I have noticed that some of the very popular 356 photographers have taken to altering their image with some sort of copyright signature and I was curious both on the reasoning for this and for the technique for doing this. The resolution on the pictures on 365 are too small for much use other than 365, so I can't believe there is really any serious threat of someone stealing them.
Now that I have gotten rolling I am finding the 1 picture a day limitation of 365 and the small resolution to be a tad confining and I am going to start a flickr account and start uploading more pictures. I guess I feel I have a window of opportunity to sign my pictures if that is the right thing to do.
What are your thoughts? Do you sign your pictures? Why and how do you do it? What do you think about the concept?
copyright theft happens all the time, no matter how small the photo, if there is a will there is a way. I sign mine because they go on facebook and on here and sometimes other places. Not that I have the best photos in the world but I still do not want anyone taking credit for my work. I have just recently started though so there are still a lot of my photos with out it. I do mine on photoshop, I just use the text tool to apply it to my image.. Hope that helps!!
david, to be honest, I "sign" mine because it's fun and it makes me feel a tiny bit more like a "photographer" :) I decided about 20 pictures back to start doing it. I'm nowhere near good enough to worry about copyright issues and I'd actually be honored if someone saved a photo of mine to use as a computer wallpaper or to print (although, I definitely wouldn't like someone using my photo and saying they took it). I do minimalist editing in picnic and I just add text in that program.
Just so you know Tracy - if you're uploading them to Facebook then Facebook own them - you no longer do.
If you've got the "facebook app" on here that just notifies your feed of the new photo, that's safe, but if you're explicitly uploading them to facebook, they're no longer your property.
I put my "mark" on them b/c there are some pics that I look at and I say "that's me" & I am proud of it. It's those days that I give it my mark. Most days I don't. For me it's just a personal sense of achievement that I have created something that I deem worthy of bearing my mark.
I do mine through picnik.com. Once you have uploaded, you go to create, then text. You pick the font that you want, type it in & then click add. Once you have added it, you can mess around with the size and the fade or opacity so that it is not as prominent on your pic (this way it will appear as a mark rather than an intrusion). Hope this helps! Happy shooting!
Each one of us here on 365 have put some work into the photos that are displayed. I think that most would say that those photos are mine and I deserve credit for them. So the mark.
I for one, also would put a Creative Commons license on them ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) so that, yeah, you can us it, don't make money from it, and make sure you tell everyone where you got it. And SHARE what you have done. Might be a pipe dream that everyone is going to follow that, those that want to steal an image is going to do it anyway, but it gives me the right to pay my lawyer to write a letter to a company and give them what-for. Of course, I would have to have a photo that good,
Save me typing all my story out again David have a quick look at this link, make your own mind up if its worth sticking a copy right on your pictures... i never thought it was ..but now i do all mine
My pictures are free for use by anyone. It would be nice if someone would tell me of course. I guess it is easier when you think your pictures aren't good enough to be used for anything anyway. :)
My personal feeling is that my picture on the net isn't actually the work I made, but a copy of it in a mediocre size at best. I don't feel that that is copyrighted. It is like a 128 bitrate mp3 of a tape of Bach's Well tempered clavier. If someone is keen enough to want that instead of mailing me and get an original, they are free to do so. They just shouldn't say they made it, or give the impression that's the case, as happened here some time ago.
I like the creative commons license. I had not heard of it before and will probably use it.
Correct David, generally the images are too small to steal and do anything with! I just do it so people know who the photographer is and yes it can be removed easily in PS
"if you're uploading them to Facebook then Facebook own them - you no longer do". Is that for real? I had no idea!
I have hundreds of photos added to facebook and I never knew that! :o( Not impressed! Does that mean they can use any of my photos, photos of my son ect as they wish, when they wish?
Actually, Facebook does not own anything you upload. They changed their policy regarding this. However, they do consider them "sub-licensable, royalty-free" for the duration they are posted. Please read the terms and conditions listed on Facebook if you have any concerns.
I do place an watermark on mine, not just because I don't want others stealing them ( I had really considered watermarking across the center of the picture) but so people know who took them. It cannot hurt to be easy to contact should it be wanted.
>However, they do consider them "sub-licensable, royalty-free" for the duration they are posted.
>Does that mean they can use any of my photos, photos of my son ect as they wish, when they wish?
Yes. I didn't know there'd been an update about them losing the rights if you "delete" the photos, though. But, even if there has, then the "sub-licensable royalty-free" means basically yes.
