Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:12 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: watermarking
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:07 pm 
I couldn't tink of a betterp lace to put this. My quesion is about watermarking photos. I know it is a good idea because then I can have basically a copyright of the photo. But is there any database of some sort where there may be a lsiting of copyrights to these watermarks? I want to "stamp" my photos, but dont want to run into some kind of a legal snafu down the road. Don't know if this is clearly written but I hope somonecan send me in a good direction.

thanks

j


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:16 pm 
Im not sure what you are looking for? most people watermark with their names or usernames .....are you looking to use a symbol of sorts?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:40 pm 
something to that effect. I don't want to just put my name or anything that can be directly tied back to me on them. Just want something to show they are mine. If I were to put ©(fill in the blank) does it need to be something that I register somewhere? I'm pretty new at this, and I am reading numerous other places at the same time that I am runnign this post, so hopefully with all of your help and some moe internet research I can get a clearer answer. Just trying to burn the candle from both ends, know what I mean?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:49 pm 
THE COPYRIGHT mark is pretty much a warning for other people. that if they use it without the owners promission the owner has a right to sue under the article for copyright infragment or something to that effect.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:42 am 
On my Fotopic site besides all photos being watermarked at the bottom of the home page I have included this warning.

"All photographic images* on this website are © 2006-2008 Roy Matthews. This Web Site and any of its contents may not be copied, translated or distributed in any manner (electronic, web or printed) without the prior written consent of Roy Matthews. I will actively seek out copyright violations in print and on the Internet and will use full legal force to deal with any Copyright infringements. Any unauthorised commercial use, which includes - but is not limited to - publication in magazines, leaflets or on other websites, will be invoiced at a rate of GBP £250/Euro €322/USD $496 for each photograph used. (* Photographic images are defined as GIF & JPEG format image files.)"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:55 pm 
pretty much the answers i was looking for. so the watermark is a quasi-copyright. thank you very much!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:43 pm 
I would say if it's for private use it's ok but not for earning money :P

you should be happy if some dude use your picture on a site ^^ perhaps redirecting to your site :D then your image would be fame ey ey ey...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 1:22 pm 
As far as Flickr goes, regardless if you put a copyright sign, if you leave the rights setting as it is, it's 'all rights reserved'. I also never post anything larger than 1024 x 700.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:38 pm 
Hi jddwls,

legally speaking you have that copyright whether you mark them or not.

The visible watermarks you see on many internet-photos are there to make it less convenient for pirates to steal and use the image, in spite of the legalities.

No, you do not have to register yourself or the watermark anywhere for the copyright to "kick in" so to speak.

In reality it is nearly impossible to stop photo-theft if you post your images on the internet. As soon as anyone can see your picture on your computer, it means that you already HAVE a copy of your image on their hard-disk.

The best way to guard yourself is by:
- post only low-resolution images on the internet (640X480 or 800X600)
- have a visible mark/watermark on your photo

The reality is that the internet is a global domain. If you are a US citizen and some pirate in say Hong Kong copies your image and use it for a local website, the effort and money it takes to even get to the point of any legal action is enough to make you old before your time.

Unless you are an accomplished revenue-generating photographer, it's hard to prove any financial damage anyway.

The internet is not policed for such matters. The agencies trawling the net are after bigger fish and with the many trillions of images on the internet, you can imagine how impractical it would be.

Cheers :-)


Last edited by Kenneth Skou on Sun May 18, 2008 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 6:17 pm 
I understand why some of you guys put a visible watermark on your photos.. but I really wish you wouldn't :) If you're using flickr, I wonder if it's possible to add a visible watermark on the big photos and leave the smaller one clear. If it's not, I'm going to suggest that they incorporate that facility. I just often see photos with dirty great watermarks on them that really take away the impact away. Alex here doesn't do too bad a job of watermarking his photos, it's fairly subtle but the horrible big drop shadowed/outlined comic-sans watermarks that I've seen on a few occasions.. I really don't like it! It's a shame people have to do this.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 7:42 pm 
Yar, smaller res shots ftw.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:04 pm 
I have an optional subtle watermark added across the middle of all my images when I upload them onto my web account with Photium. It's not as elegant compared to without the mark, but there's sadly the need to protect images today. Images at 1024x700 can still be printed acceptably, but that's not the main problem. Digital theft and then submission to a stock site is increasingly common, and by giving such a sized copy is sufficient for their purposes.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:27 pm 
Photoj wrote:
Images at 1024x700 can still be printed acceptably, but that's not the main problem. Digital theft and then submission to a stock site is increasingly common, and by giving such a sized copy is sufficient for their purposes.


Hmm, thats a bit of a bummer. I would've thought there would be minimum resolution requirements for stock sites?? I've started uploading at 800 pixels wide just recently.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:06 pm 
Alex, show me a pic of your watermarks...
i wanna learn


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group