliams
> tony cooper wrote:
>> It can be. There is a poster who sometimes appears in this group with
>> links to her photographs. The photographs are obscured by a huge
>> watermark across the face.
>> The photographs she links to are - at best - mundane and without
>> interest. She is being pretentious in thinking that people would
>> steal her images if they were not watermarked. Perhaps "delusional"
>> is the better word.
> Yes, and we have a guy who visits this group who thinks he's the judge
> of all. He feels rather free to criticize everyone/anyone. That's not a
> bad thing, except he's delusional. His name is Tony Cooper.
That's a big brave assertion from an anonymous coward. Get real. Our
tony is not delusional in the least.
--
lsmft
John J
> So you get to judge people but no one else can? When'd we elect you
> king?
A simple observation, fukwit.
Frank ess
Voivod wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:35:20 -0600, John J <no...@droffats.ten>
> scribbled:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>
>>> It's even more pretentious to feel the need to watermark bad art.
>>
>> Show us your stuff!
>
> You have a hard time following conversations, don't you, dipshit?
I wonder if someone should be kind enough to explain to these fellows
that, even though their signatures are clever and appropriately
self-descriptive, the convention is to place them on a separate line,
after a line containing two hyphens and a space?
--
Frank ess
Frank ess
Voivod wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:31:35 -0800, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com>
> scribbled:
>
> You're seriously not as clever as you imagine.
As opposed to your 'umble self, who clearly makes no pretension to
"cleverness"?