I've noticed several people noting a copyright on the photos they post here. It's either directly on the photo, or a "warning" is mentioned underneath the photo. Is this a necessary thing? I've often wondered if someone is able to swipe my pics from here and use them for their own purposes. I'm considering starting to post a warning, too.
the warning doesn't stop people from stealing photos.
the best thing to do is just to make your photo sizes small, then people can't do much with them. or you could create a watermark on your photos. there are a few programs that can be used - watermark factory is easy and i just downloaded it :p
i started getting all paranoid on flickr because you can click "all sizes" and get the main, large photo. but found a way to change it so that people can't download my images at all. feel much better now hah.
as nice as having a warning is...
it really doesn't do anything :S people can still swipe ur stuff
Loni,
Sarah is correct in that a copyright notice will not keep someone from taking your picture, if they want it bad enough.
I do many of mine for a couple of reasons:
1. I have found some of my pictures on other sites (at least this way I get credit).
2. A lot of my photos are actually registered copyright images.
(That said, if someone uses a photo without receiving your permission the "copyright" stamp and registration covers you for up to $50,000 plus any court fees. It also alleviates the "I thought it was public domain" excuse).
3. I have actually had a photographer send me a resume, and portfolio which contained one of my pictures, claiming it was his own).....sad!
What about using a Creative Commons License? I do that when I take pictures at events where I give people cd's and not prints. I give them creative rights but not the right to publish. You can customize your license any way you desire.
stealing happens ALL. OF. THE. TIME.> advertising companies steal, other photographers steal and put them on their website in their portfolio. its crazy. i know several photographers it has happened to.
if you do watermark, you should put it in the middle of the photo or somewhere where it won't be easy to crop away. because otherwise if it's in the bottom corner, useless. they just crop it out. that happens all the time too.
even if you resize them for the web - they can't make prints, but they use them for other online purposes - like website portfolios or advertising.
i have actually been in a clients home and have seen the print from my blog with the watermark right across the photo and it was in a frame !! crazy.
I do watermark my images but only so I know that these images are for my 365 project :)
I did read on another forum this logic to watermarking. Unless you make it so big people will clone out your watermark, so they in turn decided to make it an advertising option. They don't make it so big and in the way of the main image, but they do add their website info for the hopes of bringing in more work. For me, I am not a pro so it doesn't pertain to me (I have no website to direct them to)
And as Rochele stated. To keep them from printing the images, resize the DPI so it looks good on the web but crappy if printed. You won't stop people from being bad. Even though Sara stated that she blocks it from flickr, people take screen shots of the images, especially with monitors allowing for higher resolutions now.
I have also used a digimark, which is registered, and available on Photoshop, which is unintelligible. I don't use it here though. As with any crook, if they want it, they'll find a way. I'm just doing my part . SmugMug, which is what I use to archive, does a very good job of protecting images. (at least I hope). A pro friend of mine swears by it, though.
Also, on a side note. It is well known that the great Classical Composers didn't have such things as copyrights. So much music has been "borrowed" from them in the modern era, which are also songs or pieces that are a significant part of our lives. So, sometimes, it's a good thing(?)
...The most significant form of flattery.
If someone ever made a million bucks off my images, I wold first congratulate them for their marketing ability. I would them be talking to my attorney, an showing the digital embedded date information, etc. Would I win? Don't know, don't care. Chances of it happening are lousier than me growing hair.
i did a watermark before but then it really bugs me alot if they are on the photos.. and i did a template instead so teh watermark can be on the template isntead on the image :D
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
the warning doesn't stop people from stealing photos.
the best thing to do is just to make your photo sizes small, then people can't do much with them. or you could create a watermark on your photos. there are a few programs that can be used - watermark factory is easy and i just downloaded it :p
i started getting all paranoid on flickr because you can click "all sizes" and get the main, large photo. but found a way to change it so that people can't download my images at all. feel much better now hah.
as nice as having a warning is...
it really doesn't do anything :S people can still swipe ur stuff
hope this helps
Sarah is correct in that a copyright notice will not keep someone from taking your picture, if they want it bad enough.
I do many of mine for a couple of reasons:
1. I have found some of my pictures on other sites (at least this way I get credit).
2. A lot of my photos are actually registered copyright images.
(That said, if someone uses a photo without receiving your permission the "copyright" stamp and registration covers you for up to $50,000 plus any court fees. It also alleviates the "I thought it was public domain" excuse).
3. I have actually had a photographer send me a resume, and portfolio which contained one of my pictures, claiming it was his own).....sad!
That is just my two cents!
if you do watermark, you should put it in the middle of the photo or somewhere where it won't be easy to crop away. because otherwise if it's in the bottom corner, useless. they just crop it out. that happens all the time too.
even if you resize them for the web - they can't make prints, but they use them for other online purposes - like website portfolios or advertising.
i have actually been in a clients home and have seen the print from my blog with the watermark right across the photo and it was in a frame !! crazy.
so nothing is a deterent.
I did read on another forum this logic to watermarking. Unless you make it so big people will clone out your watermark, so they in turn decided to make it an advertising option. They don't make it so big and in the way of the main image, but they do add their website info for the hopes of bringing in more work. For me, I am not a pro so it doesn't pertain to me (I have no website to direct them to)
And as Rochele stated. To keep them from printing the images, resize the DPI so it looks good on the web but crappy if printed. You won't stop people from being bad. Even though Sara stated that she blocks it from flickr, people take screen shots of the images, especially with monitors allowing for higher resolutions now.
just some food for thought.
...The most significant form of flattery.
If someone ever made a million bucks off my images, I wold first congratulate them for their marketing ability. I would them be talking to my attorney, an showing the digital embedded date information, etc. Would I win? Don't know, don't care. Chances of it happening are lousier than me growing hair.