To copyright photographs on the internet or not

Photos are great till you notice the rings in the middle of it and then it destroys the photo

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

Must be something on the lens!

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

it occurs on a lot of the photos though????

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

Well if you have read previosuly on this thread or another one, you'll know why Stuart has to do it unfortunately!

Keep up the good work Stu, enough said!

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

Oh come on - you can do better than that!

A discreet little copyright statement in the bottom right hand corner is not a dirty big watermark right across an image.

I presume the latter reflects a photographer who wishes to sell images to one of the publishing houses, rather than someone who totes a camera for their own pleasure as a record of the day, or to see what they can make of it.

Copyright is copyright and doesn't need to be stated - the thieves will be away with the goods anyway

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

No watermark on the front of new Heritage Railway, well done Stuart.
Detractors please turn to page 2
H

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

It's good that it doesn't bother you, as you can continue to enjoy them. It bothers me enough that I'm unlikely to look at richardsteampics again unless I forget how they're presented and accidently click. It's much the same for Stuarts since they had the graffiti added. At best, they get a superficial 2 second view to survey the scene, as I simply find the watermarks too distracting to enjoy viewing the details in the image. This is a shame, as for me, it's attention to detail that really makes an image stand out.

It's entirely up to those who post images how they present them, but it's also up to the viewers what they view. There are plenty of talented photters out there who don't feel the need to deface their own images, so I'll stick with them to get my online coverage of events.

 

Re: To copyright photogrpahs on the internet or not

I am afraid it is just like speed bumps, if people behaved we wouldn't need them.

 

Re: To copyright photogrpahs on the internet or not

I can see this from both sides, having given up visiting certain sites because of intrusive watermarks, and subsequently having resorted to a similar approach as result of my work appearing on other sites.

My aim is always to balance the effectiveness of the watermark against possible loss of visitor satisfaction. I do this by placing the watermark manually where it is not too obtrusive but, at the same time, difficult to clone out. On locomotive pictures, this usually means somewhere over the bogies or running gear; an example follows:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/northernblue109/5670247264/in/set-72157626267826680

I also vary the size and opacity of the watermark slightly to make it difficult for professional image thieves to create overlays for 'automatic' watermark removal. This preparation may sound a lot of work but it only takes seconds in Photoshop.

 

Re: To copyright photogrpahs on the internet or not

OK Ralph - I'll give you that one - but I'm with Paul.

If you have gone to all the trouble he does to get a shot - why destroy it just to prove a point?

 

Re: To copyright photogrpahs on the internet or not

I'll have a word with my patent attorney next time I visit re copyrite as I am not sure some of the photographers are approaching this situation properly. It all revolves around "prior art." At least copyrite is relatively easy and not as complicated as patents which are extremely expensive to gain........believe me...they really do burn holes in your pocket......

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

Precisely my attitude!

 

Re: To copyright photogrpahs on the internet or not

In what we are we approaching the situation improperly? Also what is 'prior art'. This is not intended as a criticism, I'd really like to understand what you are suggesting.

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

Tried that and found one of my shots being used without permission and the "discreet little copyright statement" removed and another one added!

Photography is my hobby (women used to be but not any more) and I like photographing steam trains and motor cycle racing.
However if I can recover part of the cost of a round trip of 200miles by selling one of my images to a magazine then I will. I'm sure anybody else would do the same, but that isn't my primary objective.

It's a bit like any security, you hope that it's deterring enough for thieves to move on to the next person.

I believe this is known as cutting off your nose to spite your face, but as you say it's up to the viewers what they look at, I certainly won't lose any sleep!

Amen! :yo:

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

Please do explain how making a choice to not look at something that I don't enjoy looking at is cutting off my nose to spite my face? ;-)

I am intrigued to know exactly how much 'business' you (and others who feel the need for a large copyright logo) have lost by someone pilfering web-sized compressed jpeg images and claiming them as their own? It must be fairly significant to want to frustrate what I suspect is a reasonable proportion of your regular online audience? It does surprise me somewhat as I'm not aware of a massive market for low-res jpeg images of railway subjects. The main users seem to be preservation websites and tour operators, who generally have a freely available supply from photters who support their operations.

In my experience, image theft is usually done by children who don't know any better and are trying to impress their mates by showing what a great photographer they are. A quick email to them usually has the image taken down pretty quickly and if that doesn't work an email to the ISP usually has the entire site down pretty quick. Some learn the lesson, other's don't. If they continue to do it, and it bothers you enough, then you can take them to the small claims court and claim a reproduction fee, loss of earnings, legal expenses, etc. Generally though, it's not worth the hassle, as they aren't really diddling you out of any significant amount of money, if anything at all, and at the end of the day are only kidding themselves.

I do know a few people who pilfer such images and then sell generally awful quality prints made from the low-res files on ebay. In such an instance, I most definitely wouldn't want my copyright logo on the image. In a way, I think fair play to them, if they can find a market that's prepared to buy such trash. Those who want a decent quality image can come to the man with the original hi-res file.

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

You like the pictures but you're not going to look any more because you object to a watermark.................sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me. :baby:

 

Re: Scarborough Spa Express 2011

You seem to have completely missed the point. I enjoyed looking at the images before they had the watermarks added. Since that has been added, I don't. It's not a case of not looking at them because I have some kind of moral objection to watermarks, it's because the watermark completely spoils the images for me. There is a difference.

Now, I'm genuinely interested in your response to the issues regarding the reasons for highly visible watermarking. What am I missing, should I be watermarking all of my low-res web jpegs? Are there really people stealing these who are substantially reducing any potential revenue I may make by doing so? What advice would you give someone with regard to watermarking, and in what situtations would you recommend doing so? I've put my case for why I don't consider it necessary, so I'm interested to hear the opposing viewpoint. Perhaps, I'll then change my mind.