I mark mine because some go on Flickr, some go on my blog and my 365's go onto Facebook via the 365 app.
I've seen my photos on other sites, pinched before I started adding the copyright mark and couldn't do anything about it except ask the person concerned if they would acknowledge that I took the photo. They never do!
I mark all my images to simply deter theft. It will by no means stop it from happening. Also, I mark them kind of as advertising.
As far as the facebook thing goes....here's what it states in the T&C's: For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
The only times I've ever seen facebook use my images is in adverts geared towards me trying to get me to buy ad space.
I believe FB (sorry to tangent here, David) "subject to your privacy and application settings" statement means if you make your Privacy Settings "Friend's Only" (and that would be on everything, mind you) your photos stop there. That's what they stated when I contacted them awhile ago about that. And if your Friends "tag" or "share" your photos, you lose that, by the way.
I'm not good in positioning my signature at my photos, but through this (putting watermark), I think I'm gaining experience and hopefully become better later...but they say "nobody's perfect" so why "practice"??? hahaha...just wanna cheer-up everyone, happy manic Monday guys!
My watermark in case you noticed is still in the process of trial and error but really a big part of the photo itself because its a self expression too in some ways...I use PS CS4 for these...
I've deleted all my FB photos recently for precisely this reason. In fact, I deleted pretty much all my personal info on FB as I think there are issues with how they deal with your data and privacy.
I got rid of my FB page....they know more about me than they should ! I've never used a watermark.....it ruins most images I've seen and anyone that has used PS for a little time can clone out the watermark or crop the photo ! I've seen some really gorgeous photos ruined with monstrous watermarks !!
If I have taken the time and effort to create an image then I believe I have the right to take recognition for it by adding my signature I believe it looks that little bit more professional too. I too use picnik using the add text
I've recently started doing it... just because, really. One of my friends takes incredible pictures so I turn to her for feedback ~ (and she calls me Unnie) & I posted a photo with that on it as a joke on Facebook and she said it was cute, and I agreed, actually. So yeah, it stuck.
^ I apologize if that made little or no sense as my brain has turned to mush tonight
I usually watermark my images in photoshop. I pick a font for every month and stick to it, which also in an odd way "dates" my image as well.
I usually just type it in and adjust the opacity so it blends in more and add a drop shadow and "embossing." I like the effect it has, it does look more professional to me.
I just try not to place the watermark in the foreground/focus of the image so it obstructs the view. I realize this makes it easier to clone or crop the watermark out but the images are small enough that anyone desperate enough to do it really makes me laugh.
i agreed with most above.
I put more of tags mine. Main reasons is to keep my day counted. Second is they Do go on Many sites and not just this one. This one keep counts for me. but others doesn't.
I have few photos taken and used by some that i actually saw. I'm personally fine with it as long as they don't cut off my signature and say they did it. but yeah. On all photos i took. I put a signature instead of the copyright sign.
Regarding Facebook's terms, what does that mean for us? I read over them and even though we grant them license to use our images and whatnot, they're still our property.
Annie - there was such an uproar over the change to Facebook's TOS that they backpedaled rather quickly and put out a press release about them not intending to diminish intellectual property rights and copyrights. Basically, your privacy settings rule what they can do - if only you and your contacts can see your photos, Facebook can't go and show them to anyone else. Regardless, with copyright law in the US and most other countries, you still own the copyright - Facebook cannot, ever, take that from you. At most they license your images to use while you have them posted, within the limits of your privacy settings.
All that said, it becomes a bit muddy when someone takes (steals) your image and republishes it. Sites like Facebook can plead ignorance because they are not expected to check Copyright information on every image, and they're happy to take (and use) images on good faith when they are available to them. Once you put something on the internet, you lose control of it, despite the fact that you own it.
Facebook images are quite small anyway (720 pixels on the largest dimension), and if you reduce the quality at which you upload to 80% (even 60% looks fine usually) no-one much will be able to do anything with them. Other than repost them elsewhere at the same or lesser quailty, that is. Signatures / watermarks make those images even harder to use, and not even CS5's content aware fill can perfectly deal with a well-made watermark.
Personally, I treat every image individually. I look at whether it is making me money, whether it has the potential to make me money, the overall quality, and my personal attachment to it. Once I've factored in all those things I know firstly whether or not I'm happy to publish it, and if I am, how tightly I need or want to control it. Most of my images get watermarked, some more subtly than others, and some just get kept as far from the internet as possible.
I like how everyone is debating Facebook, but Flickr is exactly the same. With the added benefit of getting to sell your pictures as they please, and cropping out watermarks.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
If you've got the "facebook app" on here that just notifies your feed of the new photo, that's safe, but if you're explicitly uploading them to facebook, they're no longer your property.
I do mine through picnik.com. Once you have uploaded, you go to create, then text. You pick the font that you want, type it in & then click add. Once you have added it, you can mess around with the size and the fade or opacity so that it is not as prominent on your pic (this way it will appear as a mark rather than an intrusion). Hope this helps! Happy shooting!
I for one, also would put a Creative Commons license on them ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) so that, yeah, you can us it, don't make money from it, and make sure you tell everyone where you got it. And SHARE what you have done. Might be a pipe dream that everyone is going to follow that, those that want to steal an image is going to do it anyway, but it gives me the right to pay my lawyer to write a letter to a company and give them what-for. Of course, I would have to have a photo that good,
... http://365project.org/discuss/general/1499/to-mark-or-not-to-mark-that-is-the-question
My personal feeling is that my picture on the net isn't actually the work I made, but a copy of it in a mediocre size at best. I don't feel that that is copyrighted. It is like a 128 bitrate mp3 of a tape of Bach's Well tempered clavier. If someone is keen enough to want that instead of mailing me and get an original, they are free to do so. They just shouldn't say they made it, or give the impression that's the case, as happened here some time ago.
I like the creative commons license. I had not heard of it before and will probably use it.
"if you're uploading them to Facebook then Facebook own them - you no longer do". Is that for real? I had no idea!
I have hundreds of photos added to facebook and I never knew that! :o( Not impressed! Does that mean they can use any of my photos, photos of my son ect as they wish, when they wish?
I do place an watermark on mine, not just because I don't want others stealing them ( I had really considered watermarking across the center of the picture) but so people know who took them. It cannot hurt to be easy to contact should it be wanted.
>Does that mean they can use any of my photos, photos of my son ect as they wish, when they wish?
Yes. I didn't know there'd been an update about them losing the rights if you "delete" the photos, though. But, even if there has, then the "sub-licensable royalty-free" means basically yes.
I've seen my photos on other sites, pinched before I started adding the copyright mark and couldn't do anything about it except ask the person concerned if they would acknowledge that I took the photo. They never do!
As far as the facebook thing goes....here's what it states in the T&C's: For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
The only times I've ever seen facebook use my images is in adverts geared towards me trying to get me to buy ad space.
Should I start doing it anyway?
for the heck of it??
....
today I did...but that was because I uploaded a photo I had already uploaded to facebook and I was too lazy to take the signature off :P
My watermark in case you noticed is still in the process of trial and error but really a big part of the photo itself because its a self expression too in some ways...I use PS CS4 for these...
Cheers!
^ I apologize if that made little or no sense as my brain has turned to mush tonight
I usually just type it in and adjust the opacity so it blends in more and add a drop shadow and "embossing." I like the effect it has, it does look more professional to me.
I just try not to place the watermark in the foreground/focus of the image so it obstructs the view. I realize this makes it easier to clone or crop the watermark out but the images are small enough that anyone desperate enough to do it really makes me laugh.
I put more of tags mine. Main reasons is to keep my day counted. Second is they Do go on Many sites and not just this one. This one keep counts for me. but others doesn't.
I have few photos taken and used by some that i actually saw. I'm personally fine with it as long as they don't cut off my signature and say they did it. but yeah. On all photos i took. I put a signature instead of the copyright sign.
Monday; brain = mush. Ugh.
All that said, it becomes a bit muddy when someone takes (steals) your image and republishes it. Sites like Facebook can plead ignorance because they are not expected to check Copyright information on every image, and they're happy to take (and use) images on good faith when they are available to them. Once you put something on the internet, you lose control of it, despite the fact that you own it.
Facebook images are quite small anyway (720 pixels on the largest dimension), and if you reduce the quality at which you upload to 80% (even 60% looks fine usually) no-one much will be able to do anything with them. Other than repost them elsewhere at the same or lesser quailty, that is. Signatures / watermarks make those images even harder to use, and not even CS5's content aware fill can perfectly deal with a well-made watermark.
Personally, I treat every image individually. I look at whether it is making me money, whether it has the potential to make me money, the overall quality, and my personal attachment to it. Once I've factored in all those things I know firstly whether or not I'm happy to publish it, and if I am, how tightly I need or want to control it. Most of my images get watermarked, some more subtly than others, and some just get kept as far from the internet as possible.